4 ms·

The real problem is distribution of the output of production. We will need something like UBI eventually.

by make3 3y ago

LambdaComplex 3y ago
UBI is a bandaid on top of capitalism. It is saying "we have a system where people die if they don't have money, so we'll give people money." It's not a real fix. A real fix would be replacing the system with one where people don't need money in order to not die. We're going to keep automating more and more things. I think that much is inevitable. Eventually, we may get to a point where very few jobs are necessary for society to function. This should be a good thing, because it would mean fewer people would have to work and could therefore pursue things that actually interest them, but it would be a catastrophe under the current system.
- mhss 3y ago
  You make it sound simple. What's the replacement? UBI is at least somewhat within grasp. Completely replacing capitalism is going to take a long time and it's more likely to happen as incremental improvements.
- pmarreck 3y ago
  That’s not going to come to fruition, and no amount of dreamy socialist fanfiction’ing is going to make it so. People pay for value. Produce value for others, get paid. LLM’s are tools to make humans able to produce more value, and will not replace humans, although the job market will change, and hopefully utilize humans better. People, NOT machines, are the ultimate judgers of what is valuable and the ultimate producers of value. “no one should have to work to eat” is the most ridiculous gen Z meme going around lately. Like, technically yes, not eating would make you unhealthy and thus unable to contribute yourself, but we also don’t want the opposite of people just sitting home all depressed about being oppressed and not utilizing their gifts while living off mysteriously-produced (paid for or labored over by whom?) gourmet sushi. How about another common meme in response? “We live in a society.”
  - kortex 3y ago
    > Produce value for others, get paid So if a human is unable to produce value, they don't get (food/education/heathcare/<resource>)? That seems to be the implication. We in developed countries already have some amount of "value risk hedging" (I'm loathe to say "socialism" here), we just disagree endlessly how much is the optimal amount. But we've determined that wards of the state, universal education, and some amount of food support for the poor is the absolute bare minimum for a developed society. > People, NOT machines, are the ultimate judgers of what is valuable and the ultimate producers of value. Uhhh we already have software which sifts through resumes to allow/reject candidates, before it gets to any kind of human judge, so we are already gating value assessments.
    - pmarreck 3y ago
      > So if a human is unable to produce value, they don't get (food/education/heathcare/<resource>)? I would agree that some people are simply unable to help and need the help themselves and should get it. UBI or some other social safety net should be there for that.
- brvsft 3y ago
  People don't need money to not die, they need to work to not die. Until the fulfillment of everyone's basic needs can be automated, people are expected to work (disregarding some obvious exceptions). The money is just a proxy for that work. Although there is certainly a lot of fuckery going on with the money (currency) itself, but if that's the problem you're alluding to, I don't think summarizing it as "capitalism" is accurate.
RivieraKid 3y ago
I think there will be plenty of work for a while because manual labor - construction, healthcare (doctors, nurses), food preparation, tradespeople - will be hard to replace in the foreseeable future. I see UBI as a solution to inequality (real problem) not as a solution to lack of jobs (not a problem). AI will probably lead to reduction of inequality and therefore there will be less need for UBI. In theory, the "mental" workers who get replaced by AI could simply move to manual jobs and total production and average wages would go up. But they may not like it, at least I wouldn't.
- callwhendone 3y ago
  Manual labor has been my general thought but the progress Tesla is making on their robots makes me question that assumption. I imagine in the next decade, we're going to see large swaths of the population unable to do meaningful work that isn't already done by machines. We're looking down the pipe at a truly dystopian future.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >, the "mental" workers who get replaced by AI could simply move to manual jobs and total production and average wages would go up Why would manual job average wages go up? You're increasing the size of the labor pool.
  - RivieraKid 3y ago
    Total production would increase (AI will allow us to make more with less) and I'm expecting the capital / labor share to remain stable. An analogy: Imagine that half of the labor force makes cars, the other half creates software. The average person buys 1 car and 1 software per year. There's a breakthrough, AI can now be used to create software almost for free. It can even make 2x more software per year. The programmers switch to making cars. So now the economy is producing 2 cars and 2 softwares per worker per year! Salaries have now doubled thanks to technological progress. You could argue that this will increase inequality and all of the productivity gains will go to the top 1%. I don't think so.
    - 3y ago
kajumix 3y ago
Do we worry about the distribution of oxygen in the atmosphere, so everyone has equal chance of breathing? I know it's hard to comprehend massive abundance of everything, but please try.
- make3 3y ago
  there's already massive over abundance and people are still dying in the streets, & no public healthcare in the US
JasserInicide 3y ago
UBI is just not happening any time soon in the US. To start, half of the country is already default against it. Precisely 0 people in Congress, the White House, or those in adjacent power roles (lobbyists and whatnot) are for it or have any idea what it is. Aside from rolling out the guillotine, I don't see UBI a possibility until the 2nd half of the 21st century. There's just too many forces and entities alive that don't want it
- tim333 3y ago
  I think the plan is first robots take our jobs, then UBI. If you gave people free money now we'd be suffering from a lack of workers due to general robot non existence. I'm guessing 2045 maybe?

The real problem is distribution of the output of production. We will need something like UBI eventually.

by make3 3y ago

The real problem is distribution of the output of production. We will need something like UBI eventually.

UBI is a bandaid on top of capitalism. It is saying "we have a system where people die if they don't have money, so we'll give people money." It's not a real fix. A real fix would be replacing the system with one where people don't need money in order to not die. We're going to keep automating more and more things. I think that much is inevitable. Eventually, we may get to a point where very few jobs are necessary for society to function. This should be a good thing, because it would mean fewer people would have to work and could therefore pursue things that actually interest them, but it would be a catastrophe under the current system.

mhss 3y ago
You make it sound simple. What's the replacement? UBI is at least somewhat within grasp. Completely replacing capitalism is going to take a long time and it's more likely to happen as incremental improvements.
pmarreck 3y ago
That’s not going to come to fruition, and no amount of dreamy socialist fanfiction’ing is going to make it so. People pay for value. Produce value for others, get paid. LLM’s are tools to make humans able to produce more value, and will not replace humans, although the job market will change, and hopefully utilize humans better. People, NOT machines, are the ultimate judgers of what is valuable and the ultimate producers of value. “no one should have to work to eat” is the most ridiculous gen Z meme going around lately. Like, technically yes, not eating would make you unhealthy and thus unable to contribute yourself, but we also don’t want the opposite of people just sitting home all depressed about being oppressed and not utilizing their gifts while living off mysteriously-produced (paid for or labored over by whom?) gourmet sushi. How about another common meme in response? “We live in a society.”
- kortex 3y ago
  > Produce value for others, get paid So if a human is unable to produce value, they don't get (food/education/heathcare/<resource>)? That seems to be the implication. We in developed countries already have some amount of "value risk hedging" (I'm loathe to say "socialism" here), we just disagree endlessly how much is the optimal amount. But we've determined that wards of the state, universal education, and some amount of food support for the poor is the absolute bare minimum for a developed society. > People, NOT machines, are the ultimate judgers of what is valuable and the ultimate producers of value. Uhhh we already have software which sifts through resumes to allow/reject candidates, before it gets to any kind of human judge, so we are already gating value assessments.
  - pmarreck 3y ago
    > So if a human is unable to produce value, they don't get (food/education/heathcare/<resource>)? I would agree that some people are simply unable to help and need the help themselves and should get it. UBI or some other social safety net should be there for that.
brvsft 3y ago
People don't need money to not die, they need to work to not die. Until the fulfillment of everyone's basic needs can be automated, people are expected to work (disregarding some obvious exceptions). The money is just a proxy for that work. Although there is certainly a lot of fuckery going on with the money (currency) itself, but if that's the problem you're alluding to, I don't think summarizing it as "capitalism" is accurate.

RivieraKid 3y ago

I think there will be plenty of work for a while because manual labor - construction, healthcare (doctors, nurses), food preparation, tradespeople - will be hard to replace in the foreseeable future. I see UBI as a solution to inequality (real problem) not as a solution to lack of jobs (not a problem). AI will probably lead to reduction of inequality and therefore there will be less need for UBI. In theory, the "mental" workers who get replaced by AI could simply move to manual jobs and total production and average wages would go up. But they may not like it, at least I wouldn't.

callwhendone 3y ago
Manual labor has been my general thought but the progress Tesla is making on their robots makes me question that assumption. I imagine in the next decade, we're going to see large swaths of the population unable to do meaningful work that isn't already done by machines. We're looking down the pipe at a truly dystopian future.
pixl97 3y ago
>, the "mental" workers who get replaced by AI could simply move to manual jobs and total production and average wages would go up Why would manual job average wages go up? You're increasing the size of the labor pool.
- RivieraKid 3y ago
  Total production would increase (AI will allow us to make more with less) and I'm expecting the capital / labor share to remain stable. An analogy: Imagine that half of the labor force makes cars, the other half creates software. The average person buys 1 car and 1 software per year. There's a breakthrough, AI can now be used to create software almost for free. It can even make 2x more software per year. The programmers switch to making cars. So now the economy is producing 2 cars and 2 softwares per worker per year! Salaries have now doubled thanks to technological progress. You could argue that this will increase inequality and all of the productivity gains will go to the top 1%. I don't think so.
  - 3y ago

kajumix 3y ago

Do we worry about the distribution of oxygen in the atmosphere, so everyone has equal chance of breathing? I know it's hard to comprehend massive abundance of everything, but please try.

make3 3y ago
there's already massive over abundance and people are still dying in the streets, & no public healthcare in the US

JasserInicide 3y ago

UBI is just not happening any time soon in the US. To start, half of the country is already default against it. Precisely 0 people in Congress, the White House, or those in adjacent power roles (lobbyists and whatnot) are for it or have any idea what it is. Aside from rolling out the guillotine, I don't see UBI a possibility until the 2nd half of the 21st century. There's just too many forces and entities alive that don't want it

tim333 3y ago
I think the plan is first robots take our jobs, then UBI. If you gave people free money now we'd be suffering from a lack of workers due to general robot non existence. I'm guessing 2045 maybe?