I would love to be able to hold my breath for that, but I somehow doubt that the direct result of the race for profit and monopoly will be gifts with no strings attached.
There's a few ways to view it. However I think between all the perspectives there's one central theme. A basic income is not a gift. It's kind of part of the unwritten deal no one has ever discussed. As a society we work together because as a group we're stronger then individually. Its true for animals, and its true for us. Humans have a knack though for really making use of our intelligence, and physical capabilities. We've engineered (hacked) the physical world to make our lives better. Doing that alone though is impossible, so we've engineered "society" to facilitate the process. When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started. What is more important, a persons right to work for stuff, or a persons right to more stuff? By allowing the mechanization of labor, we've implicitly chosen the later. Of course, it was easy to justify. There's always more work, so industrialization is ultimately a good thing. The worker would only be temporarily shifted anyways.
There's a caveat to that though. When mechanization became intelligent mechanization (what I call having a Computer whether mechanical or digital control the process) the shifts started happening more frequently, and the replacement jobs became harder to obtain.
I think ultimately this is the key point, as a society we LET mechanization happen, and ultimately it has taken us to a point where not everyone is CAPABLE of having a highly skilled job. There's ways to alleviate it, part of the problem is an outdated education system. Another part of the problem is probably cultural, there might be a lack of high skilled jobs too.
None the less, there WILL be a growing population of people who we've taken away their capability to work for a living. So when we offer a basic income, its not us graciously giving them a gift of our hard work. Its giving them the lives they are owed because of the decisions we have collectively made a hundred years ago.
None the less, there WILL be a growing population of people who we've taken away their capability to work for a living. So when we offer a basic income, its not us graciously giving them a gift of our hard work. Its giving them the lives they are owed because of the decisions we have collectively made a hundred years ago.
I'm personally strongly in favour of basic income, but the two biggest arguments people give me are "How will we pay for it" and "why should we give money to people too lazy to work". Your final comment is how I defuse those, though I word it slightly differently.
I say something along the following: "Computers and machines have obsoleted old jobs, and we as a society haven't found new ones for all these people yet. So, I don't know how much you know about history, but when you take a bunch of people, take away their money, and let them be bored all day... bad things happen. Don't think of it as a gift. Think of it as a tax that prevents revolution."
I may have a little bit of a penchant for melodrama
As a society we work together because as a group we're stronger then individually. Its true for animals, and its true for us
I completely agree. What I need to be able to enjoy food more is not better food, but that nearly 1 billion people aren't undernourished [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation ]. However, I don't see that sentiment shared a lot. The world in large part seems to operate in slightly different principles.
When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started.
Very extreme exploitation started, and many people had to struggle and even risk their lives to change that from utter callousness to calculated and physically healthier exploitation. Now, corporate profits keep soaring, but they are accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, and today 40% of US workers earn less than 1968 minimum wage [ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-e... ].
If capitalism became more humane because people applied pressure, why would it become even more humane when there is nobody left to apply any kind of pressure? Why is basic income a more likely outcome than, say, mass sterilization? Make me believe, I really want to. I could use some optimism but I'm all out.
It will happen, eventually. It's either that, or some kind of Blade Runner dystopia. But the transition will not be easy. Massive upheavals might be lurking under horizon.
The possibility of the transition is predicated, on the technical side, on massive advancements in AI and robotics.
I don't know if I really like the idea of no-string-attached basic income. Wouldn't an alternative like a guaranteed public service job that then pays you with basic income be better?
At least we'd be making society a better place while guaranteeing an income of some kind.
And how would you ensure that there are enough public service jobs? Machines will be better at most of them than men anyway, so why society should deal with subpar human results?
I think guaranteed minimum income creates worse incentives, everyone making under the limit would be persuaded to work less or work under the table. With basic income the incentive to make more still exists at all levels of income.
I can see that. I was thinking that some hybrid would be interesting since I am just not sure a basic income would actually be affordable. Something like everyone is guaranteed X and anyone working for Y subtracts Y/F from X where F is some factor (2 or 3 maybe). I get the feeling the "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."[1] might manifest. I do wonder[2] if something radical like takers of basic income cannot vote or serve jury duty might push people to work.
1) Benjamin Franklin
2) not advocating - this part violates some of my basic beliefs
As stated in the Wikipedia link, there is a very clear difference between basic income and guaranteed minimum income. Basic income is a supplement that is not reduced by any work income earned. A guaranteed minimum income promises a supplemental grant for only the difference between other income and the guarantee level.
They are "sadly" forced to find other unskilled labor based jobs, many of which are being replaced by automation or process improvements... Or they need to find a way to learn a skill that can provide a stable income for them. I'm not saying it is always easy to just pick up a skill like that, but that's the more job-security-based route to go...
I think some of this can be solved with apprenticeships like some manufacturers are doing in the US. Were they need skilled labor to preform mechanical tasks automation is not able to do yet.
Though the number of these jobs is not going to be enough.
It's sort of a game theory thing because the future is uncertain. With Amazon they're better off today, but maybe without Amazon they push politicians to solve the bigger issues of unemployment sooner and thus would be much better off sooner than if they slave away in the sort of futuristic assembly line dystopia that the Amazon warehouses are portrayed as.
It gets worse. What if skilled workers are skill in a field that becomes suddenly redundant? Think about payroll clerks who typed out checks every two weeks; now it's all done by computers, databases and spreadsheets. Even skilled workers are not necessarily immune.
Of course that merely shows that there is a problem, it doesn't show what to blame or how to fix it in general.
The problem is that all of the technology we've created as a society (sharing science, funding from the government, allowing resource harvesting from public land) is being used to make workers obsolete, but instead of honoring the communal investment in technology by making a strong safety net where people can live, further training/education, and thrive, making our economy even stronger, we allow the corporations and uber-rich to dodge taxes (and hoard the hundreds of billions of dollars that could support that safety net).
If some "tech-of-last-week-skilled" workers can't become "tech-of-next-week-skilled" workers in that proverbial week, then they already are unskilled workers and should be treated as such.
Comments
The question then becomes what happens to all of those unskilled and now unneeded workers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
I would love to be able to hold my breath for that, but I somehow doubt that the direct result of the race for profit and monopoly will be gifts with no strings attached.
There's a few ways to view it. However I think between all the perspectives there's one central theme. A basic income is not a gift. It's kind of part of the unwritten deal no one has ever discussed. As a society we work together because as a group we're stronger then individually. Its true for animals, and its true for us. Humans have a knack though for really making use of our intelligence, and physical capabilities. We've engineered (hacked) the physical world to make our lives better. Doing that alone though is impossible, so we've engineered "society" to facilitate the process. When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started. What is more important, a persons right to work for stuff, or a persons right to more stuff? By allowing the mechanization of labor, we've implicitly chosen the later. Of course, it was easy to justify. There's always more work, so industrialization is ultimately a good thing. The worker would only be temporarily shifted anyways.
There's a caveat to that though. When mechanization became intelligent mechanization (what I call having a Computer whether mechanical or digital control the process) the shifts started happening more frequently, and the replacement jobs became harder to obtain.
I think ultimately this is the key point, as a society we LET mechanization happen, and ultimately it has taken us to a point where not everyone is CAPABLE of having a highly skilled job. There's ways to alleviate it, part of the problem is an outdated education system. Another part of the problem is probably cultural, there might be a lack of high skilled jobs too.
None the less, there WILL be a growing population of people who we've taken away their capability to work for a living. So when we offer a basic income, its not us graciously giving them a gift of our hard work. Its giving them the lives they are owed because of the decisions we have collectively made a hundred years ago.
I'm personally strongly in favour of basic income, but the two biggest arguments people give me are "How will we pay for it" and "why should we give money to people too lazy to work". Your final comment is how I defuse those, though I word it slightly differently.
I say something along the following: "Computers and machines have obsoleted old jobs, and we as a society haven't found new ones for all these people yet. So, I don't know how much you know about history, but when you take a bunch of people, take away their money, and let them be bored all day... bad things happen. Don't think of it as a gift. Think of it as a tax that prevents revolution."
I may have a little bit of a penchant for melodrama
As a society we work together because as a group we're stronger then individually. Its true for animals, and its true for us
I completely agree. What I need to be able to enjoy food more is not better food, but that nearly 1 billion people aren't undernourished [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation ]. However, I don't see that sentiment shared a lot. The world in large part seems to operate in slightly different principles.
When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started.
Very extreme exploitation started, and many people had to struggle and even risk their lives to change that from utter callousness to calculated and physically healthier exploitation. Now, corporate profits keep soaring, but they are accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, and today 40% of US workers earn less than 1968 minimum wage [ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-e... ].
If capitalism became more humane because people applied pressure, why would it become even more humane when there is nobody left to apply any kind of pressure? Why is basic income a more likely outcome than, say, mass sterilization? Make me believe, I really want to. I could use some optimism but I'm all out.
This assumes that everyone acts rationally and looks out for the best of society though.
We're certainly not there now.
It will happen, eventually. It's either that, or some kind of Blade Runner dystopia. But the transition will not be easy. Massive upheavals might be lurking under horizon.
The possibility of the transition is predicated, on the technical side, on massive advancements in AI and robotics.
I don't know if I really like the idea of no-string-attached basic income. Wouldn't an alternative like a guaranteed public service job that then pays you with basic income be better?
At least we'd be making society a better place while guaranteeing an income of some kind.
And how would you ensure that there are enough public service jobs? Machines will be better at most of them than men anyway, so why society should deal with subpar human results?
Do you see a Guaranteed minimum income as a viable alternative? Do you consider basic income and guaranteed minimum income the same thing?
I think guaranteed minimum income creates worse incentives, everyone making under the limit would be persuaded to work less or work under the table. With basic income the incentive to make more still exists at all levels of income.
I can see that. I was thinking that some hybrid would be interesting since I am just not sure a basic income would actually be affordable. Something like everyone is guaranteed X and anyone working for Y subtracts Y/F from X where F is some factor (2 or 3 maybe). I get the feeling the "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."[1] might manifest. I do wonder[2] if something radical like takers of basic income cannot vote or serve jury duty might push people to work.
1) Benjamin Franklin
2) not advocating - this part violates some of my basic beliefs
As stated in the Wikipedia link, there is a very clear difference between basic income and guaranteed minimum income. Basic income is a supplement that is not reduced by any work income earned. A guaranteed minimum income promises a supplemental grant for only the difference between other income and the guarantee level.
Looks like I deleted the word "effectively" in front of "same thing". I wonder how much the difference matters.
They are "sadly" forced to find other unskilled labor based jobs, many of which are being replaced by automation or process improvements... Or they need to find a way to learn a skill that can provide a stable income for them. I'm not saying it is always easy to just pick up a skill like that, but that's the more job-security-based route to go...
I think some of this can be solved with apprenticeships like some manufacturers are doing in the US. Were they need skilled labor to preform mechanical tasks automation is not able to do yet.
Though the number of these jobs is not going to be enough.
Well, they're either worse off without the option of working at Amazon, or they're better off. It can't be both.
It's sort of a game theory thing because the future is uncertain. With Amazon they're better off today, but maybe without Amazon they push politicians to solve the bigger issues of unemployment sooner and thus would be much better off sooner than if they slave away in the sort of futuristic assembly line dystopia that the Amazon warehouses are portrayed as.
How can you be worse off for having an option?
I don't think they can, but I was just making the stronger and more obvious statement.
Who knows. Unskilled workers make me sad.
It gets worse. What if skilled workers are skill in a field that becomes suddenly redundant? Think about payroll clerks who typed out checks every two weeks; now it's all done by computers, databases and spreadsheets. Even skilled workers are not necessarily immune.
Of course that merely shows that there is a problem, it doesn't show what to blame or how to fix it in general.
The problem is that all of the technology we've created as a society (sharing science, funding from the government, allowing resource harvesting from public land) is being used to make workers obsolete, but instead of honoring the communal investment in technology by making a strong safety net where people can live, further training/education, and thrive, making our economy even stronger, we allow the corporations and uber-rich to dodge taxes (and hoard the hundreds of billions of dollars that could support that safety net).
Or wagon manufacturers when automobiles took over. Or manual farm workers when plows and then tractors took over.
Remember how we used to have telephone switchboard operators?
Even better, remember when people used to talk on "party lines" with no privacy at all?
What happens when Silicon-Valley-tech of the week skilled workers become redundant and they're suddently "unskilled"? That makes me sad.
If some "tech-of-last-week-skilled" workers can't become "tech-of-next-week-skilled" workers in that proverbial week, then they already are unskilled workers and should be treated as such.
Why? Most jobs in the world require no special skill not picked up on the job.
In all seriousness, the world needs ditch diggers too.
http://www.harborfreight.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/i...
I suppose you could call that skilled, but I would have put that under the on the job training I had mentioned.
As Eliezer says, if personal maids, cooks, and servants suddenly become affordable, only then might we have an unskilled labourer problem (http://lesswrong.com/lw/hh4/the_robots_ai_and_unemployment_a...)