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

#141

Post by loeber » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

pipio21 wrote: post #113

cmurf wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You know when the tax bracket was above 75%, and 91% there were rich people that basically paid nothing in taxes? This was the result of existing exemptions in the laws. You know the Rothschild? Rockefeller? In what period they made most of their money?. In those with the higher "rich taxes". In fact that basically meant in practice that only a few could hold all the power, with no competition, by law. It is very sim…

> You know the Rothschild? Rockefeller? In what period they made most of their money?. In those with the higher "rich taxes".

No, that's not true. The highest marginal tax rates were between 1940 and 1963. Source: http://webarchive.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/t...

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

#142

Post by noobermin » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

objectivistbrit wrote: post #132

shkkmo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Often times, experience suggests people are not saints and will do or not do things unless compelled by laws and rules.

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

#143

Post by vertex-four » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:05 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #136

ZenoArrow wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

You think nobody would be interested in a personal trainer robot, but there'd be a substantiative jump in the number of people demanding new personal trainers?

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

#144

Post by CaptSpify » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

endswapper wrote: post #2

The Altman quote is on target "I think it’s good to start studying this early. I’m fairly confident that at some point in the future, as technology continues to eliminate traditional jobs and massive new wealth gets created, we’re going to see some version of this at a national scale." However, it will likely be called something different in the near-term in order to gather momentum. Often the argument focuses on the…

Agreed. Although I'm not optimistic about Basic-Income itself, I think something similar to that will take over. The longer we wait to experiment and see the pro's and con's of each system, the harder it is going to be to implement a working one once we need it.

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

#145

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:07 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…

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by jacalata » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:10 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #136

ZenoArrow wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

> Is everyone going to buy a personal trainer robot?

Why would you need a robot? Millions of people today already use video-guided workouts off YouTube or follow semi-customised apps that tell them what workout to do, etc.

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

#147

Post by DougWebb » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:12 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…

So, servants for the aristocrats, basically. Nice utopian future, if you're rich.

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

#148

Post by levelist_com » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:15 PM UTC

lastyearman wrote: post #129

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…

There is no such thing as free money. If you're not creating more work (or more productive work) then it is simply taking from someone and giving to someone else. However, the point is that through automation we're creating more work and from who we're taking is the robots. If there are no new automation or robots to take from, then it is most likely that we're going to take from middle class, either directly or indi…

I get the premise behind your answer I believe. What I am asking is, what's to stop the markets (especially in the US where greed reigns) from increasing the cost of things such as food and shelter artificially b/c of this free money, making this "basic income" all but useless? Meaning at some point it wont even cover the most basic and modest of necessities.

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

#149

Post by ZenoArrow » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:17 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #106

svantana wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This I don't get -- why are rich savers bad? How can a large number in some bank account possibly affect anyone else's life in any tangible way? The way I see it, the 'problem' with rich folks is when they use up a disproportionate amount of resources without creating any value, e.g. buying land, houses, cars and employing people to do their pointless (from society's perspective) bidding. I.e. spending money.

> This I don't get -- why are rich savers bad? How can a large number in some bank account possibly affect anyone else's life in any tangible way? Quite the opposite - savings are integral to a healthy economy. Investment (in an aggregate economy) must equal savings; this is an identity, not an equation. Any money that is invested (whether loaned to private individuals to buy a house or car, or whether invested by th…

> "Investment (in an aggregate economy) must equal savings; this is an identity, not an equation. Any money that is invested (whether loaned to private individuals to buy a house or car, or whether invested by the state into public infrastructure) - all that requires others' savings in order to happen."

Sorry to say but whilst what you say makes logical sense, it is in fact wrong.

When a bank makes someone a loan for a house, for example, it isn't based on anyone's savings. It's based on nothing. Creating the loan creates brand new money, backed by the value of the same loan. In other words, when the bank gives you the money for the loan, it is the contract to pay that loan back which is the asset the bank gets in exchange.

As for hoarding fiat money, it absolutely is a real thing, but it comes in many forms. When it comes to uses of money, not all uses are equal. For example, increasing house prices rob an economy of its productivity, as money becomes locked away in a non-productive form. Money can only 'do work' and help an economy grow as a medium of exchange. It is, in a sense, lubricant for the economic engine. One of the reasons we have economic inflation as standard is to ensure there's always enough money in the system to function as a medium of exchange, counteracting the money that is lost from active use by saving and other non-productive uses.

That's not to say saving is all bad, it still makes sense at a certain level, but it's not universally good.

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

#150

Post by habosa » Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

Basic income aside (I really like the idea) I don't agree with the general premise that we will all be automated out of a job. I think it's ignoring a lot of the human qualities that have created the world around us.

In the past ~300 years we've automated more than we could ever have imagined. Our basic needs are produced in massive quantities in factories that rely on humans only for orchestration. Yet we don't work much less than we did in the past (per person or as an economy). We still work 40-50 hours a week, 48-50 weeks a year. So why are we convinced that a life where we don't have to (or choose to) work is right around the corner?

We are underestimating the human desire for novelty and an ever-increasing standard of living. Huge new product categories will spring into existence and we'll discover we suddenly want these new things, really badly. This will create opportunity for labor to meet the demand, just as it always has,

What will change is the distribution of rewards. Each human becomes more and more productive as technology advances as a whole. Look at the market cap of a tech company with 50,000 employees versus an oil or automotive company from 30 years ago. This value is captured by the executives and investors, employee pay is not keeping up with employee value.