4 ms·

Why? We have had "automation" in some form or another for many millennia and we have not needed a "basic income". Every technological advancement from the inve

by ancap 11y ago

Why? We have had "automation" in some form or another for many millennia and we have not needed a "basic income". Every technological advancement from the invention of hand tools, to creating complex machines can be loosely classified as "automation" and in every case the standard of living has increased and resources were then allocated to some more productive means. Why is today's automation any different?

f_allwein 11y ago
The general argument (made e.g,. in the Alec Ross book) is that there will not be enough paid work left as more and more jobs are automated. So paying a basic income would become necessary to ensure people's survival (or prevent social unrest).
- ancap 11y ago
  Just around my home I could easily hire a few people to do various jobs at any given time, but it is not cheap enough for me to justify doing that. Automation comes at a cost, and often humans laborers can do the job cheaper. The thing that will be pushing people out of a job is minimum wage, not the automation which often results in reaction to minimum wage.
  - mercutio2 11y ago
    Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage. Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be much less need for low end wage distortions. Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier. I suspect once we have BI, it will be much more expensive to pay someone to come clean your house.
    - ancap 11y ago
      >Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage. Nope. >Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be much less need for low end wage distortions. No, minimum wage is a political stunt which results unemployment. That is why you now see the same union lobbyists who pushed for the $15 minimum wage now lobbying for exemptions for their unions. >Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier. Are you suggesting that wealthy people are ok if all of their workers died? Seems pretty ridiculous. If I am opposed to someone stealing my wallet, does that mean I am in favor of their kids starving to death?
  - tzs 11y ago
    You seem to be unaware that there is a minimum income required to survive. If one cannot get that income from their job(s), then they must get it from charity, welfare, theft, or some other means, or they must move to someplace where the minimum survival income is lower, or they must die.
    - ancap 11y ago
      What makes you think I'm unaware? What's wrong with the charity option?

by ancap 11y ago

f_allwein 11y ago

The general argument (made e.g,. in the Alec Ross book) is that there will not be enough paid work left as more and more jobs are automated. So paying a basic income would become necessary to ensure people's survival (or prevent social unrest).

ancap 11y ago
Just around my home I could easily hire a few people to do various jobs at any given time, but it is not cheap enough for me to justify doing that. Automation comes at a cost, and often humans laborers can do the job cheaper. The thing that will be pushing people out of a job is minimum wage, not the automation which often results in reaction to minimum wage.
- mercutio2 11y ago
  Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage. Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be much less need for low end wage distortions. Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier. I suspect once we have BI, it will be much more expensive to pay someone to come clean your house.
  - ancap 11y ago
    >Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage. Nope. >Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be much less need for low end wage distortions. No, minimum wage is a political stunt which results unemployment. That is why you now see the same union lobbyists who pushed for the $15 minimum wage now lobbying for exemptions for their unions. >Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier. Are you suggesting that wealthy people are ok if all of their workers died? Seems pretty ridiculous. If I am opposed to someone stealing my wallet, does that mean I am in favor of their kids starving to death?
- tzs 11y ago
  You seem to be unaware that there is a minimum income required to survive. If one cannot get that income from their job(s), then they must get it from charity, welfare, theft, or some other means, or they must move to someplace where the minimum survival income is lower, or they must die.
  - ancap 11y ago
    What makes you think I'm unaware? What's wrong with the charity option?