Support NeoGAF

[basic_element]

The same place we always get it, from taxes or borrowing, or anything else. We have all the money to spend/waste on everything else besides people. If we made an effort, I mean our government, We could afford to do it. But no one is going to make the effort due to excuses and well, americans don't really care about one another that much. Our nation would never be able to actually do it, Republicans won't agree to it, and I don't imagine a lot of liberals would either.

But the money is there to start a staged program. I don't get the delusional world where automation goes from 0 to 1 in a day to where you need trillions immediately. Programs take place over years.

In an ideal world, your'e charged a tax for automation. But since we are all fine with GOOGLE/APPLE etc not paying any taxes. This wont happen.

So your solution would be to to raise taxes on those that are currently working? So if we do this program gradually, as more people lose jobs and go on basic income, your tax revenue is shrinking and it cost more to find basic income. How is this sustainable? Your second solution is borrowing. We are already at 19 trillion in debt and growing fast. Govt bond yield is at all time lows and Japan and Europe are at negative rates. How much more debt can we create before this all comes crashing down? Who is going to buy your debt especially at 0 yield? And the US is not the only country vulnerable to automation. Let's say China our biggest buyer of debt needs a basic income program also. Who buys your debt?

 

[ZackieChan]

As a lawyer, my field is EXTREMELY susceptible to this and has been already over the last 5-10 years.

Yep. I would say that 80% of what I do as a lawyer could be automated. Hell, I've been working on some automation myself to streamline things. Where we really provide value is in advice and such. The contracts I draft are usually mostly rote.

 

[RareFantasy64]

It's that, or everyone goes to build a shack in the woods and live off the land.
And in that situation, people aren't giving their "free" money back to the rich.
So yeah, I can see it happening.

I am trying to build a life like this for myself. Not so much a shack in the woods but a simple home, learn how to make some of my own food. Things like that

 

[NervousXtian]

not really. Tesla was experimenting with stations that simply swapped out a battery rather than charging it, but the demand simply wasn't there for passenger vehicles.

I imagine it would be for time sensitive long haul trucking operations, combined with higher capacity batteries.

you'd obviously need some pretty serious infrastructure improvements before this would be a thing, and the swap out process would likely need to be automated to keep things running smoothly- but with the reduction in cost for fuel and maintenance that sort of thing will eventually pay for itself. Electricity is only going to get cheaper- fuel is only going to get more expensive.

It'd be a pretty massive undertaking.. the batteries for a car are already gigantic.. let alone to power something to carry 100k lbs. Also it'd be a huge shift as who wants to take someone elses batteries.. they'd have to be all on a borrowed payment method, like those cylinders for a Soda Stream or Blue Rhino propane, etc.. but of course much more money.

Many gas stations in Sweden are already fully automated. You swipe your payment card before fueling up, then fuel up and go on your way.

Is this rare or non-existent in most countries? Seems like a quite simple concept.

You still pump the gas right? Imagine you aren't there... how's that work.

 

[basic_element]

I would imagine that the companies that save enormous amounts of money by having higher efficiency and not having to pay people would have to foot the bill. If they don't it means total collapse as no one has any money to spend.

These companies would need to be taxed at rates above 90% to fund the 100 billions/trillions of dollars needed to pay for basic income. I guess that would be a start.

But the problem is as more people go on basic income, they won't be able to afford those iPhones and xboxes and those companies revenue would go down and less tax to draw from.

 

[ZackieChan]

Lol at the posts in here about problems like automated refueling of trucks. Once you've got cars DRIVING THEMSELVES, you think refueling is going to be the sticking point? They'll figure it out.

 

[Freyjadour]

We've had this thread a few times before, but here in Ontario they've been talking about it. I don't think my job is vulnerable to automation but outsourcing has already had a severe effect on it.

As someone who really likes his line of work (IT), the problem is that many of the jobs available are short contracts. And when I finally did find a long term full time position, as soon as the company hit a rough patch I was the first to get considered for layoffs because I'm not directly bringing in money (I'm still here but it's precarious).

I still get by even with unstable employment because I make enough when I do work, but a 'safety net' would relieve so much stress from my life I can't even imagine it. And it'd cost the government roughly the same if not less than paying out tons of EI to me every time I get laid off. I could possibly even move back to where my family is (and jobs aren't).

All I can recommend is get out of the skill set of supporting Enterprise. IMHO there are too many obstacles settling into place for that kind of job and they're coming from a lot of different directions: automation, outsourcing, cloud / offsite.

I got to a point with Sys Admin where it was difficult to see a long term career as an onsite support guy, but I'm now developing software for a company who sells software. Still vulnerable to outsourcing, we've lost clients to it, but to be honest most of those clients come crawling back at some point.

 

[ugaboga232]

Medicine can, will, and is (slowly) being automated or delegated out to lesser trained positions. For legal and thereapeutic reasons you will still interact with humans but the decision making may start to become more and more algorithmic.

 

[Manmademan]

It'd be a pretty massive undertaking.. the batteries for a car are already gigantic.. let alone to power something to carry 100k lbs.

Mercedes is already building one. http://www.nbcnews.com/business/aut...ic-cars-save-gas-think-about-electric-n622261

The range is only 124 Miles on it, but an increase in capacity and the ability to swap out batteries at a station would render this one more useful.

These are definitely coming, just a matter of time.

Also it'd be a huge shift as who wants to take someone elses batteries.. they'd have to be all on a borrowed payment method, like those cylinders for a Soda Stream or Blue Rhino propane, etc.. but of course much more money.

just another cost of doing business, really. companies "leasing" fleet vehicles for a yearly fee that handles all maintenance instead of "owning" the vehicle outright is absolutely a thing and renders this mostly a pointless argument. I don't know if they do it for semi trucks, though.

 

[rjinaz]

We probably will need to, eventually. But that is still a long ways away. It's too early for the conversation, because until it's a problem that people can see with real consequences for people, all they are going to see is lazy people wanting money. We've seen this with global warming. Not a problem until it's here.

These same people would have been against social security when it started as well but I bet they very much will appreciate having it when they retire.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/24/49518...-some-say-well-need-a-guaranteed-basic-income




I'm glad to see this issue getting some coverage. The political rhetoric about 'jobs' in the US is alarmingly detached from the pace of technology.

What would you be paying people a minimum income to do?

 

[Zaphod]

Lol at the posts in here about problems like automated refueling of trucks. Once you've got cars DRIVING THEMSELVES, you think refueling is going to be the sticking point? They'll figure it out.

It's like no one remembers full service gas stations.

 

[Complistic]

What would you be paying people a minimum income to do?

Shhh, don't make them actually think about the logistics of this.

 

[water_wendi]

Lol at the posts in here about problems like automated refueling of trucks. Once you've got cars DRIVING THEMSELVES, you think refueling is going to be the sticking point? They'll figure it out.

That refueling problem is a real brain buster.

 

[ZackieChan]

It's like no one remembers full service gas stations.

Or a time before there WERE gas stations. Or roads. Somehow that shit got built, and we have infinitely better technology now.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Shhh, don't make them actually think about the logistics of this.

LOL.

 

[bachikarn]

I've thought about this. To me, the question is: where does the money being saved via automation? Is it going to the executives and share holders, or back to the consumers? If it is just going to the rich people, something has got to give as unemployment would just steadily increase (assuming the jobs being replaced by automation grows faster than the amount of new jobs it creates).

 

[demosthenes]

People are getting a few decades ahead of themselves with these basic income ideas.

This.

At the same time though, I've tried discussing this with people I know and they think it's impossible. They can't see a future with more automation.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Every human being in america isn't going to file for basic income at the same time. Society would collapse if this was the case, and we wouldn't have to worry about it. As all americans would literally be out of a job at the exact same moment.

You start things gradually. Like start enacting programs now for people, for either education or other things that you study to make sure it benefits people that are out of work by automation. There is plenty of money that we pay in taxes to do this.

We don't need to spend trillions out the gate. And we've got it when we do.

This sounds like a lot of hand waiving without actually considering what it takes, what it costs, and how do we actually pay for it. Saying just do it doesn't solve the problem without making it actually feasible. If you don't apply it to everyone, which is one actual plan that gets tossed around that everyone gets it, then you have to regulate who gets it and who doesn't. You also have to factor in cost of living. You have to factor in what does it cover and what it doesn't. Only then can you begin to get a number of what its going to cost. Basic income is a significant cost that you just can't hand waive to say we can make it happen. The details matter to understand if it's feasible or not and we shouldn't assume it is.

 

[Complistic]

LOL.

It'll ruin the fantasy for these guys

 

[Makai]

It doesn't take long to invent automative technologies but the adoption rate is so slow. Soooooo sloooooow. If mass displacement is right around the corner, why haven't we seen this in employment statistics? There should be a ramp up in unemployment, but the numbers show the opposite.

Keep in mind, the same tech that's supposed to eliminate cashiers, lawyers and doctors (touch screens, MapReduce) has existed for the entirety of this graph. And even immature tech should have an impact - it's not like there's a magic DPI where touch screen kiosks suddenly make sense and wipe out all cashier jobs. We don't see it because companies are absurdly conservative and don't want to be the guinea pig. Unemployment is still driven by economic fundamentals.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

The same place we always get it, from taxes or borrowing, or anything else. We have all the money to spend/waste on everything else besides people. If we made an effort, I mean our government, We could afford to do it. But no one is going to make the effort due to excuses and well, americans don't really care about one another that much. Our nation would never be able to actually do it, Republicans won't agree to it, and I don't imagine a lot of liberals would either.

But the money is there to start a staged program. I don't get the delusional world where automation goes from 0 to 1 in a day to where you need trillions immediately. Programs take place over years.

In an ideal world, your'e charged a tax for automation. But since we are all fine with GOOGLE/APPLE etc not paying any taxes, and care much more about welfare fraud.. This wont happen.

You're basically advocating universal welfare, let's not call it basic income, you work for income.

Let's tax technological progress to fund all this, you might as well tax people who buy cheap shit at Walmart or price shop online.

 

[border]

They're already starting to automate lawyers. A lot of the routine stuff that lawyers used to do -- wills and things like that -- are DIY jobs for most people now.

Having people fill-in-the-blanks on a boilerplate document isn't automation, nor is it anything new. You don't need a lawyer to write a "Here's who gets what" will, but you haven't really needed that for some time.

Most people do need help and advice on estate planning, and those who aren't comfortable self-educating will see a lawyer.

 

[sohois]

What would you be paying people a minimum income to do?

Shhh, don't make them actually think about the logistics of this.

Do you not understand the issue here? The whole point is that you're not paying them to do anything. Essentially you're going to have a great mass of people for whom there are simply no jobs they can fill, so either you tell them all to starve to death or something, or you give them money to survive. Basic Income simply takes over from existing welfare systems, removing the costly administration of it all and providing enough for anyone, whether they are unemployed or simply underemployed and can't make ends meet.

 

[Byakuya769]

Why not a reduced work week? Say 25-30 hours and limitations on after hours work correspondence?

 

[RareFantasy64]

Issues like this have me really worried for the future. Is the future of society just going to have this ugly, systematic, automated, corporate feel to it? It makes me sick to my stomach

An ethics professor I had in college said he feels things like this are the reason why the zombie fad doesn't die. People have an itch they are trying to scratch. People don't want to feel trapped in a system and zombie stories where society has collapsed helps scratch that itch

 

[Makai]

Why not a reduced work week? Say 25-30 hours and limitations on after hours work correspondence?

The premise is that tens of millions of people are completely unemployable. Their skills are useless.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Do you not understand the issue here? The whole point is that you're not paying them to do anything. Essentially you're going to have a great mass of people for whom there are simply no jobs they can fill, so either you tell them all to starve to death or something, or you give them money to survive. Basic Income simply takes over from existing welfare systems, removing the costly administration of it all and providing enough for anyone, whether they are unemployed or simply underemployed and can't make ends meet.

Where are you getting the money from? Money tree?

Why would anybody do anything anymore if people don't have to worry about being out of the streets if they don't have a job?

 

[ItIsOkBro]

What would you be paying people a minimum income to do?

To live yea?

Where are you getting the money from? Money tree?

Why would anybody do anything anymore if people don't have to worry about being out of the streets if they don't have a job?

Because some of us strive for more than just food and shelter

 

[Makai]

Where are you getting the money from? Money tree?

Why would anybody do anything anymore if people don't have to worry about being out of the streets if they don't have a job?

Because they want more out of life than the bare necessities to survive. I just got a Vive and a GPU to run it.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

The premise is that tens of millions of people are completely unemployable. Their skills are useless.

People need to learn new skills over time and evolve with an everychanging economy.

 

[Manmademan]

Do you not understand the issue here? The whole point is that you're not paying them to do anything. Essentially you're going to have a great mass of people for whom there are simply no jobs they can fill, so either you tell them all to starve to death or something, or you give them money to survive. Basic Income simply takes over from existing welfare systems, removing the costly administration of it all and providing enough for anyone, whether they are unemployed or simply underemployed and can't make ends meet.

exactly. We waste an astronomical amount of money on making sure that only people who "deserve" money receive it. Remove those barriers and eliminate the administrative costs, waste, and bureaucracy involved and it's a wash.

housing programs, disability programs, social security, medicaid, child tax credits and childcare subsidies, SNAP, etc could all be eliminated in favor of a simple lump sum distribution.

People need to learn new skills over time and evolve with an everychanging economy.

Clearly not spoken like someone 45 years of age or older. Retraining programs are largely useless when that segment of the workforce is displaced.

 

[Javaman]

I don't see this being a major issue for at least 50 years. Sure a couple of people here and there but massive changes of this scale are always further off than predicted. We've been hearing about robots taking over production for over 40 years now. Look how far off predictions from the 60s were regarding space travel. 2001 a space odyssey for example. Robots will continue to improve and increase the amount of production per person, not totally replace them.

 

[water_wendi]

People need to learn new skills over time and evolve with an everychanging economy.

Soon most everyones skills will be useless.

 

[menacin]

It's an interesting concept, but where does the money come from?

there is enough hoarded money out there by the super super rich to support everyone forever.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Because they want more out of life than the bare necessities to survive. I just got a Vive and a GPU to run it.

What if the majority decides to vote to increase universal welfare to be better than covering bare necessities and instead of working they'll just vote to make sure universal welfare is high enough to live a cushy comfortable life?

 

[sohois]

Where are you getting the money from? Money tree?

Why would anybody do anything anymore if people don't have to worry about being out of the streets if they don't have a job?

Currently, the US economy is able to provide for 95% of the population in work paying a median salary of around $50'000. How is it that you have an economy that can support the entire populace in its current state, yet once tasks are automated all that money just vanishes?

As to your second point, basic income is basic. People are going to work if they want more than a basic life, in simple housing with few amenities. Basic income provides enough for people to live, but if you wanted to literally play videogames all the time you'd probably need to earn a bit of money to pay for those games. Anyone that likes city living, or nice houses, or good food, or travel, or expensive leisure, or art, or anything of that ilk will have to find work to support those tastes.

 

[Makai]

People need to learn new skills over time and evolve with an everychanging economy.

We can't turn all of these old people into engineers.

 

[George Washington]

A specialized skill set is a necessity today to live a comfortable life. All of those who do not have any will be left behind* unless they are provided for regardless of employment.

It will ultimately be the decision of those in power that will decide the fate of those left behind*.

Thinking of the short term (10-20 years), autonomous vehicles will render bus, truck, taxi, train, and limousine drivers unemployed.

*people who are unable to develop a specialty / specialized skill set due to health, age, financial, or other reasons

 

[Manmademan]

What if the majority decides to vote to increase universal welfare to be better than covering bare necessities and instead of working they'll just vote to make sure universal welfare is high enough to live a cushy comfortable life?

if lazy people were THAT numerous and it was THAT simple, they would have already done it with the system we have in place now.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Soon most everyones skills will be useless.

We're all doomed then.

 

[Makai]

What if the majority decides to vote to increase universal welfare to be better than covering bare necessities and instead of working they'll just vote to make sure universal welfare is high enough to live a cushy comfortable life?

They should. There are political and economic pressures from the workers if they go too far.

 

[Nipo]

if lazy people were THAT numerous and it was THAT simple, they would have already done it with the system we have in place now.

U6 is only 10% right now. At the height of the financial crisis it got into the 20s and the government basically extended unemployment indefinitely. If it hits 35% you'll see the political will to pass ubi.

 

[George Washington]

We're all doomed then.

Lol. Stem majors are okay, as with lawyers , and doctors (for now). I'm sure there are other disciplines that will be fine too.

 

[M3d10n]

Technology can and will replace a lot of jobs, but what I fear will really happen is: it will destroy decent jobs in favor of low pay, low security, low benefits jobs. Eatsa still needs people to cook the food, scoop your quinoa, etc. but they are literally invisible, faceless, replaceable people.

This is enough to cause major societal and economic damages in the medium and long term. We already have a "preview" with the moving of jobs to countries with lower pay and less benefits and the reactive push in some countries to "flexibilize" their labor laws (aka: allow lower pay and lower benefits) to compete.

 

[Makai]

A specialized skill set is a necessity today to live a comfortable life. All of those who do not have any will be left behind* unless they are provided for regardless of employment.

It will ultimately be the decision of those in power that will decide the fate of those left behind*.

Thinking of the short term (10-20 years), autonomous vehicles will render bus, truck, taxi, train, and limousine drivers unemployed.

Don't bet on it. If self-driving cars are going to wipe out these jobs, why is there a human still driving my subway train? Self-driving trains have been around longer than my parents and yet there's still someone pulling a lever to drive in a straight line.

 

[Kieli]

Anyone who has ever taught knows the chances of this happening are near zero.

For higher education, I'd take MOOCs over 75% of the professors in a heart beat.

 

[Complistic]

Do you not understand the issue here? The whole point is that you're not paying them to do anything. Essentially you're going to have a great mass of people for whom there are simply no jobs they can fill, so either you tell them all to starve to death or something, or you give them money to survive. Basic Income simply takes over from existing welfare systems, removing the costly administration of it all and providing enough for anyone, whether they are unemployed or simply underemployed and can't make ends meet.

I know what welfare is and there's no way everyone can have it. Numbers don't work that way.

 

[Manmademan]

U6 is only 10% right now. At the height of the financial crisis it got into the 20s and the government basically extended unemployment indefinitely. If it hits 35% you'll see the political will to pass ubi.

unemployment insurance isn't welfare- and most people understood the necessity of extending a program that was designed to carry people during times of "normal" employment during an economic meltdown.

even passing UBI isn't the same thing as people simply voting in that everyone gets 100K a year and no one ever has to work again- the UBI discussion is addressing the inevitability that eventually there simply won't be enough drudge work to go around, and there should be a more efficient way of ensuring that 300+ million people don't starve to death when it happens.

 

[M3d10n]

Don't bet on it. If self-driving cars are going to wipe out these jobs, why is there a human still driving my subway train? Self-driving trains have been around longer than my parents and yet there's still someone pulling a lever to drive in a straight line.

A train transports hundreds of passengers. It's cheaper to have one person pulling the lever than to invest in tech to replace them. Not so much with taxis, trucks and even buses.