9 ms·

The other question you need to ask in order to understand this future scenerio:. Shipping costs will significantly decrease, what will consumers and shareholde

The other question you need to ask in order to understand this future scenerio:. Shipping costs will significantly decrease, what will consumers and shareholders spend the extra money on? Who knows what they will spend the extra money on, could be healthcare, boats, TVs, whatever. But new jobs will be created in these expanded industries. It really, really bothers me the constant "x technology will drive x people out of work, therefore we need Universal Basic Income, so they won't starve!" Imagine telling a farmer in 1850s America, when 64% of America farmed, that in 2016 only 2% of people would be farming! Imagine the distopian horror (1)! If we had established UBI then, and people could get paid to sit around, imagine the state we'd be in today. Instead of UBI, people were forced to leave farming and went into other endeavors, leading to the enormous improvement in production, income and standard of living since then. If 64% of people still farmed, or 2% farmed and 62% were on UBI - who would have had the time or incentive to create computers, software, advances in healthcare, etc? I'm not claiming the transition is easy for someone who's laid off - it can be an extremely tough process, but it's absolutely necessary for the improvement of humanity. (1) http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest-since-1850-s.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest-...

k__ 10y ago
> UBI > sitting around choose one
- mertd 10y ago
  Can you explain why those are contradictory? Surely some people will opt to not have a job at all, if they didn't need to worry about maintaining a minimum quality of life and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
  - k__ 10y ago
    there are more than enough things to do that help society, which aren't done at the moment, because no one pays for them.
    - merpnderp 10y ago
      I often see a lady riding her RoundABout scooter, on disability, picking up trash on the side of the road. She's incredibly nice and good hearted, and hates sitting around doing nothing. But the reason I stopped to talk to her was that it is unbelievably unusual for someone who is obviously on disability to be out doing something for the common good. And unless you have some hard data showing people on public assistance use their free time doing the unsung dirty work society needs, I don't believe it will magically start happening if we change the name of welfare to UBI.
      - ethanbond 10y ago
        Not sure how that's relevant. It's pretty clear the proposal is "require people to do the handiwork of their community in order to receive a basic income."
- JBReefer 10y ago
  Why not? That's what I would have done in my early twenties.
  - k__ 10y ago
    People who don't give a fuck already doing it. Also, just because no one is willing to pay for what you do doesn't mean you are doing nothing. I think there will be a bunch of people doing different things than now and many anti-UBI people would call what they gonna do 'sitting around'.
  - tuna-piano 10y ago
    And it seems most people do it when they're in their 60s and older... and they'd start sooner if they had the finances to.
- golemotron 10y ago
  Maybe it's just me but I'm getting tired of UBI being put forward as a realistic answer to technological displacement of workers. The most immediate problem would be getting it through legislatures without loopholes that undercut its purpose as a replacement for all other redistributions. That simply never happens, particularly in the US. The next problem is that no one seems to appreciate how incompatible it is with open borders in a world of nation-states. The latter is particularly telling since advocates of UBI are often advocates of less restrictive immigration across the world, yet they don't seem to see the problem. It's an indication of how ungrounded the discussion about UBI is right now.
  - k__ 10y ago
    I have the feeling, alle the counter arguments simply boil down to "all humans are lazy and won't work anymore if we don't force them" which is a pretty dull view on humanity.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      > a pretty dull view on [sic] humanity Matter can't travel faster than c. Thermodynamics is a bitch. These theories are as intractable as they are annoying. They are not proven beyond doubt. But before launching a venture in contradiction to them, evidence must be mounted. "It feels right" isn't a scientific basis for policy.
papapra 10y ago
I think what you are missing is the fact that this time the changes will take place much faster. With farming, the changes were slower and generational.(The children of farmers didn't do farming). And still these changes had colossal impact on societies(and a lot of blood was spilled).
- steve19 10y ago
  Humans have a tendency to always think "it's different this time". Trucking won't disappear overnight.
  - seanalltogether 10y ago
    Exactly, plus there's no way driverless trucks will be allowed onto city streets. Maneuvering trucks in urban and suburban corridors requires the drivers to break the rules of the road constantly. Automation makes sense for long haul highways, so truck drivers will shift to being last mile drivers.
    - technofiend 10y ago
      I disagree that it'll never happen but driverless 18 wheelers are the trolley problem writ large. The momentum from these vehicles is far more than a passenger vehicle so they have that much more capacity to cause damage and death. I think driverless taxis will happen first and then probably smaller delivery vehicles. I'd love for USPS to have automated delivery into standardized neighborhood boxes. Once there's enough driverless vehicles large trucks can signal smaller vehicles things like "I need to turn right so please leave me room in the left turn lane to my right". Frankly the tow truck industry needs some disrupting. At least here in Houston they are the most dangerous lawless drivers on the road and need to go.
    - Thlom 10y ago
      18 wheelers will drive to depot, cargo will be moved over to smaller self driving trucks and other delivery vehicles for the last mile. At least, that's the way it should be, even today without the automation. Huge trucks have no place in an urban environment.
merpnderp 10y ago
Shockingly enough, a UBI has been a libertarian concept for nearly half a century. If UBI had some reasonable limitations, like say 10% of the GDP divided evenly amoungst those who apply, it would provide a hard bottom to poverty while leaving huge incentives to find gainful employment. I'm not saying it wouldn't quickly turn into 51% of the people voting themselves 100% of the money (which would quickly become worth nothing), but it isn't the worst idea out there.
- Pinckney 10y ago
  >Shockingly enough, a UBI has been a libertarian concept for nearly half a century. Can you recommend any reading on this?
  - morgante 10y ago
    Milton Friedman famously advocated a negative income tax. [0] [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-aren...
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      We have a negative income tax through EIC. It's too small to matter though.
      - tuna-piano 10y ago
        Also worth noting, Milton Friedman advocated that in lieu of other poverty programs, because it gets rid of bureaucracy, leaves an incentive to work, and is less parent-like than existing methods. The EIC is on top of the programs Friedman wanted to replace.
      - merpnderp 10y ago
        It's not too small to matter. For the worst case scenario of a mother of 3+ who's working several part time jobs, it pays on average around $7K. In most of the country that is rent for a year. And since someone getting an EIC is likely in government housing as they'll qualify for it, it could then be groceries for a year. Only as they qualify for EIC, they are likely on SNAP, and this money is somewhat freed up for things besides food and housing. So for many it is too small to matter either because they don't have dependents, don't work enough, or work too much. But it's actually a near damned perfect incentive to keep people working and trying to find better jobs while keeping them out of abject poverty. Likely the best anti-poverty tool the US government has blindly stumbled upon ever.
icebraining 10y ago
Were the people who created computers and advances in healthcare and those other innovations really driven by the need to have food on the table? Is that, and not either the seek of knowledge or the desire to get rich, really the engine of these advancements?
- internaut 10y ago
  I think it credible that some people need stress in order to perform at a high level (in response to short to medium term objectives), and yet others require peace & quiet to develop for longer periods. These may or may not be the same people. I think it is important we understand in detail how humans become creative before large scale implementation of UBI. Personally I believe UBI should be earned in some way, with some kind of duty/responsibility (that doesn't require coming into work everyday obviously e.g. having trained to be part of an armed response corp or a diaster response agency). Presently Israel makes people train for the army for a year or two, which I believe is partially responsible for their high level of innovation. I believe the garages in the US serve a similar helpful function (in my country people don't have them, in the US they seem like a default). Having people just work together is a very difficult but necessarily task and I believe obtaining UBI should require that. I say so as a person who finds working with people quite difficult! Does anybody remember the Decentralized Republic from the Diamond Age making people do random (strange) things together to string their society together?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    I think it credible that some people need stress in order to perform at a high level How is that relevant? UBI doesn't propose to eliminate jobs (even stressful ones), just make them non-compulsory. If you're saying that these people would simply not get a stressful job if they had UBI, hence they wouldn't perform at an high level, what about if they currently choose a non-stressful job? Doesn't your argument imply we should force people to take certain jobs, even against their will, so that they perform at an high level? Presently Israel makes people train for the army for a year or two, which I believe is partially responsible for their high level of innovation. There are 71 countries in the world with compulsory conscription, including Algeria, Austria, Austria, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Iran, Kuwait, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Paraguay, Russia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan. Do you see them all as countries with high levels of innovation? Have you considered that the correlation may be spurious? Having people just work together is a very difficult but necessarily task and I believe obtaining UBI should require that. How do you account then for the existence of the Open Source community, a mostly voluntary collaboration between many thousands of inviduals often thought to be people with poor social skills? Not to mention all the volunteer-based non-profits, churches, events, etc?
coldtea 10y ago
The idea of decreased shipping costs might not pan out at all (at least at first). First, the initial (expensive) investment in the self-driving trucks will offset the wage gains from not hiring truckers ----, so shipping costs will remain where they are mostly for the first few years at least until this is balanced. Second, the "increased spending"/"creation of new jobs" effect might only be relevant if the shipping costs are a significant part of the final price of a product. From what I've seen, it's at most 10% (at most), and less for the average item. That's why we can have $1 stuff that comes all the way from China. But, let's accept that this (reduced retail prices) will happen, there are other things I don't see working with this idea: >Who knows what they will spend the extra money on, could be healthcare, boats, TVs, whatever. But new jobs will be created in these expanded industries. Which, more likely than not, wont involve people with trucking skills. And most likely wont involve domestic labor either, most things are made abroad (China, etc) anyway. >It really, really bothers me the constant "x technology will drive x people out of work, therefore we need Universal Basic Income, so they won't starve!" That's because your whole job sector hasn't been deprecated when you're forty (or approaching)... >Instead of UBI, people were forced to leave farming and went into other endeavors That was in a time those other endeavours had a huge boom and needed tons of hands (and even so, millions of ex-farmers ended up getting the short stick). We don't have an industrial revolution expanding the need for workers now, we have a software/automation revolution slowly decreasing workers demands sector by sector. In fact we haven't had a need for more workers for quite a few decades -- what we did is inflate, as much as we can, the services sector to compensate for it instead. But there's only so many service type jobs really viable, plus automation also begins to eat into them, and with the squeezed middle classes pinching pennies its even bleaker for them (being non essential et al), even if decreased shipping costs turn out to mean a (huge and unrealistic) 10% more income.
themagician 10y ago
Don't kid yourself. New jobs get created, but fewer. And many of those who lose their jobs don't get retrained—for a myriad of reasons—and end up leaving the workforce entirely. Many just end up on long term disability because it's the only path they have. Jobs are disappearing. They aren't "coming back" in greater numbers. And the new jobs, by and large, aren't for the previous workforce. We already live in a world where many jobs are unnecessary. A large portion of government jobs are, essentially, welfare jobs. One of the systematic reasons of for the expansion of government is "job creation". Politicians will create jobs, but those jobs add nothing to society. We've got people pretending to work a job to collect a paycheck. It's welfare. The industrial revolution replaced muscle with machine, but brainpower was still a required input. There was a clear shift: from doing the work to using a machine to do the same work, but faster. There was enough demand that things didn't collapse. The current shift is replacing both muscle and brainpower. Outside of creative jobs, what is left for the human to do? Make the brain smarter? We are already entering into a time where the machine makes itself smarter without the advent of the human. New jobs will be created, sure. But those jobs will not be for the 1.8 million truck drivers. Instead the government will likely end up soaking it up through one program or another. Tens of thousands will end up in welfare jobs. Hundreds of thousands will end up on long term disability. The numbers aren't small. UBI is an inevitability. You've got some 40 million people on food stamps, about 9 million on disability. Millions more working pointless government jobs like directing people from one TSA employee to another. At what point to we recognize that the future does not look like the past?
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > UBI is an inevitability. UBI inevitability: https://youtu.be/x5m1A7zoIcc https://youtu.be/x5m1A7zoIcc --- Market forces are inevitable. Human behavior is inevitable. The future does look like the past.
- atemerev 10y ago
  UBI is inevitably doomed, because the equation doesn't hold. You are right that ongoing elimination of jobs is a problem leading to huge social unrest, and UBI fits the bill to be a good solution for this. The only problem with UBI is that it is unsustainable and therefore impossible. The balance just doesn't check out. The mere retirement schemes are in grave danger of collapse; the money there are long spent. UBI is huge, and there is no way to get this kind of money from anywhere (even if you strip away all capital from the top 1% and send them to labor camps, as it was done elsewhere, the money from this will fuel $1000/month UBI for about 2 years tops). Antigravity would be an excellent solution to our space travel challenges, but we don't know any way to make it work. It is exactly the same with UBI.
throwaway_xx9 10y ago
Around 40% of American adults are on welfare, unemployment or disability pay now. Typically when people run out of unemployment, or approach retirement in the case of emergency services people, they find a sympathetic doctor to sign for disability pay. There is no transition available for them to the "knowledge economy." This only makes the press occasionally now, but wait until it inverts to an unsustainable 60/40 welfare/taxpayers.
pdkl95 10y ago
Farming and other types of automation that put people out of work in the past used technology to amplify and/or replace physical labor. Now we are learning how to use the general purpose computer to replace mental labor. These are different types of automation that will have fundamentally different effects on society. While we have many examples of new technology replacing physical labor, automation of mental labor is new. I suggest watching CGP Grey's explanation[1] of why "this time is different." > went into other endeavors We are automating away entire classes of jobs, so this will require retraining. How, exactly, do you propose to send half[2] of the workforce to college for retraining in a highly technical field? Assuming this was even possible and assuming there will be jobs for all of these new programmers/etc, is this retraining cheaper than UBI or other plans? It is relatively easy for a farmer to learn another trade that requires primarily physical work. Retraining drivers for unautomatable technical work is a lot harder and more expensive. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU [2] Driving is the largest category of jobs. The next handful of job types (e.g. retail sales, various clerical work, customer service/support) are also being automated away. Together is very roughly half of all jobs. TL;DR - just watch [1]
- sverige 10y ago
  >Assuming this was even possible and assuming there will be jobs for all of these new programmers/etc, is this retraining cheaper than UBI or other plans? That's assuming that programming won't be one of the first categories of jobs to be automated away by AI. Think of the cost savings! But thankfully we don't have to worry about what all those poor programmers are going to do since it's progress for humanity.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    You say that like it's a bad thing.
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    A few jobs I feel pretty safe will still be here in 50 years. They include robot repair, nurses, and computer programmer. Maybe not in 100 years but I won't care then.
jordwest 10y ago
> If we had established UBI then, and people could get paid to sit around, imagine the state we'd be in today. Perhaps we'd be in a better place today. We can't know for sure, without first experimenting. Wealth inequality is a real and growing problem, and I believe is a much bigger impediment to human progress than a basic income would be. What about the millions of incredibly intelligent minds who could be earning the big bucks on Wall Street, but instead are toiling away 7 days a week in research labs at universities, surviving only off the small budget they're allocated? Are they working to survive, or are they surviving just to work? What about the millions who would love to further their education, but instead have to work two jobs to support a family? Personally, I come from a lower income background and would never have had the opportunity to go to university if it wasn't for the generous social support my country has. Humans are inherently enterprising creatures. Yes, a basic income will enable some to sit around and do nothing. But those people have already found ways to do that, and why should we stop them? The people who truly want to change the world are not going to be impeded by some cash handed to them.
- NurAzhar 10y ago
  those who never been there (low income background) will never get it. it's not just income,it's the network the ghetto,the mindset,the culture... it's just so hard to move up...of those stories? probably less then 10%
karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Drivers are cheap. Eliminating them won't yield much. Improved safety will be the biggest gain The article cites $40k average pay per driver. That's fast-food wages
- jotux 10y ago
  >The article cites $40k average pay per driver. That's fast-food wages Not really. That's basically $20/hour full-time.
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    Sure. But you can ship a truckload of boxes across the country. The driver part of the cost is a buck a box? Which is something sure but not a deal breaker.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    HN tends to be ludicrously out of touch when it comes to wages/salaries.
    - galdosdi 10y ago
      Out of touch is right! Even in Manhattan you can easily live fine on $40k with savings left over, at least if you have no dependents or health financing problems (eg expensive health condition coupled with bad insurance). In most of the USA, a $20/hr job with benefits counts as a good job.
  - douche 10y ago
    In many of the places where these truckers live, that's solidly middle-class wages, also. Costs are significantly, significantly cheaper when a good single-family home costs 80-100k.
- SuperPaintMan 10y ago
  The typical fast food employee makes around 20K/yr, and most cooks can only command up to 30-40K without certifications. The constant supply and ease of training cooks (not chefs) keeps these wages depressed. Trucking wages are not the greatest, but it feeds your family and pays the bills. The cost savings may be small but coming from a small town where 1/4 of the working population has class 3 and class 1 licenses operating these machines. It's a middle class lifestyle for these communities.
jmadsen 10y ago
or... decreased shipping costs will go into the pockets of the business owners as additional profits. Since I'm already used to paying $X for that, why would you necessarily cut that out when you can keep it? Just another possibility.
- awad 10y ago
  Because a competitor will come along and do so
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    And yet here we are at the peak of wealth disparity because of exactly this happening. Relying on abstract economic theories about market efficiency is stupid when you're literally watching this happen all around us.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    Why, when they can collude (implicitly or explicitly) and keep the profits high for both of them? It's much more profitable to put someone out of business through methods other than competition.
    - awad 10y ago
      Generally speaking, monopolies are illegal for this very reason
morgante 10y ago
> If we had established UBI then, and people could get paid to sit around, imagine the state we'd be in today. We might even be in a better place than we are today. There would be even more entrepreneurship and labor would have more bargaining power when entering new industries. Nothing about UBI prevents there from being new opportunities created. If anything, it provides for more potential for those opportunities by encouraging people to leave shitty low-productivity jobs to start their own thing or to search for a higher productivity job.
- sosborn 10y ago
  > There would be even more entrepreneurship That seems like a highly debatable statement.
  - morgante 10y ago
    I agree that it's debatable, mostly because we don't have good empirical evidence about UBI. However, it can be reasoned about. I have two arguments: 1. It is hard to start a company while working for someone else, particularly if you're working in a low-wage job. There is definitely evidence for this phenomenon, as unemployment leads to more entrepreneurship. [0] 2. It is hard to start a company while starving. Starting a company requires a longer time horizon than finding a job. Hence, if there isn't a adequate social support in place, I think a lot of people will prioritize finding a job over starting a company. This is born out in some empirical studies. [1] [0] https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs394tot.pdf https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs394tot.pdf [1] http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/resources/2016/entrepreneurship%20policy%20digest/pd_healthinsurance_032116.pdf http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/resources/2016/...
- naveen99 10y ago
  Can we get a televised debate between you and yummyfajitas ? I agree with both of you, though one is for and other against UBI. I suggest a compromise. A linear increase in ubi from 0 to sustainable. I think going straight to sustainable is a little too drastic all of a sudden. It's like if we invented teleportation. That would destroy trucking faster than AI. But it would be chaos too.
nickthemagicman 10y ago
What about when tech can replace ALL jobs? Not just one small area. It's a very slippery slope were walking here with sufficiently advanced tech. What then?
imaginenore 10y ago
Extra money? Many people will lose jobs and will need government assistance.
manicdee 10y ago
Retraining a farmer's kid to be a riveter on a bridge construction project in the late C18/early C20 is a whole lot more feasible than retraining a 40yo professional driver for the jobs opened up by their obsolescence, such as rocket surgery and brain engineering.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  What about retraining a truck driver's kid? You're not comparing apples to apples.
SubiculumCode 10y ago
Imagine the singularity and you can see that new jobs will not always pop up. absurdum
tomkin 10y ago
> Who knows what they will spend the extra money on, could be healthcare, boats, TVs, whatever. But new jobs will be created in these expanded industries. > It really, really bothers me the constant "x technology will drive x people out of work, therefore we need Universal Basic Income, so they won't starve!" This is incredibly fanciful look at the future. The population cannot grow AND lose jobs to machines. Disruption is having its own variant of Moore's Law, in that, we are disrupting more industries at a faster rate. UBI, or some form of which, will not only be necessary, but likely inevitable. The improvement of humanity you speak of is in fact a humanity that will survive on creativity, not labour. Labour is done. Additionally, capitalism doesn't care about "expanded industries" any more than Moore's Law cares about engineers who made their career in the 1980s. The transition is necessary, and it will be hard, and it won't happen without social security. It's a complete fantasy to see it happening any other way.
mcphage 10y ago
> or 2% farmed and 62% were on UBI - who would have had the time or incentive to create computers, software, advances in healthcare, etc? The 62%, obviously.
pkaye 10y ago
The difference though is that the changes are happening at a rapid pace. It used to happen across generations so people could adapt but now things happen at a pace that you cannot guarantee what you started at will still be needed in 5-10 years time.
redwood 10y ago
32% of working age Americans aren't working. This number will rise
busterarm 10y ago
Please. This is what your numbers mean. American Population in 1850: 23 million. American Population today: 319 million. American Farmers in 1850: 14.72 million. American Farmers today: 6.38 million. And this is with several major wars in between. Basically we've gotten just better than twice as efficient in farming labor in 160 years (this is measured in man-hours worked). The value of that labor is what has changed. Farming itself is more efficient and we can feed 10 times as many people via refrigeration and shipping.
stefs 10y ago
> If we had established UBI then, and people could get paid to sit around, imagine the state we'd be in today. that's simplistic - people generally don't want to be unemployed. if they get enough money to (barely) scrap by it takes a lot of weight off their shoulders, because they know they wont starve without their jobs. but having a job that fulfills you and income that enables you to save money is a big part of being happy. the (healthy) unemployed i know are mostly young people and every single one of them is constantly applying for jobs, even though they're able to pay rent, food and the occasional treat on unemployment benefits.

k__ 10y ago

> UBI > sitting around choose one

mertd 10y ago
Can you explain why those are contradictory? Surely some people will opt to not have a job at all, if they didn't need to worry about maintaining a minimum quality of life and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
- k__ 10y ago
  there are more than enough things to do that help society, which aren't done at the moment, because no one pays for them.
  - merpnderp 10y ago
    I often see a lady riding her RoundABout scooter, on disability, picking up trash on the side of the road. She's incredibly nice and good hearted, and hates sitting around doing nothing. But the reason I stopped to talk to her was that it is unbelievably unusual for someone who is obviously on disability to be out doing something for the common good. And unless you have some hard data showing people on public assistance use their free time doing the unsung dirty work society needs, I don't believe it will magically start happening if we change the name of welfare to UBI.
    - ethanbond 10y ago
      Not sure how that's relevant. It's pretty clear the proposal is "require people to do the handiwork of their community in order to receive a basic income."
JBReefer 10y ago
Why not? That's what I would have done in my early twenties.
- k__ 10y ago
  People who don't give a fuck already doing it. Also, just because no one is willing to pay for what you do doesn't mean you are doing nothing. I think there will be a bunch of people doing different things than now and many anti-UBI people would call what they gonna do 'sitting around'.
- tuna-piano 10y ago
  And it seems most people do it when they're in their 60s and older... and they'd start sooner if they had the finances to.
golemotron 10y ago
Maybe it's just me but I'm getting tired of UBI being put forward as a realistic answer to technological displacement of workers. The most immediate problem would be getting it through legislatures without loopholes that undercut its purpose as a replacement for all other redistributions. That simply never happens, particularly in the US. The next problem is that no one seems to appreciate how incompatible it is with open borders in a world of nation-states. The latter is particularly telling since advocates of UBI are often advocates of less restrictive immigration across the world, yet they don't seem to see the problem. It's an indication of how ungrounded the discussion about UBI is right now.
- k__ 10y ago
  I have the feeling, alle the counter arguments simply boil down to "all humans are lazy and won't work anymore if we don't force them" which is a pretty dull view on humanity.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > a pretty dull view on [sic] humanity Matter can't travel faster than c. Thermodynamics is a bitch. These theories are as intractable as they are annoying. They are not proven beyond doubt. But before launching a venture in contradiction to them, evidence must be mounted. "It feels right" isn't a scientific basis for policy.

papapra 10y ago

I think what you are missing is the fact that this time the changes will take place much faster. With farming, the changes were slower and generational.(The children of farmers didn't do farming). And still these changes had colossal impact on societies(and a lot of blood was spilled).

steve19 10y ago
Humans have a tendency to always think "it's different this time". Trucking won't disappear overnight.
- seanalltogether 10y ago
  Exactly, plus there's no way driverless trucks will be allowed onto city streets. Maneuvering trucks in urban and suburban corridors requires the drivers to break the rules of the road constantly. Automation makes sense for long haul highways, so truck drivers will shift to being last mile drivers.
  - technofiend 10y ago
    I disagree that it'll never happen but driverless 18 wheelers are the trolley problem writ large. The momentum from these vehicles is far more than a passenger vehicle so they have that much more capacity to cause damage and death. I think driverless taxis will happen first and then probably smaller delivery vehicles. I'd love for USPS to have automated delivery into standardized neighborhood boxes. Once there's enough driverless vehicles large trucks can signal smaller vehicles things like "I need to turn right so please leave me room in the left turn lane to my right". Frankly the tow truck industry needs some disrupting. At least here in Houston they are the most dangerous lawless drivers on the road and need to go.
  - Thlom 10y ago
    18 wheelers will drive to depot, cargo will be moved over to smaller self driving trucks and other delivery vehicles for the last mile. At least, that's the way it should be, even today without the automation. Huge trucks have no place in an urban environment.

merpnderp 10y ago

Shockingly enough, a UBI has been a libertarian concept for nearly half a century. If UBI had some reasonable limitations, like say 10% of the GDP divided evenly amoungst those who apply, it would provide a hard bottom to poverty while leaving huge incentives to find gainful employment. I'm not saying it wouldn't quickly turn into 51% of the people voting themselves 100% of the money (which would quickly become worth nothing), but it isn't the worst idea out there.

Pinckney 10y ago
>Shockingly enough, a UBI has been a libertarian concept for nearly half a century. Can you recommend any reading on this?
- morgante 10y ago
  Milton Friedman famously advocated a negative income tax. [0] [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-aren...
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    We have a negative income tax through EIC. It's too small to matter though.
    - tuna-piano 10y ago
      Also worth noting, Milton Friedman advocated that in lieu of other poverty programs, because it gets rid of bureaucracy, leaves an incentive to work, and is less parent-like than existing methods. The EIC is on top of the programs Friedman wanted to replace.
    - merpnderp 10y ago
      It's not too small to matter. For the worst case scenario of a mother of 3+ who's working several part time jobs, it pays on average around $7K. In most of the country that is rent for a year. And since someone getting an EIC is likely in government housing as they'll qualify for it, it could then be groceries for a year. Only as they qualify for EIC, they are likely on SNAP, and this money is somewhat freed up for things besides food and housing. So for many it is too small to matter either because they don't have dependents, don't work enough, or work too much. But it's actually a near damned perfect incentive to keep people working and trying to find better jobs while keeping them out of abject poverty. Likely the best anti-poverty tool the US government has blindly stumbled upon ever.

icebraining 10y ago

Were the people who created computers and advances in healthcare and those other innovations really driven by the need to have food on the table? Is that, and not either the seek of knowledge or the desire to get rich, really the engine of these advancements?

internaut 10y ago
I think it credible that some people need stress in order to perform at a high level (in response to short to medium term objectives), and yet others require peace & quiet to develop for longer periods. These may or may not be the same people. I think it is important we understand in detail how humans become creative before large scale implementation of UBI. Personally I believe UBI should be earned in some way, with some kind of duty/responsibility (that doesn't require coming into work everyday obviously e.g. having trained to be part of an armed response corp or a diaster response agency). Presently Israel makes people train for the army for a year or two, which I believe is partially responsible for their high level of innovation. I believe the garages in the US serve a similar helpful function (in my country people don't have them, in the US they seem like a default). Having people just work together is a very difficult but necessarily task and I believe obtaining UBI should require that. I say so as a person who finds working with people quite difficult! Does anybody remember the Decentralized Republic from the Diamond Age making people do random (strange) things together to string their society together?
- icebraining 10y ago
  I think it credible that some people need stress in order to perform at a high level How is that relevant? UBI doesn't propose to eliminate jobs (even stressful ones), just make them non-compulsory. If you're saying that these people would simply not get a stressful job if they had UBI, hence they wouldn't perform at an high level, what about if they currently choose a non-stressful job? Doesn't your argument imply we should force people to take certain jobs, even against their will, so that they perform at an high level? Presently Israel makes people train for the army for a year or two, which I believe is partially responsible for their high level of innovation. There are 71 countries in the world with compulsory conscription, including Algeria, Austria, Austria, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Iran, Kuwait, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Paraguay, Russia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan. Do you see them all as countries with high levels of innovation? Have you considered that the correlation may be spurious? Having people just work together is a very difficult but necessarily task and I believe obtaining UBI should require that. How do you account then for the existence of the Open Source community, a mostly voluntary collaboration between many thousands of inviduals often thought to be people with poor social skills? Not to mention all the volunteer-based non-profits, churches, events, etc?

coldtea 10y ago

The idea of decreased shipping costs might not pan out at all (at least at first). First, the initial (expensive) investment in the self-driving trucks will offset the wage gains from not hiring truckers ----, so shipping costs will remain where they are mostly for the first few years at least until this is balanced. Second, the "increased spending"/"creation of new jobs" effect might only be relevant if the shipping costs are a significant part of the final price of a product. From what I've seen, it's at most 10% (at most), and less for the average item. That's why we can have $1 stuff that comes all the way from China. But, let's accept that this (reduced retail prices) will happen, there are other things I don't see working with this idea: >Who knows what they will spend the extra money on, could be healthcare, boats, TVs, whatever. But new jobs will be created in these expanded industries. Which, more likely than not, wont involve people with trucking skills. And most likely wont involve domestic labor either, most things are made abroad (China, etc) anyway. >It really, really bothers me the constant "x technology will drive x people out of work, therefore we need Universal Basic Income, so they won't starve!" That's because your whole job sector hasn't been deprecated when you're forty (or approaching)... >Instead of UBI, people were forced to leave farming and went into other endeavors That was in a time those other endeavours had a huge boom and needed tons of hands (and even so, millions of ex-farmers ended up getting the short stick). We don't have an industrial revolution expanding the need for workers now, we have a software/automation revolution slowly decreasing workers demands sector by sector. In fact we haven't had a need for more workers for quite a few decades -- what we did is inflate, as much as we can, the services sector to compensate for it instead. But there's only so many service type jobs really viable, plus automation also begins to eat into them, and with the squeezed middle classes pinching pennies its even bleaker for them (being non essential et al), even if decreased shipping costs turn out to mean a (huge and unrealistic) 10% more income.

themagician 10y ago

Don't kid yourself. New jobs get created, but fewer. And many of those who lose their jobs don't get retrained—for a myriad of reasons—and end up leaving the workforce entirely. Many just end up on long term disability because it's the only path they have. Jobs are disappearing. They aren't "coming back" in greater numbers. And the new jobs, by and large, aren't for the previous workforce. We already live in a world where many jobs are unnecessary. A large portion of government jobs are, essentially, welfare jobs. One of the systematic reasons of for the expansion of government is "job creation". Politicians will create jobs, but those jobs add nothing to society. We've got people pretending to work a job to collect a paycheck. It's welfare. The industrial revolution replaced muscle with machine, but brainpower was still a required input. There was a clear shift: from doing the work to using a machine to do the same work, but faster. There was enough demand that things didn't collapse. The current shift is replacing both muscle and brainpower. Outside of creative jobs, what is left for the human to do? Make the brain smarter? We are already entering into a time where the machine makes itself smarter without the advent of the human. New jobs will be created, sure. But those jobs will not be for the 1.8 million truck drivers. Instead the government will likely end up soaking it up through one program or another. Tens of thousands will end up in welfare jobs. Hundreds of thousands will end up on long term disability. The numbers aren't small. UBI is an inevitability. You've got some 40 million people on food stamps, about 9 million on disability. Millions more working pointless government jobs like directing people from one TSA employee to another. At what point to we recognize that the future does not look like the past?

paulddraper 10y ago
> UBI is an inevitability. UBI inevitability: https://youtu.be/x5m1A7zoIcc https://youtu.be/x5m1A7zoIcc --- Market forces are inevitable. Human behavior is inevitable. The future does look like the past.
atemerev 10y ago
UBI is inevitably doomed, because the equation doesn't hold. You are right that ongoing elimination of jobs is a problem leading to huge social unrest, and UBI fits the bill to be a good solution for this. The only problem with UBI is that it is unsustainable and therefore impossible. The balance just doesn't check out. The mere retirement schemes are in grave danger of collapse; the money there are long spent. UBI is huge, and there is no way to get this kind of money from anywhere (even if you strip away all capital from the top 1% and send them to labor camps, as it was done elsewhere, the money from this will fuel $1000/month UBI for about 2 years tops). Antigravity would be an excellent solution to our space travel challenges, but we don't know any way to make it work. It is exactly the same with UBI.

throwaway_xx9 10y ago

Around 40% of American adults are on welfare, unemployment or disability pay now. Typically when people run out of unemployment, or approach retirement in the case of emergency services people, they find a sympathetic doctor to sign for disability pay. There is no transition available for them to the "knowledge economy." This only makes the press occasionally now, but wait until it inverts to an unsustainable 60/40 welfare/taxpayers.

pdkl95 10y ago

Farming and other types of automation that put people out of work in the past used technology to amplify and/or replace physical labor. Now we are learning how to use the general purpose computer to replace mental labor. These are different types of automation that will have fundamentally different effects on society. While we have many examples of new technology replacing physical labor, automation of mental labor is new. I suggest watching CGP Grey's explanation[1] of why "this time is different." > went into other endeavors We are automating away entire classes of jobs, so this will require retraining. How, exactly, do you propose to send half[2] of the workforce to college for retraining in a highly technical field? Assuming this was even possible and assuming there will be jobs for all of these new programmers/etc, is this retraining cheaper than UBI or other plans? It is relatively easy for a farmer to learn another trade that requires primarily physical work. Retraining drivers for unautomatable technical work is a lot harder and more expensive. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU [2] Driving is the largest category of jobs. The next handful of job types (e.g. retail sales, various clerical work, customer service/support) are also being automated away. Together is very roughly half of all jobs. TL;DR - just watch [1]

sverige 10y ago
>Assuming this was even possible and assuming there will be jobs for all of these new programmers/etc, is this retraining cheaper than UBI or other plans? That's assuming that programming won't be one of the first categories of jobs to be automated away by AI. Think of the cost savings! But thankfully we don't have to worry about what all those poor programmers are going to do since it's progress for humanity.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  You say that like it's a bad thing.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  A few jobs I feel pretty safe will still be here in 50 years. They include robot repair, nurses, and computer programmer. Maybe not in 100 years but I won't care then.

jordwest 10y ago

> If we had established UBI then, and people could get paid to sit around, imagine the state we'd be in today. Perhaps we'd be in a better place today. We can't know for sure, without first experimenting. Wealth inequality is a real and growing problem, and I believe is a much bigger impediment to human progress than a basic income would be. What about the millions of incredibly intelligent minds who could be earning the big bucks on Wall Street, but instead are toiling away 7 days a week in research labs at universities, surviving only off the small budget they're allocated? Are they working to survive, or are they surviving just to work? What about the millions who would love to further their education, but instead have to work two jobs to support a family? Personally, I come from a lower income background and would never have had the opportunity to go to university if it wasn't for the generous social support my country has. Humans are inherently enterprising creatures. Yes, a basic income will enable some to sit around and do nothing. But those people have already found ways to do that, and why should we stop them? The people who truly want to change the world are not going to be impeded by some cash handed to them.

NurAzhar 10y ago
those who never been there (low income background) will never get it. it's not just income,it's the network the ghetto,the mindset,the culture... it's just so hard to move up...of those stories? probably less then 10%

karma_vaccum123 10y ago

Drivers are cheap. Eliminating them won't yield much. Improved safety will be the biggest gain The article cites $40k average pay per driver. That's fast-food wages

jotux 10y ago
>The article cites $40k average pay per driver. That's fast-food wages Not really. That's basically $20/hour full-time.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Sure. But you can ship a truckload of boxes across the country. The driver part of the cost is a buck a box? Which is something sure but not a deal breaker.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  HN tends to be ludicrously out of touch when it comes to wages/salaries.
  - galdosdi 10y ago
    Out of touch is right! Even in Manhattan you can easily live fine on $40k with savings left over, at least if you have no dependents or health financing problems (eg expensive health condition coupled with bad insurance). In most of the USA, a $20/hr job with benefits counts as a good job.
- douche 10y ago
  In many of the places where these truckers live, that's solidly middle-class wages, also. Costs are significantly, significantly cheaper when a good single-family home costs 80-100k.
SuperPaintMan 10y ago
The typical fast food employee makes around 20K/yr, and most cooks can only command up to 30-40K without certifications. The constant supply and ease of training cooks (not chefs) keeps these wages depressed. Trucking wages are not the greatest, but it feeds your family and pays the bills. The cost savings may be small but coming from a small town where 1/4 of the working population has class 3 and class 1 licenses operating these machines. It's a middle class lifestyle for these communities.

jmadsen 10y ago

or... decreased shipping costs will go into the pockets of the business owners as additional profits. Since I'm already used to paying $X for that, why would you necessarily cut that out when you can keep it? Just another possibility.

awad 10y ago
Because a competitor will come along and do so
- ethanbond 10y ago
  And yet here we are at the peak of wealth disparity because of exactly this happening. Relying on abstract economic theories about market efficiency is stupid when you're literally watching this happen all around us.
- falcolas 10y ago
  Why, when they can collude (implicitly or explicitly) and keep the profits high for both of them? It's much more profitable to put someone out of business through methods other than competition.
  - awad 10y ago
    Generally speaking, monopolies are illegal for this very reason

morgante 10y ago

> If we had established UBI then, and people could get paid to sit around, imagine the state we'd be in today. We might even be in a better place than we are today. There would be even more entrepreneurship and labor would have more bargaining power when entering new industries. Nothing about UBI prevents there from being new opportunities created. If anything, it provides for more potential for those opportunities by encouraging people to leave shitty low-productivity jobs to start their own thing or to search for a higher productivity job.

sosborn 10y ago
> There would be even more entrepreneurship That seems like a highly debatable statement.
- morgante 10y ago
  I agree that it's debatable, mostly because we don't have good empirical evidence about UBI. However, it can be reasoned about. I have two arguments: 1. It is hard to start a company while working for someone else, particularly if you're working in a low-wage job. There is definitely evidence for this phenomenon, as unemployment leads to more entrepreneurship. [0] 2. It is hard to start a company while starving. Starting a company requires a longer time horizon than finding a job. Hence, if there isn't a adequate social support in place, I think a lot of people will prioritize finding a job over starting a company. This is born out in some empirical studies. [1] [0] https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs394tot.pdf https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs394tot.pdf [1] http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/resources/2016/entrepreneurship%20policy%20digest/pd_healthinsurance_032116.pdf http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/resources/2016/...
naveen99 10y ago
Can we get a televised debate between you and yummyfajitas ? I agree with both of you, though one is for and other against UBI. I suggest a compromise. A linear increase in ubi from 0 to sustainable. I think going straight to sustainable is a little too drastic all of a sudden. It's like if we invented teleportation. That would destroy trucking faster than AI. But it would be chaos too.

nickthemagicman 10y ago

What about when tech can replace ALL jobs? Not just one small area. It's a very slippery slope were walking here with sufficiently advanced tech. What then?

imaginenore 10y ago

Extra money? Many people will lose jobs and will need government assistance.

manicdee 10y ago

Retraining a farmer's kid to be a riveter on a bridge construction project in the late C18/early C20 is a whole lot more feasible than retraining a 40yo professional driver for the jobs opened up by their obsolescence, such as rocket surgery and brain engineering.

paulddraper 10y ago
What about retraining a truck driver's kid? You're not comparing apples to apples.

SubiculumCode 10y ago

Imagine the singularity and you can see that new jobs will not always pop up. absurdum

tomkin 10y ago

> Who knows what they will spend the extra money on, could be healthcare, boats, TVs, whatever. But new jobs will be created in these expanded industries. > It really, really bothers me the constant "x technology will drive x people out of work, therefore we need Universal Basic Income, so they won't starve!" This is incredibly fanciful look at the future. The population cannot grow AND lose jobs to machines. Disruption is having its own variant of Moore's Law, in that, we are disrupting more industries at a faster rate. UBI, or some form of which, will not only be necessary, but likely inevitable. The improvement of humanity you speak of is in fact a humanity that will survive on creativity, not labour. Labour is done. Additionally, capitalism doesn't care about "expanded industries" any more than Moore's Law cares about engineers who made their career in the 1980s. The transition is necessary, and it will be hard, and it won't happen without social security. It's a complete fantasy to see it happening any other way.

mcphage 10y ago

> or 2% farmed and 62% were on UBI - who would have had the time or incentive to create computers, software, advances in healthcare, etc? The 62%, obviously.

pkaye 10y ago

The difference though is that the changes are happening at a rapid pace. It used to happen across generations so people could adapt but now things happen at a pace that you cannot guarantee what you started at will still be needed in 5-10 years time.

redwood 10y ago

32% of working age Americans aren't working. This number will rise

busterarm 10y ago

Please. This is what your numbers mean. American Population in 1850: 23 million. American Population today: 319 million. American Farmers in 1850: 14.72 million. American Farmers today: 6.38 million. And this is with several major wars in between. Basically we've gotten just better than twice as efficient in farming labor in 160 years (this is measured in man-hours worked). The value of that labor is what has changed. Farming itself is more efficient and we can feed 10 times as many people via refrigeration and shipping.

stefs 10y ago

> If we had established UBI then, and people could get paid to sit around, imagine the state we'd be in today. that's simplistic - people generally don't want to be unemployed. if they get enough money to (barely) scrap by it takes a lot of weight off their shoulders, because they know they wont starve without their jobs. but having a job that fulfills you and income that enables you to save money is a big part of being happy. the (healthy) unemployed i know are mostly young people and every single one of them is constantly applying for jobs, even though they're able to pay rent, food and the occasional treat on unemployment benefits.