13 ms·

Basic income as an answer to all out automation

105 points by dietervds 13y ago

netrus 13y ago
Basic Income has been a hot topic in Germany for years, and while it is radical, I still think it's worth a try. It completely shifts the labor market, and has the potential to raise average life quality tremendously.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  It's not a topic in Germany at all. At least not for the majority of citizens and the parties making up at least 90% of parliament seats.
  - netrus 13y ago
    I have not claimed that it is wished for by a majority of the population. It is a serious thought for both the established Die Linke and the (until recently) rising Piratenpartei, and discussed at the main stage of SPD conventions. Not sure about die Grünen, but I can easily see some potential there. The peak of the idea in the public discussion was about 2-3 years ago, but obviously there is no perspective in a conservative-right-liberal coalition. As soon as aggressions between die Linke and SPD fade away, I can easily see this as an realistic way to take.
  - muuh-gnu 13y ago
    It was a widely debated topic inside the Pirate Party during their heyday 1-2 years ago. They declared basic income as one of their core goals, which rendered them unelectable for many people and accelerated their downfall.
    - killerpopiller 13y ago
      You are just assuming that. It certainly is a reason why I might vote for them in the coming election.
      - muuh-gnu 13y ago
        Well, I know a number of economically liberal Pirates and Pirate voters who gave up simply because of the basic income and other leftist policies. While this clearly is just anecdotal, it might explain the bigger pattern why the Party had more success 3 years ago while it was clearly economically liberal, and while it is stagnating today where it is clearly turning more and more to the left. Younger Germans, who initially grew the Pirates, neither wished nor need yet another leftist utopia lying to voters about things they cant finance.
        scotty79 13y ago
        Basic income is leftist? If you have basic income you can do away with most of the wellfare that disincetvises people, with minimum wage that raises labor costs, perhaps even with retirement funds. Employment environment becomes so much clearer and unburdened. I'd argue that basic income is very libertarian as it liberates large amount of people from governemnt interference.
    - nhaehnle 13y ago
      The Pirate Party was largely a media phenomenon. The media has a short attention span. That, and there was a long period where the party leaders were acting in a rather unclever way. (I personally think that people should be allowed to act in that way - but the reality is that it made them very easy targets for journalists who wanted to paint a negative impression of the party.)
  - martin_k 13y ago
    Not true. With the exception of CSU perhaps, every party with a seat in the Bundestag either has internally passed its own concept for a basic income or is discussing the idea: [1] http://www.die-linke-grundeinkommen.de/WordPress/ http://www.die-linke-grundeinkommen.de/WordPress/ [2] http://www.gruene-partei.de/cms/partei/dokbin/207/207470.aufbruch_zu_neuer_gerechtigkeit.pdf http://www.gruene-partei.de/cms/partei/dokbin/207/207470.auf... [3] http://www3.fdp-bundesverband.de/files/363/Abschlb-Buergergeld.pdf http://www3.fdp-bundesverband.de/files/363/Abschlb-Buergerge... [4] http://www.kas.de/wf/de/33.20403/ http://www.kas.de/wf/de/33.20403/ [5] http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/06193.pdf http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/06193.pdf
jerrya 13y ago
Jeremy Rifkin - 1995 - The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminated tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He predicted devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers would reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class would continue to shrink and the workplace become ever more stressful. As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sector—voluntary and community-based service organizations—that would create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocated scaling down the military budget, enacting a value added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers. -------------- Jeremy Rifkin - 2005 http://www.foet.org/press/interviews/Spiegel-%20August%203%202005.pdf http://www.foet.org/press/interviews/Spiegel-%20August%203%2... European politicians often like to blame outsourcing for the disappearance of jobs. But in reality the work isn't going to the Chinese --it's going to the robots.
- kenster07 13y ago
  In the future, even this small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers (to which I belong) may not be needed either, as computers will become self-deterministic. What will be the real long-term solution when the value of a person to society can no longer even be roughly approximated by his income?
  - cclogg 13y ago
    Maybe the future of the planet involves no humans (ie we all die off eventually)... just robots that can create themselves. Or maybe we stay on board, reaching a point where technology lets us live forever, and we just sun-tan all day with robots massaging us.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
genwin 13y ago
Basic income could pay for itself with the things created by people who are doing what they want, as a result of losing their fear of falling below a basic level of living.
- vixen99 13y ago
  Yes, the four million in Britain who have never had a job in their lives are immensely productive and make an outstanding contributon to cultural life. Five million would be even better.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    They never had a job, but, still, they need to make ends meet. They live under the pressure to make some money. Removing that pressure may allow them to find more interesting things to do.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    I am assuming your comment is meant to be sarcastic. Be careful about assigning cause and consequence properly. Mass unemployment is an involuntary, macroeconomic problem. [1] I am not an expert in the British economy, so I don't know whether your numbers make sense. But just taking them at face value, it is quite likely that those millions of people are unproductive precisely because they have never had a job. So it's not their fault. Incidentally, I partly agree with you in that I think that basic income advocates are too starry-eyed about what people would do on basic income. This is part of why I prefer a Job Guarantee, as I have explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931534 [1] http://alittleecon.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/the-parable-of-100-dogs-and-92-bones-why-the-work-programme-cant-work/ http://alittleecon.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/the-parable-of-1...
nhaehnle 13y ago
Basic income is a nice idea, but as long as we cannot automate everything, I do feel that it misses the point somewhat because it doesn't address unemployment. As long as somebody has to work, unemployment is very divisive for society. Those who are employed tend to be valued over those who do not work, even when the unemployment is involuntary (actually, unemployment is usually defined to be involuntary). This can have jarring psychological consequences. It also reduces the overall size of the economy. If somebody wants to work, shouldn't we make it possible for them? Finally, it means that a basic income is always going to be a politically unstable proposition. It will always be easy for those who hate basic income to attack it with "welfare queen" type smears. This attack will likely be even more effective than it is with current welfare programs. This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage. One can still have Basic Income on top of a Job Guarantee, of course. The two proposals aren't mutually exclusive. But I think the Job Guarantee is better at addressing the real issues, at least as long as we cannot automate everything.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction. This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage. But how does it do this? I'm not disputing that it could, I'm just uncertain how you are proposing to implement this. For example, will I have a choice over the sort of work I like to do? What if I feel like changing that? I also a see a bit of a problem when people who are much more competent at some particular task feel unhappy that they are not able to earn more than someone who is unskilled or lazy and does inferior work.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    > I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction. In my language, "employer" is an concatenation of "work" and "give": "workgiver". While "employee" is an concatenation of "work" and "take": "worktaker". :)
Tichy 13y ago
I guess something like that will be inevitable. Unfortunately it will have to be combined with a control of population size or it will be unsustainable.
- 1123581321 13y ago
  Population will continue to stabilize and possibly fall in the developed world and population growth will lessen in the developing world. Also, a life on basic income would probably be similar psychologically to unemployment -- more depression, disease, shorter lifespans, etc. These things contribute to a reduced rate of childbirth.
  - Tichy 13y ago
    Not sure - unemployment would cause a lot more anxiety, I would imagine. Are pensioners especially depressed (if age and diseases are factored out)?
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  I don't see countries with a growing population being able to implement that at all, not because of the rising population, but because they are poor.
- hn1000 13y ago
  It has to be only for adults. Or else people are going to have many children to get more money. And it has to be only for native citizens, to avoid mass immigration.
  - Tichy 13y ago
    It would be difficult to let kids live in squalor, though. Presumably parents would receive at least some extra money, but perhaps it would decline with the number of children.
  - vacri 13y ago
    More people requesting entrance isn't going to magically increase the quotas all developed nations have for residence.
cinquemb 13y ago
I think these things tend to miss that work is not only about providing sustenance for oneself (and family) but also about what people want to do with their lives. Also these things assume the role of some centralized entity in this age when governments have been cutting back massively on things considered to be for the public benefit (because of their own financial short falls eg. Detroit). We seem to be thinking of doing more of the same in this paradigm when its falling apart around us… Who is going melt the PVC to build this pipe dream?
- scarmig 13y ago
  It's unclear what your argument is, here. Are you saying it's financially unsustainable? I agree that that's the big question, but saying "Detroit" isn't an argument. Government expenditures aren't decreasing or being cut back massively: they're consistently rising, year on year. This isn't merely some artefact of Democratic administrations (which are hardly anomalies and can't be ignored anyway), because even the Ryan budget included year on year increases, albeit at a slower rate (that didn't keep pace with medical inflation, for better or for worse). After medical costs, I would argue that people becoming unemployable is the main cause of this increase. That's why we see spiraling post-secondary education expenditures, massive SSDI increases, neverending unemployment benefits. Even SS itself reflects this a bit. If you buy the automation thesis or a variant--the zero marginal productivity worker--this tendency will not only continue but accelerate in the coming years and decades. How do we deal with it? The contours of the issue is that automation simultaneously makes the world richer but also, because of increased skill requirements and increased human and informational capital management costs, makes some people too expensive to hire at any (positive) wage. What do we do with them? Horses we just turned to glue, but thankfully no one is suggesting that. But ignoring them effectively does the same. So the question is how do we most efficiently provide them with the necessities of life? If you buy into mainstream economic theory, cash payments are superior to in-kind ones. And also according to mainstream economic theory, giving benefits that phase out creates sharp disincentive effects to marginal labor, creating a welfare trap. A basic income is the simplest answer to this. People not only have the same incentives to work as they do today, but indeed more if they're poor, as additional labor will not cost them benefits. It also undermines employer monopsony power in the marketplace. Those two things substantially increase the efficiency of the market. That doesn't even touch on the possibility of an "entrepreneurial explosion" that some argue a basic income will allow for, which I'm cautiously optimistic about. So, costs: the question as always. I did a rough calculation awhile back, and if I recall correctly swapping out Medicare, Medicaid, and SS for a basic income gets us to around $6k/adult citizen in the USA. That's more than halfway there. The rest? Well, there's the tricky part: some will come from increased economic efficiency and removing bureaucratic administrative costs from Medicare and Medicaid, but I'd like some other programs to be cut and, yes, taxes to be raised. My preferred version is a flat federal income tax comparable to what the well-off pay as their marginal rate now. We can debate all the particulars, but the inexorable logic of the world's economic development demands we do something. A basic income is, in my view, the something that lets the market do its magic in the most unimpeded and efficient way possible.
RivieraKid 13y ago
Another solution would be to shrink the work week to 4 days.
- antoinevg 13y ago
  This would be my preferred solution as it would provide a clear benefit to both the unemployed and the employed!
  - ronaldx 13y ago
    Doubtful on the latter: most employed people spend more than 80% of their income and most employers would not be willing to increase their rate of pay by 25% (especially now, with salaries increasing below inflation). Although it's often claimed that trade unions were instrumental in reducing the work week to 5 days, I'm curious to know what their stance would be on this now.
    - antoinevg 13y ago
      Weirdly I've ended up spending a lot less money during the times of my life I've been in situations that allowed me to work 3-4 days a week. Partly in that I didn't have to pay other folk to do stuff I'm happy to do myself when I have the time... the other factor is that the absence of free time brings out an annoying tendency in me to try and make up for it by spending money on stuff I really don't need!
yason 13y ago
Progressive taxation that starts from negative tax rate and goes upwards from there as more income is generate by working more is quite reasonable. You always get something but most people want slightly more or much more, so they can choose to work just enough to get what they wanted. The tax rate goes up as the more work you do, so at some point you actually start paying taxes instead of receiving money as negative taxes. In this scheme, if you work more then you always get more money. Currently it doesn't always make sense to go to work because welfare/unemployment subsidies will disappear at some point.
- scarmig 13y ago
  Progressive taxation has always been something of a hack: it's easier to get a greater proportion of someone's money when they're relatively well off than when they can barely pay for food and housing. Perhaps for good reason. But one of the compelling parts of a basic income is that it cuts away the moral argument for progressive taxation: the basic income amount people are provided is enough to pay for the necessities of life, which is what progressive taxation tries to allow for. Replacing the progressive income tax with a basic income funded by a flat tax on all earned income combines the respective moral appeals of progressive and flat taxation while also being more economically efficient.
  - keithnoizu 13y ago
    The premise for the progressive tax is that those that have benefited the most from the infrastructure provided by the government should repay the most. I don't think that tenant disappears the second you include a basic income allotment.
    - scarmig 13y ago
      In my experience, most educated proponents of progressive taxation believe in something like "the marginal utility per dollar for poor people is higher than that of rich people, and the government should attempt to tax toward some concept of equi-utility," though I'm certainly open to hearing that that's not what most believe. In other words, taxing $1 from a poor person takes food out of their mouth while taxing $1 from a rich person delays the purchase of a new yacht by 1 second, so we should take that money from the person who'll lose less utility by its taking. We also don't realistically attempt to tax people according to some abstract conception of who has benefited the most from government infrastructure.
jayfuerstenberg 13y ago
The transition is rough but I would like automation to reach 100% and nobody having any jobs. At that point money is no longer needed, as long as there is an abundance of things (what the 100% automation is all about). People spend their days doing what they like and the robots do the heavy lifting.
- scanr 13y ago
  A couple of questions: It currently appears that further automation concentrates income to a smaller and smaller group of folk, how do you propose we mitigate that? While automation will provide for an abundance of some things, we are running out of other things (oil, rare metals, bluefin tuna). How should scarce resources be allocated?
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    > It currently appears that further automation concentrates income to a smaller and smaller group of folk, how do you propose we mitigate that? You know, every time I read such discussions I think that the communists probably have it right. The answer is to make the means of production (i.e., the robots) owned by the community rather than by individuals. This could even be achieved without changing any laws: http://www.demos.org/blog/how-about-us-sovereign-wealth-fund http://www.demos.org/blog/how-about-us-sovereign-wealth-fund
- ronaldx 13y ago
  Yes, that's what everybody would like, I think. The article rightly points out that (in our present capitalist structure) this type of society exclusively benefits the robot-owners: why should my robot do heavy lifting for you? The economically powerful see the benefit and the economically weak have no access to robots and no escape route from poverty.
  - michas 13y ago
    Question "why should my robot do heavy lifting for you?" is pointless, because it literally costs you nothing to let your robot do the job. The only reason we now have to pay for anything is because there's always someone (human) who spent his time and effort to make it. Once everything is made by robots it can cost nothing
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mcantelon 13y ago
It will be cheaper to engineer a die-off via covert bioweapons and such. From the perspective of the superclass, why give useless eaters money when that money could be invested in the consolidation of power?
- flopunctro 13y ago
  Power over who? If you as an elite kill your subjects, who will provide for your needs? Who will work the fields that provide your food, who will repair your cars and house automations, who will mow your lawn? We're still far from a sustainable fully-automated food cycle. So I believe the superclass don't want their subjects dead; they want them submissive, healthy enough to work without dying, and happy enough to not be motivated to try to change the system. P.S. from a certain POV, money itself is a consolidation of power. The superclass uses money as an enslavement method -- see how most of middle-class are constrained to wage-work for paying back their debts.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  It will be cheaper to engineer a die-off via covert bioweapons and such. That's not easy-- how does one keep that kind of secret while setting it up?-- and the precedent it sets is dangerous. If the non-elite are all killed off, then most of the remaining people (formerly elite) are non-elite and the cycle repeats.
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    >how does one keep that kind of secret while setting it up? The same as with any controversial program. Claim the program is intended for non-domestic purposes, compartmentalize the development into different complimentary components, perform controlled leaks about the development that allow you to frame the public perception of the program (and makes it "old news"), and discredit any public "conspiracy theorists". >If the non-elite are all killed off, then most of the remaining people (formerly elite) are non-elite and the cycle repeats. Enough non-elite should be retained to keep the lights on, provide security, and serve any unforseen purposes in the future.
- pchristensen 13y ago
LatvjuAvs 13y ago
Give man food, give man clothing and warm place to stay, he will star to think.
Fuxy 13y ago
He does have a good point and this is going to happen eventually the question is how it's going to happen. Are the big corporations going to accept this or are the going to lobby their asses off to stop it. If they do and they win then we will most likely have another massacre of the rich and greedy. Seems World War 3 is inevitable if corporations are going to fight this. Hope nobody uses the nukes or we're all screwed.
- chii 13y ago
  The poor do not have the means or capabilities to "fight" a war, because it isn't a war in the traditional sense. Its more like boiling a frog alive - little things slowly happen, and at every step, most people don't think much of the laws being passed. Until one day, they wake up and see that the world they live in no longer gives them the freedom they remembered having, and any efforts to organize change is quickly stamped out by those who rule. Things like information gathering and surveillance is the first step. In the name of fighting "terrorism". I predict in 2100, fighters who revolt against greed/riches of the elite will be called terrorists.
frobozz 13y ago
>and it allows for a recognition of the value of certain types of non-market labour, like caring or raising children. How? It looks like a full-time carer and a full-time layabout would be equally rewarded. That said, I agree with the idea in general, the removal of the claim stigma is pretty important.
- Dewie 13y ago
  > How? It looks like a full-time carer and a full-time layabout would be equally rewarded. I don't think any basic-income scheme has anything to do with paying the people that work and the people that don't work the same. It's just about giving the unemployed a basic income, while those who actually work can have any income that people are willing to pay them (like now).
  - frobozz 13y ago
    I'm not talking about paying everyone the same, I'm talking about the difference between non-market-work and non-work. The article states that Basic Income allows for the recognition of the value of non-market-work. I can't see how. In order to "recognize the value" of non-market-work, such workers must be treated differently to non-workers (unless the value is recognized to be zero). Any difference in the treatment of non-market-workers and non-workers is equally possible without a Basic Income system. If those who do non-market work (e.g caring for their disabled partner) get paid the same as people who do no work at all, then it is valued identically to non-work. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it can hardly be said to be "recognition of the value" of non-market-work. This means that a parent who takes time away from market-work to raise children; a person who provides full-time care for their disabled spouse; and a person who divides their time between playing CoD and watching Jersey Shore; are all paid the same.
Dewie 13y ago
If we envision an eventual time with mostly-automation or full automation, there will be a transitioning period. Say that there are jobs for 50% and the rest have basic income: how will those two classes look? The people that are working will probably want to be compensated fairly well, since they are dedicating their time and sometimes taking on heavy responsibilities (like doctors). But how will the folks on basic income handle this new income-divide? Will they be content with their hobbies, non-profit work etc; or will they be jealous of the people with (I'm guessing) a substantially higher income and all their status symbols and trappings? Will this mean a much, much more competitive labour market, starting from early school and continuing into university and eventually a more demanding wokplace? Will the "jobless" be seen as a new low-class, being looked down on not simply for having low-skill jobs while at the same time working hard, but truly being people with no responsibilities (like I said, non-profit work and such might be a possibility)? In short; will human nature be able to gracefully handle the transitioning period?
- nkoren 13y ago
  There are two answers to this: First of all, the idea of basic income is that it is universal: there won't be a divide between those who have basic income but not work, and those who have work but not basic income. Everybody will have basic income; the divide will merely be between those who have work and those who don't. The solution this divide is to eliminate the minimum wage, which acts as a significant hurdle to creating employment. In a basic-income world, there is no more moral argument for minimum wage to exist, because basic sustenance no longer comes from labour. Everybody will have sufficient food and shelter whether they work or not, so the exploitation of labour is no longer possible, and the safeguard of minimum wage is no longer needed. In a basic income world, labour becomes a privilege for both the employee and the employer. Eliminating minimum wages means that employment can become a much smoother continuum of activities, rather than the sustenance-or-nothing proposition that it is right now. This opens up a vast range of lower-wage job opportunities, which people could purse when they want to, not actually because they need to. Want to earn £2/hr working in a community theatre? No problem. Want to earn £50/week helping to organise a supper club or being an assistant at a hackerspace? Go for it. Under a minimum wage regime, it's not even legal to employ people in this capacity; under a basic income regime, the distinction between "hobby" and "job" will blur into irrelevance. This means that you will be able to create dramatically more work -- and higher-quality work, because it would only be things that people pursue out of choice rather than necessity -- with a basic income than you could ever have without one. EDIT -- As to how to handle the transition period: phase in the Basic Income at the same rate that you phase out Minimum Wage and all other forms of income support. A good Basic Income should be roughly equivalent to a good minimum wage; in most countries this works out to be about 50% of the mean individual income. If the Basic Income payments are phased in at the same rate that the minimum wage and other benefits are phased out, then there will be virtually no "losers". High-earners will get a little bump from the Basic Income; low-earners will see their take-home pay unchanged, but they will be increasingly less reliant on their jobs for it. This will put them in a better bargaining position vis-a-vis undesirable jobs, while new types of low-wage desirable jobs will become possible as the minimum wage is reduced. Do this transition over a course of a decade and it should be relatively smooth.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sz4kerto 13y ago
There is a serious issue with replacing benefits with basic income. It's like saying that there is no need for compulsory (3rd party) insurance for vehicles. Most people can't plan. If there is no health insurance and/or pension, but you give them a small, fixed amount each month, then when they get sick/have an accident/get old, then they'll be in serious trouble.
flyinglizard 13y ago
I see more problems than benefits. 1. Poverty is a relative term. Giving the entire population a basic income would shift everyone up, but ultimately it's a zero sum game. Obviously, the additional income will be marginal for high earners and the income gap will largely remain. 2. Massive distribution of money tends to be inflationary. As purchasing power and demand go up, so does the market pricing. Think of rent prices around poor neighborhoods for example. 3. It will not mitigate the "reverse Darwinism" that occurs across the socioeconomic layers. High earners have neutral or negative population growth, while the poor are procreating at a much higher rate. This phenomena crosses communities, countries and continents. It's the reason some rich European countries have declining indigenous population, with any growth attributed to poor immigrants. 4. It reduces the incentive to adapt to the new employment situation. 5. It does nothing to curb to social unrest that will happen due to income gaps. I don't want to sound like "The Man", but in effect this has the potential to make the income gap much more volatile; a large portion of the population that's idle and feels neglected is a massive unrest waiting for a cause. The talks of automation as if it's the end of the materialistic society - as everything is produced effortlessly and cost effectively - are premature. We'll be there when we ultimately master the matter at a particle level (think of the Culture novels). Society can, and will adapt to the added manufacturing capabilities with strong demand for better products and services. In fact, I think automation will be the saving grace of manufacturing in the first world nations. As controversial as it sounds, I think the solution lies in balancing the growth across the different socioeconomic levels. There should be a policy of encouraging growth across the upper echelons of society, while discouraging the growth among the lower ranks: 1. Immediately, it will reduce poverty levels; 2. It will provide a better opportunity to take care of low income families, including government sponsored education, health and food programs; 3. In the long run, it will be the most effective redistribution tool of wealth. For every kid the Walton family had, each of the others had billions less in inheritance. Accumulation of individual wealth is greatly amplified when successful families make 1 or 2 children. If they have an average of 4 children, the transfer of wealth between and across generations will be more reasonable. The current situation of the financially weakest population multiplying in the quickest rate is bad for everyone (first and foremost to themselves); it is a demographic and economic dead end. No matter how much you try patching it with wealth redistribution, you WILL eventually "run out of other people's money".
Tycho 13y ago
As existing jobs get automated, why would be stop seeing new roles which the automation cannot service?
- chii 13y ago
  The argument is that as more work gets automated, the rate at which new roles get created slowly decreases (indefinitely - as i m sure theres an infinite amount of roles out there). But population increases at a rate faster than new roles come out, and so the logical conclusion would be that there are going to be displaced people that have no roles for them.
  - michas 13y ago
    Also, consider how many people would be incapable of fulfilling such role: if something cannot be done by robot it probably means it requires creativity, intelligence and other assets that are in shortage even in humans.
  - Tycho 13y ago
    But isn't this just rephrasing the question? AFAICS, there is no general trend towards global unemployment, and we've been automating things for a long time already. Why should we now suspect that redundancy will outstrip the volume of new roles?
burgerz 13y ago
>Now, redistribution is already, prima facie, one of the absolute best things a government can do. Simply put, rich people don't need money, and poor people do. All else being equal, taking some money from rich people and giving it to poor people is therefore the absolute best way to improve worldwide welfare we know of. This is the most bullshit paragraph I have read all year.
scotty79 13y ago
I like that they point out that alternative to basic income isn't business as usual but rather all out communist-like revolution like the last time.
decasteve 13y ago
> We are continually being pushed into the territory that distinguishes us from machines: emotion, relationships, synthesis, abstraction, beauty, art, meaning, and more. Our future depends on the humanization work: http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2013/02/our-future-depends-on-the-humanization-of-work.html http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2013/02/our-future... We still have the idea of a discrete education, that once we obtain a skill, we can be employable using that skill. Such specialization is not going to cut it going forward. We have to view learning as a life-long continuous endeavour of an experimentation of ideas. Start by making university free. Pay people to study. Don't let young people go 30K+ in debt just to get a basic education. That load of debt starting out limits possibilities. Mostly limiting the ability to be creative or entrepreneurial but it can also hinder one's ability to be mobile and to travel and acquire new perspectives.
tehwalrus 13y ago
As a Briton, I never thought I'd see a New Statesman link on the Hacker News front page - especially not to see that people are defending it in the comments! (It's the leftest of left wing magazines, save the SWP rags, even a wooly liberal like me finds it a bit much.) There must be fewer Americans on here in the middle of the night or something...
dho 13y ago
In Switzerland there will probably be a voting about introducing a basic income. At least if the initiators manage to get 100'000 signatures for their initiative until October (so far they have about 90'000 valid signatures).
zwieback 13y ago
Basic income is an interesting idea but the argument that automation and robots will replace all our jobs is no more true now than it was when I started my career as an engineer 20 years ago or when the Luddites smashed the power looms. Anybody who has worked in manufacturing knows that introducing robotics is expensive and a lot less flexible than you would hope. I guess it would be a scary prospect for believers of the singularity.
rafski 13y ago
I am not sure whether I find it more disturbing to see that people here think it is in any way fair to pay people for not doing anything, or that they think it is economically possible to take something with a perceived value, exchange it regularly for zero on a mass scale and for this thing to retain its value. Suppose you give a bar of gold to everyone, for nothing, every month. Question: what's gold going to be worth on the market in half a year?

105 points by dietervds 13y ago

Basic Income has been a hot topic in Germany for years, and while it is radical, I still think it's worth a try. It completely shifts the labor market, and has the potential to raise average life quality tremendously.

bayesianhorse 13y ago
It's not a topic in Germany at all. At least not for the majority of citizens and the parties making up at least 90% of parliament seats.
- netrus 13y ago
  I have not claimed that it is wished for by a majority of the population. It is a serious thought for both the established Die Linke and the (until recently) rising Piratenpartei, and discussed at the main stage of SPD conventions. Not sure about die Grünen, but I can easily see some potential there. The peak of the idea in the public discussion was about 2-3 years ago, but obviously there is no perspective in a conservative-right-liberal coalition. As soon as aggressions between die Linke and SPD fade away, I can easily see this as an realistic way to take.
- muuh-gnu 13y ago
  It was a widely debated topic inside the Pirate Party during their heyday 1-2 years ago. They declared basic income as one of their core goals, which rendered them unelectable for many people and accelerated their downfall.
  - killerpopiller 13y ago
    You are just assuming that. It certainly is a reason why I might vote for them in the coming election.
    - muuh-gnu 13y ago
      Well, I know a number of economically liberal Pirates and Pirate voters who gave up simply because of the basic income and other leftist policies. While this clearly is just anecdotal, it might explain the bigger pattern why the Party had more success 3 years ago while it was clearly economically liberal, and while it is stagnating today where it is clearly turning more and more to the left. Younger Germans, who initially grew the Pirates, neither wished nor need yet another leftist utopia lying to voters about things they cant finance.
      - scotty79 13y ago
        Basic income is leftist? If you have basic income you can do away with most of the wellfare that disincetvises people, with minimum wage that raises labor costs, perhaps even with retirement funds. Employment environment becomes so much clearer and unburdened. I'd argue that basic income is very libertarian as it liberates large amount of people from governemnt interference.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    The Pirate Party was largely a media phenomenon. The media has a short attention span. That, and there was a long period where the party leaders were acting in a rather unclever way. (I personally think that people should be allowed to act in that way - but the reality is that it made them very easy targets for journalists who wanted to paint a negative impression of the party.)
- martin_k 13y ago
  Not true. With the exception of CSU perhaps, every party with a seat in the Bundestag either has internally passed its own concept for a basic income or is discussing the idea: [1] http://www.die-linke-grundeinkommen.de/WordPress/ http://www.die-linke-grundeinkommen.de/WordPress/ [2] http://www.gruene-partei.de/cms/partei/dokbin/207/207470.aufbruch_zu_neuer_gerechtigkeit.pdf http://www.gruene-partei.de/cms/partei/dokbin/207/207470.auf... [3] http://www3.fdp-bundesverband.de/files/363/Abschlb-Buergergeld.pdf http://www3.fdp-bundesverband.de/files/363/Abschlb-Buergerge... [4] http://www.kas.de/wf/de/33.20403/ http://www.kas.de/wf/de/33.20403/ [5] http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/06193.pdf http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/06193.pdf

jerrya 13y ago

Jeremy Rifkin - 1995 - The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminated tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He predicted devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers would reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class would continue to shrink and the workplace become ever more stressful. As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sector—voluntary and community-based service organizations—that would create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocated scaling down the military budget, enacting a value added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers. -------------- Jeremy Rifkin - 2005 http://www.foet.org/press/interviews/Spiegel-%20August%203%202005.pdf http://www.foet.org/press/interviews/Spiegel-%20August%203%2... European politicians often like to blame outsourcing for the disappearance of jobs. But in reality the work isn't going to the Chinese --it's going to the robots.

kenster07 13y ago
In the future, even this small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers (to which I belong) may not be needed either, as computers will become self-deterministic. What will be the real long-term solution when the value of a person to society can no longer even be roughly approximated by his income?
- cclogg 13y ago
  Maybe the future of the planet involves no humans (ie we all die off eventually)... just robots that can create themselves. Or maybe we stay on board, reaching a point where technology lets us live forever, and we just sun-tan all day with robots massaging us.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

genwin 13y ago

Basic income could pay for itself with the things created by people who are doing what they want, as a result of losing their fear of falling below a basic level of living.

vixen99 13y ago
Yes, the four million in Britain who have never had a job in their lives are immensely productive and make an outstanding contributon to cultural life. Five million would be even better.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  They never had a job, but, still, they need to make ends meet. They live under the pressure to make some money. Removing that pressure may allow them to find more interesting things to do.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  I am assuming your comment is meant to be sarcastic. Be careful about assigning cause and consequence properly. Mass unemployment is an involuntary, macroeconomic problem. [1] I am not an expert in the British economy, so I don't know whether your numbers make sense. But just taking them at face value, it is quite likely that those millions of people are unproductive precisely because they have never had a job. So it's not their fault. Incidentally, I partly agree with you in that I think that basic income advocates are too starry-eyed about what people would do on basic income. This is part of why I prefer a Job Guarantee, as I have explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5931534 [1] http://alittleecon.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/the-parable-of-100-dogs-and-92-bones-why-the-work-programme-cant-work/ http://alittleecon.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/the-parable-of-1...

nhaehnle 13y ago

Basic income is a nice idea, but as long as we cannot automate everything, I do feel that it misses the point somewhat because it doesn't address unemployment. As long as somebody has to work, unemployment is very divisive for society. Those who are employed tend to be valued over those who do not work, even when the unemployment is involuntary (actually, unemployment is usually defined to be involuntary). This can have jarring psychological consequences. It also reduces the overall size of the economy. If somebody wants to work, shouldn't we make it possible for them? Finally, it means that a basic income is always going to be a politically unstable proposition. It will always be easy for those who hate basic income to attack it with "welfare queen" type smears. This attack will likely be even more effective than it is with current welfare programs. This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage. One can still have Basic Income on top of a Job Guarantee, of course. The two proposals aren't mutually exclusive. But I think the Job Guarantee is better at addressing the real issues, at least as long as we cannot automate everything.

anigbrowl 13y ago
I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction. This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage. But how does it do this? I'm not disputing that it could, I'm just uncertain how you are proposing to implement this. For example, will I have a choice over the sort of work I like to do? What if I feel like changing that? I also a see a bit of a problem when people who are much more competent at some particular task feel unhappy that they are not able to earn more than someone who is unskilled or lazy and does inferior work.
- Dewie 13y ago
  > I have never liked the concept that you 'have a job,' I prefer that you 'sell your labor' and someone else chooses to buy it. The phrase 'having a job' suggests it's some sort of privilege to work for someone else, rather than a simple economic transaction. In my language, "employer" is an concatenation of "work" and "give": "workgiver". While "employee" is an concatenation of "work" and "take": "worktaker". :)

Tichy 13y ago

I guess something like that will be inevitable. Unfortunately it will have to be combined with a control of population size or it will be unsustainable.

1123581321 13y ago
Population will continue to stabilize and possibly fall in the developed world and population growth will lessen in the developing world. Also, a life on basic income would probably be similar psychologically to unemployment -- more depression, disease, shorter lifespans, etc. These things contribute to a reduced rate of childbirth.
- Tichy 13y ago
  Not sure - unemployment would cause a lot more anxiety, I would imagine. Are pensioners especially depressed (if age and diseases are factored out)?
bayesianhorse 13y ago
I don't see countries with a growing population being able to implement that at all, not because of the rising population, but because they are poor.
hn1000 13y ago
It has to be only for adults. Or else people are going to have many children to get more money. And it has to be only for native citizens, to avoid mass immigration.
- Tichy 13y ago
  It would be difficult to let kids live in squalor, though. Presumably parents would receive at least some extra money, but perhaps it would decline with the number of children.
- vacri 13y ago
  More people requesting entrance isn't going to magically increase the quotas all developed nations have for residence.

cinquemb 13y ago

I think these things tend to miss that work is not only about providing sustenance for oneself (and family) but also about what people want to do with their lives. Also these things assume the role of some centralized entity in this age when governments have been cutting back massively on things considered to be for the public benefit (because of their own financial short falls eg. Detroit). We seem to be thinking of doing more of the same in this paradigm when its falling apart around us… Who is going melt the PVC to build this pipe dream?

scarmig 13y ago
It's unclear what your argument is, here. Are you saying it's financially unsustainable? I agree that that's the big question, but saying "Detroit" isn't an argument. Government expenditures aren't decreasing or being cut back massively: they're consistently rising, year on year. This isn't merely some artefact of Democratic administrations (which are hardly anomalies and can't be ignored anyway), because even the Ryan budget included year on year increases, albeit at a slower rate (that didn't keep pace with medical inflation, for better or for worse). After medical costs, I would argue that people becoming unemployable is the main cause of this increase. That's why we see spiraling post-secondary education expenditures, massive SSDI increases, neverending unemployment benefits. Even SS itself reflects this a bit. If you buy the automation thesis or a variant--the zero marginal productivity worker--this tendency will not only continue but accelerate in the coming years and decades. How do we deal with it? The contours of the issue is that automation simultaneously makes the world richer but also, because of increased skill requirements and increased human and informational capital management costs, makes some people too expensive to hire at any (positive) wage. What do we do with them? Horses we just turned to glue, but thankfully no one is suggesting that. But ignoring them effectively does the same. So the question is how do we most efficiently provide them with the necessities of life? If you buy into mainstream economic theory, cash payments are superior to in-kind ones. And also according to mainstream economic theory, giving benefits that phase out creates sharp disincentive effects to marginal labor, creating a welfare trap. A basic income is the simplest answer to this. People not only have the same incentives to work as they do today, but indeed more if they're poor, as additional labor will not cost them benefits. It also undermines employer monopsony power in the marketplace. Those two things substantially increase the efficiency of the market. That doesn't even touch on the possibility of an "entrepreneurial explosion" that some argue a basic income will allow for, which I'm cautiously optimistic about. So, costs: the question as always. I did a rough calculation awhile back, and if I recall correctly swapping out Medicare, Medicaid, and SS for a basic income gets us to around $6k/adult citizen in the USA. That's more than halfway there. The rest? Well, there's the tricky part: some will come from increased economic efficiency and removing bureaucratic administrative costs from Medicare and Medicaid, but I'd like some other programs to be cut and, yes, taxes to be raised. My preferred version is a flat federal income tax comparable to what the well-off pay as their marginal rate now. We can debate all the particulars, but the inexorable logic of the world's economic development demands we do something. A basic income is, in my view, the something that lets the market do its magic in the most unimpeded and efficient way possible.

RivieraKid 13y ago

Another solution would be to shrink the work week to 4 days.

antoinevg 13y ago
This would be my preferred solution as it would provide a clear benefit to both the unemployed and the employed!
- ronaldx 13y ago
  Doubtful on the latter: most employed people spend more than 80% of their income and most employers would not be willing to increase their rate of pay by 25% (especially now, with salaries increasing below inflation). Although it's often claimed that trade unions were instrumental in reducing the work week to 5 days, I'm curious to know what their stance would be on this now.
  - antoinevg 13y ago
    Weirdly I've ended up spending a lot less money during the times of my life I've been in situations that allowed me to work 3-4 days a week. Partly in that I didn't have to pay other folk to do stuff I'm happy to do myself when I have the time... the other factor is that the absence of free time brings out an annoying tendency in me to try and make up for it by spending money on stuff I really don't need!

yason 13y ago

Progressive taxation that starts from negative tax rate and goes upwards from there as more income is generate by working more is quite reasonable. You always get something but most people want slightly more or much more, so they can choose to work just enough to get what they wanted. The tax rate goes up as the more work you do, so at some point you actually start paying taxes instead of receiving money as negative taxes. In this scheme, if you work more then you always get more money. Currently it doesn't always make sense to go to work because welfare/unemployment subsidies will disappear at some point.

scarmig 13y ago
Progressive taxation has always been something of a hack: it's easier to get a greater proportion of someone's money when they're relatively well off than when they can barely pay for food and housing. Perhaps for good reason. But one of the compelling parts of a basic income is that it cuts away the moral argument for progressive taxation: the basic income amount people are provided is enough to pay for the necessities of life, which is what progressive taxation tries to allow for. Replacing the progressive income tax with a basic income funded by a flat tax on all earned income combines the respective moral appeals of progressive and flat taxation while also being more economically efficient.
- keithnoizu 13y ago
  The premise for the progressive tax is that those that have benefited the most from the infrastructure provided by the government should repay the most. I don't think that tenant disappears the second you include a basic income allotment.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    In my experience, most educated proponents of progressive taxation believe in something like "the marginal utility per dollar for poor people is higher than that of rich people, and the government should attempt to tax toward some concept of equi-utility," though I'm certainly open to hearing that that's not what most believe. In other words, taxing $1 from a poor person takes food out of their mouth while taxing $1 from a rich person delays the purchase of a new yacht by 1 second, so we should take that money from the person who'll lose less utility by its taking. We also don't realistically attempt to tax people according to some abstract conception of who has benefited the most from government infrastructure.

jayfuerstenberg 13y ago

The transition is rough but I would like automation to reach 100% and nobody having any jobs. At that point money is no longer needed, as long as there is an abundance of things (what the 100% automation is all about). People spend their days doing what they like and the robots do the heavy lifting.

scanr 13y ago
A couple of questions: It currently appears that further automation concentrates income to a smaller and smaller group of folk, how do you propose we mitigate that? While automation will provide for an abundance of some things, we are running out of other things (oil, rare metals, bluefin tuna). How should scarce resources be allocated?
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  > It currently appears that further automation concentrates income to a smaller and smaller group of folk, how do you propose we mitigate that? You know, every time I read such discussions I think that the communists probably have it right. The answer is to make the means of production (i.e., the robots) owned by the community rather than by individuals. This could even be achieved without changing any laws: http://www.demos.org/blog/how-about-us-sovereign-wealth-fund http://www.demos.org/blog/how-about-us-sovereign-wealth-fund
ronaldx 13y ago
Yes, that's what everybody would like, I think. The article rightly points out that (in our present capitalist structure) this type of society exclusively benefits the robot-owners: why should my robot do heavy lifting for you? The economically powerful see the benefit and the economically weak have no access to robots and no escape route from poverty.
- michas 13y ago
  Question "why should my robot do heavy lifting for you?" is pointless, because it literally costs you nothing to let your robot do the job. The only reason we now have to pay for anything is because there's always someone (human) who spent his time and effort to make it. Once everything is made by robots it can cost nothing

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mcantelon 13y ago

It will be cheaper to engineer a die-off via covert bioweapons and such. From the perspective of the superclass, why give useless eaters money when that money could be invested in the consolidation of power?

flopunctro 13y ago
Power over who? If you as an elite kill your subjects, who will provide for your needs? Who will work the fields that provide your food, who will repair your cars and house automations, who will mow your lawn? We're still far from a sustainable fully-automated food cycle. So I believe the superclass don't want their subjects dead; they want them submissive, healthy enough to work without dying, and happy enough to not be motivated to try to change the system. P.S. from a certain POV, money itself is a consolidation of power. The superclass uses money as an enslavement method -- see how most of middle-class are constrained to wage-work for paying back their debts.
michaelochurch 13y ago
It will be cheaper to engineer a die-off via covert bioweapons and such. That's not easy-- how does one keep that kind of secret while setting it up?-- and the precedent it sets is dangerous. If the non-elite are all killed off, then most of the remaining people (formerly elite) are non-elite and the cycle repeats.
- mcantelon 13y ago
  >how does one keep that kind of secret while setting it up? The same as with any controversial program. Claim the program is intended for non-domestic purposes, compartmentalize the development into different complimentary components, perform controlled leaks about the development that allow you to frame the public perception of the program (and makes it "old news"), and discredit any public "conspiracy theorists". >If the non-elite are all killed off, then most of the remaining people (formerly elite) are non-elite and the cycle repeats. Enough non-elite should be retained to keep the lights on, provide security, and serve any unforseen purposes in the future.
pchristensen 13y ago

LatvjuAvs 13y ago

Give man food, give man clothing and warm place to stay, he will star to think.

Fuxy 13y ago

He does have a good point and this is going to happen eventually the question is how it's going to happen. Are the big corporations going to accept this or are the going to lobby their asses off to stop it. If they do and they win then we will most likely have another massacre of the rich and greedy. Seems World War 3 is inevitable if corporations are going to fight this. Hope nobody uses the nukes or we're all screwed.

chii 13y ago
The poor do not have the means or capabilities to "fight" a war, because it isn't a war in the traditional sense. Its more like boiling a frog alive - little things slowly happen, and at every step, most people don't think much of the laws being passed. Until one day, they wake up and see that the world they live in no longer gives them the freedom they remembered having, and any efforts to organize change is quickly stamped out by those who rule. Things like information gathering and surveillance is the first step. In the name of fighting "terrorism". I predict in 2100, fighters who revolt against greed/riches of the elite will be called terrorists.

frobozz 13y ago

>and it allows for a recognition of the value of certain types of non-market labour, like caring or raising children. How? It looks like a full-time carer and a full-time layabout would be equally rewarded. That said, I agree with the idea in general, the removal of the claim stigma is pretty important.

Dewie 13y ago
> How? It looks like a full-time carer and a full-time layabout would be equally rewarded. I don't think any basic-income scheme has anything to do with paying the people that work and the people that don't work the same. It's just about giving the unemployed a basic income, while those who actually work can have any income that people are willing to pay them (like now).
- frobozz 13y ago
  I'm not talking about paying everyone the same, I'm talking about the difference between non-market-work and non-work. The article states that Basic Income allows for the recognition of the value of non-market-work. I can't see how. In order to "recognize the value" of non-market-work, such workers must be treated differently to non-workers (unless the value is recognized to be zero). Any difference in the treatment of non-market-workers and non-workers is equally possible without a Basic Income system. If those who do non-market work (e.g caring for their disabled partner) get paid the same as people who do no work at all, then it is valued identically to non-work. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it can hardly be said to be "recognition of the value" of non-market-work. This means that a parent who takes time away from market-work to raise children; a person who provides full-time care for their disabled spouse; and a person who divides their time between playing CoD and watching Jersey Shore; are all paid the same.

Dewie 13y ago

If we envision an eventual time with mostly-automation or full automation, there will be a transitioning period. Say that there are jobs for 50% and the rest have basic income: how will those two classes look? The people that are working will probably want to be compensated fairly well, since they are dedicating their time and sometimes taking on heavy responsibilities (like doctors). But how will the folks on basic income handle this new income-divide? Will they be content with their hobbies, non-profit work etc; or will they be jealous of the people with (I'm guessing) a substantially higher income and all their status symbols and trappings? Will this mean a much, much more competitive labour market, starting from early school and continuing into university and eventually a more demanding wokplace? Will the "jobless" be seen as a new low-class, being looked down on not simply for having low-skill jobs while at the same time working hard, but truly being people with no responsibilities (like I said, non-profit work and such might be a possibility)? In short; will human nature be able to gracefully handle the transitioning period?

nkoren 13y ago
There are two answers to this: First of all, the idea of basic income is that it is universal: there won't be a divide between those who have basic income but not work, and those who have work but not basic income. Everybody will have basic income; the divide will merely be between those who have work and those who don't. The solution this divide is to eliminate the minimum wage, which acts as a significant hurdle to creating employment. In a basic-income world, there is no more moral argument for minimum wage to exist, because basic sustenance no longer comes from labour. Everybody will have sufficient food and shelter whether they work or not, so the exploitation of labour is no longer possible, and the safeguard of minimum wage is no longer needed. In a basic income world, labour becomes a privilege for both the employee and the employer. Eliminating minimum wages means that employment can become a much smoother continuum of activities, rather than the sustenance-or-nothing proposition that it is right now. This opens up a vast range of lower-wage job opportunities, which people could purse when they want to, not actually because they need to. Want to earn £2/hr working in a community theatre? No problem. Want to earn £50/week helping to organise a supper club or being an assistant at a hackerspace? Go for it. Under a minimum wage regime, it's not even legal to employ people in this capacity; under a basic income regime, the distinction between "hobby" and "job" will blur into irrelevance. This means that you will be able to create dramatically more work -- and higher-quality work, because it would only be things that people pursue out of choice rather than necessity -- with a basic income than you could ever have without one. EDIT -- As to how to handle the transition period: phase in the Basic Income at the same rate that you phase out Minimum Wage and all other forms of income support. A good Basic Income should be roughly equivalent to a good minimum wage; in most countries this works out to be about 50% of the mean individual income. If the Basic Income payments are phased in at the same rate that the minimum wage and other benefits are phased out, then there will be virtually no "losers". High-earners will get a little bump from the Basic Income; low-earners will see their take-home pay unchanged, but they will be increasingly less reliant on their jobs for it. This will put them in a better bargaining position vis-a-vis undesirable jobs, while new types of low-wage desirable jobs will become possible as the minimum wage is reduced. Do this transition over a course of a decade and it should be relatively smooth.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

sz4kerto 13y ago

There is a serious issue with replacing benefits with basic income. It's like saying that there is no need for compulsory (3rd party) insurance for vehicles. Most people can't plan. If there is no health insurance and/or pension, but you give them a small, fixed amount each month, then when they get sick/have an accident/get old, then they'll be in serious trouble.

flyinglizard 13y ago

I see more problems than benefits. 1. Poverty is a relative term. Giving the entire population a basic income would shift everyone up, but ultimately it's a zero sum game. Obviously, the additional income will be marginal for high earners and the income gap will largely remain. 2. Massive distribution of money tends to be inflationary. As purchasing power and demand go up, so does the market pricing. Think of rent prices around poor neighborhoods for example. 3. It will not mitigate the "reverse Darwinism" that occurs across the socioeconomic layers. High earners have neutral or negative population growth, while the poor are procreating at a much higher rate. This phenomena crosses communities, countries and continents. It's the reason some rich European countries have declining indigenous population, with any growth attributed to poor immigrants. 4. It reduces the incentive to adapt to the new employment situation. 5. It does nothing to curb to social unrest that will happen due to income gaps. I don't want to sound like "The Man", but in effect this has the potential to make the income gap much more volatile; a large portion of the population that's idle and feels neglected is a massive unrest waiting for a cause. The talks of automation as if it's the end of the materialistic society - as everything is produced effortlessly and cost effectively - are premature. We'll be there when we ultimately master the matter at a particle level (think of the Culture novels). Society can, and will adapt to the added manufacturing capabilities with strong demand for better products and services. In fact, I think automation will be the saving grace of manufacturing in the first world nations. As controversial as it sounds, I think the solution lies in balancing the growth across the different socioeconomic levels. There should be a policy of encouraging growth across the upper echelons of society, while discouraging the growth among the lower ranks: 1. Immediately, it will reduce poverty levels; 2. It will provide a better opportunity to take care of low income families, including government sponsored education, health and food programs; 3. In the long run, it will be the most effective redistribution tool of wealth. For every kid the Walton family had, each of the others had billions less in inheritance. Accumulation of individual wealth is greatly amplified when successful families make 1 or 2 children. If they have an average of 4 children, the transfer of wealth between and across generations will be more reasonable. The current situation of the financially weakest population multiplying in the quickest rate is bad for everyone (first and foremost to themselves); it is a demographic and economic dead end. No matter how much you try patching it with wealth redistribution, you WILL eventually "run out of other people's money".

Tycho 13y ago

As existing jobs get automated, why would be stop seeing new roles which the automation cannot service?

chii 13y ago
The argument is that as more work gets automated, the rate at which new roles get created slowly decreases (indefinitely - as i m sure theres an infinite amount of roles out there). But population increases at a rate faster than new roles come out, and so the logical conclusion would be that there are going to be displaced people that have no roles for them.
- michas 13y ago
  Also, consider how many people would be incapable of fulfilling such role: if something cannot be done by robot it probably means it requires creativity, intelligence and other assets that are in shortage even in humans.
- Tycho 13y ago
  But isn't this just rephrasing the question? AFAICS, there is no general trend towards global unemployment, and we've been automating things for a long time already. Why should we now suspect that redundancy will outstrip the volume of new roles?

burgerz 13y ago

>Now, redistribution is already, prima facie, one of the absolute best things a government can do. Simply put, rich people don't need money, and poor people do. All else being equal, taking some money from rich people and giving it to poor people is therefore the absolute best way to improve worldwide welfare we know of. This is the most bullshit paragraph I have read all year.

scotty79 13y ago

I like that they point out that alternative to basic income isn't business as usual but rather all out communist-like revolution like the last time.

decasteve 13y ago

> We are continually being pushed into the territory that distinguishes us from machines: emotion, relationships, synthesis, abstraction, beauty, art, meaning, and more. Our future depends on the humanization work: http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2013/02/our-future-depends-on-the-humanization-of-work.html http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2013/02/our-future... We still have the idea of a discrete education, that once we obtain a skill, we can be employable using that skill. Such specialization is not going to cut it going forward. We have to view learning as a life-long continuous endeavour of an experimentation of ideas. Start by making university free. Pay people to study. Don't let young people go 30K+ in debt just to get a basic education. That load of debt starting out limits possibilities. Mostly limiting the ability to be creative or entrepreneurial but it can also hinder one's ability to be mobile and to travel and acquire new perspectives.

tehwalrus 13y ago

As a Briton, I never thought I'd see a New Statesman link on the Hacker News front page - especially not to see that people are defending it in the comments! (It's the leftest of left wing magazines, save the SWP rags, even a wooly liberal like me finds it a bit much.) There must be fewer Americans on here in the middle of the night or something...

dho 13y ago

In Switzerland there will probably be a voting about introducing a basic income. At least if the initiators manage to get 100'000 signatures for their initiative until October (so far they have about 90'000 valid signatures).

zwieback 13y ago

Basic income is an interesting idea but the argument that automation and robots will replace all our jobs is no more true now than it was when I started my career as an engineer 20 years ago or when the Luddites smashed the power looms. Anybody who has worked in manufacturing knows that introducing robotics is expensive and a lot less flexible than you would hope. I guess it would be a scary prospect for believers of the singularity.

rafski 13y ago

I am not sure whether I find it more disturbing to see that people here think it is in any way fair to pay people for not doing anything, or that they think it is economically possible to take something with a perceived value, exchange it regularly for zero on a mass scale and for this thing to retain its value. Suppose you give a bar of gold to everyone, for nothing, every month. Question: what's gold going to be worth on the market in half a year?