Investing some money in UBI experiments just makes them look good. What's their enormous incentive to fully introduce it? It's cheaper to commute by helicopter or relocate the headquarter. Homelessness is a problem for the middle class.
I beleave that the middle class has to finance UBI on their own. This company already provides the basic infrastructure. If that's not a good deal then the deal has to be improved.
Let's imagine that this is not a joke. What do you need to get going besides the money?
If you had free counter-propaganda resources, how would you structure a socialist alternative and what would you tell the population?
There is not a big incentive for people to join if they earn above average.
What I would like to see is an internal job market. Let everybody help everybody else to increase their income.
With job suggestions, it pays off to pay 7% when you for example improve your income by 30%.
Redefine creepy as 'surpressing emotions'. When you surpress the awareness of surpressing emotions, then you surpress even more, so you appear to be more creepy.
That depends on you. The ones who create the future decide who will be able to eat.
The funny part is that the free humans already take all the resources and create all the scarcity. Why should that change when AI allows people to be more free? AI won't solve any social problems.
I think they should double their offer and keep the duration adjustable:
Be one week exclusive, get 100% for two weeks,
Be one month exclusive, get 100% for two months.
Then, it becomes a game for the publisher. Launch on Epic and if there are no transactions, abort after one day. But if there are sales, hold on a bit to pocket the 100%.
Publishers will gamble and stay on Epic a bit longer to get better percentages from the strongest fans but they have to end exclusivity to capture the entire market.
AI will make immense progress and all jobs that require a computer will be handed over to AI and robots. There will be hardly any middle managers left. People will do manual or personal stuff that robots cannot do.
Depending on who owns the AI, the distribution of wealth decides which jobs are available. I would bet on a small group of people who are going to decide what humanity will do.
The problem is that AI requires energy. At one point, the decision has to be made whether energy is used for bricks or bytes. Bytes will be prefered so most people will live in tiny rooms.
Since there is not much work to be done, and energy is expensive, people will spent most of their time doing something energy-efficient. Cities will be built for walking distances.
If the capitalists expanded their workforce to Africa, South America and Asia, and the middle class was temporary happy with consuming slightly increased wages instead of seeding competition in those countries, then they hadn't cared about markets.
The middle class always has the breathing room down to consuming as little as the poor. If they don't use it to control markets, how are they going to maintain a socialist or communist system?
Does the third person argue that it is easy or does the third person only argue that it is easier than the alternatives? How easy would it be to run a revolution or just to establish a socialist party?
What is the third person missing about the reserve army of labor? To me, it seems that reducing the reserve army of labor is their main argument.
What the third person doesn't mention is that there is a tendency to spend all possible income. The housing market shows that most people use reduced interest rates to increase their offer to outcompete somebody instead of sticking to their limits.
Are skilled workers willing to share their increased income with the poor? San Francisco has huge social problems even though many workers have a huge income.
Don't the children have friends who would arbitrage the value difference or is 7:20 the rate on the street?