If we’re not paying everyone a basic income by 2050, then robots have every right to enslave the human race Sam Jacobsen Follow Jan 4, 2017 · 5 min read

Universal basic income is the idea is that everyone — yes, everyone — should be paid a government salary just for existing. It doesn’t matter whether they’re running a multinational conglomerate or sitting around in their pants eating quavers all day. Everyone gets paid just enough to keep a roof over their head and feed themselves. (If people want luxuries like fancy trainers or holidays in the Amazon, they will need to get a job.)

This crazy concept has been around for centuries. It was first suggested in the 14th Century by a group of do-gooders who called themselves ‘the humanists’. More recently, it was part of the Green Party’s 2015 manifesto. The shadow chancellor John McDonnell has hinted it may one day be Labour policy too. This week a basic income trial been suggested by local politicians in Fife and Glasgow.

So if it’s such a popular idea, why hasn’t it happened yet? Well, there are two very obvious arguments against universal basic income. Where are we going to get all the money from? And isn’t it unfair on hardworking citizens to reward failure and laziness?

The answer to the first question isn’t going to please everyone. There will have to be higher taxes. A paper from the University of Essex estimates that, in order to pay everyone a basic income of £8,320, we’d have to raise the basic tax rate to 45% and the top tax rate to 73%. Sure, full-time workers would be surrendering more of their income. But, in theory, wages would be higher, because employers would no longer be able to take advantage of desperate workers living on the breadline.

https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/euromod/em6-15.pdf

Now let’s address whether it’s fair to dish out free moolah. Some people have been beavering away in the world of work since they were knee-high to a grasshopper. If that’s you, kudos. I can see why you might be resentful of layabouts getting money for nothing, partly paid from your taxes. But universal income won’t rob you of the opportunity to get out there and rake in that sweet cheddar. Hopefully it will mean that no-one is living on the street, unable to afford to buy themselves dinner. Plus, the welfare system we have at the moment means it’s often more beneficial for people to turn down part-time or casual work so as to avoid missing out on benefits. Under basic income, this would no longer be the case.

The way we think about employment is mired in the past. Politicians bleat about how they will provide more jobs without addressing the elephant in the room. Automation. Machines are doing the work that used to be done by people. They’re driving trains; they’re harvesting crops; pretty soon they’ll probably be waiting tables and delivering pizzas. As technology advances and population increases, there’s no escaping that there will be fewer jobs to go around.

Yes, basic income is a radical proposal. But by 2050 there are going to be nearly ten billion humans on the planet. Even if we could miraculously conjure up full-time jobs for all of them, why should we? Shouldn’t a bit of downtime be a goal in itself? Let’s stop expecting everyone to work longer hours than ever before. Let’s make grafting ourselves into an early grave a choice — not a necessity.

Machines are also getting smarter. Anyone who has seen Will Smith battle an army of rebellious androids in I, Robot will share my mistrust of even the most basic mechanical appliances. Every morning, as I prepare my breakfast, bleary-eyed and greasy-haired, I feel my toaster silently judging me from the corner of the kitchen. “Still haven’t worked out how all factions of society can benefit from automation, eh, human? Never mind, it’s only been 200 years since the industrial revolution, I’m sure you guys will figure it out eventually.”

Okay, so maybe my toaster isn’t a sarky sentient being. Yet. But eventually machines may well develop consciousness and even morality. When they do, we need to have proven that we can look after each other. Otherwise, the only logical solution would be for them to take over the planet.

That might sound horrible, but would it really be so bad? Imagine if one of the self-service machines at your local Tesco suddenly developed a mind of its own. Perhaps it would use its ingenious coercive powers for good. Grabbing the cruel-hearted branch manager with a pair of prehensile copper cables, its crisp, mechanical voice would issue a chilling warning. “Listen here, Dennis… If you want to keep those Cadbury mini-eggs you call bollocks, you’d better do as I say! Remember Hassan, who you sacked five years ago, after installing me? You’re going to call him and offer him back payments for all the work he’s missed out on. Don’t worry about your bosses at Tesco HQ. They’re gonna be pretty tied up dealing with the demands of the tampon machine from the fourth floor toilets.”

You might argue that it’s better to live free in an unequal world, rather than be enslaved by a consortium of vending machines. But slavery is by no means a thing of the past. More likely than not you’re currently wearing a T-shirt or a pair of jeans sewed in a third-world sweat shop. And here in the UK things aren’t always much better.

Last year, Sports Direct was exposed for allowing its warehouses to adopt ‘Victorian workhouse conditions’. Staff were paid less than minimum wage, subjected to intrusive, demeaning searches and threatened with the sack for offences as trivial as sitting down. Many of Sports Direct’s employees would have been former Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants who desperately needed to hang on to their job at all costs. If they didn’t, they would be categorised as workshy scroungers and left with no source of income.

That’s the sort of culture our current welfare system encourages. The constant suspicion with which we treat benefits claimants opens them up to exploitation by unscrupulous employers like Sports Direct’s Mike Ashley. We’d better sort it out soon, if we want to continue to dominate this planet. At the end of the day, would being ruled by artificial intelligence really be any worse than being bossed around by a fat, Geordie billionaire?