3 ms·

> Although basic income seems fiscally challenging today, in a world where technology replaces existing jobs and basic income becomes necessary, technological i

> Although basic income seems fiscally challenging today, in a world where technology replaces existing jobs and basic income becomes necessary, technological improvements should generate an abundance of resources and the cost of living should fall dramatically. I am 100% for this experiment. But the assumption that technology will replace basic jobs seems naive. Throughout human history, we have seen rapid and accelerating technology improvements. In 1900, roughly 40 percent of Americans were in farming. Today, roughly 2 percent of Americans are in farming [1]. During that same time period we went from most woman not working to most woman working. We are currently in a period of prolonged, very low unemployment by historical standards with more people working on earth than ever before. As much as it seems obvious that technology will replace all low income jobs, it may be obvious because we are limited in our imagination about what the future low income jobs will be. [1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/259572/eib3_1_.pdf http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/259572/eib3_1_.pdf Do not let my comment be mistaken for a lack of interest in Basic Income. Hopefully it will be a well thought out and great experiment. One that teaches us about Basic Income and its potential impact.

coldtea 10y ago
>I am 100% for this experiment. But the assumption that technology will replace basic jobs seems naive. Throughout human history, we have seen rapid and accelerating technology improvements. Arguments from "but this is how it always have been" have a tendency to break down when significant societal/technological changes happen.
- thedevil 10y ago
  I use a different model than everyone else which I think gives insight on this. I split jobs into 3 categories (simplified here to make it easy to understand): 1) jobs that mostly create economic value (doctors, farmers, programmers): the percentage of these jobs is already small and keeps decreasing with technology. 2) jobs that mostly transfer economic value (marketers, lawyers): these jobs keep increasing. (Note: I'm not saying marketing and law doesn't create value but more marketers and lawyers mostly means more value transfers rather than more value) 3) jobs that arbitrage time and money (executive assistant, cleaning person): I call these arbitrage because the dollar value of time varies between individuals varies and so they trade time and both win economically. These jobs likely grow with inequality. In a future where wealth is concentrated and more jobs are automated, job types 2 and 3 most likely grow, not shrink. That's what happened because of past technological progress and I don't see a reason to think it will happen any differently this time. In fact, I expect this to happen even more this time. I'm not saying this is a great outcome. In fact, I think this is an argument for basic income. But I don't think jobs are going to disappear anytime soon.
  - wtvanhest 10y ago
    That is a very insightful comment. I wonder if anyone categorizes new ventures using the same methodology.
    - thedevil 10y ago
      Thank you. Although I haven't heard anyone ever use the same breakdown as me, I have heard a lot of people who want to "change the world". I always interpreted that to mean that they want to do type 1 work.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >In a future where wealth is concentrated and more jobs are automated, job types 2 and 3 most likely grow, not shrink. That's what happened because of past technological progress and I don't see a reason to think it will happen any differently this time. The thing is, contrary to other eras, job types (3) (and some (2)) will be also be able to be performed by "robots"/software/technology.
    - thedevil 10y ago
      Maybe it will be, but we're still a long way off of robots being able to do a good job of organizing my house or babysitting my kid. Edit: And once we get there, I'm sure there will be more things I want done for me if I have money to hire someone.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >Maybe it will be, but we're still a long way off of robots being able to do a good job of organizing my house or babysitting my kid. You just picked 2 convenient examples (handling a baby, doing work around the house) were it would need full "human-like" robots with AI. But I wasn't discussing these: there are tons of type (2) jobs that can be nevertheless automated, or will be very soon. I don't see the problem of lost jobs due to automation being solved by everybody becoming a babysitter or buttler.
  - 10y ago
- laughinghan 10y ago
  The argument is not an unconditional "this is how it always has been". The argument is that the signs that significant societal/technological change is happening right now are the same as we've seen before, many times, where decrease in jobs turned out not to be one of the changes that actually happened: https://timeline.com/robots-have-been-about-to-take-all-the-jobs-for-more-than-200-years-5c9c08a2f41d#.yk9oo6j1d https://timeline.com/robots-have-been-about-to-take-all-the-...
sievebrain 10y ago
Can you back up the statement that more people are working than ever before? In the USA at least, labor force participation has been trending downwards since 2002 i.e. fewer people are working: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-pa...
- wtvanhest 10y ago
  The population of the US in 1950 was roughly 100m and it is now 300m. The participation rate has stayed roughly around 60% during that time. That means a lot more people are working than in 1950. Globally, populations have increased dramatically as well. More people are working than ever before.
  - sievebrain 10y ago
    Good point.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> But the assumption that technology will replace basic jobs seems naive. I think its just misstated. What automation does (absent compensatory policy) isn't to reduce the number of jobs that exist, but rather to drive more of the returns of productivity to those who own the capital and a narrowing class of elite workers, and less to the large body of workers. That's been pretty consistently seen since the industrial revolution, producing occasional major outbreaks of social unrest leading to compensatory public policy to mitigate that effect. But most of those measures have been short term measures optimized for a narrow set of circumstances that were current at the time they were adopted. A well designed UBI -- particularly one tied to a tax drawn largely from income on capital -- is a more general and long-term compensatory mechanism to address the sources of unrest (hopefully, this time, somewhat proactively, rather than reactively.)

coldtea 10y ago

>I am 100% for this experiment. But the assumption that technology will replace basic jobs seems naive. Throughout human history, we have seen rapid and accelerating technology improvements. Arguments from "but this is how it always have been" have a tendency to break down when significant societal/technological changes happen.

thedevil 10y ago
I use a different model than everyone else which I think gives insight on this. I split jobs into 3 categories (simplified here to make it easy to understand): 1) jobs that mostly create economic value (doctors, farmers, programmers): the percentage of these jobs is already small and keeps decreasing with technology. 2) jobs that mostly transfer economic value (marketers, lawyers): these jobs keep increasing. (Note: I'm not saying marketing and law doesn't create value but more marketers and lawyers mostly means more value transfers rather than more value) 3) jobs that arbitrage time and money (executive assistant, cleaning person): I call these arbitrage because the dollar value of time varies between individuals varies and so they trade time and both win economically. These jobs likely grow with inequality. In a future where wealth is concentrated and more jobs are automated, job types 2 and 3 most likely grow, not shrink. That's what happened because of past technological progress and I don't see a reason to think it will happen any differently this time. In fact, I expect this to happen even more this time. I'm not saying this is a great outcome. In fact, I think this is an argument for basic income. But I don't think jobs are going to disappear anytime soon.
- wtvanhest 10y ago
  That is a very insightful comment. I wonder if anyone categorizes new ventures using the same methodology.
  - thedevil 10y ago
    Thank you. Although I haven't heard anyone ever use the same breakdown as me, I have heard a lot of people who want to "change the world". I always interpreted that to mean that they want to do type 1 work.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >In a future where wealth is concentrated and more jobs are automated, job types 2 and 3 most likely grow, not shrink. That's what happened because of past technological progress and I don't see a reason to think it will happen any differently this time. The thing is, contrary to other eras, job types (3) (and some (2)) will be also be able to be performed by "robots"/software/technology.
  - thedevil 10y ago
    Maybe it will be, but we're still a long way off of robots being able to do a good job of organizing my house or babysitting my kid. Edit: And once we get there, I'm sure there will be more things I want done for me if I have money to hire someone.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Maybe it will be, but we're still a long way off of robots being able to do a good job of organizing my house or babysitting my kid. You just picked 2 convenient examples (handling a baby, doing work around the house) were it would need full "human-like" robots with AI. But I wasn't discussing these: there are tons of type (2) jobs that can be nevertheless automated, or will be very soon. I don't see the problem of lost jobs due to automation being solved by everybody becoming a babysitter or buttler.
- 10y ago
laughinghan 10y ago
The argument is not an unconditional "this is how it always has been". The argument is that the signs that significant societal/technological change is happening right now are the same as we've seen before, many times, where decrease in jobs turned out not to be one of the changes that actually happened: https://timeline.com/robots-have-been-about-to-take-all-the-jobs-for-more-than-200-years-5c9c08a2f41d#.yk9oo6j1d https://timeline.com/robots-have-been-about-to-take-all-the-...

sievebrain 10y ago

Can you back up the statement that more people are working than ever before? In the USA at least, labor force participation has been trending downwards since 2002 i.e. fewer people are working: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-pa...

wtvanhest 10y ago
The population of the US in 1950 was roughly 100m and it is now 300m. The participation rate has stayed roughly around 60% during that time. That means a lot more people are working than in 1950. Globally, populations have increased dramatically as well. More people are working than ever before.
- sievebrain 10y ago
  Good point.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> But the assumption that technology will replace basic jobs seems naive. I think its just misstated. What automation does (absent compensatory policy) isn't to reduce the number of jobs that exist, but rather to drive more of the returns of productivity to those who own the capital and a narrowing class of elite workers, and less to the large body of workers. That's been pretty consistently seen since the industrial revolution, producing occasional major outbreaks of social unrest leading to compensatory public policy to mitigate that effect. But most of those measures have been short term measures optimized for a narrow set of circumstances that were current at the time they were adopted. A well designed UBI -- particularly one tied to a tax drawn largely from income on capital -- is a more general and long-term compensatory mechanism to address the sources of unrest (hopefully, this time, somewhat proactively, rather than reactively.)