I am asking this question, because there does not seem to be a modern logical solution.

I hear a lot of people say that socialism might solve a lot of problems, but I don’t think it has any practicality.

Looking at jobs hiring trends, a lot of businesses are almost stopping their hirings, in favour of investing in automation. Which means 5-10 years down the line, “worker owned” might be closer to fiction.

AI is replacing a lot of jobs now and while the trend that new technologies create jobs, I think that jobs might come after 15-40 years.

Are humanity hopeless?

  • Jack_Burton
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Right away it would be significantly less than $400bil. Only adults would recieve UBI, and there would be savings from eliminating EI, Disabilty, Income Assistance, and OAS.

    • BlameThePeacock
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Why only adults?

      Yes, you’re right about the savings on other programs assuming the amount for the basic income is high enough to cover those people.

      • Jack_Burton
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s generally accepted UBI wouldn’t go to children, barring some special circumstance maybe, though not that I’ve come across. Kids don’t get income assistance or disability cheques either. Throwing $1000 a month to a 10 year old would be insane haha.

        • BlameThePeacock
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Think about that critically for a moment. Do children not have needs? Shelter, food, clothing?

          Why should they not get a basic income?

          • Jack_Burton
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Of course they have needs, that’s what the parents are meant to provide for. It’s illegal for a child to earn an income in developed countries already, 10 year olds are not allowed to have a job.

            Are you suggesting the gov’t give $1000 a month to every 4,5,6 etc year old? Or is it meant to go straight to the parents? $1000 per kid is insane, and couples would be popping out as many kids as possible. Imagine getting $10k every month because you had 8 kids. The system would be abused significantly more than child benefit programs already are, and the kids would suffer the most.

            Canada for example gives out child benefits every month to help with child needs. There’s a UBI pilot program starting in 2026, and you need to be 18 to apply. $1200 for singles, $2000 for couples, and $1800-$2400 per month for couples with kids. Generally, most UBI proposals that I’ve scome across have a couple of things across the board, namely being over 18, and making less than X amount per year (the Canadian pilot is less than $30k). Throwing that much money at kids is a recipe for disaster.

            • BlameThePeacock
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              It could be adjusted to age to prevent “farming” your children.

              That being said, the costs of having children being downloaded only to parents is the root cause of why first world countries are having such severe issues with birth rates right now.

              Fewer children means fewer people in the future, and less future economic potential. I’m not saying we need to keep growing at a stupid rate, but declining population is a huge problem.

              Just look at what’s happening in Japan right now.