207
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
207 points (98.6% liked)
News
35915 readers
3369 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm a proponent of UBI, but that has nothing to do with the "IF everyone benefits from it in the form of higher wages/less working hours due to the higher productivity" philosophy OP posted though.
With UBI, Jim would be getting basic income (like everyone else) irrespective if he ever had the job in the example or not, and irrespective if the automation occurred or not.
Automation, in the case of UBI, would mean that the productivity gain would translate into less hour worked, with a minimum guaranteed revenue every month/year.
The reality is that automation efficiency is going straight into capitalists pockets. And people having a bigger workload for the same amount of money as before.
Without a societal shift, automation is not for the benefits of the general populace.
That is a typical answer I get to my question. It fully contains the philosophy that automation gains will somehow be funneled into state coffers or UBI initiatives but its completely missing in any substance about how that translates into reality.
I gave an example with Jim above. At the end, Jim is out of work, and the organization has gained money because they aren't paying Jim, and their automation is doing the work now. Does your actual implementation of your philosophy attempt to tax or clawback some of what Jim was being paid? If so, how and against what metrics? Alternatively, do you propose that what pays the UBI is completely divorced from what the organization earns or pays?
I wasn't the original OP.
Capitalism as it is applied today is incompatible with any kind of increase in quality of life for the general population and any efficiency gain is pocketed by the richs, and the different branches of the government are captured in pretty much every country in the world.
In a fairer world, companies would be highly taxed. To reduce the taxation burden, companies would need to invest in R&D, employees compensation and community building/support, which would include a UBI of some sort. Companies could still generate profit, but not in the absurd amount that we are seeing today.
In that context, automation would be a no brainer.
But I genuinely believe that UBI or anything similar will not happen in my lifetime because rich people's influence is too strong and the common person will vote against their interests because of the constant barrage of propaganda.
I appreciate you taking about some general approaches you would like to see for your vision of UBI, but I'm still not seeing much actual application of what would happen for Jim, or his prior employer.
To talk specifics I'm seeing we could do it from one of two periods of time:
Each will have their own challenges and problems, so I want you to choose the best situation for your scenario. I'm trying to set you up for success in this conversation, because I want it to work too. However, I have yet to see a complete picture which I can see working.
I'm guessing you'd like to work through this scenario in an example where your version of UBI is fully implemented and how it works for Jim in that siutation. Can we go from there?
I have a different idea. The government should provide a jobs guarantee. There are plenty of things that need to be fixed in this country, and Jim can apply whatever skills he has to fixing some of them.
That would be a separate approach apart from mitigation against automation as @mitram@sopuli.xyz suggested. Its also separate from the UBI approach that scintilla@crust.piefed.social suggested. This third approach of a government jobs guarantee could certainly dive into, but that doesn't address the two other incomplete approaches provided so far.
Sure, but I'm not particularly interested in UBI. I think it makes the status quo income and wealth inequality permanent and sets it on a course to be ever expanding.
If the overwhelming majority of able-bodied and sound-minded people cannot be organized to do useful work in the system you have, the system is inadequate, and needs to be supplemented.
This country is falling apart physically and psychologically. There's enough work for anyone willing to do it to repair this place for a lifetime.