• @a4ng3l@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    441 year ago

    You already have universal basic income where you guys are living ? Failing that it’s solely less low qualification jobs and more concentration of revenues for the few above. I don’t see that as « a net positive » -although semantically, those laid off would not be workers anymore so in that you’re right. Horrifically so.

    • TheMurphy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      UBI is necessary for this to be positive, so that’s our problem. Not the machines taking the job.

      Don’t throw shit at this, throw it at politicians.

      • @Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And yet you cheer on the loss of jobs and hand wave away issues as someone else’s problem. That makes you part of the problem as the side cheering on the destruction of people’s lives. Seriously how do you “workless utopia” fuckwits not see this?

        I know how actually: you don’t work these jobs and it will make you feel better about your demand for more and excessive consumption because “well at least it didn’t hurt a human” but it does and will. You speak from an ivory tower and say it will be good when you hear less screams from below without caring for how the screaming stops.

        • TheMurphy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          I actually just want UBI so every single working class can get the basic needs instead of the rich getting richer.

          I’m pretty sure I’m in the ground, and not in a tower with this opinion.

          • @Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            Sure but right now that isn’t happening and robotics dismantling jobs destroying income is real. We are focusing on idealism and not reality.

            Wanting it is fine but advocating that it’s the only solution right now is not.

          • TwoGems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            B-but the billionaires will get angry you have your basic needs met despite it not hurting them whatsoever! You might actually not be a slave for a few seconds!

          • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 year ago

            The pandemic showed us that people shouldn’t have their income tied to the government.

            The corporations should be required to fund public housing. No one pays more then 10% of their income.

      • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -111 year ago

        I have really mixed feelings about automated UBI societies. UBI needs to be tied to some form of “adulting” otherwise you’re just going to end up enabling people. The idea of tying people’s income to performing certain tasks is also very scary for the potential of abuse. Letting people sit at home and be slobs all day will get us Brave New World.

        I think the way to help people is to drastically lower the cost of housing and other essential costs. A government allowance just makes people slaves to the government.

        I feel like UBI only works out when people have very strong religious morals that give them discipline and will stop them from becoming fat slobs if they don’t need to work.