Universal Basic Income

[Stumpy 256]

I've been mulling this for a while now and curious to know what people think.
We are coming to a point technologically where the simple fact is, that there are not going to be enough jobs for everyone, ever again. Automation, AI, Machine Learning and a host of other things are conspiring to make it so that humans are literally being replaced. It is not just in manufacturing and transport, but also Law, Healthcare, IT - pretty much any industry you can think of is threatened to a greater or lesser extent.

This means the paradigm has to change. As a sci fi nut I love the Hamilton commonweath novels - the idea of universal basic income is an intriguing one - the state provides for your basic needs - those who want to sit on their backsides and do nothing can do (in some semblance of comfort and dignity), those who are entrepreneurial and want to better themselves can do.

What are people's thoughts?? There are a few countries looking at trying this - notably Scotland - and it could be a game changer. Remember - those jobs are NOT coming back, regardless of what the Chief cheetoh or whichever politician you prefer says.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[billvon 2,380]

I'd be more in favor of universal basic employment - a guarantee of a job appropriate to the person's skills (or lack thereof) even if it's sweeping floors or sitting in a guard shack, paying some minimal salary (equal to whatever you'd make universal basic income.)

[quade 3]

billvon

I'd be more in favor of universal basic employment - a guarantee of a job appropriate to the person's skills (or lack thereof) even if it's sweeping floors or sitting in a guard shack, paying some minimal salary (equal to whatever you'd make universal basic income.)

I could go for that. I don't think there's going to be a lot of support for it in the US and it's precisely what was done in the Soviet era with even the old babushkas, but I could go for it.

Unfortunately, I think what we're going to end up seeing is more akin to the financial disparity shown in films such as Elysium. Basic jobs are done by robots making the vast majority of people unemployable at any wage. Meanwhile the ultra-rich live in their own hyper-isolated society.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

quade

live in their own hyper-isolated society.

like the camper at the DZ - I can do that

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Phil1111 908]

Are we talking in the world, or USA? Never happen in US.

Ontario Canada:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-report-touting-basic-income-likely-to-target-middle-aged-women-disabled-adults-for-most-help

Finland:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-to-consider-introducing-universal-basic-income-in-2017-a6963321.html

[quade 3]

I thought I was pretty clear my opinion on the subject was in regards to the US.

How it's handled in other countries where they already enjoy things like universal health care and whatnot . . . well, that's up to them.

I just don't see it happening in the US.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DJL 232]

Stumpy

I've been mulling this for a while now and curious to know what people think.
We are coming to a point technologically where the simple fact is, that there are not going to be enough jobs for everyone, ever again. Automation, AI, Machine Learning and a host of other things are conspiring to make it so that humans are literally being replaced. It is not just in manufacturing and transport, but also Law, Healthcare, IT - pretty much any industry you can think of is threatened to a greater or lesser extent.

This means the paradigm has to change. As a sci fi nut I love the Hamilton commonweath novels - the idea of universal basic income is an intriguing one - the state provides for your basic needs - those who want to sit on their backsides and do nothing can do (in some semblance of comfort and dignity), those who are entrepreneurial and want to better themselves can do.

What are people's thoughts?? There are a few countries looking at trying this - notably Scotland - and it could be a game changer. Remember - those jobs are NOT coming back, regardless of what the Chief cheetoh or whichever politician you prefer says.

The other alternative is removing those jobs from being automated for the pure purpose of providing jobs. The only other outcome would result in such a disparity in wealth that the basic structures of socio-econic mobility are gone.

I personally don't think that anything short of a population collapse is in store without really planning for the long-term future of humanity.. It's been theorized that the world's population will balance out somewhere in the 9 to 10 billion range.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[GeorgiaDon 340]

quade

***I'd be more in favor of universal basic employment - a guarantee of a job appropriate to the person's skills (or lack thereof) even if it's sweeping floors or sitting in a guard shack, paying some minimal salary (equal to whatever you'd make universal basic income.)

I could go for that. I don't think there's going to be a lot of support for it in the US and it's precisely what was done in the Soviet era with even the old babushkas, but I could go for it.

Unfortunately, I think what we're going to end up seeing is more akin to the financial disparity shown in films such as Elysium. Basic jobs are done by robots making the vast majority of people unemployable at any wage. Meanwhile the ultra-rich live in their own hyper-isolated society.I think we're in for a tidal wave of robots replacing humans in 95% of jobs. Currently there is a big push for self-driving cars and trucks. I suspect in 20-30 years there will be no jobs driving trucks, taxis (and Uber, Lyft, etc). Courier services such as FedEx will have minimum wage jobs only, to take packages from the truck to the mailroom/front door or vice versa, but drivers will be robots. Human drivers will be banned as "too dangerous", as will be human pilots. Even highly skilled jobs can be better filled by robots; "expert programs" can do a better job of diagnosing illnesses, for example, displacing the majority of doctors. There will still be room for some nurses though, to give injections and change bedpans. A couple of days ago I heard a segment on NPR about computers "learning" to compose music, at least movie scores and commercial jingles. The day is not long off when we, as a society, will have to decide how to deal with an economy where humans are simply not cost-effective, except perhaps as consumers of the goods and services being generated by robots. Although the notion of a universal basic income is anathema to capitalist values, it may come to seem cheap compared to the cost of an angry population with a 90% unemployment rate.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 3]

GeorgiaDon

I think we're in for a tidal wave of robots replacing humans in 95% of jobs. Currently there is a big push for self-driving cars and trucks.

Yeah, the world is just now waking up to that.

Some of us have been talking about it for at least a couple of years now.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mr2mk1g 10]

Hey Dave, I've been thinking on this for some time as well. Not sure I've reached a conclusion yet though. I've so far been leaning away from a right to a basic job and salary though - I think the mechanisms that would actually make it work in practice favour a kind of state basic minimum safety net (which would have to be pretty freaking minimal - enough to keep you off the street/starving but that would literally have to be it) so that the moment you decided to get off your arse and do something you would be in immediate profit, no matter how basic the job.

If you have a basic salary for a basic job - what's the incentive? (Besides the fact that this has already been tried - in Communist countries - and it didn't work out well). There was no incentive. Sure you could work hard sweeping up (if in the future the robot vacuum hasn't done it) but if the best you can hope for is a bigger broom and a 1% increase in salary, so what's the point? How would you convince the ministry that you should in fact be a controller? Who pays for the ministry?

If you can just about scrape a very basic existence together without physically starving however without ever lifting a finger... then there's both incentive, as the moment you get a job you significantly increase your quality of life and the basic human needs of everyone are met without there being live-aid style concerts being held for this years famine victims of Colorado (or wherever).

I'm not sure my thoughts would be palatable to all though (and oddly enough, I'm thinking of the left rather than the right, who might otherwise be assumed to be the obvious objectors) - the basic minimum would have to be fairly miserly. Low enough to make life fairly unpleasant, if liveable. Smoking, Sky or cable TV, a car, alcohol, etc would not be affordable. An extremely austere/ascetic life would be necessary. It will mean a very significant cut in what we currently understand as norms for unemployment allowances. That in itself may help fund the idea though.

To be clear to those who aren't aware of the concept behind universal basic income - everyone would get this without means testing (and the cost entailed therein). The tax system would ensure that those that earned enough would not profit from it but those who chose not to work would at least not die in the gutter, those on low wage would be significantly better off than those that decide not to work, those in the middle would be more comfortable, those above them would effectively ignore the payment as insignificant - it would fade into just a tax cut.

It would also work for the elderly and disabled. I think there would have to be some allowance over this basic payment for disabled on the basis of their need for aids etc and basic inability in some cases to work even if they wanted to. The elderly - assuming sufficient lead time for inception - would have the option just like workers to either have their own non-state pension to top up the allowance (cf work) or to simply rely on the basic state provision - but it would be a harsh life and one not to be recommended and if the system were adopted, I don't think the idea of pensioners living in poverty could remain the political football it currently is - it would be a choice not to save when in work.

I have of course not costed this. My gut is that it could be made to work and more cheaply and effectively than what much of the west currently has in the way of state aid/tax breaks etc. I think it could actually be made to encourage work more than the current system. No, I don't have any figures. Yes, it cuts against my instincts but there does seem to be a kernel behind the idea that might just actually work in practice better than what we have today.

[billvon 2,380]

Quote

If you have a basic salary for a basic job - what's the incentive? (Besides the fact that this has already been tried - in Communist countries - and it didn't work out well). There was no incentive. Sure you could work hard sweeping up (if in the future the robot vacuum hasn't done it) but if the best you can hope for is a bigger broom and a 1% increase in salary, so what's the point?

Well, not starving, I imagine.

Quote

How would you convince the ministry that you should in fact be a controller?

If you wanted to, the usual ways - doing a good job, coming in early, fixing the lock on the broom closet etc.

If you didn't want to do that, you would just get your 1% (or whatever COLA there needed to be) raise and no promotions.

Quote

Who pays for the ministry?

The taxpayers. Presumably that would be a better deal for them than "no work and welfare."

[mr2mk1g 10]

billvon

Quote

If you have a basic salary for a basic job - what's the incentive? (Besides the fact that this has already been tried - in Communist countries - and it didn't work out well). There was no incentive. Sure you could work hard sweeping up (if in the future the robot vacuum hasn't done it) but if the best you can hope for is a bigger broom and a 1% increase in salary, so what's the point?

Well, not starving, I imagine.
***How would you convince the ministry that you should in fact be a controller?

If you wanted to, the usual ways - doing a good job, coming in early, fixing the lock on the broom closet etc.

If you didn't want to do that, you would just get your 1% (or whatever COLA there needed to be) raise and no promotions.

Quote

Who pays for the ministry?

The taxpayers. Presumably that would be a better deal for them than "no work and welfare."

Yes, but you have all three of those points with just a basic state safety net - without having to pay for a massive ministry to administer it AND with a massively more significant incentive to actually get off your arse and work.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Stumpy,

Quote

curious to know what people think

I've been thinking about this for a number of years also.

One other option would be simple apartments with some level of medical coverage.

My mother lives in a retirement facility. She pays X amount per month and she gets a studio apartment with bathroom and very small 'kitchen.'

She goes to the communal dining hall three times a day for her meals.

Now, that is not so different than when I was in the military. We had a small wage, we had a job ( some had very menial jobs ), barracks to live in, and a chow hall for our food needs. Plus we had complete medical coverage.

IMO this will be, in some form, the future. It's nice to see some people thinking about this now.

Some interesting posts,

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 1,903]

People with no income to house and feed themselves will find something to do. It may very well be something illegal. Which will fit right into the current American system of a huge prison industry. It could provide employment and enforcement.

I have no real answer. But I do think there will still be service jobs of some kind. And that minimum wage laws could be part of the answer.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Stumpy 256]

Thanks all - some interesting points.
I think the difficulty is that its currently difficult to think outside of our own frame of reference (i.e. the world around us).

quade

Basic jobs are done by robots making the vast majority of people unemployable at any wage.

Agree - except I'd suggest "Basic" is quickly becoming "All"

Phil1111

]Never happen in US.

Never is a big word - the US isn't THAT different to everywhere else and the same pressures exist. In fact in some ways the US is already suffering more than most.

DJL

The other alternative is removing those jobs from being automated for the pure purpose of providing jobs.

Valid point, but I think this kind of repression of technology almost never works, if ever. If you do this, you simply get out competed locally or globally by someone who doesn't - and the jobs go anyway.

GeorgiaDon

I think we're in for a tidal wave of robots replacing humans in 95% of jobs

Can't disagree with anything you said, apart from I think this number is probably closer to 99%. The only sorts of jobs that I think will stay are all in the "empathetic/personality" line - carers, that sort of thing, and I am sure that is only a matter of time as well.

mr2mk1g

I have of course not costed this

Why the hell not? I thought you were smart!

JerryBaumchen

It's nice to see some people thinking about this now

Agree

I might be getting a bit dystopian but I think the critical change that automation makes isn't so much that it gets rid of jobs - it is more that in the long run the cost of most things drops essentially to zero due to the fact that the only input to the system is raw materials, which can be mined/produced by machines, maintained by other machines where the payback period on them is so long that the incremental cost is very low. No-one is really paying anyone for anything so the picture moves from a universal basic income, to not really needing an income at all.

It's great to get peoples viewpoints on this - thanks for the posts.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[quade 3]

Stumpy

Thanks all - some interesting points.
I think the difficulty is that its currently difficult to think outside of our own frame of reference (i.e. the world around us).

***Basic jobs are done by robots making the vast majority of people unemployable at any wage.

Agree - except I'd suggest "Basic" is quickly becoming "All"

I don't think it will ever become all jobs. There may be a time when it becomes fashionable or a status symbol to have real humans working for you in certain parts of the job market. While "commoners" will be almost certainly be served by robots at restaurants, the "elite" might want to show off with real people.

But it doesn't even have to be 50% totally unemployable before it becomes a social nightmare.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Paul,

Quote

But it doesn't even have to be 50% totally unemployable before it becomes a social nightmare.

Not to disparage Stumpy's OP, but this is what I've really been thinking about. Our society today simply cannot handle this at the 50% level. It is a concept that most people cannot even begin to grasp. And that is why Stumpy's OP is so important.

Today we get 7-10% unemployment and everyone goes berserk.

A few months ago I saw Andrew Moore on Charlie Rose and they spoke for the entire hour on this very subject. If someone could find that episode and post it, some of you might find it very interesting.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awm/

Jerry Baumchen

PS) To everyone: And what is it you do for a living????????

[billvon 2,380]

>Yes, but you have all three of those points with just a basic state safety net -
>without having to pay for a massive ministry to administer it . . . .

We already have a massive ministry to administer it.

>AND with a massively more significant incentive to actually get off your arse
>and work.

Right now there's less incentive. "Get some money for free." "You only get money if you work" is, IMO, a better incentive.

[airdvr 197]

The fatal flaw in all of it is someone has to pay for it. Who do you think that will be? At what % of the population receiving the UBI does it collapse in on itself?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,380]

Quote

The fatal flaw in all of it is someone has to pay for it. Who do you think that will be? At what % of the population receiving the UBI does it collapse in on itself?

Are you answering someone else? I am not in favor of a UBI.

[airdvr 197]

Not directed at you.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi airdvr,

Quote

The fatal flaw in all of it is someone has to pay for Who do you think that will be? it.

I think that you know the answer. However, IMO 'fatal flaw' is very subjective.

Not all people who pay into Social Security ever see a dime in return. The system is designed that way, as UBI probably would be.

But relax, you probably will be long gone before it ever occurs.

Jerry Baumchen

[muff528 3]

Couple of questions come to mind.

At what age would a UBI kick in?

How much lower than a minimum wage would the UBI have to be set? I'd think that if UBI was anywhere near min. wages, some recipients might simply elect to stay on the UBI program rather than go to work for a minimum wage job, maybe even if that entry-level job could lead to a better position (and even if a job is available to them).

Which brings up -- at what point (and under what conditions) would a UBI recipient be required to seek work? If he fails to get a job, or even to look for work, what happens to his UBI?

What other forms of government aid could a UBI recipient receive and still be eligible for government-provided UBI?

How would children or other "dependents" affect a person's UBI.

[mirage62 0]

I've enjoyed reading these post. Seriously. Some of the most liberal people here discussing something like this is interesting to me.

Unless human nature changes radically this is all completely pie in the sky.

It surely sounds good, it feels good to even discuss it....

All your doing is discussing a "new" system that replaces the current system where the lower percentage gets more for less.

I favor a "new" system that helps the lower get to the middle and up. Our real problem is that the middle class isn't growing.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[DanG 1]

Quote

Can't disagree with anything you said, apart from I think this number is probably closer to 99%. The only sorts of jobs that I think will stay are all in the "empathetic/personality" line - carers, that sort of thing, and I am sure that is only a matter of time as well.

Who is designing the robots? Who is maintaining the robots? If your answer is, "other robots" then we're not talking about robots anymore. We're talking about a new, intelligent form of life. At that point, which will not happen in the next 20 years, sorry, the whole world paradigm has changed.

In the next 20 years I think we'll see some self driving cars/trucks that will still require a human driver to monitor and react to unpredictable events. We won't be ale to transition to a driverless system because the infrastructure to allow machine vision to work doesn't exist in many parts of the world, including the rural US. We'll see more robotic assembly of products, potentially even clothing (which will really shake the world economy). We'll see robotic assistants in the medical field, but only very simple things like preparing surgical trays and cleaning instruments. Doctors and nurses aren't going anywhere.

Whenever I see people predicting a huge change in "the next 20 years" I almost always think they are full of it. Radical change isn't predictable, and people never take into account human momentum or infrastructure requirements.

- Dan G