comment: >
  
  Economic mobility might be reduced, but social? If no one has to work, then people can do what they love. How many people are trapped in a dead end job now that would if they had all their free time and a few resources become acclaimed authors? Popular musicians? Renowned poets? Thought provoking artists? 
  If the social ladder becomes disconnected from the economic, then anyone can find the acclaim their passion deserves.
context: UBI doesn’t replace income. If you’re working you’d get wages plus UBI >
  
  I'm confused- do you think that there is no way to earn additional money? UBI means everyone gets a certain amount of money. This amount of money should be enough for most people to stay alive (food, water, shelter, health). Everyone can still earn money on top of that, but if their passion in life is something that isn't easily monetizable (ie they love to paint but for whatever reason nobody wants to buy their paintings), UBI means that they have the option to survive on UBI and live a fulfilling life by their terms. This is a kind of mobility that isn't based on money, but on human happiness/fulfillment. If their goal in life is to be rich, they can still pursue that. >
  
  I've got a knee problem, right? I work 2 jobs to save money for a surgery my insurance won't approve.
  The world already has the ability to fix me. I just don't have the economic means.
  But I can get there through work (I'm doing it right now).
  In a world where you cannot "get a leg up" economically because you can no longer work because there are no more jobs due to automation and AI, you're just stuck.
  It won't be a utopia where all problems are just fixed for ppl because we already openly exploit the economic lower class, when the world doesn't have to be that way. 
  So 1. If  you think that will change, how and why? And 2. How is UBI not the end of social and economic mobility if you have no further means to improve your life through work and wages? >
  
  
  The world already has the ability to fix me. I just don't have the economic means.
  
  Sounds like a pretty good argument for giving you the economic means (and admittedly for fixing our dumbass healthcare system, but that's another discussion). >
  
  If you are given (random number chosen) $10 for a year. And surgery is $1000, then you're not going to ever "be given the means to fix the problem"
  I can work and get there as the world is today. 
  In a UBI only world, you cannot get what's simply out of your reach economically. There's no mechanism through society to do so >
  
  Why do you believe that it isn't possible to receive UBI and work? >
  
  Are ya ppl just not reading the entire middle part of what I said? It's every single poster, here to tell me UBI doesn't have to mean "no work"
  I'm saying, in a world where AI and Automation have made work obsolete, which is a goal of that technology, and the only thing available is UBI, how will there be any social or economic mobility for anyone?
  (And I swear to God lol, if I have to say this anymore, I'm not here to debate the likelihood of technology succeeding in that regard, I'm asking, in a world where that's already a given, how is UBI not the end of social and economic mobility?) >
  
  So you're positing a fantasy world (which no one is allowed to challenge the logic of) and then stating that in that world UBI wouldn't work?
  Yes, your view is right. UBI wouldn't work if robots and super-AI did absolutely every possible job. UBI also wouldn't work in Middle Earth or Avatar (similar to this view, I won't accept any debate on this). >
  
  UBI absolutely might make an impact in avatar, since there seems to be a corporate military thing going on that seems pretty fucked up. 
  I tend to think UBI might also have some mitigating influence on orcs and uruks, ultimately you’ve still got a Sauron problem, so I guess I agree it wouldn’t work in Middle Earth. >
  
  The world of Avatar probably does have some sort of UBI going on in the background lol, it's a common solution to automation in sci fi.  I think The Expanse has the most realistic portrayal of it. >
  
  If you have to work just not to die, then you already aren't socially mobile, at least not upwards. You are probably just taking whatever the government "graciously" set up as the minimum wage, because you have no other choice.
  UBI allows anyone who wants to, to spend time on training themselves so that if they want to, they can take a higher level or more valued positions. It also gives them more bargaining power to advocate for the existing positions coming with more opportunities for upward mobility.
  If every high school teacher has to cling to their job unless they want to become homeless and starving, then there isn't really upward mobility opportunity in going to college just to be a high school teacher. If you can all easily go on strike if you feel like it, then it's on society to reward your effort in proportion to that. >
  
  
  If you have to work just not to die, then you already aren't socially mobile
  
  That makes no sense. If you work 40 hours a week. You still have a significant amount of time you could dedicate to improving your skills. Heck I'm doing it now. Working on my upwork resume. 
  The fact that economic scarcity exists everywhere on planet earth. Doesn't mean there is no economic mobility. That such a strange view. >
  
  These fucking liars...
  What they typically do is say "Average rent here is blah blah". "You'd have to work blah blah hours to pay rent".
  But it's horseshit. You are comparing median housing with the lowest quintile of income. You should be comparing the lowest quintile housing. 
  I live in Gainesville Florida.  You can get an apartment for $500 a month. That includes electricty, water and internet. It is typically student housing and you will have 3 other roommates. But you can easily afford that with min wage. 
  Min wage jobs were never meant to be something people live offa. It's for teenagers who are getting their first taste of the labor market. It's unfortunate that some people never mature and just act like teenagers their whole life. But that is their prerogative. You gotta make a lot of bad choices to end up like that. >
  
  I suggest you do some research into the beginnings of minimum wage. When it was introduced as part of The New Deal it was intended to make sure that one person could support a family. So yes minimum wage was supposed to be something you can live comfortably off of. >
  
  It was a bad idea then. It is a bad idea now. 
  Reducing demand for labor is not going to build a better labor market. Quite the opposite. You want laborers with tons of choice. You need to create choice for them to have.
  McDonalds and Wendy's are very happy with your razor thin margin worshipping. Those are the only businesses that can afford to employ low skilled labor. And as a result they have a choice between utter shitholes with no future or nothing at all. >
  
  I'm not a proponent of UBI.
  But I do believe they think UBI should be a floor. You can still earn more.
  Like for example say we got a $25,000 a year UBI. You could take a job and earn more. Thing is the place you are working at is getting taxed to shit to pay for that UBI. So you are probably earning much less than you would be otherwise. But you can still earn more. >
  
  I'm asking specifically about a world where "you don't work as a human anymore because you won't be needed" (and again, I'm not here to talk about "that will never happen," the fact is, that is openly a goal of automation and AI long term, and whether or not you believe it can succeed is not my question)
  Ppl have said in a world like that, UBI is what will still give humans the ability to live and go about their lives, when instead, it seems from my perspective, that that is the end of all social and economic mobility >
  
  You're talking about a post scarcity fully automated economy. 
  Nobody really knows how that will play out. It could become a utopia where we just do whatever the fuck we want all day long. Or some dystopian nightmare where most people are starving. Who knows.
  So much will happen between then and now. It's almost pointless to discuss. The idea of economic mobility is kind of pointless if everyone is equally wealthy. >
  
  
  You're talking about a post scarcity fully automated economy. 
  
  That's exactly what I'm talking about. And I'm specifically saying how that will play out from my perspective. And I'm asking anyone at all to tell me explicitly how we get a different end result. 
  We already create artificial scarcity in order to further exploit those at the low end of the economic scale (see: medicine, housing, education) 
  Why and what is going to suddenly make that behavior stop? 
  Because unless it stopped, then you're talking about a permanent upper and lower class, with no ability to move between through work and wages >
  
  We already create artificial scarcity in order to further exploit those at the low end of the economic scale (see: medicine, housing, education) 
  Are you suggesting we don't do this? We do. 
  Why do you believe that this will suddenly just stop. >
  
  I don't believe we do this now.
  It's not economically viable. If McDonalds was artificially adding scarcity to their products. Burger King and Wendy's would just take all their customers. The competition keeps you honest. 
  You'd have to give a concrete example of this "artificial scarcity". Cause it makes 0 sense for companies that want to make profit to do that. 
  It only works for companies that have no competition. >
  
  You speak as if UBI will abolish paid jobs. It won't. People who wish to work instead of getting UBI will reap its benefits. To a lesser degree, UBI needs to be a scale, allowing people who continue to work low-paying jobs to also receive UBI, differentiating them from people who are just sitting around doing nothing.
  If we ever reach a point where wealth itself is no longer required (say like Star Trek), then you work because you want to work, and generally your job will give you benefits and growth. >
  
  UBI doesn't mean you can't work.  Alaska has a UBI of about $1000/year and lots of people work there. >
  
  There won’t be a point where there is no more value to generate through human labor. Human value will instead be generated through more specialized roles. To that end, UBI specifically enables mobility because it gives people more opportunity to dedicate time and money to develop skills (training, school, personal projects) without worrying about literally starving to death or ending up on the street. >
  
  Its so frustrating, because I specifically went out of my way to say I'm not here to talk about "whether or not you think that will happen"
  I'm asking, in a world where there are no more jobs which is a goal of ai and automation long term, there will be no more economic or social mobility from my perspective, because you just are whatever class you're born into. If your family was rich, it will always be rich, and if its poor, it will always be poor. Because you can't "move up" in any way if you can't make more money. >
  
  The issue is automation and ai and not UBI.  In a world where all jobs are automated, UBI is not guaranteed. 
  Right now, workers have some power because without workers production stops. Workers can go on strike, and that gives them leverage to make demands. 
  But when workers are replaced with automation, workers don’t have that leverage. Who cares if workers go on strike if they are all replaced with automation. 
  There are better and worse outcomes in a situation like that, but in a lot of ways UBi Is a better outcome because there is at least a floor on poverty. >
  
  
  There are better and worse outcomes in a situation like that, but in a lot of ways UBi Is a better outcome because there is at least a floor on poverty.
  
  What other outcome is there other than the creation of a permanent under class? Human behavior already creates artificial scarcity to exploit the economically challenged. 
  UBI or no UBI, what other outcome, based on human behavior, is there going to be besides "if you're poor, you'll always be poor and rich, always rich"
  Not in money, but in physical wealth and life and access to the best of things?
  E.g. if you're poor and you lose a hand today, you are likely to get a cheap, highly limited prosthetic...whereas if you're "rich" you can have access to things like workable fingers through nerve grafting  and robotic technologies...
  And that's just an example, you could substitute access to better  cancer treatments, better food and water, whatever you like >
  
  
  UBI or no UBI, what other outcome, based on human behavior, is there going to be besides "if you're poor, you'll always be poor and rich, always rich"
  
  If what you are suggesting here is true, then your stated view is false. If, indeed, this outcome is going to happen regardless of whether there is UBI or no UBI, then it absolutely is not true that UBI is the end of socioeconomic mobility. The end of socioeconomic mobility would be unrelated to UBI. >
  
  That's my point. When I bring this up to folks, they then bring up universal basic income. I reply that that does not stop the creation of a permanent under class
  What can stop that from happening in a world such as the one I believe will come to pass? Because UBI is not the answer.
  (An answer based on current human behavior, or with a reason why human behavior (and I'm referring to intentionally exploitation through artificial scarcity) would just dramatically change) >
  
  If that's your point, then you stated something in your title that's opposite to and completely inconsistent with your point. Your point has nothing to do with UBI.
  Analogously, tennis will not stop a permanent underclass from coming to pass in the scenario you describe. That does not mean it would be correct to say "tennis is the end of social and economic and social mobility for 99% of the human race." >
  
  Then I ask again: When I bring this up to folks, they then bring up universal basic income. I reply that that does not stop the creation of a permanent under class
  That's why it's related, that is the on the table, best proposed solution.
  If it weren't related, then why do ppl bring it up as an idea of a solution when it isn't one (no one says "tennis" which was a facile response. I'm asking very specifically about UBI because that's what ppl suggest will be the solution when this is brought up)
  Do you have another? >
  
  They probably bring it up because you are explaining yourself unclearly, and they think you are talking about a proximal world in which the demand for labor is merely reduced relative to what it is now, whereas what you are actually talking about is a far-future world in which the demand for human labor is reduced to zero. UBI is a measure for addressing the former scenario, not the latter.
  
  Do you have another?
  
  Communism. >
  
  UBI in no way eliminates the option to work. It would be (hopefully) enough income for survival--this is for everyone, and not tied to your job at all--while allowing you to still go out and work for money.
  The demand for labor and skills will always exist. People who work will be earning extra money to supplement their lifestyles. Some might work only part-time, or change to jobs that are less stressful. >
  
  It's like ppl are just intentionally not reading. "I'm not here to debate the likelihood of whether or not AI/automation can succeed in replacing human workers completely. The fact is, that's openly a goal of ai and automation long term"
  I just want to know, as stated above, how, in a world with no wages and work, UBI isn't the end of all social and economic mobility >
  
  Did you read? There is NO basis for saying that UBI will lead to "a world with no wages and work."
  UBI is the government sending everyone a check. That's it. In no way does it mean people can no longer work. >
  
  
  a world with no wages and work
  
  That's what I just said AI and automation aim to do.
  And I'm NOT here to debate whether or not thats possible. 
  I said IF SUCCESSFUL, and there are no jobs, how is there going to be any type of economic or social mobility through UBI only? >
  
  Why are you assuming that there would be "UBI only"? That's the issue. 
  The aim of UBI has never been to replace jobs. That's an assumption you're making, and it's not correct. >
  
  
  UBI as a "replacement for wages" is the end of anyone being able to better their own lives socially and economically
  
  My understanding of UBI is that it is a replacement for social welfare, not wages or work. You receive it independently of money you earn from a job, so you could still improve your life socially and economically through working. >
  
  Let's look at psychology through the lens of being a teenager in a decent situation.
  They don't worry about room, or board. Their food is covered, housing is covered, all their basic needs are covered. Heck, they likely also have internet access and access to television.
  And yet, most seek out jobs and training and even aspire to college or vocational school.
  Why?
  Because many (most?) people aren't satisfied with having their needs met and little more. They work to have money for the fun things, the things that enrich their lives. They educate to have more choice and agency in what they do.
  Now apply that to the entire country. If everyone has their human basic needs met, many are going to want more. Vacations. Games. Meals out. Philanthropy. Art.
  And the beauty is, work can get that. The only thing UBI does is take the bullets out of the gun held to 90% of the country's head, with the demand "work or die". >
  
  We already give universal basic services in the form of streets, military, policing, firefighting, etc.
  This is just the same thing but with cash instead of services. >
  
  99% of the human race doesn't have social mobility now. >
  
  That's just not true. It's hard. But it's possible. Very hard. But again, possible.
  There's a difference, a gulf of difference between literally not possible , and very difficult >
  
  Not even the wealthiest person has free social security mobility. If it's not financial problems, its commitment and social constructs prohibit everyone. Except for us, true wanders.