4 ms·

The answer to this is always the one we don’t want to talk about: a robust public safety net. This is the balance to “move fast and break shit” technological di

The answer to this is always the one we don’t want to talk about: a robust public safety net. This is the balance to “move fast and break shit” technological disruption. It’s great to have an adaptive overall system, but disruption has a human cost. If there’s a robust public healthcare and UBI type system in place to pad the fall, people will bounce back and adapt when industries break down. If instead we stick our head in the sand and ignore the human cost so that we can temporarily enjoy maximum technological progress AND maximum wealth accumulation for shareholders, as we have been doing for the better part of a century, things will slowly break down and eventually collapse when the pace of change accelerates to the point that enough people simply can’t keep up, have nothing to lose and decide to attack the source of their misery. Bread and circuses will only distract so much.

elmer2 2mo ago
"If there’s a robust public healthcare and UBI type system in place to pad the fall, people will bounce back and adapt when industries break down." This would be great, in theory. The reality is that people would live on it and never work, have kids, and the same thing would happen with a new generation. As it expands, you run out of tax payers and the system collapses. A 'robust' healthcare system that the government runs is a pipe dream. "have nothing to lose and decide to attack the source of their misery. Bread and circuses will only distract so much." "If instead we stick our head in the sand and ignore the human cost so that we can temporarily enjoy maximum technological progress AND maximum wealth accumulation for shareholders, as we have been doing for the better part of a century, things will slowly break down and eventually collapse when the pace of change accelerates to the point that enough people simply can’t keep up, have nothing to lose and decide to attack the source of their misery. Bread and circuses will only distract so much." I suppose the people that are actually working will just need to get more guns.
- Xirdus 2mo ago
  > A 'robust' healthcare system that the government runs is a pipe dream. That "pipe dream" has already been achieved by most EU countries decades ago. Sure, you might argue it's worse in quality than American healthcare and that wait times are horrible, but I guarantee you most Americans would see it as an improvement over their current situation.
  - dwedge 2mo ago
    The American system existing is a travesty both because of the struggles it gives Americans but also because it's used as a comparison to make the European systems look good. The NHS in the UK is an expensive bureaucratic nightmare and doesn't come anywhere near to performing as it should (for instance a recent government boasted cutting the waiting list by a high number, but they accomplished it by removing people that had been waiting for too long). It costs a lot of tax but any criticism of it generally gets met with "would you prefer the US system?" as though it's the only other option. I live in Eastern Europe now where they also have free health care, and it's so bad that almost everyone pays for private medical insurance - essentially we pay twice because the first system is mostly not fit for purpose.
    - ndiddy 2mo ago
      To compare the US and UK: In the US, the life expectancy is 76.5 years for males and 81.4 years for females. Annual healthcare spending is $14,885 per capita. In the UK, the life expectancy is 79.1 years for males and 83.0 years for females. Annual healthcare spending is $6,747 per capita. Even if the UK system is bad, it seems like the US system is much worse if they pay more than twice as much for poorer outcomes.
      - CaptWorld 2mo ago
        I think you have to account for multiple factors like Americans are generally unhealthy people, the people have better access to the top of the line medical technology, people actually spend and consume more compared to the EU. This blog post explains a lot more. https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-on-health-care-is-wrong-a-primer/#rcatoc-diminishing-returns-to-spending-and-worse-lifestyle-factors-explain-americas-mediocre-health-outcomes https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-o...
        marmarama 2mo ago
        In most countries with universal healthcare, the universal healthcare provider plays a major role in preventive medicine, nudging people towards healthier lifestyles and influencing government policy on a wide variety of topics, such as food standards, consumption taxation, traffic laws, or pollution regulation. Because it's in their interests to do so, because a healthier population saves them money. Is there the same motivation to help people live healthy lifestyles in the American healthcare system? Are there any lobby groups with the kind of influence and reach as a universal healthcare provider?
- TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
  Tax payers don't fund governments, governments fund tax payers. Taxes are there to encourage certain economic activities and discourage others. Today, many of those activities are either toxic, like fossil fuel subsidies, or useless, like casino stock markets which force everyone to play PR con games that are divorced from bedrock physical fundamentals - like clean water, a safe food supply, and a stable climate. Guns won't help anyone when farming dies. Not for long, anyway.
  - pitched 2mo ago
    I think taxes predates that by a lot and probably had more to do with feeding management. Money and trade as we know it today was invented by the Romans because soldiers were raiding their own villages for supplies. Paying soldiers with coins then demanding them back from villagers got them to start trading. That’s where incentives started.
- exogenousdata 2mo ago
  “This would be great, in theory. The reality is that people would live on it and never work, have kids, and the same thing would happen with a new generation. As it expands, you run out of tax payers and the system collapses.” Are there historical or contemporary examples of this? I googled but couldn’t find any specifics. The reason I ask is that I in the US, employer-provided health insurance is a large expense for businesses. And anecdotally, I’ve never spoken to any US small business owner that feels that choosing employee insurance plans is a real competitive advantage. But perhaps the historical/contemporary alternatives are worse?
  - gustavus 2mo ago
    I mean we've got multiple generational families that have been living on council estates all their lives and raising the next generation to do the same at the same time the NHS is collapsing all around, so there's that example.
    - patmorgan23 2mo ago
      Do you have any citations, or just your assertions that this happens?
      - gustavus 2mo ago
        I mean asking ChatGPT got me this answer that around 49% of 30-34 year olds grew up in social housing in the UK. Sources and reasoning included in response. So I'd say that's a pretty strong signal. https://chatgpt.com/share/6a7750bd-1538-83ea-840c-57266e366fb6?ogimg=plain https://chatgpt.com/share/6a7750bd-1538-83ea-840c-57266e366f... If you don't think the NHS has any problems then I don't know what to tell you on that you either don't follow any information about it or don't interact with it.
- pixelready 2mo ago
  So I’ve gotten this retort (i.e. threat of starvation being the only valid motivator) from a few folks in person as well, and I always feel like it’s them telling on themselves more than the truism it’s presented as. Most of my friends are in some form of tech or creative work, so perhaps that is my bias, but with the threat of destitution removed the vast majority of people I know would turn into maelstroms of creation: art, crafts, coding, building, organizing, civic participation, scientific experimentation, and raising strong families. Instead they are trapped spending the majority of their time navigating corporate politics to deliver a fraction of their value to society. Seems… dangerously inefficient and corrosive to the human spirit, no?
- jjav 2mo ago
  > A 'robust' healthcare system that the government runs is a pipe dream. Oh yes, the usual argument of how what most industrializes nations (and many poor nations as well) have achieved, is somehow seen as impossible just because the US can't manage to do it (because it doesn't profit the oligarchs).
- bothers 2mo ago
  >I suppose the people that are actually working will just need to get more guns. If shit gets as bad as people are hoping it will get, workers aren't going to be in the "gets things" class anymore.
- deadlast2 2mo ago
  There are lots of countries that have a form of this and survive. Almost every country in Europe has a social welfare system and free healthcare for instance. I
- preg_match 2mo ago
  I just don't see this with our current safety nets, particularly SSI disability. SSI disability will pay you not to work if you have a disability. A lot of people think that surely it's abused. No. Everyone I have seen on SSI disability is doing everything they can to not be on SSI disability. They would MUCH rather work and earn a reasonable wage than be forced to live on SSI disability. Now, not everyone can, because some people are very disabled. But the internet has brought new capabilities, and some disabled people are able to work remotely. And guess what, they do. They willingly give up the "free", say, 900 dollars a month on SSI to work for a salary.
- hackable_sand 2mo ago
  I think I understand now. You see "work" as a transactional unit.
- Permik 2mo ago
  I'm probably an outlier, but as someone working a non-physical job, I have been talking about how I personally would still keep working and doing jobs even if all of my basic needs are met. I do work purely because of idealistic reasons. I'm not actually owed anything, I'm working because of us, humanity. Yeah, people are going to slack, and that's just life. It's just statistics, optimize society to such a configuration that people acts have a place and get the support they need. Most of the "slackers" who represent the people just living on the UBI type system you described, probably don't do it as a direct choice. Most likely they feel like they can't contribute to society, but that's something that's solvable. It's a matter of education and culture. About your quote: "have nothing to lose and decide to attack the source of their misery. Bread and circuses will only distract so much." There's a theory directly relating to this that I have about the modern golden age of punk and rock in the nordics. When people had all of their basic needs met, they finally had the time to take a breath, take a look inwards and face their own inner demons. I suggest that this was one of the big things that created the conditions which made the nordics the rock/punk powerhouse that they were. Of course, the good times also had their downsides, lots of complacency in politics and not feeling the need to fight for better, because things were already better than they've ever been!
equality_1138 2mo ago
We never talk about social welfare programs? Odd, I hear chatter all the time. How about we never talk about rewarding management-by-breaking-things?
- leptons 2mo ago
  > How about we never talk about rewarding management-by-breaking-things? Have you seen who we elect to run our countries?
  - equality_1138 2mo ago
    I thought my previous comment made that obvious. And unlike in the private sector, mismanagement in government is a given.
pzo 2mo ago
Maybe I'm too pessimistic but i doubt how this can work out worldwide. It can work out maybe for some few wealthy countries but in this AI revolutions most likely we will have only 2 winners: USA and China. Smaller EU countries cannot even today introduce a fair revenue tax on big tech so that they pay any tax without being threatened about retaliatory steps by US administration.
- bojan 2mo ago
  Which is why I still think that the only way forward is that the EU becomes a country of its own. I'm aware that's deeply unpopular, partially due to The forrogn influence, but thr alternative is catastrophic - stagnation and letting US, China and Russia dictate our way of life.
  - kilroy123 2mo ago
    I, too, have come to this realization. But boy, oh boy, do Europeans get disgusted by the idea. (My partner is European)
    - jackvalentine 2mo ago
      I’ve never even thought about this - what does the EU get as a country that it can’t get with its current structure?
      - bojan 2mo ago
        That's a very large question. I'll keep the answer as short as I can: * politically, we have a unified economic policy that is working wonders. The Brussels Effect is a thing. But, we don't have a unified foreign and defence policies, which partially made Ukraine War possible, and is making a Russian invasion further in Europe a distinct possibility. * however, economically, the market is not really completely unified yet, especially for digital services, but for many other branches of economy as well. I can drive through 5 countries in a day, and my Netflix and Play Store selection will be different in every one. That doesn't make any sense.
greenchair 2mo ago
maybe because every time UBI is tried it fails?
- messe 2mo ago
  It has never been tried. Remind us what the U stands for?
  - DaSHacka 2mo ago
    Then it will never happen regardless, let alone the fact that any attempts to do as such will collapse before reaching "universal" status
  - TacticalCoder 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - azan_ 2mo ago
      Communist countries are opposite of UBI by design! You are actually expected to work and work hard and freeloaders are punished. Of course work is extremely inefficient in communist systems and this system leads to poverty, but thinking that communist countries have anything to do with UBI is just dumb.
      - cindyllm 2mo ago
        [dead]
- worik 2mo ago
  When? Where?
- com 2mo ago
  Can you provide any links that show that every time it’s tried, it fails? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots Skimming this list, there seems to be one really marked failure, in Finland, but that’s disputed I read also. Can you list more failures?
RivieraKid 2mo ago
> UBI type system in place to pad the fall, people will bounce back and adapt when industries break down If you mean UBI that would allow anyone to stop working and live a modest life, that just doesn't work. UBI is essentially redistribution from those who work to those who don't work. That's not just a "safety net" because you could decide to stop working forever just because it's more comfortable than working. I would possibly exploit such a system. Take 4% from my portfolio + UBI on top. Maybe work 3 days a week if I find a job that I enjoy.
- la64710 2mo ago
  No UBI is taxing the surplus productivity achieved by replacing humans with robots or AI AND redistributing it to all the citizens.
  - RivieraKid 2mo ago
    AI is just a technology, nothing fundamentally different from what has been happening for centuries. Once AI is able to replace all human work, that's a new situation. But this is not happening in the next 20+ years.
- lotsofpulp 2mo ago
  >UBI is essentially redistribution from those who work to those who don't work. That is what earned income tax, payroll taxes, and Medicare and Social Security taxes are.
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    Your list is the "from" part, UBI could be the "to" depending on how people choose to live when they don't need to work.
  - RivieraKid 2mo ago
    Free public services are similar to UBI but have little effect on the incentive to work because they don't provide all of the basic needs.
- 2mo ago
woopah 2mo ago
Definitely agree with this! Given the pace of technological development, we should basically expect entire groups of people to constantly drop out of the competitive labor market. Don't get me wrong, new jobs will be created as well, but it's also very possible many people will also not be able to reskill into those new roles without some sort of structural support. People have faith that technology will create new markets and roles, and while that's historically been true, I think people also tend to forget that this happens in aggregate, and that someone's personal career trajectory can be largely luck dependent. You may happen to find the role of the future or you might get stuck with depreciating skills, hard to say which unless you can predict the future! I think we've largely been able to avoid large scale disruption in society for the past several decades because the groups losing their careers were small enough, but we can see negative effects in things like health data. I think Deaths of Despair by Deaton and Case does a pretty good job at talking about this. However, AI now threatens a much more visible work segment, the upper middle class, so I do agree that now is a very interesting time to see what happens.
- Theodores 2mo ago
  I can remember the Thatcher years when redundancies for hundreds of thousands was routine, with the unemployment figures going stratospheric. The miners, auto-workers, ship workers, BT (phone) workers and other swathes ended up leaving the workplace as a general rule. To massage the figures, the government were able to expand the education sector and take the 'long term sick' off the books. For the education sector there are mature person degrees, however, education mostly takes the young off the books, the people that did apprenticeships. Long term sick can be an easy skive, if you have taken up the bottle, can claim to be depressed and have the doctor in the job centre believe you. The incentive is more money than dole and no need to check in with the job centre on a fortnightly basis. IMHO AI is the fig leaf for what is going on, with further financialisation of Western economies (rent seeking) and absurd energy costs, due to the Anglo-American 'war for oil against humanity', making most Western economies doomed to never be competitive ever again. Soon the only jobs will be 'multi-drop delivery drivers' and 'care workers for seniors'. Immigrants and young people will fill these roles, not whomever is being laid off 'due to AI'.

elmer2 2mo ago

"If there’s a robust public healthcare and UBI type system in place to pad the fall, people will bounce back and adapt when industries break down." This would be great, in theory. The reality is that people would live on it and never work, have kids, and the same thing would happen with a new generation. As it expands, you run out of tax payers and the system collapses. A 'robust' healthcare system that the government runs is a pipe dream. "have nothing to lose and decide to attack the source of their misery. Bread and circuses will only distract so much." "If instead we stick our head in the sand and ignore the human cost so that we can temporarily enjoy maximum technological progress AND maximum wealth accumulation for shareholders, as we have been doing for the better part of a century, things will slowly break down and eventually collapse when the pace of change accelerates to the point that enough people simply can’t keep up, have nothing to lose and decide to attack the source of their misery. Bread and circuses will only distract so much." I suppose the people that are actually working will just need to get more guns.

Xirdus 2mo ago
> A 'robust' healthcare system that the government runs is a pipe dream. That "pipe dream" has already been achieved by most EU countries decades ago. Sure, you might argue it's worse in quality than American healthcare and that wait times are horrible, but I guarantee you most Americans would see it as an improvement over their current situation.
- dwedge 2mo ago
  The American system existing is a travesty both because of the struggles it gives Americans but also because it's used as a comparison to make the European systems look good. The NHS in the UK is an expensive bureaucratic nightmare and doesn't come anywhere near to performing as it should (for instance a recent government boasted cutting the waiting list by a high number, but they accomplished it by removing people that had been waiting for too long). It costs a lot of tax but any criticism of it generally gets met with "would you prefer the US system?" as though it's the only other option. I live in Eastern Europe now where they also have free health care, and it's so bad that almost everyone pays for private medical insurance - essentially we pay twice because the first system is mostly not fit for purpose.
  - ndiddy 2mo ago
    To compare the US and UK: In the US, the life expectancy is 76.5 years for males and 81.4 years for females. Annual healthcare spending is $14,885 per capita. In the UK, the life expectancy is 79.1 years for males and 83.0 years for females. Annual healthcare spending is $6,747 per capita. Even if the UK system is bad, it seems like the US system is much worse if they pay more than twice as much for poorer outcomes.
    - CaptWorld 2mo ago
      I think you have to account for multiple factors like Americans are generally unhealthy people, the people have better access to the top of the line medical technology, people actually spend and consume more compared to the EU. This blog post explains a lot more. https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-on-health-care-is-wrong-a-primer/#rcatoc-diminishing-returns-to-spending-and-worse-lifestyle-factors-explain-americas-mediocre-health-outcomes https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-o...
      - marmarama 2mo ago
        In most countries with universal healthcare, the universal healthcare provider plays a major role in preventive medicine, nudging people towards healthier lifestyles and influencing government policy on a wide variety of topics, such as food standards, consumption taxation, traffic laws, or pollution regulation. Because it's in their interests to do so, because a healthier population saves them money. Is there the same motivation to help people live healthy lifestyles in the American healthcare system? Are there any lobby groups with the kind of influence and reach as a universal healthcare provider?
TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
Tax payers don't fund governments, governments fund tax payers. Taxes are there to encourage certain economic activities and discourage others. Today, many of those activities are either toxic, like fossil fuel subsidies, or useless, like casino stock markets which force everyone to play PR con games that are divorced from bedrock physical fundamentals - like clean water, a safe food supply, and a stable climate. Guns won't help anyone when farming dies. Not for long, anyway.
- pitched 2mo ago
  I think taxes predates that by a lot and probably had more to do with feeding management. Money and trade as we know it today was invented by the Romans because soldiers were raiding their own villages for supplies. Paying soldiers with coins then demanding them back from villagers got them to start trading. That’s where incentives started.
exogenousdata 2mo ago
“This would be great, in theory. The reality is that people would live on it and never work, have kids, and the same thing would happen with a new generation. As it expands, you run out of tax payers and the system collapses.” Are there historical or contemporary examples of this? I googled but couldn’t find any specifics. The reason I ask is that I in the US, employer-provided health insurance is a large expense for businesses. And anecdotally, I’ve never spoken to any US small business owner that feels that choosing employee insurance plans is a real competitive advantage. But perhaps the historical/contemporary alternatives are worse?
- gustavus 2mo ago
  I mean we've got multiple generational families that have been living on council estates all their lives and raising the next generation to do the same at the same time the NHS is collapsing all around, so there's that example.
  - patmorgan23 2mo ago
    Do you have any citations, or just your assertions that this happens?
    - gustavus 2mo ago
      I mean asking ChatGPT got me this answer that around 49% of 30-34 year olds grew up in social housing in the UK. Sources and reasoning included in response. So I'd say that's a pretty strong signal. https://chatgpt.com/share/6a7750bd-1538-83ea-840c-57266e366fb6?ogimg=plain https://chatgpt.com/share/6a7750bd-1538-83ea-840c-57266e366f... If you don't think the NHS has any problems then I don't know what to tell you on that you either don't follow any information about it or don't interact with it.
pixelready 2mo ago
So I’ve gotten this retort (i.e. threat of starvation being the only valid motivator) from a few folks in person as well, and I always feel like it’s them telling on themselves more than the truism it’s presented as. Most of my friends are in some form of tech or creative work, so perhaps that is my bias, but with the threat of destitution removed the vast majority of people I know would turn into maelstroms of creation: art, crafts, coding, building, organizing, civic participation, scientific experimentation, and raising strong families. Instead they are trapped spending the majority of their time navigating corporate politics to deliver a fraction of their value to society. Seems… dangerously inefficient and corrosive to the human spirit, no?
jjav 2mo ago
> A 'robust' healthcare system that the government runs is a pipe dream. Oh yes, the usual argument of how what most industrializes nations (and many poor nations as well) have achieved, is somehow seen as impossible just because the US can't manage to do it (because it doesn't profit the oligarchs).
bothers 2mo ago
>I suppose the people that are actually working will just need to get more guns. If shit gets as bad as people are hoping it will get, workers aren't going to be in the "gets things" class anymore.
deadlast2 2mo ago
There are lots of countries that have a form of this and survive. Almost every country in Europe has a social welfare system and free healthcare for instance. I
preg_match 2mo ago
I just don't see this with our current safety nets, particularly SSI disability. SSI disability will pay you not to work if you have a disability. A lot of people think that surely it's abused. No. Everyone I have seen on SSI disability is doing everything they can to not be on SSI disability. They would MUCH rather work and earn a reasonable wage than be forced to live on SSI disability. Now, not everyone can, because some people are very disabled. But the internet has brought new capabilities, and some disabled people are able to work remotely. And guess what, they do. They willingly give up the "free", say, 900 dollars a month on SSI to work for a salary.
hackable_sand 2mo ago
I think I understand now. You see "work" as a transactional unit.
Permik 2mo ago
I'm probably an outlier, but as someone working a non-physical job, I have been talking about how I personally would still keep working and doing jobs even if all of my basic needs are met. I do work purely because of idealistic reasons. I'm not actually owed anything, I'm working because of us, humanity. Yeah, people are going to slack, and that's just life. It's just statistics, optimize society to such a configuration that people acts have a place and get the support they need. Most of the "slackers" who represent the people just living on the UBI type system you described, probably don't do it as a direct choice. Most likely they feel like they can't contribute to society, but that's something that's solvable. It's a matter of education and culture. About your quote: "have nothing to lose and decide to attack the source of their misery. Bread and circuses will only distract so much." There's a theory directly relating to this that I have about the modern golden age of punk and rock in the nordics. When people had all of their basic needs met, they finally had the time to take a breath, take a look inwards and face their own inner demons. I suggest that this was one of the big things that created the conditions which made the nordics the rock/punk powerhouse that they were. Of course, the good times also had their downsides, lots of complacency in politics and not feeling the need to fight for better, because things were already better than they've ever been!

equality_1138 2mo ago

We never talk about social welfare programs? Odd, I hear chatter all the time. How about we never talk about rewarding management-by-breaking-things?

leptons 2mo ago
> How about we never talk about rewarding management-by-breaking-things? Have you seen who we elect to run our countries?
- equality_1138 2mo ago
  I thought my previous comment made that obvious. And unlike in the private sector, mismanagement in government is a given.

pzo 2mo ago

Maybe I'm too pessimistic but i doubt how this can work out worldwide. It can work out maybe for some few wealthy countries but in this AI revolutions most likely we will have only 2 winners: USA and China. Smaller EU countries cannot even today introduce a fair revenue tax on big tech so that they pay any tax without being threatened about retaliatory steps by US administration.

bojan 2mo ago
Which is why I still think that the only way forward is that the EU becomes a country of its own. I'm aware that's deeply unpopular, partially due to The forrogn influence, but thr alternative is catastrophic - stagnation and letting US, China and Russia dictate our way of life.
- kilroy123 2mo ago
  I, too, have come to this realization. But boy, oh boy, do Europeans get disgusted by the idea. (My partner is European)
  - jackvalentine 2mo ago
    I’ve never even thought about this - what does the EU get as a country that it can’t get with its current structure?
    - bojan 2mo ago
      That's a very large question. I'll keep the answer as short as I can: * politically, we have a unified economic policy that is working wonders. The Brussels Effect is a thing. But, we don't have a unified foreign and defence policies, which partially made Ukraine War possible, and is making a Russian invasion further in Europe a distinct possibility. * however, economically, the market is not really completely unified yet, especially for digital services, but for many other branches of economy as well. I can drive through 5 countries in a day, and my Netflix and Play Store selection will be different in every one. That doesn't make any sense.

greenchair 2mo ago

maybe because every time UBI is tried it fails?

messe 2mo ago
It has never been tried. Remind us what the U stands for?
- DaSHacka 2mo ago
  Then it will never happen regardless, let alone the fact that any attempts to do as such will collapse before reaching "universal" status
- TacticalCoder 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - azan_ 2mo ago
    Communist countries are opposite of UBI by design! You are actually expected to work and work hard and freeloaders are punished. Of course work is extremely inefficient in communist systems and this system leads to poverty, but thinking that communist countries have anything to do with UBI is just dumb.
    - cindyllm 2mo ago
      [dead]
worik 2mo ago
When? Where?
com 2mo ago
Can you provide any links that show that every time it’s tried, it fails? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots Skimming this list, there seems to be one really marked failure, in Finland, but that’s disputed I read also. Can you list more failures?

RivieraKid 2mo ago

> UBI type system in place to pad the fall, people will bounce back and adapt when industries break down If you mean UBI that would allow anyone to stop working and live a modest life, that just doesn't work. UBI is essentially redistribution from those who work to those who don't work. That's not just a "safety net" because you could decide to stop working forever just because it's more comfortable than working. I would possibly exploit such a system. Take 4% from my portfolio + UBI on top. Maybe work 3 days a week if I find a job that I enjoy.

la64710 2mo ago
No UBI is taxing the surplus productivity achieved by replacing humans with robots or AI AND redistributing it to all the citizens.
- RivieraKid 2mo ago
  AI is just a technology, nothing fundamentally different from what has been happening for centuries. Once AI is able to replace all human work, that's a new situation. But this is not happening in the next 20+ years.
lotsofpulp 2mo ago
>UBI is essentially redistribution from those who work to those who don't work. That is what earned income tax, payroll taxes, and Medicare and Social Security taxes are.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  Your list is the "from" part, UBI could be the "to" depending on how people choose to live when they don't need to work.
- RivieraKid 2mo ago
  Free public services are similar to UBI but have little effect on the incentive to work because they don't provide all of the basic needs.
2mo ago

woopah 2mo ago

Definitely agree with this! Given the pace of technological development, we should basically expect entire groups of people to constantly drop out of the competitive labor market. Don't get me wrong, new jobs will be created as well, but it's also very possible many people will also not be able to reskill into those new roles without some sort of structural support. People have faith that technology will create new markets and roles, and while that's historically been true, I think people also tend to forget that this happens in aggregate, and that someone's personal career trajectory can be largely luck dependent. You may happen to find the role of the future or you might get stuck with depreciating skills, hard to say which unless you can predict the future! I think we've largely been able to avoid large scale disruption in society for the past several decades because the groups losing their careers were small enough, but we can see negative effects in things like health data. I think Deaths of Despair by Deaton and Case does a pretty good job at talking about this. However, AI now threatens a much more visible work segment, the upper middle class, so I do agree that now is a very interesting time to see what happens.

Theodores 2mo ago
I can remember the Thatcher years when redundancies for hundreds of thousands was routine, with the unemployment figures going stratospheric. The miners, auto-workers, ship workers, BT (phone) workers and other swathes ended up leaving the workplace as a general rule. To massage the figures, the government were able to expand the education sector and take the 'long term sick' off the books. For the education sector there are mature person degrees, however, education mostly takes the young off the books, the people that did apprenticeships. Long term sick can be an easy skive, if you have taken up the bottle, can claim to be depressed and have the doctor in the job centre believe you. The incentive is more money than dole and no need to check in with the job centre on a fortnightly basis. IMHO AI is the fig leaf for what is going on, with further financialisation of Western economies (rent seeking) and absurd energy costs, due to the Anglo-American 'war for oil against humanity', making most Western economies doomed to never be competitive ever again. Soon the only jobs will be 'multi-drop delivery drivers' and 'care workers for seniors'. Immigrants and young people will fill these roles, not whomever is being laid off 'due to AI'.