4 ms·

I don't think the author adequately makes the case that a UBI has problems as a form of welfare. His argument seems to boil down to the following: 1) Labour b

I don't think the author adequately makes the case that a UBI has problems as a form of welfare. His argument seems to boil down to the following: 1) Labour being replaced by automation isn't going to happen because it is going to create more jobs than it displaces..... Not sure if I agree with this point. 2) That a basic income necessarily needs be IN PLACE OF existing welfare and labour protections... While some other forms of welfare may evaporate and some labour protections loosened, it doesn't have to. It provides flexibility for labourers and employers to negotiate without the looming threat of not having a basic living wage. It increases the labourers negotiating position more than the employers IMO. 3) Technology makes us more productivity, which means we can work less hours which means we can have more leisure time. The problem with this argument is that it assumes those "less hours" are equally distributed across the entire pool of laborers. What it just means is there are less hours for a limited pool of skilled labourers to fight over. Which means more unemployment. It does not mean that the taxi driver who has his 12 hour days eliminated by driverless ubers now gets to work 3 hours a day driving an uber or gets to work 3 hours a day programming those cars. 4) Instead of having a UBI, we should have a militant (violent) revolution against the rich where we demand increased welfare and labour protections. Increased welfare like a UBI? I'm not sure why the author feels like positive social institutions can't be a voluntary concession of the rich to satisfy discontent of the masses. Why do we have to get out our pitchforks to get bread if they are offering to hand out a livelihood to every citizen? This sounds like the sort of leftist rhetoric that comes from someone in a very comfortable position. Try telling someone in real need that they shouldn't accept a basic income because "it's just a bribe from the rich so we don't start some vague revolution!".

s73v3r 11y ago
The problem with argument #3, and the one no one ever brings up, is the fact that people still need to be able to pay for stuff. And you could argue that one now has the time to go back to school, but how are they going to pay for it? How are they going to support their family while doing it? UBI can be an answer to this, but given the political climate, I don't particularly think it's a viable solution in the short to medium term.
pj_mukh 11y ago
Caveat: I don't agree with the author, I'm just trying to understand both sides here. But, It seems to be a just an Economists (albeit a lefty one) looking for solutions in previous data. 1) That is the only conclusion that can be gleaned from the past century of data. Projections as to the effect of an "exponential explosion in AI/ML" have no data to support it. 2) I don't think he advocates for either. Though as a lefty he definitely doesn't advocate for busting of social programs (esp Healthcare) 3) Very True. 4) Labour doesn't necessarily ask for increased welfare, they ask for perfect employment. Which the author implies is a larger force for productivity boosts than something like UBI. It also gives the masses some control (therefore keeping the pitchforks away). Historically, weakening labour has led to slumps in productivity for a myriad of reasons (that he could've done a better job at laying out). And we have no evidence that a UBI would increase productivity, but we do know it will destroy labour unions. Without productivity increases (towards zero marginal cost), UBI may not be able to deliver on its lofty promisies. On the flip side: Increasing power to labour would mean another concentration of power that can (and has) be corrupted easily.
- kapnobatairza 11y ago
  1) I think that the difference comes from how you look at the data. In the past, jobs that were displaced were replaced by other forms of unskilled or minimally skilled labour. The total pool of unskilled/minimally skilled jobs never shrunk. It is still too soon to tell what effect intelligent automation will have on that total pool. It could very well be that for every job automation technology displaces, it creates ten more. But if those jobs are highly skilled jobs that the existing labour force can't transition into? Then we have a problem. 4) I think that perfect employment is a good goal, but how we get there is something else entirely. We can create more jobs, we can "re-educate" workers, we can decrease hours to create more shifts, but all of this still leaves a lot of people in the cracks. I think that one of the main benefits of a UBI is that it guarantees that nobody falls through the cracks. I don't see how UBIs would entirely destroy labour unions either, since labour unions are often about more than setting minimum hours and negotiating standard compensations. Unions provide a lot more utility than that so I don't see workers abandoning their unions just because they get a check in the mail from the government every month. If that was the case, the union probably had very little utility to begin with IMO. I don't know if a UBI is the right solution for solving poverty or worker inequality. But I don't think the author makes a convincing argument for an alternative, and I don't think doing nothing is a solution either.
efaref 11y ago
You're right to be unsure of (1); it is often claimed and simply isn't true. Of the top thirty jobs in the United States, 29 existed in some form or another 300 years ago. Only number thirty (computer programmer) is new. I've linked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU many times and I'll do it again. Recently I've been coming to the conclusion that whilst free market capitalism deals very well with a fairish distribution of scarce resources, it doesn't deal very well with abundance (or rather, it deals ruthlessly with it - the price drops to near zero). We're facing an abundance of labour, and I don't think things are going to end well if the market rate for that ends up so low that labourers can't eat.
- mark_l_watson 11y ago
  Thanks for posting the video link. I haven't looked at that in a while so I watched it again and shared it with a few friends.
- kapnobatairza 11y ago
  CGP Prey is great, hadn't seen that video before but he does a great job of articulating why this time really is "different".

s73v3r 11y ago

The problem with argument #3, and the one no one ever brings up, is the fact that people still need to be able to pay for stuff. And you could argue that one now has the time to go back to school, but how are they going to pay for it? How are they going to support their family while doing it? UBI can be an answer to this, but given the political climate, I don't particularly think it's a viable solution in the short to medium term.

pj_mukh 11y ago

Caveat: I don't agree with the author, I'm just trying to understand both sides here. But, It seems to be a just an Economists (albeit a lefty one) looking for solutions in previous data. 1) That is the only conclusion that can be gleaned from the past century of data. Projections as to the effect of an "exponential explosion in AI/ML" have no data to support it. 2) I don't think he advocates for either. Though as a lefty he definitely doesn't advocate for busting of social programs (esp Healthcare) 3) Very True. 4) Labour doesn't necessarily ask for increased welfare, they ask for perfect employment. Which the author implies is a larger force for productivity boosts than something like UBI. It also gives the masses some control (therefore keeping the pitchforks away). Historically, weakening labour has led to slumps in productivity for a myriad of reasons (that he could've done a better job at laying out). And we have no evidence that a UBI would increase productivity, but we do know it will destroy labour unions. Without productivity increases (towards zero marginal cost), UBI may not be able to deliver on its lofty promisies. On the flip side: Increasing power to labour would mean another concentration of power that can (and has) be corrupted easily.

kapnobatairza 11y ago
1) I think that the difference comes from how you look at the data. In the past, jobs that were displaced were replaced by other forms of unskilled or minimally skilled labour. The total pool of unskilled/minimally skilled jobs never shrunk. It is still too soon to tell what effect intelligent automation will have on that total pool. It could very well be that for every job automation technology displaces, it creates ten more. But if those jobs are highly skilled jobs that the existing labour force can't transition into? Then we have a problem. 4) I think that perfect employment is a good goal, but how we get there is something else entirely. We can create more jobs, we can "re-educate" workers, we can decrease hours to create more shifts, but all of this still leaves a lot of people in the cracks. I think that one of the main benefits of a UBI is that it guarantees that nobody falls through the cracks. I don't see how UBIs would entirely destroy labour unions either, since labour unions are often about more than setting minimum hours and negotiating standard compensations. Unions provide a lot more utility than that so I don't see workers abandoning their unions just because they get a check in the mail from the government every month. If that was the case, the union probably had very little utility to begin with IMO. I don't know if a UBI is the right solution for solving poverty or worker inequality. But I don't think the author makes a convincing argument for an alternative, and I don't think doing nothing is a solution either.

efaref 11y ago

You're right to be unsure of (1); it is often claimed and simply isn't true. Of the top thirty jobs in the United States, 29 existed in some form or another 300 years ago. Only number thirty (computer programmer) is new. I've linked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU many times and I'll do it again. Recently I've been coming to the conclusion that whilst free market capitalism deals very well with a fairish distribution of scarce resources, it doesn't deal very well with abundance (or rather, it deals ruthlessly with it - the price drops to near zero). We're facing an abundance of labour, and I don't think things are going to end well if the market rate for that ends up so low that labourers can't eat.

mark_l_watson 11y ago
Thanks for posting the video link. I haven't looked at that in a while so I watched it again and shared it with a few friends.
kapnobatairza 11y ago
CGP Prey is great, hadn't seen that video before but he does a great job of articulating why this time really is "different".