Support NeoGAF

[cormack12]

We had the Industrial Revolution years ago now which was the first wave of replacing human intervention in means of production and labour. Now we're entering the next generation of automation. Is anyone skeptical about how this would work?

The ultimate goal is of course replace the tasks that can be done by machines, with machines. A quick and dirty example here would be cashier desks.

Store currently employs 20 cashiers;
Store buys 50 express checkouts;
Store fires 15 cashiers (maybe all);
It is cheaper for the store to pay yearly maintenance on 50 'robots' than employ 15 full time employees;
The out of work employee's are then meant to retrain to support the 'robots' or change career into an industry that requires human input (e.g. customer service).


Which is fine. But ultimately the introduction of machines and AI is going to shrink the workforce. And I'm not even talking about complete replacement. Enough impact will be felt to actual humans to bomb the economy surely? We would live in an age where we could produce everything we need, faster than ever yet there would be a real shortage of jobs to enable people to afford the goods.

Previously, the industrial revolution only affected a very specific subset of society. Now it will affect that same small subset but has potential to take a chunk from other industries like cooking, security, basic AI driven healthcare, office administration checks on licenses etc.

The current generation is at a threat of being pushed out as transition ramps up. And it makes an assumption that there are enough people coming through with the aptitude or appetite to embrace the new roles and jobs created.

I haven't written too much as I'm at work, just opening the discussion up to see different viewpoints at the moment.

 

[KevinKeene]

It's THE problem of the immediate future that pretty much all governments are ignoring. I'm so tired of German politicians going on about creating more jobs - no, at some point there simply won't be enough jobs, they'll actually vanish in immense numbers, and you can't solve this by educating everyone to a higher degree.

Universal basic income is a must for the future, as is the realization that working is not the essence of life, which way too many people think.

The upcoming increased automation will be ugly, and I fear I might be well alive during its entirety.

 

[llien]

Since it's not about "if", but about "when", the earlier we take steps to address the problem (universal income please) the better.

Several decades ago people didn't have to have high school education to become members of the middle class. Yet it isn't something every single human is capable of.
Low paying jobs will be take the first hits.

Notable book:

 

[SatansReverence]

There are far too many people working and their jobs won't be replaced in any meaningful way. This will lead to widespread unemployment that would likely make the great depression look like a storm in a teacup.

People like to say that automation creates jobs, the problem is with widespread automation it will not in any way replace the jobs lost.

Example there is something like 3 million truck drivers, when automation makes that position obsolete, thats 3 million people who become unemployed in a very short period of time. Where are they going to go? They aren't going to jump out of the truck and into a STEM field. It's just not going to happen.

 

[iamblades]

We had the Industrial Revolution years ago now which was the first wave of replacing human intervention in means of production and labour. Now we're entering the next generation of automation. Is anyone skeptical about how this would work?

The ultimate goal is of course replace the tasks that can be done by machines, with machines. A quick and dirty example here would be cashier desks.

Store currently employs 20 cashiers;
Store buys 50 express checkouts;
Store fires 15 cashiers (maybe all);
It is cheaper for the store to pay yearly maintenance on 50 'robots' than employ 15 full time employees;
The out of work employee's are then meant to retrain to support the 'robots' or change career into an industry that requires human input (e.g. customer service).


Which is fine. But ultimately the introduction of machines and AI is going to shrink the workforce. And I'm not even talking about complete replacement. Enough impact will be felt to actual humans to bomb the economy surely? We would live in an age where we could produce everything we need, faster than ever yet there would be a real shortage of jobs to enable people to afford the goods.

Previously, the industrial revolution only affected a very specific subset of society. Now it will affect that same small subset but has potential to take a chunk from other industries like cooking, security, basic AI driven healthcare, office administration checks on licenses etc.

The current generation is at a threat of being pushed out as transition ramps up. And it makes an assumption that there are enough people coming through with the aptitude or appetite to embrace the new roles and jobs created.

I haven't written too much as I'm at work, just opening the discussion up to see different viewpoints at the moment.

Jobs will never be eliminated until we reach total post scarcity, which no one believes we are even close to achieving, if such a state is even physically possible.

Even in that case, it may be human labor maintains a premium over robot labor. There are many things that we automate today at a much higher quality level for a cheaper price, but yet people still pay a premium for 'hand-made' products.

As the production of a good becomes automated, it splits the market for said good. The high end workers move to the luxury end of the market (ie. swiss watchmakers or McLaren cars etc) where their labor can demand a premium, while the rest of the market becomes a commodity. This makes the good more affordable to a wider range of people than before, and it also lets people who don't want to pay the luxury premium for the human made version spend that excess on a new good or service, which has the potential to create whole new industries.

The basic goods a human needs for subsistence are very highly automated these days, so subsistence needs make up a very small portion of the average person's spending, and as more things become automated or at least mechanized, the standard of living increases.

An important note is that automation does not change that the inputs and outputs of the economy have to balance out(ignoring fiscal and monetary policy for a minute here) in the long term. You have to have buyers to match your production, so total level of automation can only really increase on average at the rate that those jobs are being replaced by other economic activity. Note that this is averaged out over a longer term. In the short term a business can be over automated leading to excess production and a loss of profitability, and there is a certain stickiness in the labor markets in that people have to be retrained and they generally don't like relocating or taking paycuts for understandable reasons.

The big worry I have is that as the pace of automation increases it makes it harder and harder for workers to adapt which results increasing economic instability and deeper business cycles(where a large industry automates too rapidly, leading to a drop in employment and gdp, until those workers can find new work), which would result in increasing political instability. Automation is certain to be a net positive over the long term though, it's just a matter of how painful it will be along the way.

I've supported a UBI before, but not a living wage UBI to 'solve' automation(which would be way too much money to be sustainable), more of a sovereign wealth fund that pays a citizen dividend, because I think it's reasonable that citizens should benefit from economic activity involving public assets as any other owner in the economy would. This could help dampen the employment shocks from increasing automation, but wouldn't eliminate them.

 

[VAL0R]

I'll give a little example from my industry. When my chemical facility was built ~20 years ago, operators had to open and close valves manually and do an extensive pre-startup walkthrough. This knowhow required ~ 1 year of training, before an operator was considered ready and prepared to start up and shut down the plant's reactor. Now almost all new valves going into this same facility are control valves, monitored by a computer. We basically monitor systems from our chairs 90% of the time and make tweaks with a mouse and keyboard. We built a modern plant about three years ago. It was so advanced and automated they had the cleaning lady press a single button to start the plant.

Yes automation, machines and eventually incredible bipedal humanoid robots will take all the jobs. I really believe that the UBI is coming faster than a lot of people think.

 

[VAL0R]

Another quick story: One of the drivers that delivers our chemicals told me that their is a site he goes to now to get loaded where he literally sees no human. Paperwork is printed for him out of a kiosk, he is told what door to back into, he is told is he is not backed into the door properly, machines load his trailer with product and he leaves.

 

[Razorback]

It's already happening. During the election campaign, Trump talked a lot about bringing jobs back to America, like globalization and offshoring were at fault for the massive job cuts in certain industries since 2000. That was all mostly automation. Those jobs aren't coming back.

 

[David___]

UBI is practically a must when automation kicks in, otherwise it's going to get bloody since there's only so many times you can tell people to live like shit when 1% controls all the wealth, and once the illusion of "if I can continue to work hard then I'll get my dues" goes away, there's no going back.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

The companies that build the automatons will get richer and richer. More and more people will lose their jobs and some will resort to crime just to be able to make ends meet. At some point this Will become unsustainable. At that point, society will need to switch to socialism, with a guaranteed basic income just to prevent rampant theft and crime from ruining society.

If we successfully navigate this social upheaval, a hundred years from today, I could easily see a world where almost everyone is hooked into life like VR simulations where they rule as gods and every fantasy is met, (or they can use it to hangout with friends and loved one on a vr simulated beach) while AI automatons do all labor tasks required for people such as food production and delivery.

That world will be nothing like ours today. And it’s only roughly a 100 years away.

I guess that’s not that surprising considering how different our lives were a 100 years ago.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

Automation is a threat, but I don't think we will ever get robots to the point of being able to do everything. Operators will perform more and more QC related tasks, but will still need to know how to do manual operations.

The best piece of automation can break down from the tiniest of issue. We can't miss a shipment to our customer, as it could potentially shut their line down. Some manufacturing will be more affected than others, but I don't see the automotive industry ever losing it's human element. Too many parts of it are subjective. Practically everything appearance related is.

 

[TheMikado]

Jobs will never be eliminated until we reach total post scarcity, which no one believes we are even close to achieving, if such a state is even physically possible.

Even in that case, it may be human labor maintains a premium over robot labor. There are many things that we automate today at a much higher quality level for a cheaper price, but yet people still pay a premium for 'hand-made' products.

As the production of a good becomes automated, it splits the market for said good. The high end workers move to the luxury end of the market (ie. swiss watchmakers or McLaren cars etc) where their labor can demand a premium, while the rest of the market becomes a commodity. This makes the good more affordable to a wider range of people than before, and it also lets people who don't want to pay the luxury premium for the human made version spend that excess on a new good or service, which has the potential to create whole new industries.

The basic goods a human needs for subsistence are very highly automated these days, so subsistence needs make up a very small portion of the average person's spending, and as more things become automated or at least mechanized, the standard of living increases.

An important note is that automation does not change that the inputs and outputs of the economy have to balance out(ignoring fiscal and monetary policy for a minute here) in the long term. You have to have buyers to match your production, so total level of automation can only really increase on average at the rate that those jobs are being replaced by other economic activity. Note that this is averaged out over a longer term. In the short term a business can be over automated leading to excess production and a loss of profitability, and there is a certain stickiness in the labor markets in that people have to be retrained and they generally don't like relocating or taking paycuts for understandable reasons.

The big worry I have is that as the pace of automation increases it makes it harder and harder for workers to adapt which results increasing economic instability and deeper business cycles(where a large industry automates too rapidly, leading to a drop in employment and gdp, until those workers can find new work), which would result in increasing political instability. Automation is certain to be a net positive over the long term though, it's just a matter of how painful it will be along the way.

I've supported a UBI before, but not a living wage UBI to 'solve' automation(which would be way too much money to be sustainable), more of a sovereign wealth fund that pays a citizen dividend, because I think it's reasonable that citizens should benefit from economic activity involving public assets as any other owner in the economy would. This could help dampen the employment shocks from increasing automation, but wouldn't eliminate them.

I've actually had the opportunity to teacher classes on this topic a few times. Automation is not about taking all jobs, but enough jobs to severely impact the economy and everything we know about it. In fact it has already taken place.
The concern is that national hours worked and compensation is not increasing at the same rate as productivity. What this means is that more work is being achieves but in the same amount of time and at the same compensation levels. The problem with this is that is creates an under employment situation, where if the amount of available work hours does not increase relative to the population it devalues the hours that are worked due to the excess of supply of workers in the market. Basically work becomes worth less and less where it is available. This, long-term wrecks the economy and even with UBI I cannot see a long-term solution to this issue as all work will essentially be devalued as automation increases where the benefits to the work you are able to find will be negligible.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Im not so worried about how it unravels in the west, in mostly worried about the way it happens in China and India.

 

[TheMikado]

Im not so worried about how it unravels in the west, in mostly worried about the way it happens in China and India.

Ironically they will be far better off, their economies are still very new and not built around the structures and luxuries we have. The idea of survival and living will be easier for them to adjust to without the expectation of society protections we have in the west.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Ironically they will be far better off, their economies are still very new and not built around the structures and luxuries we have. The idea of survival and living will be easier for them to adjust to without the expectation of society protections we have in the west.

Maybe, but I don't really think so. They are solely designed in their economies to produce. They have few safety nets as well. The number of unskilled labourers they have is incredible. I suspect that they will be the first to really adopt it and will crush their own developing market as a result. I hope im wrong.

 

[TheMikado]

Im not so worried about how it unravels in the west, in mostly worried about the way it happens in China and India.

Ironically they will be far better off, their economies are still very new and not built around the structures and luxuries we have. The idea of survival and living will be easier for them to adjust to without the expectation of society protections we have in the west.

Maybe, but I don't really think so. They are solely designed in their economies to produce. They have few safety nets as well. The number of unskilled labourers they have is incredible. I suspect that they will be the first to really adopt it and will crush their own developing market as a result. I hope im wrong.

Over 50% of India's occupation is farming.

China's largest industry is still agriculture as well.

By contrast, in the US. Less than 1% of our labor force in in farming.

The less industrialized countries will simply go back to what they were doing a few decades ago. Their economy and day to day lives are not built entirely around industry like the US.
Western societies will be the hardest hit by a long shot and really we are the only ones worried about it.

 

[KevinKeene]

UBI is practically a must when automation kicks in, otherwise it's going to get bloody since there's only so many times you can tell people to live like shit when 1% controls all the wealth, and once the illusion of "if I can continue to work hard then I'll get my dues" goes away, there's no going back.

Ubi is a must, but even with it I fear it will get bloody. Ubi only is about grabting people the means to survive. But what about all the luxury we've gotten used to? Fancy cars, powerful gaming-pcs, eating in nice restaurants, going on vacation, etc.? Only those with a job will be able to afford that.

 

[David___]

Ubi is a must, but even with it I fear it will get bloody. Ubi only is about grabting people the means to survive. But what about all the luxury we've gotten used to? Fancy cars, powerful gaming-pcs, eating in nice restaurants, going on vacation, etc.? Only those with a job will be able to afford that.

The hardest part is getting people on board with UBI since it's straight out socialism/ redistribution of wealth. If people get on board with that then stuff that's still necessary after that wouldn't be as big as a jump since the govt is going to have to get involved if we still want any semblance of normalcy in our buying habits.

Edit: Even then, if all we get is UBI, then there's still a chance prices would decrease rather than increase since people would otherwise just not buy something they can afford, along with prices going down due to a small/lack of a overhead.

 

[bigedole]

Lot of Nostradomus types here... dunno why everyone is convinced the only possible outcome is massive under-employment and the necessity of UBI. There is literally no data to support this conclusion. Only guesses.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Lot of Nostradomus types here... dunno why everyone is convinced the only possible outcome is massive under-employment and the necessity of UBI. There is literally no data to support this conclusion. Only guesses.

Well of course people look to the future, it's a very important place for everyone. The automation age is fundamentally different than the industrial age, thus why people automation are expecting different results. Automation is a game changer and will make all of our lives better beyond what we can see.

 

[David___]

Lot of Nostradomus types here... dunno why everyone is convinced the only possible outcome is massive under-employment and the necessity of UBI. There is literally no data to support this conclusion. Only guesses.

 

[Droxcy]

I work in Industrial Engineering/Maintenance. I've done work for high profile companies, just the technology inside warehouses now a days is insane. From FANUC Robotics, to KIVA Industries - which is now owned by Amazon. It's the future, like it or not, it'll make daily life and work more convenient. I'm all for it!

 

[black_13]

It's just gonna make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I wasn't for UBI before but it's becoming more clear to me that could be the only solution. Its gonna be impossible for governments to be able to create that many jobs.

 

[Atrus]

UBI isn't a better world by any stretch. Firstly, there's been no mathematically sustainable model provided for such an idea as it usually calls for the abolishment of social services on top of other taxation schemes and secondly, it would place individual economic freedom directly in the hands of the government.

Might as well be a Black Mirror dystopia.

 

[joshcryer]

Year 0. The year it all changed. UPS partners with Amazon and Tesla to create the All Delivery Initiative. Every new UPS truck going forward is self driving, with auto delivery drones that safely deliver packages to one door steps. Delivery costs are zero in cities that accept the program. Consumers beg their city councils to allow this program to be launched in their city, much like those who wanted Uber in their cities. Layoffs in some areas coincide with retirement packages as UPS slowly lowers its labor force.

Year -2. Fedex partners with J.B. Hunt Transport Services to deliver packages and goods across the country. The USPS joins, as well, as many USPS workers are left off their jobs due to the pension fund scandal. Package delivery to the mailbox still has mailmen, but private startups are created so solve that issue and standardize all mailboxes across the country (lobbyists are hired). Individual contractor truckers are laid off en masse, many close to retirement, so it is not immediately felt. Anyone attempting to get into the trucking industry is met with denial letters.

Year -4. Tesla successfully lobbies, along with Google, Apple, and several other leading edge self-driving companies for the government to allow for self-driving cars. Geico and Progressive offer heavy deals for anyone who buys a car. Tesla's attempt at a leasing service for Tesla's falls flat, Apple has much better success with their car, however, and individuals don't get to own them. Uber lays off 90% of its workforce.

Year -5. Yellow Taxi's tokens are rendered worthless as Yellow Taxi files for bankruptcy due to a labor union dispute. It turns out if consumers can get cheap rides elsewhere they will slowly ignore the brand and move on to other modes of transportation. New York's subways are more clogged than usual and the big cities adopt Uber as their driving platform.

Year -6. All production cars have a self-driving mode mandated by government, with mild resistance from the consumer, as the insurance agencies offer steep discounts for those who allow their cars to always be in self driving mode, with stiff penalties for those who chose to overide those modes. All vehicle operation is tracked and monitored. The large car manufactures successfully lobby for this to avoid the ocassional lawsuits, particularly after a well loved family of five gets killed when an autonomus SUV fails to recognize a large patch of dry ice.

Year -8. With free deliveries of packages anywhere in the US, and very low cost travel options, the ability to drive in brand new cars for less than the fuel costs and upkeep of an old used car 10 years earlier, the regular consumer demands lower costs for everything. Leased cars need places to park, and they park in more active users driveways, allowing their batteries to be utilized for the smart grid (vehicle to grid), allowing for much smoother peaking power across the country, this in turn causes more consumers to use the services more actively, so that they get "parking rights" and allows them even steeper discounts when averaged over the miles they drive. All without ever touching the steering wheel.

Year -9. Fast food was the last to adapt. While there was an early effort to remove the workforce with automation, the government pressed companies to not fire people and replace them with automated technology, giving them huge tax incentives. When McDonalds finally launched their first fully autonomous store, the fast food workforce had doubled. Many young adults still lived at home into their 30s, and no upward mobility was available.

Year -10. Riot Games new VR MMORPG MOBA hybrid "Legendary Force" overtakes the Superbowl as the most watched sport on all video streaming services including broadcast TV, as ten of the worlds largest teams compete for territory in the Golden Palace.

In one decade everything changes, and while many if not most of the jobs lost will be people going in to retirement, it will leave a gaping whole in the remaining workforce, and in particular, the new workforce. It will be adapted to very slowly, because there will be almost no benefits. My suspicion is that a lot of the youth will move on to esports, video games, Twitch like services, VR. It's going to be terrible from a social and cultural perspective at least to the past generation, but the past generations always feel that way about adoption.

The real question is whether or not it'll be enough to spur more innovation.

 

[michaelius]

UBI might be solution to problem of putting food on the tables - but once that is done what are those milions of people supposed to do with their time ? Considering what happens with immigrants in Europe where you can live from social funds I have really bad feeling that world will plunge into decadence, religious extremism etc. because people will need some meaning for their life.

 

[Sakura]

It's kind of crazy really. You hear the government saying we need to bring in more immigrants and refugees to fill all these jobs that we apparently don't want to do... yet at the same time we're supposed to believe that in the future automation is going to replace all these jobs.
In any case I think it's going to be a shit show unless the government does some regulation. It's easy to say people will retrain to support the robots, but it doesn't take one guy for one robot. You're going to see stores replace staff with automation, but when so many people have lost their jobs to robots, then who is making money to buy products at the store in the end? You save money not having to pay wages, but then if you have less customers then how are you really benifitting? I don't think a lot of these companies are thinking past "how can we make more money now".
But who knows maybe it will all be swell and life will be great.

 

[David___]

UBI might be solution to problem of putting food on the tables - but once that is done what are those milions of people supposed to do with their time ? Considering what happens with immigrants in Europe where you can live from social funds I have really bad feeling that world will plunge into decadence, religious extremism etc. because people will need some meaning for their life.

Hobbies, passion projects, traveling, etc.
Those that still want to work can start up a small business while using UBI to act as a safety net if things don't pan out.

 

[KevinKeene]

UBI might be solution to problem of putting food on the tables - but once that is done what are those milions of people supposed to do with their time ? Considering what happens with immigrants in Europe where you can live from social funds I have really bad feeling that world will plunge into decadence, religious extremism etc. because people will need some meaning for their life.

Arguing that jobs are needed, because otherwise people would be bored, is the weakest arguments in the history of weak arguments.

 

[ZoltanXerxes]

UBI might be solution to problem of putting food on the tables - but once that is done what are those milions of people supposed to do with their time ? Considering what happens with immigrants in Europe where you can live from social funds I have really bad feeling that world will plunge into decadence, religious extremism etc. because people will need some meaning for their life.

UBI is not a solution. It guarantees economic disaster under a taxation model (or any other model for that matter). Where are countries going to get the money for a UBI? If you get it by taxation, who will be taxed? Remember, whatever you tax becomes more expensive. Tax business owners, services and products get more expensive. Tax capital, capital gets more expensive. Whatever you do to fund a UBI is unsustainable, unless someone can pull some magic wizardry or create entirely new economic system that's not based on supply and demand.

 

[michaelius]

Arguing that jobs are needed, because otherwise people would be bored, is the weakest arguments in the history of weak arguments.

It's not argument it's reality. We already see this in Europe what happens when social safety is too strong.

Also traveling, hobbies assumes basic income will be quite high which is very unlikely. Much more realistic expectation is that it will cover basic needs like food , house rent etc. with very little left.

So you will end with people watching tv, you tube, twitch , playing games etc. all the time with no hope for anything better.

 

[TheMikado]

UBI isn't a better world by any stretch. Firstly, there's been no mathematically sustainable model provided for such an idea as it usually calls for the abolishment of social services on top of other taxation schemes and secondly, it would place individual economic freedom directly in the hands of the government.

Might as well be a Black Mirror dystopia.

Correct this is the real reason UBI is unsustainable. By and large our “control” of the government is dictated by our contributions to its continued function through taxes. We tell the government what to do via voting. If the general populous has negative economic contributions then there is little reason for societies existence. In a UBI scenario the more likely end result would be the wealth moving to self sustaining environments and private servants/armies. Who knows how society would respond to UBI.

 

[KevinKeene]

UBI is not a solution. It guarantees economic disaster under a taxation model (or any other model for that matter). Where are countries going to get the money for a UBI? If you get it by taxation, who will be taxed? Remember, whatever you tax becomes more expensive. Tax business owners, services and products get more expensive. Tax capital, capital gets more expensive. Whatever you do to fund a UBI is unsustainable, unless someone can pull some magic wizardry or create entirely new economic system that's not based on supply and demand.

So no ubi. But also no jobs. So your solution is: leave people die on the streets?

Ubi is sustainable. You're under the false assumption that people would stop contributing if they got money for free. When we're talking about ubi, we're talking about an amount of money that let's you cover rent, food, health, and daily utilities. And little more.

If all people were happy with just that,you'd be correct, ubi would be difficult to keep up. But realistically, most people wouldn't be happy with just that. People want a car, a nicer home, fancy food, traveling the world, gaming pcs, fashion and so on. And to those means, they'll still have to work to gain extra money. Thus supporting the feasibility of an ubi.

Ubi is not a concept to benefit lazy people. It's a necessary concept to keep mankind alive in a world where jobs are rare (not rare like today, but truly rare).

The good thing about ubi is that shitty jobs will see a huge rise in salary. Why clean toilets of other people when you've already got enough money to survive? But raise the salary high enough, and someone will do it.

Anyway, Ubi is not a matter of personal philosophy. It will come, in one form or another, becausre the alternative is ... well. There are enough post-apocalyptic movies that cover that

 

[David___]

The good thing about ubi is that shitty jobs will see a huge rise in salary. Why clean toilets of other people when you've already got enough money to survive? But raise the salary high enough, and someone will do it.

Not only that but working conditions, generally, will improve as well. People won't be considered disposable on a drop of a hat since, like you said, people won't need that job to survive, even for low maintenance jobs.

 

[ZoltanXerxes]

So no ubi. But also no jobs. So your solution is: leave people die on the streets?

Ubi is sustainable. You're under the false assumption that people would stop contributing if they got money for free. When we're talking about ubi, we're talking about an amount of money that let's you cover rent, food, health, and daily utilities. And little more.

If all people were happy with just that,you'd be correct, ubi would be difficult to keep up. But realistically, most people wouldn't be happy with just that. People want a car, a nicer home, fancy food, traveling the world, gaming pcs, fashion and so on. And to those means, they'll still have to work to gain extra money. Thus supporting the feasibility of an ubi.

Ubi is not a concept to benefit lazy people. It's a necessary concept to keep mankind alive in a world where jobs are rare (not rare like today, but truly rare).

The good thing about ubi is that shitty jobs will see a huge rise in salary. Why clean toilets of other people when you've already got enough money to survive? But raise the salary high enough, and someone will do it.

Anyway, Ubi is not a matter of personal philosophy. It will come, in one form or another, becausre the alternative is ... well. There are enough post-apocalyptic movies that cover that

You miss the point of how to fund a UBI. That’s my concern. Can you explain step by step how should a UBI be funded? Where is a country going to get the money? The unsustainably comes from the inability to fund a UBI in the first place. I’ve never heard of a reasonable idea on how to fund a UBI that will not put a burden on the economy.

 

[KevinKeene]

You miss the point of how to fund a UBI. That’s my concern. Can you explain step by step how should a UBI be funded? Where is a country going to get the money? The unsustainably comes from the inability to fund a UBI in the first place. I’ve never heard of a reasonable idea on how to fund a UBI that will not put a burden on the economy.

Some countries have tested ubi for years and it appears to work. Sustainability means various changes, but it'd work, because it has to.

Again: What is the alternative to ubi? Starting the yearly hunger games?

 

[ZoltanXerxes]

Some countries have tested ubi for years and it appears to work. Sustainability means various changes, but it'd work, because it has to.

Again: What is the alternative to ubi? Starting the yearly hunger games?

I have no alternative. If the UBI can work i’m all for it. The countries are testing it small scale. A large scale would be much more difficult to implement. You would have to cut many other social programs to be able to fund it. You assume I want the hunger games as you elegantly put it, but to quell your fear, I assure you I would love to see a healthy economy. A UBI is just replacing other social programs with another. The question is which one is less of a drain on the economy?

 

[KevinKeene]

I have no alternative. If the UBI can work i’m all for it. The countries are testing it small scale. A large scale would be much more difficult to implement. You would have to cut many other social programs to be able to fund it. You assume I want the hunger games as you elegantly put it, but to quell your fear, I assure you I would love to see a healthy economy. A UBI is just replacing other social programs with another. The question is which one is less of a drain on the economy?

I understand the concern. But i truly think this is one of those situations where we either make it work or we're 'doomed'. I just don't see a better alternative that wouldn't lead directly into a dystopian future.

 

[TheMikado]

I understand the concern. But i truly think this is one of those situations where we either make it work or we're 'doomed'. I just don't see a better alternative that wouldn't lead directly into a dystopian future.

You do understand what we have so many books about dystopian futures and none about UBI utopias right? Economists, authors, futurists, sociologists have all followed UBI to the end of a self sustaining system. This system would ultimately dictate that human work and by the extension the actual need for humanity at all is irrelevant to survival.

Basically society and personal freedoms all take a backseat to survival. What did you think Logan’s Run was about? If we are reinventing what economies look like then the idea of a capitalist system likely becomes irrelevant as well. UBI only makes sense if a captalist system of some form remains intact but captalist systems are built on the principles of inputs and outputs. Again there are no stories about UBI because it’s not an end result it’s a stop gap to the inevitable dystopian future.

 

[SDCowboy]

It's interesting to think about - One of the peaks of human and societal evolution would be mankind not having to work anymore because machines and computers do everything for us, but what do you do during the transition period where there is just mass unemployment?

This is obviously a long ways off, but it's something that does need to eventually be planned for.

 

[KevinKeene]

You do understand what we have so many books about dystopian futures and none about UBI utopias right? Economists, authors, futurists, sociologists have all followed UBI to the end of a self sustaining system. This system would ultimately dictate that human work and by the extension the actual need for humanity at all is irrelevant to survival.

Basically society and personal freedoms all take a backseat to survival. What did you think Logan’s Run was about? If we are reinventing what economies look like then the idea of a capitalist system likely becomes irrelevant as well. UBI only makes sense if a captalist system of some form remains intact but captalist systems are built on the principles of inputs and outputs. Again there are no stories about UBI because it’s not an end result it’s a stop gap to the inevitable dystopian future.

Isn't Star Trek a ubi utupian future? Not a trekkie myself, but I thought that's it.

 

[TheMikado]

Isn't Star Trek a ubi utupian future? Not a trekkie myself, but I thought that's it.

Here is an incredibly interesting article on it. It’s incredibly weird but lays out the complexity of the structure of economics and ruling classes.

https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50

The end result is the the government essentially has all knowledge and control of all wealth but have individual allocations. The allocations are so great that most will not recognize it unless they attempt to use it in excess. The issue is the Trek universe presumes and excess of supply which can be given to each citizen. It’s a really interesting read which I recommend everyone take a look at.

 

[ZoltanXerxes]

Isn't Star Trek a ubi utupian future? Not a trekkie myself, but I thought that's it.

Star Trek is built on a society of nearly infinite supply (replicators). If the supply is neatly infinite the cost for goods would be almost zero. A UBI is unnecessary in Star Trek for that reason. If I could replicate everything I needed without working I won’t have to work.

 

[Vicetrailia]

The thing about UBI is that it will be the bottom sustenance. Ya'll dont want to depend on government money because you'll be broke as fuck. It's a nice aid. So I don't see why people are getting mad at the idea, if it becomes necessary.

 

[DonJimbo]

With automatisation we will have better production and less time will be used for production and a bigger amount of products get produced

 

[TheMikado]

The thing about UBI is that it will be the bottom sustenance. Ya'll dont want to depend on government money because you'll be broke as fuck. It's a nice aid. So I don't see why people are getting mad at the idea, if it becomes necessary.

It’s not something to be mad about, it’s the idea of sustainability. The funding has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is taxes. The thing is the current tax rate isn’t even adequate enough to properly fund all our programs and education. Adding UBI on top of that breaks the system without more tax generation. If you want to generate tax you have to tax the wealthy who have consolidated the wealth. But then the political power also goes to them otherwise they threaten to leave where you can’t tax them.

How do you get wealth people to pay for people not to work without given them full control over people lives or prompting them to leave with all their wealth from the high taxation?

 

[iamblades]

It’s not something to be mad about, it’s the idea of sustainability. The funding has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is taxes. The thing is the current tax rate isn’t even adequate enough to properly fund all our programs and education. Adding UBI on top of that breaks the system without more tax generation. If you want to generate tax you have to tax the wealthy who have consolidated the wealth. But then the political power also goes to them otherwise they threaten to leave where you can’t tax them.

How do you get wealth people to pay for people not to work without given them full control over people lives or prompting them to leave with all their wealth from the high taxation?

There aren't enough wealthy though.

You could straight up fully confiscate all the wealth of the 1%, it wouldn't be enough to fund a sustainable living wage UBI. This is even ignoring how you can divide up said wealth without destroying all of it's value, ie. who is going to be able to buy a $200 million estate in the Hamptons if there is no 1%. It would result in a fire sale where wealth is liquidated at pennies on the dollar.

If you are just talking a steeply progressive income tax, history has shown that that creates very little additional income because of all the tax avoidance and offshoring it leads to, so it will be even less capable of funding such a system.

If you want these kinds of programs it is going to require heavy taxation on the middle class. Even with that as a given, Europe proves that model is unsustainable with the future demographic trends in developed nations.

Basically Norway is the only nation on earth with a sustainable and properly funded welfare state in the absence of favorable demography. To achieve that required at least double the tax burden that exists in the US(and much of that taxation comes from regressive VAT and payroll taxes) and large amounts of wealth from oil(along with a political system that was disciplined enough to invest said wealth instead of spending it all).

Without the oil wealth you are looking at placing an impossible tax burden on young working people to pay for an ever increasing percentage of elderly, which further exacerbates the demographic issues as young people can't afford to have children. Most of Europe is already reaching the point of being demographically incapable of economic growth so they will have to spread a smaller and smaller amount of money around an ever aging population.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

It's kind of crazy really. You hear the government saying we need to bring in more immigrants and refugees to fill all these jobs that we apparently don't want to do... yet at the same time we're supposed to believe that in the future automation is going to replace all these jobs.
In any case I think it's going to be a shit show unless the government does some regulation. It's easy to say people will retrain to support the robots, but it doesn't take one guy for one robot. You're going to see stores replace staff with automation, but when so many people have lost their jobs to robots, then who is making money to buy products at the store in the end? You save money not having to pay wages, but then if you have less customers then how are you really benifitting? I don't think a lot of these companies are thinking past "how can we make more money now".
But who knows maybe it will all be swell and life will be great.

That’s exactly why people worry about automation. The only people making money in this new economy will be the heads of the company(s) making the automatons. Amazon seems like the most likely candidate.

Most everyone else will be poor and jobless. The government would be smart to tax the hell out of corporate profits and use it to implement a UBI. But we just took a big step in the opposite direction. Without UBI, people will resort to crime to put food on the table. Eventually the govt will either wise up and dramatically raise taxes on the wealthy in order to provide a UBI, or it will get overthrown and and their may even be a bloody civil war until we switch over to full blown socialism.

 

[cormack12]

Quite interesting reading through these. UBI seems to being trialled in some places. Does that mean a shift to libertarianism? I'm guessing the funding of a UBI would mean the government cutting all social welfare. You're given cash. Everyone has the same start in life. If you want to use your cash for education you do it, if you want to use it for medical insurance do it. If you want to piss it away on drugs do it, but if you ultimately are responsible for yourself the safety net of government social care will no longer be there.

On a wider scale, with people out of jobs, sales will surely plummet - certainly of luxury/entertainment/designer goods. All this production will need energy, of which we're trying to use renewable. With production down, can renewable power the necessities?

 

[Super Mario]

I can't shake my head hard enough at the discussion of UBI. We are no where near needing such a program. Have we learned nothing from socialism, communism, etc? A fresh coat of paint each time, and that's all we need. We can't even fund our current liabilities. I bet UBI proponents think we're going to fund healthcare, social security, and income from the rich people who have automated everything?

Automation has going on since the cotton gin. How many decades have people been scared about this? Sure it's going to disrupt some industries more than others. However, we've seen newer jobs being added that are paying more. Where we've lost manufacturing we've gained IT and HR.

What I predict is we will continue to see more elimination of jobs, but wage growth for the existing ones. Those who lack skill will be hurt the worst and demand UBI (sound familiar?) Many companies are already doing this today. Gone are the days where big company hires 100 people to do meaningless tasks at $7 an hour minimum wage. Instead, hire 50 better-paying, more skilled positions. Many jobs like cashiering, cash management, etc can be automated. The meaningful positions that need a talented worker are seeing an increase in wage. It may be less net jobs, but 1 FT job with a higher hourly rate is infinitely better than 2 PT jobs at minimum wage.

IF UBI was to be, I'm scared it would be driven by companies like Amazon as mentioned before. Some day, their warehouses will be mostly automated. When Jeff has 1 trillion, he may find it in his heart to push to distribute some. His newspapers, TV stations, and whatever he owns at the time will tell the world how great it is, and if you object, the world will tell you how terrible you are. Have you ever heard this story before?