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

[Deleted member 184142]

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

That is odd lol, I did a manual edit for the right poster.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

That is odd lol, I did a manual edit for the right poster.

The AI did it. Lol.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

The AI did it. Lol.

Guess that means it has begun!

 

[DukenukemX]

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.

I don't understand your reasoning. You say A lot, but how? I've worked for a restaurant and they now have tablets that serve as menu's and the manager is capable of changing prices and what's available without the need of programing skills. Franchises like McDonald's, Burger King, and etc are going to use the same code and the same menu for pretty much everywhere, with some minor changes here and there.

But every fast food place currently does need people to operate the machinery, and to hand people food, as well as to process their order. Kiosks can do the order, flippy can operate itself, and a conveyor belt can hand them the food. Just need one human to make sure nothing goes wrong, and probably to manage the machines.

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.

Nobody is going to employ more people to do the same amount of work. Companies like people look to reduce the cost to operate, not to increase it. If automation is going to bring higher paying jobs then why would companies ever adopt AI/automation? Gotta think about that.

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.

You think you know, but why are smarter business men saying that automation will take jobs? Why are they saying we should embrace UBI? Especially since UBI doesn't benefit them as they'll be taxed higher? Elon Musk overshot this glaring mistake while sending his car into space?

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

I don't understand your reasoning. You say A lot, but how? I've worked for a restaurant and they now have tablets that serve as menu's and the manager is capable of changing prices and what's available without the need of programing skills. Franchises like McDonald's, Burger King, and etc are going to use the same code and the same menu for pretty much everywhere, with some minor changes here and there.

You aren't a developer, so you don't understand how this all works. The software for the kiosk must be written - that's a lot of developers right there. It must be maintained - i.e. there must be security patches, infrastructure, installation of the kiosks (a lot of electrician work here). So there's more than just "one guy" managing this even if there is only guy physically present in the restaurant. Second, this is subject to competition. Better, more user friendly UIs will compete for the kiosk dollar. There's advertisements - marketing studies that will be done showing the position of menu items, and banners, so as to maximize sales. That's a job. Somebody has to write the menu content - and while it may be shared across most McDonalds, there will be local variation. So more programming hours to build in the variability in pricing and menu items - it's not just a static one and done setup. More development hours.

You have graphic designers doing the menu graphics, you have photographers getting pictures of the burgers to make them look appetizing and delicious in the menu. Those are jobs. These things constantly change, too, as new menu items are introduced, and others are taken off. Not just one and done. Sure, the Big Mac is on forever, but what about a McRib or one of those specialty items. These are jobs. Happy meal toys are rotated every month - more menu, software, and content updates...

Meanwhile, the vendor that writes all this shit for McDonalds, presuming McDonalds doesn't use an in-house team, may recycle some of the code for a Burger King version - but Burger King will want their own spin on it. Different graphics, UI, content management strategy. The code can't just be taken off the shelf. Some parts may be reused, but other new parts must be modified or scratch built. More development hours. These are jobs.

There are robot designers, machinists, repairmen - indeed, a good career path for a lot of folks might be to get into Electrical work. Electricians are in obscenely high demand, and it will only grow as automation means more power delivery, more wire runs, more attention to detail - if you have an electrical problem, your business takes it up the ass, so more money will be invested here. My father is an electrician, and he wanted to retire some years ago - but he sticks around because he's pulling well over $100/hour doing this shit. It's BIG business, dude.

And here's the funny thing about development. You're never done. Version 1.0 of your kiosk software rolls out? You're already on 1.1. Or 2.0. Whatever... because new features, or higher resolutions. Or maybe you want faster performance, less server load, whatever... it never ends. It's a bottomless pit of work.

 

[Lizard Testes]

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

So is public education, does that mean the US is currently socialist?

 

[Lizard Testes]

Actually, yes, it does, definitely.

the guys talking about hard limits for income in communism, the entire line of discussion is a red herring because UBI has nothing to do with that.

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.

That isn't how taxes work and I don't think anyone is advocating that's how they should work.

UBI would shatter it all like glass.

Nah.

 

[Lizard Testes]

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?

No one said that it'd kill the economy, it's that it'll kill the middle class.

And it is.

 

[DukenukemX]

You aren't a developer, so you don't understand how this all works. The software for the kiosk must be written - that's a lot of developers right there. It must be maintained - i.e. there must be security patches, infrastructure, installation of the kiosks (a lot of electrician work here). So there's more than just "one guy" managing this even if there is only guy physically present in the restaurant. Second, this is subject to competition. Better, more user friendly UIs will compete for the kiosk dollar. There's advertisements - marketing studies that will be done showing the position of menu items, and banners, so as to maximize sales. That's a job. Somebody has to write the menu content - and while it may be shared across most McDonalds, there will be local variation. So more programming hours to build in the variability in pricing and menu items - it's not just a static one and done setup. More development hours.

But again, why would McDonalds pay workers with higher wages than to just employ more minimum wage paying workers assuming that in the end there's more money in peoples pockets overall compared to before? We've seen that today the new industries employ less people and make far more money than in the past. And while wages go up, far more people are now looking for jobs. Even if those people were educated, they won't find work cause the industry won't need as many people to operate.

And here's the funny thing about development. You're never done. Version 1.0 of your kiosk software rolls out? You're already on 1.1. Or 2.0. Whatever... because new features, or higher resolutions. Or maybe you want faster performance, less server load, whatever... it never ends. It's a bottomless pit of work.

For industries like Google and Microsoft, that's true. Not everyone has the money to make sure they don't become the next Equifax. Also, for how long were kiosk machines using Windows XP? Probably lots still do. The industry isn't very good at paying people to keep their networks secure. Also gotta consider the open source route as industries like Google are moving towards open source, which makes the code available to everyone.

Just cause I'm not a developer doesn't mean I don't understand how it works. I don't see more programmers needed in the future than burger flippers today.

 

[dgingeri]

the guys talking about hard limits for income in communism, the entire line of discussion is a red herring because UBI has nothing to do with that.



That isn't how taxes work and I don't think anyone is advocating that's how they should work.



Nah.

That is exactly how taxes work. The more someone makes, the more they're taxed. you can play all the games with the "the first part of the income is taxed at the lower levels, and only the excessive income is taxed higher" line, but that's proven to be BS due to the AMT.

 

[Lizard Testes]

That is exactly how taxes work. The more someone makes, the more they're taxed. you can play all the games with the "the first part of the income is taxed at the lower levels, and only the excessive income is taxed higher" line

Lol, that's not a "game", it's not BS, that's exactly how it works.

I suspect you have no idea how AMT works because it only comes into play at higher incomes when you have shitloads of deductions. It doesn't raise your tax OVER what the brackets would make it, it just prevents you from lowering your tax liability past a certain point.

Your silly statement makes it seem like you think someone with 100k in income could end up with less take home than someone with 60k in income which is not how it works. People making 100k don't also don't pay anywhere near 50% fed income tax. More like 18 to 20% or so.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

But again, why would McDonalds pay workers with higher wages than to just employ more minimum wage paying workers assuming that in the end there's more money in peoples pockets overall compared to before? We've seen that today the new industries employ less people and make far more money than in the past. And while wages go up, far more people are now looking for jobs. Even if those people were educated, they won't find work cause the industry won't need as many people to operate.

You're making an implicit assumption. Namely that as new technologies automate existing jobs, no (or too few) new jobs are created. History doesn't bear you out here. From primarily agriculture -> industrialization did not result in fewer jobs. It resulted in different jobs. Same for our transition from early industry to computerization, etc... 100 years ago, my job did not exist. 50 years ago very, very few had my job. Now shitloads of people write software. If you were correct, then as we see automation come into play with the industrial age (starting in the 1800s, really), we should have seen mass unemployment, and this mass unemployment should get progressively worse as more automation is introduced. We do not see that. There is no reason to believe this automation will be any different than previous automation. Namely, that people will give up some amount of scut work in exchange new kinds of work.

For industries like Google and Microsoft, that's true. Not everyone has the money to make sure they don't become the next Equifax. Also, for how long were kiosk machines using Windows XP? Probably lots still do. The industry isn't very good at paying people to keep their networks secure. Also gotta consider the open source route as industries like Google are moving towards open source, which makes the code available to everyone.

I work for a company with less than 300 employees. They write their own software in house. It's true for small companies and large companies. It's true even for freelancers and consultants. I'm sure there are plenty of kiosk machines that use shitty, old software. There are also plenty that use new software. The company I work for is transitioning from some old shit to newer, more secure shit. Plenty of money in that.

Just cause I'm not a developer doesn't mean I don't understand how it works. I don't see more programmers needed in the future than burger flippers today.

It's not just programmers. Most of this shit has to have a UI designed. We have designers for that. Branding. Graphics/Marketing people for that. Content population. Tech writers and such for that. And if you're talking kiosks, you need electricians to install it, run the cabling - and/or network engineers to maintain this network of kiosks, security analysts, etc etc... And your McDonalds still needs to be cleaned (think about the bathrooms mang!), inspected, and managed. You'll need more than one dude for that. Your kiosks are replacing a couple cashiers per restaurant. Your burger machines are replacing what... 2 people per restaurant? Maybe the McDonalds runs on half the staff, best case scenario. And while long term labor costs go down, cap ex is gonna be higher to get all this infrastructure. The savings overall aren't that big. Restaurants usually run on pretty slim margins, so even a percent or two here and there becomes significant for them.

Automation is GOOD man. Just like the fact that 90% of us don't have to be farmers (farming kinda sucks dude) is a GOOD thing. Don't be so afraid of it. People will still have jobs - they'll just be cooler jobs. Designing shit, writing code, writing content. Shit, how many interior decorators would we have in the world if it was still the 1800s? Boring to me, but hey, some people like that shit. Whatever.

 

[Lizard Testes]

50 years of steady middle class decline indicates that yes, there are replacement jobs, but they're on average shittier/lower paying.

 

[tetris42]

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.

Two points:

1. Let's say anyone in a country. That's an easier metric than the whole world.

2. You're misunderstanding, I'm not talking about a perfect system, I'm talking about one that if it's working as intended, everyone is covered. There's a WORLD of difference between that and a system, when working as intended, still leaves tons of people to fall through the cracks. Of course everything doesn't always work perfectly, that will happen under any system. Take something like the emergency room. You go there, they HAVE to accept you, you're covered. Sometimes hospitals have fuckups, sometimes they're overcrowded, but the point is if things are functioning properly, it works, and it's a guarantee. That's about the best you can aim for in anything.

Right now our system is you hunt for a job, if you find one, maybe it will provide enough for you to support yourself. There are no guarantees on you getting a job to support yourself, even if you're hard working and qualified. There's no guarantee that you won't eventually be out on the street even if you're frugal with your money. It's just a system of probabilities. If you're more skilled and / or more hard-working, you're more likely to have a job that supports you. What's happening is the probabilities are increasingly shifting against the average Joe due to automation, wage suppression, outsourcing, and a myriad of other factors. Seeing as how having a job is directly linked to meet your basic needs and there's no guarantee you'll have one, I call that a severely flawed system.

Another way to look at it: What's the answer to a situation where there are simply less jobs available than there are people who need them?

 

[dgingeri]

https://fee.org/articles/ubi-treats...emost-as-charity-cases/?utm_source=zapier&utm

 

[GoldenTiger]

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

Because he is bad at basic forum functions.

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....

This eleventy billion times.

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...

This too.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Another way to look at it: What's the answer to a situation where there are simply less jobs available than there are people who need them?

More rocketships.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

Right now our system is you hunt for a job, if you find one, maybe it will provide enough for you to support yourself. There are no guarantees on you getting a job to support yourself, even if you're hard working and qualified. There's no guarantee that you won't eventually be out on the street even if you're frugal with your money.

There are no guarantees in life, mang. You can't change that, as much as you may want to.

 

[dgingeri]

Two points:

1. Let's say anyone in a country. That's an easier metric than the whole world.

2. You're misunderstanding, I'm not talking about a perfect system, I'm talking about one that if it's working as intended, everyone is covered. There's a WORLD of difference between that and a system, when working as intended, still leaves tons of people to fall through the cracks. Of course everything doesn't always work perfectly, that will happen under any system. Take something like the emergency room. You go there, they HAVE to accept you, you're covered. Sometimes hospitals have fuckups, sometimes they're overcrowded, but the point is if things are functioning properly, it works, and it's a guarantee. That's about the best you can aim for in anything.

Right now our system is you hunt for a job, if you find one, maybe it will provide enough for you to support yourself. There are no guarantees on you getting a job to support yourself, even if you're hard working and qualified. There's no guarantee that you won't eventually be out on the street even if you're frugal with your money. It's just a system of probabilities. If you're more skilled and / or more hard-working, you're more likely to have a job that supports you. What's happening is the probabilities are increasingly shifting against the average Joe due to automation, wage suppression, outsourcing, and a myriad of other factors. Seeing as how having a job is directly linked to meet your basic needs and there's no guarantee you'll have one, I call that a severely flawed system.

Another way to look at it: What's the answer to a situation where there are simply less jobs available than there are people who need them?

You completely misunderstand the nature of this reality.

First, the reality is that people with a guaranteed job do NOTHING to improve on themselves or push their skills and their spirit forward. There HAS to be a situation where effort is required to get a job and to move forward with that job. Those who have that "safety net" sit on their butts and get nothing done to improve on that. This situation where "There's no guarantee that you won't eventually be out on the street even if you're frugal with your money." is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to BE human. It is the ONLY way some people will do ANYTHING to improve. The fact of the matter is that there are a great many that won't even work to improve themselves even under those conditions. They are, and should be, left behind and run over by the world. Those types of people are a detriment to society and drag us all down. I'm NOT talking about the people who lack capacity through a handicap, as even most of those people, an even higher percentage than those with perfect capacity, do what they can to move forward and improve on themselves. These idiots who work fast food into their 40s, trying to raise a family on such jobs, need to be smacked upside their heads to get them moving. It's is certain NOT that they are unable. It is that they are UNWILLING, and that cannot be tolerated, let alone supported. To support such behavior will cause the human race to stagnate and eventually die. To restrict people from their just rewards for moving forward and improving themselves will kill the human race. The way things were before welfare and socialism is the perfect system. These "safety nets" are destroying us.

Second, you seem to think that jobs are absolute numbers. They aren't. Neither is wealth. Fill higher level jobs with people within the country, and more money flows within the economy, this leads to more expansion and more wealth. This in turn creates more jobs. If those jobs cannot be filled locally, or if the job market locally prices local people out of the jobs, then they have to outsourced or filled by people from outside. This, in turn, doesn't allow for as much money flowing in the local economy and not as many jobs get created. This is where minimum wage laws hurt a country's economy. The US currently has hundreds of thousands of high paying ($60,000/year and up) jobs unfilled, from brick layers, welders, and crane operators to software developers and security administrators, that could be a great boon to the economy. I heard a radio advertisement this morning that they're looking for 14 crane operators in the Denver area alone. Filled, they would pump an additional 3-5% into the economy, and create even more jobs. However, there are people who are perfectly capable of doing many of those jobs who simply refuse to put any effort in and get off welfare to fill those jobs. (I know two of them personally, and have seen at least a dozen more hanging around with those two. They all would rather sit around a smoke pot. THAT'S what I hate most about pot.) If we take away their welfare, then those people would HAVE to do something about their income and those jobs might get filled. (Training for crane operators is currently being paid for by most employers, and only takes a week or two, but requires passing a drug test. We can't have high people operating cranes. All the idiots have to do to get a job paying as well as mine as a system admin is get off the drugs.) If those jobs get filled, then more money moves, and the economy expands, and more jobs get created. There is MORE than enough work to go around for everyone who is capable. It is just a matter of getting people to get up off their butts and DO it.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

You're misunderstanding, I'm not talking about a perfect system, I'm talking about one that if it's working as intended, everyone is covered.

"Everyone is covered" is an inherently utopian metric; a demand for perfection from the system. You could put every human being in the country in a Golden Corral buffet, mark the meal ticket free, and some dumbass would still manage to starve to death. Thus, imperfect at feeding everybody despite all your efforts. Humanity is inherently imperfect. Whatever your plan is, some number of humans will fuck it up. That has to be built into every assumption you make. UBI will not be universal, nor will it be sufficient to meet the basic needs of everyone. Some idiot will spend it all on crack or something. Another might blow it on a car he can't afford, get it repoed by the bank. Strippers for another guy. New hand bags for another gal, but damnit... somebody forgot to put food in the fridge, oh noez! Someone might literally flush it down the toilet because stupid. People do a lot of dumb shit. You can't control this. And we're not talking a small amount of stupid. We're not talking about an occasional exception to people otherwise having good sense.

We're talking a metric shitton of Teh Stoopid.

How do you ensure their basic needs are met? Without this, you cannot use the word "everyone" or "basic needs" because these are not factual statements. Then you're right back here, where you started. How do you provide for these people? You CAN'T. You throw money at the problem, but the problem doesn't change, because the problem isn't fundamentally related to their income, save for that a little motivation (less comfort in poverty) might get at least some of them off the ass. But never all. Never that.

Just look at lottery winners who find themselves broke after a couple of years. Plenty of examples of that behavior.

 

[tetris42]

You completely misunderstand the nature of this reality.

First, the reality is that people with a guaranteed job do NOTHING to improve on themselves or push their skills and their spirit forward. There HAS to be a situation where effort is required to get a job and to move forward with that job. Those who have that "safety net" sit on their butts and get nothing done to improve on that. This situation where "There's no guarantee that you won't eventually be out on the street even if you're frugal with your money." is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to BE human. It is the ONLY way some people will do ANYTHING to improve. The fact of the matter is that there are a great many that won't even work to improve themselves even under those conditions. They are, and should be, left behind and run over by the world. Those types of people are a detriment to society and drag us all down. I'm NOT talking about the people who lack capacity through a handicap, as even most of those people, an even higher percentage than those with perfect capacity, do what they can to move forward and improve on themselves. These idiots who work fast food into their 40s, trying to raise a family on such jobs, need to be smacked upside their heads to get them moving. It's is certain NOT that they are unable. It is that they are UNWILLING, and that cannot be tolerated, let alone supported. To support such behavior will cause the human race to stagnate and eventually die. To restrict people from their just rewards for moving forward and improving themselves will kill the human race. The way things were before welfare and socialism is the perfect system. These "safety nets" are destroying us.

Second, you seem to think that jobs are absolute numbers. They aren't. Neither is wealth. Fill higher level jobs with people within the country, and more money flows within the economy, this leads to more expansion and more wealth. This in turn creates more jobs. If those jobs cannot be filled locally, or if the job market locally prices local people out of the jobs, then they have to outsourced or filled by people from outside. This, in turn, doesn't allow for as much money flowing in the local economy and not as many jobs get created. This is where minimum wage laws hurt a country's economy. The US currently has hundreds of thousands of high paying ($60,000/year and up) jobs unfilled, from brick layers, welders, and crane operators to software developers and security administrators, that could be a great boon to the economy. I heard a radio advertisement this morning that they're looking for 14 crane operators in the Denver area alone. Filled, they would pump an additional 3-5% into the economy, and create even more jobs. However, there are people who are perfectly capable of doing many of those jobs who simply refuse to put any effort in and get off welfare to fill those jobs. (I know two of them personally, and have seen at least a dozen more hanging around with those two. They all would rather sit around a smoke pot. THAT'S what I hate most about pot.) If we take away their welfare, then those people would HAVE to do something about their income and those jobs might get filled. (Training for crane operators is currently being paid for by most employers, and only takes a week or two, but requires passing a drug test. We can't have high people operating cranes. All the idiots have to do to get a job paying as well as mine as a system admin is get off the drugs.) If those jobs get filled, then more money moves, and the economy expands, and more jobs get created. There is MORE than enough work to go around for everyone who is capable. It is just a matter of getting people to get up off their butts and DO it.

You claim I'm misunderstanding things, but then you're making it obvious you're misunderstanding what I wrote.

For the first part:

You're essentially claiming there is NO DIFFERENCE between working just to survive and not die v. someone working in order to have nicer things, more status, achieve greater success as those these are exactly the same thing. You're trying to make the argument that fear of death is the ONLY motivator for humanity. Sure, it certainly is a PRIME one. Creating a system around that when there are other means is just stupid. Fear of death doesn't make people better workers, at least in the long term. In fact, your IQ is literally lower when you're in a constantly stressed environment and have scarcity mentality. Look it up.

I think I'm spotting a fallacy in your thinking though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you see it as the case where EVERYONE who is hard working, capable, and willing to adapt, can provide themselves under our current system? I'm not talking individuals I'm talking EVERYONE who matches that descrption. So not the deadbeats, not the idiots, but the motivated and capable people of all stations in life. If your answer is "yes", then you're completely oblivious as to what's happening on a macro level, there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

Your second point:

I said nothing about a fixed number of jobs. Of course that's dynamic. The whole POINT of automation is to cut costs and replace workers. In the industrial and computer revolution, the number of potential opportunities exploded from that. The burden of evidence is essentially on you to show that the number of projected new jobs will easily exceed the number lost. If you can, then you have an argument. If you can't, then you're reinforcing the point that we have a problem looming. Personally, I'm not seeing these massive number of jobs being CREATED by AI that don't already exist and are in such large numbers they can make up for tens of millions due to be phased out, but that's me.

By "musical chairs", that doesn't mean chairs aren't added and taken away. The only number that matters is how many chairs there are versus players. If you have 8 chairs and 10 players, add 2, then take away 5, there's still not enough chairs.

"Everyone is covered" is an inherently utopian metric; a demand for perfection from the system. You could put every human being in the country in a Golden Corral buffet, mark the meal ticket free, and some dumbass would still manage to starve to death. Thus, imperfect at feeding everybody despite all your efforts. Humanity is inherently imperfect. Whatever your plan is, some number of humans will fuck it up. That has to be built into every assumption you make. UBI will not be universal, nor will it be sufficient to meet the basic needs of everyone. Some idiot will spend it all on crack or something. Another might blow it on a car he can't afford, get it repoed by the bank. Strippers for another guy. New hand bags for another gal, but damnit... somebody forgot to put food in the fridge, oh noez! Someone might literally flush it down the toilet because stupid. People do a lot of dumb shit. You can't control this. And we're not talking a small amount of stupid. We're not talking about an occasional exception to people otherwise having good sense.

We're talking a metric shitton of Teh Stoopid.

How do you ensure their basic needs are met? Without this, you cannot use the word "everyone" or "basic needs" because these are not factual statements. Then you're right back here, where you started. How do you provide for these people? You CAN'T. You throw money at the problem, but the problem doesn't change, because the problem isn't fundamentally related to their income, save for that a little motivation (less comfort in poverty) might get at least some of them off the ass. But never all. Never that.

Just look at lottery winners who find themselves broke after a couple of years. Plenty of examples of that behavior.

It's like you didn't even read what I said or completely missed it. I'm not talking about perfection. I'm talking about the difference between systems where the GOAL is perfection v. intentionally reinforcing flaws. I used the emergency room as an example. That's not perfect, but its GOAL is to treat everyone and is as close to a guarantee as we get. The same goes for many other services. What you're describing would be like if you came into the emergency room, you had to roll some dice. If you get a 7 or 11, you don't get treated that day, then complained about people demanding perfection that point out that's a flawed system.

This "perfection" which you seem to be missing the concept is applied to many different services. If you call the police and say someone is trying to kill you, assuming the system is functioning, they'll show up at your house. They don't say "maybe we'll come, maybe we won't". Same for the fire department, the water utility etc. That doesn't mean it works 100% every time, but it means that's the GOAL and it's the EXCEPTION when it doesn't work, not the standard.

Now if it's a 3rd world country, sure. None of that shit is guaranteed. Maybe you get water to your home, maybe you don't, that's life. Guaranteeing clean water is Utopian, right? That seems to be what you're saying we should have with providing for ourselves.

I also said in a post UBI may not be the answer. The point is UBI could provide the MEANS to support yourself. Like you said, somebody may may terrible decisions. Fine. Well then they at least had the OPPORTUNITY to save themselves, it's on them if they fucked up. I'm not saying everyone should be guaranteed a job if they're a fuckup. I'm saying everyone who is NOT a fuckup should be guaranteed a means of supporting themselves. Do you understand the difference between those two concepts? That is not at all what we have now. Again, it's a system of probabilities with the odds heading slowly in a downward direction.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

It's like you didn't even read what I said or completely missed it.

Look at the words you choose. These have meanings. "Everyone" is not "some people" or even "most people". You use terms like universal to describe things that are not and cannot be universal. You use guarantees for things that aren't guaranteed. Catch my drift?

I'm not talking about perfection. I'm talking about the difference between systems where the GOAL is perfection v. intentionally reinforcing flaws...

...That doesn't mean it works 100% every time, but it means that's the GOAL and it's the EXCEPTION when it doesn't work, not the standard.

So here's the fallacy. You are talking about perfection... until you aren't. Or, put another way... if you've taken any calculus or pre-calc, you might be familiar with limits. You are treating human institutions as a limit approaching perfection. And the lever for moving closer to perfection is more redistributive activity, which we might account as an overall social cost (and a cost to the individual net taxpayer). There's an inherent problem with treating people this way: diminishing returns. Pick a First World country. How many people are really poor? I don't mean the bottom 10% or 20% of income or net worth. I don't mean people who struggle to pay bills at the end of the month, or people who struggle to find work, or people who live in shitty areas. I mean people who are starving to death. People who have nowhere to live, nobody to take them in, nobody willing to help them. People who die of exposure to the elements. People who are Third World levels of poor.

It's a very small percentage. Poverty of the sort we saw in the Great Depression, and see today in the Third World has been largely (though not 100%) eliminated in the First World. If you need food, you can generally get it. If you need shelter, it exists. Oh, like you say, it is not perfect. Some slip through the cracks. And like my example with the Golden Corral buffet, some have the opportunity to get the help and don't take it - or deliberately misuse/abuse it. But your mission is largely achieved. People who starve to death in the First World are the EXCEPTION (all-caps, to quote you).

But now, because we have not achieved perfection, we must expend vast sums of taxpayer dollars for this Universal Basic Income, to reduce this number by -- maybe -- a little bit? And without attention to the very human costs of potentially decreased motivation; the loss of human talent that might have otherwise been pushed to shine? No. Diminishing returns, my man.

 

[tetris42]

Look at the words you choose. These have meanings. "Everyone" is not "some people" or even "most people". You use terms like universal to describe things that are not and cannot be universal. You use guarantees for things that aren't guaranteed. Catch my drift?

I didn't come up with the term universal basic income. Some phrases are more commonly used if literally inaccurate. "Inequality" is particularly a pet peeve of mine. When people talk about inequality, literal inequality isn't the problem, there SHOULD be inequality for multiple reasons. What they're really talking about is "inequality so extreme the top has enough money to rewrite our government while the bottom is starving."

"Everyone" is still applicable when talking about a goal. Again, "everyone" gets treated at the emergency room. That doesn't mean literally everyone gets treated due to human error, but it does mean that's the GOAL and the STANDARD to be aiming for. Not "everyone" gets a job who needs one who is qualified and seeking one, because that isn't currently our goal. So the term is still valid when talking conceptually, though I can understand the confusion. Of course in reality you won't have perfection and you won't have EVERYONE covered for something. My point was there's an enormous difference between TRYING to cover everyone versus letting luck determine how it plays out.

So here's the fallacy. You are talking about perfection... until you aren't. Or, put another way... if you've taken any calculus or pre-calc, you might be familiar with limits. You are treating human institutions as a limit approaching perfection. And the lever for moving closer to perfection is more redistributive activity, which we might account as an overall social cost (and a cost to the individual net taxpayer). There's an inherent problem with treating people this way: diminishing returns. Pick a First World country. How many people are really poor? I don't mean the bottom 10% or 20% of income or net worth. I don't mean people who struggle to pay bills at the end of the month, or people who struggle to find work, or people who live in shitty areas. I mean people who are starving to death. People who have nowhere to live, nobody to take them in, nobody willing to help them. People who die of exposure to the elements. People who are Third World levels of poor.

It's a very small percentage. Poverty of the sort we saw in the Great Depression, and see today in the Third World has been largely (though not 100%) eliminated in the First World. If you need food, you can generally get it. If you need shelter, it exists. Oh, like you say, it is not perfect. Some slip through the cracks. And like my example with the Golden Corral buffet, some have the opportunity to get the help and don't take it - or deliberately misuse/abuse it. But your mission is largely achieved. People who starve to death in the First World are the EXCEPTION (all-caps, to quote you).

Well you're right, we're not hitting 3rd world numbers yet. We still have enough food, though malnutrition rates are pretty substantial. It's hard to find stats on this stuff (you're welcome to post you own), but I found some here:

That says 30 million don't get or at risk of not getting enough food to meet their caloric needs. That's not the same as starving, but it's hardly a great metric. 8.5 million Americans experience that on a daily basis. So that's about 10% of the population not reliably having enough food, with 2.5% experiencing that every day. Now compare that against the poverty rate (regardless of what you think of it), which is around 12%. Now I'm sure it's not a 100% overlap, but I imagine it's pretty damn close since the people being recorded as not having enough to eat are likely not the same ones driving Ferraris by any significant percentage. So that means if you're in poverty, about 83% aren't getting enough to eat, with 20% not getting enough to eat every day. Now granted It's hard to account for who is deliberately refusing food, but I imagine it's a very small number. I'd say the percentages are significant for a 1st world country. Also this says nothing of malnutrition, which I couldn't find numbers on, though I imagine is much higher (though that's much easier to overlap with poor decision making also and not just limited means).

So yeah, you've got me, the people literally starving to death is very low in the united states, however the number of people who literally aren't getting enough to eat I'd still say is pretty substantial compared to other developed countries. As for homelessness about 3.5 million experience it at some point throughout the year, so still relatively low. The problem is that's NOW. We're on a knife's edge with about half the country not being able to afford a $400 emergency. That's massive insecurity right there. Sure, some of that is due to fiscal irresponsibility, but half the country? Literally every 2nd person you see? I'd say that's extremely unlikely, given how the #1 cause of bankruptcy is from frivolous things like medical bills. If tens of millions gets displaced, all the numbers that don't look so bad now will start downsliding and eventually resemble the 3rd world numbers over a long enough time period. Right now our GOAL is not to make sure everyone gets fed, nor is it to ensure everyone who wants to support themselves can. It's more just create patchwork level of support with dog eat dog more or less being the heralded standard.

But now, because we have not achieved perfection, we must expend vast sums of taxpayer dollars for this Universal Basic Income, to reduce this number by -- maybe -- a little bit? And without attention to the very human costs of potentially decreased motivation; the loss of human talent that might have otherwise been pushed to shine? No. Diminishing returns, my man.

Again, for the 3rd time, I'm not saying UBI is necessarily the answer (see, you use "universal" too). The point is that if everyone is given enough money to survive and they still struggle, then that's on them. It provides a much clearer platform for determining who can't get their shit together v. who never had the chance to begin with.

Now that said, believe it or not, I actually think UBI won't work, simply because rent seekers will just raise rates to match UBI (not immediately, but over time). UBI only works if what the people receiving is actually enough to survive. If the market reacts by changing so that no longer is enough to survive (which I think it would), we're right back to zero.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

I didn't come up with the term universal basic income. Some phrases are more commonly used if literally inaccurate. "Inequality" is particularly a pet peeve of mine. When people talk about inequality, literal inequality isn't the problem, there SHOULD be inequality for multiple reasons.

Don't think anybody said you did? However, you are attempting to actually apply it as stated. I.e. in the context of 'everyone', or universally as it were. As for inequality, I'm pleased you agree.

My point was there's an enormous difference between TRYING to cover everyone versus letting luck determine how it plays out.

Kind of a strawman, my dude. I never claimed we should just let luck determine things. That would be retarded considering we are sentient beings with at least some level of control over our environment. What I'm attempting to get across to you, and I shall try again, is that such actions impose a cost. Undue focus on one thing - a pursuit of perfection in an area - delivers diminishing returns for increasing cost. Put simply, money for UBI could almost certainly be better spent elsewhere. Second, there is the potential cost of dampening human spirit; of demotivating people. More UBI =/= more perfect just because you are throwing more money at the problem. This holds true for many concepts. For instance, we often complain that education needs more funding. Okay, let's use this as an example. How much more? Double? Triple? 10x? If we spend 10x what we do now on education, will we get education that is 10x better? Doubtful. With UBI we could get more money to poor people, sure. But will we get a good return on this (dubious) investment? Different question altogether.

Well you're right, we're not hitting 3rd world numbers yet. We still have enough food, though malnutrition rates are pretty substantial. It's hard to find stats on this stuff (you're welcome to post you own), but I found some here:

That says 30 million don't get or at risk of not getting enough food to meet their caloric needs. That's not the same as starving, but it's hardly a great metric. 8.5 million Americans experience that on a daily basis. So that's about 10% of the population not reliably having enough food, with 2.5% experiencing that every day.

I love numbers like these. They are a way of telling a lie with the truth (yes, not the contradiction it first seems). Let's break that apart a bit. From the linked piece: "More than 30 million Americans experience hunger regularly or are at risk of going hungry, according to the Child Welfare League of America. Some 8.5 million Americans, including nearly 3 million children, experience hunger on a daily basis[.] Many of them must rely on food banks and church-sponsored hot meals programs to get by. Of course, those who don't get enough to eat run the risk of becoming malnourished."

What is "at risk" of going hungry? Theoretically could be hungry? Maybe if things get a little worse, you might experience hunger? If that is the worst we experience, we are quite fortunate, and sit on top of the entire sum of recorded human history. A few centuries ago, That roughly 10% of the population might at some point be theoretically hungry would be seen as a miracle from God himself.

Second claim is the meat here. 8.5 million Americans actually go hungry - not theoretical hunger, but real, on a daily basis. Current population is approximately 326 million. This is 2.6% of the population. We're starting to get into "exception" territory here. And even these are, the article admits, often served by food banks and hot meal programs. But there we have it, 2.6% who are really, truly, and by objective definition impoverished. And for them, there is still some support and help. Not bad, considering the sum total of human history up to this point. Quite marvelous, actually.

We're on a knife's edge with about half the country not being able to afford a $400 emergency. That's massive insecurity right there. Sure, some of that is due to fiscal irresponsibility, but half the country? Literally every 2nd person you see? I'd say that's extremely unlikely, given how the #1 cause of bankruptcy is from frivolous things like medical bills.

I've read this data before elsewhere in another article which I picked apart on a political blog some time ago. There is much more to it than that, but it's actually somewhat worse than you believe. Give that article a read and see if you can identify the problem. Fiscal irresponsibility and financial illiteracy is really, really bad in America. I don't know if it's this bad in other First World countries or not, but here? Oh yes, it's worse than you believe.

I agree with you that this is a very big problem, but I disagree on the primary contributor. Most of these folks who are in debt up to their eyeballs aren't there because of they got hit with a cancer bill they couldn't pay. Some are, I am sure - and for them I have genuine sympathy (our healthcare system is something of a barely-functioning wreck, but that's a topic for another time). But most? Financial illiteracy and poor time preferences. UBI is not likely to solve this problem. Indeed, it may make it worse. Give a crack addict more money, what will he do? Get more crack. Give a debt addict more money, what will he do? Yup...

Or maybe they'll just check out altogether and become useless shells of human beings (crack and debt both do this well enough). Either way, nothing good comes of this.

Again, for the 3rd time, I'm not saying UBI is necessarily the answer (see, you use "universal" too). The point is that if everyone is given enough money to survive and they still struggle, then that's on them. It provides a much clearer platform for determining who can't get their shit together v. who never had the chance to begin with.

Now that said, believe it or not, I actually think UBI won't work, simply because rent seekers will just raise rates to match UBI (not immediately, but over time). UBI only works if what the people receiving is actually enough to survive. If the market reacts by changing so that no longer is enough to survive (which I think it would), we're right back to zero.

I don't actually try to apply it universally/to everybody (and fail), you do. And I am completely opposed to it anyway. You may be opposed to the specific implementation, but you clearly like the general idea. You could call it fluffy skittletits, and I'd still oppose it. I don't think it will work because it creates an army of demoralized serfs (see above), beholden to whatever politician(s) are feeding the UBI trough with taxpayer money. It will become a 'bribe the pigpen with more scraps' game in short order. And eventually you run out of other people's money. Nothing good happens then. Nothing good at all.

 

[tetris42]

Don't think anybody said you did? However, you are attempting to actually apply it as stated. I.e. in the context of 'everyone', or universally as it were

What are you talking about? Yes, I am using the term "universal basic income" to mean income given to every citizen, as it's generally defined. You seem to have a problem with me using this term as it's defined.

You use terms like universal to describe things that are not and cannot be universal.

Considering how I haven't used to the word "universal" outside of the phrase "universal basic income" you seem to be upset with the definition of the phrase?

Kind of a strawman, my dude. I never claimed we should just let luck determine things.

I drew that as the conclusion as what you were saying. It's like if I said "well we have 2 + 2 here" then said "Whoa, I never said we had 4." But if I'm misunderstanding, fair enough. Please tell me then, if you do NOT think it should be left to luck, what IS the solution to a scenario where there are not enough jobs available (current, invented, self-employed, or otherwise) for everybody who needs a job and is willing to work? All I seem to be hearing is either silence, deflection, or denial that a situation could even exist. To me, that's fantasy. Ask anyone who's busted ass each day for months on end looking for work while their finances run out if that's an unrealistic scenario. Christ, if that were true, the only unemployed people would be people who do NOT want to work, and they're not even counted under unemployment stats. So if I'm misunderstanding, explain to me what's your solution to a problem like that?

I've read this data before elsewhere in another article which I picked apart on a political blog some time ago. There is much more to it than that, but it's actually somewhat worse than you believe. Give that article a read and see if you can identify the problem. Fiscal irresponsibility and financial illiteracy is really, really bad in America. I don't know if it's this bad in other First World countries or not, but here? Oh yes, it's worse than you believe.

Well most of that article is anecdotal evidence about a writer not being able to manage his money, but he does have some points in there too. I guess it's surprising to me since it's a completely different sphere of what I've grown up with and have known. I've grown up basically almost never eating out, almost never going to movies or entertainment venues, try to save everything, get the absolute cheapest items you can that maximize value over the long term. Avoid debt at all costs. Take on roommates to reduce rent costs, buy from flea markets, used, when you can, etc. I've penny pinched and saved my whole life and I'm actually NOT in that $400 category, but I've been there before and it's largely luck I've gotten out of it. My habits helped, for sure, but one emergency at the wrong time and I would have been down permanently and likely never able to recover financially. I'm deeply against having that level of financial security be inflicted on anyone, let alone have it be the standard. So, I guess you could be right on that, but let's say even 10% of the people who don't have those kinds of savings have been doing everything responsible financially. That's still about 15 million people. I feel like a lot of the narrative in this thread acts like if you're responsible with your income, you'll be fine, not realizing how completely false that can be for many people.

I don't actually try to apply it universally/to everybody (and fail), you do.

Again, I don't know what the hell you're talking about here. You seem to be taking offense at the definition of UBI from how you explain it. Would you prefer I called it something else?

You may be opposed to the specific implementation, but you clearly like the general idea.

And you clearly like people starving in the street. Oh wait, did I get that wrong because that's creating a caricature of you that doesn't resemble reality and putting words in your mouth? That's what you just did.

Where did I say I like UBI? What I like are SOLUTIONS. If UBI would actually solve responsible people not going homeless or going hungry, I would be in favor of it. If it wouldn't, I would not be in favor of it. I was initially ambiguous of it, but upon realizing that market forces would raise the cost of living to match UBI, I'm against it, since it wouldn't solve anything in the long term. Again, crime is a problem, houses catching fire are a problem, people getting hurt and sick is a problem. So we build police stations, fire stations, and hospitals in every town and city and fund them to make sure they can service everyone. Those are solutions. If they're underfunded, or mismanaged, they're inadequate. If they're well funded and well managed, they do about as good a job as is humanely possible.

The situation of increased automation, stagnating wages and disappearing jobs over the next 10 years is a problem. Maintaining the course and not having a significant change is not a solution, that will lead to the problem growing worse over time. So again, what's your solution?

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

What are you talking about? Yes, I am using the term "universal basic income" to mean income given to every citizen, as it's generally defined. You seem to have a problem with me using this term as it's defined.
Considering how I haven't used to the word "universal" outside of the phrase "universal basic income" you seem to be upset with the definition of the phrase?

I "seem" to be upset? I've been nothing but respectful with you. Please cite where I have been "upset" with you, or with the word. My point is that you are using terms like 'everybody' and 'guarantee' in conjunction with a drive toward perfection. You actually are attempting to apply this concept universally. I am explaining to you that this cannot be. You cannot guarantee basic needs to everybody. Universal Basic Income is not actually Universal, nor Basic. It is not your fault someone came up with this term, or that you use it to describe the political/economic policy. Like I said, someone could call it fluffy skittletits, and we'd still be having the same disagreement if you attempted to say that everybody should be guaranteed it; that we must have perfect fluffy skittletits (lol).

I drew that as the conclusion as what you were saying. It's like if I said "well we have 2 + 2 here" then said "Whoa, I never said we had 4." But if I'm misunderstanding, fair enough. Please tell me then, if you do NOT think it should be left to luck, what IS the solution to a scenario where there are not enough jobs available (current, invented, self-employed, or otherwise) for everybody who needs a job and is willing to work? All I seem to be hearing is either silence, deflection, or denial that a situation could even exist. To me, that's fantasy. Ask anyone who's busted ass each day for months on end looking for work while their finances run out if that's an unrealistic scenario. Christ, if that were true, the only unemployed people would be people who do NOT want to work, and they're not even counted under unemployment stats. So if I'm misunderstanding, explain to me what's your solution to a problem like that?

For the moment, this situation doesn't exist on a meta level - there are sufficient jobs countrywide. This is not always true locally, however. Some areas have a surplus of jobs, others too little. I once drove across the country in 48 hours and lived out of my car for a job. Sometimes it's hard, man. There will always be some folks looking for work. People cycle in and out of the job market. That it's not always easy to find work doesn't mean it's not possible to find work. That being said, of course there are times, bad economy or otherwise, where enough jobs are not available for everybody willing. That this happens does not necessarily justify UBI as the solution. Nor does it mean we must expect perfection; namely that every single willing person must, at all times, have a job available for him. We must weigh the cost of your proposed solution with the benefit.

Long term, if and when we approach post-scarcity, the solution is easier than you think. Read Asimov's Robots of Dawn sometime. In it, a solution to robotic automation eventually rendering almost all human labor superfluous is presented. Namely, that each citizen is supplied with a bare minimum of one robot. In essence, giving each poor citizen at least one "means of production" or capital, so to speak, with which he can do what he wills. So that even the poorest man can be a capitalist, and produce things sufficient to support him; he can use the robot to make all kinds of cool shit to sell, or to keep for himself. It differs from UBI in the fact that it encourages the human spirit and inventiveness instead of suppressing it.

We aren't there yet. Post-scarcity isn't here, and the jobs exist. But if you want an ultimate solution to your fear of automation, there it is.

Well most of that article is anecdotal evidence about a writer not being able to manage his money, but he does have some points in there too. I guess it's surprising to me since it's a completely different sphere of what I've grown up with and have known. I've grown up basically almost never eating out, almost never going to movies or entertainment venues, try to save everything, get the absolute cheapest items you can that maximize value over the long term. Avoid debt at all costs. Take on roommates to reduce rent costs, buy from flea markets, used, when you can, etc. I've penny pinched and saved my whole life and I'm actually NOT in that $400 category, but I've been there before and it's largely luck I've gotten out of it. My habits helped, for sure, but one emergency at the wrong time and I would have been down permanently and likely never able to recover financially. I'm deeply against having that level of financial security be inflicted on anyone, let alone have it be the standard. So, I guess you could be right on that, but let's say even 10% of the people who don't have those kinds of savings have been doing everything responsible financially. That's still about 15 million people. I feel like a lot of the narrative in this thread acts like if you're responsible with your income, you'll be fine, not realizing how completely false that can be for many people.

Nope. Remember when I said there are no guarantees in life? There aren't. For the most part, if you manage your money and time preferences well, you'll probably be okay. But you could get hit by a bus, too. Shit happens, man. But you can also dig yourself out of it. I've had financial emergencies that would make your head explode. I dug myself out. But, like you say, this is all anecdotal. What isn't anecdotal - and I suggest you dig around and do some research on it - is the level of strictly optional debt Americans get into; that as a country, we live beyond our means (look up credit card debt stats, car loan debt stats, hell - installment loans on furniture, lol). Else I sure wouldn't see a guy driving a new BMW complaining about his student loan. Buy a beater and pay that shit off!

Again, I don't know what the hell you're talking about here. You seem to be taking offense at the definition of UBI from how you explain it. Would you prefer I called it something else?

I seem to be taking offense? Lolwut? I don't know where you're getting this idea that I'm offended or upset or something. We're just bullshitting on a forum because bored, right? I mean, we're not actually solving shit here.

The situation of increased automation, stagnating wages and disappearing jobs over the next 10 years is a problem. Maintaining the course and not having a significant change is not a solution, that will lead to the problem growing worse over time. So again, what's your solution?

In the short-to-medium term, I see no threat from increased automation, as historically this 'threat' has been grossly overstated (see: Industrial Revolution, etc...). So my solution is 'don't fuck with it.' In the long term, should post-scarcity ever come, my solution is as stated above.

 

[DKS]

Good and I hope it stays there. I didn't invest $100k+ of my own money and 7 additional years of my life to obtain an undergraduate and graduate degree in order increase my marketability and make a good income to end up spending it on those who didn't. I'm not going to reward people who only have a high-school diploma and no motivation to develop skills (doesn't even have to be schooling) with my own hard earned cash.

It would appear your biases stand in the way of understanding. In the Dauphin experiment in Canada in the 1970's what happened is that employment went up, people (especially young people) stayed in school or went back to school, developed their skills and then got better jobs, earning more money. People bought more because they had more money. Their physical and mental health also improved. Unfortunately the government pulled the pin on the experiment and buried the data for 30 years. It has now been analyzed properly. The program works with none of the outcomes you suggest. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good bias.

 

[DKS]

I always roll my eyes at this argument. UBI supporters would have us believe that humanity is teeming with latent Einsteins, Van Goghs, da Vincis, and Mozarts, if only people didn't have to work for a living. The truth is—which we all know—is that most would uselessly pass their time sitting on their asses, getting even fatter than they are now. The minority who do actually try to do something productive or creative will just churn out trash. Truly talented and driven people don't let working a day job stop them.

I don't know where you get that idea about UBI, but to be charitable, it's misplaced. And it's not about UBI.

 

[tetris42]

I "seem" to be upset? I've been nothing but respectful with you. Please cite where I have been "upset" with you, or with the word. My point is that you are using terms like 'everybody' and 'guarantee' in conjunction with a drive toward perfection. You actually are attempting to apply this concept universally. I am explaining to you that this cannot be. You cannot guarantee basic needs to everybody. Universal Basic Income is not actually Universal, nor Basic. It is not your fault someone came up with this term, or that you use it to describe the political/economic policy. Like I said, someone could call it fluffy skittletits, and we'd still be having the same disagreement if you attempted to say that everybody should be guaranteed it; that we must have perfect fluffy skittletits (lol).



For the moment, this situation doesn't exist on a meta level - there are sufficient jobs countrywide. This is not always true locally, however. Some areas have a surplus of jobs, others too little. I once drove across the country in 48 hours and lived out of my car for a job. Sometimes it's hard, man. There will always be some folks looking for work. People cycle in and out of the job market. That it's not always easy to find work doesn't mean it's not possible to find work. That being said, of course there are times, bad economy or otherwise, where enough jobs are not available for everybody willing. That this happens does not necessarily justify UBI as the solution. Nor does it mean we must expect perfection; namely that every single willing person must, at all times, have a job available for him. We must weigh the cost of your proposed solution with the benefit.

Long term, if and when we approach post-scarcity, the solution is easier than you think. Read Asimov's Robots of Dawn sometime. In it, a solution to robotic automation eventually rendering almost all human labor superfluous is presented. Namely, that each citizen is supplied with a bare minimum of one robot. In essence, giving each poor citizen at least one "means of production" or capital, so to speak, with which he can do what he wills. So that even the poorest man can be a capitalist, and produce things sufficient to support him; he can use the robot to make all kinds of cool shit to sell, or to keep for himself. It differs from UBI in the fact that it encourages the human spirit and inventiveness instead of suppressing it.

We aren't there yet. Post-scarcity isn't here, and the jobs exist. But if you want an ultimate solution to your fear of automation, there it is.




Nope. Remember when I said there are no guarantees in life? There aren't. For the most part, if you manage your money and time preferences well, you'll probably be okay. But you could get hit by a bus, too. Shit happens, man. But you can also dig yourself out of it. I've had financial emergencies that would make your head explode. I dug myself out. But, like you say, this is all anecdotal. What isn't anecdotal - and I suggest you dig around and do some research on it - is the level of strictly optional debt Americans get into; that as a country, we live beyond our means (look up credit card debt stats, car loan debt stats, hell - installment loans on furniture, lol). Else I sure wouldn't see a guy driving a new BMW complaining about his student loan. Buy a beater and pay that shit off!




I seem to be taking offense? Lolwut? I don't know where you're getting this idea that I'm offended or upset or something. We're just bullshitting on a forum because bored, right? I mean, we're not actually solving shit here.



In the short-to-medium term, I see no threat from increased automation, as historically this 'threat' has been grossly overstated (see: Industrial Revolution, etc...). So my solution is 'don't fuck with it.' In the long term, should post-scarcity ever come, my solution is as stated above.

Well, I tried to explain my perspective. I think some of it got through, some of it didn't. I'll just leave on the bullet points:

•There is an enormous difference between aiming to cover everyone imperfectly in a system vs. designing it so people won't to be covered. None of what you said seems to understand the difference (or believe it's possible). This is crucial to the discussion. It's the difference between a hospital saying it will only admit 10 people to the ER per day v. saying it will admit everyone, they'll just have to wait longer if it's crowded. One system will serve 10 people per day and let everyone else fend for themselves, another could serve 125 and accidentally let 2 die due to waiting. I disagree with the "there are no guarantees" mantra as a way justify the 10 people per day system. If you still don't get it, I can't explain it much better.

•In case you're still unclear, I don't think UBI will work, but mostly due to how the market would price things to react to it. I'm not a ideological proponent of UBI, I'm just in favor of solutions to problems. Something like a jobs program could work to pick up the slack if the private sector can't provide enough jobs, but that would also require political will, which I'm skeptical of happening also.

•You said yourself your solution is to not fix anything because you think it's not broken and won't be a significant problem as time goes on. If it does get worse, you said there's either no solution or else have to point to a fantastical scenario that relies on sci fi technology to preserve complete free market capitalism. So in other words, you're saying this isn't going to be a problem, but if it is, you have no solution to it, and your prescription is to do nothing. I think that tells me the core of what I need to know. If I have looming problems, convincing myself they don't exist, then planning on doing nothing is not how I solve them, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[dgingeri]

Well, I tried to explain my perspective. I think some of it got through, some of it didn't. I'll just leave on the bullet points:

•There is an enormous difference between aiming to cover everyone imperfectly in a system vs. designing it so people won't to be covered. None of what you said seems to understand the difference (or believe it's possible). This is crucial to the discussion. It's the difference between a hospital saying it will only admit 10 people to the ER per day v. saying it will admit everyone, they'll just have to wait longer if it's crowded. One system will serve 10 people per day and let everyone else fend for themselves, another could serve 125 and accidentally let 2 die due to waiting. I disagree with the "there are no guarantees" mantra as a way justify the 10 people per day system. If you still don't get it, I can't explain it much better.

•In case you're still unclear, I don't think UBI will work, but mostly due to how the market would price things to react to it. I'm not a ideological proponent of UBI, I'm just in favor of solutions to problems. Something like a jobs program could work to pick up the slack if the private sector can't provide enough jobs, but that would also require political will, which I'm skeptical of happening also.

•You said yourself your solution is to not fix anything because you think it's not broken and won't be a significant problem as time goes on. If it does get worse, you said there's either no solution or else have to point to a fantastical scenario that relies on sci fi technology to preserve complete free market capitalism. So in other words, you're saying this isn't going to be a problem, but if it is, you have no solution to it, and your prescription is to do nothing. I think that tells me the core of what I need to know. If I have looming problems, convincing myself they don't exist, then planning on doing nothing is not how I solve them, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

OK, let's address those.

Case 1: No matter the intentions, nobody in the world would be able to admit everyone at an emergency room. They would have a limitation as to how many they can serve per minute, hour, or day, simply because of scarcity. There is ALWAYS a limit. If an emergency room has 18 spots for patients and 6 nurses and 2 doctors, they certainly would not be able to serve everyone if 200 people came in per hour. It just could not be done. Our health care system is similar, in that "covering everyone" just leads to more and more people flooding in with a system that is already taxed beyond capacity. There is NO hospital that just limits to a certain number per day just because that's the way they do things. To think that any hospital or any hospital management is both offensive to the people who work their hardest to help as many as they can as well as idiotic. It attributes carelessness and callousness to people who simply cannot sustain the demanded workload. It's like saying that IT people create problems just to have a job to do. Nobody does that! You're an asshole if you think that!

Case 2: Granted, there are always jobs in government that need to be done, and it would be far better to have people doing those very jobs rather than sitting on their butts. There are also government jobs that simply shouldn't be there, such as the 5 levels of single report management in the leadership positions at most VA hospitals. Yes, there is a director, assistant director, controller, personnel manager, and operations manager, and all 4 of them do is take information from the one below them and send it to the one above them. 4 people that don't actually DO anything, yet get paid $250,000 or more. That's over a million dollars per year wasted, per hospital. This is the case with a lot of government positions, and they are all staffed with friends and family of political allies of the people in Washington. Government, by its very nature, cannot do things like UBI or a jobs program effectively. Government is just a chain of wasted money, and nothing gets done effectively. Don't trust them. Don't believe them. Let this idiotic trust in "government to save us all" DIE, PLEASE!

Case 3: There is NO 'solution' for this 'problem'. It's not a problem. It's not any more of a problem than exercise equipment. UBI or any government 'safety net' program is more like saying that because one person wants to get stronger but doesn't want to work out, so the government is going to force someone else to work out more so that the other person gets the strength. It simply doesn't work. Your mention previously that people who are under constant stress have lower IQs is the KEY to this. It's more of getting the cause and effect mixed up. Work more and harder to move forward and the stress lessens as the person's strength get higher. If a person under stress moves forward and expands their skillset, then they won't be under as much stress and their minds will be able to operate better. These people who say they can't do a higher paying job because they don't have the skills are the cause of their own problem. They can't do it because they don't TRY. This isn't a problem. It is life pushing people to make themselves stronger. The ones who are 'victims' of this 'problem' are that because of their own inaction. The solution to this 'problem' is for those people to move forward and increase their skills, rather than sitting on their butts thinking it is OK to do just one mindless job their whole life.

I have to add: this is a lesson I learned from many 80's movies long ago. A wizened master demands harsh work from a student, sanding the floor, building the fence, wearing a heavy thing on their back, whatever, and after the lesson the student learns that such work both taught them the skills they needed and made them stronger, giving them what they needed to make the next step in their lives easier. A LOT of people just don't understand that. They certainly don't think to do that to themselves. They avoid harsh work that pushes their capabilities, and they are weaker because of it, and that makes them unsuitable for survival and a detriment to all of humanity. Life forces them to do so, and keeps them alive. This idea of government safety nets takes that away, makes them weaker, and hurts us ALL. When people think "the man" is holding them back, they are completely missing that 'the man" is THEMSELVES.

Edit 2: I also want to add this: Matthew 25:14-30 - 14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants[a] and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.[c] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Even God want people to improve on themselves, and warns of dire consequences if they do not.

 

[DuronBurgerMan]

There is an enormous difference between aiming to cover everyone imperfectly in a system vs. designing it so people won't to be covered. None of what you said seems to understand the difference (or believe it's possible). This is crucial to the discussion. It's the difference between a hospital saying it will only admit 10 people to the ER per day v. saying it will admit everyone, they'll just have to wait longer if it's crowded. One system will serve 10 people per day and let everyone else fend for themselves, another could serve 125 and accidentally let 2 die due to waiting. I disagree with the "there are no guarantees" mantra as a way justify the 10 people per day system. If you still don't get it, I can't explain it much better.

The word "seems" is deceptive here. It "seems" like I don't understand the difference? Seems to who? You? That's on you, mang.

We're not designing a system explicitly so people won't be covered. That is a strawman. The argument was never that we should set an explicit limit on the number of people who should be helped. Quite the opposite. People are free to help as much (or as little) as they wish. In fact, we're not really designing a system at all. You suffer the illusion of control. You think you have control over meta social issues like national poverty - you don't. This doesn't mean you can't help, though. I recommend looking at those who are within your reach. Friends. Family. Community members. There you may do great good. And it feels good to help there, too.

Do you follow?

In case you're still unclear, I don't think UBI will work, but mostly due to how the market would price things to react to it. I'm not a ideological proponent of UBI, I'm just in favor of solutions to problems. Something like a jobs program could work to pick up the slack if the private sector can't provide enough jobs, but that would also require political will, which I'm skeptical of happening also.

You've said that you do not think UBI will work many times. We know this. You still favor the top down approach. Designing a system to do X, and so on. Universal pretensions; guarantees; everybody should have X. It is that universal approach that I am criticizing.

You said yourself your solution is to not fix anything because you think it's not broken and won't be a significant problem as time goes on. If it does get worse, you said there's either no solution or else have to point to a fantastical scenario that relies on sci fi technology to preserve complete free market capitalism. So in other words, you're saying this isn't going to be a problem, but if it is, you have no solution to it, and your prescription is to do nothing. I think that tells me the core of what I need to know. If I have looming problems, convincing myself they don't exist, then planning on doing nothing is not how I solve them, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

More strawmen. I didn't say it's not broken - quite the contrary, I've indicated many times that pretty much anything made by man will be some level of broken. The question is how much broken warrants our attention? And how many resources must be expended attempting to fix it? Cost/Benefit. That sort of thing.

You have a way of deliberately misrepresenting everything I write. My point is the level of broken; the level of poverty in the First World; is such that existing mitigation is sufficient. I would concede some minor tweaks here and there; but otherwise, we do quite well. No need for a massive program with universal pretensions on the level of UBI, or anything of that nature.

The "sci-fi" solution is only if a post-scarcity economy ever actually happened. Since this does not exist, we can only speculate on how this would really work. I have my doubts that this is even possible, but if it was, the solution would be to supply each person with at least a minimal level of productive capacity (in my example, a robot - but it could be anything. Whatever the mode of production is under a post-scarcity economy).