• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Give everyone a paycheck?

Paleocon said:
Even if a lot of the current jobs are taken over by machines, that'll just create new tech management jobs. Plus, if it's taken as a given that something must be done, restricting robotic use would be far more prudent then allowing everyone to live off the work of the machines (and their few human managers).
Click to expand...

I have to agree.

Throughout the history of automation, it has taken over the menial jobs and have improved the working lives of many a human. This will only continue, and the jobs that humans are going to be doing will be different, markedly so, some not even conceived yet, so working for a living will continue, but with different work content.

Given this, I see no need for UBI to be implemented. No need to create and / or induce many more people to become dependents / slaves of the state, and no need to extract, by government force, from the earnings of those who are working to pay for it.
 
eohrnberger said:
I have to agree.

Throughout the history of automation, it has taken over the menial jobs and have improved the working lives of many a human. This will only continue, and the jobs that humans are going to be doing will be different, markedly so, some not even conceived yet, so working for a living will continue, but with different work content.

Given this, I see no need for UBI to be implemented. No need to create and / or induce many more people to become dependents / slaves of the state, and no need to extract, by government force, from the earnings of those who are working to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Yep. The content of work has changed over time (and varies between different jobs even in the same society). But the necessity of work has been pretty much constant throughout history.
 
Paleocon said:
Yep. The content of work has changed over time (and varies between different jobs even in the same society). But the necessity of work has been pretty much constant throughout history.
Click to expand...

Further agreement between us.

Work is necessary for people. It gives them purpose, achievement, a context and framework with which to relate to the rest of society, a means to contribute, and lastly, a positive sense of accomplishment at the end of each day. Why go and rob / deprive all those positives from people?
 
eohrnberger said:
Further agreement between us.

Work is necessary for people. It gives them purpose, achievement, a context and framework with which to relate to the rest of society, a means to contribute, and lastly, a positive sense of accomplishment at the end of each day. Why go and rob / deprive all those positives from people?
Click to expand...

Your concern for your fellow humans is commendable.

Ya know...the reason for inventing machines all the way back to the first ones (the wheel and lever)...was to make life easier for humans.

Now we've got the chance to actually make life easier for everyone...and people like you guys come along to protect humans from having it too easy.

Damn.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Your concern for your fellow humans is commendable.

Ya know...the reason for inventing machines all the way back to the first ones (the wheel and lever)...was to make life easier for humans.

Now we've got the chance to actually make life easier for everyone...and people like you guys come along to protect humans from having it too easy.

Damn.
Click to expand...

"make life easier for humans" ?

As if sitting in an air conditioned office typing away on the computer isn't easy enough? (typically the work in an information society). Sure is a bunch easier than farming with horse and ox.
 
eohrnberger said:
"make life easier for humans" ?

As if sitting in an air conditioned office typing away on the computer isn't easy enough? (typically the work in an information society). Sure is a bunch easier than farming with horse and ox.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't we make it as easy as possible...or is there a cut off that you feel is necessary because you think people need to work...and won't unless it is required?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Shouldn't we make it as easy as possible...or is there a cut off that you feel is necessary because you think people need to work...and won't unless it is required?
Click to expand...

It's not that I think people need to work, it's a fact that people who work, who are productive, who contribute to something greater and larger than themselves, are happier. Must have something to do with the psychological make up that's part of every human being.
 
eohrnberger said:
It's not that I think people need to work, it's a fact that people who work, who are productive, who contribute to something greater and larger than themselves, are happier. Must have something to do with the psychological make up that's part of every human being.
Click to expand...

Okay...I get that.

But I know people who could make much greater contributions to society if they were not strapped into a work situation just to get by.

I suggest that most (not all) the people who profit from working and contributing...who derive happiness and fulfillment from work...will work whether the kind of thing being spoken of here comes to fruition or not.

The lazy will continue to be indolent...and will make a greater contribution to the overall good by being kept out of the production effort.

We probably will not agree on this, Eo...but that is what makes a horse race. We'll see how things go. I suspect the move to a guaranteed paycheck is closer than most think.

But as I said...we'll see.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Okay...I get that.

But I know people who could make much greater contributions to society if they were not strapped into a work situation just to get by.
Click to expand...
Maybe some, bell curve distribution and all. So can't exclude this as a possibility.
Frank Apisa said:
I suggest that most (not all) the people who profit from working and contributing...who derive happiness and fulfillment from work...will work whether the kind of thing being spoken of here comes to fruition or not.
Click to expand...
Again. Bell curve distribution, OK.
Frank Apisa said:
The lazy will continue to be indolent...and will make a greater contribution to the overall good by being kept out of the production effort.
Click to expand...
And just give these lazy yet more money? Here's where we diverge. In principal, if someone is unwilling to work, to contribute, then they should get whatever left overs there are after everyone else.
Frank Apisa said:
We probably will not agree on this, Eo...but that is what makes a horse race. We'll see how things go. I suspect the move to a guaranteed paycheck is closer than most think.
Click to expand...
And diverge once again.
Frank Apisa said:
But as I said...we'll see.
Click to expand...

True. We'll see.
 
Ntharotep said:
If the technology becomes cheaper then it may happen faster.
I have seen it in my own workplace. There is a robot that works three machines much faster than individuals can maintain those machines. I have often thought "Why only one?"
Now we are just now to the point of having three...several years later.
From y understanding this comes from up front cost thinking to over time cost thinking. We have budgeted the employees and those salaries are maintained by contracts, budget, etc. An immediate cost for a robot likely costs a few years salary but would be more efficient and cost effective over time.
From my understanding, we do not have a monopoly on not grasping this. Combine this with the taboo of "replacing workers with machines" that still exists today and it slows down this form of progress.

I am less concerned with the end result as the transition. What happens to more and more people as more and more machines are introduced but we have not quite reached the "humans hardly need to work" stage...?
Click to expand...

Those who own the most capital and the means to it are in for a shock and a rude awakening.
The technology is becoming cheaper at an exponential rate right now.
How much did the first DVD player cost. How much do they cost now?
That's five to eight years.
Now factor in Moore's Law, the economies of scale, globalist free markets, trade agreements and corporate greed.
Artificial intelligence and advanced robotics will make half of all human work OBSOLETE on a global scale in the next ten years.
That's right around the corner.
What will today's masters of the universe do when half the global population is broke and unemployed?

This is a slow motion tsunami which will turn conventional notions of capitalism as it exists today, squarely on its ear.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I've advocated variations on this idea over the years, and today I see an article in the New York Times discussing it.

What happens if the technological movement continues to expand to the point where the machines (robots and computers) take over so many of the jobs...humans are essentially put out of work.

Give this article by NYT Tech writer, Farhad Manjoo, a read. Here are a few excerpts to pique your interest.


How will society function after humanity has been made redundant? Technologists and economists have been grappling with this fear for decades, but in the last few years, one idea has gained widespread interest — including from some of the very technologists who are now building the bot-ruled future.

Their plan is known as “universal basic income,” or U.B.I., and it goes like this: As the jobs dry up because of the spread of artificial intelligence, why not just give everyone a paycheck?

Imagine the government sending each adult about $1,000 a month, about enough to cover housing, food, health care and other basic needs for many Americans. U.B.I. would be aimed at easing the dislocation caused by technological progress, but it would also be bigger than that.




http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/technology/plan-to-fight-robot-invasion-at-work-give-everyone-a-paycheck.html?emc=edit_th_20160303&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=35927693&_r=0
Click to expand...

No jobs = no tax revenue from the people. If there are no jobs, where will the gov't. get their revenue to give afford every adult a $1000. monthly check? Tax robot-run companies at 99%? I'm sorry, but your post and that article is pure fantasy.
 
GunFora said:
No jobs = no tax revenue from the people. If there are no jobs, where will the gov't. get their revenue to give afford every adult a $1000. monthly check? Tax robot-run companies at 99%? I'm sorry, but your post and that article is pure fantasy.
Click to expand...

Some states have no income tax and run quite well. Tax revenue need not be Income based. Additionally, that only truly applies to manufacturing and some service jobs. There are still plenty of work out there that cannot be replaced by automation, especially if the product is classified as "hand made". Art and craft type products cannot be as easily automated and even entertainment still requires at least voice actors. How are robots going to replace stage actors?
 
Frank Apisa said:
As the jobs dry up because of the spread of artificial intelligence, why not just give everyone a paycheck?
Click to expand...

This has been a perennial problem for quite some time, and it is not just as regards "artificial intelligence".

Jobs are going away in a specific-set of work-types. Mostly the low-end production of low-tech products/machinery. Yes, artificial intelligence as applied in robotics not only has but can continue to create jobs that might keep some of low-end production inside the US.

But it will not be enough to employ those who do not have the skills/competencies for higher-level jobs. And it is not just the shop-floor jobs that are in danger of leaving our shores. India has taught us how willing American/European IT-companies are to offshore their software development! What does that mean for our kids, if they cannot even compete with the same level of programming qualification in India?

So, I suggest that we reduce to ZERO the major roadblock to postsecondary-education (vocational, 2- or 4-year, or whatever) that allows our youth to attain whatever their "natural level" - which is tuition fees. Meaning we find a way for state-schools to provide the same level of education to obviate the Entry-cost Hurdle that this infographic depicts: OECD - Selected Countries, Tertiary Education Fees. Ask yourself, "Why is the US the most expensive country on earth for obtaining a postsecondary-degree?" And not by just a small amount*!

When the good health of the economy absolutely depends upon our people having the skills/competencies that a postsecondary education provides.

So, now, you tell me ...

*Be sure to understand from the infographic the stark difference between the US and most European Countries where the Tertiary Schooling costs are about a sixth of the United States because they are subsidized by the state. Just like Secondary Schooling is in the US.
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
Some states have no income tax and run quite well. Tax revenue need not be Income based. Additionally, that only truly applies to manufacturing and some service jobs. There are still plenty of work out there that cannot be replaced by automation, especially if the product is classified as "hand made". Art and craft type products cannot be as easily automated and even entertainment still requires at least voice actors. How are robots going to replace stage actors?
Click to expand...

As I said...the OP is pure fantasy.
 
Before robotics are a way of life to the point workers will suffer the population of the world will perhaps be radically reduced for the lack of water to drink and the war to deal with this coming fact.
 
No one blinder...than those who will not see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom