Actually agree with you on the claim that there might not be many jobs left. Although there have been multiple times in the past where people were afraid of change, and the same change actually improved the economy (abolishment of slavery, machines etc.), the past doesn't necessarily predict the future.People are missing the tectonic shift that's happening / going to happen in labor. They think it'll be just like the past: jobs go away in one area (farm workers, telephone operators, buggy-whip makers, whatever) so you just go get a job in another area.
I don't think it's going to work that way this time, or soon. There might not BE any jobs in other areas.
The difference this time is that automation could end up displacing ALL low-end workers. Automation willl start out replacing low-skill repetitive jobs, but it will replace more and more jobs as the technology advances. If automation replaces ALL jobs that a low-level employee can hold, those employees will have nowhere to go. Some people are well-matched to driving a truck or picking lettuce, but they are not capable of being a Machine Learning tech or a web designer. Obviously this won't happen overnight, but when automation replaces ALL of those driving/picking jobs, those people will effectively be UN-employable.
That's where I think you have to seriously consider UBI. People on the low end will have no other way to feed themselves. UBI in this case isn't an airy-fairy utopia idea -- it's a last-ditch defense against massive riots and revolt. (Though how you keep those idle hands out of trouble is another question...)
That said, people are too quick jumping the gun with UBI. AI takes over? Well, guess we've got to become socialist then! It's like getting a cold and making the decision to start bloodletting just because it feels like it's the only solution.
Because truth to be told, I rarely see any logical arguments for why it would be the best solution. The line of reasoning only goes like this:
1. AI will take all jobs
2. Hence, UBI is the only choice
Ideally, there should be a number of arguments between 1 and 2 but for some reason you never see them mentioned in this debate. IMO it's pure sophistry and all of these billionaires and politicians are outright reckless by proposing that we 'try out' and 'experiment' with it with when they've got nothing to back it up aside from some fearmongering of an AI-dystopia.
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.