Universal basic income

[sassenach]

I can't find the thread that brought UBI up, but as often happens with hive discussions, I ran into an interesting podcast right after reading the thread.

 

The Finnish Experiment.

http://99percentinvisible.org/episodes/

 

It was interesting. Not pro or against.

 

ETA: The robot argument was new to me.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Sassenach

[6packofun]

Don't have time to listen, but does the podcast mention that the 2000 random people selected for the trial was reduced even further than that?  Seems very difficult to extrapolate any findings to the population at large when just a few people are gifted with the UBI--and, of course, it makes them very happy and less stressed.  LOL

 

Thanks for the link; this interests me and I'll try to catch it later!

[Tanaqui]

Is this the thread you're talking about?

[3 ladybugs]

I fail to understand how this could help anyone based on my understanding. It is my understanding that in countries with universal health care, businesses that need highly skilled workers typically do incentivize people to come to their company via purchasing additional health insurance for "private" doctors. Therefore the people all get "some level of care" but you still have the have and the have nots. I could also assume that if what I was told is correct, that the people that don't need any help with medical expenses because they are essentially self insured, have even better doctors then the first 2 afore mentioned groups. 

 

Universal income I would be the same. After a while that would be the "poor" just like with a few exceptions the poor in this country are not poor by worldly standards. There are exceptions of people that want to live by worldly poor standards but they are the exception to the rule as we do have lots of safety measures in this country now. 

[Paige]

I fail to understand how this could help anyone based on my understanding. It is my understanding that in countries with universal health care, businesses that need highly skilled workers typically do incentivize people to come to their company via purchasing additional health insurance for "private" doctors. Therefore the people all get "some level of care" but you still have the have and the have nots. I could also assume that if what I was told is correct, that the people that don't need any help with medical expenses because they are essentially self insured, have even better doctors then the first 2 afore mentioned groups. 

 

Universal income I would be the same. After a while that would be the "poor" just like with a few exceptions the poor in this country are not poor by worldly standards. There are exceptions of people that want to live by worldly poor standards but they are the exception to the rule as we do have lots of safety measures in this country now. 

 

I believe it would help by eliminating means testing and the hoops people have to jump through today to get the supports they need. So many people give up and don't or can't access supports. It would free up time, reduce shame, and provide greater flexibility. 

 

It won't create utopia or economic equality, and I don't think anyone has said it would, but it may reduce stress and the numbers of people who fall through the cracks. 

[Twolittleboys]

I fail to understand how this could help anyone based on my understanding. It is my understanding that in countries with universal health care, businesses that need highly skilled workers typically do incentivize people to come to their company via purchasing additional health insurance for "private" doctors. Therefore the people all get "some level of care" but you still have the have and the have nots. I could also assume that if what I was told is correct, that the people that don't need any help with medical expenses because they are essentially self insured, have even better doctors then the first 2 afore mentioned groups. 

 

 

 

Well, I live in a country with universal health care and it isn't really like that here. Sure, some businesses might offer extra health benefits just like they might offer a company car etc. and of course if you are very rich you can get better care than others just like you can get most anything else better than others. But for the vast majority of people the regular health care works just fine. I would say the "some level of care" is mostly completely adequate. The fact that some can afford a private room and have the doctor in charge chat with them doesn't change that.

[Bluegoat]

I fail to understand how this could help anyone based on my understanding. It is my understanding that in countries with universal health care, businesses that need highly skilled workers typically do incentivize people to come to their company via purchasing additional health insurance for "private" doctors. Therefore the people all get "some level of care" but you still have the have and the have nots. I could also assume that if what I was told is correct, that the people that don't need any help with medical expenses because they are essentially self insured, have even better doctors then the first 2 afore mentioned groups. 

 

Universal income I would be the same. After a while that would be the "poor" just like with a few exceptions the poor in this country are not poor by worldly standards. There are exceptions of people that want to live by worldly poor standards but they are the exception to the rule as we do have lots of safety measures in this country now. 

 

Yeah, I can't say that describes our health care either.

 

Most salaried jobs do have an additional health plan, but I would not say that is super-competitive - it isn't a huge deal in attracting employees.  They tend to all be pretty similar. And everyone uses the same providers for basic health care, you can't buy a better doctor.

[Guest]

I am in favor of experimenting, always. See what happens on a small scale before you try to implement on a large scale. My main thought, not so much with Finland, but with the US, is the same old question, how are we gonna pay for this? There are parallels with UBI to our Social Security system.

 

The "promise" of SS was meant to be no more senior citizens living in poverty. Clearly, though, this result has not happened, and there are loads of financial and implementation problems with our SS system - everything from people living much longer than previously to the Baby Boomer segment being too large to be funded by the smaller age demographics beneath, to the fact that SS is *expensive*. And people in my generation and younger have been warned for the past few decades that we cannot count on SS as anything but pizza money in our futures, if that. Every month, I post the payroll taxes for our company on the government website and let me tell you, the SS segment is sickeningly high compared to the other two categories of Medicare and Federal Withholding. It's stunning when you are the payroll person who actually sends that money, far more stunning than when you are the employee just receiving your paycheck wih the deductions already withheld. It's very hard for me to see how the working population would ever jibe with yet another payroll deduction in order to give everybody money just for breathing.

 

I also would be very skeptical if the way this was sold to the US public was to say, "We're going to cut out all the waste and red tape of our large mish-mash of programs (supplemental nutrition, welfare, federal unemployment, medicare, whatever else there is) and just have this one program." I would think we would start paying in for the new program, but the phasing out of the other programs would not actually happen. Also, I can't see how people with various needs could be well-served by one UBI, since people have different needs and one flat amount is not going to help everyone equally.

 

I do think it is fascinating that a Republican President (Nixon) actually stumped for a basic income. I'd like to hear Rush Limbaugh mention *that* ever...

[ktgrok]

I think I heard on the radio the other day that about 9% of people in the UK have private insurance. 

[Guest]

It's a terrible idea when we can't even get social security to be funded properly. Nopers. And the results from Finland aren't overly promising IMO.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[FaithManor]

I think we need to focus on fixing our healthcare disaster first which will relieve a lot of economic suffering and then repairing broken, disastrous infrastructure. You know like Flint and other locales whose children have been so poisoned by heavy metals that they will likely have enough neurological deficits to not be I dependent, reasonably healthy functioning adults.

 

Then if we get some of this mess straightened out the idea can be revisited nationally.

[SamanthaCarter]

I could *almost* be convinced if we did it in lieu of SS and gave all the retirees UBI.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tina]

The amount would need to differ in different parts of the country/cities.  Who would determine what was enough from area to area?

[SamanthaCarter]

The amount would need to differ in different parts of the country/cities. Who would determine what was enough from area to area?

And would there be powerful voter bases that could vote themselves bigger checks?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Epicurean]

I'm in favor of UBI, but only if we get rid of welfare in exchange. I suspect that if we ever do get it, we will have both and still del with the problems associated with the welfare state.

[Ausmumof3]

It depends I guess. I mean if we can take care of everyone's needs mechanically and the need to work is eliminated its ok. But I don't feel like we're anywhere near at that point yet. Some people have intrinsic motivation to work but would it be enough of the population if basic necessities were taken care of. And would it just economically reset zero to $500 or whatever UBI is?

[Paige]

It depends I guess. I mean if we can take care of everyone's needs mechanically and the need to work is eliminated its ok. But I don't feel like we're anywhere near at that point yet. Some people have intrinsic motivation to work but would it be enough of the population if basic necessities were taken care of. And would it just economically reset zero to $500 or whatever UBI is?

 

I think it's a nice idea that we aren't ready for. If we have a robot or AI revolution that dramatically increases production and unemployment, then I could see it happening. 

 

Every argument I've seen for UBI has been as a replacement for all other direct spending programs like food stamps, housing supplements, etc. 

[DawnM]

I am in favor of experimenting, always. See what happens on a small scale before you try to implement on a large scale. My main thought, not so much with Finland, but with the US, is the same old question, how are we gonna pay for this? ..

 

 

I just watched a YouTube on this.  It will be funded just like most things are.....the poor get handed more money, they middle get taxed the same or a little less and will stay relatively the same, and the wealthier get taxed even more and will be the only ones actually ending up with less.

 

I am not sure that is the same for every model out there and I have not seen actual numbers, but that is the gist.

[Audrey]

I'm in favor of UBI, but only if we get rid of welfare in exchange. I suspect that if we ever do get it, we will have both and still del with the problems associated with the welfare state.

 

 

The point of UBI is to replace all other financial welfare payments while allowing people to meet a standard of living that is at or above the defined poverty line.  So, if every adult received UBI, there would be no need for old-age pensions, disability assistance, food stamps, rent subsidies, etc, etc, etc.  There would be a single payer of all social programs.  This would also result in drastic savings in bureaucracy. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The "promise" of SS was meant to be no more senior citizens living in poverty. Clearly, though, this result has not happened, and there are loads of financial and implementation problems with our SS system - everything from people living much longer than previously to the Baby Boomer segment being too large to be funded by the smaller age demographics beneath, to the fact that SS is *expensive*.

 

I don't believe that was ever the promise.

 

The Preamble to the Act says:

 

"An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes."

 

With that said, the Social Security Act has greatly reduced the number of seniors in poverty.

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's a terrible idea when we can't even get social security to be funded properly. Nopers. And the results from Finland aren't overly promising IMO.

 

Depends on what you mean by "can't".  If you mean that it can't happen politically, I agree.  If you believe that it isn't fiscally possible, I disagree.  Some relatively small changes to Social Security that take into account increasing life spans and and address exempting high income earners form fully contributing would easily handle the fiscal issues.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think it's a nice idea that we aren't ready for. If we have a robot or AI revolution that dramatically increases production and unemployment, then I could see it happening. 

 

Every argument I've seen for UBI has been as a replacement for all other direct spending programs like food stamps, housing supplements, etc. 

 

My guess is we are likely 15-20 years away from something like the UBI being seriously discussed.  If AI keeps advancing at the rate it has been I can see it happening at some point.

[Pawz4me]

I think it will have to happen if AI continues even on the same pace it has been for the past decade or so. Of course the pace will likely increase, and perhaps (probably) quite rapidly. It won't be long before there are many more people who truly want to work and who are well prepared for and capable of handling well paying jobs than there are available jobs, even in a good/great economy.

[3 ladybugs]

What gets me about this thread is I am assuming that since we are pretty much all homeschoolers, and a vast majority of homeschooling parents have at least once parent that doesn't work, this discussion becomes a bit absurd. I mean, most of us have made a decision that we would rather raise our children then get an income. We were not forced to do this, we made the choice. EVERYONE regardless of income would like more money. And I am sure everyone here would take an income (assuming they don't get one of their own right now) if it was handed to them. That is the way the world works. 

 

Of coarse there would be abuse if we were to actually implement this! It is absurd to think otherwise. It is the government. Private corporations have abuse in them and they have shareholders that actually can audit them and they STILL have abuse in them. The government is a GIANT corporation with very little oversight (though they like to pretend there is). I am sure we would hear of all sorts of abuse should this come to fruition. Things like the uber rich putting their money off shore and claiming that they were poor and getting more money. People living in other countries getting their paychecks even though they don't even live here. And so on and so on. 

 

At the end of the day, it is just REALLY easy to spend other people's money. When it is your own, and you have your taxes go up, you get a dose of reality and suddenly don't like the idea anymore. This is the whole reason why if I were queen for a day I would LOVE to see all laws (except for amendments to the constitution) have sunsets. They have to be revoted on every 5-10 years (yearly in the case of war for war issues). I know people would cry "But the republicans would take away money for the poor!" and "But the democrats would take away military funding!" Yeah, but we would be freer to spend our money how we see fit if that was the case. If the poor is important to you, donate to organizations that help them. If the military is important to you, I am sure there is a way to donate to that. 

 

One other thought. Last night this thread reminded me of a story my DH told me. He had a colleague who was working here in the US for a number of years. He had a house and had quite a bit of equity in it. Well he got a job transfer to Sweden. So he sold his house and had this pile of cash that he was able to take with him to Sweden. He got over there and even though he made a normal salary for over there, he had this pile of cash from the sale of his home in the US. He was shocked when he went to look for something to purchase over there. See because of of taxes in that country, most people can only afford up to a certain point as far as housing. So because he had more money, he was able to look over that amount. He was able to get a place 2-3 times bigger then the average person because he had "just a bit more". So he now lives in a big house and lives on a normal salary. 

 

My point with this story is that you will ALWAYS have the have and the have nots. The people lower down will always be competing for resources and the people to the top will always have the cream of the crop. Taking money from the top and moving it down doesn't bring the people down to the the people on the bottom. It just makes it so more people are competing for the bottom resources. The only way to avoid that is to have a communist/socialist society, but those never work out as good as they are promised to... strange. 

[Pawz4me]

IMO a UBI is only tangentially related to the poor or the haves and have nots, and that's mostly in that it would replace other social safety net programs.

 

It has much more to do with AI/technology and fewer available jobs even for well educated, highly motivated, NT people.

[Bluegoat]

I am in favor of experimenting, always. See what happens on a small scale before you try to implement on a large scale. My main thought, not so much with Finland, but with the US, is the same old question, how are we gonna pay for this? There are parallels with UBI to our Social Security system.

 

The "promise" of SS was meant to be no more senior citizens living in poverty. Clearly, though, this result has not happened, and there are loads of financial and implementation problems with our SS system - everything from people living much longer than previously to the Baby Boomer segment being too large to be funded by the smaller age demographics beneath, to the fact that SS is *expensive*. And people in my generation and younger have been warned for the past few decades that we cannot count on SS as anything but pizza money in our futures, if that. Every month, I post the payroll taxes for our company on the government website and let me tell you, the SS segment is sickeningly high compared to the other two categories of Medicare and Federal Withholding. It's stunning when you are the payroll person who actually sends that money, far more stunning than when you are the employee just receiving your paycheck wih the deductions already withheld. It's very hard for me to see how the working population would ever jibe with yet another payroll deduction in order to give everybody money just for breathing.

 

I also would be very skeptical if the way this was sold to the US public was to say, "We're going to cut out all the waste and red tape of our large mish-mash of programs (supplemental nutrition, welfare, federal unemployment, medicare, whatever else there is) and just have this one program." I would think we would start paying in for the new program, but the phasing out of the other programs would not actually happen. Also, I can't see how people with various needs could be well-served by one UBI, since people have different needs and one flat amount is not going to help everyone equally.

 

I do think it is fascinating that a Republican President (Nixon) actually stumped for a basic income. I'd like to hear Rush Limbaugh mention *that* ever...

 

There have been a few experiments with it.  I think that sort of thing is helpful, but also limited - you can't see whole population effects that way.

 

There could potentially be ways to address individual aspects - COL could be factored into a portion.  It might be calculated on a statewide basis rather than nationally. People who need expensive medical items or extra care might be covered for those under health programs in some way.  Ultimately I think it will still be the case that things like COL will affect people's bottom line, but that is true now, and of course it affects people's lifestyle choices, where they choose to live.  I don't know that  we need to see that change totally, or even if t would be a good thing.  I mean, we are not necessarily looking to have people who are only making UBI look to move into Manhattan, right?  Most people who live there will also have another job and the salary is going, to some extent, reflect COL.  

 

What can be a problem is if you want people with roots in a place to have some possibility of staying there, even if the COL does way up, like it has in some big cities.  It's not great to have everyone lower income having to move out and destroy the social fabric.  Most of the efforts I've seen to deal with this involve subsidized housing to make sure that neighbourhoods maintain a diversity of price points.

 

ETA = UBI is a popular idea among conservative commentators (the ones with brains, not Rush.)  It's probably more of a conservative idea that a liberal or left idea, though it has garnered broad support.  Conservatives tend to see it as a way of using the market to direct desirable outcomes and allowing for individuals to have a lot of autonomy without the interference of the state.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

IMO a UBI is only tangentially related to the poor or the haves and have nots, and that's mostly in that it would replace other social safety net programs.

 

It has much more to do with AI/technology and fewer available jobs even for well educated, highly motivated, NT people.

 

This, and I would say that I think it is also about dealing with the fact that workers have little control over the shape of the economy (which is really the reason for automation) and also that they no access to the income generated by owning capital.  In an economy with few jobs, it also creates customers.

 

That being said, one of the things that worries me a bit is that I think it is actually not good for people not to have real, useful occupation.  I think it makes people unhappy.  And a lot of people find that through working.

 

Now, plenty of people will make important non-paid work if they don't need a job.  But I do wonder if the sense of not having to work would be difficult or negative for some people.  Would the culture adapt by seeing more value in various kinds of activity unrelated to money, or would it tend to degenerate instead?

 

Maybe it would be better to try and direct things so there were jobs, valuable ones, and see that as part of the job of the economy.

[Guest]

IMO a UBI is only tangentially related to the poor or the haves and have nots, and that's mostly in that it would replace other social safety net programs.

 

It has much more to do with AI/technology and fewer available jobs even for well educated, highly motivated, NT people.

But jobs always become obsolete in various industries. You cannot just pay people to not gain new skills to meet new jobs, whatever they may be. The money has to come from somewhere.

 

This boggles my mind. I understand a skill gap and less employees needed in various industries as they are automated, but that isn't new. People seeking work have to adapt at some point. Where is the argument coming from that they simply can't adapt no matter what? Can you explain who is preventing their gain in applicable skills or why they could never be employed again, if they are able bodied and within a typical range of functionality? The lag in the next ten years might be painful, but I can't see it being a long term thing. I'm open to hearing otherwise but all I've seen on an AI takeover are people, like Musk, who believe they can bridge the gap of sentience and creativity without human input (which is a moot argument).

Edited September 21, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Guest]

But jobs always become obsolete in various industries. You cannot just pay people to not gain new skills to meet new jobs, whatever they may be. The money has to come from somewhere.

This boggles my mind. I understand a skill gap and less employees needed in various industries as they are automated, but that isn't new. People seeking work have to adapt at some point. Where is the argument coming from that they simply can't adapt no matter what? Can you explain who is preventing their gain in applicable skills or why they could never be employed again, if they are able bodied and within a typical range of functionality? The lag in the next ten years might be painful, but I can't see it being a long term thing. I'm open to hearing otherwise but all I've seen on an AI takeover are people, like Musk, who believe they can bridge the gap of sentience and creativity without human input (which is a moot argument).

Yes, I agree; this is why AI angle doesn't make sense to me. If there was, (randomly just picking a number), a 30% loss of jobs due to AI replacing those jobs, WHO is then making the money that will fund the UBi? I can understand it as a stop-gap for unemployment, as in the podcast. But if the idea is to assist people whose jobs have vanished by, proverbially, giving them the fish, how does this promise innovation? Why incentivize not adapting?

 

I am totally in favor of government assistance to help people gain new skills and I think it is wise to tie that to collecting unemployment (or UBI, if that was a thing). In the Finish example, the biggest problem with their system (that was mentioned) was the loss of benefits if you make any money independently. They could have just fixed that part; it didn't require a UBI to fix that.

[Paige]

But jobs always become obsolete in various industries. You cannot just pay people to not gain new skills to meet new jobs, whatever they may be. The money has to come from somewhere.

 

This boggles my mind. I understand a skill gap and less employees needed in various industries as they are automated, but that isn't new. People seeking work have to adapt at some point. Where is the argument coming from that they simply can't adapt no matter what? Can you explain who is preventing their gain in applicable skills or why they could never be employed again, if they are able bodied and within a typical range of functionality? The lag in the next ten years might be painful, but I can't see it being a long term thing. I'm open to hearing otherwise but all I've seen on an AI takeover are people, like Musk, who believe they can bridge the gap of sentience and creativity without human input (which is a moot argument).

 

 

It's all about "The Singularity" and the proposal that technological advances will bring about unprecedented social changes that make humans pretty much obsolete. The AI will begin programming themselves and do a better job of it too. Why would we train a human doctor when we could have AI doctors who don't make errors (ignore the fact that AI can glitch), don't need to sleep, eat, or have families, and don't need to be paid. Why would we hire human construction workers when we can 3d print everything? Why have human teachers when we can have AI teachers with infinite patience and, again, don't need to sleep, eat, or be paid?

 

The part of your post I bolded is based on current thoughts about economy and society, but the theory is that The Singularity will demolish all old economic models and ideas about human needs, value, and money. 

 

If you don't believe in the possibility of The Singularity happening, then all this UBI talk is alien because it only makes sense if there's a dramatic change in everyone's society and economies. FWIW, I find the concept of The Singularity interesting and possible but not inevitable.

[Paige]

Yes, I agree; this is why AI angle doesn't make sense to me. If there was, (randomly just picking a number), a 30% loss of jobs due to AI replacing those jobs, WHO is then making the money that will fund the UBi? I can understand it as a stop-gap for unemployment, as in the podcast. But if the idea is to assist people whose jobs have vanished by, proverbially, giving them the fish, how does this promise innovation? Why incentivize not adapting?

 

I am totally in favor of government assistance to help people gain new skills and I think it is wise to tie that to collecting unemployment (or UBI, if that was a thing). In the Finish example, the biggest problem with their system (that was mentioned) was the loss of benefits if you make any money independently. They could have just fixed that part; it didn't require a UBI to fix that.

 

The robot overlords.

[Twolittleboys]

I am not convinced that AI will take over like this (nor that it should). I do believe that many jobs will become obsolete and that automation will continue to increase. But there are still many other jobs that I think would be difficult to replace with robots etc. Maybe it COULD be done but people might not want it to be done. Also for some jobs humans will probably be cheaper than machines.

 

I do think that new jobs will evolve (or more people will work in certain areas than now). If more people have more free time (and maybe money) there will be a need for more people in the leasure/hobby/vacation area.

 

Also, I think there is quite a bit of risk with AI taking over everything so if some disasters did happen, people might cut down on it.

[Ravin]

What gets me about this thread is I am assuming that since we are pretty much all homeschoolers, and a vast majority of homeschooling parents have at least once parent that doesn't work, this discussion becomes a bit absurd. I mean, most of us have made a decision that we would rather raise our children then get an income. We were not forced to do this, we made the choice. EVERYONE regardless of income would like more money. And I am sure everyone here would take an income (assuming they don't get one of their own right now) if it was handed to them. That is the way the world works. 

 

Of coarse there would be abuse if we were to actually implement this! It is absurd to think otherwise. It is the government. Private corporations have abuse in them and they have shareholders that actually can audit them and they STILL have abuse in them. The government is a GIANT corporation with very little oversight (though they like to pretend there is). I am sure we would hear of all sorts of abuse should this come to fruition. Things like the uber rich putting their money off shore and claiming that they were poor and getting more money. People living in other countries getting their paychecks even though they don't even live here. And so on and so on. 

 

At the end of the day, it is just REALLY easy to spend other people's money. When it is your own, and you have your taxes go up, you get a dose of reality and suddenly don't like the idea anymore. This is the whole reason why if I were queen for a day I would LOVE to see all laws (except for amendments to the constitution) have sunsets. They have to be revoted on every 5-10 years (yearly in the case of war for war issues). I know people would cry "But the republicans would take away money for the poor!" and "But the democrats would take away military funding!" Yeah, but we would be freer to spend our money how we see fit if that was the case. If the poor is important to you, donate to organizations that help them. If the military is important to you, I am sure there is a way to donate to that. 

 

One other thought. Last night this thread reminded me of a story my DH told me. He had a colleague who was working here in the US for a number of years. He had a house and had quite a bit of equity in it. Well he got a job transfer to Sweden. So he sold his house and had this pile of cash that he was able to take with him to Sweden. He got over there and even though he made a normal salary for over there, he had this pile of cash from the sale of his home in the US. He was shocked when he went to look for something to purchase over there. See because of of taxes in that country, most people can only afford up to a certain point as far as housing. So because he had more money, he was able to look over that amount. He was able to get a place 2-3 times bigger then the average person because he had "just a bit more". So he now lives in a big house and lives on a normal salary. 

 

My point with this story is that you will ALWAYS have the have and the have nots. The people lower down will always be competing for resources and the people to the top will always have the cream of the crop. Taking money from the top and moving it down doesn't bring the people down to the the people on the bottom. It just makes it so more people are competing for the bottom resources. The only way to avoid that is to have a communist/socialist society, but those never work out as good as they are promised to... strange. 

 

The point is not to eliminate the existence of the "haves" and the "have nots." The point is to put a floor under the "have nots" so that the poorest in society still have their basic needs met--no one need be homeless, or go hungry, or have to choose between keeping health care and getting a part time job or between fixing their car so they don't lose their job and paying the electric bill, and other absurd choices people have to make under the current system. The "haves" will still have more luxuries than the "have nots" but the extreme differences--the overall income and wealth inequality--will be less extreme and the floor will ensure that society recognizes the basic human dignity of all, regardless of whether they can or will be "productive."

Edited September 21, 2017 by Ravin

[Ravin]

But jobs always become obsolete in various industries. You cannot just pay people to not gain new skills to meet new jobs, whatever they may be. The money has to come from somewhere.

 

This boggles my mind. I understand a skill gap and less employees needed in various industries as they are automated, but that isn't new. People seeking work have to adapt at some point. Where is the argument coming from that they simply can't adapt no matter what? Can you explain who is preventing their gain in applicable skills or why they could never be employed again, if they are able bodied and within a typical range of functionality? The lag in the next ten years might be painful, but I can't see it being a long term thing. I'm open to hearing otherwise but all I've seen on an AI takeover are people, like Musk, who believe they can bridge the gap of sentience and creativity without human input (which is a moot argument).

 

It isn't about a skill gap. It's about the reality that as we have computers and machines doing more jobs, we need fewer people to get the work done. You automate a factory that once employed five hundred people, and now it only needs fifty. So out of those five hundred, fifty might get those remaining jobs by upgrading their skill sets, but the other 450 are out of luck.

 

The same thing is starting to happen in the service economy. That McDonalds serves just as many fries as ten years ago, but with fewer workers needed to run it, for instance.

 

There is another side to this coin as well, and that is that the modern capitalist/paid labor system is based upon a growth model. For sustainability we desperately need to move away from the assumption of growth to a steady-state model of industry. We need to recognize that we only need so much stuff, and that there are other ways to find fulfillment as a human being than working for a paycheck. Maybe actually taking care of your own kids will gain some prestige, as you're doing something productive regardless of whether it brings in a paycheck. People with crap jobs doing pointless or nearly pointless things already tend to find personal fulfillment in something else. Getting a paycheck for the work you do is not the sole measure of human dignity and fulfillment. It didn't exist as a thing in many societies for much of history. Human culture can vest human value in something other than money and stuff. It has before, and it can again.

[Ravin]

The robot overlords.

 

We call them corporations and have already given them too many of the rights that properly belong only to human beings as persons.

[nixpix5]

This is a thought provoking thread. I am not sure how I feel about UBI. I wonder this...would each person get the income or would it be per family? If each person gets enough to live independently (for those not married) I wonder if this might lead to more people opting out of marriage to get double UBI. It wouldn't make sense that a married couple would get double UBI because they share a dwelling so housing would be a set amount.

 

My other question too is path of least resistance. I am a first Gen white collar professional. I come from a long line of family and friends who cheat the system and love hand outs. They do everything in their power to stay home, work less and have stuff. Many don't feel intrinsically motivated by work itself. Even in science I know plenty of scientists who would jump ship tomorrow if they didn't have to work. Many white collar jobs comes with a ton of responsibility and tied hands. Who would do that if not being paid well? Then if paid well and they are being taxed to death, what is the benefit of it? How does a society progress well without motivation to work?

 

Not judging UBI, just curious about this. In the places that have a more socialistic system, what type of tech is being invented? What type of science is being published? What societal progress is being made? I am curious as I don't pay attention to countries' politics too often. Not my forte. Does anyone know? I would be for it if society still tends to produce advancement and doesn't have too much idle time on their hands for hijinx ;)

Edited September 21, 2017 by nixpix5

[ktgrok]

 

At the end of the day, it is just REALLY easy to spend other people's money. When it is your own, and you have your taxes go up, you get a dose of reality and suddenly don't like the idea anymore.

 

 

My point with this story is that you will ALWAYS have the have and the have nots. The people lower down will always be competing for resources and the people to the top will always have the cream of the crop. 

 

To the first point, what makes you think that none of the people advocating for a stronger social safety net and more taxes aren't the ones who would have their taxes go up? I consistently vote for higher taxes in my local and state elections and would happily pay more in federal taxes for a society with more benefits. I always laugh that people assume I want more given to me, when I want to pay more in. 

 

As to the second point, yes there will always be inequality, but that doesn't mean it is always like this. We have more inequality now than before, and we can go to less inequality. It can happen. 

[Guest]

It isn't about a skill gap. It's about the reality that as we have computers and machines doing more jobs, we need fewer people to get the work done. You automate a factory that once employed five hundred people, and now it only needs fifty. So out of those five hundred, fifty might get those remaining jobs by upgrading their skill sets, but the other 450 are out of luck.

 

The same thing is starting to happen in the service economy. That McDonalds serves just as many fries as ten years ago, but with fewer workers needed to run it, for instance.

 

There is another side to this coin as well, and that is that the modern capitalist/paid labor system is based upon a growth model. For sustainability we desperately need to move away from the assumption of growth to a steady-state model of industry. We need to recognize that we only need so much stuff, and that there are other ways to find fulfillment as a human being than working for a paycheck. Maybe actually taking care of your own kids will gain some prestige, as you're doing something productive regardless of whether it brings in a paycheck. People with crap jobs doing pointless or nearly pointless things already tend to find personal fulfillment in something else. Getting a paycheck for the work you do is not the sole measure of human dignity and fulfillment. It didn't exist as a thing in many societies for much of history. Human culture can vest human value in something other than money and stuff. It has before, and it can again.

Work and productivity are absolutely cornerstones of human dignity and organized society. I don't even necessarily object to changes in compensation for work that isn't corporate but still necessary (like state government and road repair crews) but it's literally a fantasy world to presume that robots can take over the economy and human productivity on a large scale, with no compensatory actions by humans, and there can be a bottomless distribution of goods and services still.

 

With a full scale reorganization it could work, but the chances for abuse and subjugation and control of he population are monstrously large in that sort of model. Think communist farms in china. All the food and space and people being provided for, but they still ultimately end up on the brink of poverty and starving to death.

 

This article is fantastic and highlights many of the problems with things like a guaranteed basic income and redistributing work to central administration than private productivity. I just can't see it going better if this was the solution to robots. I don't even necessarily agree with him or his ideological solutions, but one has to be very careful in instituting nationwide wage guarantees.

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article26666

Edited September 21, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[nixpix5]

I always think of that saying "The American Dream" and ponder what it means. It is an idea of "hope" that regardless of your station in life our way of life in the US allows you to carve a niche. We can do midlife career changes, go back to college whenever we feel like it, start a business, and we are only limited by our own ingenuity and determination. There is a bit of luck too but I live in an area with many Korean immigrants and the success of this group of people to come to the US and do just that is amazing. I know in other places I could have never been a teen mom with blue collar parents and no help yet still make it to and through college to pull myself up and out. The peers I had that were in the same shoes as me made choices back then. They didn't want to go to college, they didn't want to have to work they chose the initial "easy" route that led to a hard life later. I took the initial hard life with hope in mind.

 

This is something I have always appreciated about the US and I would feel sad to see that go away. As we have implemented more government control over time, as we have implemented more social programs the fabric of this general idea has slowly unraveled. I have seen so much grit and perseverance within other people I know who pulled themselves up and out of their station.

 

Grad school gave me such an eye opening experience because I worked in a lab with a girl from the Ukraine and a couple from China and Japan as well as a guy from Scandinavia. They all had interesting takes on their own places of origin. The girl from the Ukraine talked about "tracks" that people were placed in from a young age in school that dictated your future. My friend from Japan said competition for college in his own country was too steep due to a similar early prep toward academics. I always thought had I been tracked I would be a fast food worker right now because I did not apply myself in high school.

 

Could we create a welfare state and still have hope? Would we still have the idea of the "American Dream" and do people even care about that anymore. Maybe not. Maybe people are ready to move toward a more consistent and even status quo but again, I wonder about advancement.

 

None of these thoughts are claiming one way is better over another. They are only my thoughts that ping as I read. In early societies we had "classes" and "slaves" and various other institutions in place to advance. None of which were humane in my eyes. Tribes can exist in communities with roles because they are collective and share a culture and belief system. In the US we are so diverse. I just wonder, over time, what it would look like and who we would be as a country. We need to consider it deeply since once we go there, there is no going back. You can never take power away from an entity once they have it. We need to think of the trade off.

 

Just early morning ramblings... :)

[EmseB]

People have been worried about automation putting people out of work for as long as technology has advanced.

 

It's a doomsday prediction used to advance government centralization of resources and higher taxation. And every time the argument rolls around people insist that this time we're really going to go over the edge into there being no work because everything's automated. This time is different because we are so much more advanced now. And every time technology advances and there's more work doing different things.

 

It's honestly baffling to me, at this point in human history, that people still think this is going to be a problem.

[SKL]

A few thoughts.

 

It will be interesting to hear how this goes in Finland, but one thing to note that wasn't mentioned in the podcast - all the study participants know that this is temporary.  Ultimately they need to be employable.  So if it turns out that they "remain active" in looking for jobs etc., that is surely a factor.  The results of this study will shed light on what may happen if we extend unemployment benefits for a longer time, but not if we promise free money indefinitely.

 

And that brings up a danger to this kind of large-scale experiment (which implementation would be, since we don't really know what would happen).  The understanding that you will never have to work in order to eat will not only disincentivize working (for some), it will also disincentivize preparing oneself to be employable.  Then someday if/when it all comes crashing down, those people are definitely going to be worse off.

 

I am also concerned about the implication that society believes it's OK to have no intention of trying to pull your own weight.  It's one thing to struggle finding or keeping a job due to all sorts of reasons beyond your control, but the idea of changing our mindset from "you need to pull your weight if you can" to "it's perfectly acceptable to let others pull your weight if that makes you happy" is IMO dangerous not only economically, but psychologically.

 

As to the "robot" concern, that is very much already upon us.  I don't believe that is going to make it impossible to keep people employed.  Without government intervention, people will come up with new ways to exchange work and ideas for money, and also to adjust their living situations to reflect economic reality.  Government interventions to try to undo the effects of innovation will only make the transition less efficient and more painful in the long run.

 

It would be interesting to see how tech economies compare with less-tech economies as far as unemployment rates.  I think the US is near the higher end of tech and lower end of unemployment, and has been for decades.  So I think people are worried about something that isn't going to happen.  The majority of what people did for a living 100 years ago or even 50 years ago is obsolete, and yet we have fairly decent employment rates by global standards.

[Bluegoat]

Yes, I agree; this is why AI angle doesn't make sense to me. If there was, (randomly just picking a number), a 30% loss of jobs due to AI replacing those jobs, WHO is then making the money that will fund the UBi? I can understand it as a stop-gap for unemployment, as in the podcast. But if the idea is to assist people whose jobs have vanished by, proverbially, giving them the fish, how does this promise innovation? Why incentivize not adapting?

 

I am totally in favor of government assistance to help people gain new skills and I think it is wise to tie that to collecting unemployment (or UBI, if that was a thing). In the Finish example, the biggest problem with their system (that was mentioned) was the loss of benefits if you make any money independently. They could have just fixed that part; it didn't require a UBI to fix that.

 

The people who will be making the money are the ones who own the businesses.  They will, presumably, be making much more money - this is why they are moving away from hiring people.  They will be the ones paying taxes - no one else will be able to.

 

This is the way capitalism works - one of the defining features of it as a system is that relatively few people own businesses and run them, while most people are employees.  There are so many advantages to being a very large business that individuals can't compete.

 

Employees have very little power to define the shape of the job market - they can retrain all they like, if no business owners are hiring anyone, there will not be much they can do.  The business owners run the businesses to make a profit personally, not to provide jobs, or even really goods and services.

 

So, in this scenario, all these people are now unemployed with no new jobs available, and yet we are retaining production at the same rate - we really don't NEED more people working.  We produce all the goods and services we need as a society while so many people are jobless.  Joe Worker might decide to set himself up a little job making widgets, but he's unlikely to be able to compete with the Megacorp price - even if he finds a niche market, most other people will not.

 

So here is the dilemma.  The workers need to live on an income of some kind.  But we don't actually need any more workers.  Of course, unless they have an income, they can't purchase anything from the businesses, so that is a problem to. (Incidentally, Marx thought this problem was the basic contradiction of capitalism - ultimately all the money would belong to the owners, and that meant they would have no customers and the system would fail.)

 

Morally, the dillema is, why should we put it on workers to suffer for the business decisions of the owners, who make decisions meant to benefit them privately?  If owners make the decision to shape the economy in a way that means there are now no taxpayers and people have no way to earn a living, are they not responsible for the consequences of that?

 

UBI is one suggested answer.  There are others, but they often include doing other things that many don't want to accept as modifications to the capitalist system.

 

As for the Finns - if it looks and quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck, whatever you call it.

[Guest]

It's all about "The Singularity" and the proposal that technological advances will bring about unprecedented social changes that make humans pretty much obsolete. The AI will begin programming themselves and do a better job of it too. Why would we train a human doctor when we could have AI doctors who don't make errors (ignore the fact that AI can glitch), don't need to sleep, eat, or have families, and don't need to be paid. Why would we hire human construction workers when we can 3d print everything? Why have human teachers when we can have AI teachers with infinite patience and, again, don't need to sleep, eat, or be paid?

 

The part of your post I bolded is based on current thoughts about economy and society, but the theory is that The Singularity will demolish all old economic models and ideas about human needs, value, and money.

 

If you don't believe in the possibility of The Singularity happening, then all this UBI talk is alien because it only makes sense if there's a dramatic change in everyone's society and economies. FWIW, I find the concept of The Singularity interesting and possible but not inevitable.

Well, that is an interesting thought to entertain, but is this idea based on being post-commerce? I guess it would have to be.

 

It would be a fun basis for a novel, though.

[Twolittleboys]

This is a thought provoking thread. I am not sure how I feel about UBI. I wonder this...would each person get the income or would it be per family? If each person gets enough to live independently (for those not married) I wonder if this might lead to more people opting out of marriage to get double UBI. It wouldn't make sense that a married couple would get double UBI because they share a dwelling so housing would be a set amount.

 

My other question too is path of least resistance. I am a first Gen white collar professional. I come from a long line of family and friends who cheat the system and love hand outs. They do everything in their power to stay home, work less and have stuff. Many don't feel intrinsically motivated by work itself. Even in science I know plenty of scientists who would jump ship tomorrow if they didn't have to work. Many white collar jobs comes with a ton of responsibility and tied hands. Who would do that if not being paid well? Then if paid well and they are being taxed to death, what is the benefit of it? How does a society progress well without motivation to work?

 

Not judging UBI, just curious about this. In the places that have a more socialistic system, what type of tech is being invented? What type of science is being published? What societal progress is being made? I am curious as I don't pay attention to countries' politics too often. Not my forte. Does anyone know? I would be for it if society still tends to produce advancement and doesn't have too much idle time on their hands for hijinx ;)

 

As to your first question: Here we have something kind of like UBI - it is a basic income that is giving to all adults who are willing/able to work but can't find a job (or if they make less than the basic amount they are paid the difference). There are issues with this but they aren't necessarily the ones people worry about in this thread (mostly people complain that the amount is too low to provide in an adequate way). The way it is calculated is by giving a set amount per person in the household (different according to grown-up/ age of child). It does not matter whether or not you are married but only the living arrangements. I don't think it encourages couples to have two households as you are probably better off financially if you share a place (there are different components in the calculation so I think a couple does get less than two individual households but realistically they also need way less when sharing a home).

 

As for the second, I think it depends on the people. I am also from a blue-collar family but as far as I can tell working is valued quite highly. Most of my relatives (cousins, uncles/aunts) have/had jobs that are not exactly glamorous (trash pick up, cleaning offices, construction work etc.). They don't necessarily enjoy the work itself. But unless their health dictates otherwise (and these jobs are hard on bodies so that does happen) they wouldn't dream of just staying home and collecting benefits even if they would not make a lot less (I assume, no idea how much they earn though).

 

This is something I have always appreciated about the US and I would feel sad to see that go away. As we have implemented more government control over time, as we have implemented more social programs the fabric of this general idea has slowly unraveled. I have seen so much grit and perseverance within other people I know who pulled themselves up and out of their station.

 

Grad school gave me such an eye opening experience because I worked in a lab with a girl from the Ukraine and a couple from China and Japan as well as a guy from Scandinavia. They all had interesting takes on their own places of origin. The girl from the Ukraine talked about "tracks" that people were placed in from a young age in school that dictated your future. My friend from Japan said competition for college in his own country was too steep due to a similar early prep toward academics. I always thought had I been tracked I would be a fast food worker right now because I did not apply myself in high school.

 

Could we create a welfare state and still have hope? Would we still have the idea of the "American Dream" and do people even care about that anymore. Maybe not. Maybe people are ready to move toward a more consistent and even status quo but again, I wonder about advancement.

 

None of these thoughts are claiming one way is better over another. They are only my thoughts that ping as I read. In early societies we had "classes" and "slaves" and various other institutions in place to advance. None of which were humane in my eyes. Tribes can exist in communities with roles because they are collective and share a culture and belief system. In the US we are so diverse. I just wonder, over time, what it would look like and who we would be as a country. We need to consider it deeply since once we go there, there is no going back. You can never take power away from an entity once they have it. We need to think of the trade off.

 

Just early morning ramblings... :)

 

I do think we need more social programs than in the past for two reasons

 

a) the chasm has gotten so much wider. Not so long ago, many didn't have indoor plumbing, college educations, great nutrition etc. Now many do but others don't. It is a lot worse to be poor if others are so much better off. Not only is this unfair but if it isn't addressed it is detrimental to society and could ultimately lead to a complete break-down

 

b) society has changed. We might not like it but it has. There is a lot less support from family/neighbors/church. Something has to make up for this.

 

As far as tracking in schools is concerned: I am not a huge fan (we have it here) but it has its advantages. Not everyone needs or wants a college education. There are great vocational jobs and students at these schools can be successful too. Not everyone at a lower track school has to end up a fast food worker and there are probably fast food workers that are happier than some lawyers. Even more important, at least here there are quite a lot of ways to change tracks later on. So someone finishing at a lower track school can add on a year and then transfer to an intermediate school that will get him/her to university. This used to be a lot more difficult but has improved a lot in the last while. 

 

This is not to say that I prefer tracking to no tracking. It has advantages and disadvantages. But it doesn't kill all chances to improve oneself either.

[Bootsie]

To the first point, what makes you think that none of the people advocating for a stronger social safety net and more taxes aren't the ones who would have their taxes go up? I consistently vote for higher taxes in my local and state elections and would happily pay more in federal taxes for a society with more benefits. I always laugh that people assume I want more given to me, when I want to pay more in. 

 

You do not have to wait for higher taxes to pay more for programs that benefit others.  You can freely spend your money on these types of programs without having it mandated by tax law that you do so.  There is a difference in spending your own money to do this and voting for higher taxes to do this.  When voting for higher taxes, you are not only saying that you want to spend more on these things but that you also want your neighbor to be REQUIRED to spend more on these things, also.  

[Bluegoat]

I always think of that saying "The American Dream" and ponder what it means. It is an idea of "hope" that regardless of your station in life our way of life in the US allows you to carve a niche. We can do midlife career changes, go back to college whenever we feel like it, start a business, and we are only limited by our own ingenuity and determination. There is a bit of luck too but I live in an area with many Korean immigrants and the success of this group of people to come to the US and do just that is amazing. I know in other places I could have never been a teen mom with blue collar parents and no help yet still make it to and through college to pull myself up and out. The peers I had that were in the same shoes as me made choices back then. They didn't want to go to college, they didn't want to have to work they chose the initial "easy" route that led to a hard life later. I took the initial hard life with hope in mind.

 

This is something I have always appreciated about the US and I would feel sad to see that go away. As we have implemented more government control over time, as we have implemented more social programs the fabric of this general idea has slowly unraveled. I have seen so much grit and perseverance within other people I know who pulled themselves up and out of their station.

 

Grad school gave me such an eye opening experience because I worked in a lab with a girl from the Ukraine and a couple from China and Japan as well as a guy from Scandinavia. They all had interesting takes on their own places of origin. The girl from the Ukraine talked about "tracks" that people were placed in from a young age in school that dictated your future. My friend from Japan said competition for college in his own country was too steep due to a similar early prep toward academics. I always thought had I been tracked I would be a fast food worker right now because I did not apply myself in high school.

 

Could we create a welfare state and still have hope? Would we still have the idea of the "American Dream" and do people even care about that anymore. Maybe not. Maybe people are ready to move toward a more consistent and even status quo but again, I wonder about advancement.

 

None of these thoughts are claiming one way is better over another. They are only my thoughts that ping as I read. In early societies we had "classes" and "slaves" and various other institutions in place to advance. None of which were humane in my eyes. Tribes can exist in communities with roles because they are collective and share a culture and belief system. In the US we are so diverse. I just wonder, over time, what it would look like and who we would be as a country. We need to consider it deeply since once we go there, there is no going back. You can never take power away from an entity once they have it. We need to think of the trade off.

 

Just early morning ramblings... :)

 

I've seen models where it was all adults, and some that also included children.

 

I am not so sure I agree about the US being the best place for the American dream compared to other countries.  Certainly there are worse ones, but social mobility in the US isn't that high among western nations.  I can think of quite a few where a teen mom with working class parents could get to university and have a professional career just as easily if not more so.

 

As far as people not wanting to work - I think there are a few things I can think of here.  It is possible, if there were not a lot of jobs around for people, that we might get into a kind of societal depression where many people felt work was less worthwhile or beneath them.  Of course not all - many people are motivated in ways besides a job title or pay.  It could also I think go the other way - maybe more people would begin to see value in doing things that are not paid (I think of this as the Star Trek version.)  In any case, there seems always to be some people who will not be interested in doing anything, no matter what.

 

One thing I wonder about with our attitude to work if we lived in a highly automated economy is if we will start to think of working as somehow beneath our dignity, rather like Ivan Illych talked about - the society that depends on machines to do work in some ways begins to relate to work in a similar way to slavemasters in slave societies thought of the jobs done by slaves - as somehow not the stuff of being a total human.  If we look at our own attitude to many jobs that we have automated now, I think we can see some of that.  This may avoid associating particularly classes or castes with that lack of full personhood, but it still seems to taint the type of work.  Is it healthy for us to depend on work we think of as less than worthy of human dignity?  Surely the problem with something like having a class of untouchables was not just the effect on those people unfortunate enough to be assigned to that group, but that others were somehow above contact with essential aspects of human life?

[Bluegoat]

 

 

As far as tracking in schools is concerned: I am not a huge fan (we have it here) but it has its advantages. Not everyone needs or wants a college education. There are great vocational jobs and students at these schools can be successful too. Not everyone at a lower track school has to end up a fast food worker and there are probably fast food workers that are happier than some lawyers. Even more important, at least here there are quite a lot of ways to change tracks later on. So someone finishing at a lower track school can add on a year and then transfer to an intermediate school that will get him/her to university. This used to be a lot more difficult but has improved a lot in the last while. 

 

This is not to say that I prefer tracking to no tracking. It has advantages and disadvantages. But it doesn't kill all chances to improve oneself either.

 

Yeah, there are real advantages I think - we don't really treat vocational training half so well here, and no surprise less respect is given to that work as well, than in many countries with tracked systems.  

[PeachyDoodle]

This will be an interesting experiment to keep an eye on:

 

One of the biggest VCs in Silicon Valley is launching an experiment that will give 3,000 people free money until 2022

 

 

 [Y Combinator] will select 3,000 people across two states and divide them into two groups. The first group will include 1,000 people who will receive $1,000 a month for up to five years. The second group of 2,000 people — which the study will consider its control group — will receive $50 a month.

The goal is to answer a simple, yet bedeviling question: What happens to people's quality of life and motivation to work when they receive free money, no strings attached?

 

The company's president, Sam Altman, is expressly concerned about the increasing automation of jobs and its potential effect on our economy, hence the experiment.

[Paige]

Work and productivity are absolutely cornerstones of human dignity and organized society. I don't even necessarily object to changes in compensation for work that isn't corporate but still necessary (like state government and road repair crews) but it's literally a fantasy world to presume that robots can take over the economy and human productivity on a large scale, with no compensatory actions by humans, and there can be a bottomless distribution of goods and services still.

 

 

I think work and productivity as we see them now are relatively new to human society. Hunter/gatherer societies spend very little time on "work" or producing goods and services and they functioned perfectly well for thousands of years and still exist today. In many ways the people are happier and healthier, and especially healthier than those who moved to subsistence farming societies. IMO, we moved to work and production based societies not because they were better for individual humans, but because population groups became too large to hunt and gather enough for everyone. I think it is a cultural idea that work is necessary for dignity and not necessarily a basic human need. I'm not all "boo, work!" because I'm part of this society too and see the need for it among people here, but I'm open to the idea that there can be other ways of functioning successfully as a society.

 

As for it being a fantasy that AI/automation will take over and supply the bulk of our needs- why? Lots of things that were considered fantasies in the past are realities today. I think the axiom is that if something is not logically impossible, then it may happen- someone, somewhere, is working on it. Time travel to the past is likely fantasy. AI that becomes self programming and smarter than humans is theoretically possible. It may end up not happening at all, being good for humans, or being terrible for humans, but there's nothing in science or physics that would make it impossible. I have little faith that people/societies will be able to control technological advances to prevent super intelligent AI. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but I think it's good that people are trying to anticipate possible futures and come up with plans to reduce harm. 

 

I do not believe a growth economy is permanently sustainable unless we can somehow keep finding new places to grow into. We'd have to eventually start colonizing other planets because we're going to run out of land to build on, resources, and people don't need an endless supply of stuff. But then, to colonize other planets, we'd need a huge jump in technology and AI....I'd like to see more governments and politicians talking about how to gradually reduce our dependence on continuous economic "growth." It seems contradictory- we want endless growth, to protect the environment, and to prevent overpopulation- how does that work?

[Guest]

You do realize subsistence societies work so constantly they can't actually do much else, right? I encourage you to go rough camp in Alaska for a few weeks if you want a primer of how miserably hard it is, and how much more leisure an office monkey has these days, let alone a homeschool mom. You're conflating work with employment but that isn't what I said or meant. Work, as in "activities and labor producing fruitfulness by some means".

 

AI is limited by subroutines and sentience, or the lack thereof. I have no doubt they will become a staple in non-creative work, because they already grade a road and flip a burger better than a human and with less drama and expense. But as has happened in previous technological revolutions, humans and their trades and skills will adapt to fill different needs and voids. They don't need to be paid to breathe and reproduce as though no meaningful, contributing work can be done once a robot bags groceries and delivers them.

 

I don't want to prevent population grownth and find overpopulation completely laughable. Each of these points is hitting a worldview difference, I think.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Arctic Mama