As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need a Guaranteed Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need a Guaranteed Basic Income

#131

Post by testererr » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 8:48 PM UTC

levelist_com wrote: post #110

I'm curious, and this may have been discussed elsewhere, but how would that work in a country like the US (both in terms of size of population and capitalistic greed)? For instance, when student loans became ubiquitous, universities raised their rates. Now there are many theories as to why that was but I feel the simplest explanation is that a) it created greater demand, and b) easy/cheap money (look at ITT). What's…

Average annual cost of inmate is $30K, which is more than $2000 per month. Criminals get "basic income" already today.

In K-12 education in Europe, lowest-performing students are given a lot of attention (with "special" classes etc), low-performing get the bulk, and little attention is generally given to high performers. The effort distribution is roughly normal, biased toward lower-end because of people with disabilities.

Goal seems to be to bring people to a reasonable average, but not above it. Education effort seems logical (the bell curve). Inmate "subsidy" does not seem as logical - perhaps a more bell-shaped subsidy distribution would increase the average/mean and also reduce recidivism (if in context of criminal law).

A reasonable imementation of the current argument is to gradually "normalize" the subsidy distribution into bell shape, which will move the "target average" threshold higher along the way.

Generally "normalizing" subsidies along the range of any metric theoretically sounds right. Sadly, given that value of any one person's life (and possible accomplishments) is not defined (=infinite) science cannot provide a solution. F.e. there is more benefit to aociety to help people with minor disabities, then with major ones, but people feel "inhuman" about supporting such statements and decisions this entails. This will become harder still when AI will need to choose allocation of effort to support/save lives.

Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need a Guaranteed Basic Income

#132

Post by objectivistbrit » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 8:49 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #96

objectivistbrit wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since WW2 most basic research has been funded by governments, but prior to WW2, the industrial revolution happened without state funding. Varoufakis' argument is that since the state has been taxing the productive to fund research, that gives it a moral right to tax the productive some more. Paris Hilton obviously didn't earn her money, but her parents chose to give it to her, and millions of people chose to stay at…

> Varoufakis' argument is that since the state has been taxing the productive to fund research, that gives it a moral right to tax the productive some more. Regardless of if the research done prior to WW2 was funded privately or publicly, that knowledge is part of our shared culture heritage. The fact is, regardless of how well they run their hotels, the Hiltons could not be where they are without the travelers who p…

The government is needed to enforce the laws. This does not mean the goverment needs to redistribute wealth, regulate business or manage the economy. A government which stuck to this role could be funded by tax rates of about 5-8%.

My ideal society would have said funds made by voluntary donations. This is a far-off ideal, but it is achievable - unless you think humans cannot form a society without coercion.

Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need a Guaranteed Basic Income

#133

Post by kamaal » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 8:50 PM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #80

anovikov wrote: post #3

I seriously doubt it could be realistically implemented. More probable outcome is ballooning law enforcement costs due to significant fraction of population becoming unemployable and resorting to crime, and almost endless, Japan-style economic stagnation in all developed countries. Sorry for sounding pessimist. This time it gets serious and software is going to really eat the world. By the way in some countries (like…

Really? You think that's more realistic than just taking it from the top 0.1%? There was a time in this country for nearly 40 years where the top tax bracket was above 75%, and for quite a while it was 91%, and for a short while it was 94%. Basically it was a policy of not letting a small number of people take all of the marbles. There is, in fact, a way to avoid that tax, it's called start a new business or expand o…

>>Rich investors = good. Rich savers = bad.

Why do each of these tax schemes feel like the poor want a consolation, and they would accept a compromise deal wherein rich would be made poor, just in case they can't be made rich.

Never heard a single argument why some human beings getting ahead of others is wrong.

No matter how hard you try there is always some people who are richer, some who can draw better, some who can compose music better, some who win nobel prizes.

This whole idea that losers will happy if the winners are punished seems to be wrong to even begin with.

Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need a Guaranteed Basic Income

#134

Post by jimmywanger » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 8:52 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #90

jimmywanger wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * You are isolating them in a relatively small space with one another. * You have uncontrolled population growth. * You are using a species that naturally trends towards "clan wars" for territory. * They are rats, and thus have nothing productive to do with their time in the absence of survival. Are we talking about rats or humans now? Only your fourth assertion is rat specific. All the other observations are true…

> Are we talking about rats or humans now? We are not restricted to confined spaces with other people. Even the most destitute could walk down the street and leave. And we see in people that are so restricted the same kind of psychological problems you find in the rats, such as in prisons. Population growth is not uncontrolled. Educated populations are equalizing and declining in growth. Once women are educated and e…

> The clan war problem is truly something mutual, but its something we might be able to surpass one day.

What gives you that assertion? We've been trying to surpass it for literally thousands of years.

> Neither of these are rational arguments. For all intents and purposes, scientific consensus is the basis of rational thought, and everything else is emotional response to rationality. It is that scientific process that separates us from the animalistic emotional squabbles.

But yet we still have these arguments, even though they're not rational.

Primarily, I don't think we've evolved much in the past couple thousand years. We are not much smarter than our ancestors. We might have improved nutrition, but fundamentally we're just cave dwellers that think scary things lurk in the dark, and make up excuses to justify our actions that are primarily instinctive.

For instance, a couple of extreme examples. Most people and all scientific evidence points to the fact that if you eat less and work out more, your life becomes exponentially better, and you tend to lose weight. There's a fringe movement that comes in with the idea that you can be healthy at every size (HAES) which goes against all science, just so you can feel good about being fat and unhealthy.

Also, WRT to your comments about population declining naturally, the Catholic Church is a huge bulwark against that. They're even against pulling out. Every time I see a commercial about how somebody had four children starve to death, I think to myself not "What an unfortunate person", but "Just stop having kids and slowly torturing them to death by hunger."

My main point is that we already have conclusions we want to reach, mostly caused by biological instincts, and we use our logical brains to justify the decisions to ourselves, so we can get to sleep at night. We're not really that much more elevated than animals, if elevated at all.

Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need a Guaranteed Basic Income

#135

Post by dharma1 » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 8:54 PM UTC

wingless wrote: post #15

cstanley wrote: post #4

So we can all play more video games: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/23/why-a... "Most of the blame for the struggle of male, less-educated workers has been attributed to lingering weakness in the economy, particularly in male-dominated industries such as manufacturing. Yet in the new research, economists from Princeton, the University of Rochester and the University of Chicago say that an additio…

What else can they do? With the new wave of AI and automation there will be no jobs left for people with below average intelligence. You will need more and more researchers and programmers but not everyone can do those jobs.

I'd like to see an AI fix my plumbing. I'd say programming will be automated sooner than that is

Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need a Guaranteed Basic Income

#136

Post by Tycho » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 8:55 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #130

Tycho wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today a middle class person will have a doctor, a dentist, an accountant, and a lawyer. That list could extend to include personal trainer, geneticist, travel agent, dermatologist... The list is endless. Some things will allow people to monetise talents that previously were not easily monetised (imagine having a "sense of humour" coach), others will be highly specialised requiring years of education, others will be m…

> "personal trainer, geneticist, travel agent, dermatologist..." Let me put it like this, why would you pay a human to do those things when a machine could do just as good/a better job? Even if AI-based solutions were still subpar compared to human practitioners of the professions you mention, they only have to be "good enough" to take over the mass market, as they're likely to be far cheaper than the human professio…

I'd rather stick with the tried and tested "earn a living" model of human civilization.

How is a machine literally going to do these things? Is everyone going to buy a personal trainer robot? Is everyone going to install a home dermatology kit? I can't see it.

Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need a Guaranteed Basic Income

#137

Post by marcosdumay » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 8:56 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #115

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are lots of things that will likely never be cost effective to automate or are impossible to automate. Could you give examples that are capable of providing living wages to 160-250 million people, in the US alone? Technology has completely destroyed the value in human labor for most industries, in much the way we no longer use horses for farming, and is rapidly doing the same to "white collar" jobs. I'm hones…

Gardener Housekeeper Nanny Personal trainer Personal assistant Tutor Pet care Archive researcher Take two things that could unlock numerous needs for jobs. 1) education, which we currently do en masse, but could be personalised to varying extents 2) remote working, which would free people from cities and allow them to have larger houses and gardens, and in general make service provision less efficient and require mor…

Put gardener, housekeeper, personal trainer, and pet care on the 'obvious next targets for automation' bin.

I really don't think the other ones are safe. Just that it's not obvious that they aren't.

Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need a Guaranteed Basic Income

#138

Post by levelist_com » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 8:57 PM UTC

testererr wrote: post #131

levelist_com wrote: post #110

I'm curious, and this may have been discussed elsewhere, but how would that work in a country like the US (both in terms of size of population and capitalistic greed)? For instance, when student loans became ubiquitous, universities raised their rates. Now there are many theories as to why that was but I feel the simplest explanation is that a) it created greater demand, and b) easy/cheap money (look at ITT). What's…

Average annual cost of inmate is $30K, which is more than $2000 per month. Criminals get "basic income" already today. In K-12 education in Europe, lowest-performing students are given a lot of attention (with "special" classes etc), low-performing get the bulk, and little attention is generally given to high performers. The effort distribution is roughly normal, biased toward lower-end because of people with disabil…

Im not sure if you answered my question or that Im not smart enough to understand the answer. I guess I should have added an ELI5 to my question.

Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need a Guaranteed Basic Income

#139

Post by maxerickson » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 8:58 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #20

StriverGuy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit of a Luddite viewpoint. There will be some ups and downs as people adjust to the need for different skill sets however, automation won't simply wipe out any need for human labor. There are lots of things that will likely never be cost effective to automate or are impossible to automate.

The opposite of Luddite is believe that it will all get sorted out in the end inevitable. As the fall of Rome, the middle ages, and several other dark periods in human history show, this is now always the case. > There are lots of things that will likely never be cost effective to automate or are impossible to automate. Several things, yes. A lot, no. And even if those types of jobs were many, what matters is the num…

I'm somewhat convinced that we still live in Rome.

Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need a Guaranteed Basic Income

#140

Post by CaptSpify » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:03 PM UTC

whybroke wrote: post #74

cstanley wrote: post #4

So we can all play more video games: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/23/why-a... "Most of the blame for the struggle of male, less-educated workers has been attributed to lingering weakness in the economy, particularly in male-dominated industries such as manufacturing. Yet in the new research, economists from Princeton, the University of Rochester and the University of Chicago say that an additio…

To convince yourself that you live in a perfect meritocracy where anyone who fails does so solely because of moral deficiency or laziness is the most dangerous delusion you could inflict upon yourself. The story of millennials playing video games in mom's basement conveniently fits that narrative of moral outrage. In fact there is a growing group of people who, being force to work in sectors where they compete with o…

> where they compete with overseas workers who are brutal exploited by ruthless dictatorships

Or, in the US at least, not even overseas workers, but prisoners who are able to do the same job for much less because their living costs are paid by taxpayers, not their "employers"