Is Technology About to Decimate White-Collar Work?

[Megalith]

According to technologist Kai-Fu Lee, artificial intelligence will end most if not all white-collar office jobs, as AI is incredibly effective at the routine work that your average office employee is responsible for. Lee claims the replacement is already happening, and blue-collar workers will be affected similarly, albeit later. Thanks cageymaru.

Lee pointed to several of the investments made by his company, Sinovation Ventures, as clear signs of how routine office work is already being transformed by AI. For example, Lee has backed Smart Finance Group, a company that uses machine learning to determine a person’s eligibility for a payday loan.

 

[M76]

It's the exact opposite, until now only blue collar work was affected by technology, now it started to sip into offices as well. Well when I say now I mean 20 years ago, but still much later than for factory workers. They had been affected by technology for the longest time. My company was counting 3000 people 30 years ago, and still about 1000 20 years ago, now we are about 100, and doing roughly the same amount of work. That's how technology affected us.

 

[SeymourGore]

Odd how they're not looking at AI to replace management positions. You'd think that a AI would be able to schedule shifts, perform budgetary reviews, annual performance reviews, etc.

 

[M76]

Odd how they're not looking at AI to replace management positions. You'd think that a AI would be able to schedule shifts, perform budgetary reviews, annual performance reviews, etc.

Management's job is not to schedule shifts and perform reviews, unless they're pathological micromanagers.

 

[SeymourGore]

Management's job is not to schedule shifts and perform reviews, unless they're pathological micromanagers.

My viewpoint is probably skewed - I'm a lowly frontline agent in the public service where shift scheduling and reviews by managers are a common thing.

 

[Kor]

It will for sure delivery a hefty punch to things like the legal industry where half the job is paper work and research on legal precedent. If I was a para legal i'd be pretty concerned. The financial industry is also pretty at risk in that space.

 

[Semantics]

My viewpoint is probably skewed - I'm a lowly frontline agent in the public service where shift scheduling and reviews by managers are a common thing.

Depends on what level of manager you're talking about, the lowest rung of the management circle may have things like scheduling pushed on them for their team, instead of HR doing it, same with reviews.

 

[Wolf-R1]

This won't end well for any of us. The masses of humanity can already be replaced by machines. If that happens who then will have the capital to buy anyone's products thereby keeping the economy running? Are we going to replace consumers with AI as well?

 

[CombatChrisNC]

UBI.

If you follow things to their conclusion its the only thing that makes sense.

1: Automation will decrease the need for the number of people to get stuff done.
2: The number of people will increase.

Therefor, more and more of the population will have nothing to do. You'll try as hard as you might to get a job, but there simply won't be one for you unless you're part of the extreme minority who's irreplaceable (as of yet) by technology.

Of course we're not there yet, and we'll never (I doubt in even our great grandchildren's lives) get to there, but it IS the conclusion. And it needs to be planned for.

 

[bugleyman]

That this is happening does not surprise me. That so many observers don't seem to get that this represents an economic sea change does.

 

[bugleyman]

UBI.

If you follow things to their conclusion its the only thing that makes sense.

1: Automation will decrease the need for the number of people to get stuff done.
2: The number of people will increase.

Therefor, more and more of the population will have nothing to do. You'll try as hard as you might to get a job, but there simply won't be one for you unless you're part of the extreme minority who's irreplaceable (as of yet) by technology.

Of course we're not there yet, and we'll never (I doubt in even our great grandchildren's lives) get to there, but it IS the conclusion. And it needs to be planned for.

Thirty years, tops. Also, if we don't figure out a solution, be it UBI or something else, it will probably start WW3. Just sayin'.

 

[thejokker]

I think one of the key lessons of 2016 is that globalization is politically unsustainable. Similarly automation will only be sustainable as long as human's who need to work have a place in the world. Revolution and "heads on a pike" are the consequence to automation without considering the needs of "the people".

 

[Budzman]

Glad i'll be dead when the world goes to hell.

 

[M76]

There is an easy fix for not enough jobs: Reduced work hours. So more people are needed in the remaining jobs. We used to have a six day work week until the 1960s it's time for the 4 day work week. If we want to fight technological unemployment that's the most obvious solution. Well besides universal basic income, but that's much harder to push trough the ignorant masses.

 

[SeymourGore]

They just better have the tech available to transfer my current fleshy Human Intelligence into a digital AI before this flesh expires.

 

[MrDeaf]

This won't end well for any of us. The masses of humanity can already be replaced by machines. If that happens who then will have the capital to buy anyone's products thereby keeping the economy running? Are we going to replace consumers with AI as well?

If we are getting rid of jobs, why not get rid of the concept of money altogether?

I know it is a far-fetched dream, but a Star Trek like economy is a better fit when AI and robots are doing everything for us.

 

[Garrick]

If people end up with subsistence jobs paying low wages(assuming they have a job) they will not be able to afford the goods and services that corporations using AI need to make money. Governments will have no taxes and society will collapse. We will adapt or perish. But whatever happens it is definitely time to talk about it.

 

[Nolan7689]

There is an easy fix for not enough jobs: Reduced work hours. So more people are needed in the remaining jobs. We used to have a six day work week until the 1960s it's time for the 4 day work week. If we want to fight technological unemployment that's the most obvious solution. Well besides universal basic income, but that's much harder to push trough the ignorant masses.

Not in the US, 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act implemented the 40 hour work week. 6 day work week might be true, but same hours regardless.

Most people are greedy and dumb. 4 day work week and 40 hours still. Me I’d love for 4-8s. I’m set up to where I can still pay bills and be comfortable on 32 hours.

Go figure there are a number issues that will delay my job being fully automated. Cost to the contractor being first.

 

[Chunder]

If we are getting rid of jobs, why not get rid of the concept of money altogether?

I know it is a far-fetched dream, but a Star Trek like economy is a better fit when AI and robots are doing everything for us.

It's not too far-fetched. Just as Trotsky predicted, capitalism was needed and is taking us to a world of automative socialism/communism that's envisioned in Star Trek. We already have enough resources to sustain 13 billion people comfortably in modern living standards with current technology/techniques, we're just inefficient at doing it, waste a lot of whats produced, or rather make insane profits (Like having millions more empty homes than we do homeless citizens or those living in substandard housing just so banks can make $$$$). Machines and AI can fix nearly all of this for us while removing humans from menial and physically demanding task. The only thing really holding us back from this today is the resistance to switching over to nearly free renewable energy and us not fully cracking fusion energy yet, and political willpower. Universal basic income systems that would allow citizens to get what they need in a similar fashion to Star Trek have also been successfully tested in numerous countries so far as well with no negative side effects.

Of course the 1% could decide to continue bribing politicians to keep doing things the same way, hold onto their power/paper money and let hundreds of millions be unemployed in just America alone. However, that's obviously not sustainable economically, nor would the people trying to provide for their families accept it peacefully in a world that's already more inequal in comparison to the events leading up to the French Revolution.

 

[Dead Parrot]

UBI.

If you follow things to their conclusion its the only thing that makes sense.

1: Automation will decrease the need for the number of people to get stuff done.
2: The number of people will increase.

Therefor, more and more of the population will have nothing to do. You'll try as hard as you might to get a job, but there simply won't be one for you unless you're part of the extreme minority who's irreplaceable (as of yet) by technology.

Of course we're not there yet, and we'll never (I doubt in even our great grandchildren's lives) get to there, but it IS the conclusion. And it needs to be planned for.

UBI isn't the answer, just a temporary band aid. At best UBI can provide a bare minimal life existence. Where does the tax money come from if no one has a job to generate a revenue stream to tax? The more folks living on UBI, the less money there will be to fund UBI.

One of the most dangerous things in the world is a large number of physically capable but bored frustrated people. Especially when they listen to stories from their parents or grand parents about how folks used to have private vehicles to go where they wanted when they wanted. Could buy new clothes with style instead of the UBI basic jump suit. Could eat fresh food rather then Soylent <insert color of choice>. Without hope of a way out, the bored frustrated masses will find something destructive to do.

 

[Nunu]

I am waiting on matter replicators , or some advanced 3d printing devices to solve most of the worlds issues brought on by mass AI.

 

[Vader1975]

I think one of the key lessons of 2016 is that globalization is politically unsustainable. Similarly automation will only be sustainable as long as human's who need to work have a place in the world. Revolution and "heads on a pike" are the consequence to automation without considering the needs of "the people".

Eventually there is only a handful of people to buy the products because so few are working. Which eventually leads to market collapse.

 

[nutzo]

This can replace the simple repetitive jobs, just like it has in manufacturing.
However, there are still many jobs that are not routine.
You will still need to have people making decisions, unless you want your customers stuck in the AI equivalent of voicemail hell.

 

[Ski]

Odd how they're not looking at AI to replace management positions. You'd think that a AI would be able to schedule shifts, perform budgetary reviews, annual performance reviews, etc.

It's their hubris honestly. Once AI is perfected under many roles either being case law discovery or efficiently loading shipping boxes in trucks (or everything you also listed above) these technological hurdles will also inadvertently leap frog the redundant managers job of micro managing their employees. And if we want to get greedy and go all out for self interest, it's a brilliant way for executives to increase the quarterly reports or next election cycle by trimming even more fat when they report for the stock holders by eliminating high paying manager jobs.. Why pay an over payed manager when all you need is one low level engineer and programmer to facilitate and maintain the robots and AI in each district.

Sadly, all of this talk about losing jobs is ridiculous because in a perfect world, humanity would be embracing the end of work so we could finally do the things we were meant to: Love. Live. Create. Unfortunately we still live in a society where the criteria for success is being a slave to a job that ruins your physical and mental health anyways, but that's going to be done a robot/drone/AI also. It's like I've said for years fellas. We're entering a precarious time in human history, it's either going to be a Star Trek scenario where we pursuit human knowledge and discovery without being burdened of accumulating things or wanting to buy stuff, it's bettering yourself and those around you. Or it's going to be Elysium where the mega rich segregate themselves from overpopulated and polluted earth. In that society, the ecosystem is mostly devastated thanks to corporate interests, and even with the advanced technologies available such as healing all diseases and rebuilding limbs, it's delegated to those who can afford it. Kinda what's already transpiring now.

The 2030's are going to be an interesting time because I'm curious to see how the worlds governments are going to respond when 45% of the jobs on the planet are going to be automated, and how people will respond when they're given little choice but to revolt to a system that has given up on them, but we already have precedents if anyone has looked into our own past. The only thing, historically, that's curbed inequality: Catastrophe

Plagues, revolutions, massive wars, collapsed states—these are what reliably reduce economic disparities.

"Throughout history, only massive, violent shocks that upended the established order proved powerful enough to flatten disparities in income and wealth. They appeared in four different guises: mass-mobilization warfare, violent and transformative revolutions, state collapse, and catastrophic epidemics. Hundreds of millions perished in their wake, and by the time these crises had passed, the gap between rich and poor had shrunk."

 

[Gweenz]

Odd how they're not looking at AI to replace management positions. You'd think that a AI would be able to schedule shifts, perform budgetary reviews, annual performance reviews, etc.

You forgot 'play golf'.

 

[Private_Ops]

UBI isn't the answer, just a temporary band aid. At best UBI can provide a bare minimal life existence. Where does the tax money come from if no one has a job to generate a revenue stream to tax? The more folks living on UBI, the less money there will be to fund UBI.

One of the most dangerous things in the world is a large number of physically capable but bored frustrated people. Especially when they listen to stories from their parents or grand parents about how folks used to have private vehicles to go where they wanted when they wanted. Could buy new clothes with style instead of the UBI basic jump suit. Could eat fresh food rather then Soylent <insert color of choice>. Without hope of a way out, the bored frustrated masses will find something destructive to do.

Put that in a country like the US (Even Russia) where there is (and always will be) a large amount of firearms (both legal and non legal). And possibly a defiant military and you have a recepie for revolution.

 

[Ski]

Where does the tax money come from if no one has a job to generate a revenue stream to tax? The more folks living on UBI, the less money there will be to fund UBI.

Well if you're smart like Bill Gates, you tax the robots.

 

[nutzo]

It's not too far-fetched. Just as Trotsky predicted, capitalism was needed and is taking us to a world of automative socialism/communism that's envisioned in Star Trek.

Sure, base our future on a utopia fantasy that completely ignores human nature.

Socialism/communism will always result in a lower standard of living for everyone, except the few elite who everything.

Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's still better than any other system yet invented.
The biggest problem western countries have is too much government (socialism) and not enough free market capitalism.

UBI is a socialist pipe dream that will destroy many peoples motivation to work, and will never be enough to satisfy the leaches.
(what do you mean I can't afford an iPhone X, a nice house with a view of the beach and all the pot I want to smoke on UBI ! )

 

[Deleted member 204526]

I'd only support UBI if it is a temporary pain-saving measure we take while allowing the human population to drop drastically. You can only receive UBI if you agree to sterilization. If you forgo sterilization, any resulting children are taken from you and you are then forcibly sterilized. The same concept applies on a larger scale to financial aid given to third world nations; they can only receive aid if they take steps to ensure their birth rate remains below replacement levels.

Inversely, I'd also incentivize those with a higher IQ—say, above 140—to reproduce beyond replacement levels. We'd have fewer humans overall, but of greater ability to sustain and contribute to an advanced technological civilization.

 

[Ski]

UBI is a socialist pipe dream that will destroy many peoples motivation to work, and will never be enough to satisfy the leaches.
(what do you mean I can't afford an iPhone X, a nice house with a view of the beach and all the pot I want to smoke on UBI ! )

You couldn't be more wrong, and the way you frame your prejudice indicates that you're basically regurgitating talking points from other folks without looking at the cold hard facts for yourself. So let me try to help change your mind. Tighten your sphincter brother because this is a long one. So... before I begin let's throw out some palabras (words) first:

• The Strange Reality of Fiat Money

• Debt-damned economics: either learn monetary reform, or kiss your assets goodbye

• 1 billion living in poverty

• 15% live below poverty line in US

• 46.2 million Americans are on food stamps

• There’s no 100% capitalist or socialist country in the world

• Corporate profits are at an all-time high

• Unemployment is at multi-decade low

• Shallowest period of job recovery (jobless recovery)

The statement “r > g” (meaning that the rate of return on capital is generally higher than the rate of economic growth)

50% jobs will be completely automated by 2040, and other estimates saying sooner, by 2030: Transportation, retail sales, first line supervisors, cashiers, secretaries, managers, all other, registered nurses, elementary school teachers, janitors/cleaners. Multibillion dollar companies’ are hiring fewer and fewer people. Combine Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon, are worth 1$ trillion, but only have created 150,000 jobs. Uber has acquired $18 billion in a short amount of time, however, only employ a few hundred people. This leads to inequality, and situations like these only exacerbates it. Humanity desperately needs to reassess the future.

Structural inequality, means that it’s ingrained the system the same way money is. The fairy stale we tell ourselves, it’s inevitable and it’s the nature of capitalism. However, countries have already successfully redistributed wealth through policies and innovations like South Korea and Germany. But nobody has an answer to structural inequality. Nobody is having this discussion, but instead it’s a simplistic argument of agreeing or disagreeing with the argument about what they might do or whether it’s morally right. Or you might disagree because it’s atrocious or it’s not going to work, and you just can’t give money for whatever reason. And that is where the inherent challenge lies, so we should be asking the salient question: How much it will cost? How to pay for it? How to finance it? Would people stop working if they just receive an income? And will it solve the problem? Humanity should focus on the goal, not the story or the fairy tale that we tell ourselves, which many average Joe's are very attached to and they defends it quite well through wit and humor, but it’s still a devil’s advocate fallacy, and I'll address that further down.

So we need to think about the goal, otherwise it’s going to end up like the discussion with capitalism and socialism for perpetuity. We don’t have that time. A good starting point is from Article 25 of the International Declaration of Human Rights from the UN, it states: EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO A STANDARD OF LIVING ADEQUATE FOR THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF HIMSELF AND OF HIS FAMILY, INCLUDING FOOD, CLOTHING, HOUSING AND MEDICAL CARE AND NECESSARY SOCIAL SERVICES.

So does a basic income fulfill this goal or not? Because if it does, it won’t matter the dissenters ideology because it’s actually fulfilling the goal. Now, look at the experiments in 14 countries (out of 200 industrialized countries) 3 were unconditional UBI, and only two had more than a thousand. Let’s be clear here, this still isn’t enough data to argue for or against the issue because we simply don’t know or haven’t done enough experiments. But anyways, let’s start with two big industrialized nations:

CANADA

• 5 years (1974-79)

• ~10,000 People

• $500/Month

─ Hospitalization rates fell by 8.5%

─ Only two groups worked less: Women who took extended maternity leave and (male) youth.

─ High school completion rates increases

INDIA

• 3 years (2011-13)

• 6,000 Peoples

• $4/month (40% subsistence)

─ Improved food sufficiency

─ Improved nutrition

─ Increase in livestock

─ No increase in alcohol consumption

─ Reduced incidence of illness

─ Improved school attendance

─ People were 3 times more likely to start their own business

These results are definitely promising, but still inconclusive because there have been so few experiments. There are other open ended questions that need to be addressed, and that is rent. Suppose each one of us receives $1,000 dollars every month, what happens to rent? If you’re not a homeowner and you have a landlord instead, what’s stopping them (other than policy or mechanisms)* to raise the rent exactly $1,000 dollars? But that inherently increases inequality because you’re moving more capital to those who already have capital, based on Thomas Piketty’s research. So actually, UBI would actually increase inequality and increase poverty, and destroy the middle class even faster. And then if you get rid of social programs and arbitrarily tell everyone to do whatever they want with their income so we don’t need this bureaucracy, because you don’t need so much social programs and government involvement. Well, everyone here should be abundantly aware by now (I fucking hope) what happens when you privatize healthcare. Quality goes down, prices go up, and everything goes to hell. So we have to remember that it’s not going to be a panacea, because complex things such as UBI need to be contextualized, and if implemented, they must be a comprehensive package of larger reforms, and the larger implications of what you’re doing. And it must be different in other countries because of different social contexts, social adaptation, and social norms, and not everybody is at the same social level. So it’s never going to be one size fits all. And of course, it always goes back to we don’t have enough experiments to come to anything conclusive. Which is why we need politicians and the people who are in position of mandating legislation to warrant more research and study, just like other controversial (but beneficial) reforms as the legalization of marijuana and MDMA therapy.

Politicians who want to get on board and help should:

• Conduct their own experiment with at least 10,000 people

• Control Group

• Truly Unconditional

• More than two years

• True basic income

The key points is it has to be unconditional and long term because if they know it’s going to last 2 years, they can plan for the future, because if you only conduct the experiment for 6 months, you’re not going to see the social dynamics that actually unfold in a complex society. And it must be a true basic income, not a fraction of a percent, of like 10-40% of the poverty line, it must be, many economists suggest about half the median income, or somewhere close to that number. And we need detailed feasibility studies, because nobody has done a thorough research looking at all the implications in the economic activity in the largest sense of the broader research. The technology is available to make things easier especially for entrepreneurs to run a basic income experiment, thanks to block chains and crypto-currencies. And in developing countries mobile payments are very successful, like in Kenya.

Now let's unpack all of this silly data in the context of the conversation at hand. Many Americans begin by arguing that people should have the freedom to make $100 billion dollars but also use that money to invest it into other companies. However, in reality that is exactly what they are not doing. Between Citizens United and the Panama Papers, it should be abundantly clear by now (even to the skeptics) that instead of re-injecting that wealth back into the economy, they've been hoarding it for decades. Conversely, there's $2-10 trillion in taxable income that is just sitting in banks which could be used to pay for UBI alone. The fact is, the wealthiest individuals are akin to being more narcissistic and sociopathic than those beneath them, because for every Bill Gates and Richard Branson there's a hundred more Trumps and Koch's running around. It's quite sad honestly, you quite literally have to sacrifice and your core values and morals in order to gain financial wealth at that level.

And staying on the devil's advocacy argument, instead of giving the Red Cross that money because, simply give it to the people right off the bat. Instead of bailing out the banks, it should have gone straight to the millions of people who had to foreclose on their homes. Instead of loaning that money to companies to tear down neighborhoods and the culture of New Orleans, it should have gone to the ones who suffered in the first place. Instead of putting tax payers money into an over inflated defense budget, how about paying for the thousands of vets suffering from PTSD who return back home fucked up and forced to deal with a VA system that not only neglects them but puts them on SSRI's and other meds which inadvertently have the wonderful side effect of suicide ideation. It's no wonder vets are committing suicide at the average rate of 22 per day, nor is it surprising that suicide from vets back home have eclipsed the deaths while serving under duty.

Now let's look at the core argument, because this is important, many feel that under this belief that if you just throw money at the poor and disenfranchised, they'll continue to be lazy and do nothing. They (Americans) also says that if you stay focused and work hard, success will grace you just it did for Kim Kardashian and Taylor Swift (god that was a silly example) the socio-economics are completely different, not to mention where you grow up, and the environment you live in all play a factor in how you grow and develop. Anyways, there is this notion that there's no incentive to work if you're simply given $30,000 it's going to be a welfare world. But if you look at Canada's and India's little experiment I listed above, that is not what is happening. In fact, the opposite is occurring. The big difference between welfare checks and UBI is the fact the INCENTIVE has been completely removed from the equation. The freedom that UBI gives for people is that they don't have to worry about being sick, looking for a job, or have some arbitrary policy that government will remove under some draconian policy which they have to constantly worry about. That money is given to them UNCONDITIONALLY it is for them to do with whatever they want, to pay off their student loans, mortgage, healthcare bills, fix their homes, It has a huge psychologically impact which the data implies they actually better themselves because it provides a buffer and breathing room to address all of those immediate stresses. But under welfare, when they are somehow fortunate enough to find a job, chances are it's barely more than what they were currently receiving under welfare, so their only motivation at that point is to not look for a job at all. What these UBI studies indicate is that they're able to decouple the capitalistic philosophy that we have to earn a living to exist when in fact capitalism has no place in the 21st century.

51% of the country doesn't even make $30,000 which after taxes, bills, and basic necessities, you're basically living under poverty levels at this point. Hell, a Princeton study even says that happiness doesn't increase after $75,000, so if we're to assume that is accurate, we're just greedy assholes who have no empathy over your fellow human being. I'm going to go off on a tangent here but the point I want to make is the American dream as we now see it, no longer exists. The game is rigged and if you're one of the poor and disenfranchised of America, your chances of ever succeeding are nearly impossible. To get ahead in life you literally have to swallow your morals and willing to profit over your fellow man, and that's exactly what they do in Wall Street everyday: Take 8 minutes to watch this interview with Chris HedgesSource

• A work force economy with inmates getting payed 3rd world wages through forced labor
  
  
• Any debt they incur inside can send them back to prison even after serving their time.
  

Chevron, Victoria Secret, Target, Hewlett Packard, Starbucks, AT&T, Procter & Gamble, Microsoft, and Wendy's are examples of corporations exploiting prisoners through exorbitant phone fees, commissaries, and surcharges. Basic amenities are no longer provided such as shoes, which cost up to $45.00, so good luck paying that off with a $.20 an hour wage working eight hours a day, and because this is prison they don't qualify for social security for those hours. Same with medications and legal fees. If a loved one is dying, then they're limited to maybe 15 minutes of a deathbed viewing, and it's not uncommon for guards to make money off family members in situations like these.

It should be no secret to many of you the money generated through private prisons are in the tens of billions, a dramatic increase of 72 percent since 1997, and their lobbyists are some of the most well funded and resourceful in Washington. Which by the way are the same individuals responsible for writing these sick draconian laws. And instead of outsourcing slave labor, prison administrators are lobbying to corporations to return back home because prisoners have no union or benefits, and controlling them would be easier because they'll simply be put into isolation.

So think about your average prisoner who is just being released and in thousands of dollars in debt: Their job prospects are tenuous at best, and with criminal record on their resume I doubt many of them will get an interview. And to top it all off, between the economy being what it is today and a market saturated with millions of others also looking for work, these recently released prisoners are simply unemployable. So what choice does that leave them? Sell drugs? Rob a bank? That's their only options. The system is designed for them to fail, and it makes me sick that corporations see people only as a commodity rather than a human being. This is a text book example of why we need a Basic Income. Sadly, if and when this comes to pass it will already be too late for millions of Americans.

Now pretend that prisoner is black and living in [insert your favorite racist state here]. Welcome to an oligarchy.

We can’t continue with this notion that this is the way things are and we can’t do anything about it, it’s just going to be like the climate change debate because the facts are out the window and it’s just ideology. Robots/automation without a restructuring of the social system lead to robber Barons, the disappearance of the middle class, increased wealth inequality, and a nonsensical race to the bottom for most of the people, while plutocracies run amok. See my post above regarding the Elysium/Star Trek scenario. The greatest challenge for humanity in the next decade or so will be to decouple income and work. Work is now essentially wage slavery, with over 80% of the people hating their job, and having most jobs either irrelevant, redundant, socially, psychologically, or environmentally destructive. Work should not be viewed as a requisite for survival. The rich will trade with the rich, the poor will be let to die except few, that will be used for inhuman fucked up debauchery rituals. You don't need poor people to buy your goods and services, you can just trade between rich and live in that sweet utopia. I just think that the argument about rich elite needing poor people to buy their goods and services is wrong. As we progress deeper into the 21st century there will be no need for the labor, there will be no need for the money. Unfortunately that requires a global fundamental shift in how we perceive the world because if we allow things to continue as they are, it will be machinery and the A.I.s will be owned by the companies who have no responsibility to support the unemployed. They also now have a lot more profit because they don't have to pay wages. So, that money will be spent lobbying, ensuring it stays right where it is intended: in the pockets of the stockholders. And thanks FCC passing the repeal of NN and the house and congress passing the tax break for the rich, corporate have successfully completely taken over all branches of government. I really want to believe that this won't be the case, that life will become a leisure paradise, but productivity has been on a massive increase in manufacturing and light industry. These profits are not passed onto the workers. They are not paid in taxes. What makes anyone think that giving them even more money will make this less true? And before anyone says: Well then, who will they sell to? To other people with money, of course. Automation and ubiquitous AI are not the foundation of a utopia, they are the final evolution of mankind's greed. And it will be the end of anyone who isn't already wealthy.

The phrase "earning a living" should disappear from our vernacular. We have enough for people to just be, without having to justifying their existence through often tedious, meaningless, or degrading work. Even in this schizophrenic society, as much as 50% of the people find the time to volunteer for social causes (helping the elderly, the disabled, cleaning up the environment, doing community work, etc.). Imagine if nobody had to work for living, how many would do useful things for others, how many would create something amazing. Won't that be something...

 

[mullet]

The PC is dead
New batteries that charge twice as fast and twice life.
Trump will never win.
Fusion power is almost here.
bio fuels will change everything.
Solar shingles will be cheaper then a regular shingled roof.
AI will kill us all.

Now robot will take everyone's job.


blah blah blah.

 

[tetris42]

There is an easy fix for not enough jobs: Reduced work hours. So more people are needed in the remaining jobs. We used to have a six day work week until the 1960s it's time for the 4 day work week. If we want to fight technological unemployment that's the most obvious solution. Well besides universal basic income, but that's much harder to push trough the ignorant masses.

It's easy conceptually, but almost impossible politically. We're in a chokehold now, where the main driving factor of how we run everything is profitability of a corporation at the expense of everything else. Traditionally, government steps in to push back for workers when things get too extreme, but we have regulatory capture, so government is now at such a state so that it's incapable or unwilling of solving this problem anymore. Both parties are complacent in this and our system is designed to shut out 3rd ones. This is going to be a major problem that requires a radical solution in a system incapable of doing radical solutions.

 

[Snowdensjacket]

You couldn't be more wrong, and the way you frame your prejudice indicates that you're basically regurgitating talking points from other folks without looking at the cold hard facts for yourself. So let me try to help change your mind. Tighten your sphincter brother because this is a long one. So... before I begin let's throw out some palabras (words) first:

• The Strange Reality of Fiat Money

• Debt-damned economics: either learn monetary reform, or kiss your assets goodbye

• 1 billion living in poverty

• 15% live below poverty line in US

• 46.2 million Americans are on food stamps

• There’s no 100% capitalist or socialist country in the world

• Corporate profits are at an all-time high

• Unemployment is at multi-decade low

• Shallowest period of job recovery (jobless recovery)

The statement “r > g” (meaning that the rate of return on capital is generally higher than the rate of economic growth)

50% jobs will be completely automated by 2040, and other estimates saying sooner, by 2030: Transportation, retail sales, first line supervisors, cashiers, secretaries, managers, all other, registered nurses, elementary school teachers, janitors/cleaners. Multibillion dollar companies’ are hiring fewer and fewer people. Combine Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon, are worth 1$ trillion, but only have created 150,000 jobs. Uber has acquired $18 billion in a short amount of time, however, only employ a few hundred people. This leads to inequality, and situations like these only exacerbates it. Humanity desperately needs to reassess the future.

Structural inequality, means that it’s ingrained the system the same way money is. The fairy stale we tell ourselves, it’s inevitable and it’s the nature of capitalism. However, countries have already successfully redistributed wealth through policies and innovations like South Korea and Germany. But nobody has an answer to structural inequality. Nobody is having this discussion, but instead it’s a simplistic argument of agreeing or disagreeing with the argument about what they might do or whether it’s morally right. Or you might disagree because it’s atrocious or it’s not going to work, and you just can’t give money for whatever reason. And that is where the inherent challenge lies, so we should be asking the salient question: How much it will cost? How to pay for it? How to finance it? Would people stop working if they just receive an income? And will it solve the problem? Humanity should focus on the goal, not the story or the fairy tale that we tell ourselves, which many average Joe's are very attached to and they defends it quite well through wit and humor, but it’s still a devil’s advocate fallacy, and I'll address that further down.

So we need to think about the goal, otherwise it’s going to end up like the discussion with capitalism and socialism for perpetuity. We don’t have that time. A good starting point is from Article 25 of the International Declaration of Human Rights from the UN, it states: EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO A STANDARD OF LIVING ADEQUATE FOR THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF HIMSELF AND OF HIS FAMILY, INCLUDING FOOD, CLOTHING, HOUSING AND MEDICAL CARE AND NECESSARY SOCIAL SERVICES.

So does a basic income fulfill this goal or not? Because if it does, it won’t matter the dissenters ideology because it’s actually fulfilling the goal. Now, look at the experiments in 14 countries (out of 200 industrialized countries) 3 were unconditional UBI, and only two had more than a thousand. Let’s be clear here, this still isn’t enough data to argue for or against the issue because we simply don’t know or haven’t done enough experiments. But anyways, let’s start with two big industrialized nations:

CANADA

• 5 years (1974-79)

• ~10,000 People

• $500/Month

─ Hospitalization rates fell by 8.5%

─ Only two groups worked less: Women who took extended maternity leave and (male) youth.

─ High school completion rates increases

INDIA

• 3 years (2011-13)

• 6,000 Peoples

• $4/month (40% subsistence)

─ Improved food sufficiency

─ Improved nutrition

─ Increase in livestock

─ No increase in alcohol consumption

─ Reduced incidence of illness

─ Improved school attendance

─ People were 3 times more likely to start their own business

These results are definitely promising, but still inconclusive because there have been so few experiments. There are other open ended questions that need to be addressed, and that is rent. Suppose each one of us receives $1,000 dollars every month, what happens to rent? If you’re not a homeowner and you have a landlord instead, what’s stopping them (other than policy or mechanisms)* to raise the rent exactly $1,000 dollars? But that inherently increases inequality because you’re moving more capital to those who already have capital, based on Thomas Piketty’s research. So actually, UBI would actually increase inequality and increase poverty, and destroy the middle class even faster. And then if you get rid of social programs and arbitrarily tell everyone to do whatever they want with their income so we don’t need this bureaucracy, because you don’t need so much social programs and government involvement. Well, everyone here should be abundantly aware by now (I fucking hope) what happens when you privatize healthcare. Quality goes down, prices go up, and everything goes to hell. So we have to remember that it’s not going to be a panacea, because complex things such as UBI need to be contextualized, and if implemented, they must be a comprehensive package of larger reforms, and the larger implications of what you’re doing. And it must be different in other countries because of different social contexts, social adaptation, and social norms, and not everybody is at the same social level. So it’s never going to be one size fits all. And of course, it always goes back to we don’t have enough experiments to come to anything conclusive. Which is why we need politicians and the people who are in position of mandating legislation to warrant more research and study, just like other controversial (but beneficial) reforms as the legalization of marijuana and MDMA therapy.

Politicians who want to get on board and help should:

• Conduct their own experiment with at least 10,000 people

• Control Group

• Truly Unconditional

• More than two years

• True basic income

The key points is it has to be unconditional and long term because if they know it’s going to last 2 years, they can plan for the future, because if you only conduct the experiment for 6 months, you’re not going to see the social dynamics that actually unfold in a complex society. And it must be a true basic income, not a fraction of a percent, of like 10-40% of the poverty line, it must be, many economists suggest about half the median income, or somewhere close to that number. And we need detailed feasibility studies, because nobody has done a thorough research looking at all the implications in the economic activity in the largest sense of the broader research. The technology is available to make things easier especially for entrepreneurs to run a basic income experiment, thanks to block chains and crypto-currencies. And in developing countries mobile payments are very successful, like in Kenya.

Now let's unpack all of this silly data in the context of the conversation at hand. Many Americans begin by arguing that people should have the freedom to make $100 billion dollars but also use that money to invest it into other companies. However, in reality that is exactly what they are not doing. Between Citizens United and the Panama Papers, it should be abundantly clear by now (even to the skeptics) that instead of re-injecting that wealth back into the economy, they've been hoarding it for decades. Conversely, there's $2-10 trillion in taxable income that is just sitting in banks which could be used to pay for UBI alone. The fact is, the wealthiest individuals are akin to being more narcissistic and sociopathic than those beneath them, because for every Bill Gates and Richard Branson there's a hundred more Trumps and Koch's running around. It's quite sad honestly, you quite literally have to sacrifice and your core values and morals in order to gain financial wealth at that level.

And staying on the devil's advocacy argument, instead of giving the Red Cross that money because, simply give it to the people right off the bat. Instead of bailing out the banks, it should have gone straight to the millions of people who had to foreclose on their homes. Instead of loaning that money to companies to tear down neighborhoods and the culture of New Orleans, it should have gone to the ones who suffered in the first place. Instead of putting tax payers money into an over inflated defense budget, how about paying for the thousands of vets suffering from PTSD who return back home fucked up and forced to deal with a VA system that not only neglects them but puts them on SSRI's and other meds which inadvertently have the wonderful side effect of suicide ideation. It's no wonder vets are committing suicide at the average rate of 22 per day, nor is it surprising that suicide from vets back home have eclipsed the deaths while serving under duty.

Now let's look at the core argument, because this is important, many feel that under this belief that if you just throw money at the poor and disenfranchised, they'll continue to be lazy and do nothing. They (Americans) also says that if you stay focused and work hard, success will grace you just it did for Kim Kardashian and Taylor Swift (god that was a silly example) the socio-economics are completely different, not to mention where you grow up, and the environment you live in all play a factor in how you grow and develop. Anyways, there is this notion that there's no incentive to work if you're simply given $30,000 it's going to be a welfare world. But if you look at Canada's and India's little experiment I listed above, that is not what is happening. In fact, the opposite is occurring. The big difference between welfare checks and UBI is the fact the INCENTIVE has been completely removed from the equation. The freedom that UBI gives for people is that they don't have to worry about being sick, looking for a job, or have some arbitrary policy that government will remove under some draconian policy which they have to constantly worry about. That money is given to them UNCONDITIONALLY it is for them to do with whatever they want, to pay off their student loans, mortgage, healthcare bills, fix their homes, It has a huge psychologically impact which the data implies they actually better themselves because it provides a buffer and breathing room to address all of those immediate stresses. But under welfare, when they are somehow fortunate enough to find a job, chances are it's barely more than what they were currently receiving under welfare, so their only motivation at that point is to not look for a job at all. What these UBI studies indicate is that they're able to decouple the capitalistic philosophy that we have to earn a living to exist when in fact capitalism has no place in the 21st century.

51% of the country doesn't even make $30,000 which after taxes, bills, and basic necessities, you're basically living under poverty levels at this point. Hell, a Princeton study even says that happiness doesn't increase after $75,000, so if we're to assume that is accurate, we're just greedy assholes who have no empathy over your fellow human being. I'm going to go off on a tangent here but the point I want to make is the American dream as we now see it, no longer exists. The game is rigged and if you're one of the poor and disenfranchised of America, your chances of ever succeeding are nearly impossible. To get ahead in life you literally have to swallow your morals and willing to profit over your fellow man, and that's exactly what they do in Wall Street everyday: Take 8 minutes to watch this interview with Chris HedgesSource

• A work force economy with inmates getting payed 3rd world wages through forced labor
  
  
• Any debt they incur inside can send them back to prison even after serving their time.

Chevron, Victoria Secret, Target, Hewlett Packard, Starbucks, AT&T, Procter & Gamble, Microsoft, and Wendy's are examples of corporations exploiting prisoners through exorbitant phone fees, commissaries, and surcharges. Basic amenities are no longer provided such as shoes, which cost up to $45.00, so good luck paying that off with a $.20 an hour wage working eight hours a day, and because this is prison they don't qualify for social security for those hours. Same with medications and legal fees. If a loved one is dying, then they're limited to maybe 15 minutes of a deathbed viewing, and it's not uncommon for guards to make money off family members in situations like these.

It should be no secret to many of you the money generated through private prisons are in the tens of billions, a dramatic increase of 72 percent since 1997, and their lobbyists are some of the most well funded and resourceful in Washington. Which by the way are the same individuals responsible for writing these sick draconian laws. And instead of outsourcing slave labor, prison administrators are lobbying to corporations to return back home because prisoners have no union or benefits, and controlling them would be easier because they'll simply be put into isolation.

So think about your average prisoner who is just being released and in thousands of dollars in debt: Their job prospects are tenuous at best, and with criminal record on their resume I doubt many of them will get an interview. And to top it all off, between the economy being what it is today and a market saturated with millions of others also looking for work, these recently released prisoners are simply unemployable. So what choice does that leave them? Sell drugs? Rob a bank? That's their only options. The system is designed for them to fail, and it makes me sick that corporations see people only as a commodity rather than a human being. This is a text book example of why we need a Basic Income. Sadly, if and when this comes to pass it will already be too late for millions of Americans.

Now pretend that prisoner is black and living in [insert your favorite racist state here]. Welcome to an oligarchy.

We can’t continue with this notion that this is the way things are and we can’t do anything about it, it’s just going to be like the climate change debate because the facts are out the window and it’s just ideology. Robots/automation without a restructuring of the social system lead to robber Barons, the disappearance of the middle class, increased wealth inequality, and a nonsensical race to the bottom for most of the people, while plutocracies run amok. See my post above regarding the Elysium/Star Trek scenario. The greatest challenge for humanity in the next decade or so will be to decouple income and work. Work is now essentially wage slavery, with over 80% of the people hating their job, and having most jobs either irrelevant, redundant, socially, psychologically, or environmentally destructive. Work should not be viewed as a requisite for survival. The rich will trade with the rich, the poor will be let to die except few, that will be used for inhuman fucked up debauchery rituals. You don't need poor people to buy your goods and services, you can just trade between rich and live in that sweet utopia. I just think that the argument about rich elite needing poor people to buy their goods and services is wrong. As we progress deeper into the 21st century there will be no need for the labor, there will be no need for the money. Unfortunately that requires a global fundamental shift in how we perceive the world because if we allow things to continue as they are, it will be machinery and the A.I.s will be owned by the companies who have no responsibility to support the unemployed. They also now have a lot more profit because they don't have to pay wages. So, that money will be spent lobbying, ensuring it stays right where it is intended: in the pockets of the stockholders. And thanks FCC passing the repeal of NN and the house and congress passing the tax break for the rich, corporate have successfully completely taken over all branches of government. I really want to believe that this won't be the case, that life will become a leisure paradise, but productivity has been on a massive increase in manufacturing and light industry. These profits are not passed onto the workers. They are not paid in taxes. What makes anyone think that giving them even more money will make this less true? And before anyone says: Well then, who will they sell to? To other people with money, of course. Automation and ubiquitous AI are not the foundation of a utopia, they are the final evolution of mankind's greed. And it will be the end of anyone who isn't already wealthy.

The phrase "earning a living" should disappear from our vernacular. We have enough for people to just be, without having to justifying their existence through often tedious, meaningless, or degrading work. Even in this schizophrenic society, as much as 50% of the people find the time to volunteer for social causes (helping the elderly, the disabled, cleaning up the environment, doing community work, etc.). Imagine if nobody had to work for living, how many would do useful things for others, how many would create something amazing. Won't that be something...

Holy copy pasta Batman! I read the first bit and saw a claim that 15% of the population in the US lives in poverty. An absurd meaningless claim since the poverty 'level' is simply continuously changed so that the bottom is always 'living in poverty'.

Not gonna bother to address the remaining since you just copy pasta'd it from some commie website, so you don't understand the argument well enough to be worth replying to.

 

[tunatime]

Service jobs that have to go out to job sites are going to be one of the last types of jobs to go. You need a robot that can drive, go into a building and troubleshoot a problem and fix it.

 

[jevans64]

Management's job is not to schedule shifts and perform reviews, unless they're pathological micromanagers.

I've never, ever worked at a job where managers DIDN'T do the scheduling and performance reviews for their departments. HR has always just done the leg-work for the department managers when dealing with disciplining, hiring, firing.

As far as turning over management roles over to robots this phrase comes to mind, [ in a monotone robot voice ] " GET BACK TO WORK, HUMAN!!! "

 

[triwolf]

There is an easy fix for not enough jobs: Reduced work hours. So more people are needed in the remaining jobs. We used to have a six day work week until the 1960s it's time for the 4 day work week. If we want to fight technological unemployment that's the most obvious solution. Well besides universal basic income, but that's much harder to push trough the ignorant masses.

I like your idea, problem is managers don't, I had a job where I offered that as a solution, and was laid off anyway. When companies try to manage to 1/1000 of a penny, and yes they really do, all it comes to is they can save money or have to save money and let you go.

All this automation will have to be addressed, as there is already a huge number of people idled, everyone claims it's getting better, except it will surely get worse soon with robots, whenever you question people about this all you get is a glazed look like it's not my job.

 

[tetris42]

Sure, base our future on a utopia fantasy that completely ignores human nature.

Socialism/communism will always result in a lower standard of living for everyone, except the few elite who everything.

Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's still better than any other system yet invented.
The biggest problem western countries have is too much government (socialism) and not enough free market capitalism.

UBI is a socialist pipe dream that will destroy many peoples motivation to work, and will never be enough to satisfy the leaches.
(what do you mean I can't afford an iPhone X, a nice house with a view of the beach and all the pot I want to smoke on UBI ! )

I agree that trying to model anything after Star Trek shows a detachment from reality. I think just saying free market capitalism will solve this isn't very realistic either however. I mean here's the fundamental question to answer: What's the solution for when the number of people who need work and are willing to work to support themselves is substantially higher than the number of jobs available? In other words, the market for jobs you can make a living from is already saturated; you have a scenario where there simply aren't enough jobs to go around? You say capitalism is the best system, but I'm not sure it has an answer for that, automation may take us into uncharted territory there.

And forget iphones and beach houses, I'm talking about just being able to meet basic needs: food, shelter, etc.

 

[iamjanco]

That's all fine and dandy Kai-Fu, but don't you think we should hold a global nuclear war first so that we're not left with a planetful of people sitting around aimlessly (like I'm doing now)?

 

[bugleyman]

The PC is dead
New batteries that charge twice as fast and twice life.
Trump will never win.
Fusion power is almost here.
bio fuels will change everything.
Solar shingles will be cheaper then a regular shingled roof.
AI will kill us all.

Now robot will take everyone's job.


blah blah blah.

So...no useful counter argument? Got it.

 

[bugleyman]

Holy copy pasta Batman! I read the first bit and saw a claim that 15% of the population in the US lives in poverty. An absurd meaningless claim since the poverty 'level' is simply continuously changed so that the bottom is always 'living in poverty'.

Not gonna bother to address the remaining since you just copy pasta'd it from some commie website, so you don't understand the argument well enough to be worth replying to.

Oh, we understand your argument.

You're just missing the point: When labor ceases to be capital -- a process that is all but inevitable -- but production is at an all time high, we will need a new way of distributing the results of said production.

Or more simply: People without wages can't buy shit.