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

Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

simulacrum.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 681 posts

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#321

Post by streptomycin »

twoodfin wrote: post #217
streptomycin wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A certain percentage of the population would stop working entirely since they no longer need to. True. The problem is, as things are now, a certain percentage of the population will be forced to stop working as they are made obsolete by increasingly efficient globalization and automation. As that percentage increases, eventually either society will collapse or something fundamental will have to change (such as implem…

What evidence is there of that? Because we've had a slow recovery from the last recession? That couldn't possibly be because of bad policy, no?

No, it's basically a tautology based on continual technological progression. Imagine if we could build a robot that was exactly equivalent to a human. If it ran on less energy than a human, then basically no human would be needed for any task. Now imagine a continuum of less sophisticated robots that excel in certain tasks beyond what certain humans can do.

Another example I like http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/08/08/unemployed-21s...

there was a type of employee at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution whose job and livelihood largely vanished in the early twentieth century. This was the horse. The population of working horses actually peaked in England long after the Industrial Revolution, in 1901, when 3.25 million were at work. Though they had been replaced by rail for long-distance haulage and by steam engines for driving machinery, they still plowed fields, hauled wagons and carriages short distances, pulled boats on the canals, toiled in the pits, and carried armies into battle. But the arrival of the internal combustion engine in the late nineteenth century rapidly displaced these workers, so that by 1924 there were fewer than two million. There was always a wage at which all these horses could have remained employed. But that wage was so low that it did not pay for their feed.

The arguments people make against this are that humans aren't horses. Humans can learn and adapt much better. But they can't do that infinitely, and some will reach their limits faster than others.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#322

Post by rndmize »

lettergram wrote: post #249

I disagree with this article almost entirely. Yes, labor jobs are on the decline, but service jobs are staying steady if not increasing. The "demand for unconditional basic income" is a joke, yes it's possible to attempt to initiate something where every person receives $10,000 a year, but the money has to come from somewhere. If the money for this basic income comes from taxation, then both the government loses net…

> The point is basic economic theory define this as an impossibility.

Given that economic theory is often wildly divorced from reality, I don't really see a problem with this.

Snark aside, I don't see how service jobs are safe from automation. I've already seen videos of a robot that prepares your ice cream and puts it in a cup; I've interacted with automated checkouts; I've bought and had things shipped to my door (soon to be shipped with less human involvement than ever when self-driving vehicles get big) with no human interaction. Education is going through a phase of experimentation with teaching at massive scale (all the current ed startups, kahn, etc.) which is only going to get worse as we find ways to integrate teaching and game principles (fast feedback loops for faster learning, pacing adjustment based on student, learn by doing rather than hearing, etc.)

I don't see how if corps indirectly pay their customers to buy things this is going to cause the world to collapse. An economy relies on the flow of money between parties to exist; if we have full automation, and all the money gathers in the hands of the people producing things, we have no economy because no one can buy anything (except the top .001% who have everything). There simply isn't any way around this except to tax and redistribute the money. There's already mountains of friction in terms of bureaucracy, regulation, etc., and this has hardly stopped the economy from moving, so I just don't understand your point there.

And really, advocating a decrease in population for stability in a technological world? What on earth? Technology is what allows for MORE population, for more people to have food, places to live, and all the rest. The entire point of all the technology we've developed is to make human lives easier and better... but you think it means there's less need for humans? The logic astounds me.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#323

Post by jlgreco »

khill wrote: post #185
militiaman21 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly sure the government knows where we all truly live.

Unlikely. I know of a lot of people who live in New Jersey but register their auto in another state under a relative's address for cheaper insurance. I also know people who use an old address or the address of an acquaintance/relative so their child can attend a different school district.

That just implies that communication in government is poor, particularly if it is a local or state government that wants to know something from the federal government. I am sure the IRS would have no problem finding those people if they were so inclined.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#324

Post by netrus »

Zimahl wrote: post #223
cdoxsey wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They, of course, would still work, but the great unwashed masses would sit on their backsides and take the money. The counter argument would be the existence of industries that people will already not work in. For example Italy has a 38.5% youth unemployment rate. It also can't get enough workers for the garment industry. So why don't the youth of Italy want these jobs? Maybe the work is seen as menial (so a cultural…

The question is: how many people currently working would stop working if they didn't need to? (particularly in the areas vital for the basic functioning of society) That question is so impossibly difficult to answer that I don't think any system we come up with won't have potentially disastrous consequences. I don't think it's all that difficult to answer. When I leave the office building I work at the end of my day,…

because they still would be better of working, just possibly at a lower hourly rate. basic income: 1000 USD. unemployed janitor: 1000 USD employed janitor: 1300 USD.

He does not need to work anymore, but it might still be worth it.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#325

Post by [deleted] »

stephensikes wrote: post #316
Jd wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that when consumer make bad decisions (i.e. don't go to the doctor and develop serious health problems), the government in the end still has to foot the bill. You can't turn people away from emergency rooms and have them die on the street.

Indeed, but the point is that with BI, they would be on the hook for those excess costs. Preventative medicine is cheaper and when the excess cost of an ER visit comes directly out of patients' pockets, they will be more diligent about prevention. Good analogy is car maintenance. Most people are very diligent about oil changes because they (inherently, I would argue) recognize the cost structure.

[deleted]

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#327

Post by wutbrodo »

lettergram wrote: post #249

I disagree with this article almost entirely. Yes, labor jobs are on the decline, but service jobs are staying steady if not increasing. The "demand for unconditional basic income" is a joke, yes it's possible to attempt to initiate something where every person receives $10,000 a year, but the money has to come from somewhere. If the money for this basic income comes from taxation, then both the government loses net…

Wow, this is completely wrong. The idea that "there is always a cost for doing something" is trotted out so often, and almost every time, there's ignorance of the fact that the intent is for the benefit to be higher than the cost. Enforcing contracts has a "cost", maintaining a police and legal system has a "cost", a road/highway system has a cost, maintaining a currency has a cost, regulating food so there's no arsenic in it has a cost, etc etc etc. The entropy and friction created by these things are considered to be far below the benefits to economic efficiency (lowering barriers to trade, reducing non-productive expenditure on security, etc). Saying that introducing friction into an economy causes the world to collapse and completely ignoring the potential for economic gains in efficiency is beyond ludicrous.

I may be misreading that last sentence, but luckily the other possible interpretation is equally ludicrous. The idea that corporations paying their consumers who then buy their goods will cause the world to collapse is even more ridiculous than the previous claim. How do you think the economy functions exactly? The wages that employers pay to their employees ARE the money they use to buy products from employers (whether theirs or someone else's). "Any college economics textbook" can tell you this. In fact, if you partition each person's wages into subsistence wages (i.e. basic income) and "extra" wages, corporations are already doing exactly what you're claiming will cause the world to collapse. The only difference is that right now it's being done horribly inefficiently, and the gaps in coverage (unemployed people) have an even more inefficient system servicing them, welfare.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#328

Post by saalweachter »

BWStearns wrote: post #42
brador wrote: post #19

With basic income, wouldn't the economy adapt to the fresh money supply and rents and other costs raise to account for it? It would effectivly be additional currency inflation by a different name?

There would likely be inflation. However I would bet that it would not be to the point where the BI amount of money resulted in 0 value. Also another thing to consider is the effect it would have on salaries: they would rise (and not just in an inflationary way). Since now you have people grabbing any job they can even at shitty salaries (HN crowd likely largely excluded) companies would actually have to "compete" ag…

You'd have pressure both ways.

If people are working for a combination of extra cash and personal satisfaction (as opposed to "not eating catfood under a bridge"), you could safely eliminate minimum wage and some jobs would probably be priced at close to or near $0. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a bookstore or even library and had to fight my brain telling me to rearrange all the books in the correct order. Given unlimited free time, you'd have to pay someone to stop me.

On the other hand, I'd expect unsatisfying or unpleasant jobs to pay more, since people could fearlessly tell their bosses where to put it.

If I had to guess, though, you'd also have an uptick in part-time jobs, especially the shitty ones. Maybe most people don't want to be a garbage man 5+ days a week, but if the pay is good you might find quite a few people who are willing to be garbage man once a week or once a month.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#329

Post by dragontamer »

spdy wrote: post #253
twoodfin wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence is there of that? Because we've had a slow recovery from the last recession? That couldn't possibly be because of bad policy, no?

To give one example the Google Car. If this car works as advertised millions of jobs will get irreplaceable lost. Cab drivers / Car Manufactures / Truck driver etc.

When the car was invented, millions of horse and buggy operators, manufacturers, and horse dung sweepers lost their jobs. Their jobs were then replaced by used car salesmen, mechanics, the tires industry, etc. etc.

But it is a bit presumptuous to believe that all future inventions will destroy jobs. A great example of the reverse is the compiler industry.

As compiler technology / programming languages have become easier and easier... smaller and smaller teams of programmers have been able to get more things done. This hasn't destroyed programmers... it has instead increased the demand of programmers.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#330

Post by Jd »

tomjen3 wrote: post #319
Jd wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that when consumer make bad decisions (i.e. don't go to the doctor and develop serious health problems), the government in the end still has to foot the bill. You can't turn people away from emergency rooms and have them die on the street.

I often find that when somebody claims "you can't do x" that we learn a lot by asking, why exactly is that. In your case I am wondering why exactly is that we can't turn people away - in aggregate it is likely to save more lives since seeing people dying would be an excellent motivating factor for others to make sure they pay their health care insurance -- and since they would therefore have it and would be able to g…

Frankly, reports from doctor-friends who work in ERs indicates that a large part of costs are treating people who are dealing with preventable often drug-related problems that create emergencies because the people involved are basically incapable of prevention. Seeing other people on the street homeless is apparently not enough incentive to keep people from becoming homeless themselves. I have no idea why seeing other people dying from internal bleeding because they didn't have the foresight to buy medical insurance to get the appropriate medication to treat their issue would curb behavioral patterns which seem to be flawed at a very fundamental level.
Post reply on HN