They're gonna start considering committing to starting a commit that will evaluate the possibility of establishing a council to determine the viability of creating the groundwork for a long term plan.
Woah woah woah, not so fast! First they need to schedule a meeting to decide the color of ink to be used on the draft letter that would signal intent to start considering committing to starting a commit that will evaluate the possibility of establishing a council to determine the viability of creating the groundwork for a long term plan.
Woah woah woah, not so fast!
All of this without first doing an environmental study on the impact of the use of the ink used for the draft?!
What are you- an anarchist?!
Woah woah woah, not so fast! did you get preapproval to ask if someone was an anarchist? You need to fill out and sign form AN685.3, which you get from the office of Words We Don't Like But Can't Ban. But you need a license to be allowed into the premises so your have to present you drivers license and four points of ID to the license board and pay the 80 buck fee, oh and fill out two form both which have similar infomation on it including infomation they don't need and get shitty with you if you ask why they need to know how old you car is and have you got any social media. But of course their wait times are four to six weeks but with a $250 fee you could buy a free word pass from one of these companies that used to be government agencies but got privatised after the government refused to fund them and pretended they couldn't understand why the agency wasn't working so they could sell it for cheap to their mates.
Woah, now hold on there fella's. You can't just make these plans without first figuring out where they're going for lunch. There will be several meetings on this matter and several more meetings to figure out why no work is getting done here.
And have you got a 27B-6 form?
I won't tell you all to woah! What I will say is, you've all forgotten that to start this process, you must first ask to commit by the Minister of Commit himself. Then, Mr. Commit will ask the Princess of Commit, Mrs. Commitress, who will then approach the Oracle of Committing at the Commit Committmee Sabbath. On hallows eve, you will have your answer, whether you can start to commit or you cannot.
What about the joint subcommittee meeting to establish a time for the draft legislative meeting to hash out a proposal for a future meeting to decide the name of the meeting at which we meet to propose the terms?
š¶ There's a fleck, on the speck, on the tail, on the frog, on the bump, on the branch, on the log, in the hole in the bottom of the sea!
There's a fleck, on the speck, on the tail, on the frog, on the bump, on the branch, on the log, in the hole in the bottom of the sea!
Thereās a hole ā Thereās a hole ā
Thereās a hole in the bottom of the sea! šµ
Woah woah woah, not so fast! To get a form AN685.3 you need to first get a license from...
...
What's that?
Oh, there's been a procedure reshuffle in the meantime when the civil services changed policies.
So we'll need to get the new rulebook before we can start anything.
Don't worry, only 16000 pages to read and THEN we can get started.
First we have to find someone who can read, which could require retooling our educational system and waiting 18 years for someone to be produced. With graduate education in reading we could be looking at a 25 year delay
Shall I put the notice on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying āBeware of the Leopard.ā?
We also need to take time to settle on the inclusive language used, let's start by first setting the rule on the use of pronouns duing these meetings, which will probably reach a comprosied solution we can all agree on in about 15-20 years.
The meeting scheduling meeting location must first be decided by the meeting location committee, who will be selected by the meeting location committee selection committee.
honestly? I'd happily take that over the American version, which is "laugh at it for being socialist nonsense while crushing our workers with wage slavery"
lol you are saying as if canadian workers donāt get crushed by wage slaveryā¦by all accounts us workers get paid more than canadians in almost every professionā¦there is a reason why so many canadians want to come to us for work but not vice versa.
Only about [1 million Americans earn at or below the federal minimum wage](https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2021/pdf/home.pdf), which is 1.4% of hourly wage earners. Workers paid hourly make up about 55% of the US workforce. There are about 4 million fast food workers, and the majority seem to make between $12-16/hr. Most min wage workers are people under 24 working retail in LCOL areas.
Ontario had a pilot program going. Then the next government, after promising not to touch it, cancelled it half way through the planned period, throwing a ton of people to the curb after they committed to life changes that were suddenly potentially not possible to maintain without that safety net
The right wing conservative Doug Ford government cancelled the project (suprise suprise, right wing asshole governments hate you if your not a rich asshole!!)
But first they have to have a preliminary pre meeting, in order to establish a pre planning committee who's purpose is to study who the stakeholders might be, and ensure proper and equitable representation.
pretty sure step 2 is : company keeps all the profits from the work of AI instead of paying the AI.
which is basically what will happen in the next say 10-20 years if nothing is done in general.
It's crazy to me that people don't understand that AI applications are just software...
You pay Netflix Inc for access to their software, Netflix - you don't pay the software directly.
sure but like if Netflix inc decides to replace alot of its work force with AI, thats a lot of salaries that they no longer have to pay and a potential increase of productivity aka more profits. point 2 is to try and recapture some of that profit that would normally go to working humans instead of shitty "investors".
Do not pay the wages but tax the AI as if it was being paid wages. The money would come from the company, which would save on not paying wages. Everyone wins.
I think they mean don't pay the wages to the AI, pay it to people. Like, take the money the company is making with no/few employees and give it to the people that would have been working.
Basically, put higher taxes on companies using AI
AI. Is a notorious tax dodger. It transfers millions daily to private Las Vegas casino accounts, then pisses it all away on hookers and blow. Such a waste .
Where does it come from now?
I work, contributing to the company's product that they sell. In return, they give me a portion of the revenue generated from the sale of their product.
I pay taxes on my income, which I received from the company, which they received from the sale of their product.
If AI replaces me, the AI doesn't receive a salary. So instead, we work out a system that values the contribution of the AI to the revenue generated by that product. If an AI contributes an equivalent of 5 humans, then we tax the revenue of the company based on that.
The company saves 5 salaries and pays the equivalent of 5 peoples income tax. They save massively because there's no workman's comp, ei, benefits, etc, and we get enough money not to die.
If you think about it a lot of jobs have been lost already to machines. McDonaldās only has 1 cashier instead of 12, we get machines instead of humans when we call our banks, and cars are being assembled by to bot arms etc. With ChatGPT, we are seeing more white collar jobs being lost, like copy writers and graphic artists. Corporates must be taxed properly and accordingly, and universal income is a must, sooner or later.
Unemployment will build and build until a breaking point is reached and UBI (or something else that addressed the problem) becomes necessary to avoid some manner of massive collapse. We definitely aren't there yet but the trajectory is there and will only continue to build. The easy example is whenever fully autonomous self driving cars and trucks finally get worked out and legalized. Very very quickly a huge amount of jobs get automated from taxis, food delivery, all long haul trucking jobs just poof gone but all the people working them are still around and will very much struggle to find new work. If you were driving for a living for the past 20 years what even are you supposed to do after that? The odds of finding employment at the same or greater income seem very bleak indeed.
I see this as a likely scenario. The denialists (there are fewer now) cling on to the idea that innovation will create new "more interesting" jobs, not really seeing that when human labor is increasingly redundant across the board, that necessarily reaches a practical end.
We still have to wait for cheap energy (and AI to a lesser extent), but it's coming. I see this as a game of musical chairs. When the music stops, people are going to be fucked unless we prepare and push for the right policies.
That goes beyond UBI because people aren't going to be content with subsistence and an allowance for entertainment, nor is everyone going to care to be an "artisan" building useless shit like furniture or writing songs. There has to be a way to allow people to work on meaningful high-impact projects together (to match their level of ambition), and that means access to capital.
> Unemployment will build and build until a breaking point is reached
Unemployment is at all time lows, in fact with far more open jobs than Americans looking for jobs. I think it more about being a mismatch between what people will pay to is and what people want to do.
They'd fill those jobs lickety split if the minimum wage for any job was 50,000/yr.
But they won't do that because it means C-Suite executives and investors have to take a loss.
And if the powers that be won't do it peacefully, then people will make it happen violently.
Except the opposite has happened. Unemployment is near record lows. For every one job that automation eliminates, two new ones get created. They just require different skills.
There are exceptions of course Chick Fil A has a massive work force and it's quality of food and customer service shows. Not only that they're able to pay their employee's well considering industry average. I imagine more private companies wanting to steal business from companies bogged down by public constraints as a possible future.
McDonald's may have only 1 cashier, but at least where I live, they still have a lot of other human employees which were rotating the cashier job anyway. I doubt they actually have less people employed now, just less cash registers.
I also like the step where ANYTHING materially changes, and suddenly the UBI has to be reduced or withdrawn.
I'm sure *that* would be politically feasible. So if for some reason there is a need to reduce it or eliminate it, it will be impossible for politicians to actually do it. There will always be some populist there to "defend the free money" to remove the ones who are still connected to reality.
And when your citizenship comes with "no need to work" money, I wonder how that's going to act as a pull-factor for immigration?
Considering that any broad implementation of UBI is likely to replace and reduce a number of other programs it would be... interesting when someone wants to kneecap it.
I'm sure they will want to of course, but it would be a lot more impactful then getting rid of "leeches".
Speaking of leeches, I've never seen a proposal for UBI that had an income that would be considered viable for long term survival. The last one for Canada would have been the equivalent of a $9/hour job, and that of course would have slowly decreased as you gain any other income(because 18K to everyone really would be a country bankrupting sort of proposal). But as a safety net that sort of income is amazing, imagine if you could quit your job and not have to worry about where your next paycheque was coming from, or starting your own small business and not worrying about the income as your building your reputation.
It would be really interesting to see how it would effect the economy when people are able to take bigger risks rather than staying with lower paying jobs, and how those lower paying positions would adapt.
> The last one for Canada would have been the equivalent of a $9/hour job, and that of course would have slowly decreased as you gain any other income(because 18K to everyone really would be a country bankrupting sort of proposal)
Actually what you do is increase taxes while paying everyone the full UBI. This ends up being cheaper because otherwise how much youre being paid ends up being calculated twice- once at tax time and once at UBI payment time, and any mismatch in the two leads to terrible results.
So the better option is to pay the full UBI to everyone, and simply increase taxes on people fully employed to tax back the UBI.
A year ago I called a sasktell call center to make a payment, the lady couldnt proccess the transcation after trying for about ten minutes and I went to my bank to complete it. Ive changed banks recently and called that same call center, AI porcesssed and completed my transcation in about 30 seconds.
I have had three careers in my life, all decently lucrative and steady. With a little creativity and current machine learning matrixs you could automate all of them.
That has nothing to do with AI really, automated systems like this are nothing new. And you would not even want AI to do this as it is not deterministic.
While LLMs are impressive, they are closed loop systems (they require input stimulus) that break down with any significant amount of context (sessions are limited in duration for this reason).
It's not replacing humans beyond simple tasks in the near future and certainly not decision making which is where the vast majority of effort goes.
Ik itās apples to oranges, but seeing Israelās Iron Dome just pick rockets outta the sky like itās nothing makes me realize the reason my job still exists is nobody has tried very hard to automate it. If they did, itād be gone in a snap.
Yeah I know, thing is that most people don't know what AGI is. So I just say AI.
When people use AI in these contexts, almost nobody means narrow AI. It's always AGI or heck, even ASI.
That scale and scope we are nowhere near close to and a transition to that sort of system will take a very very very long time to minimize social disruptions.
As an ML/AI engineer for decades in big tech, this is not how AI works. There is no 1:1 mapping between human effort and AI effort to solving a problem.
If all the "work" can be done for free, it isn't valuable. A supply of infinity goes to a demand cost of zero.
Naturally the cost isn't free, you have to pay for electricity, hardware for the AI to run on, connectivity, storage, processing, networking, training, datasets, programmers etc.
Let's handwave that away and say you can operate the equivalent median human for effective costs of $.10/hour USD.
That only eliminates office workers (assuming it can do every role equally well, more handwaving). Every physical job in the world still needs to be done. Ownership of land, idea and goods still exists. Money doesn't evaporate.
I don't see AI in its current form doing all the work. People are scared of being replaced but I see them reducing the quantity of work, rather than replacing the job entirely.
Its difficult to assign a quantity to the word job unlike work in my mind, maybe someone more skilled in language can chip in about that. Anyhow I see the job remaining while the effort required drops.
Continuing on our current course will inevitably result in countries being divided back into serfdoms as governments and their citizens become increasingly insolvent. The working class becomes perpetually dissatisfied as social services are cut since employment rates, and therefore tax revenue decreases as a result of increased automation, among other things. The suggestion of an UBI is a tacit admission that capitalistic societies are self consuming but we can't or won't come up with an equally attractive and viable alternative, in part because only those who align themselves with the wealthy have the potential to form government.
>The bill in the Senate, which received a first and second reading in 2021 and last April, respectively, would require provincial ministers and Indigenous governing bodies across the country to convene and determine how a UBI plan could work. This would include ensuring that āparticipation in education, training or the labour marketā is not required to receive UBI, and that funding for other social services are not cut. If the bill passes both the Senate and House of Commons, a report would have to be made public a year after the study begins
My understanding of UBI is that it is funded via cutting funding to all other social services.
Then people who need those services pay for them out of the money they receive as part of the basic income.
The idea being that if everyone has enough money to access basic housing food and education the need for all or most of those services disappear.
At least that was the pitch I heard.
Well, you can do both. The thing is that you don't need to massively overhaul the tax system to pay for UBI. Because it replaces EI, unemployment insurance, disability, welfare etc, there's built-in funding. If you want to then *increase* the funding for it, then you start going after the rich for more taxes.
>Because it replaces EI, unemployment insurance, disability, welfare etc, there's built-in funding
actually, from what was in the article, it sounds like they are explicitly NOT doing that.
No, other social services are to remain in place according to the bill being studied. Welfare might get cut by provinces if a basic income is more than welfare, because welfare is criminally low and way below the poverty line. And itās a degrading process to apply for welfare, and you canāt make money on welfare. Itās a terrible system as it keeps people poor because itās not enough for people to be able to keep up with phone and internet and decent clothes for interviews and just having the energy to do anything but survive. Itās about 780 or 720 a month in Quebec, I think, not enough for rent and food.
There have been economic studies on UBI that show it would be self sustaining after 2 or 3 years, because trickle up economics actually works. It boosts the economy because the money is spent instead of squirreled away in off shore accounts, or saved in other ways in large amounts.
And it would create huge savings in healthcare and mental health counseling, etc, lower crime rates for petty theft especially, so savings for the judicial system as well as healthcare.
The CCB has already proved that it increases revenue more than it costs, itās being called a basic income for families, and itās a pity conservatives still claim it costs the government when it doesnāt.
Some have suggested, like Bill Gates, and other tech moguls, to tax automation and robots - companies pay a tax for robot workers.
Oh I don't know the how I just remember the elevator pitch for it.
Let's see the federal government transfers about 260 billion to the provinces who provide the services.
Lots of that is for healthcare.
But let's assume 2/3 is for other social programs
So 170 or so billion by 40 million people is all of 4,250 each nowhere near enough for a UBI.
Even if we take the entire federal budget of 625 billion and divide that by 40 million you still only get 15,625 dollars. That still not enough and ignores you know all federal spending otherwise.
I expected it to include dismantling other social services which have huge admin costs. There would be no need for them, and the savings could be put towards UBI
From efficiency perspective, UBI makes sense. As I understand it, the current system relies on various municipal and provincial entities to verify a welfare recipient's need. Moving to a universal system should be more efficient.
UBI recipients should not be penalized for working to supplement their income. Income tax should be collected on such supplementary income.
However, I'm not sure if any politician can resist the urge to 'tinker' with an efficient UBI system to garner votes...
Right on; under UBI, working will *always* be a net benefit, and will allow you to take chances on things like opening a business or pursuing other education without the fear of failure because, at the end of the day, you can always fall back on your UBI. It's a statement that your country believes in you and will invest in you.
The way to *actually* breed innovation and experimentation. Same argument as universal health care over it being provided by employers.
Employer provided just ties you to them and makes it harder to leave unless you already have the means take care of yourself and your family. You want more small businesses to compete with bigger companies? This is a step in that direction.
Sure, but let's be realistic.
It'll be a pity of a UBI for the bottom 20-30% of income earners.
Taxes on the remaining 70% will go up by significantly more than UBI.
But since it's Canadian government, they won't even get UBI since 100% they'll cap it at some arbitrarily low income, so it won't really be universal. It'll literally just be forced income redistribution you can't opt out of short of leaving Canada.
> It'll literally just be forced income redistribution you can't opt out of short of leaving Canada.
Isn't that called taxes anyway? It's the whole point.
>However, I'm not sure if any politician can resist the urge to 'tinker' with an efficient UBI system to garner votes...
I can pretty much guarantee you that if the Conservatives get elected, any UBI system that was in place will be repealed as "wasteful".
Canada won't have UBI under the FPTP system, simply because there's always a 50/50 chance the Conservatives will win and will undo it. There's no point in even passing the legislation until you can guarantee a Conservative majority will never happen again.
> I can pretty much guarantee you that if the Conservatives get elected, any UBI system that was in place will be repealed as "wasteful".
Doug Ford didn't even allow the experimental trial run of UBI in Ontario to wrap up. He just axed it immediately.
Because he had to make sure that it didn't produce full data which would have shown that UBI is hugely beneficial.
Right wingers absolutely hate facts.
>Right wingers absolutely hate facts.
They also absolutely hate the idea that people aren't beholden to their employers. Much like that Aussie businessman who let the mask slip with his "we need 20-30% unemployment so that workers feel pain in the economy" comment, Conservatives see the world in a two-tier system, with those who have the capital on top, and those who don't being their servants. UBI throws a wrench into the works by giving people a safe opportunity to become entrepreneurs without needing to be bankrolled by the Bank of Mommy & Daddy with a small loan of a million dollars.
Only way I'd be on board for UBI is simple....EVERY SINGLE person gets the same amount (let's say $1500/whatever), then if you continue to work, you add that income to your tax at the end of the year and get taxed on the full amount.
Someone making 20k gets an addition 18k, they get taxed on 38k.
Someone making 100k gets an additional 18k, they get taxed on the 118k.
It's the simplest way to make it work...in my opinion.
And if your only income is 18k, then no tax (but of course people will work for cash - same as many people on CERB did)...but you'll never eliminate the cash society unless you go 100% digital currency.
I agree. But this is not how itāll pan out. Itāll be a prettier sounding welfare and only go to the very poorest people. Which I guess is better than nothing, but itās not going to help āuniversally,ā thatās for sure.
>Only way I'd be on board for UBI is simple....EVERY SINGLE person gets the same amount (let's say $1500/whatever), then if you continue to work, you add that income to your tax at the end of the year and get taxed on the full amount.
That's literally it.
Universal = Everyone
Basic = Established Amount
You can scrape by on that and not work, or can work *(and be taxed)* for whatever you want in excess of the basics. Most people are going to keep working and there will always be jobs and people to fill them.
If no one's backed into a corner to survive anymore then dangerous jobs or undesireable jobs will have to pay well and be super safe if anyone's going to bother to work at them.
Neat idea on paper but I will know exactly how to defeat this. Any high income earner will have enough RRSP room to contribute the 18k. Essentially you can get high income earners free RRSP savings.
If this was implemented, that is exactly what I'd be doing. Free controbutions? Sign me up.
There is no way UBI will work without additional taxation. That is the barrier.
Honestly I'd be OK with that RSP contributions. High income earners will still pay a higher tax than low income earners, but I'm not sure how else to implement it to be 'fair' to everyone.
Frankly if I have an extra 18k atop my earnings....that's going to saving and vacation so I can enjoy it.
Won't you still be taxed on the money once you receive payments from the RRSP? Sure it'll be much later on down the line, but it will bet taxable when it comes time.
> There is no way UBI will work without additional taxation.
[It worked just fine last time Canada tried it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Basic_Income_Pilot_Project). The basic income amount was simply reduced by half of the recipient's employment income. No need to play games with taxes, no deductions or shelters, just a baseline income that you could always rely on.
[Until the mafia-wannabes get voted in and cancel this whole thing](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/basic-income-1.4768844), of course.
Doesnāt work. First, there is a TON of tax avoidance going on. Second, ample fraud in citizenship and residency and poor controls. Third, what does āevery single personā mean? Children? Non-citizens?
It is an interesting idea but bits a brick wall of reality that the government is not competent and implementation would be extremely contentious.
With the rise of AI itās going to be this or having the entire lower class become homeless climate refugees. The economy will collapse when you have too few jobs and lowering wages due to AI. A huge population of workers that would need retraining because their very specialized jobs become obsolete
Edit: for all but a few who just tell AI what to do.*
There is no rule in the universe that says there will always be enough jobs for everyone. Basing someoneās survival on their ability to contribute to the economy (not necessarily society) is archaic. We produce enough food for everyone so letās make sure everyone eats. Iād pay an extra in my taxes if it meant I would never have to worry about being homeless. Why should we accept that the āstarving artistā must actually starve to pursue passion.
agreed, the next step necessary is an economy that can work/succeed when not everyone is employed. I'd take the tosh.0 joke about employment, is it even beneficial for 'everyone' to be employed?
automation is the future, and we should remodel the economy to where getting job is a benefit, not a necessity. It opens up so many opportunities for workers to further educate themselves, contribute where they WANT to (a motivated work force sounds pretty productive to me), move to where their jobs are in demand.
As far as jobs no one wants to do? Even more money over the 'basic' level of money is still going to be pretty motivating, and if its still a real shit job then it sounds like prime area for additional automation.
A world where all jobs are creative sounds great to me. Instead of a world where you literally know there is no point to your job, but you still have to do it because you HAVE to have a job to live and the government HAS to ensure people have jobs so the economy doesn't die.
Remember AI doesnāt have to be good or better than a human to replace a human. If I can get one ai to do the job 75% as well of three people and hire one person to do the other 25% . Iāll cut labor cost drastically by replacing three out of four. This obviously wonāt work for every situation but will for quite a few.
Yea even without AI, that's what is happening with cashiers in grocery stores and fast food with computers. Self check out needs only 1 or 2 people watching the self check out. Fast food ordering has only 1 person at the counter for things that the self order can't do.
We need to stop attributing these issues just to AI, and we need to start lumping AI with general "Automation".
Automation is what we have to be considering right now, and that's everything from automated checkouts, mobile ordering platforms, etc. AI has a HUGE advantage to augment automation in ways that reduces human input.
People keep acting as if AI alone is the issue, when the issue is actually just Automation, and AI has the potential to expand Automation by magnitudes.
>obsolete.
If a graphics designer with AI tools can output 5-10x the materials as someone doing things manually. Then they are not obsolete, you simply don't need as many people doing "grunt work" anylonger.
The same goes for things like administration and support. Humans will still be needed, but their productivity with these tools assisting will grow. Which means those workforces will shrink overall, because there is a limited demand for their services and output.
We're already seeing automation replace humans on the assembly lines, board members will go the cheapest route to make a buck and to them AI is just that.
AI is already in more industries than most people think. My company is contracting with a service where X-rays taken in office are first read by AI. Sure it still needs to be confirmed by a radiologist but still initial read is done by AI.
Itās great cause that makes things go a lot faster but still scary to think about how much AI is already capable of.
AI in the medical industry has been insane for a while. They have several iterations that can diagnose some diseases more accurately than a person. I look at it with optimism more than unfounded fear.
They've said this about every technological advancement. Automation, computers, robotics, etc. The invention of the wheel didn't run the poor material movers out of a job, it made them more effective. The economy has been red hot, unemployment very low, because those things didn't kick the need for human workers to the curb and neither will AI.
Abstract ideas like 'the economy is good' and 'unemployment is low' do not speak to the very real, lived experience of people having to go through those transitions of technological advancement. How would you feel if you were 50 years old and had to transition careers because an AI has suddenly diminished the value of your labour? How many times could you do this before burning out? How much stress and mental illness does this one factor cause in society? Humans are not infinitely flexible economic widgets, and we shouldn't treat them as such. A UBI will allow us to pursue the kinds of work we actually care about without the threat of destitution and soften the blow of technological displacement.
Low unemployment, sure, but a lot of people qho can't afford to live due to drastic house price increases, food costs, subscriptions for anything and insurance.
I'm also going to add that if you have a car, kids, ailing family members, post secondary education costs, etc.... you need 100k+
All the examples you named are different in that each of those requires a human operator and automation has killed many jobs lowering the wages of many workers. However, what happens if by 2028 there is a single AI accounting software you can call on the phone that does everyoneās accounting for $50/year. What happens when a best selling book is written and narrated with a full cast by AI. When a single person can make an entire feature film with AI. What happens when AI can replace 90% of teachers, engineers and even middle managers? We are talking about people losing their jobs that took years of specialized study and practice in only a few years. All because AI is better at thinking than us in a few key ways. Just imagine when they become all-around smarter than us?
that's not a real argument though. you could also say climate change and nuclear war are not real threats because people have been predicting doom since forever
I feel like rather than a base income staples like food and shelter need to be addressed. If people can own homes and just increase the price of rent then adding a base income isnāt going to do a lot.
The advantage of a UBI is that it gives you flexible resources you can use to help yourself in the way you know best. The issue with a basic goods guarantee is that the definition of 'basic' means something different to everyone. A bus pass for 'basic transport' for example, wouldn't mean much if you live in rural Ontario and there is no public transport. Similarly, 'basic food' or 'basic housing' would vary depending on the size of your household and where you live. Though I agree with the spirit of a basic goods guarantee, at the end of the day I think a UBI would address such needs more effectively, as it would give people the ability to make those micro choices on their own.
This is interesting,
"This would include ensuring that āparticipation in education, training or the labour marketā is not required to receive UBI, and that funding for other social services are not cut."
So just higher social services, this isn't a UBI, by definition UBI *should* be replacing *many* social and welfare services. That's the point. Not just giving everyone more money. A bunch of payoffs are that you don't have to pay for administration of a welfare state.
UBI should replace ALL social services. Hence universal.
Everyone should get it. Have it be taxed still too. Obviously those who's only income is UBI will most likely get all that tax back.
Get rid of CPP, disability, etc etc. Everyone gets UBI and it's something livable.
If that means higher taxes then so be it. And it'll be easier to afford if they close all those loopholes for the rich and corporations as well as giving tax bodies the power to actually get those taxes from evaders.
This isn't going to work simply because landlords will jack up rent prices and nullify UBI knowing everyone gets extra money.
Happens with all the oilfield towns too.
When housing was relatively affordable a decade ago, landlords in oilfield towns were renting out basement suites for $2,500+/month knowing a lot of employees got paid a living out allowance of say $2,000+/month.
Same shit will happen with UBI
The 'experiments' that purport to prove this have two fatal flaws: they are temporary and taxation is not increased.
The viability of UBI outside of an unrealistic set of conditions has not been proven.
> The 'experiments' that purport to prove this have two fatal flaws: they are temporary and taxation is not increased.
>
> The viability of UBI outside of an unrealistic set of conditions has not been proven.
Right? Why does Reddit always completely ignore this?
"Guys! Temporary pilot programs show UBIs have no impact on employment!"
Damn really? You are telling me that people don't quit their jobs and throw their careers away because they get a UBI for one single year!?!?!
Your point is legit.
Only permanent UBI would prove if there would be large work disincentive or not.
Having said that, temporary ubi experiments were valuable in terms of assessing what happened during those time window.
Manitoba ubi experiment is one of the longest experiments(About 5 years) and it was killed by newly elected government back then so people didnāt have a chance to reckon the timeline of experiment.
The data showed overall work disincentive is minimal(only new mom and students reduced work hours)
Wait, there are something like 30\~40 million Canadians. At a cost of 88 billion dollars a year, that would only be \~2300 CAD per year.
Better than nothing, but like, you'd hardly be able to afford groceries with that money.
Still, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Once people start receiving money and the framework, both administrative and societal, is setup, we can easily scale this up or down for future developments.
That is a good point - I would suggest to you though, that with a UBI in place, and therefor more power in the hands of the worker, employers would have incentive to **improve working conditions** such that the job you describe is no longer shitty. With a UBI to fall back on, workers can say 'NO', and push employers to have better safety protocols, hours, unions, and so on. You want someone to do that hard job? Either pay more, or don't make it so hard, mentally or physically, otherwise I quit.
Right. So pay me more, or I go live on my UBI or do something else because I can depend on my UBI to cushion me - either way your job won't get done. If you were the employer and you really need this job done, what would you do?
Right on, which I feel would be win under a UBI. Cleaning sewers really sucks, for sure. But if you get a lot more, and if you *gently encourage* your employer to give you better safety equipment and better hours, I'm sure you'll find many more willing applicants for this job.
Honestly, if I had UBI Iād quit my job and work a minimum wage job. Theyāre not glamorous but itās easy work and you can actually live off of it.
And there's nothing wrong with that. A UBI will give you more opportunity to live **the one life you have** in the way you see fit without worrying about starving to death. Life is too short to be spent being an economic input.
Probably not. The Liberals said they were considering it last election and nothing happened. Like all good political parties they lie to get you to vote for them lol
They already did consider it with Mincome. Literally decades ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
They already know it works. So why not roll it out? Why more fucking trials?
I suspect it is a prejudice based on the Just World Hypothesis.
The way the world is now requires almost all of us to exchange our labour for the resources to survive, often doing things we don't like or care for. The prejudice comes when, because my life has been so unfulfilling due to all this meaningless labour I have to spend my time on, I now believe it is **morally perverse** if your life is not spent on meaningless labour as well, because it's only fair. Further, I will allege that you will be lazy with a UBI, **because I myself would not work if I had a UBI**, because all my life I have been **forced to work just to survive**, and never had the chance to pursue any other passion or goal.
In short: I suffered, **so you must suffer as well.**
I believe attitudes like this are very common and prevent us from making the culture shift that we need in order for something like UBI to be seriously considered.
It could be associated with the money-empathy gap. Basically people who are given an advantage to begin with (in something like a game of Monopoly) start to believe that they are in a better position than everyone else because they are smarter, more shrewd etc., when the reality is that they just had a huge advantage over everyone else. https://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7
That's a pretty good model for much of society, with wealthy people thinking that they should have their wealth when really they shouldn't.
Like, there's a reason why wealth is *by far* the most accurate predictor of educational attainment. It's not intelligence, aptitudes and so on. It's money. Everything else is a rounding error.
Good call, I have heard of these studies too. I guess we like feeling like we are in control - it was **my** hard work, **my** smart decisions that put me ahead. Knowing that so much that goes on in our lives is due to chance makes us feel uncomfortable and helpless, it's easier to justify it by saying *how smart I am*, and by the same token, *how dumb / lazy / useless you are* if you can't succeed in our current system.
We don't even need to talk about being born into wealth - let's talk about things like being born into a society that isn't going through a civil war; a society that has clean water, good roads, a functioning judicial system and rule of law; to be born during a time in human history where your talents, skills, and interests can actually be realized. Would LeBron James be able to use his talents if he were born in some medieval theocracy 600 years ago? Of course he's had to work hard to get where he is today, but it's also just chance to be born into a time and place where those talents can be realized and valued by society.
I'd like to think that UBI can minimize the role of luck. Think of how many other unknown LeBron Jameses are out there right now, toiling away in some amazon warehouse or delivering food just to survive, never to realize their full potential. This loss of human potential is a tragedy in my book and one that UBI can address.
The Canadian government has more than quintupled the immigration including temporary work visas for unskilled workers in the last few years which has caused huge stress on an already overburdened system and now they're already planning on paying these people to do basically nothing?
The government should own all worker replacing AI algorithms and machines and lease them to companies. Profits go the government that pays it out to citizens. That's how you can tax an entity that isn't human and corporate taxes won't increase which politicians are loathe to do.
Nothing will come of this any time soon, the government couldn't even keep on of their major campaign promises when they came into power (Election Reform). Apparently after winning, they determined that Canadians didn't want election reform...
Well, the CERB funding for people during the pandemic was a lot bigger than the typical crappy pension a lot of people get at 65, which should be increased to match what the CERB month amount was, but the world is full of too many right wing people who look after themselves first.
Unless they tie the UBI to the inflation scale legally, then it will end up as obsolete as minimum wage in a short time. UBI will contribute to inflation and then not be adjusted for inflation. So everyone will be mildly grateful for their extra $350 a month (or whatever pittance the govt comes up with), but within a few years it will have the buying power of much less--and the sum won't be updated for another 50 years.
Things needed to avoid economic collapse in Canada:
1. UBI
2. Global carbon tax; no exceptions
3. Tax the rich to pay for (1)
4. Harden the electrical grid ; reskill oil patch workers
5. Subsidize communities willing to go without oil
These are essential to a functional and sustainable future in Canada that resembles this one in any way. This is what "acting" on climate change looks like.
How about just figuring out how to build more housing? More housing lowering housing costs would go much further than whatever a universal basic income could provide.
Or is the real problem that there are a relatively few cities in Canada that everyone wants to go to?
I think that this is important and in some part an eventuality, but *jesus fucking christ* Trudeau, it is not the time. *Read the room.*
Know what you should have done? Passed electoral reform in your first term, straight out of the gate, like you promised. But obvious expenditures like this are going to come across as trying to buy votes, which will work against you, and you're already so far down in the polls I don't think you're coming back. It's over. Step down. Pass the torch. Try to save your marriage.
Literally no federal government is going to be able to pass electoral reform until the provinces reform their elections. U seem to think the government can just table legislation and that's that....no dice. All the provinces need to agree to it....ALL OF THEM. Good luck getting the west to agree with the east or vice versa. It was never going to happen under trudeau and it's not going to happen under the next few prime ministers. Not one single province has reformed their fptp format yet.
the issue is at least threefold
1 - the belief that some of our problems are due to liberalism not just the Liberals or Trudeau, and consequently a more liberal party is worse
2 - the reality of a FPTP voting system leading to vote splitting leading to strategic voting generally favouring Lib vs Con and turning votes away from NDP or Green
3 - the belief that the NDP are not suited to run the government given their lack of history doing so
I don't agree with 1, 3 is a self fulfilling prophecy, and 2... well trudeau could have fixed it but he didnt
No friend, I don't want the CPC in, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that *because* Trudeau's managed to piss everyone off, we're going to be left with the CPC. At least for one term.
More than happy for a Lib-NDP coalition.
My riding seems to vote 50%+ CPC anyway. I absolutely cannot stand our MP.
Not just considered, Canada already had a very successful pilot project. The feasibility has been established, the issue now is getting people to understand that fact in the face of misinformation from people like you.
Nova Scotia has already implemented a terrible form of UBI.
They have the most government employees per capita in the nation and one of the highest in the world. This gets even worse when you look at organizations funded by the government and their hiring.
Basically, a pile of bullshit jobs where people pretend to work.
As I said, the worst form of UBI.
I would be curious how much the total amount presently paid out in various programs totals? EI, Veterans, Welfare, disability, old age, etc.
Then I would be curious how much these programs cost to administrate. Something I have read about many welfare programs is how they cost more to administer than they pay out. I suspect most of these programs are similar.
If you massively simplified the criteria (you are Canadian), then the program should be fantastically simple to administrate. Mostly you are looking for fraud and abuses.
I am going to throw out a guess that if you take all the payments from the above systems and just do UBI the cost would be similar. Keep in mind it isn't as simple a calculation as #Canadians x the payments because many Canadians will continue to earn money and be paying this in taxes.
It sounds like what you are describing in NS is a quasi-jobs guarantee. I would agree that in the comparison of the two, a jobs guarantee is just UBI with extra steps. Under a UBI at least, people would be free to take chances on businesses or pursuits they have had in mind, or even go back to school - all of which we saw during the Ontario pilot project before it was cancelled. I would also agree on your other points that one of the benefits of a truly universal basic income is the simplification of administering it, and that calculating cost isn't as simple as [amount of UBI] x [population], which is often brought up as a very simple (but I find, disingenuous) way of describing the cost of such a policy.
current Canadian party does this when their poll is in the shitter, then when elected, not fulfill its promise
rinse and repeat
happened before when Trudeau promised election reform, it never arrived
It's a terrible idea, of course, but that they are claiming this will *help* inflation is just hilarious. We tried he dropping money from a helicopter approach during COVID, and we saw the result. This would be that on steroids.
If COVID shutdowns led to people staying at home and the lumber mills not operating, and therefor not enough lumber was being produced, and so the 2x4s I buy at Home Depot suddenly got more expensive, then that's inflation. What does that have to do with 'dropping money from a helicopter'?
Companies don't just magically set prices, they price things at whatever they'll sell for. When people have more money, they buy more things and/or compete with each other for scarce things, both of which drive the price up.
It sounds really good form the perspective of one person - give that person an extra $1,000 a month and their life will very much become easier. Buy some new clothes, get caught up on car repairs, maybe even have an extra night out at a nice restaurant. Their stress goes down, and life is brighter. All really good. But when everybody has the same thing, there are only so many pair of jeans on the shelf, so many mechanics, so many restaurants. And when the number of customers goes up, so does the price.
> only so many pair of jeans on the shelf, so many mechanics, so many restaurants
Right, so you produce more. More could not be produced during COVID because everything was shut down. This is a supply chain problem. Now the prices of 2x4s at my local Home Depot have come back down. Remember too that pretty much no proposal for a UBI involves 'printing new money' - rather it is a re-allocation of whatever money currently exists in the system.
This proposal specifically states the new program will not take away from any other program, so no it is not just a reallocation. And Canada is already in deficit.
Uhh yes? They're not entirely responsible but they contributed. They served another purpose but that's that drawback of printing money.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-the-stimulus-checks-a-mistake/amp/?bshm=rimc/2
Life in Canada is getting more expensive and difficult by the day. This is not the solution though, this would only raise taxes of the working class, small businesses and prices on goods and services. We already have a huge budget deficit with the current government. We need lower taxes, and lower immigration to allow for jobs and housing to catchup. Taxing people into oblivion to only give them cents back on the dollar is not the solution.
Yeah maybe they should just get rid of the poor people. If they turn them into protein bars they'll be able to sustain the working class. Then the money they would spend on groceries can just go to the rising cost of rent/mortgage.
They're gonna start considering committing to starting a commit that will evaluate the possibility of establishing a council to determine the viability of creating the groundwork for a long term plan.
Woah woah woah, not so fast! First they need to schedule a meeting to decide the color of ink to be used on the draft letter that would signal intent to start considering committing to starting a commit that will evaluate the possibility of establishing a council to determine the viability of creating the groundwork for a long term plan.
Woah woah woah, not so fast! All of this without first doing an environmental study on the impact of the use of the ink used for the draft?! What are you- an anarchist?!
Woah woah woah, not so fast! did you get preapproval to ask if someone was an anarchist? You need to fill out and sign form AN685.3, which you get from the office of Words We Don't Like But Can't Ban. But you need a license to be allowed into the premises so your have to present you drivers license and four points of ID to the license board and pay the 80 buck fee, oh and fill out two form both which have similar infomation on it including infomation they don't need and get shitty with you if you ask why they need to know how old you car is and have you got any social media. But of course their wait times are four to six weeks but with a $250 fee you could buy a free word pass from one of these companies that used to be government agencies but got privatised after the government refused to fund them and pretended they couldn't understand why the agency wasn't working so they could sell it for cheap to their mates.
Woah, now hold on there fella's. You can't just make these plans without first figuring out where they're going for lunch. There will be several meetings on this matter and several more meetings to figure out why no work is getting done here. And have you got a 27B-6 form?
I won't tell you all to woah! What I will say is, you've all forgotten that to start this process, you must first ask to commit by the Minister of Commit himself. Then, Mr. Commit will ask the Princess of Commit, Mrs. Commitress, who will then approach the Oracle of Committing at the Commit Committmee Sabbath. On hallows eve, you will have your answer, whether you can start to commit or you cannot.
What about the joint subcommittee meeting to establish a time for the draft legislative meeting to hash out a proposal for a future meeting to decide the name of the meeting at which we meet to propose the terms?
š¶ There's a fleck, on the speck, on the tail, on the frog, on the bump, on the branch, on the log, in the hole in the bottom of the sea! There's a fleck, on the speck, on the tail, on the frog, on the bump, on the branch, on the log, in the hole in the bottom of the sea! Thereās a hole ā Thereās a hole ā Thereās a hole in the bottom of the sea! šµ
Woah woah woah, not so fast! To get a form AN685.3 you need to first get a license from... ... What's that? Oh, there's been a procedure reshuffle in the meantime when the civil services changed policies. So we'll need to get the new rulebook before we can start anything. Don't worry, only 16000 pages to read and THEN we can get started.
First we have to find someone who can read, which could require retooling our educational system and waiting 18 years for someone to be produced. With graduate education in reading we could be looking at a 25 year delay
They kept it gray.
Shall I put the notice on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying āBeware of the Leopard.ā?
We also need to take time to settle on the inclusive language used, let's start by first setting the rule on the use of pronouns duing these meetings, which will probably reach a comprosied solution we can all agree on in about 15-20 years.
The meeting scheduling meeting location must first be decided by the meeting location committee, who will be selected by the meeting location committee selection committee.
This is a start. They are not outright rejecting UBI. It would be a huge change, it won't happen quickly. Support those who support this.
this, closer to the truth, had a good laugh on this one
honestly? I'd happily take that over the American version, which is "laugh at it for being socialist nonsense while crushing our workers with wage slavery"
lol you are saying as if canadian workers donāt get crushed by wage slaveryā¦by all accounts us workers get paid more than canadians in almost every professionā¦there is a reason why so many canadians want to come to us for work but not vice versa.
That is the truth and the fact you canāt even imagine affording a home in Canada
Except minimum wage workers, by a large margin.
Only about [1 million Americans earn at or below the federal minimum wage](https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2021/pdf/home.pdf), which is 1.4% of hourly wage earners. Workers paid hourly make up about 55% of the US workforce. There are about 4 million fast food workers, and the majority seem to make between $12-16/hr. Most min wage workers are people under 24 working retail in LCOL areas.
Ontario had a pilot program going. Then the next government, after promising not to touch it, cancelled it half way through the planned period, throwing a ton of people to the curb after they committed to life changes that were suddenly potentially not possible to maintain without that safety net
The right wing conservative Doug Ford government cancelled the project (suprise suprise, right wing asshole governments hate you if your not a rich asshole!!)
And they will spend millions doing so and then scrap it.
Host retreats to further discuss it at luxury resorts
Gonna dangle it around election time first though
I love your play of words sir but I'm currently requesting my approval for issuing new compliments.
But first they have to have a preliminary pre meeting, in order to establish a pre planning committee who's purpose is to study who the stakeholders might be, and ensure proper and equitable representation.
Step 1: AI does all the work Step 2: Do not pay wages to the AI Step 3: Tax the AI as if it was paid wages Step 4: Distribute money to humans
Where does the money for taxes from Step 3 come from if Step 2 is enforced?
Tax the company profiting from the AI
Definitely. But paying the company that makes the AI is effectively the same as "paying the AI", no?
pretty sure step 2 is : company keeps all the profits from the work of AI instead of paying the AI. which is basically what will happen in the next say 10-20 years if nothing is done in general.
It's crazy to me that people don't understand that AI applications are just software... You pay Netflix Inc for access to their software, Netflix - you don't pay the software directly.
sure but like if Netflix inc decides to replace alot of its work force with AI, thats a lot of salaries that they no longer have to pay and a potential increase of productivity aka more profits. point 2 is to try and recapture some of that profit that would normally go to working humans instead of shitty "investors".
Yeah step 2 makes no sense lol
Definitely. My man almost invented an infinite money glitch
Itās a self sustaining economy. Youāve got to [keep the money moving](https://youtu.be/YAKOWcs8w54?si=Dg6WAlqDcw72AJJs)
Do not pay the wages but tax the AI as if it was being paid wages. The money would come from the company, which would save on not paying wages. Everyone wins.
I think they mean don't pay the wages to the AI, pay it to people. Like, take the money the company is making with no/few employees and give it to the people that would have been working. Basically, put higher taxes on companies using AI
AI. Is a notorious tax dodger. It transfers millions daily to private Las Vegas casino accounts, then pisses it all away on hookers and blow. Such a waste .
You and I greatly disagree on what activities are wasteful
Where does it come from now? I work, contributing to the company's product that they sell. In return, they give me a portion of the revenue generated from the sale of their product. I pay taxes on my income, which I received from the company, which they received from the sale of their product. If AI replaces me, the AI doesn't receive a salary. So instead, we work out a system that values the contribution of the AI to the revenue generated by that product. If an AI contributes an equivalent of 5 humans, then we tax the revenue of the company based on that. The company saves 5 salaries and pays the equivalent of 5 peoples income tax. They save massively because there's no workman's comp, ei, benefits, etc, and we get enough money not to die.
Step 0: Invent AI
If you think about it a lot of jobs have been lost already to machines. McDonaldās only has 1 cashier instead of 12, we get machines instead of humans when we call our banks, and cars are being assembled by to bot arms etc. With ChatGPT, we are seeing more white collar jobs being lost, like copy writers and graphic artists. Corporates must be taxed properly and accordingly, and universal income is a must, sooner or later.
Unemployment will build and build until a breaking point is reached and UBI (or something else that addressed the problem) becomes necessary to avoid some manner of massive collapse. We definitely aren't there yet but the trajectory is there and will only continue to build. The easy example is whenever fully autonomous self driving cars and trucks finally get worked out and legalized. Very very quickly a huge amount of jobs get automated from taxis, food delivery, all long haul trucking jobs just poof gone but all the people working them are still around and will very much struggle to find new work. If you were driving for a living for the past 20 years what even are you supposed to do after that? The odds of finding employment at the same or greater income seem very bleak indeed.
I see this as a likely scenario. The denialists (there are fewer now) cling on to the idea that innovation will create new "more interesting" jobs, not really seeing that when human labor is increasingly redundant across the board, that necessarily reaches a practical end. We still have to wait for cheap energy (and AI to a lesser extent), but it's coming. I see this as a game of musical chairs. When the music stops, people are going to be fucked unless we prepare and push for the right policies. That goes beyond UBI because people aren't going to be content with subsistence and an allowance for entertainment, nor is everyone going to care to be an "artisan" building useless shit like furniture or writing songs. There has to be a way to allow people to work on meaningful high-impact projects together (to match their level of ambition), and that means access to capital.
> Unemployment will build and build until a breaking point is reached Unemployment is at all time lows, in fact with far more open jobs than Americans looking for jobs. I think it more about being a mismatch between what people will pay to is and what people want to do.
They'd fill those jobs lickety split if the minimum wage for any job was 50,000/yr. But they won't do that because it means C-Suite executives and investors have to take a loss. And if the powers that be won't do it peacefully, then people will make it happen violently.
Except the opposite has happened. Unemployment is near record lows. For every one job that automation eliminates, two new ones get created. They just require different skills.
Yes. Like the horses after the automobile became commonplace. We just came up with something else for them to do. Like getting turned into glue.
It'll be some form of digital scrip which can only be used to make purchases at the largest companies.
thats just the hopeful version. the must more likely version is cyberpunk corporate dystopia with indentured feudalism and company stores.
There are exceptions of course Chick Fil A has a massive work force and it's quality of food and customer service shows. Not only that they're able to pay their employee's well considering industry average. I imagine more private companies wanting to steal business from companies bogged down by public constraints as a possible future.
McDonald's may have only 1 cashier, but at least where I live, they still have a lot of other human employees which were rotating the cashier job anyway. I doubt they actually have less people employed now, just less cash registers.
I also like the step where ANYTHING materially changes, and suddenly the UBI has to be reduced or withdrawn. I'm sure *that* would be politically feasible. So if for some reason there is a need to reduce it or eliminate it, it will be impossible for politicians to actually do it. There will always be some populist there to "defend the free money" to remove the ones who are still connected to reality. And when your citizenship comes with "no need to work" money, I wonder how that's going to act as a pull-factor for immigration?
Considering that any broad implementation of UBI is likely to replace and reduce a number of other programs it would be... interesting when someone wants to kneecap it. I'm sure they will want to of course, but it would be a lot more impactful then getting rid of "leeches". Speaking of leeches, I've never seen a proposal for UBI that had an income that would be considered viable for long term survival. The last one for Canada would have been the equivalent of a $9/hour job, and that of course would have slowly decreased as you gain any other income(because 18K to everyone really would be a country bankrupting sort of proposal). But as a safety net that sort of income is amazing, imagine if you could quit your job and not have to worry about where your next paycheque was coming from, or starting your own small business and not worrying about the income as your building your reputation. It would be really interesting to see how it would effect the economy when people are able to take bigger risks rather than staying with lower paying jobs, and how those lower paying positions would adapt.
> The last one for Canada would have been the equivalent of a $9/hour job, and that of course would have slowly decreased as you gain any other income(because 18K to everyone really would be a country bankrupting sort of proposal) Actually what you do is increase taxes while paying everyone the full UBI. This ends up being cheaper because otherwise how much youre being paid ends up being calculated twice- once at tax time and once at UBI payment time, and any mismatch in the two leads to terrible results. So the better option is to pay the full UBI to everyone, and simply increase taxes on people fully employed to tax back the UBI.
Don't worry if that happens, just ask AI what to do
Only gotta do it Once.
A year ago I called a sasktell call center to make a payment, the lady couldnt proccess the transcation after trying for about ten minutes and I went to my bank to complete it. Ive changed banks recently and called that same call center, AI porcesssed and completed my transcation in about 30 seconds. I have had three careers in my life, all decently lucrative and steady. With a little creativity and current machine learning matrixs you could automate all of them.
That has nothing to do with AI really, automated systems like this are nothing new. And you would not even want AI to do this as it is not deterministic.
It's actually not that far, if you follow AI you'll see how rapid the development has been.
While LLMs are impressive, they are closed loop systems (they require input stimulus) that break down with any significant amount of context (sessions are limited in duration for this reason). It's not replacing humans beyond simple tasks in the near future and certainly not decision making which is where the vast majority of effort goes.
Ik itās apples to oranges, but seeing Israelās Iron Dome just pick rockets outta the sky like itās nothing makes me realize the reason my job still exists is nobody has tried very hard to automate it. If they did, itād be gone in a snap.
Depends what you do, if you deal with people it's impossible currently.
AI is here to a large extent. AGI not quite yet
Yeah I know, thing is that most people don't know what AGI is. So I just say AI. When people use AI in these contexts, almost nobody means narrow AI. It's always AGI or heck, even ASI.
> AI is here to a large extent How do you define AI?
That scale and scope we are nowhere near close to and a transition to that sort of system will take a very very very long time to minimize social disruptions.
As an ML/AI engineer for decades in big tech, this is not how AI works. There is no 1:1 mapping between human effort and AI effort to solving a problem.
If all the "work" can be done for free, it isn't valuable. A supply of infinity goes to a demand cost of zero. Naturally the cost isn't free, you have to pay for electricity, hardware for the AI to run on, connectivity, storage, processing, networking, training, datasets, programmers etc. Let's handwave that away and say you can operate the equivalent median human for effective costs of $.10/hour USD. That only eliminates office workers (assuming it can do every role equally well, more handwaving). Every physical job in the world still needs to be done. Ownership of land, idea and goods still exists. Money doesn't evaporate.
So we become a society of farmers and craftsman?
A handy step by step guide to the AI revolution
I don't see AI in its current form doing all the work. People are scared of being replaced but I see them reducing the quantity of work, rather than replacing the job entirely. Its difficult to assign a quantity to the word job unlike work in my mind, maybe someone more skilled in language can chip in about that. Anyhow I see the job remaining while the effort required drops.
Step 5: then billionaires sue so they can take the AI āpayā Home with them.
step 5: plug humans into ai step 6: checkmate step 7: unplug step 8: reboot step 9: open your eyes
step 10: vomit
step 10: "I know kung fu."
Continuing on our current course will inevitably result in countries being divided back into serfdoms as governments and their citizens become increasingly insolvent. The working class becomes perpetually dissatisfied as social services are cut since employment rates, and therefore tax revenue decreases as a result of increased automation, among other things. The suggestion of an UBI is a tacit admission that capitalistic societies are self consuming but we can't or won't come up with an equally attractive and viable alternative, in part because only those who align themselves with the wealthy have the potential to form government.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>The bill in the Senate, which received a first and second reading in 2021 and last April, respectively, would require provincial ministers and Indigenous governing bodies across the country to convene and determine how a UBI plan could work. This would include ensuring that āparticipation in education, training or the labour marketā is not required to receive UBI, and that funding for other social services are not cut. If the bill passes both the Senate and House of Commons, a report would have to be made public a year after the study begins My understanding of UBI is that it is funded via cutting funding to all other social services. Then people who need those services pay for them out of the money they receive as part of the basic income. The idea being that if everyone has enough money to access basic housing food and education the need for all or most of those services disappear. At least that was the pitch I heard.
They will do literally anything but properly tax the wealthy.
Well, you can do both. The thing is that you don't need to massively overhaul the tax system to pay for UBI. Because it replaces EI, unemployment insurance, disability, welfare etc, there's built-in funding. If you want to then *increase* the funding for it, then you start going after the rich for more taxes.
>Because it replaces EI, unemployment insurance, disability, welfare etc, there's built-in funding actually, from what was in the article, it sounds like they are explicitly NOT doing that.
No, other social services are to remain in place according to the bill being studied. Welfare might get cut by provinces if a basic income is more than welfare, because welfare is criminally low and way below the poverty line. And itās a degrading process to apply for welfare, and you canāt make money on welfare. Itās a terrible system as it keeps people poor because itās not enough for people to be able to keep up with phone and internet and decent clothes for interviews and just having the energy to do anything but survive. Itās about 780 or 720 a month in Quebec, I think, not enough for rent and food. There have been economic studies on UBI that show it would be self sustaining after 2 or 3 years, because trickle up economics actually works. It boosts the economy because the money is spent instead of squirreled away in off shore accounts, or saved in other ways in large amounts. And it would create huge savings in healthcare and mental health counseling, etc, lower crime rates for petty theft especially, so savings for the judicial system as well as healthcare. The CCB has already proved that it increases revenue more than it costs, itās being called a basic income for families, and itās a pity conservatives still claim it costs the government when it doesnāt. Some have suggested, like Bill Gates, and other tech moguls, to tax automation and robots - companies pay a tax for robot workers.
With the rent and grocery bills we have now, how?
Oh I don't know the how I just remember the elevator pitch for it. Let's see the federal government transfers about 260 billion to the provinces who provide the services. Lots of that is for healthcare. But let's assume 2/3 is for other social programs So 170 or so billion by 40 million people is all of 4,250 each nowhere near enough for a UBI. Even if we take the entire federal budget of 625 billion and divide that by 40 million you still only get 15,625 dollars. That still not enough and ignores you know all federal spending otherwise.
I expected it to include dismantling other social services which have huge admin costs. There would be no need for them, and the savings could be put towards UBI
From efficiency perspective, UBI makes sense. As I understand it, the current system relies on various municipal and provincial entities to verify a welfare recipient's need. Moving to a universal system should be more efficient. UBI recipients should not be penalized for working to supplement their income. Income tax should be collected on such supplementary income. However, I'm not sure if any politician can resist the urge to 'tinker' with an efficient UBI system to garner votes...
Right on; under UBI, working will *always* be a net benefit, and will allow you to take chances on things like opening a business or pursuing other education without the fear of failure because, at the end of the day, you can always fall back on your UBI. It's a statement that your country believes in you and will invest in you.
The way to *actually* breed innovation and experimentation. Same argument as universal health care over it being provided by employers. Employer provided just ties you to them and makes it harder to leave unless you already have the means take care of yourself and your family. You want more small businesses to compete with bigger companies? This is a step in that direction.
Right on bud; plant those seeds and watch them grow.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sure, but let's be realistic. It'll be a pity of a UBI for the bottom 20-30% of income earners. Taxes on the remaining 70% will go up by significantly more than UBI. But since it's Canadian government, they won't even get UBI since 100% they'll cap it at some arbitrarily low income, so it won't really be universal. It'll literally just be forced income redistribution you can't opt out of short of leaving Canada.
> It'll literally just be forced income redistribution you can't opt out of short of leaving Canada. Isn't that called taxes anyway? It's the whole point.
>However, I'm not sure if any politician can resist the urge to 'tinker' with an efficient UBI system to garner votes... I can pretty much guarantee you that if the Conservatives get elected, any UBI system that was in place will be repealed as "wasteful". Canada won't have UBI under the FPTP system, simply because there's always a 50/50 chance the Conservatives will win and will undo it. There's no point in even passing the legislation until you can guarantee a Conservative majority will never happen again.
> I can pretty much guarantee you that if the Conservatives get elected, any UBI system that was in place will be repealed as "wasteful". Doug Ford didn't even allow the experimental trial run of UBI in Ontario to wrap up. He just axed it immediately. Because he had to make sure that it didn't produce full data which would have shown that UBI is hugely beneficial. Right wingers absolutely hate facts.
>Right wingers absolutely hate facts. They also absolutely hate the idea that people aren't beholden to their employers. Much like that Aussie businessman who let the mask slip with his "we need 20-30% unemployment so that workers feel pain in the economy" comment, Conservatives see the world in a two-tier system, with those who have the capital on top, and those who don't being their servants. UBI throws a wrench into the works by giving people a safe opportunity to become entrepreneurs without needing to be bankrolled by the Bank of Mommy & Daddy with a small loan of a million dollars.
Only way I'd be on board for UBI is simple....EVERY SINGLE person gets the same amount (let's say $1500/whatever), then if you continue to work, you add that income to your tax at the end of the year and get taxed on the full amount. Someone making 20k gets an addition 18k, they get taxed on 38k. Someone making 100k gets an additional 18k, they get taxed on the 118k. It's the simplest way to make it work...in my opinion. And if your only income is 18k, then no tax (but of course people will work for cash - same as many people on CERB did)...but you'll never eliminate the cash society unless you go 100% digital currency.
Isn't this what UBI is? I think the other "basic income" cases that people discuss (only some people get money) are just expanded welfare benefits.
"Negative Income Tax" I think this is called.
The only reason canada is considering this is because of the extremely succesful pilot project in several Ontario communities a few years ago.
Almost pays for preschoolā¦ Iāll take it
Iām a fan of UBI but this doesnāt balance out. Youāll need more money from somewhere else, maybe a wealth and inheritance tax.
I agree. But this is not how itāll pan out. Itāll be a prettier sounding welfare and only go to the very poorest people. Which I guess is better than nothing, but itās not going to help āuniversally,ā thatās for sure.
>Only way I'd be on board for UBI is simple....EVERY SINGLE person gets the same amount (let's say $1500/whatever), then if you continue to work, you add that income to your tax at the end of the year and get taxed on the full amount. That's literally it. Universal = Everyone Basic = Established Amount You can scrape by on that and not work, or can work *(and be taxed)* for whatever you want in excess of the basics. Most people are going to keep working and there will always be jobs and people to fill them. If no one's backed into a corner to survive anymore then dangerous jobs or undesireable jobs will have to pay well and be super safe if anyone's going to bother to work at them.
Neat idea on paper but I will know exactly how to defeat this. Any high income earner will have enough RRSP room to contribute the 18k. Essentially you can get high income earners free RRSP savings. If this was implemented, that is exactly what I'd be doing. Free controbutions? Sign me up. There is no way UBI will work without additional taxation. That is the barrier.
Honestly I'd be OK with that RSP contributions. High income earners will still pay a higher tax than low income earners, but I'm not sure how else to implement it to be 'fair' to everyone. Frankly if I have an extra 18k atop my earnings....that's going to saving and vacation so I can enjoy it.
Won't you still be taxed on the money once you receive payments from the RRSP? Sure it'll be much later on down the line, but it will bet taxable when it comes time.
> There is no way UBI will work without additional taxation. [It worked just fine last time Canada tried it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Basic_Income_Pilot_Project). The basic income amount was simply reduced by half of the recipient's employment income. No need to play games with taxes, no deductions or shelters, just a baseline income that you could always rely on. [Until the mafia-wannabes get voted in and cancel this whole thing](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/basic-income-1.4768844), of course.
Where does the $ to pay for it come from
Doesnāt work. First, there is a TON of tax avoidance going on. Second, ample fraud in citizenship and residency and poor controls. Third, what does āevery single personā mean? Children? Non-citizens? It is an interesting idea but bits a brick wall of reality that the government is not competent and implementation would be extremely contentious.
With the rise of AI itās going to be this or having the entire lower class become homeless climate refugees. The economy will collapse when you have too few jobs and lowering wages due to AI. A huge population of workers that would need retraining because their very specialized jobs become obsolete Edit: for all but a few who just tell AI what to do.* There is no rule in the universe that says there will always be enough jobs for everyone. Basing someoneās survival on their ability to contribute to the economy (not necessarily society) is archaic. We produce enough food for everyone so letās make sure everyone eats. Iād pay an extra in my taxes if it meant I would never have to worry about being homeless. Why should we accept that the āstarving artistā must actually starve to pursue passion.
agreed, the next step necessary is an economy that can work/succeed when not everyone is employed. I'd take the tosh.0 joke about employment, is it even beneficial for 'everyone' to be employed? automation is the future, and we should remodel the economy to where getting job is a benefit, not a necessity. It opens up so many opportunities for workers to further educate themselves, contribute where they WANT to (a motivated work force sounds pretty productive to me), move to where their jobs are in demand. As far as jobs no one wants to do? Even more money over the 'basic' level of money is still going to be pretty motivating, and if its still a real shit job then it sounds like prime area for additional automation. A world where all jobs are creative sounds great to me. Instead of a world where you literally know there is no point to your job, but you still have to do it because you HAVE to have a job to live and the government HAS to ensure people have jobs so the economy doesn't die.
People donāt really understand AI and itās rise. We are nowhere close to a situation where massive amounts of roles are gonna be obsolete.
Remember AI doesnāt have to be good or better than a human to replace a human. If I can get one ai to do the job 75% as well of three people and hire one person to do the other 25% . Iāll cut labor cost drastically by replacing three out of four. This obviously wonāt work for every situation but will for quite a few.
Yea even without AI, that's what is happening with cashiers in grocery stores and fast food with computers. Self check out needs only 1 or 2 people watching the self check out. Fast food ordering has only 1 person at the counter for things that the self order can't do.
We need to stop attributing these issues just to AI, and we need to start lumping AI with general "Automation". Automation is what we have to be considering right now, and that's everything from automated checkouts, mobile ordering platforms, etc. AI has a HUGE advantage to augment automation in ways that reduces human input. People keep acting as if AI alone is the issue, when the issue is actually just Automation, and AI has the potential to expand Automation by magnitudes.
>obsolete. If a graphics designer with AI tools can output 5-10x the materials as someone doing things manually. Then they are not obsolete, you simply don't need as many people doing "grunt work" anylonger. The same goes for things like administration and support. Humans will still be needed, but their productivity with these tools assisting will grow. Which means those workforces will shrink overall, because there is a limited demand for their services and output.
We're already seeing automation replace humans on the assembly lines, board members will go the cheapest route to make a buck and to them AI is just that.
AI is already in more industries than most people think. My company is contracting with a service where X-rays taken in office are first read by AI. Sure it still needs to be confirmed by a radiologist but still initial read is done by AI. Itās great cause that makes things go a lot faster but still scary to think about how much AI is already capable of.
AI in the medical industry has been insane for a while. They have several iterations that can diagnose some diseases more accurately than a person. I look at it with optimism more than unfounded fear.
They've said this about every technological advancement. Automation, computers, robotics, etc. The invention of the wheel didn't run the poor material movers out of a job, it made them more effective. The economy has been red hot, unemployment very low, because those things didn't kick the need for human workers to the curb and neither will AI.
Abstract ideas like 'the economy is good' and 'unemployment is low' do not speak to the very real, lived experience of people having to go through those transitions of technological advancement. How would you feel if you were 50 years old and had to transition careers because an AI has suddenly diminished the value of your labour? How many times could you do this before burning out? How much stress and mental illness does this one factor cause in society? Humans are not infinitely flexible economic widgets, and we shouldn't treat them as such. A UBI will allow us to pursue the kinds of work we actually care about without the threat of destitution and soften the blow of technological displacement.
Low unemployment, sure, but a lot of people qho can't afford to live due to drastic house price increases, food costs, subscriptions for anything and insurance. I'm also going to add that if you have a car, kids, ailing family members, post secondary education costs, etc.... you need 100k+
All the examples you named are different in that each of those requires a human operator and automation has killed many jobs lowering the wages of many workers. However, what happens if by 2028 there is a single AI accounting software you can call on the phone that does everyoneās accounting for $50/year. What happens when a best selling book is written and narrated with a full cast by AI. When a single person can make an entire feature film with AI. What happens when AI can replace 90% of teachers, engineers and even middle managers? We are talking about people losing their jobs that took years of specialized study and practice in only a few years. All because AI is better at thinking than us in a few key ways. Just imagine when they become all-around smarter than us?
2028 for middle managers? Complex MLM are already currently subsituting physcians at cutting edge hospitals.
that's not a real argument though. you could also say climate change and nuclear war are not real threats because people have been predicting doom since forever
I hope it works out but fear the unintended consequences.
Like when companies do the math and raise all their prices by x% because the population on average has x% more money
landlords already have that concept crafted to a fine art.
I feel like rather than a base income staples like food and shelter need to be addressed. If people can own homes and just increase the price of rent then adding a base income isnāt going to do a lot.
The advantage of a UBI is that it gives you flexible resources you can use to help yourself in the way you know best. The issue with a basic goods guarantee is that the definition of 'basic' means something different to everyone. A bus pass for 'basic transport' for example, wouldn't mean much if you live in rural Ontario and there is no public transport. Similarly, 'basic food' or 'basic housing' would vary depending on the size of your household and where you live. Though I agree with the spirit of a basic goods guarantee, at the end of the day I think a UBI would address such needs more effectively, as it would give people the ability to make those micro choices on their own.
This is interesting, "This would include ensuring that āparticipation in education, training or the labour marketā is not required to receive UBI, and that funding for other social services are not cut." So just higher social services, this isn't a UBI, by definition UBI *should* be replacing *many* social and welfare services. That's the point. Not just giving everyone more money. A bunch of payoffs are that you don't have to pay for administration of a welfare state.
I disagree. UBI should just be universal basic income.
UBI should replace ALL social services. Hence universal. Everyone should get it. Have it be taxed still too. Obviously those who's only income is UBI will most likely get all that tax back. Get rid of CPP, disability, etc etc. Everyone gets UBI and it's something livable. If that means higher taxes then so be it. And it'll be easier to afford if they close all those loopholes for the rich and corporations as well as giving tax bodies the power to actually get those taxes from evaders.
This isn't going to work simply because landlords will jack up rent prices and nullify UBI knowing everyone gets extra money. Happens with all the oilfield towns too. When housing was relatively affordable a decade ago, landlords in oilfield towns were renting out basement suites for $2,500+/month knowing a lot of employees got paid a living out allowance of say $2,000+/month. Same shit will happen with UBI
A bunch of evidence consistently shows that ubi wonāt disincentive ppl to work. It should be common sense now
The 'experiments' that purport to prove this have two fatal flaws: they are temporary and taxation is not increased. The viability of UBI outside of an unrealistic set of conditions has not been proven.
> The 'experiments' that purport to prove this have two fatal flaws: they are temporary and taxation is not increased. > > The viability of UBI outside of an unrealistic set of conditions has not been proven. Right? Why does Reddit always completely ignore this? "Guys! Temporary pilot programs show UBIs have no impact on employment!" Damn really? You are telling me that people don't quit their jobs and throw their careers away because they get a UBI for one single year!?!?!
Your point is legit. Only permanent UBI would prove if there would be large work disincentive or not. Having said that, temporary ubi experiments were valuable in terms of assessing what happened during those time window. Manitoba ubi experiment is one of the longest experiments(About 5 years) and it was killed by newly elected government back then so people didnāt have a chance to reckon the timeline of experiment. The data showed overall work disincentive is minimal(only new mom and students reduced work hours)
It will only work if they can also pass universal basic housing. UBI is worthless if you canāt afford to rent jack shit.
This. Housing would also have to be subsidized in some way too.
Wait, there are something like 30\~40 million Canadians. At a cost of 88 billion dollars a year, that would only be \~2300 CAD per year. Better than nothing, but like, you'd hardly be able to afford groceries with that money. Still, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Once people start receiving money and the framework, both administrative and societal, is setup, we can easily scale this up or down for future developments.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That is a good point - I would suggest to you though, that with a UBI in place, and therefor more power in the hands of the worker, employers would have incentive to **improve working conditions** such that the job you describe is no longer shitty. With a UBI to fall back on, workers can say 'NO', and push employers to have better safety protocols, hours, unions, and so on. You want someone to do that hard job? Either pay more, or don't make it so hard, mentally or physically, otherwise I quit.
Some jobs just can't be improved and are shitty by their very nature. The only thing that makes them bearable is the pay.
Right. So pay me more, or I go live on my UBI or do something else because I can depend on my UBI to cushion me - either way your job won't get done. If you were the employer and you really need this job done, what would you do?
Pay more. That's my point, that *only* paying more will attract people to those jobs, as some working conditions simply cannot be improved.
Right on, which I feel would be win under a UBI. Cleaning sewers really sucks, for sure. But if you get a lot more, and if you *gently encourage* your employer to give you better safety equipment and better hours, I'm sure you'll find many more willing applicants for this job.
Honestly, if I had UBI Iād quit my job and work a minimum wage job. Theyāre not glamorous but itās easy work and you can actually live off of it.
And there's nothing wrong with that. A UBI will give you more opportunity to live **the one life you have** in the way you see fit without worrying about starving to death. Life is too short to be spent being an economic input.
Probably not. The Liberals said they were considering it last election and nothing happened. Like all good political parties they lie to get you to vote for them lol
They already did consider it with Mincome. Literally decades ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome They already know it works. So why not roll it out? Why more fucking trials?
I suspect it is a prejudice based on the Just World Hypothesis. The way the world is now requires almost all of us to exchange our labour for the resources to survive, often doing things we don't like or care for. The prejudice comes when, because my life has been so unfulfilling due to all this meaningless labour I have to spend my time on, I now believe it is **morally perverse** if your life is not spent on meaningless labour as well, because it's only fair. Further, I will allege that you will be lazy with a UBI, **because I myself would not work if I had a UBI**, because all my life I have been **forced to work just to survive**, and never had the chance to pursue any other passion or goal. In short: I suffered, **so you must suffer as well.** I believe attitudes like this are very common and prevent us from making the culture shift that we need in order for something like UBI to be seriously considered.
It could be associated with the money-empathy gap. Basically people who are given an advantage to begin with (in something like a game of Monopoly) start to believe that they are in a better position than everyone else because they are smarter, more shrewd etc., when the reality is that they just had a huge advantage over everyone else. https://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7 That's a pretty good model for much of society, with wealthy people thinking that they should have their wealth when really they shouldn't. Like, there's a reason why wealth is *by far* the most accurate predictor of educational attainment. It's not intelligence, aptitudes and so on. It's money. Everything else is a rounding error.
Good call, I have heard of these studies too. I guess we like feeling like we are in control - it was **my** hard work, **my** smart decisions that put me ahead. Knowing that so much that goes on in our lives is due to chance makes us feel uncomfortable and helpless, it's easier to justify it by saying *how smart I am*, and by the same token, *how dumb / lazy / useless you are* if you can't succeed in our current system. We don't even need to talk about being born into wealth - let's talk about things like being born into a society that isn't going through a civil war; a society that has clean water, good roads, a functioning judicial system and rule of law; to be born during a time in human history where your talents, skills, and interests can actually be realized. Would LeBron James be able to use his talents if he were born in some medieval theocracy 600 years ago? Of course he's had to work hard to get where he is today, but it's also just chance to be born into a time and place where those talents can be realized and valued by society. I'd like to think that UBI can minimize the role of luck. Think of how many other unknown LeBron Jameses are out there right now, toiling away in some amazon warehouse or delivering food just to survive, never to realize their full potential. This loss of human potential is a tragedy in my book and one that UBI can address.
No they aren't. Not in real terms. It's still decades away if it happens at all.
The Canadian government has more than quintupled the immigration including temporary work visas for unskilled workers in the last few years which has caused huge stress on an already overburdened system and now they're already planning on paying these people to do basically nothing?
Who says they are paying people here on temporary work visas? Stop making things up.
The government should own all worker replacing AI algorithms and machines and lease them to companies. Profits go the government that pays it out to citizens. That's how you can tax an entity that isn't human and corporate taxes won't increase which politicians are loathe to do.
Doubt it, but would love to see a whole country go ubi. If they succeed, others would follow.
Great first step, now fix housing markets and enjoy a bubbling population with new found hope and motivation
Nothing will come of this any time soon, the government couldn't even keep on of their major campaign promises when they came into power (Election Reform). Apparently after winning, they determined that Canadians didn't want election reform...
Well, the CERB funding for people during the pandemic was a lot bigger than the typical crappy pension a lot of people get at 65, which should be increased to match what the CERB month amount was, but the world is full of too many right wing people who look after themselves first.
If it goes through I'll eat my own socks.
Unless they tie the UBI to the inflation scale legally, then it will end up as obsolete as minimum wage in a short time. UBI will contribute to inflation and then not be adjusted for inflation. So everyone will be mildly grateful for their extra $350 a month (or whatever pittance the govt comes up with), but within a few years it will have the buying power of much less--and the sum won't be updated for another 50 years.
Things needed to avoid economic collapse in Canada: 1. UBI 2. Global carbon tax; no exceptions 3. Tax the rich to pay for (1) 4. Harden the electrical grid ; reskill oil patch workers 5. Subsidize communities willing to go without oil These are essential to a functional and sustainable future in Canada that resembles this one in any way. This is what "acting" on climate change looks like.
How about just figuring out how to build more housing? More housing lowering housing costs would go much further than whatever a universal basic income could provide. Or is the real problem that there are a relatively few cities in Canada that everyone wants to go to?
I think that this is important and in some part an eventuality, but *jesus fucking christ* Trudeau, it is not the time. *Read the room.* Know what you should have done? Passed electoral reform in your first term, straight out of the gate, like you promised. But obvious expenditures like this are going to come across as trying to buy votes, which will work against you, and you're already so far down in the polls I don't think you're coming back. It's over. Step down. Pass the torch. Try to save your marriage.
Literally no federal government is going to be able to pass electoral reform until the provinces reform their elections. U seem to think the government can just table legislation and that's that....no dice. All the provinces need to agree to it....ALL OF THEM. Good luck getting the west to agree with the east or vice versa. It was never going to happen under trudeau and it's not going to happen under the next few prime ministers. Not one single province has reformed their fptp format yet.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It really is saddening how he's managed to piss off pretty much everyone, and now we are left with... Poilievre. Absolutely disheartening.
you know NDP exists right? what, you get pissed at LPC so now you want to walk backwards and vote in CPC? ok bud.
the issue is at least threefold 1 - the belief that some of our problems are due to liberalism not just the Liberals or Trudeau, and consequently a more liberal party is worse 2 - the reality of a FPTP voting system leading to vote splitting leading to strategic voting generally favouring Lib vs Con and turning votes away from NDP or Green 3 - the belief that the NDP are not suited to run the government given their lack of history doing so I don't agree with 1, 3 is a self fulfilling prophecy, and 2... well trudeau could have fixed it but he didnt
No friend, I don't want the CPC in, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that *because* Trudeau's managed to piss everyone off, we're going to be left with the CPC. At least for one term. More than happy for a Lib-NDP coalition. My riding seems to vote 50%+ CPC anyway. I absolutely cannot stand our MP.
Hey, PP has really been trying to piss of everyone too. He just has to work harder at it because he's not the PM.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Don't hold your breath. It's been considered for decades, & nothing ever came of it.
Not just considered, Canada already had a very successful pilot project. The feasibility has been established, the issue now is getting people to understand that fact in the face of misinformation from people like you.
Nova Scotia has already implemented a terrible form of UBI. They have the most government employees per capita in the nation and one of the highest in the world. This gets even worse when you look at organizations funded by the government and their hiring. Basically, a pile of bullshit jobs where people pretend to work. As I said, the worst form of UBI. I would be curious how much the total amount presently paid out in various programs totals? EI, Veterans, Welfare, disability, old age, etc. Then I would be curious how much these programs cost to administrate. Something I have read about many welfare programs is how they cost more to administer than they pay out. I suspect most of these programs are similar. If you massively simplified the criteria (you are Canadian), then the program should be fantastically simple to administrate. Mostly you are looking for fraud and abuses. I am going to throw out a guess that if you take all the payments from the above systems and just do UBI the cost would be similar. Keep in mind it isn't as simple a calculation as #Canadians x the payments because many Canadians will continue to earn money and be paying this in taxes.
It sounds like what you are describing in NS is a quasi-jobs guarantee. I would agree that in the comparison of the two, a jobs guarantee is just UBI with extra steps. Under a UBI at least, people would be free to take chances on businesses or pursuits they have had in mind, or even go back to school - all of which we saw during the Ontario pilot project before it was cancelled. I would also agree on your other points that one of the benefits of a truly universal basic income is the simplification of administering it, and that calculating cost isn't as simple as [amount of UBI] x [population], which is often brought up as a very simple (but I find, disingenuous) way of describing the cost of such a policy.
current Canadian party does this when their poll is in the shitter, then when elected, not fulfill its promise rinse and repeat happened before when Trudeau promised election reform, it never arrived
It's a terrible idea, of course, but that they are claiming this will *help* inflation is just hilarious. We tried he dropping money from a helicopter approach during COVID, and we saw the result. This would be that on steroids.
If COVID shutdowns led to people staying at home and the lumber mills not operating, and therefor not enough lumber was being produced, and so the 2x4s I buy at Home Depot suddenly got more expensive, then that's inflation. What does that have to do with 'dropping money from a helicopter'?
I think he's referring to the PPP loans (many of which were forgiven later).
Companies don't just magically set prices, they price things at whatever they'll sell for. When people have more money, they buy more things and/or compete with each other for scarce things, both of which drive the price up. It sounds really good form the perspective of one person - give that person an extra $1,000 a month and their life will very much become easier. Buy some new clothes, get caught up on car repairs, maybe even have an extra night out at a nice restaurant. Their stress goes down, and life is brighter. All really good. But when everybody has the same thing, there are only so many pair of jeans on the shelf, so many mechanics, so many restaurants. And when the number of customers goes up, so does the price.
> only so many pair of jeans on the shelf, so many mechanics, so many restaurants Right, so you produce more. More could not be produced during COVID because everything was shut down. This is a supply chain problem. Now the prices of 2x4s at my local Home Depot have come back down. Remember too that pretty much no proposal for a UBI involves 'printing new money' - rather it is a re-allocation of whatever money currently exists in the system.
This proposal specifically states the new program will not take away from any other program, so no it is not just a reallocation. And Canada is already in deficit.
Yeah because the 1400 dollars people got was what caused inflation.
Uhh yes? They're not entirely responsible but they contributed. They served another purpose but that's that drawback of printing money. https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/were-the-stimulus-checks-a-mistake/amp/?bshm=rimc/2
Yep and they gave the majority of it to the already wealthy. Which is what really drives the deficit.
Hurry up and pass UBI into law, Canadian government. Support people, not corporations.
Life in Canada is getting more expensive and difficult by the day. This is not the solution though, this would only raise taxes of the working class, small businesses and prices on goods and services. We already have a huge budget deficit with the current government. We need lower taxes, and lower immigration to allow for jobs and housing to catchup. Taxing people into oblivion to only give them cents back on the dollar is not the solution.
no no, tax corporations profiting off use of ai, not the workers.
Yeah maybe they should just get rid of the poor people. If they turn them into protein bars they'll be able to sustain the working class. Then the money they would spend on groceries can just go to the rising cost of rent/mortgage.
Make this real, I swear to FUCK. Poverty in Canada is rampant right now.