Universal Income - Freedom Dividends

[Independent]

Some interesting responses on here.

Points of disagreement seem to be:

1. Whether a lack of jobs will become an issue. Some believe yes and some believe new jobs will replace those (and possibly better jobs).

2. There seems to be a disagreement if "people in need" should get any government assistance. It appears people on here could fall into a couple different categories.

• i.) Zero tolerance. There is no need for me to get taxed to help someone else. People are lazy.
• ii.) There are people who need assistance, but our current and future systems get taken advantage of by lazy people who don't want to work.
• iii.) There are people who need assistance and we probably aren't doing it in the best way possible and there might be a better way to prevent this becoming a bigger issue down the road.

3. There seems to be disagreement on whether there is an issue of wealth becomes too concentrated among the top 1% or top 10%. I'm guessing most on this board are in the top 10-15% so financially most of us are in a solid spot. I guess my concern being in my 40's is how much joy will having a large amount of money be if 80-90% of the nation wants you gone.

This is a nice summary. I've expressed opinions, but I can't resist using your structure here.

1. I think there will always be some job. Machines aren't free, at some price, people can underbid machines. But, we do have a problem with wages. I think that much of the stagnation over the last 30 years has been international competition. We've lost lots of shoe making jobs. They didn't go to robots in the US. They went to low tech factories in China and Vietnam.
Whether it's robots or imports, we're going to have trouble with wages for those workers who aren't going to have exceptional technical skills.

2. Yes, "people in need" should get gov't assistance. There will always be a band where "need" is subjective. So we'll always have some cases that bother the taxpayers.

But, I don't see that UBI is better than making do with our current system. In theory, I like UBI. In practice, I've never seen a design I like. One problem is benefits for children. The bigger problem is the taxes to pay for it.

3. Extremes in wealth are a problem. Eventually, social cohesion fails. In 2019, the best approach is tax policy. There are some obvious things we can do. Maybe in the distant future, we'll get to the point where a UBI makes sense.

 

[dd564]

Is this thread about the merits/flaws of UBI, or the mechanism alleged to require UBI?

If it's about the mechanism, I'll note the following.





Shocked? Really? Poster after poster has presented data to the effect that despite centuries of increasing automation there have never been so many people employed as there are today.

So far the contrary view, that further automation will rapidly and catastrophically reverse this correlation, is based on conjecture. Surely the burden of proof rests with this camp. I look forward to seeing some clear, accurate, significant and representative data to add to this colorful discussion.

If the thread is really about UBI itself, instead of venturing an opinion, I'll ask a question. "Given the history of governments giving bread and circuses to the population, are there data to indicate that $12k per head will be satisfactory for long?" Please show your work.

$1,000 might be enough for a good number to afford food and shelter perhaps. I don't know for sure.

There are more people working now because the population is larger. There are also more people not working now than ever before. So from that statement I could put the "burden of proof" on you.

The main reason I feel the percentage of people with jobs (let alone good paying jobs) will decrease in the next decade due to automation is because financially there is a market for it.

Follow the $$$. There is no incentive for any company to create high paying jobs unless that's their only option.

Obviously we disagree on whether jobs will disappear in decades.

 

[dd564]

For those who may have missed it, we discussed the UBI less than a year ago. The thread covered a lot of this same ground, including alternatives to UBI.

I was going to bump that thread, but it was locked due to it being old.

 

[braumeister]

I was going to bump that thread, but it was locked due to it being old.

Old threads can be restarted (if necessary) in most cases. You just have to check the box that says you realize what you're doing.

 

[GrayHare]

The intersection of the above is the educational system and our cultural instincts for education. Rather than putting $5T into UBI, let's put $5T into our education system to prepare kids for an automated world and ensure our culture supports it.

Enjoyed your well-thought-out post. I pasted the above to comment that I agree but that there are many forces inhibiting improved education. Season 4 of The Wire, which focused on an inner-city school system, illustrated some of the problems. While not intractable, such problems need to be addressed before better education can begin, and that could take decades.

 

[dd564]

Old threads can be restarted (if necessary) in most cases. You just have to check the box that says you realize what you're doing.

I don't realize what I'm doing half the time.

 

[ChiliPepr]

I reminds me of the joke about the visitor who leaves a $50 deposit at the local hotel while he tours the small town.

The hotel owner takes the $50 and runs and pays the barber, who then takes it and pays the butcher...the $50 makes its way all around town, each person paying off their $50 debt until it makes it's way back to the hotel owner. The visitor then says "No I'm not going to stay" and takes his $50 and walks out of town but now everyone's debt is paid.

The problem with this "joke" is everyone's debt is not paid... Before the visitor came to town the hotel owner is owed $50, when the visitor walks out the door with their $50, the hotel owner is still owed $50, but no one owes it to the hotel owner.

I do wonder about how much inflation something like this would cause? Think about an apartment owner, if the median salary of one of their apartment renters is $3k/month, and they charge $1k a month for rent. Then this kicks in and all their tenants now are getting $4k/month, do you think they will raise the rents to $1,333/month?

 

[ChiliPepr]

The problem with this "joke" is everyone's debt is not paid... Before the visitor came to town the hotel owner is owed $50, when the visitor walks out the door with their $50, the hotel owner is still owed $50, but no one owes it to the hotel owner.

I take that back, their debt would be paid and all their balance sheets would be zero, but they could do this all over a beer and just swap debts/credits.

sorry my joke analysis is off this morning!

 

[marko]

how much joy will having a large amount of money be if 80-90% of the nation wants you gone.

.

This and another posting you made imply that you're expecting some sort of imminent, radical, grand revolution ahead.

With many here being relatively wealthy, I'm curious on where you're coming from and why you believe that 80% of the nation will (soon) want us gone.

 

[braumeister]

This and another posting you made imply that you're expecting some sort of imminent, radical, grand revolution ahead.

With many here being relatively wealthy, I'm curious on where you're coming from and why you believe that 80% of the nation will (soon) want us gone.

Maybe the OP's last name is Maduro?

 

[MichaelB]

A few comments about jobs and employment.


There is not a fixed number of jobs in an economy. At any point in time, more jobs are created with economic growth, and jobs are lost with economic contraction.

Technology does not eliminate (or create) jobs. It lowers (or increases) the value of specific skills (and other capital goods).

If not enough people are employed and drawing a paycheck there wouldn’t be enough demand even for robot produced goods. That economic scenario would be as bad for the robots and their owners as for displaced workers.

Except in extreme situations, there are jobs for most wanting to work. They may pay poorly, though, if people don’t have more highly valued skills. They may pay less than what is needed to survive and avoid poverty.

The issue for our modern developed society (current and future) is not the number of jobs (or robots), it’s skills of prospective workers and wages. In other words, we can have a scenario where robots produce most goods and most people are employed. The opposite is also possible.

 

[braumeister]

There is not a fixed number of jobs in an economy. At any point in time, more jobs are created with economic growth, and jobs are lost with economic contraction.

This is absolutely true. Short term pain, long term gain.

People always come up with the sad example of the buggy whip makers of a century ago. When Ford started making and selling horseless carriages in large numbers, the buggy whip makers saw their sales decline enormously. None of the standard remedies worked for them -- new models, sizes, quality grades, 2-for-1 sales, nothing.

But a few of them managed to look at the big picture and realized that their true expertise was not making buggy whips, but making things out of leather. They shifted their production to producing leather seats and padding for Ford's automobile and instead of going out of business, they had to hire more employees.

 

[samclem]

If not enough people are employed and drawing a paycheck there wouldn’t be enough demand even for robot produced goods. That economic scenario would be as bad for the robots and their owners as for displaced workers.

And, demand for goods (especially goods used by the poor) would decrease, resulting in lower prices for those goods. This helps the poor afford them. If a lot of people lose their jobs in an area, housing prices do not stay the same. Where pay is lower, living costs are also lower.

Except in extreme situations, there are jobs for most wanting to work. They may pay poorly, though, if people don’t have more highly valued skills. They may pay less than what is needed to survive and avoid poverty.

I would also add that poverty is relative--in several ways.
-- It is natural for people to compare themselves to others in their own country/area, and define "poverty" by others in that country have.

-- Poverty in the US does not resemble poverty in Haiti, sub-Saharan Africa, etc.



- There is a bright spot, from a big picture perspective: to the degree that the decline/stagnation in US wages is due to a move of work overseas, it has done a LOT to reduce profound, longstanding poverty in some of the world's poorest places. Tremendous poverty still remains (obviously), but $100/mo makes a big difference in how a family lives in India, Vietnam, etc.

 

[dd564]

This and another posting you made imply that you're expecting some sort of imminent, radical, grand revolution ahead.

With many here being relatively wealthy, I'm curious on where you're coming from and why you believe that 80% of the nation will (soon) want us gone.

Well, they just might vote in people who represent their views who want UBI.

If America can keep fooling them into thinking they wealthy the poor will never been an issue.

 

[dd564]

A few comments about jobs and employment.


If not enough people are employed and drawing a paycheck there wouldn’t be enough demand even for robot produced goods. That economic scenario would be as bad for the robots and their owners as for displaced workers.

How do people stop needing heat and electricity in winter and food to eat when they lose their job?

 

[marko]

Well, they just might vote in people who represent their views who want UBI.

If America can keep fooling them into thinking they wealthy the poor will never been an issue.

Thanks for the insight.
I think I can take this one off my worry list.

 

[MichaelB]

How do people stop needing heat and electricity in winter and food to eat when they lose their job?

I’m not sure I understand your question. One of the points I was trying to make was that an economic system where capital and automation have completely displaced labor is not viable. It is not sustainable and doesn’t work. The dystopian future of robots producing everything and no jobs for people is not likely to come about.

If the majority of people are no longer employed, aggregate demand contracts, which leads to a fall in production of goods and services. The economy shrinks, factories close, robots and workers alike are unemployed, business owners go broke. Most everyone loses in this scenario, the standard of living declines for all of society.

The like scenario IMO is a larger scale mismatch in skills between what has value and can command a reasonable wage vs the skills low / no wage people actually have.

 

[Independent]

There is not a fixed number of jobs in an economy. At any point in time, more jobs are created with economic growth, and jobs are lost with economic contraction.

Technology does not eliminate (or create) jobs. It lowers (or increases) the value of specific skills (and other capital goods).

If not enough people are employed and drawing a paycheck there wouldn’t be enough demand even for robot produced goods. That economic scenario would be as bad for the robots and their owners as for displaced workers.

Except in extreme situations, there are jobs for most wanting to work. They may pay poorly, though, if people don’t have more highly valued skills. They may pay less than what is needed to survive and avoid poverty.

The issue for our modern developed society (current and future) is not the number of jobs (or robots), it’s skills of prospective workers and wages. In other words, we can have a scenario where robots produce most goods and most people are employed. The opposite is also possible.

I agree with most of this, especially the bold.

And, like Sam says, the below poverty wage in the US may be a "decent" wage in some other country. Not because the COL is higher in the US (though it probably is), but because our definition of "poverty" requires more stuff than their definition of "decent".

I also think we have a substantial number of people who want to work, but can never develop the technical skills for the "better" jobs in our economy.

What should the US do about that situation?

I think that, in 2019, we should be eliminating taxes on people who make poverty level wages, and raising taxes on the people who own "robots" (i.e. all capital goods).

dd is more focused on proposals for a UBI.

 

[razztazz]

I agree with most of this, especially the bold.

And, like Sam says, the below poverty wage in the US may be a "decent" wage in some other country. Not because the COL is higher in the US (though it probably is), but because our definition of "poverty" requires more stuff than their definition of "decent".

Excellent point. I would toss in here Adam Smith's concept of "relative poverty" i.e. depending on what that society's general standards consider necessary, if you don't have them or need them and can't get them: That is poverty Some people like to keep defining poverty downwards. Well see, he has pants and a transistor radio, ergo he is not in poverty. We can do the same with wealth. He's got 5 bucks more than the poorest person ergo he is opulent. That one won't fly

I also think we have a substantial number of people who want to work, but can never develop the technical skills for the "better" jobs in our economy.

Ten to Fifteen percent of the population lack the mental ability to get into the Army. The Right-leaners tend to think they're all just lazy and if they'd pull their heads out they'd all get jobs and that will solve the problem. The Left Leaners like to say if we just throw "job training" at the problem, since anybody can learn anything, they'll all get good, "New-Age" economy jobs. Both are wrong

Add into that, automation and more jobs requiring skills/talents even honest, reasonably well-educated, earnest, willing people are less and less likely to have ......? Jordan Peterson, hardly a Left Wing icon gives a good run down on that. There won't be enough cake for all those people to eat.

 

[MichaelB]

I agree with most of this, especially the bold.

And, like Sam says, the below poverty wage in the US may be a "decent" wage in some other country. Not because the COL is higher in the US (though it probably is), but because our definition of "poverty" requires more stuff than their definition of "decent".

I also think we have a substantial number of people who want to work, but can never develop the technical skills for the "better" jobs in our economy.

What should the US do about that situation?

I think that, in 2019, we should be eliminating taxes on people who make poverty level wages, and raising taxes on the people who own "robots" (i.e. all capital goods).

dd is more focused on proposals for a UBI.

Let’s be fair to dd564 and stick to UBI as the core topic. My posts were not a comment on UBI, they were a different perspective on what the challenge to labor and employment looks like.

 

[GrayHare]

Add into that, automation and more jobs requiring skills/talents even honest, reasonably well-educated, earnest, willing people are less and less likely to have ......?

I think that's a self-correcting problem. If a machine is so complex that few people are able to repair it, that broken machine will be discarded for a model that is repairable by many people, thus providing jobs to those repair people.

 

[samclem]

How do people stop needing heat and electricity in winter and food to eat when they lose their job?

"Their" job: The commonly used term, I know, and totally innocuous. But in this instance it bears mentioning that the job doesn't belong to the employee, it belongs to the employer. It exists because the employer believes he can generate net value (wealth) by hiring a person to fill it.

To your question, we could instead ask: "How can the producers of food and electricity continue to sell at today's price if demand decreases due to lower wages?"

There are homeostatic mechanisms at work in the price of goods and in pay (including pay at the lower end of the scale). There are tasks that are just not worth $20 per hour in a given situation, and so a rational employer will not pay someone $20 an hour to do it. I have a lot of yard work that falls into that category--I'll do it myself instead or it will remain undone. If I could find someone willing to do it for $5/hour, it would be attractive to me and I would hire people to do it. It would be good for them, and good for me. The larger economy works like this, too. If higher paying jobs become less plentiful, people will accept lower paying jobs. This makes formerly uneconomically tasks (at lower pay) practical, and more low-paying jobs are created--maybe cleaning up my yard.

There is no fixed number of jobs. See "lump of labor" fallacy.

 

[kite_rider]

- There is a bright spot, from a big picture perspective: to the degree that the decline/stagnation in US wages is due to a move of work overseas, it has done a LOT to reduce profound, longstanding poverty in some of the world's poorest places. Tremendous poverty still remains (obviously), but $100/mo makes a big difference in how a family lives in India, Vietnam, etc.

Another bright spot is that automation - and the efficiency it delivers - will improve our collective standard of living even in an environment of stagnant US wages. Much like globalization has done for us in recent decades. Who wants to be richer than they are today (in dollars) but have to live in the 1920's? If you think about it, few would.

UBI is just a reasonable transition tool to help US citizens adapt to the new economy. Few other suggestions have been floated to address the unique challenges around a prolific shift in the economy. If you keep thinking that UBI means that everyone will stop working and just live on UBI then you miss the point of the whole topic.

 

[Sojourner]

I think that's a self-correcting problem. If a machine is so complex that few people are able to repair it, that broken machine will be discarded for a model that is repairable by many people, thus providing jobs to those repair people.

Herein lies one of the main points of confusion regarding this entire topic, IMHO.

The rise of more advanced, AI-driven automation—which will accelerate as cutting-edge AI systems become less specialized and can eventually "self improve"—is a virtual certainty. The only way that won't happen is if, contrary to everything we know about the history of science and technology, all research and development work around the globe involving AI and automation ceases or slows to a snails pace. But if we grant (very reasonably) that R&D will continue apace and that AI-driven automation will continue to advance and (probably) accelerate over the next several decades, then we WILL be facing a world where a very large percentage of jobs will have been automated. And in such a world, "robots" will be doing almost all work that doesn't involve a very high level of creativity... including repairing other broken "robots".

AI-driven automation is very different from previous disruptions to specialized industries, like coal mining and buggy whip makers. In those cases, there were jobs available in other sectors that required similar skills, so the miners and whip makers could move fairly easily into those other sectors by modifying their skills a bit. With the coming AI-automation revolution, this will not be the case eventually. Sure, many displaced truck drivers may find other blue-collar work in 2025 or 2030, but what about in 2050 or 2070 when AI-automation has taken over 90% of all blue collar jobs? And again, you can argue that this may never happen, but only if you believe that the entire artificial intelligence / automation R&D global community is going to just stop improving the technology.

 

[flintnational]

I wonder how many parents, if they had the means, would provide a UBI for their adult children? I can only speak for my situation. One child would have progressed well with or without a UBI. The second, with a partial merit college scholarship (rest paid by mom and dad) and admission to an honors program, would have instead chosen to further her/his alcohol and drug abuse. It was only the removal of all financial support that directed this child back to college and put them on the path toward health and success. Fingers crossed and glad UBI was not in the mix or we would not have made the progress seen in recent months.