Re:More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
by mikepurvis on Monday May 08, 2017 @01:17PM
(#14293574)
Right, but that's the core of the Basic Income argument.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
by s73ver on Monday May 08, 2017 @04:25PM
(#14295272)
Which is orthogonal to this discussion. Mainly because I don't believe Basic Income would gain any traction in the US. So we need to find other solutions.
Re:More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
by mikepurvis on Monday May 08, 2017 @09:15PM
(#14297011)
It's a matter of correctly framing the discussion. Lots of basic income forms already exist in the US, including:
- Pensions
- Alaska Permanent Fund
- Child tax credits
- Stimulus cheques
- Social Security
- Welfare
I just don't think it's a huge stretch to jump from these kinds of payments to an expectation that the government of a wealthy nation would supply all citizens with a stipend.Maybe the phrase "basic income" is too closely associated with socialism... in that case, call it an automation tax credit or something. Once people start receiving the cheques, they'll realize that it's a pretty good deal— kind of like the ACA.
Re:More Robots, Fewer Jobs: capital vs. labor in production
by jganetsk on Monday May 08, 2017 @10:23PM
(#14297303)
> I don't believe Basic Income would gain any traction in the US.
The United States House of Representatives passed a Basic Income bill written by Richard Nixon in 1969. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vHYFzYvCak