They need to pull themselves by their bootstraps and become machines.
Why the obsession with bootstraps? Stop looking for artificial solutions and get a job.
You do know that what you're describing isn't your skillset becoming obsolete but rather the tools with which to apply it changing, right? That's not exactly the same as being replaced by a machine or being outperformed by a sweatshop at the ass end of the world.
You do know you're not making an argument, just nitpicking?
So my father, 2 or 3 years from retirement, should have had to learn an entirely new skill set when his highly skilled position (what my father did was basically the manual version of Photoshop) was replaced by a computer program most high school dropouts could use?
No, he didn't end up on welfare or anything, but expecting people to just learn a new skill set instantly without any assistance when theirs is entirely obsoleted is ridiculous, particularly for younger people who aren't likely to have much in the way of savings they can fall back on to support themselves while learning a new craft.
First of all as I said it didn't happen overnight. Second, 2-3 years from retirement should not be a problem for highly skilled position, I assume he had already plans to cover him on retirement financially as someone at that age should. Third, there were millions of people that had their job digitized and they had to learn new skills, learning doesn't kill you.
It cost aren't as big as they seems from first look, because most of that money comes back to country's coffer via multilevel taxation, which is how we keep our social benefit systems running already. Basic income would have move lots of different benefits under one benefit, removed most of the welfare traps, which keeps people in benefit circle.
Biggest obstacles to taking it to use are that there are some optional benefits that are necessary to keep addition to it and that it needs massive starting capital which either needs increase in government debt or taking massive cut from our pension funds. Even though those can be paid back relatively soon after system starts its economic system it is still something that politician like to avoid doing.
But by giving chance I mean testing would it increase economic circulation as low income workers would have more money to spend, which would mean that companies cash flow would increase and that increase for their goods and services could increase number of jobs they can offer, which would decrease our big unemployment population, which would help in economic growth. But our government was not interested any of such experiments so basic income talks will move to next government as current is failing in all their job creation attempts.
If you claim that MOST of the money government gives as welfare comes back as taxes then there lies the root of the problem. Taxes are too high. And even if 70% comes back you still need to fund the remaining 30% elsewhere.
I also like the fairy tail about government giving money to employees means they buy more from employers so the employers employ more people who get more money from government so they buy more from employers etc. and everybody gets richer exponentially
The problem with 1.(A) buying food for 100$ 2.(B) Sells food to (A) for 100$ 3. (B) pays (A) 100$ for work 4. (A) buying food for 100$ is that only (A) is eating in this scenario.
RL doesn't work that way. It works as this (I simplify to one company):
Government takes 100.000$ extra from company to cover welfare, the cost of the operation is 20.000$. They give 1000 employees 80$ extra. The company must cover their loss so they increase the price of their 1000 products by 100$ each. Now Employees must buy more expensive product, which gives them net value of -20$. Great job you just made people poorer by giving them money
Of course in big economy it's easier to hide, because and extra 80$ in hand is more visible than slight increase (1$ here, 0.50$ there, 0.35$ elsewhere) in prices. But in the long run people start to realize their buying power is lower and lower as they are spending more money and get less in return.
I'm a big proponent of increasing cash flows. I still think UBI unless mandated to maintain a proportional level of purchasing power would end up diluted by inflation and quantitative easing.
I guess make inflation a function of UBI? That way it moves up and down with inflation. I suppose there could be problems when you get runaway inflation (like Venezuela) or massive deflation, but those are problems in and of themselves.
You are confusing the cause with the problem. Your solution goes like this:
1. UBI causes inflation.
2. You increase UBI to cover for inflation.
3. Higher UBI causes higher inflation.
4. You increase UBI to cover for inflation.