Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 213 posts

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

#181

Post by ZenoArrow »

Tycho wrote: post #175
ZenoArrow wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I'd rather stick with the tried and tested "earn a living" model of human civilization." You can try, and depending on how close you are to retirement perhaps you'll succeed, but I'd argue future generations may not have this choice. Automation/AI is on course to touch every corner of human activity, it's not a question about if it's going to happen but rather how soon and who benefits. The idea behind UBI and oth…

I think you and the others have missed the point about jobs like personal trainers. We've had plenty of automated fitness stuff for years. What a coach brings you is motivation, empathy, nuance and flexibility, understanding, conversation, the human touch. That's why that particular job sector, far from becoming redundant, is growing fast.

> "We've had plenty of automated fitness stuff for years."

Not at the level of sophistication we're likely to see in the near future (e.g. in the next 10 to 20 years). Whilst the human touch is nice and all, look at what happens when technology reaches the point when it can do most of what a human does. For example, automated checkouts in supermarkets are popular despite lacking the human touch. Whilst you may argue that personal trainers are an area people want the human touch with, perhaps some do, but I'd argue the technology only has to be "good enough" to negate this for many. An automated personal trainer can monitor your progress better than a human one (as it can be with you throughout your day), can motivate you through gamification, can adapt your training regime just as easily as a human can, etc... It may be a different experience to having a human personal trainer, but I didn't say the automated version had to be the same, it just has to be good enough.

It should also be pointed out that the current growth in personal trainers is clearly a reaction to a surge in popularity in keeping fit. Personal trainers may be making the most of the halo effect that comes from this right now, but that says nothing about the future.

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

#182

Post by Tycho »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #181
Tycho wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you and the others have missed the point about jobs like personal trainers. We've had plenty of automated fitness stuff for years. What a coach brings you is motivation, empathy, nuance and flexibility, understanding, conversation, the human touch. That's why that particular job sector, far from becoming redundant, is growing fast.

> "We've had plenty of automated fitness stuff for years." Not at the level of sophistication we're likely to see in the near future (e.g. in the next 10 to 20 years). Whilst the human touch is nice and all, look at what happens when technology reaches the point when it can do most of what a human does. For example, automated checkouts in supermarkets are popular despite lacking the human touch. Whilst you may argue…

All the technologies for gamification, monitoring etc. seem to already exist in the mainstream. When do you predict the personal trainer jobs sector will die out?

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

#183

Post by wott »

i_am_olo wrote: post #51

Hum, do we really need to see this as white and black. Work or no-work? Why not just introduce 30 hours/week or even 25 hours/week. And by that I mean employees keep the same weekly salary, companies use the gain in productivity by automation to give back some family time to employees. What we get in exchange, is one or 2 extra days of consumer spending. People tend to spend more during weekends anyways, so everybody…

> What we get in exchange, is one or 2 extra days of consumer spending. People tend to spend more during weekends anyways, so everybody is a winner. We keep the same salary, we have an extra day free in the week, companies get the 15% increase in consumption, and get slowly ready for full work automation.

It dost not work this way :-)

Most people spend all they have, and it just happens when they have time to spend it. Since you don't raise the salary, there is nothing more to spend. The same amount of spendings will be spread along 3 days instead of 2.

Increase in spending can only concern people who do not spend everything. Even in this limited set, those people are not going to eat more, they are not going to buy more sofas or whatever, they are not going to buy a bigger house because they have an extra free day, they are not going to consume 15% more, not even close.

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

#184

Post by gauto »

beatpanda wrote: post #116

There's a bigger question to be asking here, which is that once we've reached a point where labor is not required for the provision of basic needs, are we going to liberate all of humanity from labor, or are we going to let a smaller and smaller fraction of the population horde the benefits of automation? I believe we can liberate humanity from forced labor in my lifetime. And I think that the product of that liberat…

Agreed. Once we build a clanking replicator, or it's biological/nano counterpart, we'll be approaching a state where thought manifests reality.

As a thought experiment, if every one has a replication device like in Star Trek or Drexler's universal assembler, how will the materials and energy to run such a device be distributed? Presumably we would allocate some to everyone, which would function as a basic income.

If we continue on the current path where resources are consolidated into the hands of the few, and these few have no need for the labor of the masses...

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

#185

Post by branchless »

levelist_com wrote: post #179
branchless wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course if we give everyone $200 more rent will rise by $200 / land costs will rise by the mortgage repayments. This is why we need land value tax.

I only have very basic understanding of LVT but I don't see how it is the magic variable that makes UBI make sense. Could you explain?

I don't advocate ubi, lvt is enough. That's why ubi is under consideration and lvt gets nothing. Lvt kicks rentiers square in the nuts. Pow.

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

#186

Post by Frondo »

kamaal wrote: post #133
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…

>>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 c…

You know, this time, I'll bite.

Because it's a democracy and because I say so. That's all the reason I need in a democracy to push my idea out there, because I want it, I want a world with less disparity in how resources are distributed.

Not, mind you, because I think I'd come out on top, or in my case, even ahead (I wouldn't, under any redistributive scheme) but because there's millions of my fellow citizens who I think would come out a lot better in a less disparate world.

It seems like something's wrong in the world when people can work full-time jobs and need food stamps and rent support. That's all the reason I need to push for reduced inequality.

It seems like something's wrong in a world where billionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries. That too is all the reason I need to push for reduced inequality.

At the end of the day, I'm not looking for natural laws that delineate winners and losers, I'm just looking at human-made systems that generate enough food for us all to be morbidly obese, and distribute it so poorly that a measurable proportion of my nation's children go hungry. I'm looking at that stuff and saying nope, gonna use my vote to make something else happen.

That's all, because it's a democracy and because I say so.

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

#187

Post by ZenoArrow »

Tycho wrote: post #182
ZenoArrow wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We've had plenty of automated fitness stuff for years." Not at the level of sophistication we're likely to see in the near future (e.g. in the next 10 to 20 years). Whilst the human touch is nice and all, look at what happens when technology reaches the point when it can do most of what a human does. For example, automated checkouts in supermarkets are popular despite lacking the human touch. Whilst you may argue…

All the technologies for gamification, monitoring etc. seem to already exist in the mainstream. When do you predict the personal trainer jobs sector will die out?

Die out or be reduced? If we're talking about being reduced, I'd say 20 years from now the industry will be 50% of its current levels for paid human personal trainers. I'd predict the turning point will be about 3 years after VR becomes mass market. There's still going to remain a market for the human touch, as you say, so die out doesn't seem appropriate.

Also, I should clarify, I do want a world where people help each other people get fitter. What I can see happening isn't a world where we're any less social than we already are, but rather I can see a world where paid social interaction is reduced. In other words, if personal training is a vocation, something that people take pleasure from regardless of the money, it'll exist just as strongly as before. Once you take money out of the equation you can see that our human-focused society can continue to thrive, plus money is not going to matter as much when we can meet our needs without needing to earn it.

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

#188

Post by gauto »

andruby wrote: post #43
grondilu wrote: post #40

What about we let the prices fell slowly towards zero as automation makes things cheaper and cheaper to produce? What's the point of distributing money if things are free?

That was Karl Marx's plan. Didn't pan out perfectly though. Most people just want more and more stuff. Cheaper prices will only result in people buyijg more.

Yes, but Karl Marx's plan relies on motivating self interested humans, who have a natural desire to minimize their output energy expenditure. Machines can make us more and more stuff all through the night, and never ask for vacation. Functional communism/socialism is only realistic at a point when labor becomes trivial - e.g. walk over to the replicator and grab the cheeseburger it made you.

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

#189

Post by Tycho »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #187
Tycho wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the technologies for gamification, monitoring etc. seem to already exist in the mainstream. When do you predict the personal trainer jobs sector will die out?

Die out or be reduced? If we're talking about being reduced, I'd say 20 years from now the industry will be 50% of its current levels for paid human personal trainers. I'd predict the turning point will be about 3 years after VR becomes mass market. There's still going to remain a market for the human touch, as you say, so die out doesn't seem appropriate. Also, I should clarify, I do want a world where people help e…

20yrs... ok. When do you think it will stop growing?

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

#190

Post by stevetrewick »

schrodinger wrote: post #56
ZenoArrow wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This time it's different. Our most valuable asset as workers is our minds, if AI can make inroads into white-collar work as well as blue-collar and pink-collar work, what will be left for humans to do? We're not just talking about low-skilled workers losing their jobs, we're also looking at previously safe jobs like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc... due to be facing very strong competition from the growth of AI (…

I don't think we're anywhere near doctors and lawyers losing their jobs to automation. It's mostly lower class jobs.

Actually-and perhaps surprisingly-a sizeable swathe of doctors are directly in the firing line for automation and have been for some time[0]. Medical and legal expert systems have been an AI research goal from the very beginning. Economically speaking, it may make sense to automate high cost labour sooner than low cost.

[0] https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&ei=uGnoV6-AC...

Post reply on HN