5 ms·

Consider agriculture. It used to employ over 80% of the workforce, now less than 2%. But now, with over 98% unemployment, we're not starving. Instead, we're

Consider agriculture. It used to employ over 80% of the workforce, now less than 2%. But now, with over 98% unemployment, we're not starving. Instead, we're wasting 40% of our food, exporting food, and reading articles about obesity epidemics and how the grocery store is reducing its 57 varieties of ketchup so that we won't have so much difficulty choosing. Manufacturing is going that way. We're well into the disposable junk and cheaper to replace than repair era. Relatively few people work in industry now. That only leaves services. But how many people does it take to hand you your burger or bag your new cellphone? Repairmen have less to do now that most everything is disposable. Even in the more professional level services, salaries have been stagnant for decades, moreso than minimum wage in some cases. Sure companies complain that they can't find good talent, but they're not willing to pay for it, so they don't really need it. The traditionalists say "people will just go do something else, like they always have" but what? Well, for now, some could become Uber drivers or such...until the automated cars come online in a few years. Then what? And how many Uber drivers do we need? Can they make a good living doing that if everyone else is too? People moved from the farms to the cities to do industrial work, then commuted from the suburbs to do commercial and services work. Where do they go when none of the farms, cities, and suburbs need workers anymore (and they can't afford to live in any of those places)?

rebootthesystem 11y ago
> but what? People making candles couldn't imagine another set of people would be employed for years making light bulbs. Newspaper owners, investors, writers and workers could not foresee the Internet. Nobody could imagine making money with software that played back fart sounds or allowed you to launch an angry bird into a structure. The point is: Not being able to answer the question is of no consequence. Progress and change will still happen despite our collective lack of imagination and malfunctioning crystal balls.
- Sammi 11y ago
  But all the progress is only going in the direction of automation. The long term macro trend is clear. Why do we have so many pointless jobs today?
  - rebootthesystem 11y ago
    > The long term macro trend is clear. Not to me. If I had to make an attempt to predict the future I'd say there might be two trends. And they are opposite extremes: First, the good jobs require more and more knowledge. Second, automation, as you suggested, might result in jobs where very little knowledge is necessary. "Push this button. If that light turns red, push that button". Then again, even in what could be seen as "push-button jobs" a great deal of knowledge and experience is required. One extreme example might be industrial CNC machines. You can, quite literally, push a button and watch it go. However, doing this without knowledge and experience would result in disaster. I don't have a bleak view of the future. I recognize we are really, really bad at predicting it. Worrying about this is probably a waste of time. In a place like the US even the poor live significantly better than they the "middle class" lived 500 to 100 years ago. We must be doing something right.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      "Push this button. If that light turns red, push that button" That's not a job. That's something automated away in a day or two.
sktrdie 11y ago
Instead of UBI, we need to pressure our governments to heavily regulate how much the free market can destroy the environment and ourselves. Then, that 80%, who is unemployed, will work on making sure the agriculture is healthy, harmless, diverse, etc. You can expand this thinking to anything else, but regulation is the key. By regulating you create jobs that weren't possible in a pure free market. And of course don't forget the entire realm of possible jobs we can't even phantom about these days. Jobs such as a "ventriloquist" should not be ridiculed. Our societies should nurture the diversity of possible things that can be done via regulations and laws and minimum wage. Then you still have those people that simply don't want to do anything. Which is fine, but if you give them a very large spectrum of possibilities to choose from, and not limit them to a few fields, they will probably find something they like and contribute to the whole system. But again, the key here is that the government must regulate the free market to expand the possible amount of jobs - this is important because these jobs are not created by the free market, but rather are needed for reasons such as our health, culture, research, exploration... we need more of these.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  Let me translate into economist friendly speech for you: Rather than "regulate", you want to "internalize externalities". Make bad things (like emitting carbon) more expensive by making people pay the estimated true cost of their actions. And don't be afraid to apply it to sacred cows, like agriculture. For example, it's probably tillage that is the most harmful thing that is done by modern agriculture. Tax that. Sure, that will definitely make food more expensive, but now you can use the proceeds to help ensure the poor don't starve. But leave it to farmers to figure out how to grow food without tillage -- it will likely require more labour. To augment your second point, what's the difference between a "starving artist" and an unemployed person? In some ways there's very little difference, in others there's a huge difference. We need to stop categorizing people without traditional jobs as 'unemployed'. There are so many other labels that could fit: artist, student, parent, hobbyist, activist, open source programmer, et cetera.
  - rory096 11y ago
MichaelMoser123 11y ago
i think a major problem is that basic income will breed some very undesirable attitudes with those people who will depend on long term basic income. Dependency on handouts breeds passivity and indifference, you will also see a very violent and angry younger generation - these people might be very angry at anybody who sticks out of the gray norm of basic income. i think basic income will not breed critical thinkers, instead you achieve a state of intolerant and angry uniformity. You might also study some prior experience here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Sovieticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Sovieticus
- Sammi 11y ago
  I don't think the soviet union is comparable to a UBI state. For one a UBI state will still have a free market. Though the examples from the article aren't touching on the subject of productivity, the free market will clearly still be hiring those with valuable skill for good wages - way above UBI. This will be motivating for those that have anything to contribute.
  - MichaelMoser123 11y ago
    > the free market will clearly still be hiring those with valuable skill for good wages - way above UBI. This will be motivating for those that have anything to contribute Well, i doubt that the UBI handout dependent class will have the same education opportunities as those who have valuable skills; we might end up with self perpetuating class distinctions - education somehow has the magical property to favor the better off
- afterburner 11y ago
  Nice try with the commie scare. The Soviet Union was the opposite of UBI. They maximized employment, even if it meant multiple people doing one boring job (imagine 5 convenience store clerks in one store, forced to the there all day). And most people couldn't actually choose what they would do in life. This is the opposite of what UBI would do for people.
  - 11y ago

rebootthesystem 11y ago

> but what? People making candles couldn't imagine another set of people would be employed for years making light bulbs. Newspaper owners, investors, writers and workers could not foresee the Internet. Nobody could imagine making money with software that played back fart sounds or allowed you to launch an angry bird into a structure. The point is: Not being able to answer the question is of no consequence. Progress and change will still happen despite our collective lack of imagination and malfunctioning crystal balls.

Sammi 11y ago
But all the progress is only going in the direction of automation. The long term macro trend is clear. Why do we have so many pointless jobs today?
- rebootthesystem 11y ago
  > The long term macro trend is clear. Not to me. If I had to make an attempt to predict the future I'd say there might be two trends. And they are opposite extremes: First, the good jobs require more and more knowledge. Second, automation, as you suggested, might result in jobs where very little knowledge is necessary. "Push this button. If that light turns red, push that button". Then again, even in what could be seen as "push-button jobs" a great deal of knowledge and experience is required. One extreme example might be industrial CNC machines. You can, quite literally, push a button and watch it go. However, doing this without knowledge and experience would result in disaster. I don't have a bleak view of the future. I recognize we are really, really bad at predicting it. Worrying about this is probably a waste of time. In a place like the US even the poor live significantly better than they the "middle class" lived 500 to 100 years ago. We must be doing something right.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    "Push this button. If that light turns red, push that button" That's not a job. That's something automated away in a day or two.

sktrdie 11y ago

Instead of UBI, we need to pressure our governments to heavily regulate how much the free market can destroy the environment and ourselves. Then, that 80%, who is unemployed, will work on making sure the agriculture is healthy, harmless, diverse, etc. You can expand this thinking to anything else, but regulation is the key. By regulating you create jobs that weren't possible in a pure free market. And of course don't forget the entire realm of possible jobs we can't even phantom about these days. Jobs such as a "ventriloquist" should not be ridiculed. Our societies should nurture the diversity of possible things that can be done via regulations and laws and minimum wage. Then you still have those people that simply don't want to do anything. Which is fine, but if you give them a very large spectrum of possibilities to choose from, and not limit them to a few fields, they will probably find something they like and contribute to the whole system. But again, the key here is that the government must regulate the free market to expand the possible amount of jobs - this is important because these jobs are not created by the free market, but rather are needed for reasons such as our health, culture, research, exploration... we need more of these.

bryanlarsen 11y ago
Let me translate into economist friendly speech for you: Rather than "regulate", you want to "internalize externalities". Make bad things (like emitting carbon) more expensive by making people pay the estimated true cost of their actions. And don't be afraid to apply it to sacred cows, like agriculture. For example, it's probably tillage that is the most harmful thing that is done by modern agriculture. Tax that. Sure, that will definitely make food more expensive, but now you can use the proceeds to help ensure the poor don't starve. But leave it to farmers to figure out how to grow food without tillage -- it will likely require more labour. To augment your second point, what's the difference between a "starving artist" and an unemployed person? In some ways there's very little difference, in others there's a huge difference. We need to stop categorizing people without traditional jobs as 'unemployed'. There are so many other labels that could fit: artist, student, parent, hobbyist, activist, open source programmer, et cetera.
- rory096 11y ago

MichaelMoser123 11y ago

i think a major problem is that basic income will breed some very undesirable attitudes with those people who will depend on long term basic income. Dependency on handouts breeds passivity and indifference, you will also see a very violent and angry younger generation - these people might be very angry at anybody who sticks out of the gray norm of basic income. i think basic income will not breed critical thinkers, instead you achieve a state of intolerant and angry uniformity. You might also study some prior experience here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Sovieticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Sovieticus

Sammi 11y ago
I don't think the soviet union is comparable to a UBI state. For one a UBI state will still have a free market. Though the examples from the article aren't touching on the subject of productivity, the free market will clearly still be hiring those with valuable skill for good wages - way above UBI. This will be motivating for those that have anything to contribute.
- MichaelMoser123 11y ago
  > the free market will clearly still be hiring those with valuable skill for good wages - way above UBI. This will be motivating for those that have anything to contribute Well, i doubt that the UBI handout dependent class will have the same education opportunities as those who have valuable skills; we might end up with self perpetuating class distinctions - education somehow has the magical property to favor the better off
afterburner 11y ago
Nice try with the commie scare. The Soviet Union was the opposite of UBI. They maximized employment, even if it meant multiple people doing one boring job (imagine 5 convenience store clerks in one store, forced to the there all day). And most people couldn't actually choose what they would do in life. This is the opposite of what UBI would do for people.
- 11y ago