Google’s Chief Futurist: Basic Income Will Spread Worldwide by the 2030s

[DukenukemX]

The only way to reverse this is to bring back manufacturing to the USA. I don't believe every person who loses a blue collar job is built for upper white collar work. It's not snobbery. I believe they have vital importance. As for automation, well Bill Gates might have the right idea: Tax robots that replace human workers so the company pays a similar amount for the robot worker as the human one.

The problem is a lot of that manufacturing has also been automated. Not entirely, but it won't be long before it will be. Though it's not bad to have manufacturing here in the States as I'd rather have stuff made here than in China. Even Musk who claims that automation is a big part of his problem and he needs more workers, doesn't mean if he could he wouldn't employ machines to do the work. It's just that the machines aren't doing their jobs very well. That and the parts they order from China need a lot of rework to be usable.

 

[Nunu]

So that is my experience with the fall of the iron curtain as someone who still lives in the former soviet block

Yes, everything you mentioned is true for almost all ex communist/socialist countries. Cronyism and corruption is not an exclusive trait, unfortunately, as capitalism has similar issues.The difference however, is socialism and communism collapsed under its own weight because everyone had guaranteed jobs (everyone made around the same no matter skill/hours/days worked ). The state owned and controlled all means of production and property and set wages and prices with no regards to supply/ demand (like a market economy/capitalism does).

Marx envisioned communism as a means to free the working poor classes of people , and give them equal footing to the wealthier middle class land/business owners by redistributing all wealth. Under UBI, a very similar thing will happen. The money needed to pay all the unemployed folks will come from the wealthier people and corporations (communists seized all assets, no matter the wealth).

Everything I've read and heard so far about UBI reeks of socialism. Setting limits to income,and debt. Taxing others heavily for the benefit of the masses and hope of the poor becoming solvent for the benefit of all. Some are advocating negative rates for all saving accounts to pay into the UBI system automatically( that's a direct way of taxing everyone regardless of bracket) .

I am not defending the ultra rich, they should not be allowed to snowball they way the do. Heck, I think anyone making over a few million should be taxed like in the 1950s (90%+), However I have seen this approach before, and it failed miserably. Under socialism, people were worse off financially with no shot of ever getting ahead. Capitalism, for all its evils, at least allows everyone a chance to move up.

As far as solutions to the current class divide are concerned, there are no easy answers. Radical change is never smooth or easy (and unlikely to happen). If capitalism is unsustainable then the answer is something new, not the failed experiments of the past .

The squeeze on the middle class is harder now then ever before, and opportunities are dwindling faster as technology looks to overtake most human labor in short order. If AI does go haywire and run the gamut, then soon enough there will be no middle class because everyone will be out of a job. At that point, I don't think the 1000$ UBI check will keep anyone fed/clothed and sheltered without either prices crashing for all things drastically, or a majority of goods and services becoming free (by taking the taxes from all the robot/ai workers and paying directly into this). However people should still be allowed to strive to do better for themselves, to seek opportunities and develop them unhindered. Call me optimistic, but I think competition will survive, and to a large degree capitalism will as well.

 

[Lizard Testes]

Setting limits to income,and debt.

This is not an inherent part of UBI.

Some are advocating negative rates for all saving accounts to pay into the UBI system automatically( that's a direct way of taxing everyone regardless of bracket) .

Also not in inherent part of UBI.

no shot of ever getting ahead.

This has nothing to do with UBI.

However people should still be allowed to strive to do better for themselves, to seek opportunities and develop them unhindered.

Nothing about UBI prevents this.

You're trying to equate UBI with full communism and it makes discussing it with you pointless.

 

[Nunu]

Please name any governments which were actually communist or socialist. AFAIK, there have been none. They were communist or socialist in name only. They were dictatorships that used the communist or socialist moniker to fool the people that lived in them, in order to give them the illusion that their dictator actually had their interests at heart.

That fact alone should tell you something. Out of the 24 countries that were once communist, nearly one third the world's population, not one of them could be the ideological version of communism and socialism because there cannot be one. Plato described his idea of communism as everyone sharing everything and looking to abolish the family structure in society, because it (he thought) led to ownership of property and thus greed among other things. Hard to understand , even harder to actually do.

This is not an inherent part of UBI.

Taxing people is a way of setting limits on income (what you actually keep). You keep half of what you make, does that not make sense?

You're trying to equate UBI with full communism and it makes discussing it with you pointless.

You act as if a solid set of UBI rules has been decided and none of what I said was ever mentioned or written. UBI takes its form from socialism. Act as smug as you want, that won't change that fact.

This has nothing to do with UBI

Never getting ahead has everything to do with socialism, they simply do not allow or encourage it. By extension, it can apply to UBI.

Nothing about UBI prevents this.

I think UBI will actually demotivate people from taking chances or risks, since there will be no need to try if things are given away for free.

 

[Lizard Testes]

Taxing people is a way of setting limits on income (what you actually keep). You keep half of what you make, does that not make sense?

It makes no sense. No offense, but you're not a native english speaker, correct? A percent tax is in no way a limit on your income unless the tax eventually goes to 100% (which I don't think anyone here is advocating for).

You act as if a solid set of UBI rules has been decided and none of what I said was ever mentioned or written.

If you want to argue against UBI you have to argue against UBI, not against things that are not a part of UBI. No one here has said a thing about negative interest rates.

UBI takes its form from socialism. Act as smug as you want, that won't change that fact.

The fact is that capitalism plus UBI is capitalism plus UBI. It is not communism. It is not socialism.

Never getting ahead has everything to do with socialism, they simply do not allow or encourage it. By extension, it can apply to UBI.

Nope. Has nothing to do with UBI. Success is still allowed and encouraged.

I think UBI will actually demotivate people from taking chances or risks, since there will be no need to try if things are given away for free.

Some people it certainly will. So what? The alternative is far worse. The fact is that with ever increasing productivity, ever decreasing middle class, constantly increasing consolidation of wealth among the 1%, the solution is either going to be UBI or something similar, or revolution. Take your pick.

 

[Nunu]

No offense, but you've never been or lived outside the US right? What does native English speaking have to do with basic math? I understand what a percent tax does.You once again either willfully or unknowingly miss the point. If you make 100$, and tax goes up from 35% to 90%, how is that not a limit on what's left? That's what paying for a social program requires, taxes. Furthermore, I argue about what I see necessary to clear up, and the fact that people have previously mentioned paying for UBI by adding negative interest rates to saving accounts is one example.

You also seem to confuse what socialism actually does versus capitalism. One leaves the people to do as they will and fend for themselves, the other takes over and gives them everything necessary to survive but not thrive. Now, of these 2, which one do you think UBI comes closer to? Capitalism or socialism? Be honest now...

Some people it certainly will. So what? The alternative is far worse. The fact is that with ever increasing productivity, ever decreasing middle class, constantly increasing consolidation of wealth among the 1%, the solution is either going to be UBI or something similar, or revolution. Take your pick.

Again, that nonchalant attitude is what socialism breeds. And it won't be just some people, but soon enough the majority will do that. Think of it as the path of least resistance. I believe technology is the driving force behind this shift, so it will be the solution going forward. Not sure how, but it will not be a feast or famine scenario ahead , the stakes are too high this time around. That fatalistic duality is not the only outcome.

 

[DukenukemX]

You also seem to confuse what socialism actually does versus capitalism. One leaves the people to do as they will and fend for themselves, the other takes over and gives them everything necessary to survive but not thrive. Now, of these 2, which one do you think UBI comes closer to? Capitalism or socialism? Be honest now...

Why does this matter? We historically had this discussion before. Social security is just another step towards socialism. Minimum wage is just more socialism. The fact is we needed these programs, cause without it our standard of living is fucked. For what? To satisfy a raving bunch of people who condemn anything that doesn't fit their dogma? How are we gonna employ citizens so they can earn money? Give a reasonable solution to this problem.

Again, that nonchalant attitude is what socialism breeds. And it won't be just some people, but soon enough the majority will do that. Think of it as the path of least resistance. I believe technology is the driving force behind this shift, so it will be the solution going forward. Not sure how, but it will not be a feast or famine scenario ahead , the stakes are too high this time around. That fatalistic duality is not the only outcome.

Technology is not the solution nor the problem. The problem is our antiquated economy. We'll likely have a point where we'll keep a bunch of people sectioned off that are undesirables until those people rise up and riot. It'll be bloody and it'll be a genocide unless we can agree on something like UBI. Which we'll likely will, because of all the fighting and deaths that'll come from it. This is a warning to help prevent unnecessary deaths and suffering before we get to that point. Cal lit socialism or communism or fuckerism, but it doesn't matter cause we'll need it. Not unless you think we can keep the undesirables hidden away forever.

 

[dgingeri]

That's the faith people have in our current capitalism, in that the free market will adjust and fix things. The thing is, no matter where I look I just don't see enough new jobs to displace the ones we're about to lose. Self driving cars and AI alone is enough to cause a huge recession that would rival the great depression. What new industry could create jobs that needs humans?

1. It will take time, a lot of time, to transition over for both AI and automated transportation. In that time, people will have the chance to find new jobs, and the development of both of those technologies will open up as many jobs and more, until the technology matures enough to become commodity, and by that time a new generation will be around. Those who refuse to work for new skills and take new jobs will be left behind, yes, and they should be.

As it has been for humanity for all of our existence, we MUST adapt, and those who can't or won't adapt will fall behind. In old times, those who fell behind died. Now, they're dragged along, complaining the whole time, while their own weakness does to them what they accuse others of doing.

The ones who refuse to adapt and work to become more are weak and a drag on all of humanity. I don't pity them. I have no sympathy for them. They have been the very people who have held ME back, kept ME from becoming more because of their stranglehold on our education system. They are the ones that, even though I got As in all my other courses, skated through easily, all the courses that mattered with my chosen degree, barred me from a degree because I couldn't get past the leftist indoctrination classes because I refused to submit to their lies and let their indoctrination consume my will. I could have been something. I taught myself to read at 3 and a half, and taught myself all the science and math classes in the first week or two of classes by reading through the textbooks. I have active ideas that, if I could develop them, would shame the technology today for "clean energy." I know where these idiots have gone wrong with hybrid cars, battery technology, wind power, electric motors, general electrical generation, and others, and I could have had these things a decade ago. Yet, I was held back by stupidity and political posturing of the public school system, allowed to be no more than a self taught systems administrator. Even that career sabotaged time and again by leftist management who didn't like my political position.

No, AI and automated transportation won't cause some huge recession. It may cause some slowdown, but only because of the weak and stupid ones who refuse to adapt to a new way of doing things, and those who don't want to work at life. This technology, that could free up people to become more and better, and grow the economy and make a great future, will be held back because of people using the weakness and laziness of some to gain power over others.

 

[tybert7]

Let's pay a bunch of useless people to exist. That will end well.

I suppose that means you are against inheritance? Not whether people ought to be allowed to inherit, but whether you think it's a good idea to allow family to inherit money in the first place. After all, that would be "paying a bunch of useless people to exist" would it not?

 

[Nunu]

Give a reasonable solution to this problem.

Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result is not the definition of a solution. That is the definition of insanity. If you can agree that giving people all these things leads to socialism, and we know how socialism turns out over time, then why even do it to begin with? You are repeating the same process over , hoping to stave off a bloodbath. Why can't we coexist and work alongside whatever new tech comes out? Why can't that be a scenario instead of all this other nonsense?

 

[DukenukemX]

1. It will take time, a lot of time, to transition over for both AI and automated transportation. In that time, people will have the chance to find new jobs, and the development of both of those technologies will open up as many jobs and more, until the technology matures enough to become commodity, and by that time a new generation will be around. Those who refuse to work for new skills and take new jobs will be left behind, yes, and they should be.

That sounds like faith in the free market. You must be a religious man to have so much faith. What new jobs will be created to displace the ones lost to automation and AI? I should mention optimization which is what Amazon is doing by replacing stores with websites. It's not automation. Same goes for Netflix vs Blockbuster.

As it has been for humanity for all of our existence, we MUST adapt, and those who can't or won't adapt will fall behind. In old times, those who fell behind died. Now, they're dragged along, complaining the whole time, while their own weakness does to them what they accuse others of doing.

What if you can't adapt? What makes you so certain that you won't be a undesirable?

The ones who refuse to adapt and work to become more are weak and a drag on all of humanity. I don't pity them. I have no sympathy for them. They have been the very people who have held ME back, kept ME from becoming more because of their stranglehold on our education system. They are the ones that, even though I got As in all my other courses, skated through easily, all the courses that mattered with my chosen degree, barred me from a degree because I couldn't get past the leftist indoctrination classes because I refused to submit to their lies and let their indoctrination consume my will. I could have been something. I taught myself to read at 3 and a half, and taught myself all the science and math classes in the first week or two of classes by reading through the textbooks. I have active ideas that, if I could develop them, would shame the technology today for "clean energy." I know where these idiots have gone wrong with hybrid cars, battery technology, wind power, electric motors, general electrical generation, and others, and I could have had these things a decade ago. Yet, I was held back by stupidity and political posturing of the public school system, allowed to be no more than a self taught systems administrator. Even that career sabotaged time and again by leftist management who didn't like my political position.

Sounds like you're blaming others for your... situation. Also I'm hearing a lot of could would should, but you didn't. Also I'm confused, wasn't the right against clean energy like solar, wind, and etc?

No, AI and automated transportation won't cause some huge recession. It may cause some slowdown, but only because of the weak and stupid ones who refuse to adapt to a new way of doing things, and those who don't want to work at life. This technology, that could free up people to become more and better, and grow the economy and make a great future, will be held back because of people using the weakness and laziness of some to gain power over others.

I'm still not seeing a solution you propose. I could come up with solutions like reducing the hours in a work week, or incentivize the design and manufacture of products here in USA. Why not a 2 hour mandatory lunch break every day, like what Europeans do? But admittedly none of these ideas are going to scratch the surface of the issue.

I do see a boom for installing solar panels and batteries in peoples homes, but like curing Hepatitis C, that will only be profitable for so long. Also if more people use electric cars, then we'll even lose a lot of mechanic and auto service jobs as there's less moving parts in an electric vehicle and therefore won't need as much attention. We also have the problem with taxing gasoline, as less people will use it. You can't tax electricity, cause people need it for their homes.

There could be new industry for specialized treatments for people to cure diseases. I even see a future where we could alter our genes for features like red or blonde hair. But these same methods could also take away jobs from hospitals and doctors as we'll see more and more cures for conditions. Even aging itself will be cured with all the new technology we're seeing around the corner. So we'll have people living longer and healthier lives who collect social security and pensions forever. I think the postal service has a real big problem for the cost of ex employee pensions.

It's very hard to see what I see, cause there's a lot to consider. No matter which way I turn my attention, the amount of jobs lost will be greater than the jobs gained. It won't happen suddenly, but we'll reach that point sooner than you think.

 

[DukenukemX]

Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result is not the definition of a solution. That is the definition of insanity. If you can agree that giving people all these things leads to socialism, and we know how socialism turns out over time, then why even do it to begin with? You are repeating the same process over , hoping to stave off a bloodbath. Why can't we coexist and work alongside whatever new tech comes out? Why can't that be a scenario instead of all this other nonsense?

I think people mistake socialism for a dictatorship. The difference between America and Europe vs other countries is that we have democracy. So long as we have the power to vote, and our votes count, socialism won't effect us negatively.

The only thing that keeps capitalism from becoming no different than socialism and communism is democracy, and even that is showing to erode away in our society. As Ajit Pai and his lobbyists have shown, our vote is counting less and less. Also China is capitalist and communist, but don't have our living standards due to communism. Capitalism is what gave China smog so thick that it looks like a fog. The citizens lack the ability to vote and that's why the smog continues to poor into the air.

Saying that socialism doesn't work because it hasn't worked before, is not telling the whole story. It hasn't worked before because it hasn't been associated with democracy, or at least a democracy that was corruption free. Venezuela and USSR could vote, but the corruption runs deep. Both corrupt and both giving limited choices to vote on. If we're not careful even capitalism can take away our democracy. As Yanis Varoufakis points out.

 

[nutzo]

1They have been the very people who have held ME back, kept ME from becoming more because of their stranglehold on our education system. They are the ones that, even though I got As in all my other courses, skated through easily, all the courses that mattered with my chosen degree, barred me from a degree because I couldn't get past the leftist indoctrination classes because I refused to submit to their lies and let their indoctrination consume my will. I could have been something. I taught myself to read at 3 and a half, and taught myself all the science and math classes in the first week or two of classes by reading through the textbooks. I have active ideas that, if I could develop them, would shame the technology today for "clean energy." I know where these idiots have gone wrong with hybrid cars, battery technology, wind power, electric motors, general electrical generation, and others, and I could have had these things a decade ago. Yet, I was held back by stupidity and political posturing of the public school system, allowed to be no more than a self taught systems administrator. Even that career sabotaged time and again by leftist management who didn't like my political position.

And you missed one important lesson, how pretend to go along with someone's idiot ideas so you can reach your goal.

Sometimes this means working a job you don't like, or zipping your lip even though you know you boss is wrong.
In college, this means regurgitating the nonsense the leftist professor wants to hear. It's good practice for working under an bad boss.

 

[nutzo]

I think people mistake socialism for a dictatorship. The difference between America and Europe vs other countries is that we have democracy. So long as we have the power to vote, and our votes count, socialism won't effect us negatively.

Saying that socialism doesn't work because it hasn't worked before, is not telling the whole story. It hasn't worked before because it hasn't been associated with democracy, or at least a democracy that was corruption free. Venezuela and USSR could vote, but the corruption runs deep. Both corrupt and both giving limited choices to vote on.

It's not a mistake.
Socialism relies on giving the government more power. More power in a hands of the few in charge leads to more corruption. Corruption eventually destroys democracy.

As Lord Acton said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

 

[dgingeri]

And you missed one important lesson, how pretend to go along with someone's idiot ideas so you can reach your goal.

Sometimes this means working a job you don't like, or zipping your lip even though you know you boss is wrong.
In college, this means regurgitating the nonsense the leftist professor wants to hear. It's good practice for working under an bad boss.

Yet another way people fool themselves. It is not necessary to work under a bad boss. Walk away from a situation like that. I have, at least 4 times in my career, including once in 2016. Bosses that don't deserve my work don't get it. On two of those occasions, the boss was revealed to be incompetent because I left, and was fired or demoted for it.

There is ALWAYS another job. You never have no choice but to stick to a bad job. If you're in a bad job, leave. If they don't appreciate your work, and go 4 years without giving a raise, leave, even if you don't have something lined up yet. That savings you keep stashing away has to be useful for something. If it's a 3 month vacation while you concentrate on finding something else, then that's what it's for. Never, ever just sit back and tolerate a bad boss.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Reading through this thread....

I love how people who want to take other peoples money and earnings by force, believe they are moral angels, but the people who want to keep their own money and earnings that were gained by providing goods and services in consensual exchange are greedy....

 

[Jagger100]

The problem is a lot of that manufacturing has also been automated. Not entirely, but it won't be long before it will be. Though it's not bad to have manufacturing here in the States as I'd rather have stuff made here than in China. Even Musk who claims that automation is a big part of his problem and he needs more workers, doesn't mean if he could he wouldn't employ machines to do the work. It's just that the machines aren't doing their jobs very well. That and the parts they order from China need a lot of rework to be usable.

They want more workers because that drives all wages down. When a Burger Flipper is paid less, the shift manager can be paid less. If the shift manager can be paid less, the site manager can be paid less. And So on. the investor class does not understand search engines or microchip manufacture but they do understand wages and even in industries where employees at 10% of costs, the company can be losing its ass in other areas but the investors with scrutinize wages with a vengeance.

 

[DukenukemX]

It's not a mistake.
Socialism relies on giving the government more power. More power in a hands of the few in charge leads to more corruption. Corruption eventually destroys democracy.

As Lord Acton said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

How is that any different than our current lobby system? Which I think was introduced in the 1980's I believe.

 

[DukenukemX]

They want more workers because that drives all wages down. When a Burger Flipper is paid less, the shift manager can be paid less. If the shift manager can be paid less, the site manager can be paid less. And So on. the investor class does not understand search engines or microchip manufacture but they do understand wages and even in industries where employees at 10% of costs, the company can be losing its ass in other areas but the investors with scrutinize wages with a vengeance.

Supply and demand works for workers as much as it does for products. Why you think America is so anti-immigration suddenly?

 

[c3k]

Nothing wrong with immigrants. Who in America is anti-immigrant? Heck, I'm from immigrant stock. My sister married a naturalized citizen (he got naturalized after their engagement). No one is anti-immigrant.

A lot of citizens are anti-illegal immigrants. You know, the illegal aliens. Hell, even Mexico hates illegal aliens. Just read their constitution and look at what they do to folks who cross their border illegally.

Just putting some truth back. Carry on...

 

[Aireoth]

Keep ignoring the elephant in the room while spiraling over how, why and what prior systems failed.

With AI poised to eliminate massive swaths of the work force (particularly white collar) life will change more dramatically then it ever has.

 

[dgingeri]

How is that any different than our current lobby system? Which I think was introduced in the 1980's I believe.

Our current lobby system started in the 1840s.

 

[Lizard Testes]

No offense, but you've never been or lived outside the US right? What does native English speaking have to do with basic math? I understand what a percent tax does.You once again either willfully or unknowingly miss the point. If you make 100$, and tax goes up from 35% to 90%, how is that not a limit on what's left?

It has to do with you misusing words. Taxes don't limit your income unless they eventually go to 100%. By your definition any taxes at all limit your income which is an absurd thing to say.

You also seem to confuse what socialism actually does versus capitalism. One leaves the people to do as they will and fend for themselves, the other takes over and gives them everything necessary to survive but not thrive. Now, of these 2, which one do you think UBI comes closer to? Capitalism or socialism? Be honest now...

Capitalism + UBI is closer to capitalism than socialism.

Why can't we coexist and work alongside whatever new tech comes out? Why can't that be a scenario instead of all this other nonsense?

This statement is completely meaningless. What is your proposal to "coexist" and "work alongside" a natural progression that's almost certainly going to result in the ultimate destruction of the middle class?

 

[Lizard Testes]

Reading through this thread....

I love how people who want to take other peoples money and earnings by force, believe they are moral angels, but the people who want to keep their own money and earnings that were gained by providing goods and services in consensual exchange are greedy....

TAXATION IS THEFT I scream, as my job is taken away by a robot and I slowly shrink and transform into a corn cob.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

Debating it doesn't matter. It will happen because enough people will demand it to happen. If you get enough people screaming for something, whether or not it's a good idea is more or less irrelevant. It's going to happen anyway.

Personally, I think it's a stupid idea. You need competition to push people forward. You need the threat of hardship to actually defeat poverty - a sort of carrot-and-stick approach. The easier you make it on people, the less likely they will learn, grow, and adapt to the new situation.

This kind of argument has been made many times in the past. Once, most of humanity was stuck in farming and food production, basically. Now, what... 1% do that? If that? Where did they all go? That's right, they went to the factories and started building shit instead. Factories started to automate more and more - but service jobs came to fill the slack. Somebody had to sell all this junk that was being produced. Door-to-door vacuum sales, service and retail workers, burger flippers - those kinds of jobs exploded.

Well, as folks protest for $15/hour to flip some burgers, machines come along to do that. Don't need so many factory workers, or burger flippers - and hell, even the vacuums are on Amazon, and are basically all robots now. But now we need armies of programmers, graphic/UI designers, content creators, tech writers, etc... for all of this shit. Who programs the robot? Who designs the touchscreen interface for your McDonalds burger order machine? And somebody has to write that content.

Jobs will always be there - right up until jobs literally don't matter at all because we're full post-scarcity. We're not as close to that as people seem to believe. Go out there, learn to write some code, or use photoshop, or write text content for menus - I don't know, something. The jobs are there. Yeah, some of this is high-IQ shit. But some of it is bone-headed shit, too. You don't need to be a genius to write a menu, or be a flunky for some instructional video or something.

But again, none of it matters, because people will demand this basic income shit, and politicians will give it to them. Some folks will adapt anyway, but a good many who might have been motivated to get off the ass and learn a new trade simply won't bother. And that's a shame.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

1. It will take time, a lot of time, to transition over for both AI and automated transportation. In that time, people will have the chance to find new jobs, and the development of both of those technologies will open up as many jobs and more, until the technology matures enough to become commodity, and by that time a new generation will be around. Those who refuse to work for new skills and take new jobs will be left behind, yes, and they should be.

As it has been for humanity for all of our existence, we MUST adapt, and those who can't or won't adapt will fall behind. In old times, those who fell behind died. Now, they're dragged along, complaining the whole time, while their own weakness does to them what they accuse others of doing.

The ones who refuse to adapt and work to become more are weak and a drag on all of humanity. I don't pity them. I have no sympathy for them. They have been the very people who have held ME back, kept ME from becoming more because of their stranglehold on our education system. They are the ones that, even though I got As in all my other courses, skated through easily, all the courses that mattered with my chosen degree, barred me from a degree because I couldn't get past the leftist indoctrination classes because I refused to submit to their lies and let their indoctrination consume my will. I could have been something. I taught myself to read at 3 and a half, and taught myself all the science and math classes in the first week or two of classes by reading through the textbooks. I have active ideas that, if I could develop them, would shame the technology today for "clean energy." I know where these idiots have gone wrong with hybrid cars, battery technology, wind power, electric motors, general electrical generation, and others, and I could have had these things a decade ago. Yet, I was held back by stupidity and political posturing of the public school system, allowed to be no more than a self taught systems administrator. Even that career sabotaged time and again by leftist management who didn't like my political position.

No, AI and automated transportation won't cause some huge recession. It may cause some slowdown, but only because of the weak and stupid ones who refuse to adapt to a new way of doing things, and those who don't want to work at life. This technology, that could free up people to become more and better, and grow the economy and make a great future, will be held back because of people using the weakness and laziness of some to gain power over others.

Holy EGO of..Bullshit. If you actually believe this you need to seek therapy because you have some serious mental baggage going on and no I'm not trying to be an edgy internet asshole here, I'm dead serious. This has got to be the single most arrogant and deluded posts I've read in my entire life and I've read some impressively arrogant and insane shit on 4chan. The only one who has held You back is YOU and you will continue being held back by yourself until you accept that absolute truth.

 

[dgingeri]

It has to do with you misusing words. Taxes don't limit your income unless they eventually go to 100%. By your definition any taxes at all limit your income which is an absurd thing to say.

Actually, yes, it does, definitely. Taxes limit income because human beings can only put forward so much effort. A person works at their limit and does $60,000 worth of labor in a year and gets taxed at 15%, their income is limited to $51,000/year. Someone who works their hardest and does $100,000 in labor and gets hit with 50% taxes ends up limited to even less. Someone who works their hardest and does $300,000 of labor and gets taxed at 90% is worse off than either of the previous 2.

As it is, with all the taxes we have to pay, with everything we do and every movement of money monitored and taxed, the people in the US on average pay just short of 50% of their income in taxes right now. That is severely limiting. The richer a person is, the less they are allowed to do with their own money, and the more enslaved they are by the state.

Any taxes are a drag on the economy. It is money taken away from private citizens and put to public use. It is not invested. The government doesn't produce anything, so it doesn't contribute to the GDP. However, it does contribute to the wealth of the country because it causes extra movement of money. It's just, in practice, far less than the drag on the economy it creates. So, any reduction in taxes reduces the drag on the wealth the economy creates, and the money changes hands faster. Of course, taxes also have payback in other ways, such as keeping out external interference with the economy. Spending a mere 10% of the economy on defense prevents the economy from being attacked and totally broken by a foreign attack. Spending 2% on law enforcement and 5% on imprisonment prevents a drag of 25-50% that rampant crime would have on the economy.

Government and taxes have their place, but it must NOT get out of control (as it has been for the last 60 years or so) or it will drag the economy down too much and eventually break it. The economy of western society is already on the brink of breaking. All of Europe is already at the breaking point, and is only being held together by the US economy. Without the US, all of western civilization would collapse economically, and that would lead to the rest of it collapsing into another Dark Age that would definitely last at least a century, and probably multiple centuries. The last one we lost so much technological knowledge, we forgot how to make simple concrete. Several things that ancient Greeks and Romans knew how to do were lost until less than a century ago. That happened because of oppressive 'governments' (raiders, warlords, kings, etc) interfering with the economy. We must be careful at this point, or we will lose everything.

UBI would shatter it all like glass.

 

[nutzo]

Yet another way people fool themselves. It is not necessary to work under a bad boss. Walk away from a situation like that. I have, at least 4 times in my career, including once in 2016. Bosses that don't deserve my work don't get it. On two of those occasions, the boss was revealed to be incompetent because I left, and was fired or demoted for it.

There is ALWAYS another job. You never have no choice but to stick to a bad job. If you're in a bad job, leave. If they don't appreciate your work, and go 4 years without giving a raise, leave, even if you don't have something lined up yet. That savings you keep stashing away has to be useful for something. If it's a 3 month vacation while you concentrate on finding something else, then that's what it's for. Never, ever just sit back and tolerate a bad boss.

Mostly agree.

Sometimes it may be advantageous to just stick it out for a while due to benefits or qualifying for a pension.
The main point is you should do what's right for you or your situation, wither it's leaving it staying for a while.

 

[nutzo]

How is that any different than our current lobby system? Which I think was introduced in the 1980's I believe.

The more the government controls, the more the rich will try to influence the government.

Early on in Microsoft's history, they have 1 lobbyist in Washington DC.
But then their competitors started lobbying to past laws to get an advantage over Microsoft.
This lead to Microsoft having to higher more lobbyist to protect themselves.

You will never get the money out of politics unless you get politics out everyone's business.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

TAXATION IS THEFT I scream, as my job is taken away by a robot and I slowly shrink and transform into a corn cob.

Electric motors and machines will kill the economy!!! Cars will kill the economy!! Diesel engines will kill the rail road!!! Computers will kill the economy and everyone will be out of a job!!!

How many times do we have to listen to this BS mantra?

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

Electric motors and machines will kill the economy!!! Cars will kill the economy!! Diesel engines will kill the rail road!!! Computers will kill the economy and everyone will be out of a job!!!

How many times do we have to listen to this BS mantra?

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup. It's the same fear mongering every generation. And it always works itself out in the end.

Now I want to go buy some Taco Bell on my phone and wash it down with a Slurpee. I'll fart like Hiroshima on the fourth of July, but hey, Capitalism, baby.

 

[DukenukemX]

Nothing wrong with immigrants. Who in America is anti-immigrant? Heck, I'm from immigrant stock. My sister married a naturalized citizen (he got naturalized after their engagement). No one is anti-immigrant.

A lot of citizens are anti-illegal immigrants. You know, the illegal aliens. Hell, even Mexico hates illegal aliens. Just read their constitution and look at what they do to folks who cross their border illegally.

Just putting some truth back. Carry on...

Well, when I say immigrants I mean the illegal kind. But American corporations are pro illegal immigration because they can hire people who will take much lower pay. Hence Trump and Brixit.

Personally, I think it's a stupid idea. You need competition to push people forward. You need the threat of hardship to actually defeat poverty - a sort of carrot-and-stick approach. The easier you make it on people, the less likely they will learn, grow, and adapt to the new situation.

You need competition to push advancement in technology, not to push people. Though as someone from goldman sachs put it, not everything that benefits society is beneficial for a companies bottom line.

The way I see it, so many people work in repetitive jobs that don't contribute to society. So much wasted potential. But anything repetitive can be easily automated. We can hopefully take that human creativity and put it to some good use. Humans rarely like to sit around all day every day.

Well, as folks protest for $15/hour to flip some burgers, machines come along to do that. Don't need so many factory workers, or burger flippers - and hell, even the vacuums are on Amazon, and are basically all robots now. But now we need armies of programmers, graphic/UI designers, content creators, tech writers, etc... for all of this shit. Who programs the robot? Who designs the touchscreen interface for your McDonalds burger order machine? And somebody has to write that content.

Jobs will always be there - right up until jobs literally don't matter at all because we're full post-scarcity. We're not as close to that as people seem to believe. Go out there, learn to write some code, or use photoshop, or write text content for menus - I don't know, something. The jobs are there. Yeah, some of this is high-IQ shit. But some of it is bone-headed shit, too. You don't need to be a genius to write a menu, or be a flunky for some instructional video or something.

But again, none of it matters, because people will demand this basic income shit, and politicians will give it to them. Some folks will adapt anyway, but a good many who might have been motivated to get off the ass and learn a new trade simply won't bother. And that's a shame.

I understand what you're saying, but how many coders you need to write the kind of programs you're talking about? You do realize you can just copy code right? Not every McDonalds in the world needs its own set of coders. Especially with the cloud where they certainly don't need to be localized.

The more the government controls, the more the rich will try to influence the government.

Early on in Microsoft's history, they have 1 lobbyist in Washington DC.
But then their competitors started lobbying to past laws to get an advantage over Microsoft.
This lead to Microsoft having to higher more lobbyist to protect themselves.

You will never get the money out of politics unless you get politics out everyone's business.

If you're not involved with the government, the corporations will be. Honestly they don't care how much control you give them, cause there's always someone writing laws and pushing legislation. If you step out, the companies step in. Ask Ajit Pai how far Verizon stepped in.

Electric motors and machines will kill the economy!!! Cars will kill the economy!! Diesel engines will kill the rail road!!! Computers will kill the economy and everyone will be out of a job!!!

How many times do we have to listen to this BS mantra?

This is different, this is AI. Anything automated previously was done in a predictable way, but with computers that can learn, that's about to change things drastically.

 

[tetris42]

Something I may have missed in this thread that all the recent posts seem to miss:

-The number of jobs that are going to be loss are less than the number of new ones that will open up. Think about it, the whole point of automation is to replace workers to cut costs. If it takes MORE workers to support said technology, that makes it MORE expensive than not using it all. While there's plenty of retraining and switching to other jobs that can be done, the bottom line is there will be LESS jobs. So if you lose 20 million jobs to automation and game 5 million in support, that leaves 15 million needing jobs. What about them? A lot of arguments here don't seem to want to address that (or even consider the POSSIBILITY of such a thing).

-UBI removing the incentive to work being a huge problem is an argument that doesn't really hold up. UBI won't mean living the high life. It will (hopefully) mean being able to not starve and go homeless. Pretend you get 12k a year as UBI. Time to quit your job and never work again, right? After all, what more could you possibly want? Oh wait, maybe a neighborhood where there aren't regular drive-bys? Or food more nutritious than Ramen? Or pretty much anything above bare subsistence? Yes, there will be some people who 12k a year is plenty and see no reason to work beyond that. If they're really that lazy, were they doing all that much good in the workplace to begin with? Is their job not being needed anymore such a bad thing? Most people will be motivated to want a better life for themselves and work towards that. That's plenty of motivation right there.



Requiring someone to get a job for food and shelter, but then simultaneously not having ENOUGH jobs for everyone who needs one is barbarism. It's musical chairs for who gets to earn a living. Retraining and gumption make you more likely to get a chair. That doesn't change everyone not getting one who needs it.
I'm not saying UBI is the answer, but any system that DOESN'T allow for EVERYONE to meet their basic needs is a broken one.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

I understand what you're saying, but how many coders you need to write the kind of programs you're talking about? You do realize you can just copy code right? Not every McDonalds in the world needs its own set of coders. Especially with the cloud where they certainly don't need to be localized.

A lot. Else I wouldn't have a job. Theoretically you can just copy open source shit all day, right?

In reality, it doesn't work that way. Off the shelf code works as a good starting point often times, but every company, every business, has different needs. The system McDonalds might use is likely to be fundamentally different than that of Burger King. Different branding. Different back end. Different menu content. Different graphics. Writing code, designing graphics, and writing content... this is the new factory floor, man. Sure, you can copy the end product - but only if you are doing the EXACT SAME THING.

Also, the Cloud is still composed of servers. It's not magic fairy dust. Somebody has to build and maintain all that shit. That's a job. Same with the applications that are cloud-driven. Take Salesforce. Cloud driven shit, right? Do you know how many developers they employ to do all that? It's a fucking army, mang. All jobs for somebody. You have to really suck to be an unemployed developer for very long.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

...but any system that DOESN'T allow for EVERYONE to meet their basic needs is a broken one.

Everyone as in every single person on planet Earth? By that definition, every system ever invented by mankind in the whole history of the species is broken.

Which may be true - but that implies anything man makes will be broken - including UBI. It's a ridiculous standard. It's like those "if only one child..." kind of arguments. Okay. If only one child dies in a car accident, ban cars? If only one child dies in a fire, ban, I dunno... everything combustible?

If only one person doesn't get their basic needs met, reinvent the entire financial system and spend gazillions of dollars? It's knee-jerk. And I guarantee you, some idiots will find ways to starve to death or otherwise "not get their basic needs met" even under UBI. Never underestimate the human capacity for self-destructive stupidity.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

This is different, this is AI. Anything automated previously was done in a predictable way, but with computers that can learn, that's about to change things drastically.

Yes....Go on, I am waiting.

The same mantra, "but but but, this is different!!!". No, AI doesn't actually "learn", rather AI can, in simulation with say video games, play matches at a rate no human player can, there is no thinking or learning in the way people think AI does. Rather they play a number of games a human could never play in its life time in short order and look at patterns with possible past games. AI can fill in repetitive and like jobs, but in most cases will require a human, if not a team of them to work with it, as it is not guided on its own, AI HAS to have human input and control, it needs hardware to be built and maintained, it needs coders and people to design it, update and change it, to look at and review its output, it does a good job in some areas, not so much in others and not all data or things it does are good or useful etc etc. Productivity will go up and hopefully mistakes/errors will go down, the jobs this replaces will shift to new areas and markets. You, like the others before you are having a knee jerk reaction to something you have no idea of it's impact, as every time we have had large changes in productivity, such as machines, automation, cars, computers etc etc we have had massive improvements in standard of living, yet you are crying this is different and will be the exact opposite.

 

[Archaea]

The logistics are impossible and fraud would be rampant, but it’d be interesting to fire up a bitcoin clone with 7 billion tokens, premined, and give one token to every single person on Earth (trust fund stored until they are 25 years of age, or of mental inability), a short education given when token is received, and let value of the token loose to balance itself.

 

[Armenius]

Capitalism + UBI is closer to capitalism than socialism.

How? UBI is redistribution of wealth, which is a socialist concept.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

Yes....Go on, I am waiting.

The same mantra, "but but but, this is different!!!". No, AI doesn't actually "learn", rather AI can, in simulation with say video games, play matches at a rate no human player can, there is no thinking or learning in the way people think AI does. Rather they play a number of games a human could never play in its life time in short order and look at patterns with possible past games. AI can fill in repetitive and like jobs, but in most cases will require a human, if not a team of them to work with it, as it is not guided on its own, AI HAS to have human input and control, it needs hardware to be built and maintained, it needs coders and people to design it, update and change it, to look at and review its output, it does a good job in some areas, not so much in others and not all data or things it does are good or useful etc etc. Productivity will go up and hopefully mistakes/errors will go down, the jobs this replaces will shift to new areas and markets. You, like the others before you are having a knee jerk reaction to something you have no idea of it's impact, as every time we have had large changes in productivity, such as machines, automation, cars, computers etc etc we have had massive improvements in standard of living, yet you are crying this is different and will be the exact opposite.

Lol I didn't say that. Why did it say it was quoting me?

 

[dgingeri]

https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-means-slavery/?utm_source=zapier&utm