A basic income for all?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, the Keynesian model has now spent the future for the next few centuries and the chickens are now coming home to roost.  By the end of this century things will either be very ugly or some new model will have replaced the current one. 

 

I hope I don't live to see the next revolution because it is the only way I can see to exit the current mess.  At the moment there doesn't even seem to be anything to be keen about.  The whole thing has fallen into a set of financial doldrums and bubbles that will burst soon.

 

Real wealth lies in real estate, but presently the hyperthyroidal market has inflated this well beyond its actual value.  The only other real value lies in specie (precious metals and jewels) which can be inflated in value as it is now, but retains some actual value.  Remember that the value of something is what you can sell it for.

 

The current situation is based on non-terminal growth, and if you think about it, it is impossible.  This is a positive feedback that will eventually destroy itself.

[Meg 368]

...

 

Meg, what if we only count persons currently making less than, say $40 000? How will our numbers divvy up then?

 

Statistics for 2013 are not yet available but I found them for 2012.    There were 99,290,845 wage earners making less than $40,000.   Divide that into $680 billion and we get $6,848 per person per year.

 

That 99,290,845 number is low because it only include wage earners.  It does not include people who are making nothing at all.  So the $6,848 figure will be much lower.

 

Okay, we can figure that out.   We just need to take the number of workers making more than $40,000 and subtract that from 319.6 million.

 

I copied that chart into a spreadsheet and added up the workers making $40,000 or more.  It came to 54,341,445.

 

So, 319.6 million - 54,341,445 = 265,258,555 =  $2,563. 

 

okay, something is wrong there.   that is less than what it was before.   I screwed up the math.

 

Starting over:

 

[link] Total US population:  391.6 million

[link] US population making over $40,000 per year:  54,341,445

US population making under $40,000 per year:  265,258,555

 

[link] Federal budget for welfare:  $514.3 billion

[link] Federal budget for social security:  $1,180.9 billion

Total removed from the budget for basic income purposes:  $1,695.2 billion.

 

 

Divide $1,695.2 billion by 391.6 million:  $5,304 per person per year.

 

Divide $1,695.2 billion by 265,258,555:  $6,390 per person per year.

 

Someone please check my math.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"A basic income for all".  Literally, I think this is impossible.  Take the total world population and what would be considered "basic income" in some places with clement climates would not be the same for people living in harsher conditions.

 

I think Meg has shown that the U.S. government could not fund this domestically without additional tax money, and I am fairly sure this could not be done in Canada with a population that is only 10 % (roughly) of the U.S.

 

Just looking at the continental U.S., what would be a basic income for a resident of, say, Louisiana wouldn't support someone in Alaska.  The premise is rather silly if you try to apply it world-wide.  I seriously think that goods and services rather than cash is the answer to this question if there is one at all.  This would mean that anyone who was a recipient of this 'dole' would have to have a secure identification.  A huge expense in itself.

 

It's broken, but I don't see any way to fix it on a universal basis.

[APSMS 1,892]

<snip> <paraphrase> boredom is a strong motivator to work </paraphrase> <snip>

 

I think you underestimate the human potential for greed and use of free money. As a non-worker with potentially $2500 free money in my pocket every year, I can find plenty of non-altruistic things that I can do with my newfound time.

 

My family has it's fair share of bored extended family members, either because they have no job, or because they have welfare payments, or both. The desire to work is strong, because unemployment money/alimony sucks and they'd like to have more, but I can guarantee you if they had what they wanted (just a little more) the desire to work at all would be completely gone. They have plenty of things to do while they're not working, and I can't think of anyone making less than $30,000 a year that would want to continue doing their job if they didn't have to.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

An interesting point.  I am retired on something below the poverty line, but I manage to live not uncomfortably, mostly because I have assets from my working life, and my small pension income plus a government supplement.  I am also eligible because of my age for several subsidized items like transportation.  It generally costs me less in a month than my previous car insurance plus maintenance on a vehicle, yet I can get around to the big city to the south if I need to.

 

Of course I paid heavily into the pension system when I was working and probably paid something like half my income in taxes if you add in all the miscellaneous hits other than income tax.  Every time you turn around, what you are doing is taxed in some way.  So now, I am getting some of it back, but I am sure I'll never get all of it, because I am still paying things like sales taxes for which I get a small monthly rebate but nothing like what I pay.

 

When I retired, I downsized by living quarters, and when my wife passed away I downsized again.  I am not uncomfortable, but I sure don't do many of the things that I did when I was active.  Being partially disabled makes quite a difference.

 

So, looking at this "basic income for all" business, what do you consider a basic income?  You have to cut your style to fit your cloth.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I think you underestimate the human potential for greed and use of free money. As a non-worker with potentially $2500 free money in my pocket every year, I can find plenty of non-altruistic things that I can do with my newfound time.

 

My family has it's fair share of bored extended family members, either because they have no job, or because they have welfare payments, or both. The desire to work is strong, because unemployment money/alimony sucks and they'd like to have more, but I can guarantee you if they had what they wanted (just a little more) the desire to work at all would be completely gone. They have plenty of things to do while they're not working, and I can't think of anyone making less than $30,000 a year that would want to continue doing their job if they didn't have to.

 

I'm pretty sure your family members desire to work stems as much from the fact that they hate feeling helpless and dependent and are bored out of their skull as the fact that they want more money so they can live a little more comfortable. 

 

Again, the one time they decided to run this as an experiment the study found that in general only two groups of people started to work less: mothers and young men. The mothers because they could now finally spend more time raising their kids without it affecting the budget and the young men because they went back to school to finish highschool or pursued a higher education. Honestly if that are the reasons why people are going to work less I'm more than fine with it. 

 

And sure, people that earn less than 30.000 a year would probably want to quit their job if they got that kind of money from the government for free. But that doesn't mean they want to quit working. I think its far more likely that they quit their dead end job that they took because they needed the money to pay the bills to do something they find far more interesting. Like getting an education. Or starting their own business, do a job they actually enjoy doing. So people end up happier. And happier people are healthier people. Meaning less people needing mental health care and less people needing regular health care. Meaning less cost for both of those things. Great, more money saved. 

[Meg 368]

 

And sure, people that earn less than 30.000 a year would probably want to quit their job if they got that kind of money from the government for free.

 

 

But they are not going to get it.   Whatever the merits of this idea are, it is not mathematically feasible.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

 

And sure, people that earn less than 30.000 a year would probably want to quit their job if they got that kind of money from the government for free.

 

 

But they are not going to get it.   Whatever the merits of this idea are, it is not mathematically feasible.

 

It would require a complete change of government and a tax burden on the working people that would probably cause further disruptions.  To quote one of the pundits whose name I forget: "I never met a socialist who would spend his own money."

[hym 358]

Statistics for 2013 are not yet available but I found them for 2012.

 

It's not fair!  How come you find all the cool websites?

 

In the interest of considering all possible angles on the idea of universal income, I am going to look at the issue from a household income perspective, instead of a personal income perspective.  I think considering it from a household perspective probably offers a better view of the feasibility of the idea that the government subsidizes income up to $40,000 a year.  (For example, babies don’t need to be receiving annual checks from the government for $40,000 to ensure they are making enough money.)

 

According to the United States Census Bureau, there were 122,952,000 households in the United States in 2013.  (I’m taking this from their “All Races” variant of the HINC-01 table, available here.)  From there, we can see that 48,114,000 households earned less than $40,000 per year.

 

Now that we have established the affected population, let’s look at the needs of that population.  As the goal is to level everyone out to at least $40,000, let’s set a household’s need equivalent to the maximum amount of money federal assistance necessary to reach the $40,000 mark.  In other words, if you’re in the $35,000-$39,999 group, we will assume you need the full $5,000 of federal assistance.  From those assumptions, we get the following table:

 

Now that we have established the need, the next question is whether the federal government can actually meet those obligations.  Since we have been talking in 2013 figures so far, let’s continue.  The federal government spent $880 billion on “Pensions” in 2013.  Additionally, the government spend $420 billion on “Welfare.”  Adding these together, we get a potential revenue source of $1.3 trillion dollars.  (All data came from here.)

 

In my opinion, two key questions emerge at this point.  First, you have reallocated the entirety of Social Security towards the subsidization of low income households.  What impact is this going to have on the ability of the middle class to retire into something other than poverty? According to US News, the median Social Security income was $15,701 in 2010.  This is a very significant cut to the typical retiree’s income, and would may well be enough to push the retiree into poverty.  Additionally, that same article has an interesting statistic that could bring the whole “Social Security funds being used for minimum income security” concept crashing down.  If 65% of retirees derive over half of their income from Social Security, and the median distribution is $15,701, how much of the $880 billion that the government spent on Social Security in 2013 is actually available for helping supplement the income of poor households?  My guess is that it’s probably several hundred billion less, which raises serious questions about the viability of a minimum income program.

 

The second key question I have to ask is how many of those 48,114,000 households realize that it is in their economic best interest to stop working and consequently decide to leave the work force.  This would have a double whammy on the federal government.  First, the amount of money the government would need to support these households would increase drastically, possibly to the point that it exceeds the $1.3 trillion figure we calculated earlier.  Second, fewer workers means less economic output, and less taxes for the federal government.  How much would federal tax revenue fall, and what impact would that have the government’s ability to finance other spending programs?

 

I think what this indicates is that the federal government’s ability to finance such a proposal is tenuous at best, and would likely have significant negative consequences that would ultimately drive the program into insolvency. 

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

Statistics for 2013 are not yet available but I found them for 2012.

 

It's not fair!  How come you find all the cool websites?

 

In the interest of considering all possible angles on the idea of universal income, I am going to look at the issue from a household income perspective, instead of a personal income perspective.  I think considering it from a household perspective probably offers a better view of the feasibility of the idea that the government subsidizes income up to $40,000 a year.  (For example, babies don’t need to be receiving annual checks from the government for $40,000 to ensure they are making enough money.)

 

According to the United States Census Bureau, there were 122,952,000 households in the United States in 2013.  (I’m taking this from their “All Races” variant of the HINC-01 table, available here.)  From there, we can see that 48,114,000 households earned less than $40,000 per year.

 

Now that we have established the affected population, let’s look at the needs of that population.  As the goal is to level everyone out to at least $40,000, let’s set a household’s need equivalent to the maximum amount of money federal assistance necessary to reach the $40,000 mark.  In other words, if you’re in the $35,000-$39,999 group, we will assume you need the full $5,000 of federal assistance.  From those assumptions, we get the following table:

 

Now that we have established the need, the next question is whether the federal government can actually meet those obligations.  Since we have been talking in 2013 figures so far, let’s continue.  The federal government spent $880 billion on “Pensions” in 2013.  Additionally, the government spend $420 billion on “Welfare.”  Adding these together, we get a potential revenue source of $1.3 trillion dollars.  (All data came from here.)

 

In my opinion, two key questions emerge at this point.  First, you have reallocated the entirety of Social Security towards the subsidization of low income households.  What impact is this going to have on the ability of the middle class to retire into something other than poverty? According to US News, the median Social Security income was $15,701 in 2010.  This is a very significant cut to the typical retiree’s income, and would may well be enough to push the retiree into poverty.  Additionally, that same article has an interesting statistic that could bring the whole “Social Security funds being used for minimum income security” concept crashing down.  If 65% of retirees derive over half of their income from Social Security, and the median distribution is $15,701, how much of the $880 billion that the government spent on Social Security in 2013 is actually available for helping supplement the income of poor households?  My guess is that it’s probably several hundred billion less, which raises serious questions about the viability of a minimum income program.

 

The second key question I have to ask is how many of those 48,114,000 households realize that it is in their economic best interest to stop working and consequently decide to leave the work force.  This would have a double whammy on the federal government.  First, the amount of money the government would need to support these households would increase drastically, possibly to the point that it exceeds the $1.3 trillion figure we calculated earlier.  Second, fewer workers means less economic output, and less taxes for the federal government.  How much would federal tax revenue fall, and what impact would that have the government’s ability to finance other spending programs?

 

I think what this indicates is that the federal government’s ability to finance such a proposal is tenuous at best, and would likely have significant negative consequences that would ultimately drive the program into insolvency. 

 

Well there are a few other places where savings can be made. For example, poverty causes illness. The stress of poverty causes mental illness. If you can provide people a stable, basic income, that will ensure they will always have a minimum income, no matter what happens, you take the stress away. And if that minimum income is pretty decent, you will also cause a illness vector. In other words, health care costs will go down. In the Canadian experiment I mentioned, the need for healthcare dropped by about 8%. On a budget that spans billions of dollars, thats quite a bit. Furthermore, by giving people more free time essentially, you can reward otherwise socially beneficial volunteering work, which can further reduce healthcare costs. Crime is also linked to poverty. With a half decent basic income, you can reduce or completely wipe out the incentive for crime. Who wants to be slinging dope for minimum wage (and yes, the average drug dealer only earns a minimum wage) with the risk of death or jail time, when he gets a basic decent income? You change the incentive structure and the incentive for crime will be reduced, if not entirely eliminated in certain cases. So, that would represent a major relief on the American prison system, and again you save a lot of money. Thirdly, by giving people a somewhat disposable income, consumption will go up, which is good for the economy. Finally, by providing financial stability to basically everyone, you make it safer for people to be creative, as the risk behind creativity is less dangerous for a lot of people. Failure no longer means starvation, while success will still result in a nice reward. Increased creativity is once again good for the economy (new markets, new products, new inventions, more innovation). 

 

Otherwise, look at it this way. Automation is going to happen, it is inevitable, discussing on how to avoid automation is pointless. Millions of people are inevitably going to lose their job because those jobs will cease to exist, and only a fraction of those people will be able to be employed in new industries. What are you going to do about those millions of people, who don't have a job and who can't get a job? Put them all on welfare? Tell them to get a job, those lazy bums? Yeah, great solution. Let me paint an image of what happens to a country with a structural 20% unemployment rate. First of all, crime rates will go up. If people can't legally provide a basic living for themselves, crime is their final resort. That means you gotta build more prisons and hire private companies to run those prisons under conditions that blatantly violate all standards of human decency and human rights. Second of all, poverty causes more poverty, poor people will not be able to consume so consumption will drop which only hurts the economy. And poor people will still have children, who will grow up in bad conditions, who will not be able to finish school, and who will also remain poor. Thirdly, poverty will cause a decline in health, both physical and mental. The stress will cause things like depression or trigger more severe mental disorders. This will put further emphasis on an already broken mental health system, or put a severe strain on any other system. Physical health will decline because people will eat unhealthy and because stress is physically degrading. So that will either break the health care system or put a great strain on it. Finally, there is the very real safety problem. Extremism thrives in areas where people are poor and feel abandoned by society, and where the traditional defense an education provides is no longer present. Extremism will lead to extremist movements, that results in terrorism or the rise of a violent political ideology such as fascism or communism or something entirely new. And when they have 20% of the population to back them, and more fearing for their job, well, you might be looking at the end of your own country and freedom.

 

Perhaps instead of focusing on how much a basic income costs, you should look at how much every alternative scenario is going to cost you. And not just in money.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

One must know all the variables in order to optimize utilitarianism (equation to determine greatest good for the most people). It is exceedingly difficult to do but if accomplished, then one or a couple of scenarios would be able to be clearly seen as the best outcome for the world.

--Ocram

[hym 358]

@LexusInfernus:

 

As far as I have been able to tell, the economic arguments in favor of a basic income program are all based on weak assertions of savings elsewhere in the system, without any numbers to back any of it up.  Maybe a basic income does reduce stress on working individuals and lowers their health care costs.  What are the savings?  Do they come in a manner that can be used to finance the basic income program or do they benefit someone else?  If a minimum income reduces mental health costs, are the savings significant?  (I rather much doubt it.)  Can the federal government access that money?  (Again, I rather much doubt it.)  If a minimum income reduces crime and thus prison costs, what percentage of that can the federal government access?  Most inmates are not housed in federal prisons, and any federal program to reduce prison populations is spending money for savings the federal government will never see.  These are all questions that need numerical answers, for which there are none, and until those numerical answers appear and can be verified to be supportive of a basic income program, they are nothing but meaningless hot air in an argument that is already so full of hot air that it's in danger of floating away.

 

As for the theory that heavy automation is going to lead to structural unemployment and 20%-70% unemployment figures, I simply don't buy it.  It is all based on a theory that is not supported by reality.  Supporters will claim that "this time is different" but there is no substantive proof that they are right.  People have been predicting the end of the world for as long as humanity can remember, and they have been wrong every time.  The historical record does not support these claims.  Common sense does not support these claims.  The idea that robots are going to replace all of us has been around for decades, and it still hasn't happened.  Supporters of this idea are asking that we support restructuring the flow of potentially trillions of dollars, all on the claim that a boogeyman is lurking in our future, and he will eat our collective lunch if we don't take action to stop him.  Worse yet, the information we are being given to support all of this is at best a wild estimate, and at worst, possibly pulled out of nowhere.

 

At the end of the day, I'm being asked to support a massive welfare program on the primary argument that it saves money (but no one can say how much) and the secondary argument that some sort of economic boogeyman is looming in the future if we don't act now (all while ignoring the lack of meaningful proof of such a threat and the fact that humans suck at predicting the future).

[LexusInfernus 908]

@LexusInfernus:

 

As far as I have been able to tell, the economic arguments in favor of a basic income program are all based on weak assertions of savings elsewhere in the system, without any numbers to back any of it up.  Maybe a basic income does reduce stress on working individuals and lowers their health care costs.  What are the savings?  Do they come in a manner that can be used to finance the basic income program or do they benefit someone else?  If a minimum income reduces mental health costs, are the savings significant?  (I rather much doubt it.)  Can the federal government access that money?  (Again, I rather much doubt it.)  If a minimum income reduces crime and thus prison costs, what percentage of that can the federal government access?  Most inmates are not housed in federal prisons, and any federal program to reduce prison populations is spending money for savings the federal government will never see.  These are all questions that need numerical answers, for which there are none, and until those numerical answers appear and can be verified to be supportive of a basic income program, they are nothing but meaningless hot air in an argument that is already so full of hot air that it's in danger of floating away.

Which is why its a good idea to run an experiment. Take an average American town, and give the people in that town a basic income for a couple of years, and see what the effects are. Yes that will cost quite a bit of money, but it will give you a good idea what the costs and the savings are. Im not saying that such a program should be adopted blindly. But it is a valid alternative, with some preliminary data supporting the idea that it might work and it wouldn't hurt to at least test it to see if that data still holds up. 

 

 

As for the theory that heavy automation is going to lead to structural unemployment and 20%-70% unemployment figures, I simply don't buy it.  It is all based on a theory that is not supported by reality.  Supporters will claim that "this time is different" but there is no substantive proof that they are right.  People have been predicting the end of the world for as long as humanity can remember, and they have been wrong every time.  The historical record does not support these claims.  Common sense does not support these claims.  The idea that robots are going to replace all of us has been around for decades, and it still hasn't happened.  Supporters of this idea are asking that we support restructuring the flow of potentially trillions of dollars, all on the claim that a boogeyman is lurking in our future, and he will eat our collective lunch if we don't take action to stop him.  Worse yet, the information we are being given to support all of this is at best a wild estimate, and at worst, possibly pulled out of nowhere.

 

What makes you say its not supported by reality? And why isn't this time different? Before now, we didn't have thinking machines and we never had access to thinking machines. So far, all our technological innovations in the field of automatics made machines that are really good at very simple tasks that required no thinking. But now we are reaching a stage where the machines get smarter. That means that where before they could only replace us in areas that required physical labor, they can now also replace us in areas that are based on more mental labor. But you say, there will be new jobs. Well thats actually the numbers do not support. Only a fraction of the people are currently working in those 'new' fields. And most of that represent working on making apps for smart phones. Thats all great, but making apps is not a big enough field to support millions of people working in that sector. On top of that, its the sort of work a lot of people are simply not capable of doing. 

 

And I'm not some crazy preacher from the church of the singularity, I'm far from alone in saying that we are reaching a point where jobs will disappear forever. There are numerous experts in the field of robotics and automatization that say the same thing. 

 

 

At the end of the day, I'm being asked to support a massive welfare program on the primary argument that it saves money (but no one can say how much) and the secondary argument that some sort of economic boogeyman is looming in the future if we don't act now (all while ignoring the lack of meaningful proof of such a threat and the fact that humans suck at predicting the future).

 

I never said it saves money. I said that at its best, the savings you make will essentially pay for the program. Its not cheaper, but its better. 

 

As for the economic boogeyman you are so intent on not seeing happen, here's what the experts in the field say:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-future-of-jobs-the-onrushing-wave-2014-1

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-bots-are-taking-away-jobs-2014-3

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/jobs-that-will-be-lost-to-robots-2014-1

 

http://moneymorning.com/2013/02/04/robots-taking-jobs-from-every-sector-of-the-economy/

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/

 

http://qz.com/53710/robots-are-eating-manufacturing-jobs/

 

See? That economic boogeyman you insist does not exist. Well, the experts kind of disagree with you there. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

All these walls of text have shown that some of us are rather idle.  If we were more productive, would we have time for this noise?

[Meg 368]

All these walls of text have shown that some of us are rather idle.  If we were more productive, would we have time for this noise?

 

If people want to have a long discussion, that's fine.   That's why this part of the forum is here.  As long as everyone is discussing the issues and not each other, there is no problem.

[hym 358]

And I'm not some crazy preacher from the church of the singularity, I'm far from alone in saying that we are reaching a point where jobs will disappear forever. There are numerous experts in the field of robotics and automatization that say the same thing. 

 

 

At the end of the day, I'm being asked to support a massive welfare program on the primary argument that it saves money (but no one can say how much) and the secondary argument that some sort of economic boogeyman is looming in the future if we don't act now (all while ignoring the lack of meaningful proof of such a threat and the fact that humans suck at predicting the future).

 

I never said it saves money. I said that at its best, the savings you make will essentially pay for the program. Its not cheaper, but its better. 

 

As for the economic boogeyman you are so intent on not seeing happen, here's what the experts in the field say:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-future-of-jobs-the-onrushing-wave-2014-1

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-bots-are-taking-away-jobs-2014-3

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/jobs-that-will-be-lost-to-robots-2014-1

 

http://moneymorning.com/2013/02/04/robots-taking-jobs-from-every-sector-of-the-economy/

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/

 

http://qz.com/53710/robots-are-eating-manufacturing-jobs/

 

See? That economic boogeyman you insist does not exist. Well, the experts kind of disagree with you there. 

 

 

This takes us back to the whole "the robots are coming to eat our jobs!" argument, which has been floating around in various forms for centuries and still has yet to materialize.  The experts do not agree that widespread unemployment is coming.  They do not agree that robots are going to take over all our jobs.  The MIT link even demonstrates that they can't even agree on whether technology is responsible for the last decade of low job growth.

 

The idea that we are all going to lose our jobs to automation is a very weak argument.  No one can realistically project out that far.  Even the companies helping drive the technology, like Intel, refuse to make predictions past about 5 years.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The idea that automation will replace all 'jobs' is not on.  Somebody has to operate the automation systems, and I seriously doubt that it will be self-aware computers.  No matter what people predict, I am firmly in the camp that Artificial Intelligence is an oxymoron and always will be.

 

I came into the computer game right at the end of its infancy, when there was a lot of hope for the future.  Well, that future is here and what have we got?  Social media full of garbage and criminals.  All that the Internet has done is increase the level of babble, and made personal security more difficult.

 

Robotic manufacturing, sure, why not.  Putting nuts on the ends of bolts is not a job for anyone except a machine.  Automated welding?  Why not?  The safety aspects outweigh almost any other consideration.  Automated drafting?  Yes, but who does the design?  If computers can't do one thing it is originate something.  AutoCAD needs an operator, designer, engineer driving it.

 

What is going on is a post-industrial revolution.  It is necessary to forget manufacturing jobs pretty much, and find the knowledge-worker jobs that must replace them.  University degrees are not necessary for many such jobs, but you do need some post-secondary qualifications simply because the body of knowledge is now too large to impart to a child in only 12 (mismanaged) years.

 

If there is a dearth of jobs now, blame it on the transition.  I expect that in the future most jobs will operate from the employee's home over the net.  Physical plant for most future jobs will not be necessary to be separate.  I expect many jobs will be piece work.  One works on a project until it finishes and get paid accordingly.  Then the next job comes up for bids.  Steady employment will become a thing of the past.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This takes us back to the whole "the robots are coming to eat our jobs!" argument, which has been floating around in various forms for centuries and still has yet to materialize.  The experts do not agree that widespread unemployment is coming.  They do not agree that robots are going to take over all our jobs.  The MIT link even demonstrates that they can't even agree on whether technology is responsible for the last decade of low job growth.

 

The idea that we are all going to lose our jobs to automation is a very weak argument.  No one can realistically project out that far.  Even the companies helping drive the technology, like Intel, refuse to make predictions past about 5 years.

 

Yes, its been around for centuries, but during all those centuries they didn't have computers. And even when they had computers, those computers where until now still pretty dumb. But today? We are building robots that are getting extremely smart and they are getting smart in a way that is pretty much the same way that living organisms are smart. They are building robots that can predict the consequences of their actions, that operate on hardware organized like a neural network, like a human brain. The point is, we have started building robots that are becoming 'smart' like us. And robots don't even have to be as smart as a human being to still be better at our jobs. An accounting robot only needs to understand how to do accounting, and its fairly easy to build such a robot. But a robot is faster, doesn't need to be paid and doesn't go home during the evening and can basically do all the accounting what used to be done by an entire department. This is the technological development we are actively striving for, or in a number of cases have already achieved. 

 

Then the counter argument is that new jobs will be created to take care of this. Okay, where are those new jobs? I don't see them. Well, I do, but the number of jobs is limited and pretty much undoable for the majority of accountants that just lost their job. 

 

Robotic manufacturing, sure, why not.  Putting nuts on the ends of bolts is not a job for anyone except a machine.  Automated welding?  Why not?  The safety aspects outweigh almost any other consideration.  Automated drafting?  Yes, but who does the design?  If computers can't do one thing it is originate something.  AutoCAD needs an operator, designer, engineer driving it.

Except that robots are starting to learn how to be creative. Give it two, maybe three decades and AutoCAD operates itself. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/apr/10/robots-human-creative-agency-job

 

Just look at that story. 

 

In the end, our intelligence is the result of our hardware and our software. It can and will be replicated within a few decades. 

[Compdude787 916]

Robotic manufacturing, sure, why not.  Putting nuts on the ends of bolts is not a job for anyone except a machine.  Automated welding?  Why not?  The safety aspects outweigh almost any other consideration.  Automated drafting?  Yes, but who does the design?  If computers can't do one thing it is originate something.  AutoCAD needs an operator, designer, engineer driving it.

Except that robots are starting to learn how to be creative. Give it two, maybe three decades and AutoCAD operates itself. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/apr/10/robots-human-creative-agency-job

 

Just look at that story. 

I can completely understand that it will be possible for robots to be able to replace us when it comes to manufacturing pretty much everything, but I can't wrap my head around the ability of a computer to have creativity. It just amazes me what computers are capable of!

[piercing_arrow 76]

Computers aren't able to do everything that humans can. Whatever HUMANS program a computer to do, that computer does. Not one autonomous program in the world will cause a computer to run the world indefinately. Humans are a vital part of this world, if they weren't, then the world would be populated by robots and computer programs, not humans.

 

Computers have no imagination, no emotions, and are completely subservient to humans, regardless if one is able to design a computer to be completely self-supportive. Computers can't farm, they can't swim, they can't fix mistakes in shipping, aeronautics, etc. by themselves. Humans usually have to fix them, albeit with the aid of computers. Nevertheless, this is seen by the fact that airplanes must be piloted by a human during takeoff, landing, and emergencies, and not autopilot from start to finish.

 

Back to a basic income, I wouldn't think it would be a smart idea. I don't want liberalistic governments deciding how much I should get paid for my work, that should be the boss' job. To me, "basic income" is just "government welfare for people who are too lazy to get off their iPhones (that taxpayers pay for, needless to say) and get a college degree to work" worded differently.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

OK, time for a pause to reread Karel Capek’s R.U.R. (Rossem's Universal Robots).  [Robot is the Czech word for servant, BTW].  And yes, the robots decide that man is not needed and so start a program to eliminated them.

 

This is the point (1920 I think) that the word 'robot' came into English.

 

This same plot was shown in the motion picture 'I Robot' recently where Hollywood made a general hash out of the U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men plots of Isaac Asimov.  Asimov would never have written that plot, so it was a good thing he had passed on.  However, there is his reconciliation novel called 'Robots and Empire' where it turns out that the positronic robots really are running the show from behind the curtain.  It ties the robot novels (Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun) into the Foundation Trilogy as a kind of epilogue to both.

 

If we can't stop this kind of thing, then we deserve what we get.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Computers aren't able to do everything that humans can. Whatever HUMANS program a computer to do, that computer does. Not one autonomous program in the world will cause a computer to run the world indefinately. Humans are a vital part of this world, if they weren't, then the world would be populated by robots and computer programs, not humans.

The reason the world isn't populated by robots is simply because robots are a pretty new thing. They simply haven't been around long enough to populate the world. 

 

 

Computers have no imagination, no emotions, and are completely subservient to humans, regardless if one is able to design a computer to be completely self-supportive. Computers can't farm, they can't swim, they can't fix mistakes in shipping, aeronautics, etc. by themselves. Humans usually have to fix them, albeit with the aid of computers. Nevertheless, this is seen by the fact that airplanes must be piloted by a human during takeoff, landing, and emergencies, and not autopilot from start to finish.

 

Computers have no imagination yet. We are currently hard at work to give them one. Emotions? Well, thats just a matter of time. Computers don't need to farm. They can swim and they don't make mistakes in shipping or aeronautics so they never have to fix them as well. 

 

 

 

Back to a basic income, I wouldn't think it would be a smart idea. I don't want liberalistic governments deciding how much I should get paid for my work, that should be the boss' job. To me, "basic income" is just "government welfare for people who are too lazy to get off their iPhones (that taxpayers pay for, needless to say) and get a college degree to work" worded differently.

 

No one said the government is going to decide how big your paycheck is. And its rather crass to call people lazy for not having a job when the entire premise here is that there simply are no jobs for everyone. 

[piercing_arrow 76]

So, what you are saying is that in the future, once we give computers emotions and imaginations, is that soon there will be 7.1 billion robots in the world, and not humans. Highly unlikely. Robots can only achieve what we program them to achieve, and once we give them an imagination, emotions and actual intelligence (really, AI is a huge oxymoron because it's not true intelligence, much less common sense)

 

Sure, computers don't need to farm, but the entire point is that humans are here for something. Computers surely cannot swim, ships and submarines are computers inside big "tin cans." Once I see a video of someone throwing their laptop into a lake and the computer swims away, then I can say that I would believe robots would be able to enslave humanity, But as of now, it is virtually impossible for AI to take over humanity.

 

It's not crass to state what is true. If the government wants to solve this issue, it needs to stop welfare in order to give people incentive to go get a job that contributes to society. I understand there are people out there who genuinely can't find a job, but if truly the unemployment rate was only 5.9%, then everyone is blowing this way out of proportion.

[AcmeSigns 97]

An old axiom comes to mind...'Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime'. It's the 'give' part that we should all be paying attention to. A while back, John Stossel went out to some government hand-out place where folks were waiting in line (I think it was for their disability / unemployment 'benefits') and he asked them about why they were there. Some people said how there were no jobs and a few were honest enough to admit, 'why work when I can get money for nothing' (or words to that effect). He then went around the neighborhood where he found dozens of jobs available. The jobs, however, were probably below those in lines' self-perceived 'station' in life. And one business owner in particular said how he'd even hire those with no experience and train them. And yet, just blocks from this government building, no one was applying to fill the positions he had openings for.

 

There is not a lack of jobs in this country. What there is, is a lack of people willing to do those jobs. Yeah, the Fed can go on about how the jobless rate (I guess it's no longer called 'unemployment' because that has some non-PC connotation to it) is 5.9%, but they aren't revealing the true statistics that account for the millions of workers who are either seeking full-time employment or, sadly, have given up looking altogether. Why have they given up looking? Simply because they can get unemployment benefits for 73 weeks (that's almost a year and a half) or they've figured out a way to scam the system and get disability. And then there's the matter of nearly 110 million (35.4% of the population) people being on welfare. All told, I believe that the statistics are that nearly half of America is on some sort of government 'dole'. Those are people not putting into society, but taking from it. And they aren't paying taxes either. Less taxes = less government revenue = less to hand out. So where, exactly,  are the funds to come from to ensure that everyone has a 'basic income'? Are we to tax those you applied themselves and did well for themselves at a higher rate? Where will the funds come from when we drive those, that have the means to, from this country?

 

A utopian world where there's no violence, no wars and all are equal is just a pipe dream, puffed out by those unwilling to accept reality. If there were only two human beings left on the face of the earth they probably wouldn't get along, but instead would be trying to figure out how to get what the other one has.

[LexusInfernus 908]

So, what you are saying is that in the future, once we give computers emotions and imaginations, is that soon there will be 7.1 billion robots in the world, and not humans. Highly unlikely. Robots can only achieve what we program them to achieve, and once we give them an imagination, emotions and actual intelligence (really, AI is a huge oxymoron because it's not true intelligence, much less common sense)

Yes, but we can program them to achieve quite a lot. And we can program to learn and be adaptive, meaning that after a short while, the robot can do so much more than what we originally programmed it to do. And who says that artificial intelligence is not real intelligence? If we can copy a human brain to hardware and programming, then why is the resulting intelligent being 'not really' intelligent? Because we made it? So? Parents make their kids, does that mean humans aren't intelligent either? 

 

Besides, there are already millions if not billions of computers and robots around. Its just that nearly all of those are not that smart yet. 

 

Sure, computers don't need to farm, but the entire point is that humans are here for something. Computers surely cannot swim, ships and submarines are computers inside big "tin cans." Once I see a video of someone throwing their laptop into a lake and the computer swims away, then I can say that I would believe robots would be able to enslave humanity, But as of now, it is virtually impossible for AI to take over humanity.

 

Why are humans here for? And who said anything about robots taking over humanity? Yeah sure, thats the go to Hollywood scenario but that doesn't mean thats what actually gonna happen. Why would it happen? 

 

 

It's not crass to state what is true. If the government wants to solve this issue, it needs to stop welfare in order to give people incentive to go get a job that contributes to society. I understand there are people out there who genuinely can't find a job, but if truly the unemployment rate was only 5.9%, then everyone is blowing this way out of proportion.

 

You honestly think that not being able to provide your children with food is a good incentive? Aside from the fact that such incentives are pure evil, they also do not work. And the unemployment rate is only 5.9% right now. But what happens if what the researchers said is true, and 45% of the jobs in the US get taken over by robots or computer programs within the next 20 years? 

[Meg 368]

 

 

Why are humans here for?

 

 

People have been asking that question for thousands of years.    If there is a good answer, I haven't heard it.  On bad days, it seems like the answer is a failed experiment with faulty system design.   On good days, it's best not to think about it.

 

I would be surprised if we manage to create self-aware computers.  I know they are popular in science fiction but they always skip over the part where it actually happens.

 

Of course, there is always the debate about what self-awareness is.  Which animals have it and which ones don't?    But this is getting far off topic.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The only question that seems to remain is where would you find the wherewithal to implement such a scheme?  And let's not be foolish and say 'from the government'.  The government is us.

 

Such a scheme would require a general lowering of the standard of living and reduce us to a subsistence economy.  Cave bears, anyone?  This is where cities would have to disappear and there would be nothing left but some kind of ant-heap full of impoverished beings.

[jmsepe 2,038]

People are not born equal and that is fact. No matter how much you squirm this idea and believe in philosophical ideologies of equal human rights, it would all just be an illusion. Some people are born with different social status, different level of acceptance, difference in race, difference in upbringing and such. Unless we understand this, it would always be easy to equate people's potentials as if everyone is created with equal stat points. However diving deeper, people also do not have the same skills and work ethics. Would you rather give the same income for all not withholding important factors of efficient production such as time, skill and resources? People also do not have the same road to opportunities and in the myriad human activities how are we going to determine which one is economically productive? Should an entertainer be earning the same as a farmer or vice versa? If not, which one is more important, which one should be given more value to?

 

Second, there is scarcity and that again is a fact. The rather limited resources in the world is the culprit the differences of wealth. There are countries whose resources are measly oil yet have so much cash to spare yet there are some that have so much resources but are under debt. The reality is that. even resources are valued in an economic perspective. It is economics that creates market supply and demand and in this process the determination of values of commodities. Due to this, a creation of single currency is impossible, a dollar here is not the same as the dollar there. Resources are of different values. You cannot just pay people basic income without even considering their industry. 

 

Lastly, human nature is a bottomless pit and the natural mechanism of evolution drives humans to innovate. A basic income for all will create stagnation. People will not longer strive to work harder if all they get is a basic income and is equal to all. Regardless of nature, humans tends to work for a reward and if one gets to receive the same reward at the end of the day, what then is the purpose of working harder?