Automation, in the case of UBI, would mean that the productivity gain would translate into less hour worked, with a minimum guaranteed revenue every month/year.
That is a typical answer I get to my question. It fully contains the philosophy that automation gains will somehow be funneled into state coffers or UBI initiatives but its completely missing in any substance about how that translates into reality. I’m interested
I gave an example with Jim above. At the end, Jim is out of work, and the organization has gained money because they aren’t paying Jim, and their automation is doing the work now. Does your actual implementation of your philosophy attempt to tax or clawback some of what Jim was being paid? If so, how and against what metrics? Alternatively, do you propose that what pays the UBI is completely divorced from what the organization earns or pays?
I have a different idea. The government should provide a jobs guarantee. There are plenty of things that need to be fixed in this country, and Jim can apply whatever skills he has to fixing some of them.
That would be a separate approach apart from mitigation against automation as @mitram@sopuli.xyz suggested. Its also separate from the UBI approach that scintilla@crust.piefed.social suggested. This third approach of a government jobs guarantee could certainly dive into, but that doesn’t address the two other incomplete approaches provided so far.
That is a typical answer I get to my question. It fully contains the philosophy that automation gains will somehow be funneled into state coffers or UBI initiatives but its completely missing in any substance about how that translates into reality. I’m interested
I gave an example with Jim above. At the end, Jim is out of work, and the organization has gained money because they aren’t paying Jim, and their automation is doing the work now. Does your actual implementation of your philosophy attempt to tax or clawback some of what Jim was being paid? If so, how and against what metrics? Alternatively, do you propose that what pays the UBI is completely divorced from what the organization earns or pays?
I have a different idea. The government should provide a jobs guarantee. There are plenty of things that need to be fixed in this country, and Jim can apply whatever skills he has to fixing some of them.
That would be a separate approach apart from mitigation against automation as @mitram@sopuli.xyz suggested. Its also separate from the UBI approach that scintilla@crust.piefed.social suggested. This third approach of a government jobs guarantee could certainly dive into, but that doesn’t address the two other incomplete approaches provided so far.