Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     5 years ago (edited) 

    Good and to the point, though while I can see billionaire tech bros supporting UBI, I don't think capital in general will be so thrilled with the idea.

    One of the my first posts on Steemit was on automation and how we could reduce our working hours without hitting our productivity or salaries. I think this can address many of the problems that UBI wants to tackle without the social stigma, it should be about distributing wealth properly to begin with, not partially fixing it a posteriori with UBI. Automation could free up a substantial part of the work week. If automation were to replace, say, 70% of the workload in a given business, that would mean that each worker would see more or less a 70% reduction in their total working time. There's no need to lower wages (certainly not significantly) or fire anybody because the ensuing automation would allow the business to carry on with the same level of productivity (or probably even more as a function of cost). If automation allows for increased productivity then you can actually hire more people as you further reduce workhours. Of course, under capitalism this is a laughable notion as you can maximize profits by firing people.

    Before the workers movement, the current 35-48 hour workweek was largely a dream. Who knows what the average workweek could look like in a better future.

    $0.05
    • Past Payouts $0.05
    • - Author $0.03
    • - Curators $0.02
    2 votes
    Reply
    [-]
     5 years ago  

    ...it should be about distributing wealth properly to begin with, not partially fixing it a posteriori with UBI. [...] Of course, under capitalism this is a laughable notion as you can maximize profits by firing people.

    That's exactly the point! :-) Thanks so much for the response and your continued interest in my posts my friend :-)

    [-]
     5 years ago  

    We should not have got to point where a UBI is "needed"

    Posted using Partiko Android