Universal Basic Income

[Kung Wu]

And now to challenge the concept that automation means less jobs, or "you are doing it wrong".

If a company can build and sell one car per week with hand labor, and it takes 10 men to build the car, that means I produce 52 cars per year. To sustain this, I employ the 10 factory workers, 1 manager, 1 delivery guy, and 1 accountant, and 1 car lot salesman. That's 14 people employed.

If I can automate that process to deliver one car per day with robots, and it requires only 2 factory workers, that means I produce 365 cars per year. But now I employ 2 factory workers, 1 robot tech, 7 delivery guys, 1 manager, 1 delivery coordinator, 1 accountant, and 7 car lot salesmen. That's 20 people employed.

Automation has caused an increase of 7x revenue and a 42% increase in labor.

Obviously this is a super exaggerated example, and I am not saying there will always be a net increase in labor. But there very often IS an increase in labor to help the company handle the increased capacity.

[wufan]

And now to challenge the concept that automation means less jobs, or "you are doing it wrong".

If a company can build and sell one car per week with hand labor, and it takes 10 men to build the car, that means I produce 52 cars per year. To sustain this, I employ the 10 factory workers, 1 manager, 1 delivery guy, and 1 accountant, and 1 car lot salesman. That's 14 people employed.

If I can automate that process to deliver one car per day with robots, and it requires only 2 factory workers, that means I produce 365 cars per year. But now I employ 2 factory workers, 1 robot tech, 7 delivery guys, 1 manager, 1 delivery coordinator, 1 accountant, and 7 car lot salesmen. That's 20 people employed.

Automation has caused an increase of 7x revenue and a 42% increase in labor.

Obviously this is a super exaggerated example, and I am not saying there will always be a net increase in labor. But there very often IS an increase in labor to help the company handle the increased capacity.

This is a great example. It aligns with every historic industrial revolution that has come to bear and requires that, in order to accept the conclusion, one must believe that the fourth industrial revolution is innately different than the previous three. I reject that it is different in that, just like the previous three events, it’s goal is to increase productivity. It should again lead to a universally higher standard of living. It may also lead to a greater wealth inequality. If that is the case, why is UBI the solution?

[wufan]

A simple real world example is the Jaquard loom. From the time of its invention, 1804, until the dawn of the 20th century, the number of weavers increased 400%. The advent of this invention meant that what was once the privilege of the rich was now something that could be afforded by anyone, and demand sky-rocketed.

Ford did the same thing with the Model T.

Now, despite increasing robotics by 3000%, Amazon is leading the way in increased need for warehouse employees, the #1 pay growth industry in 2017.

Perhaps AI robotics will be the next cell phone or TV product where everyone can buy their very own for a couple of hundred dollars? If that’s the case, lots of human beings will be needed to run the warehouses.

[ShockCrazy]

I think you both are vastly underestimating how much automation can and is replacing. That warehouse you talked about? Go check out videos of what Amazon is doing. The industrial revolution is not an equivalent because none of the industrial revolution could replace human decision making. We could get more efficient but it required human adaptation, ai is going to change this.

[wufan]

I think you both are vastly underestimating how much automation can and is replacing. That warehouse you talked about? Go check out videos of what Amazon is doing. The industrial revolution is not an equivalent because none of the industrial revolution could replace human decision making. We could get more efficient but it required human adaptation, ai is going to change this.

It’s a fair argument that “this one is different”, but history isn’t on your side. Being that it isn’t, you have to show the difference. You have proposed that previous tech didn’t replace human decision making. Are you sure about that? Obviously robotics at Amazon are “picking” items. That replaces a human decision. Didn’t Ford’s assembly line also remove decision making? The worker no longer had to decide how to craft the carriage. Lathes did it automatically. Hell, Jaquard used a punch card system so the loom would know what pattern to weave. No decisions required. I don’t see this as a convincing argument.

[jdshock]

It’s a fair argument that “this one is different”, but history isn’t on your side. Being that it isn’t, you have to show the difference. You have proposed that previous tech didn’t replace human decision making. Are you sure about that? Obviously robotics at Amazon are “picking” items. That replaces a human decision. Didn’t Ford’s assembly line also remove decision making? The worker no longer had to decide how to craft the carriage. Lathes did it automatically. Hell, Jaquard used a punch card system so the loom would know what pattern to weave. No decisions required. I don’t see this as a convincing argument.

But what could convince you this is different?

[wufan]

I’m not really sure I can be convinced of this, but I am open to it. Just because I don’t see it as likely doesn’t mean that I don’t buy it as plausible. These are predictions of the future, and as such can’t be proven until time has demonstrated it to be true or not true. Even 500 years from now, if mankind has reached a new pinnacle in prosperity, one could still argue that its coming. So, I am open to new evidence, but it has to be pretty convincing because the past says it is more likely to be a job boom than a job bust.

[WuDrWu]

It's necessary because 1. Welfare programs are inefficient 2. Administrative costs are high because we spend time determining worthiness.
It's the governments responsibility because we've already decided it is. But here is the real reason why. There are different kinds of people: a very small set of truly terrible people who don't care about the struggles of others, who have no interest in helping others and really don't want them helped. There is larger set of people who can maybe see the struggles, but think it's someone else's responsibility to help people. Then finally there is a much larger set of people who would help but truly don't see the struggles of other people and deny support out of ignorance. At a certain point it becomes the responsibility of a society and the government to provide as best it can for people. It doesn't need to be luxury, it can be very basic but at certain point we should care how people live because we CAN fix it, for most of history this was not even in the realm of possibility, it is now. You can have your luxuries but why not help others too, these aren't mutually exclusive despite the talking points people would have you believe.

I think you make it up as you go.

A) A very small set....what does that mean? Are you saying that....what, 5% of the population doesn't give to charity, doesn't help their neighbor, just out for themselves? What is this small set you've determined?

B) Your second larger set seem to be about the same. They care, I guess, but it's someone else's problem. Pretty much the same people, right? What's the difference? A doesn't want anyone helped and B wants them helped as long as they don't have to help?

C)Then the largest set.....your biggest group, made of people who are inherently good, according to you, but too effing stupid to see strife in our society.

I'm just going to challenge you to find A SINGLE HUMAN BEING that belongs in set 3, your LARGEST, who isn't in a group that actually NEEDS or THINKS THEY NEED ASSISTANCE.

D)You say "At a certain point it becomes the responsibility of a society and the government to provide as best it can for people." What the hell does this mean? All the welfare and everything we have, all the programs etc.....apparently that's not enough. What is? Actually, that's what we're talking about, what is enough.

What's your stance on immigration? Because UBI is going to cause an explosion of people coming to this country like you can't believe. Or given your fantasy thought process, perhaps you can.

You libs again, just have these goody plans that everybody gets to be happy. No idea how you are going to pay for it, just do it.

If you are saying eliminate all the welfare plans, from head to toe, and eliminate all the waste, just to send everyone a check, that's interesting. Tell me what you save, today, and how much that is per person. I'll listen to that. I don't think you're saying that, but I could be wrong.

Now, tell me what this person needs to be doing, since you know who's good and bad. Tell me what they should do. Person A has a good year, works hard, makes a decent living. But they get lucky and a business venture makes them a substantial amount of money. They make a few hundred thousand. A lot of money, but in this day, not going to last long if they spend much. But maybe 30% goes to the government. That's 150k (on say half a mil). Then maybe they give 20k to various charities before spending a little, helping friends and family and saving the rest. These are the problems to you it seems. What should someone like that do, you know, to fix everything?

[WuDrWu]

As a conservative, I reject outright that automation is causing a fatal macroeconomic problem, and will continue to reject outright any wealth redistribution system under the pretense that "some day" we might need it. If that "some day" ever comes (it won't), then we can reconsider it then, otherwise it's just academic gobbeldygook at best, and hoodwinking to try and push the needle toward socialism at worst.

In the mean time lets solve real existing problems today by reducing, not increasing, wealth redistribution.

Bless you.

[WuDrWu]

And now to challenge the concept that automation means less jobs, or "you are doing it wrong".

If a company can build and sell one car per week with hand labor, and it takes 10 men to build the car, that means I produce 52 cars per year. To sustain this, I employ the 10 factory workers, 1 manager, 1 delivery guy, and 1 accountant, and 1 car lot salesman. That's 14 people employed.

If I can automate that process to deliver one car per day with robots, and it requires only 2 factory workers, that means I produce 365 cars per year. But now I employ 2 factory workers, 1 robot tech, 7 delivery guys, 1 manager, 1 delivery coordinator, 1 accountant, and 7 car lot salesmen. That's 20 people employed.

Automation has caused an increase of 7x revenue and a 42% increase in labor.

Obviously this is a super exaggerated example, and I am not saying there will always be a net increase in labor. But there very often IS an increase in labor to help the company handle the increased capacity.

Wait though...robots making robots will make all the cars we need for a decade in a few hours. Everybody is fired after day 1. Now where are you huh??!!!

[WuDrWu]

It should again lead to a universally higher standard of living. It may also lead to a greater wealth inequality. If that is the case, why is UBI the solution?

Because fair is fair!

[wufan]

I’m also open to listening why UBI is a good plan in spite of my disbelief in a jobless future. Is there a case for that, and if so, what is it?

[jdshock]

Why would it be good?

It comes down to needing to prepare for a future where not everybody will have to work. Period. That's the end goal. It has been for decades.

[jdshock]

If that "some day" ever comes (it won't), then we can reconsider it then.

At what point will you become convinced that "some day" happened? What evidence would you need to see to look around and say "automation is taking jobs."

Every single study suggests jobs are being lost already: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...obs-study-says

You have made your stance on immigration clear over and over again. This is a significantly bigger threat. wufan admitted he probably can't be convinced that it could happen until it does. I imagine you're the same way.

It's truly a shame because once it happens, you're stuck trying to figure out what to do with massive unemployment rather than having been prepared for it years in advance.

[WuDrWu]

This is kind of like the argument about "global warming". Nobody argues that automation has cost some jobs. But to think it hasn't created others is just silly.

And again, I and others ask, how will you fund this? Stop telling us the fix is UBI. How much is it going to cost, and how are you going to pay for it, and how will you pay for it, according to you, with an ever increasing metric of more people not working and fewer people working.

[jdshock]

Don't sell yourself short. It's INCREDIBLY similar to the global warming argument.

I.E. Scientists/economists/industry leaders are warning us that work must be done now to prepare. Many folks respond by burying their head in the sand, trying to find the 1% of scientists/economists/whatever who agree with their position, all because preparing now would result in some discomfort.

[jdshock]

Re: funding -
I don't think I've been subtle about this... you would raise taxes. Significantly.

There are a lot of great proposals out there about taxing displaced labor, though. Make an employer pay taxes to cover jobs that are cut. You could only justify displacing a worker for a machine if the cost of the machine + the cost of the tax was outweighed by the productivity gains of the machine. You'd postpone the inevitable, but you'd definitely get there.

[WuDrWu]

It's truly a shame because once it happens, you're stuck trying to figure out what to do with massive unemployment rather than having been prepared for it years in advance.

Being prepared apparently equals massive wealth redistribution. Unreal.

[top20shock]

A simple real world example is the Jaquard loom. From the time of its invention, 1804, until the dawn of the 20th century, the number of weavers increased 400%. The advent of this invention meant that what was once the privilege of the rich was now something that could be afforded by anyone, and demand sky-rocketed.

Ford did the same thing with the Model T.

Now, despite increasing robotics by 3000%, Amazon is leading the way in increased need for warehouse employees, the #1 pay growth industry in 2017.

Perhaps AI robotics will be the next cell phone or TV product where everyone can buy their very own for a couple of hundred dollars? If that’s the case, lots of human beings will be needed to run the warehouses.