How do you feel about basic income?

[Philosophy Explorer]

This is the supposed answer to AI taking over jobs.

In the US, many people who don't work get welfare. Would or should basic income replace or supplement welfare? And how about those who already get retirement income?
Would or should retirement income be replaced or supplemented by basic income? And how about your country?

I'll be adding articles about basic income to this thread as it's a very important topic. Here's the first one:

http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11 ... -crowdfund

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

We should be very wary of these sorts of assumptions. There has been a long tradition of making predictions about how in the future goods and services will no longer be scarce and so the work week will drop to 15 hours etc.

There's actually nothing much wrong with Keynes' famous prediction of exactly that from 1930 (pdf). And yet, instead of a 15 hour working week, we have thus far opted for an immense explosion of goods services to continue purchasing. You can't blame the guy for predicting neither the iPad nor the vajazzle.

You have started a lot of topics about AI. But none of them seems to deal with whether AI is just a marketing term for some sort of clever algorithms which aren't in themselves actually intelligent. That latter, and much lesser, thing is what is supposed to be automating a bunch of jobs in the near future. For the most part it won't evict the human workforce from its necessary place in the economic order, most of us will just find that we are provided with new tools to boost our productivity.

A lot of basic A to B driving jobs will go. But furniture removals guys will just get to offload the driving part of the job to a computer for instance, the other stuff they do will be the bit that gets charged as a valuable service. Something similar will apply to most driving jobs that aren't, well, Uber.

Those workers who are displaced rather than enhanced by technology will still find there are plenty of machine proof niches out there. Some of them made possible by other machines. There will be no need for burly men to do all the heavy lifting and manual labour jobs for instance if the next batch of commercial exoskeletons means any weakling can wield a pneumatic drill without dislocating a hip


It is a mistake to suppose that machines replacing humans in those areas of economic activity where they can will force us to adopt UBI. However if enough machines do enough work to release human labour requirements on a sufficient scale, then that is good. Because only after that happens does the cost of goods and services fall low enough that UBI becomes worthwhile. It isn't a forcing factor, it may be an enabling one.

[Terrapin Station]

In my opinion, if we started from scratch--we just wiped the slate clean so to speak, with respect to the money that everyone has, with respect to everyone's present careers, etc.--if we were to just hit "reset" and restart the game, if wouldn't actually be that difficult to reorganize things to make sure that everyone alive has food, shelter, health care, education, transportation, etc., and that they always have it. We wouldn't even need anything like our present monetary system. We could easily provide the stuff that people need along those lines, and we could easily do it so that everyone has a bunch of free time to enjoy each other and the world.

That's ideally how we should proceed. At least as if we'd done that, at least making the changes necessary to have that as a foundation.

[Skip]

I`m with terrapin Station.
A guaranteed basic income would be a sensible solution to unfair economic disparity, if money were necessary.
Money is no longer necessary. The only people who consider it important are the ones who have stolen huge whacks of it from the people who do the actual work. Getting it back from those people is more trouble than it`s worth. it`s easier and simpler just to render money unnecessary. pretty soon, nobody will need to work, and wealth will be meaningless. The ex-rich can sit in their big houses, with nobody to serve them or fix things.

[FlashDangerpants]

What prices should things have?
Or are we going to provide a Mercedes for everyone who wants one because without money there is no reason for there to be a shortage of Mercs any more?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Under Universal Basic Income, people will feel uncomfortable with getting less than what they think they're entitled to based on a history of being highly productive. What would logically satisfy them?

PhilX

[bobevenson]

Everything I've read in this thread is total garbage. There will always be new and better products to be made. Some will require new and better machines that have to be made. There will never be an end to jobs. And there will always be a need for somebody to push a broom. People will have to make their own decisions on what kind of work they want to do, and how to get there. Now, under the AEP, the government can give people as much money as they want as long as the same amount of money is given to everybody, but all government expenditures must come from a single tax on property with intrinsic market value, and the government cannot simply create inflationary money. Am I making myself clear, crystal clear?

[Terrapin Station]

What prices should things have?
Or are we going to provide a Mercedes for everyone who wants one because without money there is no reason for there to be a shortage of Mercs any more?

The way I'd organize things, which would retain competition, is that the way one acquires scarcer resources is by competing to do more--through hard work and/or ingenuity/efficiency--to provide for others re food, shelter, etc. as well as the other items that others desire. That's different than the way things are not, because with the way things are now, competition is oriented towards purely figuring out how to get the most for oneself, often at the expense of others. With what I'm describing, competition is oriented towards on figuring out how to provide the most to others, and that's the only way you get more/scarcer things for yourself.

So, for example, if everyone really wants a Mercedes, and someone can figure out a relatively easy way to provide everyone with a Mercedes, then the person who figured out the easy way to provide everyone with a Mercedes will be rewarded royally, with access to whatever scarce resources, PLUS, everyone has the Mercedes they wanted. (Of course, if everyone had a Mercedes, then probably people wouldn't want them so much, but that's irrelevant to what I'm talking about.)

[attofishpi]

Everything I've read in this thread is total garbage. There will always be new and better products to be made.

By robots.

Some will require new and better machines that have to be made.

By robots.

There will never be an end to jobs.

For robots.

And there will always be a need for somebody to push a broom.

By robots.

People will have to make their own decisions on what kind of work they want to do, and how to get there.

The arts.

Now, under the AEP, the government can give people as much money as they want as long as the same amount of money is given to everybody, but all government expenditures must come from a single tax on property with intrinsic market value, and the government cannot simply create inflationary money. Am I making myself clear, crystal clear?

Business in your free market capitalised economy dont give a fuck about social responsibility.

[bobevenson]

Who the fuck do you think designs the robots, builds the robots, brings together the necessary materials for the robots, sells the robots, and all the other things that go into manufacturing, marketing and distribution of the robots, dum-dum?

[attofishpi]

Yes - next to the arts i was going to put coders. Initially there will be great fervor in the realms of design and marketing - but once strong AI hits the realm, this will be the also confined to the employ of AI. The technological singularity is afoot.

[Philosophy Explorer]

http://bigthink.com/natalie-shoemaker/c ... 20-a-month

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/12967778

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology ... rk-111516/

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

To let you know, the last three articles I tacked on is a very small sample of dozens of articles that are all less than a week old. This is a hot-topic issue that's only going to get hotter as time moves along.

PhilX