How to argue against welfare and benefits in an automated future?

>somehow being this dumb in 2017

Did you vote for Trump or Hillary too ?

>I exist therefore people should care for me

Why?

>not being able to work with more than one variable

It is outside the realm of hypothetical possibility to say that 99% of a large population are incapable of producing anything. Historical states of production are also available to these people. If I’m a good baker and I need a good lawyer and your a good lawyer and you need a good baker, the existence of AI lawyer software or Robotic bread production machinery does nothing to prevent us from renewing services for each-other in the traditional manner. As such we see that technology, no matter how developed may only find a place in the economy where it is capable of providing services at a cost that is reasonable relative to the consumers budget. The owner of a robot or the creator of an AI won’t make any money unless consumers can afford their product. This point is beyond obvious, yet those who believe automation will leave 99% of the population staving in the streets would have to deny it.

A true Veeky Forumsnessman would support bread and circuses for the underclass

So they don't get uppity and start demanding more rights

>It is outside the realm of hypothetical possibility to say that 99% of a large population are incapable of producing anything
False. Look up the definitions of the big words you use before you use them to make your argument appear stronger.

>If I’m a good baker and I need a good lawyer and... relative to the consumers budget
Okay? This is an underlying assumption that doesn't need to be stated. Only the most efficient means of production will remain. Here I are assuming that 99% of all production (not necessarily of physical goods, but of services too) will be automated, but that number is arbitrary. Reduce it to 5% for all I care, my point still stands. There will be a natural unemployment rate, no matter what. And those who are unemployed will be given money to keep the economy running.

>yet those who believe automation will leave 99% of the population staving in the streets would have to deny it.
Don't debate idiots.

>this seems to be something which emboldens lefties the world over, creating the sense that the future is inevitably theirs
And they're not wrong. Does this make you angry?

I wouldn't worry too much about an automated future. We've only gotten so far with oil, gas, and coal. We've already exceeded the theoretical maximum population capacity of Earth. Once oil starts to run out towards the mid century automation will become a dream of the past.

If machines produce an abundance of product and machines are easily replicable there will be a huge surplus of the product therefore the product will be dirt cheap. But humans will naturally begin to value that wich is not in abundance leading to inequality and lefties will still be crying about "muh 1%"

>If machines produce an abundance of product and machines are easily replicable there will be a huge surplus of the product therefore the product will be dirt cheap
>implying everyone can acquire capital and compete with established firms
Not to mention your retarded assumption that people will supply more when demand is already met.

>But humans will naturally begin to value that wich is not in abundance leading to inequality and lefties will still be crying about "muh 1%"
This is the though process of an idiot. Stop posting.

> (You)
>>If machines produce an abundance of product and machines are easily replicable there will be a huge surplus of the product therefore the product will be dirt cheap
>>implying everyone can acquire capital and compete with established firms
>Not to mention your retarded assumption that people will supply more when demand is already met.
What is competition.
How do you think surpluses happen?
You truly are a lefty brainlet.

If demand has been met and i am capable of undercuting the current producers price i will be willing to increase supply beyond the current demand. Due to the potential profit.
Basically what is an increase in productivity. A term brainlets might wany to googlw

>Not to mention your retarded assumption that people will supply more when demand is already met.

I cant get over this statement. This is a fine example of the complete lack of economic understanding in lefties.

Not a lefite.

I was going to reply to your previous post, but it has become clear that you're economically illiterate, so I'm not even going to bother
>joined the market yesterday
>somehow am able to undercut an established firm which is already producing more efficiently and providing goods 20% cheaper than I am able to
hahahahaha

>i will join an established market and compete using the same machinery as the established firms even though it is virtually impossible for me to produce at the market price
ahaahahahahahhaahah nigger I can only laugh at your stupidity.

> joined the market yesterday.
Because i said that where? Its funny you have yo distort my statements to defend your fallacious reasoning.
This whole post is retarded assumptions.
Increases of productivity do not exist the post, right here.

>If machines produce an abundance of product and machines are easily replicable there will be a huge surplus of the product
Who else is to replicate and employ the machines, if not new entrants?

>>what is iain m banks' culture series of novels.

You first mistake is too assume there is not an existing competition.
Second you assume that because there is not a large measurable amount of progress happening overnight that there is not any productivity increases at all.

You're right.

I know ; )

If we have superproductive machines they will be owned by the 1%. And there is more to wealth and power than money and material goods. The 1% will express their power with what's available, expressing their will on the masses. And good luck trying to rebel against an uncaring drone swarm. "A boot on the human neck forever"

This is why I came to Veeky Forums from /pol/. Trying to build enough net worth so my children will have a chance at being left alone.

People who can't afford to live without handouts should be culled.

This will also solve global warming btw.

> t. R C Christian

Correct, I think I have my answer now. The free market will eliminate these people not all at one but gradually over the generations it takes for the technology to develop

> are unemployed will be given money to keep the economy running.

No. That's happening now and it's destroying the economy already.

So basically all of Africa.. I like it.

All of you should go read Kaczynskis manifesto.

I wouldn't argue against it because I don't want a horde of starving people trying to kill me to take my shit. Just give them gibs, the productive would still have far more wealth and assets.

There should be universal basic income.

The only educated user in this bread...

AIDS isnt doing it's job properly

>everyone gets enough money to live without working
>people with no financial education and now no goals are now aimless
>they turn to drugs
>90% of the population are now crackheads and heroine addicts
Oh but that could never happen right? Only losers do drugs.

Correct, if you do drugs you aren't white anymore.

>nig nog detected

Could free healthcare exist without a stable benefits system? I feel like we don't need welfare at all but free medical care is essential.

>If I’m a good baker and I need a good lawyer and your a good lawyer and you need a good baker, the existence of AI lawyer software or Robotic bread production machinery does nothing to prevent us from renewing services for each-other in the traditional manner

Yes it does if the automated option is available at a price lower than you and I negotiated then one of us will select the automated option, hence one of us becomes unemployed, you fucking mong
and you're

Charles Murray has some great things to say about universal basic income in Sam Harris' podcast interview.

Also general great interview about IQ.

As for the UBI, I'm a beneficiary. I got free money as a stipend for years. It was private, but the effect was the same. What did I do with it? Became frugal as fuck, attained 2 higher ed. degrees and now I'm highly skilled and independent.

While everyone else around me was being coerced like a bunch of cattle, and truly internalising the idea that there is no higher value that economic value, and that people must be forced to do things they don't want to do, we've turned into a degraded mass of exploited and abused abusers exploiting and abusing each other, ourselves, etc. unable to come to a consensus on any coherent, sustainable, and worthwhile vision for what society should be and could be.
I don't expect anyone here or in real life to understand. People are stupid, but they weren't born that way. They were forced to think a certain way. They are too mentally exhausted from trying to figure out how to get out of the rat maze of everyday life. It starts with how we treat children, how we ineffect, go short on their future, coerce them, expect them to believe that this is good thing, a necessary thing.

This system is going to fail, but before it does, it is going to degrade everyone who comes in contact with it, everyone who internalizes its values. Especially people like OP. For example, he'll be forced to work a job he doesn't want to do. He'll be forced to pay for "benefits" that amount to costs far in excess of the supposed costs of a UBI. He won't be educated or well read enough to understand the costs he's already incurred and will incur for the damage thats been done already and will continue to be done. He'll inherit a bag of bad debt, diminishing returns, and at best he'll merely alienate his children if he ever has them,

The system is built to fuck you over is a great argument because people are a heap of biases. I disagree, you can't teach people thinking, they have to learn it themselves. As one of the few who recognizes how people react to stimuli on a psychological level, I don't think it matters what the people outside try to do. Consciousness is currently a black box, systems that cause people to make terrible choices certainly aren't helping but in order to decide to make a beneficial choice someone has to desire that future.
Most people probably won't feel that way or be able to detect they feel that way for their entire lives. Even worse, if they do we probably won't know because those people may not be inclined to express those thoughts.
In my mind there is no 'better', only the reality you find yourself more comfortable with. Right now, the idea of giving people money for free sounds bad for probably a million plus reasons, but the reality of the future will ultimately determine whether it happens or not and all signs point to yes.
This is mostly because of the heavily aging population. No western government is going to start abandoning old people, yet, at least.

>How to argue against welfare and benefits in an automated future?

ITT: OP goes to the internet to get out of having to think or do research

this tbqh
>90% of population are addicts
>Elite gradually institute sterilization as prerequisite for the dole
>gradual population decline to sustainable levels
>star trek future

or we get morlocks. We are on our way to idiocracy right now.

Don't encourage culling of humans while we go further and further with automation. If the machines gain sentience they'll realize the best option for the planet is to murder all humans

It's like you've never even watched a movie before user

>Consciousness is currently a black box, systems that cause people to make terrible choices certainly aren't helping but in order to decide to make a beneficial choice someone has to desire that future.

I think the difference between the apparent lack of intelligence in people generally, for example, in the 2016 elections, Americans basically complaining that giving people a free education would be bad, and the simple objective truth that such an idea is absurd on its face can be traced to how society treats children.

Currently in America where I live children are routinely denied basic human rights, (((forced))) to "learn" in a system which merely judges them as successes or failures, treated as property, and generally abused at will by selfish and callous adults while at the same time being told (and punished if they refuse to accept it as true) that all this is in their self-interest.

You say "you can't teach people thinking" which is manifestly false- I spent many hours in classes (of my own free will) studying and learning Logic. Unbelievably the study of logic was routine in the early part of last century and steadily declined. The reasons for this are obscured, but suffice it to say that if you teach someone logic, you are teaching them how to think, and they will difficult to convince of lies and falsehoods. Logic is the very basis of a real education, and yet- we throw kids into a system which tortures them by handing them problems which we have failed to give them the tools to solve. Virtually all modern adults in my society are completely ignorant of the role of logic in proper thinking, reasoning, or determining what is true and not true.

Our society is degraded and degrading simply because we have damaged people, who in turn damage people. If this evil socialization works, its drawbacks are considered benefits, and objectors, heretics.

things that are easy to say when you spend your life in front of a computer screen and barely interact with people