Social and political issues

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I see UBI as an inevitability for our society, but I don't see how its proponents could reasonably propose its implementation within 5-10 years. I can't even imagine the logistical and structural nightmare it would take to even consider it as a possibility in the near future.

I'm right there with you, which is why I'm pessimistic about it ever happening, because I suspect the problems in question will overtake our general willingness to respond to them in any effective manner. I said five to ten years because that's really the time horizon when all these problems will really start picking up steam. In twenty, a lot of the damage will have been done and we might be too far gone to actually get a solution.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I know there is an issue regarding how UBI gets funded, with some ideas floating around. One such idea I have heard is to somehow create a mechanism for production gets taxed, as a proxy for income tax - a simplified version of the idea being a robot tax. That's all fine and good, but I think the biggest hurdle is the payments and distribution.

You really should listen to the podcast PepsiFree mentioned. Young goes into this in some detail. One thing he emphasized is that while the government isn't very efficient at doing a lot of things, one thing it's very, very good at is getting checks into peoples' hands and tracking who's getting them.

[driveway]

The largest UBI experiment is currently ongoing in Kenya:

https://basicincome.org/news/2017/11...bi-experiment/

It launched in November of 2017 and will continue providing a UBI for 16,000 people for 12 years.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

UBI doesn’t work in the long run without a plan to actually fix the problem it is supposed to attempt to mitigate. I’m not sure if knalus’ suggestions are the right solution but there definitely needs to be more done beyond giving people money and accepting they will never have a job.

I’ll humour you a bit more than Corsi, as your assertion that UBI doesn’t work because it doesn’t fix the problem and is simply “giving people money and accepting they will never have a job” is wrong.

UBI does not eliminate human ambition or the need for satisfaction beyond the basics required to live, what it does is protect people in careers susceptible to automation (a rapidly growing net of vulnerability). If it were that easy to eliminate those things, you would see an incredibly high rate of satisfaction for people living at the low end of the economic spectrum and very low movement into higher positions.

Oncologists work and train for years to do what they do. Do you think they would simply take the massive pay cut, downgrade their entire life sit on UBI, and never work again? It just wouldn’t happen.

On the other side of the spectrum, you raise up those below the poverty line. A UBI would be incredibly costly, but it’s not without economic gain either as you end up eliminating a lot of the financial resources directed towards low income and no income individuals. You may also see positive impacts as a UBI makes the “stay at home parent” model more attainable, and could roundly improve the life trajectory of future generations.

As far as the “problem” you’re referring to, it’s a very positive one. AI automation will make our world safer and more efficient. We simply can not eliminate innovation and automation, so the solution we’re looking for is one that allows human beings to survive who otherwise count on jobs that would be lost.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’ll humour you a bit more than Corsi, as your assertion that UBI doesn’t work because it doesn’t fix the problem and is simply “giving people money and accepting they will never have a job” is wrong.

UBI does not eliminate human ambition or the need for satisfaction beyond the basics required to live, what it does is protect people in careers susceptible to automation (a rapidly growing net of vulnerability). If it were that easy to eliminate those things, you would see an incredibly high rate of satisfaction for people living at the low end of the economic spectrum and very low movement into higher positions.

Oncologists work and train for years to do what they do. Do you think they would simply take the massive pay cut, downgrade their entire life sit on UBI, and never work again? It just wouldn’t happen.

On the other side of the spectrum, you raise up those below the poverty line. A UBI would be incredibly costly, but it’s not without economic gain either as you end up eliminating a lot of the financial resources directed towards low income and no income individuals. You may also see positive impacts as a UBI makes the “stay at home parent” model more attainable, and could roundly improve the life trajectory of future generations.

As far as the “problem” you’re referring to, it’s a very positive one. AI automation will make our world safer and more efficient. We simply can not eliminate innovation and automation, so the solution we’re looking for is one that allows human beings to survive who otherwise count on jobs that would be lost.

I don't think anyone is claiming that specialist doctors, who earn $200-$500k/year will simply stop working and collect UBI. The issue is with people earning $30k/year, with little ambition. Are they going to continue to work 40 hrs/week, when they can earn $25k/year for doing nothing. You then end up in a situation where you have to pay people at the bottom rung more and more.

The cost of labour in society is already a huge hurdle for small businesses. If they have to compete with a UBI, that's simply going to drive many out of business. As the profitability of working or owning your own business decrease, many simply will stop doing it. You end up with a race to the bottom, which has plagued every single attempt thus far at introducing socialism.

IMO, UBI is simply the wrong approach. The govt needs to ensure that basic requirements, like housing and food, are in line with local salaries. Money is also a meaningless number. The issue is supplying concrete goods to people. You can't "raise people above the poverty line" if better places for them to live don't exist. You just end up with inflation and rising housing costs, as more people bid on the limited housing that exists.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Ok, my understanding of UBI is that because of automation, jobs, income, and inequality are causing many people to be left behind, right? And UBI suggests that one solution to the problem is to give people money, no strings attached, to allow them to at least have a decent standard of living, while society straightens out the situation, correct? And that UBI is only the solution to people's livelihoods, and not a solution to the structure of wealth generation in society, right?

UBI is interesting for another reason too: if 30% (or more) of people are unemployed or underemployed, the ripple effects economically go beyond just helping the individuals themselves, but also toward the structural elements of an economy where 30%-plus of people are removed from the consumer pool. Put another way: that's a lot of people not able to spend and the world's economy could tank.

This is especially important in Western countries who've become the purchasers of the world's goods, and so the drivers of global capitalism with the US market obviously the juggernaut.

UDI is an incredibly complicated idea: you'll need buy-ins and targeted taxation on corporations. Rich countries will be that much more appealing, making already-difficult things like immigration and international capital ridiculously hard to figure out. The relationships between rich and poor countries will be strained like never before.

Given the difficulties, I'm just not sure it will ever happen, and I suspect that the drivers of its failure won't be the top 1%, but more like the top 10%. It might exist in some localized places (like in one or two American states or Canadian provinces), but it will be too painful to get people to accept having to support the unemployable. Also, the buy-in necessary from major corporations will likely be impossible. And without that buy-in, the government cannot fund this type of endeavor.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't think anyone is claiming that specialist doctors, who earn $200-$500k/year will simply stop working and collect UBI. The issue is with people earning $30k/year, with little ambition. Are they going to continue to work 40 hrs/week, when they can earn $25k/year for doing nothing. You then end up in a situation where you have to pay people at the bottom rung more and more.

Universal means universal. It goes to everyone. It's not a circumstance of you can either work for what you make or get UBI. You get it regardless. So the choice isn't between doing your existing job for 30k or nothing for 25k, it's between doing your existing job for 55k or nothing for 25k.

Obviously it's not that simple, because the market will adjust salaries and what was a 30k job in the original context may be something else once things settle down, and of course the 25k is just a number - you hear lots of different baseline numbers being thrown around. But the gist is that the soon-to-be large class of unemployed and those in unskilled jobs that aren't replaced by automation aren't going to end up abjectly poor, and can live lives that are still very modest, yet nonetheless dignified.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't think anyone is claiming that specialist doctors, who earn $200-$500k/year will simply stop working and collect UBI. The issue is with people earning $30k/year, with little ambition. Are they going to continue to work 40 hrs/week, when they can earn $25k/year for doing nothing. You then end up in a situation where you have to pay people at the bottom rung more and more.

The cost of labour in society is already a huge hurdle for small businesses. If they have to compete with a UBI, that's simply going to drive many out of business. As the profitability of working or owning your own business decrease, many simply will stop doing it. You end up with a race to the bottom, which has plagued every single attempt thus far at introducing socialism.

On your first point, this just perpetuates the myth that people on the bottom rung are unambiguous or unmotivated, which is wrong, and definitely ignores an incredibly wide range of circumstance and luck.

On your second point, this would likely have the opposite effect. Small businesses don’t have to compete with UBI, they reap the benefits of it. It will improve small businesses as a lot more people with be able to AFFORD working for small local businesses instead of big corporations that pay a few dollars more. UBI would stimulate local economies big time. And hey, if you’re worried about small businesses, what exactly do you think AI automation is going to do for ma and pa shops? Because “keep them in business” ain’t it.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Go play with yourself elsewhere.

More of that top quality debate we've come to expect from CHL

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

On your first point, this just perpetuates the myth that people on the bottom rung are unambiguous or unmotivated, which is wrong, and definitely ignores an incredibly wide range of circumstance and luck.

On your second point, this would likely have the opposite effect. Small businesses don’t have to compete with UBI, they reap the benefits of it. It will improve small businesses as a lot more people with be able to AFFORD working for small local businesses instead of big corporations that pay a few dollars more. UBI would stimulate local economies big time. And hey, if you’re worried about small businesses, what exactly do you think AI automation is going to do for ma and pa shops? Because “keep them in business” ain’t it.

Would the idea be that the UBI received is the same for everyone, or some people would receive while others won't, to varying degrees?

[PepsiFree]

In addition, small business owners gain the confidence of knowing that if they have a bad year, or business isn’t great, they aren’t mortgaging the house and wondering if they can afford groceries. Small farmers suddenly know that a bad crop year isn’t going to force them to sell the farm. You add stability across the board.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’ll humour you a bit more than Corsi, as your assertion that UBI doesn’t work because it doesn’t fix the problem and is simply “giving people money and accepting they will never have a job” is wrong.

To add to what blankall wrote, I’m not trying to suggest that people will stop wanting to work, I’m suggesting that if the number of job losses due to automation outpaces the number of jobs being created many people will not have the option to work. For that reason I’m of the opinion that more would need to be done beyond a UBI to address the job losses due to automation. Added funding for training and skills upgrading for jobs that need to be filled would be a good place to start.

The other problem with not taking steps to get people who lose their jobs due to automaton working in new jobs is that as more and more jobs are eliminated the revenue that pays for the UBI will continually decrease. Proponents of UBI generally argue that this shortfall will be made up through businesses being taxed on the additional profits created by their labour cost savings, while it’s true this will help maintain revenue it ignores the fact that people who were previously making $50k-$80k will lose a significant portion of their income which will reduce consumerism and in turn decrease the tax revenue generated from a large number of businesses while putting some of those businesses at risk of shutting down altogether.

IMO a UBI is at best a stop gap solution that will only work in the short term and will lead to bigger problems down the road as revenue to pay for it comes from fewer and fewer sources.

[GGG]

With UBI you can eliminate minimum wage so the cost of an employee drops.

If you assume the UBI is set at the point of rent, food, clothes, bus pass and no luxuries low wages would provide much higher incremental increases in living conditions than the current minimum wage does.

The biggest issue with UBI is it will have to significantly increase corporate taxes and personal taxes to cover the costs of UBI. If these taxes make you non-competitive you can't afford these programs.

In an automated world goods will be manufactured where cheapest and sol where their is wealth. Nicer of these are the place with a UBI. So then you need Tarrifs against countries that dump automated goods into the market without paying taxes and then you start a trade war. I like the concept of UBI but the implementation needs to be part of a global deal on trade to be fully implemented.

The best part of UBI is it facilitates retraining yourself. You don't have to stay in a labour position becuase you can't afford to go back to school. That liberation from needing a pay check will free people to create.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

To add to what blankall wrote, I’m not trying to suggest that people will stop wanting to work, I’m suggesting that if the number of job losses due to automation outpaces the number of jobs being created many people will not have the option to work. For that reason I’m of the opinion that more would need to be done beyond a UBI to address the job losses due to automation. Added funding for training and skills upgrading for jobs that need to be filled would be a good place to start.

IMO a UBI is at best a stop gap solution that will only work in the short term and will lead to bigger problems down the road as revenue to pay for it comes from fewer and fewer sources.

Listen to the podcast, Yang touches on it. Government funded retraining has anywhere from a 0-37% success rate. I’m not sure putting more funding into that is smart, and in addition, UBI would provide those who need retraining with the safety net required to complete it on their own terms.

As you said, “more would need to be done.” Nobody is suggesting the UBI is THE solution, it is PART of the solution. So yes, if a UBI is implemented and nothing else is changed, it’s long term success is questionable at best. But UBI is part of whatever future solution exists, no doubt in my mind.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

On your first point, this just perpetuates the myth that people on the bottom rung are unambiguous or unmotivated, which is wrong, and definitely ignores an incredibly wide range of circumstance and luck.

On your second point, this would likely have the opposite effect. Small businesses don’t have to compete with UBI, they reap the benefits of it. It will improve small businesses as a lot more people with be able to AFFORD working for small local businesses instead of big corporations that pay a few dollars more. UBI would stimulate local economies big time. And hey, if you’re worried about small businesses, what exactly do you think AI automation is going to do for ma and pa shops? Because “keep them in business” ain’t it.

I'm definitely not saying that all people with low paying jobs are unmotivated, but some certainly are.

To your second point, I just don't see someone forgoing the opportunity at more income. From my experience working for small businesses is often also worse than working for corporations, as you get fewer benefits, less guarantee of long term employment, smaller office space, etc...Obviously, this differs from person to person, but you can't conclude that working for a small business is always better.

Most "Ma and Pa" shops, and small businesses generally, are in the service sector, and not the manufacturing sector. As such, automation is less likely to affect them. For example, the staff they require like receptionist, book keeper, office assistant, etc.. cannot be automated. The services they require like plumber, accountant, dog sitter, caterer, etc... are unlikely to be automated anytime soon either. Retail is dead, due to the internet and direct ordering, not automation.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

For example, the staff they require like receptionist, book keeper, office assistant, etc.. cannot be automated.

Literally every one of these things can be partially or completely automated right now. Those automated solutions will be widely available pretty quickly.

The services they require like plumber, accountant, dog sitter, caterer, etc... are unlikely to be automated anytime soon either. Retail is dead, due to the internet and direct ordering, not automation.

Direct ordering is largely automated, and soon delivery will be as well, which is in part what allows those services to undercut retail costs, so you're wrong about that. Second, again, you may still need a human plumber, but a small business accountant? Nope. Dog sitter? Nope. Caterer? Maybe, but it'll employ far fewer people due to many functions being automated. You've seriously underestimated what even dumb, narrow AI is already capable of.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Universal means universal. It goes to everyone. It's not a circumstance of you can either work for what you make or get UBI. You get it regardless. So the choice isn't between doing your existing job for 30k or nothing for 25k, it's between doing your existing job for 55k or nothing for 25k.

Obviously it's not that simple, because the market will adjust salaries and what was a 30k job in the original context may be something else once things settle down, and of course the 25k is just a number - you hear lots of different baseline numbers being thrown around. But the gist is that the soon-to-be large class of unemployed and those in unskilled jobs that aren't replaced by automation aren't going to end up abjectly poor, and can live lives that are still very modest, yet nonetheless dignified.

Just sounds like that's going to lead to inflation. If the cost of an apartment downtown is $1,500, and you give everyone an extra $25k/year to bid on that cost, then the cost of the apartment goes up. The person who owns the apartment makes out like a bandit. Meanwhile the CEO who makes $1 million/year, isn't really affected, as even with a $25k bump, the things he buys are so expensive no one is competing with him.

Raising people out of poverty requires actually giving them goods. Money is meaningless paper.

I like the idea of GBI, but any time anything similar has been tried in the past, the end result is the same. Over time, the poor to middle upper class end up in a race to the bottom. The wealthy become really wealthy. Venezuela tried something very similar. The end effect was virtually all industries collapsing, the population being dependent on oil revenues, and a few people being very very rich.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Listen to the podcast, Yang touches on it. Government funded retraining has anywhere from a 0-37% success rate. I’m not sure putting more funding into that is smart, and in addition, UBI would provide those who need retraining with the safety net required to complete it on their own terms.

I think it is a fairly large assumption on your part that a UBI will cover this.

As you said, “more would need to be done.” Nobody is suggesting the UBI is THE solution, it is PART of the solution. So yes, if a UBI is implemented and nothing else is changed, it’s long term success is questionable at best. But UBI is part of whatever future solution exists, no doubt in my mind.

I just don’t see it as a sustainable option in any event. As money funnels into fewer and fewer hands there will be less and less incentive for the “haves” to support the “have nots”

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

Just sounds like that's going to lead to inflation. If the cost of an apartment downtown is $1,500, and you give everyone an extra $25k/year to bid on that cost, then the cost of the apartment goes up.

Which is why the actual numbers are fairly meaningless in these hypothetical examples. Inflation isn't even a problem worth thinking about, because you're overhauling the entire economic system and you don't know whether that inflation will end up happening or what its impact would be if it did. What supply and demand look like in a system that's deliberately designed to ensure a redistribution of wealth to prevent poverty is incredibly hard to predict. The entire market for housing would change, for one thing, to the point where this example likely wouldn't reflect reality anyway. It's another reason why this is almost absurdly unlikely to take place; it would be an enormous upheaval to how society works.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Literally every one of these things can be partially or completely automated right now. Those automated solutions will be widely available pretty quickly.

Direct ordering is largely automated, and soon delivery will be as well, which is in part what allows those services to undercut retail costs, so you're wrong about that. Second, again, you may still need a human plumber, but a small business accountant? Nope. Dog sitter? Nope. Caterer? Maybe, but it'll employ far fewer people due to many functions being automated. You've seriously underestimated what even dumb, narrow AI is already capable of.

I run a small business, and none of those services can be automated. I need to answer the phone and speak to customers. I need to have a person track my finances. A computer can physically print the letter, but I still need someone to physically input the data into the computer.

I think you are vastly over-estimated the current abilities of automated technology. AI cannot respond to nuanced and dynamic situations. Real life scenarios require an actual human mind to navigate around.

Beyond the mental capabilities of AI, we also are very far away from having robots who can climb into someone's apartment and remove a clog from a sink. We can barely build a robot that can walk in a straight line. We haven't even built a machine that replaces a simple plunger. So even the vast majority of small businesses that require manual labour are very far from being totally automated.

Basically, my point is that there are few real life situations, run by small businesses, that you could totally automate.