Topic: Creating a guaranteed minimum income through crypto-coins (Read 14970 times)

What a brilliant comment. I completely agree with you. I would much rather see a world without money. How about a world not based on money which breeds individualism but on unity. Imagine if we could combine the minds and skills of the people? How great would the world be?

There are already many coin similar to this, check out motocoin.

Some sort of place where human input is needed that can provide a stable salary is known as a job
In cryto I guess it would be a miner but until we develop 3D engagement systems we probally won't need maintenance teams in the cloud where cryto coins would be useful.
A nice ideal though

We already have vending machines and they do not replace many jobs as they usually sell things that would not otherwise be sold at their locations.

Solar energy is not free or even cheap. Counting the costs to buy the solar panels and their expected useful life span solar energy is more expensive then other forms of energy, it is just that the government has chosen to subsidize the solar energy market temporarily

Solar electricity can power robots so I don't think electricity is the issue. I think repair can be made by letting robots make a profit and pay for its own repairs with its savings.

I do think robots eventually will be dramatically cheaper for the service industry. It will start with vending machines and slowly progress to robots.

Even with these inefficiencies the cost of tipped service labor is likely to be less then that of the electric and maintenance costs of a robot.

Tipped labor has an incentive to attempt to sell the most product as their pay is linked directly to their sales as well as the level of service they provide. Tipped labor also has incentives not to be inefficient as in your examples as their level of service would decrease. 

Have you ever seen a robot steal office supplies?  Have you ever seen a robot take a smoke break without clocking out?  Have you ever seen a robot watch youtube cat videos on the boss' dime.

Man reigns supreme!

If you use a robot for one year it will likely be more expensive then one years salary for a bartender.

You will still need to pay for things like repairs and electricity for the robot. If you are paying the bartender only $2.13 per hour then these expenses would potentially exceed what you would pay the bartender.

A robot will also not be able to effectively upsell and encourage additional sales the same ways that a human can. 

Repair and maintenance cost of robot are expensive. You could argue health care cost is expensive also.


Hence, you have all the corporation outsourcing their entire production to 3rd world country where they don't have to pay for health care nor pay for polluting the environment.

It depends.

Robots you pay for once. Humans you pay for continuously. Once you buy the robot then it doesn't get tired, it doesn't ask for a salary or sleep.

A robot bartender will cost lot more than a human one.   Makes no economic sense

When people work less productivity still goes up. Technology increases productivity.

So why do we need people to work? Automation is going to replace most of the jobs that people do and then what? Then people will be out of work and machines will do it. This is a similar situation to when we got rid of the draft and made enlistment voluntary.

So why hold onto a legacy attitude designed for the previous century? Adapt to the changing times bro.

The economy does not need them working. If it did then it would pay them significantly more than they'd get from Basic Income or anything else.

Let's face the modern reality,  the service and retail jobs will not be done by humans for much longer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDJc1NoGg2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Teo6veZOg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLTPbdT87a4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt0KOp5UiAI

Why would you need a human bartender or restaurant waiter in an era where the restaurants are being automated along with the bartender. The human worker culture of life is being phased out and human workers just aren't as important as they once were with the machines coming online.

This is why unions don't have much power anymore.

One of the problems of guaranteed minimum income is that many people who are perfectly capable of working will refuse to do so because they do not feel the need to.

Ironically that is also the problem of capitalism, as people with enough money will just retire early (in fact that's the whole point of making money).

I think any system based on money will encourage some people to not contribute to society, that's why a society-based system would be so much better.

I remember seeing a threat about the danger of robots stealing our jobs. This is not a new topic either. When industrial revolution started some people predicted all jobs would be eventually outsourced to machines, but back than it was considered a good thing, and in fact it should be.

Some things require human thought and skills machines will never be able to perform, but most jobs can be perfectly handled by machines, fully automated, and much cheaper, faster, efficient and less wasteful than a human ever could. This would mean that no human would ever be required to work 40 hours a week, and leave us free to do what we desire most, while occasionally doing some light jobs that machines can't do. The whole world would benefit from it.

However in the current capitalistic world the only thing that would happen is that whoever replaced their workforce with robots will just safe a lot on wages and make a huge profit, but it will not directly benefit anyone other than the stakeholders of the company. In fact all the employees who got fired will be off way worse.

So even though the productivity and efficiency of the world increased, and by extension "true wealth" increased, relative wealth decreased for all but the very rich investors. That's one of the many things wrong with capitalism. Fiat money (and even gold/bitcoin) are not an accurate representation of true wealth, and people are more concerned about their own short term interest than about the long term interest of the world as a whole.

Guaranteeing income is the best way to keep people from working.

Take disability insurance for example. The vast majority of people who go on disability (via social security) will never return to the workforce. In order to qualify for disability you must have some issue that "prevents" you from working for at least 1 year. Once you qualify for disability you continue to receive it assuming you do not earn (via a job) income over a certain amount for live (until retirement age at which point you receive social security "retirement" income). Most disabilities that people use to get on disability are not really preventing a person from working, but rather the fact that the person does not want to work.

Extended unemployment insurance is another good example.

When a person has a guaranteed income while looking for a job (unemployment) then they will have less of an incentive to be serious about looking for work until this guaranteed income is about to stop. There is a very high percentage of people who would "look" for work for a year or two years while on unemployment, then once their benefits expire would find a job within weeks (or find a job very close to the end of the benefit)

captchacoin??

They way to do it is to provide universal basic capital. Universal basic income still requires there be corporations or businesses providing products and services. Universal basic capital is owning shares in these businesses.

So if your community owns shares or if your nation owns them then the profit of the corporations would become a dividend. This dividend could be the universal basic dividend paid to every citizen or community member.

You don't need to tax anyone or redistribute wealth. Wealth creation itself would create the dividend just as it currently does for the small handful of shareholders we have. If everyone had their fair share of ownership then if capitalism does work it works for everyone.

Also it would make things more democratic. So if you're an anarcho-capitalist or a left-libertarian it would still work in your favour. If you're a billionaire then you don't have to worry about your taxes going up because it's not funded by taxes. What you would have to worry about is competition from decentralized businesses owned by communities.

If you're part of the community today we could take a snapshot of every member of the Bitcointalk forum. We could make each one prove they are human. We could then give each one beta access to a new kind of DAC or decentralized application.

This DAC would buy shares in other DACs and then hold them on behalf of the community. If the laws allow then these shares could be turned into real shares or signed over to each member who verifies they are a unique biological individual. The shares would then be legally signed over to them or given to them over Ethereum.

What happens next? Well this app would not be an ordinary app. Users of the app would earn shares in the app. The more you use the app the more potential shares you could earn. As the app becomes more profitable your shares would pay dividends from transaction fees. It's also possible to burn the transaction fees and cause deflation which also has the same effect.

The app would be 1.0. As a 2.0 is made or when different people make new DACs then they would simply airdrop to the shareholders of the original 1.0 app. That means once you join the community it's once per lifetime and you never have to do it again. The network on Ethereum would remember you and would know you're human.

So that would be something which could probably only be done on Ethereum in the form of a DAO. But I don't think taxing people or inflating a currency is a good way to produce a sustainable basic income. A sustainable income could best be produced if you either tax automation or own shares in automation.

If humans were all rational all the time you would be correct but this is a bit far fetched. Still it's an ideal that we can say humans strive for.

My paper makes no mention of wealth redistribution. In fact the concept my paper promotes is called universal basic capital. My paper presents a plan which would make everyone a capitalist by giving everyone a share in capitalism itself. If you keep excluding people from the rise of capitalism then you cannot expect people to believe in the system. Remove the barriers to entry to that as a community improves it's productivity, and profits rise, the dividend goes to the community who also are the shareholders.

This is a straw man argument. I said nothing about social security or socialism. You're debating a straw man and it makes me question whether you really read my paper. My paper is based on the work of James Albus and his book a path to a better world.  The difference is my idea is decentralized, global, and doesn't require a government permission. All it would require is that the SEC and government does not persecute future generations of capitalists who want to believe in capitalism.


A decentralized autonomous corporation can either be owned by a community (like Bitcointalk) or it could be self owned. If it's self owned then the shares don't exist or they exist but only allow humans to vote. It would mean the machine or autonomous entity would profit for it's own sake and pay humans and machines alike to repair / replicate it.

So it is theoretically possible to have unowned machines. If the SEC for example were to persecute people then we could go with the unowned model. Just as we could say no one owns Bitcoin but it still exists.

They would work since said income would be enough to survive living cheap, but not enough to live in relative luxury.

A much better question is: Why cant people ever do their research on basic income before asking the same stupid questions as the 100.000 previous askers and calling socialism?

Are you aware that Richard Nixon in his days wanted to implement basic income?  He certainly was no socialist.

The fact is that all research on basic income shows wery positive results. Reduction in mental and physical illness, better nutrition, less educational dropouts and economic growth due to a boom in small local businesses. BI is showing it self to be an extremely usefull tool for reducing powerty.

http://www.globalincome.org/English/BI-worldwide.html

This sounds a lot like socialism.

If everyone had a guaranteed income then why would anyone work?

I think your bigger issue will be getting 1st world people to use such a fiddly system. The tracking/privacy issues alone would be a disincentive.