Universal Basic Income

[Phil1111 910]

mirage62

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.

I agree but a major factor in the failure of the US middle class not growing is that the wealth of the upper class is expanding so much. Income disparity has been growing for some time.

Two other factors that have not been mentioned much in this consideration is the costs of homelessness. I.e. drug addictions, crime, incarceration costs. All arising from the absence of a US integrated social safety net like a universal Basic income.

The above is a huge number of separate issues and programs. But its useful to compare European programs to US for comparison.

[RonD1120 58]

It seems to me that you are assuming the pie is finite and only so many can get a slice. The capitalistic pie is infinite and everyone can get a slice if they work at it.

"Get an education, get a job and shut up." ~Dr Susan Andrews, at River of Life Church of God, 22 Jan 2017

For more on Susan: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/article29367901.html

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Phil1111 910]

DanG

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.

I agree that there seems to be change in the winds with regards to self driving, robots. Finally!! But in the entire history of mankind from the time of the first Luddites. New classes of jobs and opportunity has arisen. It takes education and retraining.

Its like the issue of trump baseball caps, or field work in the California vegetable farms. US workers just won't do those jobs at the wages that are competitive. Who wants to run a sewing machine making baseball caps for .40-.50 cents a cap. Pick fruit on a 80-90 degree day for;
" Still, the increased pay, improved working conditions and overtime benefits have failed to attract many American workers.

"Of the 300 workers I have in the field, two are Americans," said Joe Del Bosque, a farm owner in Firebaugh, California.

One big reason: The work can be very labor intensive, said Nassif. Picking strawberries, tomatoes or melons requires bending down or kneeling all day. Picking tree fruits, like oranges and peaches, means carrying 10- to 20-pound bushels while balancing on ladders in all sorts of weather conditions. "
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/29/news/economy/american-farm-workers/

[jakee 1,254]

mirage62

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

The point of the discussion is what to do when the current system supplies less and less for the lower percentages to do...

Increased automation is coming. Mass factory and industrial jobs are not coming back, in fact more and more low wage jobs are (almost certainly) going to be replaced by technology. The discussion isn't about what we should do now or next year, but in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years - what happens when more nd more and more of the jobs that support the majority of western society are no longer economically viable for humans to fulfil?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

airdvr

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?

I think a point you are missing is that this thread started with an observation that technology is replacing humans at an extraordinary rate in an extremely wide range of jobs. Already we see that factories can operate with one person doing the work (in terms of production) that required 50 or more people back in the 1960s. A small fraction of the workforce that used to be employed in agriculture works in that field (so to speak) today, yet food production is greater than ever, because of mechanization. Now we see a big push for self-driving vehicles, financed by companies such as Uber and Google (amongst others). Why would such businesses be investing in this field? In the case of Uber it is because they visualize a not very distant future when they will not have to pay any human drivers. If things continue on their current track, within our lifetimes there will be no jobs driving vehicles of any kind, be it taxis, delivery/courier, long distance trucking, up to an likely including aircraft pilots. Even many jobs in highly skilled fields such as medicine will be filled by computers, with humans reduced to tasks that require manual dexterity such as giving injections.

We are not talking about lazy people who do not want to work. We are talking about a rapidly approaching future where humans are not cost effective, where it will be cheaper for industry to use robots and computers in almost every area. In the past we could say that technology created new and better jobs faster than it destroyed old ones, but that was before modern computers. We didn't need many blacksmiths after cars replaced horses, but we needed a lot of mechanics. Things are not going in that direction any longer. It is estimated that there are 3.5 million commercial truck drivers in the US today (source); there may be almost none in 30 years. What can possibly replace 3.5 million jobs, especially considering that the replacements should provide as good a living and will have to be something that cannot itself be immediately replaced by machines?

What do you think society should do in an environment where there are almost no jobs for people?

It seems to me that the owners of the businesses that choose to displace workers with robots do so because the robots are more profitable. In other words, those owners will get richer and richer while many people will lose their income altogether. Shouldn't the people who are profiting from displacing human workers bear some (or even most) of the cost of dealing with the problem?

What is your preferred solution?

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)

[Phil1111 910]

RonD1120

It seems to me that you are assuming the pie is finite and only so many can get a slice. The capitalistic pie is infinite and everyone can get a slice if they work at it.

"Get an education, get a job and shut up." ~Dr Susan Andrews, at River of Life Church of God, 22 Jan 2017

For more on Susan: http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/article29367901.html

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Charity

Current thoughts:
http://fortune.com/2015/09/14/pope-francis-capitalism-inequality/

and the new antichrist's thoughts on compassion, giving, etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/donald-trump-pope-francis-christian-wall-mexico-border

[Stumpy 256]

GeorgiaDon

***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?

I think a point you are missing is that this thread started with an observation that technology is replacing humans at an extraordinary rate in an extremely wide range of jobs. Already we see that factories can operate with one person doing the work (in terms of production) that required 50 or more people back in the 1960s. A small fraction of the workforce that used to be employed in agriculture works in that field (so to speak) today, yet food production is greater than ever, because of mechanization. Now we see a big push for self-driving vehicles, financed by companies such as Uber and Google (amongst others). Why would such businesses be investing in this field? In the case of Uber it is because they visualize a not very distant future when they will not have to pay any human drivers. If things continue on their current track, within our lifetimes there will be no jobs driving vehicles of any kind, be it taxis, delivery/courier, long distance trucking, up to an likely including aircraft pilots. Even many jobs in highly skilled fields such as medicine will be filled by computers, with humans reduced to tasks that require manual dexterity such as giving injections.

We are not talking about lazy people who do not want to work. We are talking about a rapidly approaching future where humans are not cost effective, where it will be cheaper for industry to use robots and computers in almost every area. In the past we could say that technology created new and better jobs faster than it destroyed old ones, but that was before modern computers. We didn't need many blacksmiths after cars replaced horses, but we needed a lot of mechanics. Things are not going in that direction any longer. It is estimated that there are 3.5 million commercial truck drivers in the US today (source); there may be almost none in 30 years. What can possibly replace 3.5 million jobs, especially considering that the replacements should provide as good a living and will have to be something that cannot itself be immediately replaced by machines?

What do you think society should do in an environment where there are almost no jobs for people?

It seems to me that the owners of the businesses that choose to displace workers with robots do so because the robots are more profitable. In other words, those owners will get richer and richer while many people will lose their income altogether. Shouldn't the people who are profiting from displacing human workers bear some (or even most) of the cost of dealing with the problem?

What is your preferred solution?

Don

Spot on.
This future is coming much faster than most realise. Its surprised me, and I have spent a good proportion of my adult life working with some of the companies doing these amazing things with tech.

The one that has blown me away is the self driving cars. Tesla has real data showing that cars with the self drive stuff installed are 40% less likely to crash than those without. And that is ONLY going to get better as the sample sizes and therefore the amount of data gets bigger. At the moment you still can't fully let the car autopilot you unsupervised from A to B, but that's only a matter of time.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Stumpy 256]

RonD1120

It seems to me that you are assuming the pie is finite and only so many can get a slice. The capitalistic pie is infinite and everyone can get a slice if they work at it.

It seems to me you are the first person to have entirely missed the point.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[DJL 232]

The biggest issue I see the a UBI is the phrase "Idle hands are the Devil's workshop." There will likely be very serious health issues with people not having to do anything in their typical day.

There will also be a secondary or black market (just borrowing the phrase, not meaning that it is inherently illegal) because people will be able to capitalize on the security of the UBI and make parallel gains outside of the system. This could be anything from making drugs to making genuine handmade wooden figurines. Hopefully, there will be parachute packing robot and I'll never have to pack again.

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

[DJL 232]

It's interesting that as we're talking about what could potentially be our Utopia we're also raising the point that it might be accompanied by the biggest risks to society we could imagine. Furthermore, that people who typically are leftist or right have some of the exact same conclusions.

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

[airdvr 197]

You're still missing the most basic of economic theories. What are these robots and computers making and who is buying? In the utopian UBI scenario those receiving the benefit won't have much purchasing power. And that lot gets larger and larger as more human jobs are replaced. As the human jobs are replaced the pool of money to pay the UBI recipient gets drained.

While some might see the UBI idea as promising I see it as a gray wasteland where no one wants to live.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[GeorgiaDon 340]

airdvr

You're still missing the most basic of economic theories. What are these robots and computers making and who is buying? In the utopian UBI scenario those receiving the benefit won't have much purchasing power. And that lot gets larger and larger as more human jobs are replaced. As the human jobs are replaced the pool of money to pay the UBI recipient gets drained.

While some might see the UBI idea as promising I see it as a gray wasteland where no one wants to live.

I did think of that, but there is only so much one can discuss in one post and mine are probably pushing the limit of what most SC participants care to read.

Anyway I think you bring up a good point. There will be no market for all the efficiently produced goods and services the robots are generating if few people (except the ones who own the robotic factories) can afford them. Is there a way out of this conundrum?

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)

[airdvr 197]

I think the black market problem could be solved right now (not that I want it to be). Simply eliminate cash transactions.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Phil1111 910]

airdvr

You're still missing the most basic of economic theories. What are these robots and computers making and who is buying? In the utopian UBI scenario those receiving the benefit won't have much purchasing power. And that lot gets larger and larger as more human jobs are replaced. As the human jobs are replaced the pool of money to pay the UBI recipient gets drained.

While some might see the UBI idea as promising I see it as a gray wasteland where no one wants to live.

Economic theories are just that. Theories. The best answers come from countries or states that try it out. Its like safe needle injection sites. When i first heard of it I thought it was the stupidest idea since trickle down economics. But the savings in incarceration costs, health costs from the reduction in spread of disease. Makes it a no brainer. I don't think is an idea that should be tried first. But after a five year trial, EU countries should have some good data to study.

[gowlerk 1,912]

airdvr

I think the black market problem could be solved right now (not that I want it to be). Simply eliminate cash transactions.

As soon as you do that there will be Bitcoin or some other scheme to take the place of cash.

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

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

Economic theories are just that. Theories. The best answers come from countries or states that try it out.

A similar program was given a test run in a Manitoba town in the '70s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

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

[quade 3]

RonD1120

It seems to me that you are assuming the pie is finite and only so many can get a slice. The capitalistic pie is infinite and everyone can get a slice if they work at it.

This isn't even metaphorically correct. A pie can not be infinite.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ryoder 1,384]

quade

***It seems to me that you are assuming the pie is finite and only so many can get a slice. The capitalistic pie is infinite and everyone can get a slice if they work at it.

This isn't even metaphorically correct. A pie can not be infinite.

Sure it can;
Ever try counting the number of digits in pi?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 3]

ryoder

******It seems to me that you are assuming the pie is finite and only so many can get a slice. The capitalistic pie is infinite and everyone can get a slice if they work at it.

This isn't even metaphorically correct. A pie can not be infinite.

Sure it can;
Ever try counting the number of digits in pi?

Now you're being irrational.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ryoder 1,384]

quade

*********It seems to me that you are assuming the pie is finite and only so many can get a slice. The capitalistic pie is infinite and everyone can get a slice if they work at it.

This isn't even metaphorically correct. A pie can not be infinite.

Sure it can;
Ever try counting the number of digits in pi?

Now you're being irrational.

Excellent!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[SethInMI 145]

this idea of what do humans do when robots can do everything has been explored by sci-fi writers extensively over the past 40-50 years, both with dystopian and utopian futures imagined.

This wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy has some examples.

The most well-known utopian example is the Star Trek economy referred to in TNG. The concept is that people work solely to create unique experiences that they can share and trade.

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[riggerrob 558]

A guaranteed minimum income will only work if it is tied to part-time employment.

"Hillbilly Elegy" by J.D.Vance describes how chronic unemployment saps the souls of the unemployed. Generations of chronic unemployment can sap the energy out of entire towns or states.
Back in the old days, under-employed (Scots-Irish) hillbillies made money on the side distilling whiskey or growing marijuana.
Sure many of hillbillies developed drinking problems but their addictions were nowhere near as big nor as bad as the current opiate (morphine, heroin, oxycondone, fentynal, car fentynal, etc.) addiction cruisis.
Idle hands are the devil's tools means that bored hillbillies do stupid hints to amuse themselves: drinking, drugging, child molestation, wife-beating, feuding with neighbors, etc.

Chronic un-employment is not just an American Appalachian problem because I grew up in the north end of the Appalachian Mountains of Southern Quebec and was born into a family with the same Scots-Irish roots. I am at risk of slipping into the same rut, especially after my last accident. I only took Oxycondone for one week after my surgery. After one week constipation caused more pain than infection, swelling, deep vein thrombosis, etc. But I can understand how easily people get addicted to prescription pain-killers.
Laying around staring at my wounds as bad for moral. It was depressing and exhausting. For a workaholic like me, losing my identity as a big, tough, dozen-a-day tandem instructor shattered my my self confidence. I hobbled to the loft 4 or 5 days a week. Injuries limited me to working half days and I was not half as productive as before but walking the 2 kilometres to work for good therapy for my battered legs. Getting out of my apartment also helped lift me out of my emotional rut.

As an aside, it never ceases to amuse me how effectively American politicians manipulate poor white folks (aka. hillbillies) to support a political/economic system that perpetually keeps them near the bottom of society.

So ao vote against a guaranteed minimum income unless it is tied to part-time employment .... say half days sweeping trash or collecting soda cans.

[SethInMI 145]

I think you are confusing no income with basic income. No income or too small an income will sap your soul. But if you have enough to meet your needs, then to me your life becomes better modeled by a retiree than a chronically unemployed person.

One model is the deliberate early retiree, the person who consciously decides to stop working and live off savings, even if the savings income is modest. I know a few people like this, who are satisfied with a simple life, driving / camping vacations, few expensive hobbies. The volunteer when they want, but the spend a lot of their time travelling, visiting / hanging out with friends, working on their inexpensive hobbies.

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[airdvr 197]

Phil1111

***You're still missing the most basic of economic theories. What are these robots and computers making and who is buying? In the utopian UBI scenario those receiving the benefit won't have much purchasing power. And that lot gets larger and larger as more human jobs are replaced. As the human jobs are replaced the pool of money to pay the UBI recipient gets drained.

While some might see the UBI idea as promising I see it as a gray wasteland where no one wants to live.

Economic theories are just that. Theories. The best answers come from countries or states that try it out. Its like safe needle injection sites. When i first heard of it I thought it was the stupidest idea since trickle down economics. But the savings in incarceration costs, health costs from the reduction in spread of disease. Makes it a no brainer. I don't think is an idea that should be tried first. But after a five year trial, EU countries should have some good data to study.

You mean try it out like the USSR?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[TriGirl 268]

Too many posts to quote. Bottom line is: what about a universal maximum income? It could be a multiple of minimum wage/UBI (say, 200x). Anything above that needs to go into a tax shelter of some kind (again, with a max limit) to maintain the person's income at no more than that level the rest of their lives, so they don't need UBI when they retire. Above and beyond that, the money either goes to the common good (public transportation, infrastructure, health services, education, defense, security -- mostly what taxes pay for); or if the head of the corporation, the remainder goes back into the corporation/company, so the employees make more. If the workers improve productivity under the management of these top leaders, then yes, the top leaders can still earn a much higher salary for their management skills. But the workers then also have an incentive to improve productivity, because only so much of the company profits can go to the owner or management (including all bonuses, etc).

If the company is using automation to replace a bunch of workers, then the workers who ARE still there reap more benefits, not just the leadership. And the rest of the profit goes to the common good of society.

Just a thought.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!