Universal Basic Income

[wufan]

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.

I agree that automation does end some jobs. Everyone does. It also creates new jobs. Even the article above states that 6 jobs are lost to every robot, but three are created. That’s within the industry that brings on the robots and doesn’t take into account the additional growth in other industries (that’s very hard to quantify). The quoted article does state that for every 1000 new jobs in the US, one robot was brought in, causing a net loss of three jobs. That’s more than 100 new jobs for every one job lost due to robotics. We are no where near the tipping point.

Additionally, I read a survey of economic experts (but can’t find it now) where 48% believed that AI would lead to some level of economic net job loss, where as 52% believed that AI would be net neutral or lead to growth. It’s far from a universal given that people will not be able to find work due to economic advances. This argument has been going on for 90 years. Just a few years shy of how long the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been waiting for the end of the world.

[ShockCrazy]

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.

You can't say history is not on my side because we've never faced this before. None of those are decisions. Those are set instructions to follow. The worker making a car or working a loom in a factory isn't improvising. They are following precise guidelines. Decision making only comes in event of a failure, which guess what happens less often now that those systems are automated.

[wufan]

The technology removed the human decision making requirement. Prior to the assembly line cars were hand crafted. The frame by one guy, the engine by a second, and a custom made carriage by a third. Weavers designed hand crafted blankets before the automatic loom. These texhnologies turned artists into laborers. One can certainly argue the net ancillary good or bad of that, but the workers were no longer making the decisions on how to do their craft.

[jdshock]

I agree that automation does end some jobs. Everyone does. It also creates new jobs. Even the article above states that 6 jobs are lost to every robot, but three are created. That’s within the industry that brings on the robots and doesn’t take into account the additional growth in other industries (that’s very hard to quantify). The quoted article does state that for every 1000 new jobs in the US, one robot was brought in, causing a net loss of three jobs. That’s more than 100 new jobs for every one job lost due to robotics. We are no where near the tipping point.

Additionally, I read a survey of economic experts (but can’t find it now) where 48% believed that AI would lead to some level of economic net job loss, where as 52% believed that AI would be net neutral or lead to growth. It’s far from a universal given that people will not be able to find work due to economic advances. This argument has been going on for 90 years. Just a few years shy of how long the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been waiting for the end of the world.

The survey was from 1990-2007. To say that automation was in its infancy during that time period does an injustice to the amount of technological growth we've seen in the last 10 years. And they still found that automation had a negative effect on total jobs. I don't know where you're getting this 100 new jobs for every one lost due to robotics? It was +3/-6 for jobs as a direct result of automation.

The empirical evidence from more than 10 years ago showed that automation killed 2 jobs for every 1 job it created.

You can tell me that 52% of economists believe automation is going to be neutral or positive, but I'm just not going to believe it without a source. Here are a whole bunch of other sources from economists:
https://www.economist.com/news/leade...country-ready;
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/113321...ot-automation;
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/u...tomation.html;
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...rican-workers;

If you're just going to read one, this is a great one: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/...nomists-think/
It highlights the stagnation of workers' real earnings despite increased productivity and cites to several studies of economists' opinions on similar subjects.

In fact, the folks who have the most to gain from these new technological advances, are all ringing the same alarm bell: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bi...017-2017-05-16

But you admitted you can't be convinced until it happens. In this conversation, I'm Sisyphus. Empirical evidence shows automation kills more jobs than it creates. Economists are worried about it. The people creating the technology are worried about it. This is why I asked what it would take to convince you; basically any evidence you could ask for is already out there other than massive 20%+ unemployment. I appreciate your honesty that it's pointless to try to sway your mind on it, but it's incredibly disheartening given the incredible amount of evidence out there.

[wufan]

ShockCrazy, who is the expert on the economic impact of a new technology? Seriously?

[ShockCrazy]

Economists can say about a specific now developed technology sure. But the economic impact of technology as a whole in the future? People who work in technology who can see and understand what's being worked on.

[wufan]

But they aren’t economists. They understand the direct impact of their creation, but not the forces it may have on economic growth.

[ShockCrazy]

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?

You act like I'm quantifying things here, and I'm not. I'm saying those people exist with certainty, you know it as well.There are absolutely self absorbed or preoccupied people who don't give to charity or help others when the should, just because they don't consider it. Absolutely.

I'm not deciding what is enough, the UBI is a stepping stone, maybe the amount is less than the poverty line, or at it or maybe above. I don't really care, you figure that out through implementation and test.

"You libs" LOL I should probably stop dignifying you with response there. But how do we pay for it? You act like this some insurmountable ask if you would actually JUST READ what we have been talking about you would understand. But instead you skim and dig out your jump to conclusions mat.

I did say eliminate all welfare programs actually, and I even showed the numbers of that in the Trump thread. THAT'S THE POINT OF UBI. See above about reading.

Your last paragraph is incoherent and I have no idea what your point is.

[jdshock]

Doc is very quick to think the only reason you could be liberal is if you hate rich people, totally ignoring that many liberals make lots and lots of money.

We're obviously off base though. It's our lack of common sense.

[Kung Wu]

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.

Did you read the entire article you cited to prove your point, including the last couple of paragraphs?

Shock article with headline that robots are taking factory jobs. Concluded with, but those jobs may be offest and even increased in other sectors due to increased productivity.

[WuDrWu]

You act like I'm quantifying things here, and I'm not. I'm saying those people exist with certainty, you know it as well.There are absolutely self absorbed or preoccupied people who don't give to charity or help others when the should, just because they don't consider it. Absolutely.

Originally posted by ShockCrazy View Post

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.

quan·ti·fy
ˈkwän(t)əˌfī/
verb
1. express or measure the quantity of:

Sure they exist. All 3 sets (although 1 and 2 are hardly different) but you are making up numbers. There is no basis for your determination of their size AND YOU SAID HERE'S THE PROBLEM! Jesus Christ you're thick.

[wufan]

Let’s say that there are far fewer jobs in the future due to automation. Even though I’m not on board, it’s a reasonable position.

Is is there some percentage that puts us in the at risk category? I’m okay with whatever number that is as I’m just curious where YOU start feeling that this is a must.

What’s the rough amount of money that everyone gets, and in what specific way is it paid for?

[wufan]

An issue I struggle with:

Defining who lives in poverty in the US is a political nightmare of statistical manipulation. On the highside, about 40 million (~12%) Americans are in poverty and about half (6%) of them are in extreme poverty (meaning an income of less than $10000 a year). These statistics don’t take into account any federal benefits or any family/community based help, just straight earnings. When you factor government aid back in, the number of families in poverty drops to about 3% and extreme poverty drops to around 0.2%. The high end statistics are really based on wealth inequality (percentage of people that make less than 60% of the median income) and the low end statistics are really based on US poverty as defined in the US in 1975 and adjusted for inflation. These people (about 600,000) are concerned on a regular basis about if they are going to lose their home/utilities and where their next meal is coming from.

How we measure matters, and I would say that, with giving money to the poor, the war on poverty in the US is won. There is no metric for the number of people that starve to death annually in the US because that number is zero. There is an obesity problem in the US for Americans under the poverty line.

When I try to take some of this into account, the conclusions I draw are that the standard of living in the US is the pinnacle of human history today. The poor are middle class by any world standard other than measuring against the US population and are wealthy based on any measurement in human history. We don’t have a poverty problem, we have a wealth inequality problem. I don’t see how a UBI fixes wealth inequality.

[ShockCrazy]

Originally posted by ShockCrazy View Post

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.

quan·ti·fy
ˈkwän(t)əˌfī/
verb
1. express or measure the quantity of:

Sure they exist. All 3 sets (although 1 and 2 are hardly different) but you are making up numbers. There is no basis for your determination of their size AND YOU SAID HERE'S THE PROBLEM! Jesus Christ you're thick.

I'm thick? Your the one hard up on the idea of my "quantification" of these people when that's not even the point. The point is they exist the "quantity" you are latching onto doesn't matter. But again that would come down to reading and comprehending. Instead you've become like a dog with a bone and you think you put me in a got ya moment somehow when the point wasn't about the quantity of people in those groups. Also I love how you fail to address the other things I point out. But that would make your argument look weak. Wouldn't want that more would we.

[wufan]

Here’s a brief article that I agree with:

http://theinstitute.ieee.org/ieee-roundup/blogs/blog/will-automation-kill-or-create-jobs

This would be in line with previous technological revolutions, and also shows that not all economists agree that more tech means fewer overall jobs.

Here RS is the pew survey I reference earlier. It’s from 2014 and includes selected “experts” and not economists.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/06/future-of-jobs/

[wufan]

The survey was from 1990-2007. To say that automation was in its infancy during that time period does an injustice to the amount of technological growth we've seen in the last 10 years. And they still found that automation had a negative effect on total jobs. I don't know where you're getting this 100 new jobs for every one lost due to robotics? It was +3/-6 for jobs as a direct result of automation.

The empirical evidence from more than 10 years ago showed that automation killed 2 jobs for every 1 job it created.

You can tell me that 52% of economists believe automation is going to be neutral or positive, but I'm just not going to believe it without a source. Here are a whole bunch of other sources from economists:
https://www.economist.com/news/leade...country-ready;
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/113321...ot-automation;
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/u...tomation.html;
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...rican-workers;

If you're just going to read one, this is a great one: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/...nomists-think/
It highlights the stagnation of workers' real earnings despite increased productivity and cites to several studies of economists' opinions on similar subjects.

In fact, the folks who have the most to gain from these new technological advances, are all ringing the same alarm bell: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bi...017-2017-05-16

But you admitted you can't be convinced until it happens. In this conversation, I'm Sisyphus. Empirical evidence shows automation kills more jobs than it creates. Economists are worried about it. The people creating the technology are worried about it. This is why I asked what it would take to convince you; basically any evidence you could ask for is already out there other than massive 20%+ unemployment. I appreciate your honesty that it's pointless to try to sway your mind on it, but it's incredibly disheartening given the incredible amount of evidence out there.

OK, so two of your articles had broken links. One was a Vox article on what the Obama economists thought of AI, and the USNews article was an opinion piece by the same author that wrote a book titled, “How a Universal Basic Income can Renew our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream”.

Its just not true that there is empirical evidence that automation has ever or will end more jobs than it creates. I’m actually open to the idea that this tech revolution might be different than previous ones, but fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. There are certainly many very intelligent people that believe that AI is special, but it would appear that there is an equal number that feel that it is the same as the past. I think it is open to debate and appreciate your discussion.

Is it possible that the job market isn’t on the verge of collapse, and if that is the case would UBI we a good thing, a disaster, or mostly neutral?

[CBB_Fan]

Ignoring the discussions of whether the job market is or is not collapsing (futurist discussions like that often suffer when one side is thinking about "now" and the other is thinking about "eventually):

I am in favor of a UBI or Negative Income Tax, but not just because it may be the only way to prevent large-scale labor problems. That is getting way too far ahead of ourselves. The key thing about a UBI is that it can replace our welfare system while freeing up our businesses. "Back of the envelope" calculations show that we could practically eliminate poverty with a UBI that costs roughly 25% of what our current entitlement spending costs.

So from the side of the government, the advantage of a UBI is not that it fulfills some new social need but rather that it fulfills the role of welfare more efficiently than the current system. But what about employers? Currently employers are tasking with the responsibility of making sure their employees have a livable wage. They have to pay healthcare and pay a minimum wage even if the employee's market rate is far below that. Employers benefit from a minimum wage because it makes the minimum wage obsolete. American businesses will be able to out compete their foreign competitors by paying their employees at the actual market rate, not some number punched out by government bureaucrats.

And finally, we have citizens, who of course get the benefits of a UBI. Some speculate that a mass migration away from work will occur if a UBI is passed, but I think some of that is overblown. Under this sort of system, it still takes a lot of effort to move from "bare minimum living" to a "comfortable middle class lifestyle" which many will still happily work for. Those that leave the labor force may have valid reasons, such as using the added security to return to school or start a business. And that would actually be good for those keep working, as it would drive up the demand for labor.

To me, a well-written basic income or negative income tax is a rare win-win-win-win. The government wins by providing the same service with less waste and abuse. American businesses win by being able to pay market rate for employees and beating foreign competition. Workers win because they either get a small bonus or can argue for higher wages thanks to increased demand for labor. Nonworkers get complete stability, making it much easier to raise children or bounce back from unemployment.

[wufan]

I’m listening. The article you link to is a pay for reading item. Tell me how this will be cheaper and than the current systems that it replaces and what those current systems are.