Time to shake things up: Universal Basic Income?

[Johnny boy]

Go meet the dumbest 40% of society and tell me they won’t just sit on their a$$ and work even less than they do now.

 

[Guest6814]

I also think the AI might be a whole 'nother animal then previous automation. And I'll give my reasons. It has the potential to eventually (say 60+ years) to make human labor almost completely obsolete. Previous automation never did that. Again, we're not 100% sure that AI will make human labor obsolete, but I definitely think the potential is there. We already have AI that's creating (pretty decent quality) music:

This YouTube Channel Streams AI-Generated Death Metal 24/7

Dadabots was developed by two music technologists who wanted to prove that a neural network was capable of capturing the subtle stylistic differences between Death Metal, Math Rock, and other lesser-known genres.

www.vice.com

We already have AI that can beat the absolute best gamers in certain video games:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMRDm_H9Sg


Let's say, for arguments sake, this is 100 years down the line. I think it's less, but just for arguments sake. What happens when and if AI starts doing our taxes better? Or building legal cases? Or doing surgeries?

We already have AI that's doing certain surgeries better than humans will:

Autonomous Robot Does Surgical Cuts Better than Human Surgeon

No matter where you look, it seems that automation is on the cusp of creeping into all kinds of industries

thenewstack.io

People can just move to another job. Right? But that job will have AI that's better. What if in 100 or less years AI just becomes better at everything humans do?

Well then we just sit back and enjoy the spoils of our robot slaves. But how do we decide how to divvy up those spoils? I think that's something we need to be thinking about sooner rather than later.

It’s an interesting argument. However, it’s also important to balance a product’s capability with its demand. Do people want machines to perform their surgeries? Do people prefer the music proposed by a machine, or do they still demand the imperfection of human-created music?

Also, some jobs require human sensitivities. It’s doubtful that people will want their psychologists or social workers to be machines.

 

[Guest6814]

A question that is good to start with is, where does money come from?

Money is a promise on the future production of others.

Money is a tool for mediating the value when trading goods. If there are no goods to trade, money has no value.

If you give everyone free "money", without changing the quantity / quality of goods being produced, the value of the money collapses.

There is also the ethical question of who is to supply that money.

Do you print it? In the process destroying the wealth of the virtuous who produced and saved.
Or take it in the form of taxation, threatening to lock those who do not comply with your "good will" in a concrete box?

Every dollar you hold shows that you produced value to someone, and is a promise (or a prayer?) that someone in the future will create something that you value, so you can trade with them.

----

As for AI, technology advances. I'm pretty sure every major technological advance in history has been heralded by cries of "but so many people will lose their jobs!"... and sure maybe some people lose their job, but they then find one.

Someone is always going to be willing to trade to have something done for them. If you can do it, they will trade with you.

Just adding to your comment. The automotive industry destroyed the horse-and-buggy industry. At the same time, it opened up a host of new industries: gasoline, tires, mechanics, insurance, road construction, car alarms, car stereos, car deodorizers, parking garages...

How many of those industries and products were even foreseen by the inventors of the original automobiles?

Also, consider that even rapid technological changes take time, and that humans are very good at adapting and transitioning to new situations.

 

[StrikingViper69]

I want to think that we are evolved animals and can help people who *really* need it, as a society. Obviously, not some Joe who prefers to watch TV and drink beer while getting benefits, rather than work on getting new skills to become employable again.

People can, and do, help each other.

But, if one person doesn't want to help another, for whatever reason, why do you advocate forcing them to do so?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[srodrigo]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant from a purely moral, not legal, perspective:

Why should one person be forced to help another?

"We are already forced to do stuff anyway", which is what I think your argument boils down to, doesn't seem like a convincing argument to me.

For me, this argument has two parts:
1. If your moral code involves forcing people to do something they don't want to do, that code of morality needs reconsidering. "I'm going to beat people into being better human beings" is the mantra of every champagne socialist and dictator through history. I've found that most people who think this way have some sort of hatred for their species.

2. How much of your life can be mortgaged to another mans needs? In your above example, if another man needs a heart operation to save his life, how much of your life should he be allowed to impact? Can he sell your house to cover it? After all, he needs a heart more than you need a house...
What about your childrens food? Surely they can skip a few meals so that he can have a new heart... ?

Bad things happen... that are not necessarily anyones fault. But that is a fact of reality... and 'bad luck' is not an open check to pillage the lives of others.

---

Having said that, I think most people would voluntarily help people out if they can. But again, it should be their choice... not yours.

I see what you mean, I didn't understand your point before, sorry.

I agree that we shouldn't be morally forced to help people.

 

[ZF Lee]

So I wanted to comment on this, but didn't want to derail the BBQ thread..

I actually like Yang. If you actually watch his Rogan interview he's really pro-entrepreneurship. Hands down the most pro-entrepreneur candidate in the lineup. He's a successful serial entrepreneur himself. Bernie is just a rich-people-hater.

Andrew Yang (born January 13, 1975) is an American 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, entrepreneur, lawyer, and philanthropist. He is the founder of Venture for America (VFA), a nonprofit that focuses on creating jobs in struggling American cities. Yang worked in various startups and early stage growth companies as a founder or executive from 2000 to 2009. After he founded VFA in 2011, the Obama administration selected him in 2012 as a "Champion of Change" and in 2015 as a "Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship". Yang is the author of the 2014 book Smart People Should Build Things and the 2018 book The War on Normal People.​

​

Anyway, not to get political... but I think Yang and Sanders are totally different candidates. Yang is rabidly pro-entrepreneurship.

Yup, I found that to be the case for Yang.

For Bernie, I found his concerns on solving healthcare issues legit, but I kept thinking about whether his plan might disrupt the usual market incentives for health service providers.

 

[Ninjakid]

So I wanted to comment on this, but didn't want to derail the BBQ thread..

I actually like Yang. If you actually watch his Rogan interview he's really pro-entrepreneurship. Hands down the most pro-entrepreneur candidate in the lineup. He's a successful serial entrepreneur himself. Bernie is just a rich-people-hater.

Andrew Yang (born January 13, 1975) is an American 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, entrepreneur, lawyer, and philanthropist. He is the founder of Venture for America (VFA), a nonprofit that focuses on creating jobs in struggling American cities. Yang worked in various startups and early stage growth companies as a founder or executive from 2000 to 2009. After he founded VFA in 2011, the Obama administration selected him in 2012 as a "Champion of Change" and in 2015 as a "Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship". Yang is the author of the 2014 book Smart People Should Build Things and the 2018 book The War on Normal People.​

​

Anyway, not to get political... but I think Yang and Sanders are totally different candidates. Yang is rabidly pro-entrepreneurship.

I really like Andrew Yang too. Andrew Yang's stance on UBI is that the $1000 to each person is less expensive than how much it costs to lock people up and deal with additions and other aspect of poverty. People who think he's just giving away free money, he's not.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

So I wanted to comment on this, but didn't want to derail the BBQ thread..

Thanks, actually of all the "hate the rich and take your guns" Dem candidates, I find Yang to be the most palatable, and yes, because he has an entrepreneurial focus and doesn't seem to be whackadoodle like the rest of 'em. Unfortunately voters vote on emotion, not data, facts, or logic... so I'm not sure he has a chance.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Tourmaline]

@LittleWolfie When I say free markets I mean a well regulated market that makes a fair market that helps produce wealth and eliminate poverty. It's not about me and my profits. Capitalism needs regulations to function well. Without regulations you end up with people not being able to start businesses and free enterprise withers away.

I don't know how you can call a regulated market radical when it is what exists in the USA and many other places. Laissez faire free markets are radical because they're literally extreme and don't exist anywhere currently, it would a large change in how things are currently done which is why it's radical.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MHP368]

Negative income tax makes more sense but even that its far too soon.

Like I understand having Yang run now opens up the door to move the overton window on the topic so its more easily discussed in the mainstream down the line but uhm...what jobs exactly are being replaced by automation right now? , 1 less person per shift at taco bell and mcdonalds because of the kiosks? 1 less server at chilis because I can pay with a tablet at the table?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

As for how governments intend to handle the massive amounts of negative human energy that will come from unemployment and aimlessness.

Are you saying that having a UBI might discourage employment?

I don't know that's what you meant, but I'll reply to the idea anyway.

I don't think so. And I'll explain why. No matter how much money people make, they generally want more. If you make 100K, you want 200K. If you make 600K, you want 1M. If you make 600M, you want 1.2B. I think the people that are only living on the UBI will just want more than that.

I don't think a UBI would increase unemployment because people are designed to constantly be moving forward. I don't think for most people that by them say a $1200/mo UBI, they'll just lazily sit on their butts. Keep in mind for much of human history humans only lived on about $3/day in constant 1991 dollars. And the ones that are lazy are likely already doing that, even if they work. There are plenty of people who work a job, collect a paycheck, and lazily don't contribute to their company (and therefore the economy.)

I think that most people have a drive to contribute just for contributions sake.

Negative income tax makes more sense but even that its far too soon.

Like I understand having Yang run now opens up the door to move the overton window on the topic so its more easily discussed in the mainstream down the line but uhm...what jobs exactly are being replaced by automation right now? , 1 less person per shift at taco bell and mcdonalds because of the kiosks? 1 less server at chilis because I can pay with a tablet at the table?

More than you'd think. Look at the Rust Belt, the area of the country where many jobs were lost due to automation and outsourcing. A lot of manufacturing jobs were lost in key swing states, which was a large reason Trump took the 2016 election. I think we're seeing the effects of this more than we think.

Millions Of Jobs Have Been Lost To Automation. Economists Weigh In On What To Do About It

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation promise to usher in a new era of inexpensive goods, effortless personalization, and freedom from tedium. Yet beneath the surface of innovation a current of economic disenfranchisement threatens to sweep society away.

www.forbes.com

If your job is 'boring and repetitive' watch out: You run the risk of being replaced by robots

Certain people will feel the pain of automation more acutely than others, according to a report by the Brookings Institution.

www.cnbc.com

And I somewhat agree. This may not be a huge problem right now, but do we want to wait for riots like at the start of the Industrial Revolution? Or do we want to plan ahead

 

[G-Man]

Are you saying that having a UBI might discourage employment?

No, that was in response to the assertion that AI will displace a lot of workers, which I agree with. UBI would probably increase employment in the short term, as people don't stand to make themselves worse off by losing benefits if they work.

 

[OlivierMo]

Are you saying that having a UBI might discourage employment?

I don't know that's what you meant, but I'll reply to the idea anyway.

I don't think so. And I'll explain why. No matter how much money people make, they generally want more. If you make 100K, you want 200K. If you make 600K, you want 1M. If you make 600M, you want 1.2B. I think the people that are only living on the UBI will just want more than that.

I don't think a UBI would increase unemployment because people are designed to constantly be moving forward. I don't think for most people that by them say a $1200/mo UBI, they'll just lazily sit on their butts. Keep in mind for much of human history humans only lived on about $3/day in constant 1991 dollars. And the ones that are lazy are likely already doing that, even if they work. There are plenty of people who work a job, collect a paycheck, and lazily don't contribute to their company (and therefore the economy.)

I think that most people have a drive to contribute just for contributions sake.


More than you'd think. Look at the Rust Belt, the area of the country where many jobs were lost due to automation and outsourcing. A lot of manufacturing jobs were lost in key swing states, which was a large reason Trump took the 2016 election. I think we're seeing the effects of this more than we think.

Millions Of Jobs Have Been Lost To Automation. Economists Weigh In On What To Do About It

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation promise to usher in a new era of inexpensive goods, effortless personalization, and freedom from tedium. Yet beneath the surface of innovation a current of economic disenfranchisement threatens to sweep society away.

www.forbes.com

If your job is 'boring and repetitive' watch out: You run the risk of being replaced by robots

Certain people will feel the pain of automation more acutely than others, according to a report by the Brookings Institution.

www.cnbc.com

And I somewhat agree. This may not be a huge problem right now, but do we want to wait for riots like at the start of the Industrial Revolution? Or do we want to plan ahead

I think a lot of people would sit on their butts. How many already do on social security because of some fake disability? (I have examples around me.) UBI sounds good but in exchange people should be mandated to volunteer too if you're not showing any productive behavior. Why not go teach kids, clean the environment, etc... I know that sounds like a communist regime but the people who want the UBI the most are usually on the left. So let's put the logic and make them work for the State.

 

[Kevin88660]

There are certain assumptions behind this.

-There will be massive wealth generated through technology advancement
-This is accompanied by massive layoff and made a lot of labor redundant
-As a result wealth is concentrated at a few who control the capital and technological resources.
-So the only political solution is to guarantee a minimum income regardless if one works or not. Anyway the elites would have so much wealth that a tiny fraction of tax would make the minimum income possible.
-It will be a utopian or dystopian depending on how you see it.

 

[ChrisV]

I think a lot of people would sit on their butts. How many already do on social security because of some fake disability? (I have examples around me.) UBI sounds good but in exchange people should be mandated to volunteer too if you're not showing any productive behavior. Why not go teach kids, clean the environment, etc... I know that sounds like a communist regime but the people who want the UBI the most are usually on the left. So let's put the logic and make them work for the State.

Well even if they did, it wouldn't matter. The economy would still grow because AI will be doing more labor than humans are even capable of.

I don't think most people will.. but if they did, so what? Isn't that one of the benefits of having robots do our work for us? To do less work.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[OlivierMo]

Well even if they did, it wouldn't matter. The economy would still grow because AI will be doing more labor than humans are even capable of.

I don't think most people will.. but if they did, so what? Isn't that one of the benefits of having robots do our work for us? To do less work.

The economy grows if people need stuff. Even now the aging of the population makes growth something very difficult. Not many people mention it. That's why Japan has no growth. Even negative interest rates don't generate any growth. People can't even get that.

 

[ChrisV]

The AI controversy is not a tech based argument, it is an economics based argument.

There is ALWAYS going to be a human reason behind all work preformed by AI. AI doesn't work for itself and it never will. AI won't have consumption tendencies. It wont have an opinion on the home it lives in... The car it drives... It doesn't eat food. It won't serve itself because it has no need to.

What you are doing with these new technological advancements can be comparable to getting machinery to work farms with, putting hand pickers out of work. So what. There is a HUMAN market behind the production of those goods and the workers fit in somewhere else.

Over and over throughout history technology has displaced certain workers... Yet we still have a low unemployment rate... Why is that? Because the economy is ever changing and ALWAYS AUTOMATICALLY seeks equilibrium.

Assuming the government doesn't screw it up... AI will be the next great improvement in human lifestyle prosperity.

And you're right, in the long term. In 100 years we'll be looking back at all the economic growth like it were the second Industrial Revolution.

And I think that the Industrial Revolution is the perfect analogy. Enormous growth. Unprecedented. That being said, there were a lot of individual people that suffered from it. Maybe they found a new job 5 years down the line, but 5 years is a long time.

The other option here would be an unemployment system specifically for people displaced by AI automation.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

The AI controversy is not a tech based argument, it is an economics based argument.

I also think the AI might be a whole 'nother animal then previous automation. And I'll give my reasons. It has the potential to eventually (say 60+ years) to make human labor almost completely obsolete. Previous automation never did that. Again, we're not 100% sure that AI will make human labor obsolete, but I definitely think the potential is there. We already have AI that's creating (pretty decent quality) music:

This YouTube Channel Streams AI-Generated Death Metal 24/7

Dadabots was developed by two music technologists who wanted to prove that a neural network was capable of capturing the subtle stylistic differences between Death Metal, Math Rock, and other lesser-known genres.

www.vice.com

We already have AI that can beat the absolute best gamers in certain video games:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMRDm_H9Sg


Let's say, for arguments sake, this is 100 years down the line. I think it's less, but just for arguments sake. What happens when and if AI starts doing our taxes better? Or building legal cases? Or doing surgeries?

We already have AI that's doing certain surgeries better than humans will:

Autonomous Robot Does Surgical Cuts Better than Human Surgeon

No matter where you look, it seems that automation is on the cusp of creeping into all kinds of industries

thenewstack.io

People can just move to another job. Right? But that job will have AI that's better. What if in 100 or less years AI just becomes better at everything humans do?

Well then we just sit back and enjoy the spoils of our robot slaves. But how do we decide how to divvy up those spoils? I think that's something we need to be thinking about sooner rather than later.

 

[OlivierMo]

I also think the AI might be a whole 'nother animal then previous automation. And I'll give my reasons. It has the potential to eventually (say 60+ years) to make human labor almost completely obsolete. Previous automation never did that. Again, we're not 100% sure that AI will make human labor obsolete, but I definitely think the potential is there. We already have AI that's creating (pretty decent quality) music:

This YouTube Channel Streams AI-Generated Death Metal 24/7

Dadabots was developed by two music technologists who wanted to prove that a neural network was capable of capturing the subtle stylistic differences between Death Metal, Math Rock, and other lesser-known genres.

www.vice.com

We already have AI that can beat the absolute best gamers in certain video games:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMRDm_H9Sg


Let's say, for arguments sake, this is 100 years down the line. I think it's less, but just for arguments sake. What happens when and if AI starts doing our taxes better? Or building legal cases? Or doing surgeries?

We already have AI that's doing certain surgeries better than humans will:

Autonomous Robot Does Surgical Cuts Better than Human Surgeon

No matter where you look, it seems that automation is on the cusp of creeping into all kinds of industries

thenewstack.io

People can just move to another job. Right? But that job will have AI that's better. What if in 100 or less years AI just becomes better at everything humans do?

Well then we just sit back and enjoy the spoils of our robot slaves. But how do we decide how to divvy up those spoils? I think that's something we need to be thinking about sooner rather than later.

The question is: who will control all that AI. I share Nietzsche's view that man is all about will to power. Let's assume the richest will control the AI, the richest could enjoy the planet without doing anymore work and employees. Do you believe the most powerful would really need the masses threatening the environment and the beautify of Earth? Call me a conspiracy theorist but UBI and the likes is just a tools to control the masses. Eventually the AI could exterminate the ones that are not necessary. Robots doing the dirty work without emotions and qualms while the most powerful enjoy the Caribbean beaches. That's how the spoils would get shared.

 

[ChrisV]

And it doesn't matter for me. I mean I work with data. If anything I've made a killing off this change in industry. My work will literally be the absolute last to be automated, if at all.

And for the record, I've never been the type of person to talk about 'job losses.' I think it's a ridiculous argument. Jobs don't just disappear, they move. A printing press goes out of business, and all of a sudden there are 10,000 blogging opportunities. It's a dumb argument.

That being said, AI eventually will likely be better at everything humans do.

But that's the point, What if the only jobs left are programming and engineering. I don't believe you can train Joe the Plumber to code or engineer. He's going to look at it a line of code like 'what the F*ck.' I don't believe you can just pluck some random McDonalds worker and just teach them Machine Learning algorithms.

And if AI can crack the secret to creativity (which is likely, and being worked on) creative work may even become obsolete.

 

[StrikingViper69]

And it doesn't matter for me. I mean I work with data. If anything I've made a killing off this change in industry. My work will literally be the absolute last to be automated, if at all.

And for the record, I've never been the type of person to talk about 'job losses.' I think it's a ridiculous argument. Jobs don't just disappear, they move. A printing press goes out of business, and all of a sudden there are 10,000 blogging opportunities. It's a dumb argument.

That being said, AI eventually will likely be better at everything humans do.

But that's the point, What if the only jobs left are programming and engineering. I don't believe you can train Joe the Plumber to code or engineer. He's going to look at it a line of code like 'what the F*ck.' I don't believe you can just pluck some random McDonalds worker and just teach them Machine Learning algorithms.

"What If" isn't an argument... you can say "what if" about literally anything.

But, if that McDs worker had the willingness to learn, and a good environment, yes they could learn.

 

[socaldude]

What economics is essentially is the allocation of scarce resources. Land, Labor and Capital.

In other words under a jurisdiction the government is saying here is this fiat currency so we can enact monetary policy and make laws and you guys(citizens) compete for these resources as consumers and producers using this piece of paper made of cotton.

But ultimately a government has supreme control over land and resources and it's citizens.

So now if something becomes FREE (UBI) that thing is no longer scarce. We will have nothing other than stagflation.

Jobs simply move where the resources and scarcity have moved although now changing at a much faster pace.

That's why college degree have lost their value because the skills and knowledge are no longer scarce and very little resources(land labor capital) is funneling through that system.

Although I think we are far away from making AI a reality, someone still needs to come in(an entrepreneur) and invent the physical hardware part of it to interact intelligently with it's environment.

 

[ChrisV]

Finland did an experiment with this, and the results were meh.

Finland's basic income trial boosts happiness but not employment

Finland's basic income scheme did not spur its unemployed recipients to work more to supplement their earnings as hoped but it did help their wellbeing, researchers said on Friday as the government announced initial findings.

www.reuters.com

The idea goes like this: If a welfare recipient gets a job, they lose welfare, incentivizing them to stay unemployed. So if you give everyone checks regardless of whether they have a job or not, unemployed people won't worry about losing their welfare and will seek jobs.

The government ran the experiment and discovered: Not so much. Participants were no more or less likely to get jobs than other unemployed people.

Basic income: World's first national experiment in Finland shows modest benefits

The preliminary findings from Finland's basic income experiment are out and they show mixed results. Both advocates and critics of the idea of a universal basic income will find cause for consternation and celebration. Though widely anticipated by basic income enthusiasts, the Finnish experiment...

phys.org

But the good news is that it didn't decrease employment like some people theorize.

That being said serious props to Finland for actually testing their ideas rather than just implementing programs based on idealogical arguments like we do in the US.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6mDhW0WvUE

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Justice Beaver]

As far as the inflation argument goes with UBI, I'd say there's an equally compelling argument against the inflation theory which is this: economic theory typically states that mass inflation comes as a byproduct of printing money. The government printed money and bailed out Wall Street with trillions, and no mass inflation occurred even then. Yang's proposal involves no printing of money. Also, inflation typically occurs as a result of supply and demand changes, not income. This whole concept also massively depends on how it's being implemented. So far, I like Yang's plan and the math behind it. That said, it would be reasonable to still expect some inflation as a result. It would be naive to expect otherwise, and Yang acknowledges that fact. But we also need to consider this...

It's not exactly a socialist proposal, it's still very capitalist in nature, because competitive market forces will still be at play. It's capitalism where income doesn't start at zero. Landlords and companies can't conspire to raise prices by $1k unilaterally... because that's price fixing and it's illegal. Also, because of competitive markets, anyone who raises their prices a ton because of the income from consumers will likely lose out to the business across the street who keeps their prices the same. And people would be able to afford the ability to make better choices for themselves, because they have more buying power. Not to mention, the best thing for businesses would be increased buying power of consumers. What's the alternative? A mandatory $15/hr wage that would bankrupt millions of small businesses? At least this way the business owners themselves get a pay raise too. I'd bet entrepreneurship would flourish if this became reality, because many aspiring entrepreneurs would feel less burden involved. Also consider the massive benefit this would provide to hard working people like stay at home moms, like Yang points out. The market values their effort at zero and we know that's not the truth.

As far as housing goes, the same market forces still apply, and mobilization across state lines would significantly increase because of that increased bargaining power, meaning people wouldn't have to put up with their greedy landlord. Also don't forget, that landlord would be getting a UBI too lol. This is an idea championed from Thomas Paine, to MLK, to Friedman to Alaska using it for decades now without issues. Is it a perfect idea? No. But our current system sure as hell ain't working for most Americans. It's clearly an idea we should explore. We've literally spent trillions on wasteful regime change wars and bailing out Wall Street. I don't think it's too ridiculous to talk about finally investing in the American people.

 

[Teddy L Wang]

We're living in strange times. AI is on the rise, hundreds of thousands of truckers are going to lose their jobs to self-driving trucks in coming years, we have a presidential candidate who's proposing a Universal Basic Income.

Milton Friedman, a nobel prize wining economists who was considered one of the most influential economists of all time proposed a Universal Basic Income back in 1962. Milton Friedman was far from a socialist or even liberal. He was one of the top advisors for the Reagan Administration and was a major advocate for 'hands off' government. But despite all that, he was still a strong advocate for a UBI.

You can hear some of Friedman's thought-provoking arguments here:

But back to AI, many studies (World Economic Forum, ScienceAlert, Bank of England) predicts of millions or 10's of millions of job losses, and while I think it will be one of the biggest technological boons we've ever seen, I still think we have to be careful of the short term effects.

Every study we could find on what automation will do to jobs, in one chart

There are about as many opinions as there are experts.

www.technologyreview.com

When	Where	Jobs Lost	Jobs Created	Predictor
2016	worldwide		900,000 to 1,500,000	Metra Martech
2018	US jobs	13,852,530*	3,078,340*	Forrester
2020	worldwide		1,000,000-2,000,000	Metra Martech
2020	worldwide	1,800,000	2,300,000	Gartner
2020	sampling of 15 countries	7,100,000	2,000,000	World Economic Forum (WEF)
2021	worldwide		1,900,000-3,500,000	The International Federation of Robotics
2021	US jobs	9,108,900*		Forrester
2022	worldwide	########		Thomas Frey
2025	US jobs	24,186,240*	13,604,760*	Forrester
2025	US jobs	3,400,000		ScienceAlert
2027	US jobs	########	########	Forrester
2030	worldwide	########		Thomas Frey
2030	worldwide	400,000,000-800,000,000	555,000,000-890,000,000	McKinsey
2030	US jobs	58,164,320*		PWC
2035	US jobs	########		Bank of England
2035	UK jobs	########		Bank of England
No Date	US jobs	13,594,320*		OECD
No Date	UK jobs	########		IPPR

Again, to be clear, I think AI is going to be the biggest development the world has ever seen. I think in general it will drastically improve our quality of life on an unprecedented level. But I also think we have to make a smart transition for those who are displaced. During the start of the industrial revolution, mass riots broke out by those who were displaced by automation.

Luddite riots in textiles

historymesh.com

Of course the Industrial Revolution worked out great in the long run as we see here:

View attachment 26450

And AI will likely be a similar boon, but I think it's important to pay attention to the unskilled workers who may be hurt by this.

Do you think that a Universal Basic Income might be a good solution? Or do you think it's pure socialism. Open to discussion.

do you have corresponding charts that map out the new jobs for humans that will be created when these jobs are replaced by ai/robotics? the only use for humans are problems to solve when it comes to abundance/scarcity. are you saying that the world will have less scarcity for humanity once these new ai/robotics jobs come into play? will the percentage of problems to be solved for humanity drop as humans are replaced by machines? because if not, humanity will continue to be useful, unless we create a machine that thinks, acts, and behaves like us in every way but 'better'.

 

[ChrisV]

HOT! - MARKETING - You copywriters are being replaced by AI..

https://thehustle.co/JPMorgan-Chase-bank-robots/ Writing copy is driven by common language elements and metrics that can be measured...a perfect task for AI, and at least 250 big companies are replacing copywriters with computers.

www.thefastlaneforum.com

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[QLM3]

We're living in strange times. AI is on the rise, hundreds of thousands of truckers are going to lose their jobs to self-driving trucks in coming years, we have a presidential candidate who's proposing a Universal Basic Income.

Milton Friedman, a nobel prize wining economists who was considered one of the most influential economists of all time proposed a Universal Basic Income back in 1962. Milton Friedman was far from a socialist or even liberal. He was one of the top advisors for the Reagan Administration and was a major advocate for 'hands off' government. But despite all that, he was still a strong advocate for a UBI.

You can hear some of Friedman's thought-provoking arguments here:

But back to AI, many studies (World Economic Forum, ScienceAlert, Bank of England) predicts of millions or 10's of millions of job losses, and while I think it will be one of the biggest technological boons we've ever seen, I still think we have to be careful of the short term effects.

Every study we could find on what automation will do to jobs, in one chart

There are about as many opinions as there are experts.

www.technologyreview.com

When	Where	Jobs Lost	Jobs Created	Predictor
2016	worldwide		900,000 to 1,500,000	Metra Martech
2018	US jobs	13,852,530*	3,078,340*	Forrester
2020	worldwide		1,000,000-2,000,000	Metra Martech
2020	worldwide	1,800,000	2,300,000	Gartner
2020	sampling of 15 countries	7,100,000	2,000,000	World Economic Forum (WEF)
2021	worldwide		1,900,000-3,500,000	The International Federation of Robotics
2021	US jobs	9,108,900*		Forrester
2022	worldwide	########		Thomas Frey
2025	US jobs	24,186,240*	13,604,760*	Forrester
2025	US jobs	3,400,000		ScienceAlert
2027	US jobs	########	########	Forrester
2030	worldwide	########		Thomas Frey
2030	worldwide	400,000,000-800,000,000	555,000,000-890,000,000	McKinsey
2030	US jobs	58,164,320*		PWC
2035	US jobs	########		Bank of England
2035	UK jobs	########		Bank of England
No Date	US jobs	13,594,320*		OECD
No Date	UK jobs	########		IPPR

Again, to be clear, I think AI is going to be the biggest development the world has ever seen. I think in general it will drastically improve our quality of life on an unprecedented level. But I also think we have to make a smart transition for those who are displaced. During the start of the industrial revolution, mass riots broke out by those who were displaced by automation.

Luddite riots in textiles

historymesh.com

Of course the Industrial Revolution worked out great in the long run as we see here:

View attachment 26450

And AI will likely be a similar boon, but I think it's important to pay attention to the unskilled workers who may be hurt by this.

Do you think that a Universal Basic Income might be a good solution? Or do you think it's pure socialism. Open to discussion.

I think automation/ai is evolving faster than most realize and what to do about it does not lead to UBI. Unfortunately, the central bank wealth redistribution malady has metastasized to the point where tinkering with a UBI will no longer produce the intended result. Expect a financial reset. It is planned and coming very soon.

Love seeing Milton Friedman in the blast from the past clip. I highly recommend his PBS series, "Free To Choose", available at "Free To Choose" (1980) a TV Series by Milton Friedman
Many great thinkers appear in these shows. A personal favorite is Thomas Sowell dismantling the Marxist "Cloward–Piven strategy" for Frances Piven.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26QxO49Ycx0

 

[ChrisV]

because if not, humanity will continue to be useful, unless we create a machine that thinks, acts, and behaves like us in every way but 'better'.

Which is exactly what AGI is aiming to do (and making serious progress, btw)

Two Minute Papers Playlist

It's not a matter 'if' it's a matter of 'when.'

 

[QFP]

And if AI can crack the secret to creativity (which is likely, and being worked on) creative work may even become obsolete.

Well People are already developing and selling AI produced art, though it was not a decision made by a general AI to produce the art.[obviously creativity covers all our activity not just art]
Art is play so if in the future an Ai 'decides' to produce art maybe it would be at play too?

As for UBI I feel this could well happen but a long way off yet.
An awful lot of work needs doing globally for the lot of our fellow people who don't have access to even the basics.
Not to mention the spiritual paradigm shift humanity will have to make in order to cope with such a change in the/our reason for being.
When I hear the term economic growth [population in turn] I think for how long how big is the petri dish?
Ultimately it is all about primary energy sources , sun what we dig out the ground etc.
In order to have tools to build our utopia we most certainly need fusion power or some sort of low cost mega volume of clean energy.
If we are going to have an automated robot global economy the its blood will be electricity and a lot of it.
When we can clear the above hurdles and create a huge energy surplus based economy then the possibilities could be awe inspiring.
I do like to dream of other worlds though.

Back to earth for the moment I do see in the current digital economy hints at how through this UBI could begin to evolve from the likes of the attention economy and internal automated crypto markets. In This scenario income is not controlled by central governments in order to manipulate the electorate but derived from global de centralised activity not from a local national economy.

Freedom ,choice, social responsibility ,tolerance, what we all agree on what we don,t and how to decide this without a 1% of jackbooted oligarchs deciding for us.
We have a long way to go before 'utopia' that's for sure.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Solais]

Depends on how you fund a UBI.

I don't want a VAT making everything 5-10% more expensive. Andrew Yang's proposals are very foolish in this regard.

I want a Land Value Tax instead, since it has zero or close to zero DWL and will discourage land for being used purely for speculative purposes. LVT is also progressive so it should garner the support of more left-wing people, whereas a VAT is regressive.

As for the housing issue, this has nothing to do with UBI. The reason housing is so expensive is that NIMBYs have refused to allow for medium/high density zoning for people who desperately need it. It's a zombie/3rd rail of American politics that simply refuses to die.

Some cities have been pretty generous in terms of building new housing (Tampa, Houston, Phoenix, etc.) but most have not.

I prefer a market-oriented solution to helping the poor TBH.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.