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

The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 107 posts

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#11

Post by forca »

Loughla wrote: post #5
istjohn wrote: post #2

Current top comment: I think the answer is fairly straightforward: create a guaranteed minimum income. Tax all income after that. As productivity goes up, you increase the guaranteed minimum income. If you want more than the minimum, you go out and work, and the people who have only skills that can be done by a computer/robot more cheaply than a minimum wage work just leave the work force. Should productivity go down…

I legitimately do not believe that this would work in the US before an extreme collapse of the current system - including but not limited to a civil war. I believe this because we have a hard enough time pushing through cursory and very basic social welfare programs. Quite literally guaranteeing someone a basic income with 0 work involved would be as palatable as thumb tacks to many individuals in the states. Logic d…

Thank you, Tea Party (yes, I'm being sarcastic).

The far right in this country have driven home their stupid Ayn Rand message and too many people have listened. We now have the most polarized government since the Civil War.

The right believe that their way is the only way. To them everything is a zero sum game.

I would settle for a Scandinavian or Swiss-style system. The older I get, the less I like capitalism as described by the right.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#12

Post by tim333 »

bayesianhorse wrote: post #4
istjohn wrote: post #2

Current top comment: I think the answer is fairly straightforward: create a guaranteed minimum income. Tax all income after that. As productivity goes up, you increase the guaranteed minimum income. If you want more than the minimum, you go out and work, and the people who have only skills that can be done by a computer/robot more cheaply than a minimum wage work just leave the work force. Should productivity go down…

I don't see a way to get there, for most nations. Big nations would have the most trouble introducing this. And what about immigration? Immigration can't be effectively regulated by any means available to a moderately democratic state. Should immigrants receive the BLS? If yes, you go broke. If no, the immigrants are essentially second-class citizens who have to work for an extremely low wage (because they would have…

On the other hand we (I'm in the UK) seem to be drifting in that direction, that if you don't work you get social security. I don't know that it will ever be a simple fixed amount though as the government want to encourage people to be somewhat productive rather than just getting drunk etc. Here's part of the UK system:

http://www.focusondisability.org.uk/brates-1.html

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#14

Post by cousin_it »

githulhu wrote: post #6
istjohn wrote: post #2

Current top comment: I think the answer is fairly straightforward: create a guaranteed minimum income. Tax all income after that. As productivity goes up, you increase the guaranteed minimum income. If you want more than the minimum, you go out and work, and the people who have only skills that can be done by a computer/robot more cheaply than a minimum wage work just leave the work force. Should productivity go down…

Yeah, but then you're creating a whole class of people who basically don't have anything anything to do. They will inevitably find things to fill that vacuum, such as having lots of babies. What happens when population growth outstrips the ability of production to provide for the needs of non-production? Unless you assume that productivity can scale up indefinitely, those people will just get poorer and poorer as wea…

I agree that basic income isn't a permanent solution. We don't need it to be permanent, though. We just need to survive the period of increasing automation leading up to self-improving AI, and ensure that the AI is Friendly. At that point, either overpopulation and all other problems get solved automatically, or we all die.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#15

Post by bayesianhorse »

tomp wrote: post #9
bayesianhorse wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a way to get there, for most nations. Big nations would have the most trouble introducing this. And what about immigration? Immigration can't be effectively regulated by any means available to a moderately democratic state. Should immigrants receive the BLS? If yes, you go broke. If no, the immigrants are essentially second-class citizens who have to work for an extremely low wage (because they would have…

Immigrants aren't even citizens; I don't think they receive any sort of social security in most countries even today. I'm not saying that's the optimal policy, just that they wouldn't be worse-off.

In Europe, most immigrants can receive social security, which doesn't mean they do.

In the US, undocumented immigrants have that problem though. Some politicians praised illegal immigration because that's a young, eager workforce with zero rights and benefits.

Also it seems that welfare states can't really save money by excluding immigrants. At the very least the society has to foot the bill for medical emergencies, so declining them prevention and health care may fire backwards. It's hard to "get rid" of the immigrants' children, so you better make sure they get the same education and chances as citizens do (or you end up with a young, poor and extremely discontent minority). If these children aren't put in good schools and fed accordingly, they will also be sicker and less intelligent than their peers.

That's why I think social security is a very profitable business for state and society.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#16

Post by istjohn »

githulhu wrote: post #6
istjohn wrote: post #2

Current top comment: I think the answer is fairly straightforward: create a guaranteed minimum income. Tax all income after that. As productivity goes up, you increase the guaranteed minimum income. If you want more than the minimum, you go out and work, and the people who have only skills that can be done by a computer/robot more cheaply than a minimum wage work just leave the work force. Should productivity go down…

Yeah, but then you're creating a whole class of people who basically don't have anything anything to do. They will inevitably find things to fill that vacuum, such as having lots of babies. What happens when population growth outstrips the ability of production to provide for the needs of non-production? Unless you assume that productivity can scale up indefinitely, those people will just get poorer and poorer as wea…

The assumption that people will have more children if they do not have to work is highly dubious at best. Some people would find new ways to contribute to society, some people would be a drag on society, and some people would live a quiet life. Any prediction of the net influence of a new leisure class on society at large is wild speculation.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#17

Post by pitt1980 »

tomp wrote: post #10
Loughla wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I legitimately do not believe that this would work in the US before an extreme collapse of the current system - including but not limited to a civil war. I believe this because we have a hard enough time pushing through cursory and very basic social welfare programs. Quite literally guaranteeing someone a basic income with 0 work involved would be as palatable as thumb tacks to many individuals in the states. Logic d…

Don't worry, an obvious solution will present itself as soon as unemployment reaches 50% of the voting population.

yeah this

public opinion is plastic, especially when faced with real world pain

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#18

Post by grinnbearit »

istjohn wrote: post #2

Current top comment: I think the answer is fairly straightforward: create a guaranteed minimum income. Tax all income after that. As productivity goes up, you increase the guaranteed minimum income. If you want more than the minimum, you go out and work, and the people who have only skills that can be done by a computer/robot more cheaply than a minimum wage work just leave the work force. Should productivity go down…

Why a basic income? I propose basic welfare, food + clothing + shelter, even entertainment. Mass produced in order to minimise costs. Then allocate a fixed amount of tax revenue to fund it, say 10%. Then as productivity goes up and goods become cheaper, this 10% can provide even more.

Let money be what it is, a claim on goods and services provided for by other people. With basic welfare no one is forced into work out of fear of death, only for want of choice.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#19

Post by tomp »

bayesianhorse wrote: post #15
tomp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigrants aren't even citizens; I don't think they receive any sort of social security in most countries even today. I'm not saying that's the optimal policy, just that they wouldn't be worse-off.

In Europe, most immigrants can receive social security, which doesn't mean they do. In the US, undocumented immigrants have that problem though. Some politicians praised illegal immigration because that's a young, eager workforce with zero rights and benefits. Also it seems that welfare states can't really save money by excluding immigrants. At the very least the society has to foot the bill for medical emergencies,…

Yes, I agree. In my opinion, every resident of a country should have both social and medical security. The reason is simple: there are two main ways that the government finances itself: consumption taxes and earnings taxes. Earnings taxes are proportional, or even progressive; anyways, 0 earnings -> 0 taxes. On the other hand, even the homeless are paying consumption taxes - if they eat food, someone has bought it, and that someone also paid taxes; so, if you give food to a homeless person, you're also donating a share of taxes you paid.

That way, everybody is taxed fairly - proportionally to how much they earn and consume. So, everybody should also be treated fairly - provided all the basic services that the government provides.

Re: The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

#20

Post by drderidder »

tomp wrote: post #9
bayesianhorse wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a way to get there, for most nations. Big nations would have the most trouble introducing this. And what about immigration? Immigration can't be effectively regulated by any means available to a moderately democratic state. Should immigrants receive the BLS? If yes, you go broke. If no, the immigrants are essentially second-class citizens who have to work for an extremely low wage (because they would have…

Immigrants aren't even citizens; I don't think they receive any sort of social security in most countries even today. I'm not saying that's the optimal policy, just that they wouldn't be worse-off.

Not the case at all in many advanced countries, where non-citizen permanent residents have full health coverage and access to social assistance programs. Japan and Canada are two concrete examples. Also, many immigrants do become citizens in their country of residence.
Post reply on HN