lol

Lucky you :P

One problem may be of congestion. Too many people doing the creative stuff.

I think all the necessary jobs will be done by machines, and if they break, they would be fixed by other machines. Really, it's not science fiction anymore, we are heading there.

But, I totally get your point. If everyone started doing creative stuff, would it even be meaningful?

haha I hope not.

hehe, but you would still need to earn money to travel. :D

Yes, that's why it is estimated that half of the jobs are at risk. The other half should be safe.

Yes, cryptocurrencies can be leveraged well to distribute some form of UBI. Would really solve a lot of problems.

Looking at the present scenario we are capitalizing under the garb of socialism.  Whats your take?

There's a fundamental difference between past industrial revolutions and what we are seeing now.  Things like the printing press, internal combustion engine, computers etc, allowed humans to do new types of work.  That is, these machines created work that they themselves couldn't do.  That isn't the case now.  Machines can increasingly do everything we could possibly do, but do it faster, more accurately and incredibly more efficiently.  What work do you think a robot that can manoeuvre far better than us, is way stronger than us, and can process repetitive tasks better than us is going to create for us to do?  The common answer is, well, we'll need someone to program these robots.  Hello, computer programming is 95% algorithmic and logical.  Things that computers are WAY better than us at.  And it's only a matter of time until AI can out compete us in creativity and eventually our excellent sub-conscious heuristic decision making systems.  And even if this wasn't the case, what, are 7 billion people going to become computer programmers??

Work for humans is fast becoming OVER.  We need to face this reality and start doing something about the devastating effect this is going to have on capitalism (which will collapse in a screaming heap without a consumer class).

That was true once but in an age where machines can learn any ability a person can, that doesn't apply anymore. Yes, new jobs will be created but the machines can easily learn the skillsets of those jobs as well! The difference this time is that we are creating our own competition.

?

Yeah, once the basic needs are taken care of, a person can do what interests them the most. The only thing is that, to do everything a person wants to, they would need more money beyond what a UBI would pay them, and for that they would need some form of additional income.

I think we will all be able to do that (do what we love) in the future if the basic needs are taken care of.

It is interesting that you are not a fan of UBI. I suspect it is because of some compelling arguments that you have heard from sources who either have a vested interest in it not being adopted but also with a narrow (frequently mistaken understanding of economics).
If you are living in North America, you currently have a Universal Basic Income. The biggest problem is that it is negative. If you have property you have to pay a land tax (or if you rent ... part of the cost is transferred from the landlord to you). If you are homeless, ironically you have a UBI of zero dollars. In Canada there is a basic income at both ends of the age scale - baby bonus and old age pension. It isn't very much but it does help young families and older people to cover the basics.

I shared this video in an earlier post to display what UBI means to people on the lower end of the scale.
https://youtu.be/vwjNrxVd-1E
One of the things that people wonder is where the money is going to come from in order to pay for it. They always talk about is an increase in taxes. This leads to a totally other discussion about how taxes are a mechanism to keep money out of the hands of people. Historically income tax in Canada was first enacted in order to pay off the [debt accrued for WWI](https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/history-and-development-of-canadas-personal-income-tax.pdf). While it wasn't described temporary it was to be reviewed and phased out after the war. One hundred years ago the population of Canada was roughly 1/4 of what it is today. At the time they were able pay for things largely from customs and excise. When they introduced income tax, they had an office with 40 employees to handle the taxes of the 8 million inhabitants. Today it employs 40,000 people. (As I said a totally other discussion to go into).

Instead of taxing people, the simple expedient is to increase the M0 money supply. In most countries, doubling or trebling the M0 money supply (print more cash) could be seen as a tax on the rich and people worry about rampant inflation. Once again people don't understand what would actually happen. I ran the numbers through on Finland and they could pay for the $660 per month by trebling their M0 money supply. This would have no effect on inflation. It is only a small fraction of the total money supply but more importantly is to understand how inflation works. Hyperinflation occurs when governments prints money to pay off their own debt. The hyperinflation in Germany for instance happened because to the debt incurred by war reparations. 
Here is an example of a government 
![](https://steemitimages.com/DQmcbvG4FbtZz6JQaRc85erNSD6CQDVqQRFgoWteaZc3yoM/image.png)
doubling its money supply in a year. Between 2008 and 2009 the US government roughly doubled its M0 money supply and is almost 5 times in ten years (not to mention the increase in the other areas of money supply). This did not spark hyperinflation. This did not spark inflation. Unless a government introduces stupid fiscal policies (Zimbabwe) inflation is actually sparked by zero unemployment. If everyone is working, companies have to compete with each other in order to get employees - so they have to raise salaries. If wages go up, companies have to increase their prices to cover the increase in expenses.

People think that giving people money will spark inflation because the classic description of inflation is when too many dollars chase after too few goods. This is particularly true if one talks about scarce goods. However **I believe** that we are in an age with no scarcity (in North America). There is always a new game or toy on the market that people want to buy.

Yes, one thing is for sure. There is going to be a lot of change. Maybe this will end up restructuring the society as we know it. Only time will tell.

Thanks!
Yeah, that might very well happen. "humans need not apply"

Yes, UBI will only solve the economic aspect of things. It will be act as a support so that people don't die of lack of basic needs. I am not sure what will solve the validation part of the equation.

How would it increase social disparity?

That's why I mentioned Maslow's need hierarchy theory ;)

yeah, work is really important in any person's life. That's why there is so much talk about the "future of work"

China did not “somehow” control their population. They made laws limiting the citizens to one child. Being a Government they did not see their own folly (the law of unintended consequences). The couples who would now have to rely on only one child to provide for them in old age, tended to abort female children. China now suffers from a lack of marriage age women.

Yeah, we will be replaced for sure. And I think people hope for it to want to stay relevant because in today's world, your work defines who you are, essentially. Like if someone asks you who you are, you usually say what you do for work, like doctor, lawyer, etc.

hehe, but then the cost of living will increase with all those babies ;)