Accurate Offhand

In my last post titled Base Income Without Base, I wrote…

You can feel free to argue the base income doesn’t have to be a happy one, but I maintain it really doesn’t ultimately matter (even $30,000, for a quick offhand example, results in a similarly odd calculated read).

Then there’s this (Slashdot post on UBI), which says this…

The interview was published ahead of the Switzerland’s vote on a universal basic income (or UBI) in June. If successful, all Swiss adults would get $2,500 per month

$2,500 monthly is $30,000 yearly (for anyone preferring to avoid the math). The “odd calculated read” referred to my calculator being unable to handle the government (i.e. taxpayer) cost of UBI at $30,000 yearly for the roughly 300,000,000 Americans (instead, I got “…”).

I wonder if my offhand tapped into reality somewhere else, but who should care? Nobody. Moving on…

I sincerely hope none of you fall for the UBI nonsense. Sure it looks tantalizing (especially for the people working shit jobs), but it’s an economic disaster in the making, if it becomes law.

Here’s the Slashdot snapshot of the the pro-UBI argument…

First, on the need for a UBI: “For the first time in the history of technology more jobs are destroyed than created. Technical progress means that more and more high-paying jobs will disappear and thus shrink the middle class. This will in turn cause a further concentration of income and wealth in the upper classes. That’s why I fight like a basic income for sociopolitical reforms. The robotization [of work] has long been underway, but robots don’t buy products. Therefore, a basic income is needed to offset this change and stabilize a society which has an increasing wealth inequality.” Then, on why you need a UBI if you already have a good job: “What good is a well-paying job, if you are afraid to lose it? This constant fear paralyzes.”

Robots replacing humanity?

That fallacious argument has been made for decades (if not centuries). To validate that argument, there must be an assumption concluding a static job market, where roles are fixed with robots gradually replacing them.

However, the job market is obviously dynamic, and while robots take over basic manufacturing positions, new jobs (e.g. administrative ones at robotics makers) open up with all of the products and services resulting from an increasingly robotized society.

Robots don’t buy products?

Not yet, but robots are being taught to learn necessarily by suffering, which basically means robotic demands for products and services upon excessive suffering will logically ensue.

I’m done here. If you believe in UBI, you’re part of another UBI — Universal Bullshit Initiative.

I am an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an artist working and resting to best carefully contribute towards helping society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest -- all within a sometimes offbeat style of psychedelic artistry.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Liberty Shield

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

my pEarthly and earthly self blended together via the energy of the reality "There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them." – Niels Bohr

Feel free to join us in seamlessly riding our boundless community waves.

Fun through serious, my carefully formed results are honest and usually offer a freshly unique view.

Follow Spirit Wave Journal on
Thank You
Thank you for your undeniably necessary role for (and as part of) my beloved 3Fs (family, friends, and fans).
Help Needed

Helping raise awareness and any other constructive way to participate in our growing community is equally appreciated.

Legal Disclaimer

Spirit Wave (“entertainer” herein) disclaims that entertainer only publicly posts content (“entertainment” herein) for entertainment purposes only. You (the reader of this sentence) agree to the fullest extent permissible by law that entertainer is not liable for any damage. Moreover, entertainer never advocates breaking the law, so any expression involving drug use is addressed solely to anyone capable of lawfully engaging in that use.

%d bloggers like this: