Universal Basic Income

[George Owen]

Wut? Where does this come from?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/one...uld-be-jobless-by-2030-due-to-automation.html
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de...nen/GrauePublikationen/BST_Delphi_E_03lay.pdf

Everything that can be automated, will be automated.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/one...uld-be-jobless-by-2030-due-to-automation.html
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de...nen/GrauePublikationen/BST_Delphi_E_03lay.pdf

Everything that can be automated, will be automated.

I'd ignore the Delphi because that just seems to be a survey and not a modal.

As to McKinsey report which seems a bit more fleshed out (actual report as below) it talks about displacement/reskilling of people due to automation. Quote from your link itself...

“Even if there is enough work to ensure full employment by 2030, major transitions lie ahead that could match or even exceed the scale of historical shifts out of agriculture and manufacturing,” according to a report by the McKinsey Global Institute published this month.

And from full report...

In advanced economies, all scenarios result in full employment by 2030, but the transition may include a period of higher unemployment and wage adjustments

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured insights/Future of Organizations/What the future of work will mean for jobs skills and wages/MGI-Jobs-Lost-Jobs-Gained-Report-December-6-2017.ashx

You'd expect factory labour kinda work to get automated, but "unpredictable" wotk like gardening, plumbing, etc would still continue to depend on manual labour.

 

[11101]

Thought so not long ago, starting to have doubts about it. I think we are still quite far from the automation of most jobs, though progress is not always linear.

I work in a fairly advanced area of AI... we are still a long way off imo. Machine learning and automation has a long way to go before it can operate outside of a strictly defined box. Jobs will be lost and others will be created in programming and operating them.

 

[George Owen]

I'd ignore the Delphi because that just seems to be a survey and not a modal.

As to McKinsey report which seems a bit more fleshed out (actual report as below) it talks about displacement/reskilling of people due to automation. Quote from your link itself...



And from full report...



https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured insights/Future of Organizations/What the future of work will mean for jobs skills and wages/MGI-Jobs-Lost-Jobs-Gained-Report-December-6-2017.ashx

You'd expect factory labour kinda work to get automated, but "unpredictable" wotk like gardening, plumbing, etc would still continue to depend on manual labour.

Wealth creation is so automated that people doesn't need to work anymore, and that is happening right now. You need to think ahead of time. Most experts are certain that a UBI will be necessary, they just don't know when exactly. Some say 2030, others 2040, others 2050... but it will (must) happen 100%.

In the USA, unemployment today is around 3.9%. Quite low one would think, but it's not close to reality at all, because of how they measure it.

Out of the 262 million people aged 18 and over in the US, 99million is not working (53Million age 18 to 65).

That leaves a workforce of only 163Million (aged 18 and over), including those looking for work (6.2Million, 3.9%).

As you can see, in reality, unemployment is much higher than reported.

You have a group of perfectly work-able 53million people (aged 18 to 65), that decided they don't want/need to work. And that number is only gonna keep rising.

Shit eventually gonna hit the fan. We might as well think ahead and prepare for it.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

You have a group of perfectly work-able 53million people (aged 18 to 65), that decided they don't want/need to work. And that number is only gonna keep rising.

Sorry I'm a bit confused here. Why do the 53m decide they don't want/need to work?

Historically we've been on path to automation past past 2-3 decades at least. Unemployment has not raised significantly as you'd expect despite most factories getting automated and such. As the article points, out...there'll be new jobs created and people would be expected to reskill. 30-40% of entire population becoming unemployed is not something I'd consider practical going by any current projections.

For discussion purposes, let's assume unemployment will continue to rise...which means taxable population will continue to shrink. How will be UBI sustain it's funding then?

 

[George Owen]

Sorry I'm a bit confused here. Why do the 53m decide they don't want/need to work?

Historically we've been on path to automation past past 2-3 decades at least. Unemployment has not raised significantly as you'd expect despite most factories getting automated and such. As the article points, out...there'll be new jobs created and people would be expected to reskill. 30-40% of entire population becoming unemployed is not something I'd consider practical going by any current projections.

For discussion purposes, let's assume unemployment will continue to rise...which means taxable population will continue to shrink. How will be UBI sustain it's funding then?

We will have less workers, not less wealth. You tax and redistribute the wealth created by the machines.

 

[George Owen]

Sorry I'm a bit confused here. Why do the 53m decide they don't want/need to work?

Historically we've been on path to automation past past 2-3 decades at least. Unemployment has not raised significantly as you'd expect despite most factories getting automated and such. As the article points, out...there'll be new jobs created and people would be expected to reskill. 30-40% of entire population becoming unemployed is not something I'd consider practical going by any current projections.

For discussion purposes, let's assume unemployment will continue to rise...which means taxable population will continue to shrink. How will be UBI sustain it's funding then?

That's the key. Why people is not looking for work? try to answer yourself.

In my personal opinion, it's just not worthy for many. Some will just decide to stay living off their parents, some just don't bother in taking the jobs available because they think they are beneath them (typically shitty paid works that end up going to the illegal immigrant, who will work for pennies), etc. Reasons are many.

Those are worrying statistics nonetheless.

One things is for sure. Good jobs are less and less available every day.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

We will have less workers, not less wealth. You tax and redistribute the wealth created by the machines.

You're describing a scenario where a big chunk of population should be able to live without needing to work. Even as a concept that's utopia and neither practical nor sustainable.

In my personal opinion, it's just not worthy for many. Some will just decide to stay living off their parents, some just don't bother in taking the jobs available because they think they are beneath them (typically shitty paid works that end up going to the illegal immigrant, who will work for pennies), etc. Reasons are many.

This is just people being entitled. I wouldn't support them getting any benefits.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

You're describing a scenario where a big chunk of population should be able to live without needing to work. Even as a concept that's utopia and neither practical nor sustainable.

That's a pretty low bar for utopia. Being able to live without needing to work is not even close to desirable nor would it remove any incentive to actually work. In fact, it would provide the lowest possible baseline for many to be able to work.

What's not sustainable is the current system that is methodically stripping wealth off the bottom 80% and unscrupulously redistributing it to the entitled top 10% (I don't think any "class" acts more entitled on a daily basis than those that drive new Mercedes and BMW)

 

[George Owen]

You're describing a scenario where a big chunk of population should be able to live without needing to work. Even as a concept that's utopia and neither practical nor sustainable.

Capitalism is not sustainable.

If technology provides us with the necessary means to have a utopia like society, then of course we should go for it.

This is just people being entitled. I wouldn't support them getting any benefits.

But 50 years ago, for those same jobs you received decent minimum wages, that let you live a decent life.

Today, between living on welfare or minimum wages, there is not much difference.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Fully automated luxury Communism here we come.

 

[Florida Man]

Fully automated luxury Communism here we come.

That would be a dream come true. It’ll be like Atlantis all over again.

 

[Sweet Square]

That would be a dream come true. It’ll be like Star Trek

Fixed.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

That's a pretty low bar for utopia.

I'm curious what your high bar would be!

What's not sustainable is the current system that is methodically stripping wealth off the bottom 80% and unscrupulously redistributing it to the entitled top 10% (I don't think any "class" acts more entitled on a daily basis than those that drive new Mercedes and BMW)

Agree in principle. Just don't think UBI is the solution for that.

 

[Florida Man]

Fixed.

This is actually pretty insightful. They discussed the idea of communism I had in mind and also turned my onto Star Trek, which I’ve never watched.

 

[Sweet Square]

This is actually pretty insightful. They discussed the idea of communism I had in mind and also turned my onto Star Trek, which I’ve never watched.

Varoufakis is the best person on the left has when it comes to talk about ideas like communism, he tends to not scare people off or appear as a raving madman like some others. His point about Star Trek is very fitting, it shouldn't be surprising that current star trek movies and television shows which are basically just giant cgi space battles are being made at a time when liberalism has nothing to say.

Its pretty concerning today that even our (The socialist left has similar problems) utopians visions of the world are shit.

 

[Florida Man]

I'm curious what your high bar would be!



Agree in principle. Just don't think UBI is the solution for that.

How would you address it if it comes to a point where we are automating jobs at a far greater rate than we are creating them?

 

[Sky1981]

They should install Robot tax

more automatitation more tax

more real workers = less tax

 

[FortBoyard]

They should install Robot tax

more automatitation more tax

more real workers = less tax

Great idea! Wish they had thought of that for the combine harvester or the computer.

Stifling innovaton is surely a great way to manage society

 

[dumbo]

Fully automated luxury Communism here we come.

Yer that's what confuses me. I just can't see it. This whole discussion seems predicated on the assumption that we are going to hard shift from a system of exploitation, greed, excess and ownership to one that overnight provides for all (even if only at a basic level of need). The slave that picks your coffee and sews your pants is suddenly going to be offered a seat on the milk and honey express.

Surely at the moment mega corps like Apple could provide a fair wage with their trillions but still farm labour from poverty stricken lands.

I just feel that the rich would sooner let the poor die and feast on their bones, before offering to bring them along for the ride to utopia.

There's always one more drop that can be squeezed out of a stone even when there's not. I don't see why the future technocracy needs people who can't be exploited as workers and who can't afford to consume their product.

Again I will be delighted to be wrong on this.

 

[11101]

We will have less workers, not less wealth. You tax and redistribute the wealth created by the machines.

Everybody is scared robots will take jobs away, but one thing people overlook is if everybody is unemployed and poor there will be nothing for the robots to make, because nobody will be able to buy it.

Unless we redistribute the wealth there will never be an incentive to automate everything.

 

[Florida Man]

Yer that's what confuses me. I just can't see it. This whole discussion seems predicated on the assumption that we are going to hard shift from a system of exploitation, greed, excess and ownership to one that overnight provides for all (even if only at a basic level of need). The slave that picks your coffee and sews your pants is suddenly going to be offered a seat on the milk and honey express.

Surely at the moment mega corps like Apple could provide a fair wage with their trillions but still farm labour from poverty stricken lands.

I just feel that the rich would sooner let the poor die and feast on their bones, before offering to bring them along for the ride to utopia.

There's always one more drop that can be squeezed out of a stone even when there's not. I don't see why the future technocracy needs people who can't be exploited as workers and who can't afford to consume their product.

Again I will be delighted to be wrong on this.

All the reason for people’s revolution

 

[dumbo]

The revolution will not be televised, Netflix bought the rights.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Everybody is scared robots will take jobs away, but one thing people overlook is if everybody is unemployed and poor there will be nothing for the robots to make, because nobody will be able to buy it.

Unless we redistribute the wealth there will never be an incentive to automate everything.

Robots taking all jobs is a fallacy and myth upon which the whole argument is being built. It just cannot.

 

[George Owen]

Robots taking all jobs is a fallacy and myth upon which the whole argument is being built. It just cannot.

Robots won't take all jobs. They will take the majority of productive/wealth creating jobs. There is a difference.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Robots won't take all jobs. They will take the majority of productive/wealth creating jobs. There is a difference.

Not sure what is defined as productive/wealth creating jobs here.

Nothing to do with automation, but the boom on online markets like Amazon means there'll be more redundancies in retail sales space. Some industrial like postal workers etc may be affected, but that's just normal change and nothing to do with robots.

I really don't see much reduction in financial services, hospitality, medicine - doctors/nurses, care professionals..all of which would probably employ more people. Even lower paying jobs like handyman, plumbing, gardening etc would still remain largely untouched by automation.

Again, here's some projection stats in US by Bureau of Labour. There's not much change for next decade at least. IT industry is expected to grow at 18-21% in next decade.

https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-sector.htm

As I said, there are jobs being created too. If unemployment raises, it'd be because of people not being re-skilled rather than lack of jobs.

 

[George Owen]

Not sure what is defined as productive/wealth creating jobs here.

Nothing to do with automation, but the boom on online markets like Amazon means there'll be more redundancies in retail sales space. Some industrial like postal workers etc may be affected, but that's just normal change and nothing to do with robots.

I really don't see much reduction in financial services, hospitality, medicine - doctors/nurses, care professionals..all of which would probably employ more people. Even lower paying jobs like handyman, plumbing, gardening etc would still remain largely untouched by automation.

Again, here's some projection stats in US by Bureau of Labour. There's not much change for next decade at least. IT industry is expected to grow at 18-21% in next decade.

https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-sector.htm

As I said, there are jobs being created too. If unemployment raises, it'd be because of people not being re-skilled rather than lack of jobs.

Please tell me about those new jobs that the tens of millions drivers, who will lose their job in the next decade, will resort to. (we can't all be programmers or plumbers or electricians)

The speed at which new jobs are created, it's not even close to the speed we are automating them.

Why is so hard for you to see the big changes that are coming? What country are you from, that you can't grasp the speed at which technology is changing the world?

Less and less people is working. That's a fact.

One thing is shifting workers from farming to industry. A totally different beast is trying to shift those workers next...

I really don't see much reduction in financial services, hospitality, medicine - doctors/nurses, care professionals..all of which would probably employ more people. Even lower paying jobs like handyman, plumbing, gardening etc would still remain largely untouched by automation.

That's just plain wrong. Medicine and Financial is already being automated. If 10 years ago you needed 20 analysts to do some job, now you need only one with good programming skills, for example.

You realize how much money is being spent in robots for the healthcare industry? billions and billions.

Maybe plumbers and electricians will be able to keep their job for longer, but even them, eventually will be automated too. The only variable is when.


I hope this forum still exists in 50 years time (and I'm alive, almost 90 years old), so I can come back and say "Told ya..."

Not sure what is defined as productive/wealth creating jobs here.

Any job that contributes to the creation of real wealth. Mining, agriculture, manufacturing, energy, transportation, finances, etc. Robots/machines are better than us, much more efficient. They already create the majority of the world's wealth (not surprising that more and more people just doesn't need to work in the US and other countries).

In 100 years more, humans job (for the big majority without a job) will be to decide how to spend their share of that wealth (plus keeping their garden green and clean). Basically entertainment (movies, TV, music, sports, art, fashion, luxury, holidays, etc). We will be freed to spend our time doing things we enjoy and that we are good at.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Please tell me about those new jobs that the tens of millions drivers, who will lose their job in the next decade, will resort to.

That's just plain wrong. Medicine and Financial is already being automated. If 10 years ago you needed 20 analysts to do some job, now you need only one with good programming skills, for example.

Having enough robotaxis to make tens of millions of drivers jobless doesn't even have a prediction timelines. Even having 10% fully automated cars (for personal use) on the road is a optimistic expectation for 2050 by most car manufacturers. Here a interview from Truckers Union vice chair on his outlook and he's not worried at all.

Did you even read the Bureau of Labour link I posted above? Healthcare in US is expected to add about 1.9million jobs in next decade alone! It's one of the fastest growing job segments in US.

I work in financial services and the outlook is we encourage automation, but there really is no job loss expected. Tech will only help people do jobs better and not replace them. At least, there are no robot bankers project in the works far as I know!

we can't all be programmers

Actually most can. It doesn't even require a college degree! Both the software and hardware/networking jobs can be gotten through (semi) professional courses.

Less and less people is working. That's a fact.

This is true, but the reason is not because of lack of jobs. People in manufacturing, agriculture and mining are the most severely impacted...but they just have to be re-skilled. Jobs change as society does and people have to adapt.

Why is so hard for you to see the big changes that are coming? What country are you from, that you can't grasp the speed at which technology is changing the world?

Because there are no studies to back that fear up. Multiple MIllions of people going jobless in 2050 due to technology is just baseless and false.

I have given you links to support what I said till now. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[George Owen]

Because there are no studies to back that fear up. Multiple MIllions of people going jobless in 2050 due to technology is just baseless and false.

I have given you links to support what I said till now. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and move on.

Not much else to do. Only time will tell who was right.

Ps. Multiple millions of people is already going jobless, and we are only at 2020.

 

[Florida Man]

Not much else to do. Only time will tell who was right.

Ps. Multiple millions of people is already going jobless, and we are only at 2020.

Was skimming through the conversation but I want to add that most new jobs created are temporary or gig jobs — ~95% since 2005. And while I don’t have a number, many of those new jobs aren’t paid living wages let alone offer benefits.

Furthermore we should collectively be trying to automate our way into working fewer hours instead of keeping up with the status quo. There are other ways to do meaningful things in life that isn’t arbitrary work.

 

[George Owen]

Was skimming through the conversation but I want to add that most new jobs created are temporary or gig jobs — ~95% since 2005. And while I don’t have a number, many of those new jobs aren’t paid living wages let alone offer benefits.

Furthermore we should collectively be trying to automate our way into working fewer hours instead of keeping up with the status quo. There are other ways to do meaningful things in life that isn’t arbitrary work.

Absolutely. UBER and the delivery Apps are probably sustaining the "not so bad employment numbers" as of late, and as you say, they don't pay living wages nor benefits. Plus, those jobs come with an expiration date. UBER can't wait to replace them with fully self-driving cars.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Absolutely. UBER and the delivery Apps are probably sustaining the "not so bad employment numbers" as of late, and as you say, they don't pay living wages nor benefits. Plus, those jobs come with an expiration date. UBER can't wait to replace them with fully self-driving cars.

Uber will never be profitable if it doesn't succeed in running autonomous vehicles. The issue is not only technical (though that in itself is a huge challenge) but financial: Uber looks to radical financing to fund driverless cars

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Wibble]

Not much else to do. Only time will tell who was right.

Ps. Multiple millions of people is already going jobless, and we are only at 2020.

https://qz.com/851066/almost-all-the-10-million-jobs-created-since-2005-are-temporary/

 

[Sky1981]

Was skimming through the conversation but I want to add that most new jobs created are temporary or gig jobs — ~95% since 2005. And while I don’t have a number, many of those new jobs aren’t paid living wages let alone offer benefits.

Furthermore we should collectively be trying to automate our way into working fewer hours instead of keeping up with the status quo. There are other ways to do meaningful things in life that isn’t arbitrary work.

I don't get this work less mentality.

Unemployment is a big issue and a ticking bomb and instead of trying to raise competitiveness against robots you want less working hours, more pay, UBI, all in the name of so you can do something you like, such as travelling?

This whole thing is a zero sum game. For every dollar we receive from welfare someone else is contributing that dollar. If collectively more people receive than give, it'll be a matter of time before we goes in net loss, and then what?

 

[Florida Man]

I don't get this work less mentality.

Unemployment is a big issue and a ticking bomb and instead of trying to raise competitiveness against robots you want less working hours, more pay, UBI, all in the name of so you can do something you like, such as travelling?

This whole thing is a zero sum game. For every dollar we receive from welfare someone else is contributing that dollar. If collectively more people receive than give, it'll be a matter of time before we goes in net loss, and then what?

If robots can do most of the work more efficiently than humans, then you're not gonna compete against robots. I have no idea how you can argue the opposite. The problem with automation now is that it's concentrating more wealth into fewer people's hands while working classes are still having to maintain the status quo of working hours when the reality should be that automation should reduce arbitrary working hours and freeing society. That doesn't mean all people are going to sit on ass and do nothing. There will still be ways to contribute and provide meaning in life.

 

[Sky1981]

If robots can do most of the work more efficiently than humans, then you're not gonna compete against robots. I have no idea how you can argue the opposite. The problem with automation now is that it's concentrating more wealth into fewer people's hands while working classes are still having to maintain the status quo of working hours when the reality should be that automation should reduce arbitrary working hours and freeing society. That doesn't mean all people are going to sit on ass and do nothing. There will still be ways to contribute and provide meaning in life.

This is UBI thread. The main issue is people cant find job.

The automation wont reduce work hour. It'll only reduce jobs.

 

[Florida Man]

This is UBI thread. The main issue is people cant find job.

The automation wont reduce work hour. It'll only reduce jobs.

Yes I realize it's reducing jobs but it's only so because of how it affects the movement of wealth, which goes to a few people, not the many. That is where UBI comes into the equation because it's a solution for that problem provided we still operate in a market economy.

 

[Drifter]

Obama supports Andrew Yang's Policies

 

[Drifter]

Coronavirus fallout revives talk of ‘universal basic income’

The scoffed-at idea of paying everyone a basic income as machines take people’s jobs is getting a fresh look as a possible remedy for economies cratered by the coronavirus pandemic.

Lambasted until recently as too costly or too “socialist,” paying people for simply being alive and trusting they will be productive has new support as jobs vanish.

The massive recovery package being considered in the US Congress to offset the tremendous hit to the economy would move a step closer toward idea of a “universal basic income.”

Aspiring Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang argued for it on the campaign trail, even as his opponents and economic pundits shot down the idea as idealistic and impossible to finance.

Now, with the US economy crippled as people hunker down at home, the likes of conservative Republican Senator Mitt Romney are raising the idea.

UBI has been tested in the northern California city of Stockton for about a year, with 125 residents in a community considered economically disadvantaged getting monthly payments of $500 each to see whether it helps alleviate poverty.

Stockton is in a part of the state where agriculture dominates, and the city was so devastated by the 2008 financial crisis that it declared bankruptcy.

Preliminary results indicate people in the UBI experiment spend about 40 percent of the money on food.

Single mom Lorrine Paradela was able to cut back from two jobs to working just one, and manage unexpected expenses such as car trouble.

“It’s a huge help,” Paradela said of the UBI program.

“This money gave me a little peace of mind.”

She recalled getting home after working two jobs with her mind racing, bills to pay, and relentless pressure to earn more money.

“Sometimes, I would shop for food but only for my children, not for me,” Paradela recounted.

The UBI program in Stockton is showing that a small boost in income can make a tremendous difference to people on tight budgets, according to Mayor Michael Tubbs.

“I think, over the long run, we’ll see good in terms of people living longer; living happier, less sick, more productive and more able to do all the things you need for society to thrive,” Tubbs told AFP.

The UBI program in Stockton is backed by an Economic Security Program created by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes.

Ideas floated by the project include rebuilding the middle-class by providing allowances to augment incomes of people US households earning less than $50,000 annually.

The cost of living in California is so daunting that workers can’t live on pay of $1,000 monthly, contended Steve Smith, a spokesman for a federation of unions.

One in three American workers are at risk of losing their jobs to technology in the coming 12 years, Yang has argued.

“To avoid an unprecedented crisis, we’re going to have to find a new solution, unlike anything we’ve done before,” Yang reasoned while campaigning.

His remedy started with a “no strings attached” UBI for all American adults.

In a recent National Public Radio interview, Yang said the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic has caused many politicians and analysts to reconsider their opposition to UBI.

“It has completely muddled and transcended party lines where Republicans have enthusiastically come out for cash directly to Americans,” Yang said of UBI.

“Which is the obvious and, frankly, only move that we can make that could keep our economy from collapsing into a new Great Depression.”

However, checks sent out as part of the emergency aid plan would involve a temporary measure, while actual UBI would be ongoing and costly to the government.

Public money would need to be spent more wisely, with a retreat from the trend of tax gifts to the wealthy, UBI supporters maintain.

“I haven’t always been a fan of universal income,” said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“But, its irresistible virtue is its simplicity. It gets money to individuals in need, and out into the wider economy, more quickly than any other alternative.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/03/coronavirus-fallout-revives-talk-of-universal-basic-income/