Sorry you are making the mistake of looking at only one level.

Sure automation will remove some positions from the automated line, and those jobs won't be recreated the same or for the same people. So anytime you look at the problem like this you'll get stuck. Just like the defenses that if employement law in Brazil and minimum wage in Brazil ceased to exist the bosses would enprison and enslave the employees. But forgeting that sure some bosses may do that, but others will offer a little more and others even more, etc. In such a way that bosses that just want to pay for poverty will get the very worse employees and likely go out of business.

In short time the 1000 guys will probably suffer a lot, but long term the economy will adjust itself, some will become enterpreuners, others will learn other functions, others will retire, etc. Economy have been working like that since forever. Brazil have gone from like 5 to 15M unemployed in a very short time and when economy regrows it will tend to go back to near 5M.

It matters for a lot of people, Maslow is still valid most of times, but I wouldn't say majority are willing the burden, because if they were most wouldn't be working entry level jobs for their whole lives.

In Brazil because of "Bolsa Família" (a form of UBI that was the almagamation of several others government help to the poor) outside of big centers there have been a period over 5 years that people wouldn't accept minimum pay jobs because they would loss the UBI and since the UBI would at least allow then not to starve they didn't want any formal jobs (and informal jobs can either get you a big fine as the employer or loss of UBI if employee when discovered) and employees in Brazil love to go to court against employer.

Sorry but I can only say you are very bad with your expenditures as most people.

Or how would you explain people that have a single form of income, earning minimum wage and still maintain a household of 5 in the same city of you?

Do you even know that minimum wage in itself is an evil thing that bit the poor more than it helps and that you aren't even suppose to live on minimum wage or close to it for more than a few years when entering a job? And also that there is always the option to be self-employed and that doesn't need millions to start?

Most of times is excuses and entitlement.

Who here exactly has stated ludite-ish opinions? Saying that robots and AI will replace human jobs isn't fear, it's fact. That's not robophobia. I embrace robots doing more of the work for us. But the ramifications this has on an economy functioning in the same way as ours does currently would be out of this world. Hence why we need to look at solutions like this, because our current economic system can't handle a 80% unemployment rate.

Most of you guys saying robots and automatization will rob almost all jobs.

Economy will always change.

Rol, every single source is finite, be either high paying or low paying jobs, raw material, etc. And sure there is a difference between having a job or not, what I'm saying is that it isn't "majority" of people would be totally unfine with UBI and not working, because if that were the truth then what purpose the UBI would have since the person would already have the job?

I understood that the UBI would sum to the income the person already have, but if the UBI already covers for that person need, a very big amount of people would just do that and not have any other form of income.

I'm all for the invisible hand, that's what is pushing us towards UBI - it isn't viable for anyone, including the people at the top - to have an economy where most of the population is outside of the labour force and don't have any money, and thus can't afford goods. Doesn't matter if the rich can produce shittonnes of stuff cheaply thanks to automation and AI if no one can buy things. Hence why I believe society will be inevitably pushed towards a system akin to UBI. This has nothing to do with socialism, it's just the inevitable end game of mass automation and AI in a capitalistic economy.

Go invisible hand.

It will replace most jobs. It'll take a few decades, sure, but it'll happen soon enough. I don't mind though - more free time for everyone is great. It just forces a change in our economic system to cope with it.

Same here, but I think even more studies need to happen with more variables if at all possible.  They should keep testing it some more.

The invisible hand of the market would be more on the people discovering new needs of the market and entrepeneuring on it and opening new companies and those companies will end up employing the ones that didn't had the idea.

The government paying UBI isn't invisible hand at all.

The economy will change, and yes some jobs or even most will be replaced... yet there have been more professions created in the last 10 years than in the previous centuries. I would guess we have gone from like 100 professions from like 10 mileniums to over 1000 in the last couple decades.

just a small and quick source https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/17/technology-created-more-jobs-than-destroyed-140-years-data-census

It is simple, every single thing is finite in quantity, so saying high paying jobs are finite is useless. In USA alone less than 10% of the job positions are minimum wage, so we can't say that there isn't option for people to grow on their careers. Also I said and resay that people are free to be enterpreunal if they decide or if there isn't space for growth.

I understand the purpose of UBI. Yes a lot of people want more than the basic, but are those same people willing to take the time to get it? Any school you go much more than 2/3 (ass pulled data) are satisfied with getting grades to pass. And you have no essay that would warranty that most people (sufficient to keep the rest) would want to work more to live better and would be totally ok with people doing nothing and getting the basic.

If most people wanted to improve their life then you wouldn't have most also being stagnant.

Look at the small experiment of class scores to see what happens when you remove the incentive from the equation.

And sure most people want more from life, and several of those doesn't think working to earn more is wanting more from life, most work because they need to.

These ideas generally crumble if you ask where the money is coming from... or how to avoid massive welfare immigration etc.

Secondly, ubi and socialism have nothing to do with each other, neither in theory nor practice. Lenin repeated the old 'He who does not work shall not eat' and the SU had forced labor including slave labor for prisoners of war. There is no ubi in socialism, quite the opposite.

The concept of the Invisible Hand is the principle that people acting for the best of themselves often end up doing more good for society than someone with the goal of improving society. That's the idea anyway. It doesn't require a completely laissez faire market, and it can also count for voting for political actions such as UBI. But honestly, the entire concept of "an invisible hand" flies out the window once you accept that there is no such thing as true altruism anyway.

You are really overestimating the use of human labour in a world where computers are better at literally everything. Why on earth would an entrepreneur need people to do jobs when we are both horribly inefficient and expensive?

All the other times new technology has replaced human jobs, there has always been other tasks humans were still better at. There won't be this time. No point in sticking your head in the sand and pretend like it won't happen. If computers can literally think better than humans, what can a human offer compared to a computer?