7 ms·
> paid manual labor will be eaten away further by technology As labor continues to be automated, we'll need a minimum income for "unproductive" members of soci
by Udo 12y ago
> paid manual labor will be eaten away further by technology
As labor continues to be automated, we'll need a minimum income for "unproductive" members of society. In reality, they're not really unproductive as long as they can engage in consumer behavior, which is something we absolutely need them to do. We simply can't afford an underclass without access to our new high tech quality of life. So we'll subsidize them.
Of course, this will come with restrictions. To be eligible, you won't be allowed to own your house, a part of that income will most likely be added to your "debt", and you'll have to take part in certain mandatory activities.
But in essence, basic income will have to be introduced.
- digitalengineer 12y agoThey said the same thing about health care.
- gdewilde 12y agono they didn't.
- w0utert 12y agoWhat you are describing is not 'basic income' but 'social security', and many developed countries already have it.
- Udo 12y agoIncluding mine. What I'm describing will of course supersede social security. While it's true that they don't allow you to own anything if you're on long-term social security, it's not really the same. First, at least in my country social security is so vanishingly small, those people can hardly be called consumers anymore. So basic income will have to be a lot higher, over time approaching a normal salary. Second, social security is not added to your debt. That means you can in theory get out of social security and resume a normal job. Basic income, on the other hand, must be added to your debt for a variety of obvious reasons.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- guard-of-terra 12y ago"must be added to your debt for a variety of obvious reasons" The main reason, I fear is that people on SS should stay on SS. You don't need them in the workforce, right? So just slap a huge unrealistic debt on them to make any paid work meaningless. Even better, transfer this debt to kids. That will let you split society into castes real fast: Eloi and Morlocks come to mind.
- Liesmith 12y agoWhy in God's name would you say that there is a case for basic income and tie it to debt slavery? Especially in circumstances where people have no income but the basic income, because allt he work they're qualified to do is done by robots? This is insane. Here we've got all these people that you're basically writing off as worthless, and you're also enslaving them to a debt system that makes it impossible for them to ever earn anything for themselves? Actually no I think you're right, if people like you run the system then this is the best thing we can hope for. I wish all bad social thinkers were as hell bent on creating a massive and violent revolution against themselves as you seem to be.
- waps 12y ago> because allt he work they're qualified to do is done by robots Given what happened in all slave-based societies, and the obvious fact that these robots need general intelligence, why would this end differently than any of the slave-based societies before ? (First slave rules are capable, considerate people who make sure slaves have a reasonable standard of living. Over time, their offsprint grows more and more decadent ("intellectual" is probably the term they would use). After a while, they grow so stupid, then the inept rulers abuse slaves, or force them to work inefficiently, causing disasters, next revolt kills the masters, and generally anyone standing nearby or remotely associated with them, or in neighbouring countries, former slaves self-organise into a new state)
- 12y ago
- jacquesm 12y agoIn the very long run almost all of us will be unproductive. I suspect that in a society like that money will no longer be as important as it is in the current one. Social security as 'basic income' is a staple in many countries right now, and those countries would be far worse off if they didn't have it. Expect to see more countries adopting it and the gap between social security and income for work to slowly decrease over time. It's a matter of votes in the long run (assuming democracy). Aka the libertarian nightmare.
- digitalengineer 12y agoYes, they would be much worse if there wasn't social security. I feel Social Security as it's currently organized makes people feel rather worthless. People do need purpose in life, right? They're to expensive to hire and letting them do volunteer jobs could very well kill low paid jobs... What can be done? Something productive that does not displace real jobs?
- jacquesm 12y agoThis is an extremely hard problem. Being charitable without decreasing the self esteem of the receiver is very difficult, I have no clue how to go about this. People will wise up very quickly to make-pretend-work, are proud and will likely develop all kinds of problems if you force this on them. Personally I'd rather try to live of the land than to accept social security, but on the other hand in winter or if you have a couple of mouths to feed and no job your choices are extremely limited. It's one of the reasons why I'm all for dropping all borders. That would force us to deal with these issues right now, rather than to push them further over the horizon hoping for some miracle. We're setting ourselves up for one of the worst wars the world has ever seen. (The haves vs the have nots).
- rasz_pl 12y agoIt wont have to at all. In the end elites can live in secure castles/gated communities surrounded by hi tech wonders while cattle gets rounded up in ghettos. All you need is soldiers and robo factories.
- Udo 12y agoThat's not a stable solution, that's the premise of a movie.
- jacquesm 12y agoElysium.
- arethuza 12y agoMy reaction to the ending of Elysium was to wonder if that's how The Culture started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture [I know the timelines don't work out!]
- clem 12y agoFor that matter, in The State of the Art a Culture ship actually observes Earth in the 1960's.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoThere's nothing that guarantees we will reach a stable solution. I am afraid that Elysium-like scenario will be the default if things continue as they are going now.
- Liesmith 12y agoActually literally everything in the universe guarantees that we will reach a stable solution. That's how things work. That stable solution may end up killing billions of people but eventually you get a status quo. Systems gravitate towards low energy states. Also an Elysium like scenario? That movie was a joke and made no sense. If you're gonna believe in science fiction as the model for the future at least go for something that isn't terrible.
- jyvbn 12y ago> To be eligible, you won't be allowed to own your house, a part of that income will most likely be added to your "debt", and you'll have to take part in certain mandatory activities. What? That's not basic income.
- thejteam 12y agoAnd that is the problem with discussing basic income. It is a term that is not well defined. It has never really been done anywhere so there is no reference implementation.
- Liesmith 12y agoIt's slavery. Well, indentured servitude, but that's just a slightly technical way to say slavery, like those pedophiles who call themselves ephebophiles like it makes a difference. It's still messed up and vile.
- bsenftner 12y agoSadly, listen to the elite GOP strategists, and they openly talk about financial instruments that are coded phrases meaning exactly indentured slavery. How's about the idea floated recently that students can have a discount on their university in exchange for a life percentage of their income? What happens when their career gets automated or outsourced? That "debt" has got to be repaid, right?
- avz 12y agoI think the role of automation is misunderstood. The issue here is not that human work is becoming less and less necessary. That would be true if automation solved the challenges humans can solve, but the truth is there are a lot of very hard problems which require human attention from cancer to global warming to food supply to improving the odds of survival of humanity by settling other planets. These are difficult problems and not enough human potential is being thrown at them. The real issue is that decades of neglect have led to substantial under investment in human capital and so large number of people are unable to contribute where human attention is most required. This brings about suffering for the people involved and slows progress for everyone else. Charitable payments like basic income or social welfare free up a lot of recipient's time that they'd otherwise need to spend at work. They could use this time to develop useful skills and expertise. How about gating the level of state support on the recipient's commitment to acquire skills and expertise necessary to solve important problems?
- arethuza 12y agoWho defines that the "important problems" are? And what about the people who, even with all the commitment in the world, can't make it to a level where they can contribute to the solution of these "important problems"?
- avz 12y agoPreferably HN, but I'm open to suggestions ;-)
- avz 12y agoA person on benefits could try out different things until they found something that works for them. This would allow them to explore a set of disciplines and problems far larger than what people are able to explore today. If they embrace failure and move on to something that fascinates them next, I think they'd be very likely to eventually succeed. Bottom line is that even if not everyone does, we'll all be a lot better off.
- Liesmith 12y agoThere's no one who can't contribute to important problems. You assume that they are all related to intelligence but you are wrong. Wal-Mart Greeters and nursery caregivers and hospital candystripers are all solving important, impossible to automate problems in our society. All they need is the ability to care about other people and perform fairly simple tasks and provide a warm, human presence when that is called for.
- PythonicAlpha 12y agoThe real "unproductive" people in the world are those, that just "earn" money by interest from the money, they also had not earned themselves.