Universal Basic Income & Working Less

starshine1234

I don't follow your argument.

I did look at your link. It says, among other things.
David Ricardo developed the classical theory of comparative advantage in 1817 ...

I fail to see how this classical economic theory has anything to say on artificial intelligence. Can you explain in simple terms please?



You say humans will always be better than computers. At what exactly?

No human will engage in a weight lifting competition with a JCB or a tractor.
No human can beat a computer at chess.
Recently, a human was beaten at the game 'go' which many researchers thought was impossible.


You say
The idea that humans will someday be replaced by robots is completely illogical.

I didn't say 'replace'. I said computers would be better at every task, except a few tasks, like prostitution.


What about Data from Star Trek. You say he is impossible?

Suryavarman

It has everything to do with what you're saying. It doesn't matter if robots are better than everything because humans will always have a comparative advantage in something. Humans being displaced by robots is impossible.

starshine1234

So self driving cars are a myth?

Are you serious or are you just being obtuse?

You say
Humans being displaced by robots is impossible.
despite the fact that humans are being replaced by robots all the time.

Suryavarman

starshine1234 wrote: »

So self driving cars are a myth?

Are you serious or are you just being obtuse?

You say
Humans being displaced by robots is impossible.
despite the fact that humans are being replaced by robots all the time.

You complained when I used the term replace and now you're complaining when I use the term displace. I have no interest in wasting my time debating someone has no interest in providing evidence to back up their positions and just wants to argue semantics.

starshine1234

Suryavarman wrote: »

... Humans being displaced by robots is impossible.

That statement is simply wrong.

Do you want to retract it?

I cannot debate false facts.

Either prove your point or withdraw your false statements.


Self driving cars are a fact. You say they are impossible. You are wrong.

Stop blaming me for your inability to argue your own points.

Suryavarman

starshine1234 wrote: »

That statement is simply wrong.

Do you want to retract it?

I cannot debate false facts.

Either prove your point or withdraw your false statements.


Self driving cars are a fact. You say they are impossible. You are wrong.

Stop blaming me for your inability to argue your own points.

Is the unemployment rate 100% as a result of driverless cars?

starshine1234

Are you on a day off from school?

K-9

@Suryavarman & starshine, knock it off please. If ye don't want to post then don't post and leave the schoolyard comments out of it.

Suryavarman

The need for a universal basic income becomes more obvious as the rapid automation of the US labour force causes US workers to work more total hours over the past year than they ever have before for the 8th consecutive quarter.

wes

Suryavarman wrote: »

The need for a universal basic income becomes more obvious as the rapid automation of the US labour force causes US workers to work more total hours over the past year than they ever have before for the 8th consecutive quarter.

There is no good reason for that. The Germans works less and beat the US on productivity:

Why Germans Have Longer Vacation Times and More Productivity

The US has a insane work culture, where they work crazy hours, to the point it effects there health. Also, the hours worked by the current work force, doesn't tell us how many people are actually employed. Also, we know that automation does cause job losses, but people are positing that the next advancement will be fare more devastating, as there will be no new jobs to replace the old ones.

Now, maybe there incorrect and that new jobs will appear, but we are just unable to see them just yet, but coming up with contingency plans like Universal incomes, strikes me as a good idea.

Suryavarman

wes wrote: »

There is no good reason for that. The Germans works less and beat the US on productivity:

Why Germans Have Longer Vacation Times and More Productivity

The US has a insane work culture, where they work crazy hours, to the point it effects there health. Also, the hours worked by the current work force, doesn't tell us how many people are actually employed. Also, we know that automation does cause job losses, but people are positing that the next advancement will be fare more devastating, as there will be no new jobs to replace the old ones.

Now, maybe there incorrect and that new jobs will appear, but we are just unable to see them just yet, but coming up with contingency plans like Universal incomes, strikes me as a good idea.

People keep saying that and those people are continuously wrong.

Developing a hugely expensive programme to solve a problem that neither exists nor is likely to ever exist is ridiculous.

Sam Russell

What happened to all those guys that made staves for casks and assembled barrels? Or the guys that were cattle drovers?

And where did all those guys come from that now work in call centres or those people who programme computers - where did they come from - and how did they learn how to do that?

And who is going to look after all the oldies in nursing homes?

No, robots have their place but they will not replace all jobs - or even very many.

starshine1234

I believe robots, and artificial intelligence iin general, will be able to replace the vast vast majority of jobs.

I find it difficult to come up with any jobs which can never be replaced.

Data from Star Trek would appear to be perfectly possible to make, and if he was made, he'd be better than humans at basically everything, except being an authentic human.

The difference is intelligence. That is the only thing that raises humans above the rest of the animal kingdom. When computer intelligence exceeds human intelligence then computers will be superior to humans. Humans will have to think very hard about how to control a computer which is much more intelligient that us. We could ask the super intelligient machine for advice but it may lie to us.

karma_

Sam Russell wrote: »

What happened to all those guys that made staves for casks and assembled barrels? Or the guys that were cattle drovers?

And where did all those guys come from that now work in call centres or those people who programme computers - where did they come from - and how did they learn how to do that?

And who is going to look after all the oldies in nursing homes?

No, robots have their place but they will not replace all jobs - or even very many.

The industrial revolution was much slower to roll out than automation is going to be, and it had a devastating impact on the society of teh day. you may think now that there will not be that many, but the potential exists for many jobs as we know know them to be replaced within a decade. Worst of all for the lower skilled workers, it's their jobs that are most at risk.

Suryavarman

starshine1234 wrote: »

I believe robots, and artificial intelligence iin general, will be able to replace the vast vast majority of jobs.

I find it difficult to come up with any jobs which can never be replaced.

Data from Star Trek would appear to be perfectly possible to make, and if he was made, he'd be better than humans at basically everything, except being an authentic human.

The difference is intelligence. That is the only thing that raises humans above the rest of the animal kingdom. When computer intelligence exceeds human intelligence then computers will be superior to humans. Humans will have to think very hard about how to control a computer which is much more intelligient that us. We could ask the super intelligient machine for advice but it may lie to us.

So your belief that automation is going to put everyone out of a job is based on a fictional TV series? A TV series where most, if not all, people are gainfully employed.

starshine1234

No, my opinion is not based on a TV show.

BarcaDen

I have to say, I'm very sad to see this thread descend into petty bickering and pedantry. The subject is serious, and deserves so much more than this.

Suryavarman

BarcaDen wrote: »

I have to say, I'm very sad to see this thread descend into petty bickering and pedantry. The subject is serious, and deserves so much more than this.

Perhaps if the posters arguing in the affirmative could provide arguments not based on works of fiction then a serious discussion could take place.

BarcaDen

Great, good for you.

1) If it is true that we're entering an economic model where labour is abundant, cheap and replacable, how are workers going to have any bargaining power without a UBI?

2) How much poverty and precariousness are you willing to accept as more automation leads to fewer jobs?

3) We've had wage depression or stagnation since the 70s. Whats the solution?

4) If automation is inevitable and the machines are concentrated in a small number of corporations, what is the argument against some kind of government control of the machines?

5) When the pension system breaks (and it almost certainly will), how will there not be a revolution?

6) How much longer can we tolerate people doing unproductive, meaningless, servile bull**** jobs when robots can do them much better (just so we can preserve badly paid and demoralising jobs for the precariat?)

Lets try to talk about this without you running around calling people names and making inferences about others, like you did before with me.

BarcaDen

And one other thing - there are few arguments to be made in the affirmative as we're talking about a theoretical (but highly plausibe, semi inevitable) future. So stop with this dystopian line of 'reasoning'.

Suryavarman

BarcaDen wrote: »

Great, good for you.

1) If it is true that we're entering an economic model where labour is abundant, cheap and replacable, how are workers going to have any bargaining power without a UBI?

We aren't. Humans will always have a comparative advantage in something.

2) How much poverty and precariousness are you willing to accept as more automation leads to fewer jobs?

Automation won't lead to fewer jobs.

3) We've had wage depression or stagnation since the 70s. Whats the solution?

We haven't.

4) If automation is inevitable and the machines are concentrated in a small number of corporations, what is the argument against some kind of government control of the machines?

Automation isn't inevitable as there is zero evidence that humans will be displaced by robots in the long run.

5) When the pension system breaks (and it almost certainly will), how will there not be a revolution?

The pension system can be reformed. If it isn't a UBI will only make things worse.

6) How much longer can we tolerate people doing unproductive, meaningless, servile bull**** jobs when robots can do them much better (just so we can preserve badly paid and demoralising jobs for the precariat?)

If robots can do these jobs so much better then why aren't they doing them?

Dohnjoe

UBI already exists, it's called social welfare

People who don't want to work naturally want a no-strings-attached version of it with a guaranteed livable income for life. Free money. And will understandably go to great lengths to try to validate it

Essentially an economic pyramid scheme which burdens the working and benefits those who don't want to work.. which will be severely abused and probably end up requiring as much administration as current welfare systems

I can see a few socially responsible countries potentially giving a limited version of the notion limited try-outs.. but countrywide implementation? very unlikely. The Swiss have already shown how average people feel about the scheme.

starshine1234

Suryavarman wrote: »

We aren't. Humans will always have a comparative advantage in something.

You haven't explained yourself.

You are wrong by the way, but all you've done is post a Wikipedia link; you haven't expresed an opinion of your own and you appear unable to.

Can you not argue your own points?

Automation will destroy the jobs market. It is that simple.

The robot from Ex Machina could even work as a prostitute! I thought she was very pretty!


I believe that you have misunderstood the theory of comparative advantage. I do understand it and it doesn't apply here, at least not in the form as outlined by Wiki.

Computers will be better at nearly everything, and also cheaper.

starshine1234

Dohnjoe wrote: »

UBI already exists, it's called social welfare

People who don't want to work naturally want a no-strings-attached version of it with a guaranteed livable income for life. Free money. And will understandably go to great lengths to try to validate it

Essentially an economic pyramid scheme which burdens the working and benefits those who don't want to work.. which will be severely abused and probably end up requiring as much administration as current welfare systems

I can see a few socially responsible countries potentially giving a limited version of the notion limited try-outs.. but countrywide implementation? very unlikely. The Swiss have already shown how average people feel about the scheme.

Well, clearly you are wrong.

You say social welfare is a universal income. But it isn't a universal income, for the obvious reason that it isn't universal.

You say people who don't want to work will lobby for a universal income. But many of those people already have a state funded income (social welfare). If they are lobbying for a universal income then they are doing so on behalf of other people.
They are lobbying on behalf of the hard pressed workers in this country. The workers who are being abused and exploited by corporations and governments.


You say a universal income would require as much bereaucracy as the current system. I fail to see how. It would be universal, with no means tests or other tests required.


The Apple ruling demonstrates how governments imagine the future. They see a future where rich industrialists use their huge wealth to exploit normal people.
Where normal people must work long hours in two jobs just to have the basics.
I am rebelling against that horrible dystopian future. I am calling for a fairer future where people are respected as people.

Of course corporations could pay to support societies. But they are incredibly greedy and they refuse to do so.

Tim Cook should be held up as the despicible human that he is. He's like a petulant schoolchild who moans and complains. He threatens to take his ball home and refuse to play.
I say, let him. We should ridicule his greedy stance and laugh at him for his hubris and pride.


Automation is coming. If we don't deal with it our societies may well be destroyed, through social chaos and civil war.

Suryavarman

starshine1234 wrote: »

You haven't explained yourself.

You are wrong by the way, but all you've done is post a Wikipedia link; you haven't expresed an opinion of your own and you appear unable to.

Can you not argue your own points?

Automation will destroy the jobs market. It is that simple.

The robot from Ex Machina could even work as a prostitute! I thought she was very pretty!


I believe that you have misunderstood the theory of comparative advantage. I do understand it and it doesn't apply here, at least not in the form as outlined by Wiki.

Computers will be better at nearly everything, and also cheaper.

There's not much point making my arguments until you understand the theory that shows why I am correct.

I haven't misunderstood the theory of comparative advantage. It is clear from your last line that you do not understand comparative advantage. The below video might be easier for you to understand.

Suryavarman

starshine1234 wrote: »

Of course corporations could pay to support societies. But they are incredibly greedy and they refuse to do so.

No they can't and no they aren't. Corporations are legal fictions. They aren't sentient beings. They don't exist in any real sense. They can't pay for anything or experience emotions such as greed. Only humans can do that.

When people say they want corporations to pay for something, what they really mean is that they want workers, consumers and investors to pay for something. When people say that corporations are greedy, what people really mean is that workers, consumers and investors are greedy.

starshine1234

Suryavarman wrote: »

No they can't and no they aren't. Corporations are legal fictions. They aren't sentient beings. They don't exist in any real sense. They can't pay for anything or experience emotions such as greed. Only humans can do that.

When people say they want corporations to pay for something, what they really mean is that they want workers, consumers and investors to pay for something. When people say that corporations are greedy, what people really mean is that workers, consumers and investors are greedy.

Ludicrous, and can't be taken seriously.

Corporation don't exist?
You're an idiot.
I consider that last statement to be a statement of fact, not an insult. You may consider it to be insulting but you made the ludicrous statement that corporations don't exist.

Apple paid approx .02% tax.

They should pay more.

If you can't understand that you are an .....

You are correct in one way. You mention investors above. They are who should pay.

The rules of society shouldn't be such that rich people get richer and poor people get poorer. That is what you advocate for, and it is disgusting.

Priviledged people in society, who are rich and who have money to invest, should be prepared to pay their way. They must support their own societies or else their own societies will fail.

Of course, the rich people can all move to Davos and ignore the mess in the rest of the world.

You have no vision.

You have still refused to explain yourself. You are now posting videos to do your explaining for you.

If you cannot explain other peoples theories in your own words then you haven't understood them.

You can explain how this 'comparative advantage' means that automation is impossible.

All you have is hysterical comments and childish insults.

Dohnjoe

starshine1234 wrote: »

Ludicrous, and can't be taken seriously.

He's correct. Businesses and companies are profit-maximizing. In most countries they have to adhere to varying laws, rules, quotas, regulations, anti-competition laws and so on to balance out the positive/negative effects

A strong economy has healthy employment as one of it's foundations, large companies like Apple may pay low taxes, but they employ a lot of workers, increase business, increase investment.. which is generally good for the economy

An economy based on incentivizing people not to work, yet burden the remaining workers with huge taxes to subsidise the people who don't work - is, well, no one has adequately explained how it will function

So far, it's a pipe dream. Versions of it may be possible, but those versions end up being remarkably similar to current social welfare systems still in place

starshine1234

He's not correct. Both you and he refuse to even consider a future where automation is widespread.

I have given fictional examples of such a future. Attempts have been made to ridicule me for doing so. It is true to say that neither you nor he has attempted to engage with the argument.

If robots like Data from Star Trek were to exist what jobs could humans do?

You refuse to answer that question because you have no answer.

Humans would be obselete.

I'm aware that companies are beholden to shareholders and that profit is king. I am saying that that is wrong.

It is greedy to put profit above everything else. Our government, on behalf of our society, should make that clear.

People like Tim Cook, who advocate for a no-tax environment for corporations should be ridiculed and widely condemned for their greed. Instead he's held up as some sort of a hero.

Well, he's not a hero. He's part of the problem.

A universal income isn't incentivising non-work. How it is doing that?

People are more incentivised to work, given that if they do work they receive both a universal income, and their wages.

If you want to work that's fine. I won't judge you for that.

But work is not glorious, and it shouldn't be held up as being ideal. It is not ideal. People are correct to not want to work. Technology makes it possible for people not to work, or to work short hours.

But greedy capitalists want to keep all the benefits to themselves. Tim Cook is an example of the worst type of human. One who preaches at everyone while acting like a petulant schoolchild himself.



A robot like Data would render humans obselete.

Do you disagree?
Why?

Stop avoiding the hard questions.

Suryavarman

starshine1234 wrote: »

He's not correct. Both you and he refuse to even consider a future where automation is widespread.

I have considered it. I think it is highly unrealistic.

If robots like Data from Star Trek were to exist what jobs could humans do?

Probably the same jobs humans do in Star Trek.

People like Tim Cook, who advocate for a no-tax environment for corporations should be ridiculed and widely condemned for their greed. Instead he's held up as some sort of a hero.

Corporations shouldn't be taxed. They can't pay taxes. Only people can pay taxes. Having a corporation tax is a highly inefficient way of taxing people.

A universal income isn't incentivising non-work. How it is doing that?

People are more incentivised to work, given that if they do work they receive both a universal income, and their wages.

A UBI would result in a massive tax increase on workers. Taxes disincentivise whatever they are applied to. Therefore a UBI would disincentivise work.