Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Businesses The Almighty Buck

Give Workers 10,000 Pound To Survive Automation, British Top Think Tank Suggests (huffingtonpost.co.uk) 200

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Britons should be able to bid for 10,000 pound (roughly $14,000) to help them prosper amid huge changes to their working lives, a leading think tank suggests today. From a report: The Royal Society for the Arts (RSA) has released research proposing a radical new sovereign wealth fund, which would be invested to make a profit like similar public funds in Norway. The returns from the fund would be used to build a pot of money, to which working-age adults under-55 would apply to receive a grant in the coming decade.

People would have to set out how they intend to put the five-figure payouts to good use, for example, by using the cash to undergo re-training, to start a new business, or to combine work with the care of elderly or sick relatives. It would be funded like the student grant system and wealthier individuals could be required to pay back more in tax as their earnings increase. Ultimately, the RSA paper suggests, the wealth fund would finance a Universal Basic Income (UBI) as the world of modern work is turned upside down by increased automation, new technology and an ageing population.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Give Workers 10,000 Pound To Survive Automation, British Top Think Tank Suggests More

Give Workers 10,000 Pound To Survive Automation, British Top Think Tank Suggests

Comments Filter:

  • Hysterically inadaquate (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @02:44PM (#56147930)

    What workers needed is free industry funded training.

    It has to be free because for the next few decades, entire job categories are going to collapse repeatedly.

    Just as we have free public schooling, we need free job training or else you'll see violence.

    In any case, I'm retired on a fairly tight budget and own my own house (so no rent) and that amount of money wouldn't last me one year. The only way I could survive on that would be to eat really unhealthy food, not buy anything new, walk most places, relying on public transportation only for job interviews and I'd have to go without heat in the winter and cooling in the summer.

    • let student loans be dishcahnged in bankruptcy!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I have a better idea.

        Let's just stop letting kids take out fifty thousand dollar loans to get a degree in women's studies as expressed through dance.

        Put them through a trade school instead.

        • College should be free

          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by gravewax ( 4772409 )
            nothing is free. What you probably meant is college should be funded by working individuals through tax. Personally fuck that, college should be funded by those that utilise it, perhaps through extra tax post graduation but still by those utilising the system. Many should be being steered away from college to a trade school.

            • College should be funded by rich people and corporations. They have lots of money, they just got a big tax break and they will benefit from an educated proletariat.

              • That's the way it currently is. Rich people and their kids fund colleges. Then they go about bitching that it's too expensive.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by mspohr ( 589790 )

                  Rich people send their kids to (overpriced) private schools.
                  Most middle class students go to more reasonably priced state schools and end up with large education loans which will take forever to pay off.
                  Rich people and corporations just got a huge (unnecessary) tax break. It's time for them to pony up for public education.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by guruevi ( 827432 )

                    Private schools? There may be some of those, but truly private education nearly doesn't exist in the US. All of it, even the "private" Universities are largely tax funded. Running the numbers for a couple of nearby Universities and State colleges, the "true cost" of running a place seems to be ~$300k/year/student with the tuition generally being about 10-20% of that number and that's before tax funded scholarships, financial aid and sub-inflationary loans.

                    Even a top place like Harvard: $4B operating costs,

            • Re: let student loans be dishcahnged in bankruptcy (Score:5, Interesting)

              by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Monday February 19, 2018 @12:57AM (#56150460) Homepage

              As a principle education is required to be free, else the citizenry is extorted with access to knowledge being denied which prevents them from any kind of equal access to democracy or justice. By the principles of Democracy, the State is required to educate the electorate in ALL facets of Democracy. A country is not democratic when that democracy is based upon ignorance and lies, it is an autocracy controlled by the tellers of those lies, hmm, much like US Democracy, which is probably why you don't recognise anything wrong, you are an American. Perhaps you will be more informed now but probably not. One comment does not a quality education make and you need a quality education to properly participate in Democracy.

        • Mao had a rustication program where students were sent to countryside to live with the Proletariat and abandon their bourgeois ways

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          On December 22, 1968, Chairman Mao directed the People's Daily to publish a piece entitled "We too have two hands, let us not laze about in the city", which quoted Mao as saying "The intellectual youth must go to the country, and will be educated from living in rural poverty." In 1969, many youth were rusticated. High school students were organized and assigned to the countryside on a national level.

          The modern equivalent would be Trump sending all the SJWs from rich families who think they're Marxists from Berkeley and NYU to trade schools in a red state for re-education by the workers. This would cause them to abandon their heretical identity politics and adopt working class values and class based politics.

          Class warfare : it works for the

      • Re:let student loans be dishcahnged in bankruptcy! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @03:16PM (#56148080)
        They could be if the government would stop subsidizing them. Banks shouldn't be required to lend people money and I suspect if student loans didn't have government backing the banks would be far more picky about who they loan money to. Of course, everyone needs to go to college these days, even little Timmy who had a 2.3 GPA in high school and plans to major in philosophy. That's just as good of a financial risk as little Suzy who was the class valedictorian and wants to go into biomedical engineering.

        • Re:let student loans be dishcahnged in bankruptcy! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @04:16PM (#56148344) Homepage Journal

          We need a lot of graduates. There are skills shortages. Okay, there are problems with employers not wanting to pay enough, but at the same time if the available supply is too expensive to make the business case for hiring... And especially in the UK we want to stop most of the immigration so can't rely on that.

          We also can't expect children to make great life decisions at that age, and can't realistically expect them to dedicate years of their lives to subjects they have little interest in. That's not necessarily a problem if we recognize that a philosophy degree is valuable for the skills it teaches - writing, rhetoric, self study, time management, project management, self motivation. Being able to convey ideas and convince people of your arguments is a pretty useful skill in many businesses.

          Education is a lot like infrastructure. Universal service is a good thing, we want everyone to be able to get post or have a phone or have access to a public road, within reason. If our society becomes about nothing more than the corporate bottom line it will be even more awful than it is already.

          • Re:let student loans be dishcahnged in bankruptcy! (Score:4, Insightful)

            by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @05:41PM (#56148760)
            You're assuming that you can just take any particular person and turn them into a doctor, engineer, or other highly skilled profession. There are some people who lack the intelligence, aptitude, or desire to participate in any of those fields. Devoting resources towards getting blood out of a stone is wasting them when they could be better spent on those who are capable and willing.

            I also think you're assuming that all degrees are capable of producing value which I don't believe is this case either and I don't believe that a degree is philosophy necessarily imbues skills in self study, self motivation, time management, or project management any more than any other degree. Subsidizing degrees in philosophy, art history, religious studies, etc. is not going to provide the taxpayer with a good return on their investment. Wanting those degrees to be useful doesn't make them so, and allowing the large number of individuals to who choose to major in them and end up in a cycle of perpetual debt due to lack of job prospects is pure folly on the part of society.

            If you removed government subsidization of student loans, banks would figure this out in a hurry and would largely stop loaning money to people who try to major in those fields. much like they're not going to provide a home loan to a crack addict with a history of arson. This naturally drives people towards the fields of study where there is a possibility of doing something economically viable and prevents people who are always going to end up working as a cashier, builder, or some other job that requires no college education from running up six figure loan debts that they have no real hope of paying off. Instead they can entire the workforce sooner, begin earning sooner, start acquiring job skills sooner, and likely be able to afford a house and build up capital that they would not otherwise be able to do if they're taking out expensive student loans.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              You're assuming that you can just take any particular person and turn them into a doctor, engineer, or other highly skilled profession.

              No, quite the opposite. To create the most doctors and engineers we need to give everyone the opportunity to have a university level education, and not write them off too early if they happen to have a bad couple of years at school.

              Subsidizing degrees in philosophy, art history, religious studies, etc. is not going to provide the taxpayer with a good return on their investment.

              Only if you consider anything non-technical to be worthless. Personally I don't want to live in a cultureless, philistine society. And actually these days a large part of the UK economy is creative services. It's going to have to grow massively too because we are about to lose mo

              • To create the most doctors and engineers we need to give everyone the opportunity to have a university level education

                So if 1,000,000 graduates includes 50,000 doctors, and we need 75,000 doctors, we can achieve that simply by having 1,500,000 graduates?

                not write them off too early if they happen to have a bad couple of years at school.

                Entirely different issue. Ever heard the expression mature student? # ToDo: joke goes here.

          • We need a lot of graduates.

            Not in Feminist Folk Dancing and Interdisciplinary Whining..

            There are skills shortages.

            Tell me about it. I went to buy a basket the other day and they only had ones that were woven on land.

            We also can't expect children to make great life decisions at that age, and can't realistically expect them to dedicate years of their lives to subjects they have little interest in.

            Not sure what that's got to do with anything. There's no rule that says you have to go to university befor

        • Banks have a low bar for lending. Basically they make money though lending money and if they lose 1 in 100 it is still worth flowing the money out and gaining the interest.

          A friend of mine asked the bank not to lend any more money to his son who already has $12k borrowed, no assets, only a part time job and no drivers license (he lost his license.) Even with him not making payments on the existing loan they were going to lend him more, not sure if they did or not.

        • You are misreading the situations.

          Banks adore the current situation. Large tuitions due to loans require large loans which you can't escape for life. It's a guaranteed income stream and virtual slavery for an entire generation of young people.

          It absolutely kills our economy since they can't ever afford to take risks or retrain until huge debts are paid off.

      • let student loans be dishcahnged in bankruptcy!

        Oh, that plan worked out just grand with the sub-prime mortgage industry.

        When a bankruptcy occurs, the debts don't simply disappear. Someone ends up loosing money on them or paying for them.

        In this case, it will end up being the general taxpayers . . . again.

      • let student loans be dishcahnged in bankruptcy!

        Here's what would happen:
        1. Employment would go up as lots of jobs are created for bankruptcy lawyers.
        2. Millions of students will engage in "intentional bankruptcy", shedding assets and accumulating unpayable debt just before graduation.
        3. As default rates soar, a trillion dollar hole will be added to the national debt.
        4. To cover the cost, middle class taxes will be raised, including many people that didn't go to college and who earn less than the graduates they are subsidizing, exacerbating income in

      • Or perhaps don't go to a $30,000 a year university and major in something like trans-generdered sheep dance theory. It is not my fault that you made such a remarkably bad life decision. Stop asking me (and other tax payers) to pay for your bullshit.

        Before you say anything about privilege or other SJW crap, my family was very poor. I went to a state school and majored in a STEM field, so that I had a reasonable chance of finding a job when I was done. I had to work through school to pay for my tuition, whi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by maeka ( 518272 )

          So much anger, so little understanding of the world.

    • Re:Hysterically inadaquate (Score:4, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @03:02PM (#56148024)
      There's two problems with this. First, we don't necessarily know what jobs to train them for, either because they don't exist yet or we're not anticipating demand for them. There's also a side issue that any job you train someone for may also become unavailable before long as well. The second is that it assumes that all people are equally competent and capable of any job, which isn't true either. Eventually you reach a point with any person where they're incapable of doing anything economically productive due any number of factors including age, mental capability, health, etc.

      It's probably cheaper to just give them some money to live off of contingent on them not running around committing crimes. People seem to think that a basic income like this would be completely detrimental, but I think it's preferable to alternatives. First, if people are being replaced by machines, it means overall labor capacity has either increased or remained the same at a lower cost so it isn't going to economically ruin the economy. Second, I believe that people left to their own devices will do a better job of finding supplemental or new employment better than any government planning board that thinks it can predict or direct the economy. The only other policy you'd need would be similar to China's one child policy so you don't have unproductive individuals spawning large numbers of children they're probably not well equip to care for either and I don't see a problem with just subsidizing the existence of people who aren't capable of finding new jobs. Yes, some people will choose not to work ever again, but if they want to go read books in the park all day, it's better than them turning to crime in order to try to get by.

      • Re:Hysterically inadaquate (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @03:36PM (#56148156)

        First, we don't necessarily know what jobs to train them for

        A common policy is to offer tax incentives or other subsidies to employers to hire less skilled workers and train them for real jobs. The obvious employer response is to take the subsidies and apply them to people that they would have hired anyway, or to even fire existing workers to replace them with effectively cheaper "trainees".

        There is little evidence that government programs to encourage training are actually effective ... but there is also little evidence that automation is actually causing job losses, so training subsidies are a bad solution to a problem that may not even exist.

        • I'm not proposing training subsidies, just some form of UBI. Some recipients will use that money to educate themselves or will seek out training for work because they want the additional money that comes in the form of finding a job. Some will probably spend more time producing art, which doesn't have much economic value in and of itself, but does give them something to do and an opportunity to gain income through selling their works or services and keeps them out of trouble due to having a base level of in

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            A UBI never works. Was tried in the US, but failed, called "the dole". Socialism always fails, and we can point to Venezuela as a place where socialism is alive and well, especially trading recipes for one's pet cat/dog/rat.

            We spent decades ridding ourself of that poison; it will not be brought back, no matter how many people beg for it.

            People forget... who pays for the UBI?

          • I'm not proposing training subsidies, just some form of UBI.

            Before proposing a solution, you need to establish that the problem exists. Are people actually losing jobs to automation?

            Countries that have extensively automated include America, Western Europe, and Japan. Countries that have not include Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Haiti. Are the 2nd group better off because they avoided the "productivity catastrophe"?

            In the past, automation has caused some dislocation, but has resulted in higher living standards, and greater demand for labor. This is an example of Jev [wikipedia.org]

            • If you are a factory owner, and you are installing machinery that can double the production of each worker, and double your profits from each worker, would you fire half of them, or hire more?

              While I agree with the rest of your premise, this one deserves more scrutiny. For example, if GM could double production capacity of all its plants would that equate to a doubling of demand for its products and/or services? This assumes pricing remains constant, of course. A decrease in pricing might stimulate demand, but pricing could only be decreased if labor costs were decreased due to automation or wage cuts, both of which negatively impact the wage earner. Without a decrease in pricing, doubling o

            • I'm not in favor of it just as a matter of helping people as a result of job loss due to automation, but as a replacement for other forms of government welfare. Essentially, treat it as a replacement for social security, medicare, food stamps, etc. We're already spending that money and replacing it with a single system cuts out loads of bureaucracy and results in a system that's more flexible and adaptable to people's needs.

              Ideally a UBI serves as a reasonable safety net for people and not a means for pe
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by havana9 ( 101033 )
          Or better pfund public schools in technical enginnerig that make evening courses. Make a nominal fee, like 100$/semester and make the end exam a legal one.
          In ITaly they're called ITIS Istituto tecnico industriale statale: State industrial technical institute or ITGS State surveyor technical institute and the thing works. There are some private (christian catholic schools mainly, especially due the fact that some priests stated trade schools in 1800 like st. John Bosco [wikipedia.org]) ones. They cost a lot more. There

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        Eventually you reach a point with any person where they're incapable of doing anything economically productive due any number of factors including age, mental capability, health, etc.

        Only a few heavily handicapped people are actually completely incapable. The rest may not be employable on commercial terms, but if you're the government you don't care since they're on your "payroll" anyway. That's what happen to everyone under 30 on our "last resort" program here in Norway. You don't get to play PlayStation or work black labor, you'll do community service all day and in return you'll get a subsistence wage. Basically unpaid interns but only for a limited time per workplace and obviously i

        • The remaining population growth is mainly the current population aging and "filling out" the age pyramid.

          Eh? Are you saying that when a person passes 50 he suddenly becomes 1.3 people?

          I mean I know I've put a bit of weight on, but ...

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by rea1l1 ( 903073 )

        We should be doing our best to flood the market with high quality healthcare providers. Pump out doctors & nurses, offering free full ride scholarships, and watch the costs drop.

    • Re:Hysterically inadaquate (Score:4, Funny)

      by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @03:50PM (#56148216)

      Just as we have free public schooling, we need free job training or else you'll see violence.

      Bring on the violence, please. English citizens don't have guns. What are they going to do? Throw rocks and Molotov cocktails at the police? British soccer hooligans are good at whipping up a wee bit of mayhem, but when the police and army return fire with SA80's . . . the hooligans will hatch a new plan and return to the Winchester for the night.

      "The Crown" will have no qualms about slaughtering their own citizens if their regency feels threatened. That Prince William may have a nice smile, but he's got that true bloodline of despotic dictators in him. This experience with the Brits is why the Founding Fathers of the US decided that they needed liberal gun laws.

      But thankfully won't come to this. The same thing was supposed to happen during the industrial revolution in the late 1800's . . . and none of those dire prophecies became reality. Human beings are like weeds and toenail fungus: incredibly resilient. Folks will adjust to the new environment and find new jobs.

      “Man is a singular creature. He has a set of gifts which make him unique among the animals: so that, unlike them, he is not a figure in the landscape — he is a shaper of the landscape.” Jacob Bronowski

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        English citizens don't have guns. What are they going to do?

        Same thing as American citizens are gonna do when their rifles come up against an A1 Abrams tank or an F35 dropped laser guided bomb.

        I.e. realize that armed uprising hasn't been viable for at least 100 years.

        • I.e. realize that armed uprising hasn't been viable for at least 100 years.

          In the US, in 2014, actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          If the ranchers and their pals hadn't been armed to the teeth, the Feds would have just hoovered them up off the land with Soylent Green Scoopers. A wise Fed realized that a shootout with them would have been seriously bad news, and decided to draw down.

          A federal court later decided in favor of the ranchers. Please note, if the ranchers had not been seriously armed, the case would have been swept away under the rug, and the ranchers would ha

          • A wise Fed realized that a shootout with them would have been seriously bad news, and decided to draw down.

            You seriously think that's because they would have lost the battle and not because it would have been bad PR?

            • You seriously think that's because they would have lost the battle and not because it would have been bad PR?

              Of course it was because of the PR aspect, and not because they were afraid they'd lose the fight. So what? It was only a PR nightmare for them because the people on the other side were armed, and thus capable of resisting. An unarmed group could have been evicted without drawing nearly as much attention.

              Even if you don't stand a chance of winning the fight, there is value in forcing your opponents to exert themselves and, in doing so, reveal their true principles and priorities for everyone to see.

              • But that's still relying on teh gubmint to play nice. A proper dictator like Saddam or Stalin would just have levelled the place.

                Thus, against actual tyranny, no use at all.

                • A proper dictator like Saddam or Stalin would just have levelled the place.

                  Sure, but even in that case the rest of the world is looking on. Saddam or Stalin might not care, but others will—if the story gets out, which is more likely when tyranny encounters concerted opposition rather than passive acquiescence.

                  Besides the PR aspects there is also value in making tyranny as expensive as possible. Even an absolute dictator is constrained by limited resources, and the more expensive it is to subdue each source of opposition, the less there is left over to go after the others. In

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mikael ( 484 )

      You need constant retraining in the tech industry. They say you will have five to eight different careers in your life. Career #1 is going to college/university as a student, or industry as an apprentice/intern. Then you become fully qualified as Career #2. That might last two to ten years, then you are in management, contracting or consultancy (Career #3). Some people might just leave the field altogether, go into another profession or back to university to do a MSc or PhD (Career #4). Then they do academi

  • UBI (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @02:50PM (#56147966)
    Looks like the answer will be UBI, or an armed revolution by the underclass. The powered elite are gauging how long they can put off the revolution, and how little of a UBI would provide bread and circuses, and not looking at how to solve the underlying equity that's been the downfall of almost every civilization that's ever existed. Maybe this time they'll put it off longer, but they can never stop it, without addressing the actual issues.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The "underclass" are morons. These are the idiots that demanded Brexit and elected Trump in the US.

      They want the opiates of their generation - TV, drugs, alcohol, sex and guns.

      Marie Antoinette would have survived if she had ACTUALLY distributed cake.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Thats not the "cake" that most people think of.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      To suppress an armed revolution by the underclass, you need a loyal cadre of guards. But you can't recruit them from the underclass, because they'll sympathise with their own. You need a poor population willing to do violence on your behalf, without a shared sense of identity with your existing peons ...

      Oh, look! Refugees!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      We may still get that uprising even with an UBI. It is clearly necessary, but people need meaning in their lives and for most that comes from their job.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        UBI doesn't end jobs. People generally still choose to work. UBI just eliminates the need to have a job to eat. Give the people their bread and circuses. Right now, we are closing on circuses without the bread, and people are getting restless.

  • Re-training fairy tale (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Even if one spent the money on something marketable, employers don't hire folks without experience. So unless the retraining money is tied to employer incentives to hire inexperienced new grads, it'll be a complete waste.

    And start a business? OK, in what? Too many people go off half-cocked starting businesses only to get into something that's has saturated market or something that has no demand.

    Politicians are so clueless.

  • Spend the money on housing (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Build more houses and make it possible that someone on the minimum wage can get a mortgage instead of being in social housing, Also a robot tax and foreign labour tax so that it's more expensive to employ them.

    captcha:automata

  • Is this once or every year (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @02:53PM (#56147982) Homepage Journal

    Because if it's just a one time payout, it seems inadequate. It's not going to support someone long enough to get a 2 or 4 year degree for example.

    • Then you will have college grads flipping burgers. Most of the jobs that exist today does not need college degrees. Unless more jobs that need college degrees are created, creating more graduates will not help.

      It is like making more stoves and utensils when there is a famine and shortage of food.

      • Then you will have college grads flipping burgers.

        If I can hire college grads for 10% less than I do now, because increased supply. Would I not use this additional capacity to improve the output of my business?

        Your analogy is nice, but do we have a famine? Is our storage anything other than artificial?

    • Re:Is this once or every year (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @07:54PM (#56149386)

      No. Please can we get away from the idea that a degree will solve everything - they don't.

      I've worked with degree holders who couldnt string a sentence together - the fact that they had a degree didn't mean they could actually survive in the real world, it just showed that they could survive the academic world.

      What we need is a populace with a good grounding in logical and critical thinking, literacy and numeracy and only then can we move forward with actual domain specific skills that can be learned during an apprenticeship.

      I rarely use Facebook - I opened an account in 2007 and never used it, never posted etc. Since moving to a new country, I started using Facebook groups to access the local "buy and sell" markets. Jesus H Christ, I wasn't prepared for the dross I encountered.

      Here on Slashdot, if you browse at above 1 or 2 then you generally get fairly decent literacy - decent spelling, good use of paragraphs and layout, sentences that are well developed.

      I hate to sound elitist, but we are not the norm. The norm reads like it was written by 5 year olds. It was seriously shocking to see just how poor these posts on these groups were - and it never ends.

      So no, we don't need degrees - IMHO most people wouldn't be able to achieve one because they don't have the basic literacy and numeracy skills they need in the first place, so thats what we need to pivot to.

      As an aside, give out a chunk of money and a large proportion of the British public simply won't use it to improve themselves, or pay off debts or anything similar.

      Several years ago the benefits system changed, and the change was designed to "empower" the benefits recipients - housing benefit no longer went directly to the landlord, it was paid to the benefit recipient so they could feel "in control".

      Today, most private landlords won't take tenants who are reliant on housing benefits, because a huge proportion of those recipients simply stopped paying the rent - they got starry eyed with the numbers in their bank accounts and went and bought TVs, cigarettes and alcohol instead. They got into huge arrears, were evicted and the landlords never got their back rent paid, so nowadays anyone on housing benefit is pretty much excluded from the private market.

      • No. Please can we get away from the idea that a degree will solve everything - they don't.

        Enriches people's live. Provides them new skills to adapt to a changing world. Access to new industry connections. I can go on.

        I've worked with degree holders who couldnt string a sentence together - the fact that they had a degree didn't mean they could actually survive in the real world, it just showed that they could survive the academic world.

        I've met with people without degrees that had no prospects except liver failure. Lots of different kind of people in the world.
        Your counter example doesn't speak of trends or effects on the whole of society.

        Here on Slashdot, if you browse at above 1 or 2 then you generally get fairly decent literacy - decent spelling, good use of paragraphs and layout, sentences that are well developed.

        Most posts on Slashdot are not written for the purposes of formal submission to an esteemed journal. They are just people casually bullshitting about bullshit.

        So no, we don't need degrees - IMHO most people wouldn't be able to achieve one because they don't have the basic literacy and numeracy skills they need in the first place, so that's what we need to pivot to.

        The day we say peop

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Under 55s Only (Score:3)

    by Sesostris III ( 730910 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @02:57PM (#56148000)
    I couldn't see anywhere why this was restricted to the under 55s. *Retirement age is now 66+).

    Which is a bit of a bummer as I find myself (ahem) ineligible!

    (BBC article - less ad-laden for those of us in the UK: £10,000 proposed for everyone under 55 [bbc.co.uk].)
    • Especially considering how much more difficult it is to get a job as you get older even if you already have experience in the field.

  • People would have to set out how they intend to put the five-figure payouts to good use

    Keep me from having to rob old people living in council flats.

  • Top British Think Tank. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nutria ( 679911 ) on Sunday February 18, 2018 @03:04PM (#56148028)

    LOL

    They're expert at thinking how to suck more from the government teat.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Actually it's a very well respected organization that has done a lot to improve Britain over the centuries (it was founded in 1754).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nutria ( 679911 )

        Is the National Endowment for the Arts expert in how to improve education in Chemistry and Physics? No.

        Is the American Chemical Society expert at teaching art appreciation? No.

        Then why in the hell should we give any special regard to what the Royal Society for the Arts says about economics?

        Correct! There is no reason. That's why your reply -- while certainly true -- is meaningless in this context.

        (No, I take that back. Your comment is meaningful, but only insofar as displaying your bias.)

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by mikael ( 484 )

          Social Economics is an arts degree. It really covers the priorities of government spending. Do they reduce taxation for corporations or do they keep taxes the same and provide free education to people.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Nutria ( 679911 )

            Social Economics is an arts degree.

            Please clarify that, since, in the US at least, getting a Bachelor of Arts degree does not mean that you got an "arts" degree.

  • It'll just delay the disaster. The trouble is there aren't going to be enough jobs to go around for people who aren't math whizes. It's like when the manufacturing jobs went overseas and everybody was told to retain for biotech. We just don't need that many rank and file in that industry.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The cost of living is going to change a lot in interesting ways.
      Rent, food, transport, medical cost will all have to be covered.
      Take more money from the few productive workers in the private sector.
      How many citizens then get the payment before the payment becomes too much to cover every year for everyone?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. "Work" is over for many people, probably a majority. It will just take some more time to become blatantly obvious. But money (an UBI is without any alternative) is just one aspect of the problem. People need something to do in order to have meaning in their lives. That will be a lot harder to provide.

  • They can pay off the 10k extra taxes that they get to finance the whole scheme.

  • Britons should be able to bid for 10,000 pound

    Perhaps the editors could use it to learn how to write amounts properly.

    Before any amateur grammarians spout up, yes, "a thirty pound prize" or "a twenty pound note" are correct, but that's not the construction here.

  • Is that anything like £10,000?
    If it is, why not just write that. The author(s) should learn how to use the features in their computers that let them write things that aren't on their keyboards; like the £ sign. Or learn how to cut-and-paste from some other document FFS.
    And if nothing else at least write Pounds. Nobody writes or says 10,000 dollar either.
    For FSM's sake, it's the 21st Century.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ledow ( 319597 )

      Pound signs haven't worked for me on this website for many years. I have a UK computer, UK keyboard, standard browser, nothing unusual.

      Maybe they fixed it.

      Let me have a look:

      £

  • When I was a student, the system was you could get a loan to cover tuition costs, books and misc for the year. Almost everyone I knew spent the lot within a month of starting on Drink, Pizzas, TVs, computers etc. This will be the same, 99% of people likely to be replaced by machines will invest heavily in booze and cigarettes.
  • Or, we could always wait for AI to actually start causing big employment dislocations before voluntarily bankrupting every developed country with a Basic Income or the like.
  • Bid for a paltry sum of money and hope that you and enough of your fellow entrepreneurs can support the mass unemployed? In the UK, the tuition fees alone are £9k, so £10k is a drop in the ocean. Plus, something tells me lecturers aren't going to be the obvious first choice for arriving at paradigm-shifting solutions.

  • ...most poor people are poor because they make/have made stupid economic choices.

    Giving them a small pile of cash will not mean they will use that money wisely in any way. It's a statistical fact that people who've won the lottery to any substantial degree usually end up materially poorer.

    Such a policy would only increase inflation on the sorts of crap that they waste their money on, and enrich purveyors of such things for a short time, ie it's a stupid idea.

  • I guess in Britain the distinction is "O" level vs. "A" level. I would think "O" level would have a harder time applying for grants. They are not as socialized into the paper chase as much as "A" levels. Anyone with a few years of college would have a distinct advantage. Unless some of the educated classes were hired to to coach the others. Which would create jobs for them.

  • The returns from the fund would be used to build a pot of money, to which working-age adults under-55 would apply to receive a grant in the coming decade.

    In other words, the initiative will be dead on next financial crisis. Too bad, since this will be the time where such mechanism would help recovering.

  • So what is the plan after 70 percent blow through the money? A massive cull?

  • You can't tax a robot.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close