Give everyone a paycheck?

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

Just remembered there is a thread on this topic...although not on the NYT article.

Here is a link to that thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/247710-citizens-wage-abolish-welfare.html

If there is a moderator here...and if it makes sense to eliminate this thread, that is fine with me. I have posted a link to the Times article in that thread.

“People have been predicting that jobs would go away for a long time, and usually what happens is they just change,” Mr. Altman said. But even so, “during those periods of change, things can be quite disruptive,” and at the very least, U.B.I. may be able to smooth out the transition period.

Click to expand...

Yep, back in the 60's or so there were many articles and studies saying that by the 21th century robots would be doing most of our work for us. And because of that that Americans would have much more free time, we wouldn't need to work, and if we did it would be maybe 20 hrs a week or so. We'd have plenty of free time, and more vacation time. It would be paradise.

Well here we are 50+ years later and we work harder than ever, with less free time. Yes, robots do many more jobs now than in the 60's. But there's also more jobs robots can't do, and probably never will. As the article said, some jobs were eliminated, but others changed. Lots more service jobs now, many I doubt robots will ever be able to do.

My point is I don't see robots taking over any time soon, not even for the sake of argument in 2-3 decades. But it is an interesting issue. I don't like the idea of 'living to work'. Your whole life being your job. The workaholic type people always confused me.

But never working your whole life? Just collecting a check? I can see a whole bunch of problems with that too.

Hmm.. Living on $1,000/month sounds very incompatable with those that are now proposng increasing (more than doubling?) the federal MW (based on 40 hours per week) from $1,300/month ($7.25/hour) to $2,700/month ($15/hour). Step one of any UBI system must be to establish an honest figure that a single adult (or family of 4?) can comfortably live on - that ever elusive "living wage".

Would the UBI apply to each person (including children) or only those adults that "elect" not to work?

These UBI (or BIG) schemes normally include all sorts of other changes to the tax code, adding more "free" services (like UHC) and eliminating all other social spending (like SS, Medicare and Medicaid) which, conveniently, are simply assumed. The bottom line is that to make UBI "affordable" then we must first make (many?) other changes that are not ususally included in the UBI cost estimates.

Not my area, but last year I read Heinlein's last book "For Us the Living"
written in 1939
He had some economic theory, that I did not try to unwrap, that was like this.
Economist At Large: Heinlein Ahead of His Times

longview said:

Not my area, but last year I read Heinlein's last book "For Us the Living"
written in 1939
He had some economic theory, that I did not try to unwrap, that was like this.
Economist At Large: Heinlein Ahead of His Times

Click to expand...

Now just to be clear, yer advocating for a Keynesian economic view, basic income in a depression, yet in the other thread, yer complaining about SNAP for children, that parents make bad choices on food spending in a recession, ergo it is a waste of money.

Weird.

Gimmesometruth said:

Now just to be clear, yer advocating for a Keynesian economic view, basic income in a depression, yet in the other thread, yer complaining about SNAP for children, that parents make bad choices on food spending in a recession, ergo it is a waste of money.

Weird.

Click to expand...

No relation, I was just commenting that Heinlein had spelled out a theory where everyone got a check,
and only those who wanted to worked.

longview said:

No relation

Click to expand...

BS, supplementing food purchase for low income households is directly related to a min income, the only difference is the scope.

I was just commenting that Heinlein had spelled out a theory where everyone got a check, and only those who wanted to worked.

Click to expand...

Again, why would you bring it up when you are against the idea when it done on a smaller scale?

Gimmesometruth said:

BS, supplementing food purchase for low income households is directly related to a min income, the only difference is the scope.Again, why would you bring it up when you are against the idea when it done on a smaller scale?

Click to expand...

Literacy is an important thing,
Here is my comment from post #5,

Not my area, but last year I read Heinlein's last book "For Us the Living"
written in 1939
He had some economic theory, that I did not try to unwrap, that was like this.

Click to expand...

I also included a link where someone was discussing Heinlein's theory.
Economist At Large: Heinlein Ahead of His Times
So back to the Literacy thing,
Where in my comment, did I advocate for Heinlein's theory?

ttwtt78640 said:

Hmm.. Living on $1,000/month sounds very incompatable with those that are now proposng increasing (more than doubling?) the federal MW (based on 40 hours per week) from $1,300/month ($7.25/hour) to $2,700/month ($15/hour). Step one of any UBI system must be to establish an honest figure that a single adult (or family of 4?) can comfortably live on - that ever elusive "living wage".

Would the UBI apply to each person (including children) or only those adults that "elect" not to work?

These UBI (or BIG) schemes normally include all sorts of other changes to the tax code, adding more "free" services (like UHC) and eliminating all other social spending (like SS, Medicare and Medicaid) which, conveniently, are simply assumed. The bottom line is that to make UBI "affordable" then we must first make (many?) other changes that are not ususally included in the UBI cost estimates.

Click to expand...

My personal view is that we give out a UBI and then reform a lot of other assistance to either eliminate it or severely reduce it (many calculations I have seen show a minimum income to be either cost neutral or cost positive on the basis of removing things like food stamps and other social support). Along with that, we give out some expectations such as children being fed properly and other expectations mostly centered around basic parenting skills (this is a general idea and one I admittedly don't have fleshed out with specifics, but children's suffering due to parental incompetence should be absolutely minimized, even though that turns out to be quite messy in practice and is hardly a cut and dry sort of thing). In terms of adults taking care of themselves, the expectation should be that they take care of themselves with this income.

Also I do not believe the income should be enough to live on comfortably (if the robots do take our jobs, this idea can be revisited, but right now I don't think it is necessary), but a person should be able to eat, acquire basic shelter, have a few minimal possession, such as clothing, and a little bit of extra money that can be used to improve one's situation if one chooses to do so (many will waste it on entertainment, so be it). For rural locations, that is probably about $1,200/mo/person. For urban situations, it may be double that.

People have to at some point be expected to act like adults or fail under their own power, but that failure should never be truly catastrophic or life threatening and a person should always have the chance to try again. I think a basic income would help guarantee that. Once we have those basic guarantees, I think we could take many of the reigns off of capitalism and let it be more brutal and see if it can truly grow quickly under its own power, which means the reduction of regulations in terms of how employees are treated (so long as they are not put into dangerous situations or that is at least minimized (a line man from the electric company will be in a dangerous situation no matter what for example, but that person can still be provided with cotton clothing and other safety measures)) and other HR policies such as the need to carry medical insurance (which would gut the ACA, but I support the move to either a purely market based health care system or a single payer one, hybrid systems do not seem to work well) or other protections as the danger of catastrophically failing has been removed. This, I believe, will also have the social effect of hardening people up emotionally which is needed in our society (we have way too many people who whine and are offended by the most insignificant of things)

Lastly I would support a measure that this basic income is lawsuit and IRS proof, that this income persists no matter what financial situation a person finds themselves in, in terms of bankruptcy or moneys owed to other parties. Again, that person always needs another chance to pull themselves up by their boot straps.

In terms of the minimum wage, if we have a basic income, I would support removing the minimum wage altogether as the employee will gain an equivalent level of negotiating power because he does not have to fear not eating and can hold out for good opportunities.

First off we know it is a very long way off if ever possible.

Menial labor (sweat shops or slave labor) still employs billions across the world. Just because minimum wage here in the US has caused them to move elsewhere does not mean they have been eliminated by any means. Why do you think we have 10 million+ illegal aliens in this country right now. Slave labor plain and simple. This is on top of the 10's of millions of people being forced to work for poverty wages because of fear of losing their job to these illegal workers. Raising minimum wage will only send more labor intense jobs to other countries where slave labor is welcome. The American dream is being undermined by 5 billion people who will work for slave wages in order not to starve to death. Unless we can bring those 5 billion people up to our new minimum wage we have no chance of achieving our dream.

longview said:

Literacy is an important thing,
Here is my comment from post #5,

I also included a link where someone was discussing Heinlein's theory.
Economist At Large: Heinlein Ahead of His Times
So back to the Literacy thing,
Where in my comment, did I advocate for Heinlein's theory?

Click to expand...

OKay, I remember past interaction with you, your style is to gloss over a response, repeat repeat repeat the same thing, not understanding that a counter argument was made and that repeating the same is not a counter to the counter.

Tell me, when you posted this, were you linking to it to say it was something you disagreed with?

Gimmesometruth said:

OKay, I remember past interaction with you, your style is to gloss over a response, repeat repeat repeat the same thing, not understanding that a counter argument was made and that repeating the same is not a counter to the counter.

Tell me, when you posted this, were you linking to it to say it was something you disagreed with?

Click to expand...

Not at all, the original poster had postulated about an economy where everyone gets some base level of pay.
I had seen a similar concept in a book recently, that is it, not good, bad, or indifferent.

First you cannot pay people who do not work. We are currently living in that era and watching first hand as it spirals out of control. We already have 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients. How will you force the people to work or participate? Let them starve to death? How will you take the money from the millions of Americans who are working 2 or more jobs or 60 to 80 hours a week and give it to those who refuse to work. These people will stop working those hours and fall into poverty leaving you no money to take from them. I would not have worked 60+ hours a week most of my life if you were to take my extra earnings and give it to someone who refuses to work. The truly rich would simply move elsewhere unless you could do this on a global scale. Even if you took their wealth most would simply make it back somewhere else. That has already been proven. If you go global there are not enough rich people to bring everyone out of poverty and the wealthy would not put fourth the effort to become wealthy if you continue to take their wealth. A great idea that cannot happen.

THANK YOU EVERYONE WHO HAS COMMENTED THUS FAR.

I get it. Not an easy adjustment to thinking to make. Maybe something that will never be accepted by enough people to have it be popular.

MY GUESS: We are heading in that direction; it is the only direction that will work in the world I see upon us; it will happen no matter what.

My guess is that it will happen...and it will work out just fine.

We'll see.

I'm almost 80...I probably will not see it. But there are people alive right now who will.

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...?

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...

Excellent observation, N. That time...that interregnum...may tear the country apart in ways that could make the Russian and French revolutions seem tame.

Gimmesometruth said:

OKay, I remember past interaction with you, your style is to gloss over a response, repeat repeat repeat the same thing, not understanding that a counter argument was made and that repeating the same is not a counter to the counter.

Tell me, when you posted this, were you linking to it to say it was something you disagreed with?

Click to expand...

Dude you have to chill. At no point did Longview say he agreed or disagreed with the OP premise. He simply stated "Oh hey, here is something related to your topic" without a judgement on the subject. He even noted that he didn't bother to work out what RAH wrote about, basically noting he had nothing to really form an opinion upon.

longview said:

Not my area, but last year I read Heinlein's last book "For Us the Living"
written in 1939
He had some economic theory, that I did not try to unwrap, that was like this.
Economist At Large: Heinlein Ahead of His Times

Click to expand...

Slightly related to this, and tying in with the OP, I remember a story back in either junior high or senior high, where automation had gotten so productive that it was overloading the world, and the concepts of poor and rich got inverted. Basically, the poor had to try and use up all the stuff. The better you did, the less you had to. You had a quota of use, and only by meeting those quotas could you earn lesser ones. I'd like to find it again, because in trying to remember it there seems to be an awful lot of plot holes. Maybe it was even earlier I read it, and it was written for a younger audience that didn't need such good premise foundations.

maquiscat said:

Slightly related to this, and tying in with the OP, I remember a story back in either junior high or senior high, where automation had gotten so productive that it was overloading the world, and the concepts of poor and rich got inverted. Basically, the poor had to try and use up all the stuff. The better you did, the less you had to. You had a quota of use, and only by meeting those quotas could you earn lesser ones. I'd like to find it again, because in trying to remember it there seems to be an awful lot of plot holes. Maybe it was even earlier I read it, and it was written for a younger audience that didn't need such good premise foundations.

Click to expand...

Automation provides as much grist for the sci fi literary mill...as does time travel.

What we can depend on is: The world of 2116 will almost certainly be as different from today...as today is from 1916.

By the way...do the 1990's seem as technologically primitive to you folks as it does no me these days. If you watch a movie from the late 1990's it is like a period piece!

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...

Sweden is pushing for this, aren't they?

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...

I really doubt that robots will actually be capable* of running anything. And besides that, as robots proliferate, so will technical jobs.

If, and it's a big if, full of questionable assumptions about technology and human society, robots were to create a situation where humans were put out of work, I'd support laws restricting their use. Work is part of the good life, it certainly shouldn't be what your life should be about, but providing for his family through your labor is part of what makes a man a good man. It would not be desirable to abolish that.

But as I said, I really doubt it'll come to that. New technology may change what types of jobs exist, but jobs will always exist.

*For reference, here's my post put through a translator a few times:

In fact, I have no way, be able to run their own robots. In addition, you can multiply the robots, so that the art of jobs. All, and if the question is whether it is great and will be called the principles of human society, laws, where the use of robots, undertakes to do this for the people working. What you need from a good, but at least you do not have the spirit, providence good it makes one to run in the family. No need to cancel. But, as I said, he was right, he comes. Changing jobs in the absence of the creation of new varieties, but always functional.

FieldTheorist said:

Sweden is pushing for this, aren't they?

Click to expand...

I don't know, FT.

I have seen more advocacy for this kind of thing during the last 12 months than I have for the last 20 years combined. I think many economists are finally realizing they will not be hurting their careers by taking on a subject that has been anathema to most main-stream economists for so long.

We'll all be reading more and more articles about this in the years to come. And it will be a worldwide phenomena...not something just particular to countries like Sweden.

This thing is coming down on us like thunder!

Paleocon said:

I really doubt that robots will actually be capable* of running anything. And besides that, as robots proliferate, so will technical jobs.

If, and it's a big if, full of questionable assumptions about technology and human society, robots were to create a situation where humans were put out of work, I'd support laws restricting their use. Work is part of the good life, it certainly shouldn't be what your life should be about, but providing for his family through your labor is part of what makes a man a good man. It would not be desirable to abolish that.

But as I said, I really doubt it'll come to that. New technology may change what types of jobs exist, but jobs will always exist.

*For reference, here's my post put through a translator a few times:

In fact, I have no way, be able to run their own robots. In addition, you can multiply the robots, so that the art of jobs. All, and if the question is whether it is great and will be called the principles of human society, laws, where the use of robots, undertakes to do this for the people working. What you need from a good, but at least you do not have the spirit, providence good it makes one to run in the family. No need to cancel. But, as I said, he was right, he comes. Changing jobs in the absence of the creation of new varieties, but always functional.

Click to expand...

You have a right to think that. I disagree in spades, Paleocon. I think the machines will soon be taking over jobs we never thought they would. Mostly the push will be the result of human greed. The entrepreneurial class will lead us into the quagmire.

We'll see.

I only hope we do BEFORE we have to handle the problems I see looming...in critical mass mode.

Frank Apisa said:

You have a right to think that. I disagree in spades, Paleocon. I think the machines will soon be taking over jobs we never thought they would. Mostly the push will be the result of human greed. The entrepreneurial class will lead us into the quagmire.

We'll see.

I only hope we do BEFORE we have to handle the problems I see looming...in critical mass mode.

Click to expand...

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).