I'm one of those assholes who would actually keep working their job because I was stupid lucky enough to land something that engages me and matches with my particular types of intelligence. Honestly, I'd probably just end up working the same amount that I do now, but I'd ditch every bit of paperwork and focus on more educational/technical pursuits. Luckily, I have solved the problem by quitting this nice job to pursue a higher degree that very well may kill me, but ehh, I'm all in. None of this would have changed had basic income been (or was going to be) instituted. I doubt many people could say the same thing. Honestly, and I don't mean to point fingers, but far too many people would opt into spending time on more "artistic expression" endeavors. I've been there. I was just there moments ago, guitar around my neck, it's a Sunday night with a Monday holiday, I wrote a simple little chord progression, because feels. No joke. I have long since argued with some of the most respectable Hubski users about basic income's promise, but I just don't think we're quite there yet in terms of automation capacity. We're not quite ready to replace truck drivers, taxis, delivery drivers, etc., but soon, yes. People argue that we'll see automation of many other lines of work shortly thereafter, but I've grown so used to being disappointed by slow rates of technological progress. When increasingly larger numbers of folks are put out of work with no corresponding creation of jobs in the "information" and "technician" sectors (or call them what you will), there may be no choice but to implement a basic income policy, save some other kind of socioeconomic revolution. Similarly, a basic income that necessarily taxes the wealthy most heavily may be one of the only ways to compensate for the fact that capital operates more efficiently with increased automation, hence a decreased need for human labor. Edit: and none of this tax loophole offshore account portfolio divestment discount PAC fund 100% deduction bullshit. I made some of that up to account for the other 3,629 methods that I don't know about. I think the pro- and eventual-basic income crowds are mostly at odds in their estimates on the current climate of readiness for basic income and the rates at which automation will see adoption in various industries. As for the anti-basic income crowd, I would like to hear any and all arguments. wasoxygen & theadvancedapes, because you guys are great, and I'd love to hear you answer newgreen's original question as well, but no pressure if you're busy and all, I know how it can get. :)
I have learned that when asked what I would do in a given situation, the most accurate answer is "I don't know." But I can say what I would like to think I would do. My answer would be similar to thenewgreen's, except I would aspire to play music other people made, and draw rather than paint. I also fantasize about reading a lot more and being more serious in studying foreign languages, mathematics, economics and programming. Writing letters too. Oh, and cooking, TNG left that out. Maybe socializing. My revealed preference is revealing. I already have some free time, so the best dispassionate answer is that I would probably do more of what I do now: reading short easy things online, reading and arguing on Hubski, spending time with family, slowly reading books, with some little time spent biking, running, traveling, playing piano and studying.
I agree. We're at an awkward in-between phase, and have been for 150 years, really. We have enough automation and mass production to destabilise the labour-based economy, but not enough yet that no one need work unless they want to. We'll get there, but it might take another 20–100 years. But I still think now is a good time to implement BI. If we implement BI today, most people will keep their jobs out of fear it'll be repealed when it's unsustainable. For at least one generation. Twenty years from now, the next generation grows up expecting BI, and we have say 20% less workforce, which is counterbalanced by increased automation. Fast forward 100 years, and we see a logarithmic decrease of involuntary work and increase of automation, until we achieve Star Trek utopia. That's the theory anyway. If it doesn't work, we can always repeal it, right?I just don't think we're quite there yet in terms of automation capacity.
I disagree. I think many people would quit their jobs immediately, knowing that they'd receive a comparable amount of money without having to go to work at all. Nevermind the fact that they could keep their jobs and make twice as much money. Enough people would throw their hands up and say "fuck it!" that we'd have a serious disruption of business, were this implemented now. No, I don't subscribe to the belief that all or even most members of lower socioeconomic status don't work hard or don't want to work hard. But I think there are more of those folks than Hubski is willing to acknowledge. That 20% estimate seems high to me. Were we to immediately replace all truckers, cab drivers, food delivery service workers, etc. with self-driving automobiles, that's only ~5% of the national workforce. And the transition won't be immediate. There will be other automations taking place concurrently, sure, but I'd wager that we'll only see a 10% workforce reduction for the next twenty years. Then maybe 15% for the twenty years after that, and then maybe 20%, but who knows what things will look like 40 years from now? Pshh, I hope that's how it'll go. And I don't expect for basic income to work at first. It will be a rough process that could send the global economy into free fall. I'm interested in making the transition as smooth as possible, because it does seem increasingly necessary.If we implement BI today, most people will keep their jobs out of fear it'll be repealed when it's unsustainable.
Twenty years from now, the next generation grows up expecting BI, and we have say 20% less workforce, which is counterbalanced by increased automation.
Fast forward 100 years, and we see a logarithmic decrease of involuntary work and increase of automation, until we achieve Star Trek utopia. That's the theory anyway. If it doesn't work, we can always repeal it, right?
Why should there be any reduction? In the past, technological advancement has always led to higher employment, higher wages, and higher standard of living. Why are we so cynical that we expect different this time around? Note that this is isn't directly specifically at you, but at the general notion that automation can only displace workers, which seems to be pervasive.
You raise a valid point. The Industrial Revolution certainly didn't kill any large-scall economies, after all. I think there absolutely WILL be a significant reduction of jobs, even for automated vehicles alone. And yeah, some displaced workers will go into technician roles to support our new robot overlords, but I'm having trouble imagining new job creation on the scale of several million, in the U.S. alone. I wouldn't say automation can only displace workers, but I anticipate a net reduction of jobs, especially in the minimum wage and unskilled labor market. Do you not believe there will be a net reduction? And if you see millions of new jobs on the horizon, what are they?
I believe that many current industries will be obsolete. We need only to look to the fate of agriculture and rail roads to know that no industry, no matter how blue chip, is invincible to the advance of better technologies. There will no doubt be a giant reduction in the number of people who work as mailmen and dry cleaners. Hopefully even lawyers will be reduced. That said, if I knew where all of these jobs would be made up, then I'd be a fortune teller, or at the very least a very wealthy investor. I haven't a clue, but experience tells us that given the space to innovate, create, and improve, we will do so. It's less optimistic naïveté, and more inductive reasoning, but I'll not venture a guess about mechanism.