6 ms·

We take care of children, old people, disabled people, and others that can't take care of themselves. We will likely have to take care of low skilled individual

We take care of children, old people, disabled people, and others that can't take care of themselves. We will likely have to take care of low skilled individuals who can't do a job better or more economically than a robot. Universal Basic Income is one proposed solution but faces opposition due the attitude that able bodied people should have to work for a living. This becomes harder and harder for people who can't learn to keep up and get left behind. The need for UBI seems like a forgone conclusion at this point.

amelius 5y ago
Where did the low-skilled people in the movie Idiocracy (2006) get their money from?
- dbish 5y ago
  Well, I think in that case everyone was low skilled, probably not what we want to emulate
- kittiepryde 5y ago
  They were mostly employed by Brawnee, which what the company that made energy drinks.
  - arthurcolle 5y ago
    "UBI is what the people craveee!" - Idiocracy 2, circa 2024
jpttsn 5y ago
It is a foregone conclusion only because of assumptions that conspire to make the argument circular. I think you’re mischaracterizing some part of the opposition with “should have to work”. To my school of UBI skepticism, it’s not at all about Lutheran work ethic as a deontological good. To clarify: I don’t believe we take care of elderly/disabled/children solely because it’s “the right thing to do”. Instead I believe we do it due to other conditions e.g. “it could be me one day” and “it’s just a few people so we can afford it”. Based on that, I think the stance will change if the conditions change.
- okareaman 5y ago
  I'm curious as to what you propose as an alternate solution
  - jpttsn 5y ago
    I don’t have one.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    The actual problem is not that there is less work for humans to do, but that the remaining work is divided unevenly. Currently, personal overproduction just gets eaten up by the hedonic and financial treadmills, while the underemployed see little benefit from developing skills for jobs that are already taken. Significantly dropping what is considered "full time" employment would be a good start. A target of twenty hours per week is a good immediate target, as well as getting rid of that "exempt employee" loophole. Longer term, if we wish to continue having a distributed economy, then the gains of automation need to accrue to people directly, through something resembling ownership. Basic Income should only ever been seen as a social safety net. Collecting most of the wealth by a centralized entity ("government") to distribute back out to people is fraught with political hazard, if it is even possible to sustain.
- nynx 5y ago
  That doesn't change anything. You can rephrase why UBI is a good idea to: "it could be me who can't compete against automation someday."
  - jpttsn 5y ago
    Well, it hasn’t worked yet for that, while taking care of elders has. Where I live, optometry and dental medicine are carved out of socialized healthcare. Hard to reconcile that with the purely utilitarian theory. I think the “few people” aspect is important in practice. If the prevalence is too great, it could stop feeling like an accidental curse of fate. Just theorizing.
reducesuffering 5y ago
If there are any people that can do a job better than a robot, then the answer is very heavy education and genetic engineering for improved IQ and work ethic, to constantly improve humans to be able to achieve more without personal strain. Remember back in the 1400’s there was little education and what like 95% farm work. Developed nations have reduced farm work to like 5% of the population, through education and better nutrition, to focus on improved medicine and leisure. See the Flynn effect.
- mikem170 5y ago
  > the answer is very heavy education and genetic engineering for improved IQ and work ethic, to constantly improve humans to be able to achieve more without personal strain That sounds like a lot of work. Isn't tech supposed to make life easier?
- okareaman 5y ago
  > genetic engineering for improved IQ Sounds like Eugenics
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    By upgrading everyone not excluding
    - throwaway_dcnt 5y ago
      What if I choose to stay natural?
      - arthurcolle 5y ago
        "Scheduled obsolescence"
Animats 5y ago
We will likely have to take care of low skilled individuals who can't do a job better or more economically than a robot. Not since the Reagan era. That's why there are homeless camps.
- okareaman 5y ago
  There are many programs to help homeless people in camps who are functional. The homeless problem is more about non-functional people who refuse help due to drug addiction and mental illness. We need laws that allow communities to force these people into rehab. We need money for rehab. Most Americans don't want to spend the money to do this. I don't know how it is in other countries.
Consultant32452 5y ago
UBI only sounds good if you don’t understand human motivation and game theory. If 10% of the population doesn’t have to work I can justify I’m helping those in need. If 70% of the population doesn’t have to work there’s zero chance I’m working.
- elygre 5y ago
  Looking at what drives pretty much everybody I know, there is about a zero percent chance that any sizable portion of the population will chose to not work.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    Then there’s no need for UBI.
    - wmf 5y ago
      If everybody wants to work but nobody will employ them then UBI is still needed.
      - Consultant32452 5y ago
        Sure. Now let's imagine you're in the top 10% of competence that has to work and I'm in the 15th percentile so I don't have to work because the robots outcompete me. Why would you work all day at a traditional job knowing that I get to do whatever I want all day? I get to travel, spend time with my family, enjoy my hobbies, focus on romantic relationships, all while you're working. And not just me, 90% of everyone on the planet gets to just do whatever we want while you must work. Would you accept that deal? Do you think the majority of the most competent people on the planet would accept that kind of deal?
  - jimmaswell 5y ago
    Looking at people I know, they'd just sit around and smoke weed all day if they didn't have to work. I'd be interested to know what portion of the population is which.
meowkit 5y ago
> due to the attitude that able bodied people should have to work for a living. This reads as though this shouldn’t be the case. People need to contribute to society, and not everyone will be an artist or pursue their passion if freed from labor. I no longer support a UBI (unless we’re in a post scarcity society), but I do support a CBI.
- okareaman 5y ago
  I hadn't heard of CBI but I found these: Andrew Yang and Mark Cuban debate UBI vs CBI https://podverse.fm/clip/__ihv7eFk https://podverse.fm/clip/__ihv7eFk Citizen’s Basic Income in Scotland https://www.alliance-scotland.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ALLIANCE-HSCA-Citizens-Basic-Income-2017.pdf https://www.alliance-scotland.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017... I look forward to learning the difference, which doesn't seem that great at first glance
  - lucassen 5y ago
    that scottish reference seems to explain CBI exactly as I have understood UBI.
pasquinelli 5y ago
there's plenty of work for everyone to do. there's plenty of work that needs doing. the problem isn't that there are extra people, the problem is that we live under an economic system that can't use everyone, that disincentivizes work that needs doing, work that would make life better for everyone. only when you think the only work that needs doing is work that makes someone's boss money does it look like there are all these extra people that need to be taken care of because there's nothing they can contribute.
neilv 5y ago
> We take care of children, old people, disabled people, and others that can't take care of themselves. We will likely have to take care of low skilled individuals who can't do a job better or more economically than a robot. It's not just "low-skilled" people who will have trouble finding good employment. It's most people. I like the idea of a society sharing the wealth from resources, cooperation, and technological advancement, and trying to ensure that everyone is lifted up by it. I'd like to be careful of language around that, since I often hear comments from people who happen to be benefitting from the status quo (for now), talking down about people who aren't benefitting. For example, some people hear about how "we" need to take care of others, and they seem to think it means asking "meritorious" them "for a favor, to benefit those less meritorious." But I think more appropriate is that the we is society, and that we need to revise our rules and conventions, because they're unfair, reward the wrong things, etc. Right now, our rules and conventions seem to be under something like regulatory capture. So, exploiters benefit wildly disproportionately, and some of the rest of us (myself included, at times) effectively ride the coattails of that economic setup. I propose that those of us who are currently making tech money would do well to speak up for those currently getting less a share of society. One reason is that it seems the right thing to do. Another reason is that, while we may be benefitting now, we might not later, and current rules&conventions are to listen to those with money, so we should speak up while we can.
ur-whale 5y ago
> We will likely have to take care of low skilled individuals who can't do a job better or more economically than a robot That might soon include almost all people in society.

amelius 5y ago

Where did the low-skilled people in the movie Idiocracy (2006) get their money from?

dbish 5y ago
Well, I think in that case everyone was low skilled, probably not what we want to emulate
kittiepryde 5y ago
They were mostly employed by Brawnee, which what the company that made energy drinks.
- arthurcolle 5y ago
  "UBI is what the people craveee!" - Idiocracy 2, circa 2024

jpttsn 5y ago

It is a foregone conclusion only because of assumptions that conspire to make the argument circular. I think you’re mischaracterizing some part of the opposition with “should have to work”. To my school of UBI skepticism, it’s not at all about Lutheran work ethic as a deontological good. To clarify: I don’t believe we take care of elderly/disabled/children solely because it’s “the right thing to do”. Instead I believe we do it due to other conditions e.g. “it could be me one day” and “it’s just a few people so we can afford it”. Based on that, I think the stance will change if the conditions change.

okareaman 5y ago
I'm curious as to what you propose as an alternate solution
- jpttsn 5y ago
  I don’t have one.
- mindslight 5y ago
  The actual problem is not that there is less work for humans to do, but that the remaining work is divided unevenly. Currently, personal overproduction just gets eaten up by the hedonic and financial treadmills, while the underemployed see little benefit from developing skills for jobs that are already taken. Significantly dropping what is considered "full time" employment would be a good start. A target of twenty hours per week is a good immediate target, as well as getting rid of that "exempt employee" loophole. Longer term, if we wish to continue having a distributed economy, then the gains of automation need to accrue to people directly, through something resembling ownership. Basic Income should only ever been seen as a social safety net. Collecting most of the wealth by a centralized entity ("government") to distribute back out to people is fraught with political hazard, if it is even possible to sustain.
nynx 5y ago
That doesn't change anything. You can rephrase why UBI is a good idea to: "it could be me who can't compete against automation someday."
- jpttsn 5y ago
  Well, it hasn’t worked yet for that, while taking care of elders has. Where I live, optometry and dental medicine are carved out of socialized healthcare. Hard to reconcile that with the purely utilitarian theory. I think the “few people” aspect is important in practice. If the prevalence is too great, it could stop feeling like an accidental curse of fate. Just theorizing.

reducesuffering 5y ago

If there are any people that can do a job better than a robot, then the answer is very heavy education and genetic engineering for improved IQ and work ethic, to constantly improve humans to be able to achieve more without personal strain. Remember back in the 1400’s there was little education and what like 95% farm work. Developed nations have reduced farm work to like 5% of the population, through education and better nutrition, to focus on improved medicine and leisure. See the Flynn effect.

mikem170 5y ago
> the answer is very heavy education and genetic engineering for improved IQ and work ethic, to constantly improve humans to be able to achieve more without personal strain That sounds like a lot of work. Isn't tech supposed to make life easier?
okareaman 5y ago
> genetic engineering for improved IQ Sounds like Eugenics
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  By upgrading everyone not excluding
  - throwaway_dcnt 5y ago
    What if I choose to stay natural?
    - arthurcolle 5y ago
      "Scheduled obsolescence"

Animats 5y ago

We will likely have to take care of low skilled individuals who can't do a job better or more economically than a robot. Not since the Reagan era. That's why there are homeless camps.

okareaman 5y ago
There are many programs to help homeless people in camps who are functional. The homeless problem is more about non-functional people who refuse help due to drug addiction and mental illness. We need laws that allow communities to force these people into rehab. We need money for rehab. Most Americans don't want to spend the money to do this. I don't know how it is in other countries.

Consultant32452 5y ago

UBI only sounds good if you don’t understand human motivation and game theory. If 10% of the population doesn’t have to work I can justify I’m helping those in need. If 70% of the population doesn’t have to work there’s zero chance I’m working.

elygre 5y ago
Looking at what drives pretty much everybody I know, there is about a zero percent chance that any sizable portion of the population will chose to not work.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  Then there’s no need for UBI.
  - wmf 5y ago
    If everybody wants to work but nobody will employ them then UBI is still needed.
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      Sure. Now let's imagine you're in the top 10% of competence that has to work and I'm in the 15th percentile so I don't have to work because the robots outcompete me. Why would you work all day at a traditional job knowing that I get to do whatever I want all day? I get to travel, spend time with my family, enjoy my hobbies, focus on romantic relationships, all while you're working. And not just me, 90% of everyone on the planet gets to just do whatever we want while you must work. Would you accept that deal? Do you think the majority of the most competent people on the planet would accept that kind of deal?
- jimmaswell 5y ago
  Looking at people I know, they'd just sit around and smoke weed all day if they didn't have to work. I'd be interested to know what portion of the population is which.

meowkit 5y ago

> due to the attitude that able bodied people should have to work for a living. This reads as though this shouldn’t be the case. People need to contribute to society, and not everyone will be an artist or pursue their passion if freed from labor. I no longer support a UBI (unless we’re in a post scarcity society), but I do support a CBI.

okareaman 5y ago
I hadn't heard of CBI but I found these: Andrew Yang and Mark Cuban debate UBI vs CBI https://podverse.fm/clip/__ihv7eFk https://podverse.fm/clip/__ihv7eFk Citizen’s Basic Income in Scotland https://www.alliance-scotland.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ALLIANCE-HSCA-Citizens-Basic-Income-2017.pdf https://www.alliance-scotland.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017... I look forward to learning the difference, which doesn't seem that great at first glance
- lucassen 5y ago
  that scottish reference seems to explain CBI exactly as I have understood UBI.

pasquinelli 5y ago

there's plenty of work for everyone to do. there's plenty of work that needs doing. the problem isn't that there are extra people, the problem is that we live under an economic system that can't use everyone, that disincentivizes work that needs doing, work that would make life better for everyone. only when you think the only work that needs doing is work that makes someone's boss money does it look like there are all these extra people that need to be taken care of because there's nothing they can contribute.

neilv 5y ago

> We take care of children, old people, disabled people, and others that can't take care of themselves. We will likely have to take care of low skilled individuals who can't do a job better or more economically than a robot. It's not just "low-skilled" people who will have trouble finding good employment. It's most people. I like the idea of a society sharing the wealth from resources, cooperation, and technological advancement, and trying to ensure that everyone is lifted up by it. I'd like to be careful of language around that, since I often hear comments from people who happen to be benefitting from the status quo (for now), talking down about people who aren't benefitting. For example, some people hear about how "we" need to take care of others, and they seem to think it means asking "meritorious" them "for a favor, to benefit those less meritorious." But I think more appropriate is that the we is society, and that we need to revise our rules and conventions, because they're unfair, reward the wrong things, etc. Right now, our rules and conventions seem to be under something like regulatory capture. So, exploiters benefit wildly disproportionately, and some of the rest of us (myself included, at times) effectively ride the coattails of that economic setup. I propose that those of us who are currently making tech money would do well to speak up for those currently getting less a share of society. One reason is that it seems the right thing to do. Another reason is that, while we may be benefitting now, we might not later, and current rules&conventions are to listen to those with money, so we should speak up while we can.

ur-whale 5y ago

> We will likely have to take care of low skilled individuals who can't do a job better or more economically than a robot That might soon include almost all people in society.