Opinion Is Universal Basic Income the way forward?

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

Yes, it helps poor people (like me) and it helps the economy because people will be putting money back into it. There is literally no downside to it.

 

[panamaican]

I think you can reasonably say that about AI. I don't think you can say that about robots performing menial tasks. I doubt it will ever make sense to build a robot that has the same fine motor control as a human. It's too expensive, and again, things will fail and need to be replaced. Developing better AI is something that I think is certain to happen.

Building materials that don't suffer from fatigue is less likely. Give a robot a human hand, and all those tiny little joints and motors are going to be points of failure. And they will all fail after enough cycles when fractures start to form from material fatigue. I don't think a solution to that is easily accomplished because the most obvious way that it's achieved is by creating a material that can go through more cycles. How, though?

Whereas with AI it's plain to see that we're nowhere near the ceiling because there are still annual improvements in computing power.

Edit: Some of this might be overcome with some clever redesign like what happened with manufacturing and the idea of an assembly line, I guess.

You say that it's too expensive but that's a present day assessment that's failed most time that people have said it. Think about every technological innovation that they said would be too expensive for general use. The computer is the most obvious. When they broke out ENIAC everyone said it's too big and too expensive for day to day use. Now? Billions of people, even in the 3rd world, walk around with high powered computers in their pockets. The internet is another - people said it wouldn't have much use for the general public. Now? Pretty much everything is done through the internet to some degree, even the most inconsequential.

Time and time again, people have said that tech wouldn't become cheap enough for generic use. Time and time again, tech has become cheaper and proliferated into areas it, supposedly, wasn't going.

As for building materials, we're constantly innovating new building materials and new ways to enhance what we have. For example, I was recently exposed to a new way to form rebar that extends the life cycle by orders of magnitude and increases tensile strength and load bearing capabilities. It hasn't hit market but it's extensively tested. What we've done with graphene is another example. So is gorilla glass - something that was invented in 1952 but didn't see significant usage until the 2000s. Or Kevlar, developed in 1965, and it's followers.

We're constantly innovating new materials. We're not going to eliminate material fatigue but we are certainly extending the life cycle of things.

Lastly, about fine motor control --

We're further along than you might think.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Interesting. Could you break down why the Bloomberg article's numbers are incorrect and the numbers from ITEP's tax model are for me? I'm not an economist or anything, and this stuff is a bit out of my area of expertise. I wasn't really endorsing those numbers so much as displaying some of the types of talking points that I can neither verify or deny in an informed way.

You don't need any expertise here; you just need to read more carefully. The numbers you quoted are income tax, and the numbers the other guy quoted are total taxes.

As to the broader point, obviously the gov't is not reliant on any particular individual or group's taxes. Wealth is produced through collective processes, distributed according to rules, and then redistributed according to other rules. We certainly wouldn't want an exodus of high-skilled workers (that wouldn't happen, though), but not because of the impact on gov't revenue, which would be negligible.

BTW, people should think about this point in light of one of the big flaws in immigration thinking. There's a contradiction between the "more workers = lower pay" people and the "if we raise taxes slightly, all the workers will leave and that will hurt us" people, but they're on the same political side so they don't notice or argue about it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

3.3 jobs lost per robot introduced into the workforce. And that will only accelerate as the robots get better.

Something I always remember is this "People have a hard time predicting the future, they tend to assume it will resemble the present with small changes." People have a hard time imagining hyper-efficient robots because we don't have hyper-efficient robots now. But think about all of those AI predictions that failed. They said robots couldn't beat people in chess, not long after, the robots were far superior to people. Then they said robots couldn't win at "Go", it's too complex. Less than 5 years later, robots torched the best human Go players. Robots are getting better and people are not getting smarter. We're not evolving at the same rate so the gap will continue to shrink.

I think to some extent you're making the same mistake you're criticizing in assuming that future productivity growth will resemble past productivity growth.

Imagine yourself in the year 1960. You're ~35 years removed from the first commercial airplane flight (and just ~55 years removed from the first airplane flight period). Just 156 years from the first train, which went like 5 mph. Three years ago, the USSR sent a satellite into space. Commercial planes now fly over 500 mph. Ask someone what they expect in terms of air travel in 60 years, and they'd probably expect that people will hop over to the moon for lunch, and obviously everyone will have flying cars. Instead, what they have is commercial flights that go the same speed as they did then, but way cheaper and safer.

Point is that people don't always miss low on guesses about technological advancement. Past progress usually makes future progress harder but at the same time raises our expectations for it. Progress comes in big jumps, but we're not constantly making them. I think there's a good case to be made that we have more to fear from a slowdown than from the unintended consequences of explosive growth. And the case has been made very well (if not decisively) that the explosive growth in living standards from 1870 to 1970 was basically a one-off that should not be used as a basis for expectations (obviously, if we discover a new energy source or something, we could have another another generation of big progress, but that's unpredictable rather than something we should just expect to happen).

And remember that technology has been taking people's jobs for as long as societies have been arranged around wage labor. The pace of technology-induced job losses has been slowing over the past few decades. It is happening, and it is disruptive, but it's always been happening, and it's usually been more disruptive. People still naturally and understandably want protection from the market (also something unchanged since the dawn of capitalism), and I think we should try to provide that to the extent we can while still getting the benefits of a market-based economy. What I think would be better than a UBI paid for by taxes is a gov't-held fund (of stocks, private equity, land, bonds, commodities) that pays a universal dividend. Also, this is a pipe dream, but to the extent possible, the gov't should try to replace payroll, corporate, and income taxes with taxes on land value, inheritance, and stuff like carbon emissions, alcohol, tobacco, etc.

 

[panamaican]

I think to some extent you're making the same mistake you're criticizing in assuming that future productivity growth will resemble past productivity growth.

Imagine yourself in the year 1960. You're ~35 years removed from the first commercial airplane flight (and just ~55 years removed from the first airplane flight period). Just 156 years from the first train, which went like 5 mph. Three years ago, the USSR sent a satellite into space. Commercial planes now fly over 500 mph. Ask someone what they expect in terms of air travel in 60 years, and they'd probably expect that people will hop over to the moon for lunch, and obviously everyone will have flying cars. Instead, what they have is commercial flights that go the same speed as they did then, but way cheaper and safer.

Point is that people don't always miss low on guesses about technological advancement. Past progress usually makes future progress harder but at the same time raises our expectations for it. Progress comes in big jumps, but we're not constantly making them. I think there's a good case to be made that we have more to fear from a slowdown than from the unintended consequences of explosive growth. And the case has been made very well (if not decisively) that the explosive growth in living standards from 1870 to 1970 was basically a one-off that should not be used as a basis for expectations (obviously, if we discover a new energy source or something, we could have another another generation of big progress, but that's unpredictable rather than something we should just expect to happen).

And remember that technology has been taking people's jobs for as long as societies have been arranged around wage labor. The pace of technology-induced job losses has been slowing over the past few decades. It is happening, and it is disruptive, but it's always been happening, and it's usually been more disruptive. People still naturally and understandably want protection from the market (also something unchanged since the dawn of capitalism), and I think we should try to provide that to the extent we can while still getting the benefits of a market-based economy. What I think would be better than a UBI paid for by taxes is a gov't-held fund (of stocks, private equity, land, bonds, commodities) that pays a universal dividend. Also, this is a pipe dream, but to the extent possible, the gov't should try to replace payroll, corporate, and income taxes with taxes on land value, inheritance, and stuff like carbon emissions, alcohol, tobacco, etc.

I disagree. I'm not discussing productivity growth at all. I'm discussing the impact of increased automation on jobs. Robots cost workers ~6 jobs per robot but create ~3 jobs per robot resulting in a net 3.3 job per robot loss. The impact on productivity isn't something I'm hazarding a guess on in these posts, only the impact on employment.

Additionally, it's having a negative impact on wages and income inequality as well.

But all of that is secondary to my core point - which is 3.3 net losses per robot over the last 25 years. And no realistic expectation for why that will change as robots become better at what used to be middle class work.

What this MIT professor is saying is that the balance has shifted and new work creations are no longer outpacing the displacement from automating industries.
http://news.mit.edu/2020/how-many-jobs-robots-replace-0504
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.33.2.3

 

[Jack V Savage]

I disagree. I'm not discussing productivity growth at all. I'm discussing the impact of increased automation on jobs. Robots cost workers ~6 jobs per robot but create ~3 jobs per robot resulting in a net 3.3 job per robot loss. The impact on productivity isn't something I'm hazarding a guess on in these posts, only the impact on employment.

The scenario you're describing would be defined as productivity growth (more output with less input), though confined to that specific trade. But that's also normal (that is, productivity grows faster than the overall rate in some sectors and slower than the overall rate in other sectors). Also note that Acemoglu discusses productivity growth in the second link (also tries to explain the slowdown).

Additionally, it's having a negative impact on wages and income inequality as well.

But all of that is secondary to my core point - which is 3.3 net losses per robot over the last 25 years. And no realistic expectation for why that will change as robots become better at what used to be middle class work.

I don't think that the impact you mention in that first sentence is apparent in the overall numbers.

What this MIT professor is saying is that the balance has shifted and new work creations are no longer outpacing the displacement from automating industries.
http://news.mit.edu/2020/how-many-jobs-robots-replace-0504
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.33.2.3

See above. In sectors that are seeing productivity increase faster than the average, there's a negative impact (which isn't always the case, but Acemoglu makes the argument that it is in some cases--where the growth leads to replacement rather than enhancement, to oversimplify). But overall productivity growth has not been good. See this quote from your second link:

Our framework has clear implications for the future of work, too. Our evidence and conceptual approach support neither the claims that the end of human work is imminent nor the presumption that technological change will always and everywhere be favorable to labor. Rather, they suggest that if the origin of productivity growth in the future continues to be automation, the relative standing of labor, together with the task content of production, will decline. The creation of new tasks and other technologies raising the labor intensity of production and the labor share are vital for continued wage growth commensurate with productivity growth.

I'm not arguing that technological change will always and everywhere be favorable to labor; just that the end of work is not imminent. Or more generally, if the prediction is that wage growth in the near future will not match productivity growth, I'm agnostic, but that sounds believable. If it's that we're going to see a cratering of demand for labor and falling wages driven by productivity growth, I think that doesn't sound believable (not *impossible*, but there's no good reason to expect it).

 

[The XL]

This is just one of the many reasons why they're hyping this virus up. They're using it to radically change the country

 

[panamaican]

The scenario you're describing would be defined as productivity growth (more output with less input), though confined to that specific trade. But that's also normal (that is, productivity grows faster than the overall rate in some sectors and slower than the overall rate in other sectors). Also note that Acemoglu discusses productivity growth in the second link (also tries to explain the slowdown).

I know what Acemoglu discusses. I specifically didn't discuss it. As I'm sure you understand you can have productivity growth with fewer people in the labor force. Hence 3.3 net job losses without any commentary from me on productivity growth itself, it's a related topic but not necessary for the discussion about an impact on employment levels.

I don't think that the impact you mention in that first sentence is apparent in the overall numbers.

Don't tell me, tell Acemoglu. It's what he says.

See above. In sectors that are seeing productivity increase faster than the average, there's a negative impact (which isn't always the case, but Acemoglu makes the argument that it is in some cases--where the growth leads to replacement rather than enhancement, to oversimplify). But overall productivity growth has not been good. See this quote from your second link:



I'm not arguing that technological change will always and everywhere be favorable to labor; just that the end of work is not imminent. Or more generally, if the prediction is that wage growth in the near future will not match productivity growth, I'm agnostic, but that sounds believable. If it's that we're going to see a cratering of demand for labor and falling wages driven by productivity growth, I think that doesn't sound believable (not *impossible*, but there's no good reason to expect it).

I never said the end of work is imminent either. I said that it's not in favor of labor now and that we can expect that trend to continue as the quality of the robots improves.

"Cratering of demand" is also nothing that I said. 3.3 net losses isn't a cratering, it's a slow but stead decline. As the quality of automation increases, we can expect to see that 3.3 climb. I won't guess the final number but we're not going to see a reversal. And so we can expect to see more and more jobs for people leave the workplace over time and we can expect to see a negative impact on wages at the low and middle class levels. But, and I'll repeat but, overall productivity growth in the economy might very well improve. So a more productive economy with fewer workers and lower overall wages, with increases in highly skilled labor and decreases in the low skilled and middle class.

But no one is suggesting that anything is falling off a cliff. It would be easier to make that argument instead of what we're seeing, the slow boiling of the frog.

 

[Swing]

You say that it's too expensive but that's a present day assessment that's failed most time that people have said it. Think about every technological innovation that they said would be too expensive for general use. The computer is the most obvious. When they broke out ENIAC everyone said it's too big and too expensive for day to day use. Now? Billions of people, even in the 3rd world, walk around with high powered computers in their pockets. The internet is another - people said it wouldn't have much use for the general public. Now? Pretty much everything is done through the internet to some degree, even the most inconsequential.

Time and time again, people have said that tech wouldn't become cheap enough for generic use. Time and time again, tech has become cheaper and proliferated into areas it, supposedly, wasn't going.

As for building materials, we're constantly innovating new building materials and new ways to enhance what we have. For example, I was recently exposed to a new way to form rebar that extends the life cycle by orders of magnitude and increases tensile strength and load bearing capabilities. It hasn't hit market but it's extensively tested. What we've done with graphene is another example. So is gorilla glass - something that was invented in 1952 but didn't see significant usage until the 2000s. Or Kevlar, developed in 1965, and it's followers.

We're constantly innovating new materials. We're not going to eliminate material fatigue but we are certainly extending the life cycle of things.

Lastly, about fine motor control --

We're further along than you might think.

This post is kind of all over the place, sorry (mine not yours). I can think of plenty of things that we haven't managed to completely solve with technology, despite our best efforts, that can still be prohibitively expensive for people. Cancer treatment comes to mind (although that idea of designing a virus to attack cancer cells sounded exciting). We’ve been dealing with that for hundreds of years (and making progress on it), but I don’t think it would be wise to say with certainty that we’ll completely figure it out eventually. That applies to lots of diseases, really. How long have we been dealing with the flu?

We got to the Moon in the 60s; we're only now thinking about traveling to Mars. And we haven't actually had a major breakthrough in terms of space travel (in terms of speed). That's an interesting example because apparently a lot of people never thought we'd break the sound barrier. Thing is, even though we broke the sound barrier in the 40s we haven't managed to do the same thing with the light barrier. Will we? Maybe, but I don't think it follows that just because humans have figured out some amazing things that all other amazing things will follow. Especially when you consider how quickly are best minds managed to take us to the moon, but we've been kind of in a rut ever since. Will we ever travel throughout our own galaxy, much less to another one? I honestly don't think so even though I hope I'm wrong.

Cars have been around since 1886, and we still aren't making them out of things that last forever. And we have an entire industry dedicated to their maintenance (though lots of cars are cheaper than what we pay a person to work). We still have to replace drill bits. Now sure, a robot that stocks shelves isn't going to be under that kind of stress. I'm just pointing out that there are physical limitations to the materials we use. Kevlar and Gorilla glass, for example, aren't great for a lot of things because they're brittle (I just realized that I'm only thinking of Kevlar plates. I haven't slept in a while).

I do remember something about Martensite (some sort of alloy) that is supposed to be remarkably elastic. That would work great in this context, but I don't know that it's ever been used in anything.

Anyway, I wouldn't even be upset about being wrong. I love science fiction, and I think it'd be fantastic if we got to see robots like what so many people hope to see. And I know myself well enough to realize that part of my skepticism is actually disappointment that I don't expect to see any of this before I kick the bucket.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I know what Acemoglu discusses. I specifically didn't discuss it. As I'm sure you understand you can have productivity growth with fewer people in the labor force. Hence 3.3 net job losses without any commentary from me on productivity growth itself, it's a related topic but not necessary for the discussion about an impact on employment levels.

I think that there's a signal crossed here. If there are 3.3 net job losses but output is unaffected, by definition productivity growth has increased (a lot in that case!).

Don't tell me, tell Acemoglu. It's what he says.

No, that's why I'm pointing that out. There's a difference between the overall economy and a particular shop that has automated some processes.

I never said the end of work is imminent either. I said that it's not in favor of labor now and that we can expect that trend to continue as the quality of the robots improves.

OK. Like I said, I'm agnostic on that point.

"Cratering of demand" is also nothing that I said. 3.3 net losses isn't a cratering, it's a slow but stead decline. As the quality of automation increases, we can expect to see that 3.3 climb. I won't guess the final number but we're not going to see a reversal. And so we can expect to see more and more jobs for people leave the workplace over time and we can expect to see a negative impact on wages at the low and middle class levels. But, and I'll repeat but, overall productivity growth in the economy might very well improve. So a more productive economy with fewer workers and lower overall wages, with increases in highly skilled labor and decreases in the low skilled and middle class.

You're describing productivity growth improving, and improving at a rate that will enable us to meet demand in the economy with less labor. We're not seeing a trend in that direction, and I don't think there's any reason to expect it, though it's possible.

 

[TeTe]

Yes, it helps poor people (like me) and it helps the economy because people will be putting money back into it. There is literally no downside to it.

Would you be in favor of it, if it meant that we got rid of all the other safety net programs like SNAP, housing vouchers, Obama phones, etc?

 

[panamaican]

I think that there's a signal crossed here. If there are 3.3 net job losses but output is unaffected, by definition productivity growth has increased (a lot in that case!).

I'm not arguing with that. I'm saying that I don't care because I'm focusing on employment numbers. To simplify, if we go from 100 jobs to 97 jobs, it doesn't matter that overall productivity goes up if you're concerned about people finding work. Productivity is up but there are 3 fewer jobs, so 3 fewer people working, so 3 more people in need of the social safety net.

Yay productivity. Now, let's deal with the 3 new unemployed people.

No, that's why I'm pointing that out. There's a difference between the overall economy and a particular shop that has automated some processes.

Sure...your point? I don't recall disagreeing with that. But he stated "...That increased use of robots in the workplace also lowered wages by roughly 0.4 percent during the same time period..." That's directed towards the overall economic impact of the addition of robots.

You're describing productivity growth improving, and improving at a rate that will enable us to meet demand in the economy with less labor. We're not seeing a trend in that direction, and I don't think there's any reason to expect it, though it's possible.

Yes to the first sentence because that's what's happening already. We both know that labor force participation rate has been declining, regardless of the rosy numbers about employment rates. Especially in men.

 

[Zazen]

This is just one of the many reasons why they're hyping this virus up. They're using it to radically change the country

Change is inevitable, this was always going to happen. The virus is just making these companies realize how fragile the economy is and they'll probably want to push automation out even faster now. We can be afraid or try to get a policy in the government that will make that day not as disastrous for everyone. Right now nobody is really doing anything and that's what frightens me more. I'm not afraid of robots I'm afraid of mass unemployment and riots.

 

[The XL]

Change is inevitable, this was always going to happen. The virus is just making these companies realize how fragile the economy is and they'll probably want to push automation out even faster now. We can be afraid or try to get a policy in the government that will make that day not as disastrous for everyone. Right now nobody is really doing anything and that's what frightens me more. I'm not afraid of robots I'm afraid of mass unemployment and riots.

That's nonsense. Change wasnt inevitable in this instance, its being willingly encouraged by the elites and the governments outrageous response to this.

 

[DespicablePeep]

Sounds the perfect system to give even more power to politicians.

 

[DespicablePeep]

Yes, it helps poor people (like me) and it helps the economy because people will be putting money back into it. There is literally no downside to it.

The money will come from taxes, from people who actually work and produce, you're taking that money and giving it away. Downside more taxes will be needed, the cost to oversee such system will also be costly and you are empowering more governments.

 

[The XL]

Being at the complete mercy of an already terrible government seems like a great idea. Like a lamb to the slaughter.

 

[AndroidRage]

If we are talking about just income inequality then I think raising the minimum wage is the best option. That or increasing Union membership a ton like they have in some Scandinavian countries that don't need minimum wage because of such a large number of Union jobs that are able to bargain for better wages.

If you are talking about people being displaced by automation than I think Richard Wolff's solution is better than UBI. He proposes that we shorten the work week and increase worker pay. So people would make the same amount as they would working a 40 hour week while working just 20 hours for example. Anything over that would be overtime. That way people could still afford to live a decent life and more jobs would be created.

I don't trust UBI. It can be too easily used to just strip away things like social security and medicare for people.

 

[AndroidRage]

Of course they would. I would. If you hand everything to everyone, what incentive do they have to go out and earn anything? I'm not going to my 9-5 job anymore if I'm getting a couple of grand a month to sit on my ass.
I could live pretty comfortably off of two grand a month. On top of that, I would probably qualify for other social assistance as well.

That speaks more about you as an individual. There are plenty of people who want to do more than just scrape by. The majority try to do better in fact.

 

[Madmick]

UBI is just undeserved welfare for the masses.
Who is going to work when they have a check every month for nothing?

I have a friend who works in a restaurant kitchen. I was shocked to learn last week he's actually getting paid more to do nothing at home than he usually makes working a full-time 35 hour work week.

I don't mind that, for now, especially with the anger I'm carrying over the emergency bill that sent $600bn relief to large corporations, and just $450bn to "small businesses", which turned out to include businesses with up to 500 retail locations, and over 10K employees on the payroll. Fuck Washington, and the Republicans, specifically, for that. Apparently the Los Angeles Lakers are a "small business".

But any sensible person understands this isn't a sustainable economic model on a long-term basis. UBI is retarded.