3 ms·

"Capitalism is going away, no matter what, once we have massive unemployment due to automation" No. 1) The Industrial Revolution saw a considerably greater d

"Capitalism is going away, no matter what, once we have massive unemployment due to automation" No. 1) The Industrial Revolution saw a considerably greater degree of automation than we are seeing now. 'Single Engines' replaced dozens of workers, some cases 100's. Think 'weaving machine' vs. 'individual weavers'. The 'automation' we have today is mostly 'soft' - do you think MS Word actually replaced 'Secretaries'? Or was it a confluence of things, including the fact that we now have 'Executive Assistants' which do much more than Secretaries ever did. And what happened during the Industrial Revolution? Wages rose! Unemployment never really went down. You know all those 'servants' in 'Downton Abbey' - the ultimately left to get higher paying jobs. I should add - this had also a lot to do with the labour movement. 2) The major source of 'job loss' in Industrialized countries is not 'automation' - it's 'outsourcing' to India and China. 'Automation' has been going on in a very aggressive way for over 200 years - and yet we still have fairly low levels of unemployment. Entire new sectors have developed: entertainment, professions, services. There were 5 channels in 1950 and now 500. There weren't many pro athletes in the 1900's - now their are tons - and massive industries around them. We didn't really provide much in terms of healthcare in 1900 - now maybe 20% of the economy is healthcare. Very few used to go to University, let alone finish highschool - now education is a massive industry. There is always 'work' that can be done so long as we can improve each others lives. So - the question of 'UBI' comes down to how we decided to spread the surpluses. Do we give some surpluses to those who are not directly contributing? Hint: we already do. Especially in socialized countries - we give massive subsidies to non-working people: healthcare, parks, security, all sorts of other services. Power subsidies (electricity is subsidized here in Quebec). We just don't give them spending money. I think UBI is an interesting idea, but a dangerous one as well. I live in Montreal, many of the people in my neighbourhood are 'artists' - photographers, actors - but really they all work full time in services. You can get a 1/2 decent, small but respectable flat around here for $400 a month - and I don't mean grungy. It's entirely possible to live decently off $1K a month (remember healthcare is already paid for by other members of society). I feel that with UBI - my neighbourhood would fall flat - because everyone would quit their service jobs (or work a lot less) - because they only need UBI + a little bit of extra cash - i.e. '1 day work weeks' - I think would be the preferred mode of existence for vast numbers of the young people around here. They would live a 'very low materialism' style of living, and be happy with it. I think a 'means tested' form of UBI (not really 'Universal' ...) instead of welfare would be better. In America - a better idea than UBI might simply be to make sure that everyone has access to healthcare, in a slightly-more-socialized way. I don't mean 'single payer' - but something. Having better healthcare for everyone would put people on a much more equal/fair footing - AND probably be good for the economy directly/indirectly. Solve that problem and you're already a huge step forward in trying to provide for better social outcomes.

nkurz 10y ago
I feel that with UBI - my neighbourhood would fall flat - because everyone would quit their service jobs (or work a lot less) Could you explain why you mean by "fall flat"? Do you mean that the businesses that currently employ the service workers would close because they would be unable to find anyone to work for them? It seems likely that they'd need to increase the wages paid for unrewarding positions, but that this might be offset by the greater number of locals who can afford to patronize them. I live in Montreal, many of the people in my neighbourhood are 'artists' - photographers, actors - but really they all work full time in services. '1 day work weeks' - I think would be the preferred mode of existence for vast numbers of the young people around here. Presumably when you say "1 day work week", you do not include the time spent working on the projects personally important to these people? I view it as a strong positive that more young people would have more time to pursue their artistic interests, and presume they would do so. There may be negatives that should be carefully considered, but don't you see this as something we should strive for? They would live a 'very low materialism' style of living, and be happy with it. So more art gets created, the lifestyle is less materialic, and people are overall happier? And you are arguing against this idea? Would I be right to guess that you are not currently working a poorly paid job you hate in the service industry while trying to find time to pursue the art you love? I don't mean that last question as an actual attack, but I do wonder if your self-interest might be different than that of the majority of your neighbors.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Could you explain why you mean by "fall flat"? Do you mean that the businesses that currently employ the service workers would close because they would be unable to find anyone to work for them? It seems likely that they'd need to increase the wages paid for unrewarding positions," No. Coffee Shops etc. already run on pretty low margins -> they'd be out of business. Any business wherein labour is a significant input cost and where wages are low enough that people would quite - would shut down - and that's a lot of businesses. "So more art gets created, the lifestyle is less materialic " That's a choice we can make today - we don't need massive government intervention to make that decision for us. It also means a significantly reduced output: The value of the 'art' getting created is significantly lower than the 'service' they provide making coffee - or else that art would be getting created. It's easy to prove: if their are were 'worth something' to you and I, we'd be buying it. We're not. But we will however hire them to make coffee for us. "Would I be right to guess that you are not currently working a poorly paid job you hate in the service industry while trying to find time to pursue the art you love? I don't mean that last question as an actual attack, but I do wonder if your self-interest might be different than that of the majority of your neighbors." I don't care what my neighbours 'aspirations' are. It is not their right to take my money to pursue their aspirations. If they want to make art that nobody wants to buy, that's fine by me, but I should not have to pay for their rent so they can do that. They can serve coffee, get a better job, make better art that people want to buy - it's entirely their choice, they are entirely capable. They can have whatever lifestyle they want to build for themselves. If they are handicapped, or ill, that's another story, but otherwise, their life is their job, not mine.

nkurz 10y ago

I feel that with UBI - my neighbourhood would fall flat - because everyone would quit their service jobs (or work a lot less) Could you explain why you mean by "fall flat"? Do you mean that the businesses that currently employ the service workers would close because they would be unable to find anyone to work for them? It seems likely that they'd need to increase the wages paid for unrewarding positions, but that this might be offset by the greater number of locals who can afford to patronize them. I live in Montreal, many of the people in my neighbourhood are 'artists' - photographers, actors - but really they all work full time in services. '1 day work weeks' - I think would be the preferred mode of existence for vast numbers of the young people around here. Presumably when you say "1 day work week", you do not include the time spent working on the projects personally important to these people? I view it as a strong positive that more young people would have more time to pursue their artistic interests, and presume they would do so. There may be negatives that should be carefully considered, but don't you see this as something we should strive for? They would live a 'very low materialism' style of living, and be happy with it. So more art gets created, the lifestyle is less materialic, and people are overall happier? And you are arguing against this idea? Would I be right to guess that you are not currently working a poorly paid job you hate in the service industry while trying to find time to pursue the art you love? I don't mean that last question as an actual attack, but I do wonder if your self-interest might be different than that of the majority of your neighbors.

edblarney 10y ago
"Could you explain why you mean by "fall flat"? Do you mean that the businesses that currently employ the service workers would close because they would be unable to find anyone to work for them? It seems likely that they'd need to increase the wages paid for unrewarding positions," No. Coffee Shops etc. already run on pretty low margins -> they'd be out of business. Any business wherein labour is a significant input cost and where wages are low enough that people would quite - would shut down - and that's a lot of businesses. "So more art gets created, the lifestyle is less materialic " That's a choice we can make today - we don't need massive government intervention to make that decision for us. It also means a significantly reduced output: The value of the 'art' getting created is significantly lower than the 'service' they provide making coffee - or else that art would be getting created. It's easy to prove: if their are were 'worth something' to you and I, we'd be buying it. We're not. But we will however hire them to make coffee for us. "Would I be right to guess that you are not currently working a poorly paid job you hate in the service industry while trying to find time to pursue the art you love? I don't mean that last question as an actual attack, but I do wonder if your self-interest might be different than that of the majority of your neighbors." I don't care what my neighbours 'aspirations' are. It is not their right to take my money to pursue their aspirations. If they want to make art that nobody wants to buy, that's fine by me, but I should not have to pay for their rent so they can do that. They can serve coffee, get a better job, make better art that people want to buy - it's entirely their choice, they are entirely capable. They can have whatever lifestyle they want to build for themselves. If they are handicapped, or ill, that's another story, but otherwise, their life is their job, not mine.