[guimarin]

We should not be employing people in jobs that can be automated. We should try and automate everything. We should develop technologies, processes, and abilities so that everyone can learn new things. The people that want to learn will be incredibly leveraged and provide a ton of value to society. Those who don't want to learn should be given enough for basic subsistence. A stipend which covers food, shelter, clothing, catastrophic healthcare, reasonable water access, and unlimited data. I would also push that all humans can be close to nature in some way, be it a park or otherwise. We have the technology to do this. Instead we have protectionism and fear.

[savanaly]

I agree with this for the most part. There is a real human need though, and not one that makes a lot of rational sense, but a need nonetheless, to be needed. And for a lot of people in that world you described it wouldn't be met. It's kind of perverse right, because people don't want you to artificially create need for them (it wouldn't be fun to receive your basic income in compensation for digging and then filling in a big hole), they want it to be a genuine need for their talents. And unfortunately although we evolved that yearning to be helpful, we also evolved the ability to automate away most of the tasks that would have stimulated that.

[pyoung]

There is a ton of important work that needs to be done that gets the short shrift in our society. Taking care of our elderly and our children, teaching, cleaning up and looking after the environment, community service. There is a massive gap between the activities that our economy incentivizes and what is good for the health and happiness of our communities. Basic income doesn't have to involve useless hole digging, there is plenty of work out there that would be both useful and rewarding.

[seer]

I think iain bank's "the culture" novels explore this future in depth quite well. I will not spoil it but the basic idea is "games" - people will just be able to play all the games they want and compete with one anoher without the need to survive.

[Suncho]

To the extent that people have a "need to be needed," we should ask ourselves what the most efficient way to meet that need is. Perhaps the answer is to keep "make-work" jobs around. Of course we'd hide the pointlessness of these jobs behind initiatives that "create jobs" and economic policies that "support small businesses" or "enforce fair trade." We've gotten really good at preventing workers (and perhaps ourselves) from knowing that the work they're doing is pointless.

The reality is that a lot of people already are doing the equivalent of receiving their basic income in exchange for digging and then filling in a big hole.

But maybe there's a cheaper way to meet people's "need to be needed" that's less wasteful of resources. Sports? Video game competitions? Intellectual debate? Volunteer work? There are a lot of possibilities here. I'd love to find out.

In any case, I think it would be prudent to separate the debate about how people get most of their incomes from the debate about how people find meaning in their lives. Tying the two together is only one option and I'm not sure it's the right one.

[cperciva]

Don't worry -- they'll get to play SimSteelFactory instead of working at (and possibly screwing up) a real steel factory. People can derive meaning from playing games.

[danbruc]

This argument comes up time and again but I have never really seen someone attack it or someone substantiate the claim with studies or something. As far as I am concerned, I could not care less if I had no longer to work for a living.

[pstuart]

tl;dr: we all need a reason to get up in the morning.

[acchow]

> There is a real human need though... to be needed

Get a pet.

[attaboyjon]

The question is how will power be distributed between the owners of the automated plants and the 'subsistence' class? Will there be a true meritocracy, or will the children of the plant owners get all the best jobs? Judging from the way third world economies work, I would not assume the best. This I think is the reason for fear and protectionism.

[rileyteige]

not to mention (at least in the US) that you're handing over a huge political/power pawn. Vastly simplified:

- Party A's candidate is clean and runs on improving infrastructure but that requires a slight cut to UBI

- Party B's candidate has issues regarding corruption, doesn't talk much about infrastructure but promises an increase to the UBI stipend

Which candidate do you think people will vote for?

[devoply]

What sort of corruption is possible when everything is done by machines. The greatest argument to privatized enterprise is efficiency, but how does that argument hold up with factories that are massively automated. Why are owners of such an enterprise needed at all?

If everything is automated then such companies need no owner as the ownership is to make sure the work gets done properly. It will be done properly no matter what the owners do. Why are they entitled to anything more than your average person.

I would think in the future you have shareholders, people who own the machines, that employ like a few workers who are managed by machines. And therefore those shareholders can just be just about anybody or even governments... who take the profit or revenue that enterprise generates and distribute it to the people.

I am talking about something like this sort of business which does not change, or grow much. It's a commodity. It can just be produced by pretty much anyone.

[chroem-]

>The people that want to learn will be incredibly leveraged and provide a ton of value to society. Those who don't want to learn should be given enough for basic subsistence. A stipend which covers food, shelter, clothing, catastrophic healthcare, reasonable water access, and unlimited data.

Great, so will that come before or after Donald Trump implements socialized medicine and free education? You're definitely going to get your automation, but the profits from that automation are going to accrue in the hands of a very, very small elite minority.

[dwaltrip]

I'm starting to think that the tax rate on capital/profit should be somehow correlated with how advanced technology is. Increased technology -> greater productive leverage (inputs give more outputs) -> greater financial return. Thus, a larger cut should be used to better society overall, as the larger profits were made possible by the technology that a more advanced society enables.

This says nothing about _how_ that tax revenue should be spent. I think the current generation of government programs could be immensely improved. Worst case, if we are unable to increase the effectiveness of targeted government spending, then we just start cutting dividend checks. I will admit, this is the part I'm most uncertain about. Relatedly, I also think there is a lot of work we can do to vastly reduce the corruption and inefficiencies that are found in even the most modern governments.

The alternative would be letting those with the majority of capital increase their share of global wealth, as technology advances, at insane rates, and simply cross our fingers and hope they use their wealth wisely. Given that individuals have done nothing to bring about the tech that is present at the day of their birth, to me such a situation would feel incredibly unjust.

This is tricky stuff, however. My thoughts are slowly continuing to develop.

[refurb]

the profits from that automation are going to accrue in the hands of a very, very small elite minority

Why would all profits from new efficiencies go to owners? Generally, efficiencies accrue to consumers through lower prices, unless there is some barrier to entry for that given market.

Furniture is a great example. In the past it was hand made, now much of the process is automated (machines size and cut the wood). That didn't make furniture makers more profitable, it just led to cheaper furniture for consumers.

[usrusr]

How about adding a very dark twist: pay people to not breed. Everything else would just be a buildup for universal suffering just a few generations down the line.

[Broken_Hippo]

I don't think that is a viable thing because I think it would produce adverse reactions. It'd work out just fine for myself, but not so much for others. If someone is getting paid to stay child-free, does a woman get dinged for being pregnant while the man denies responsibility? Do we have everyone's DNA on file and run the baby's dna for possible matches? Do abortions count as staying child-free or does that deduct from the bonus? Does the child-free money mean that folks with children are doing a lot worse than single folks or childless couples? After all, they are now trying to feed more people yet have less money to work from. How do you handle folks breeding for religious reasons?

I'd much rather go with increased sex and child-rearing education partnered with free access to birth control and health care. Free voluntary sterilisation beginning at around 25, possibly with a one-time monetary payout, depending on how many previous children one has and their age (lower amounts for being older). Nudge folks to have few or zero children.

[majewsky]

> Pay people to not breed.

Wealthy people are already much less likely to procreate [1], although I'm not going to act as if that was planned.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility/#the-richer-the-people-...

[Spooky23]

Paying people lowers the birth rate.

[kowdermeister]

I don't see how that couldn't be trivially tricked.

1) I sign up and get a reasonably high compensation, like 4x basic income 2) While I'm enjoying this period, I build up the skills to get an even more rewarding life situation 3) Move a country and enjoy things even better

Even if it would be permanent treatment for a high compensation over the years, I could freeze my juice and use it whenever I want it.

[tropo]

Where? Who pays?

Right now, we allow immigration. If we continue that but pay people not to breed, then we're just getting rid of Americans. This is called "ethnic cleansing", and is frequently considered to be unacceptable.

You can't legitimately claim we have too many people while letting more arrive.

[RangerScience]

I'd add some more to that stipend - enough "stuff" that people can make their own art, and otherwise get started making physical things.

I get that part of the point of "unlimited data" is to provide people what they need to join the "productive elite". It's just there's ways people can be amazing that aren't information-based; thinking in terms of Diamond Age, you'd want everyone to have a matter stipend, as well.

(I think you get this tho)

[empath75]

> A stipend which covers food, shelter, clothing, catastrophic healthcare, reasonable water access, and unlimited data.

I agree with this as a laudable goal, but what happens after a population free from work and want doubles and then doubles again?

[dv_dt]

In capitalism, the system trusts that companies that have already acquired some market and cashflow will continue to strive for more market share or expanded markets, or better profitability, even further the system depends upon that desire to advance our society and balance our markets.

When we talk of people, I think that still applies, we should both trust that most people won't just sit back and be satisfied with a static cashflow, and they will strive for something more.

[michaelmrose]

People in developed societies tend to want more than the minimum. They want to invest time in something that makes them fulfilled and not merely spend their entire life raising babies. Further they recognize that given finite resources that they can do better for fewer kids.

This isn't much of a problem in current developed nations, I don't see a good reason to suppose it will become so.

[Broken_Hippo]

Perhaps change such a stipend to include comprehensive health care and actual education instead of just data.

Comprehensive health care, including birth control, tends to produce smaller families. Elder care would already be included with the food, shelter, and clothing portion of the stipend - so having someone to take care of you isn't a concern. Nor is having children to work in your factory or farm. Teach folks how to avoid having children: Teach them what to do if they want to have children. Teach them about child-rearing, teach them facts showing how spacing apart children makes for healthier children. Make sure to teach all this to both men and women, on top of other things.

The best part about these sort of things is that they tend to work, even in populations that traditionally have large families. The fact that these sorts of things tend to work alleviates my own personal fear of the population doubling and then doubling again. Some forms of religion might prove to be a difficult group at first, but I think that will be a small enough minority to not worry too much about it.

[anigbrowl]

Why would you keep having more and more children when you didn't have to? I have it on good authority that most women aspire to do other things than just pop out as many as they can.

[eli_gottlieb]

Well-off people haven't been known for their high birthrates.

[dasil003]

Not everyone is capable of being a thought worker, but most people desire to feel useful. Providing UBI is just the tip of the iceberg, what you are proposing requires an unprecedented sea change in human psychology.

[drcross]

Not really, Island people in some areas of Asia have bountyless fish, fruit and vegetables and the lack of a proper job doesn't seem to depress them.

[Mz]

I often talk about the need to preserve the right to work for the masses. Many people rebut this with the idea that work is coerced for the masses and that it should not be. These are actually essentially unrelated issues. Wanting to not coerce people into working is not at all incompatible with my position. In theory, they both advocate greater choice.

Unfortunately, in practice, people who are pro UBI are often taking a position that is highly likely to deny people choice rather than grant them greater choice. When Elon Musk and Sam Altman talk about creating a UBI, they talk about the need for it due to the expectation that robots will displace people and there will be widespread, permanent unemployment. The articles with interviews from them then tell glowing, affectionate stories of how UBI can supplement your current low wage job and make your life better. They never actually write about the scenario being proposed: A world in which large numbers of people have no hope of getting paid work.

This scares me because people like Sam Altman and Elon Musk are job creators. And their vision of the future is "We eliminate your jobs, cut you a check for a pittance and call it even, then wash our hands of your pathetic future. Not our problem. You have your UBI." In the last Industrial Revolution when automation was threatening to eliminate jobs, we created the 40 hour work week to redistribute work more evenly and raise quality of life for the masses. We need the next step in the evolution of work here.

I find it frustrating that this seems to be so hard to get across to people. But, earlier today, I left a comment elsewhere on HN* in which I noted that some quadriplegics can work and that I was mentioning this because new quadriplegics are often suicidal, feeling like life is over. Maybe think of it in those terms. For many people, UBI in a world with drastically fewer jobs would be like a tragic accident cutting you off from the ability to work. People seem able to understand how horrifying it is to be quadriplegic and feel completely useless. Why can't you understand how horrifying that would be if you are "the wrong kind of employee" and your job has been eliminated and now you are being handed some check for less money than you made previously and basically being told "Fuck you. You are useless and don't deserve a job."

UBI and preserving the right to work are not necessarily antithetical. The problem is that most people who talk about UBI don't see that preserving the right to work is not going to just happen. It needs to be made to happen. And when job creators like Sam Altman are all "meh, you have your ubi, you don't need access to paid work" you are talking about a horrifying dystopian future which will almost certainly end in bloody revolution. Large numbers of unemployed people who have no hope of getting a job, time on their hands and just enough money to keep themselves fed but no hope of ever returning to a middle class lifestyle would make for a scary army.

I would be suicidal in that situation. But quite a lot of people would be homicidal, in part because it would be legitimate to feel this had been done to them. This is really not a scenario we need to create in the world.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14606810

[kavalg]

Well said. I will now try to look from the perspective of a business owner, that has automated everything and doesn't need employees anymore. Let's look at the extreme case, where suddenly (e.g. in 10 years) all business in the world is 100% automated and owned by a handful of people and there is no UBI for the rest. As you rightly pointed out, a kind of revolt is to be expected, which however would be suppressed by the 100% automated police, which would place those poor rebels in a 100% automated jail or just get rid of them in some other 100% automated way. In the end all that's gonna remain is the handful of businessman, who only produce and trade goods between themselves. The amount of goods produced and traded will decrease drastically, which will be detrimental to the government (tax income), which by that time will probably be 100% automated as well. At this point in time, an optimist would inevitably notice that carbon footprint and pollution will also be drastically reduced. However, as business usually goes, those handful of businesses will compete with each other until there is eventually only one business left. There would inevitably be a moment of immense happiness and satisfaction for the one and undisputed winner of this game, but then life will just become boring. The guy will wander around, discuss this with his 100% automated personal assistant, think about it, maybe meditate a bit and would eventually decide look for fun at some other place (e.g. Mars). However, there will still remain some sneaky feeling in the back of his head, asking whether UBI would have actually been a better idea in the first place.

[marcosdumay]

Things are not that simple.

When people talk about UBI as a solution for machines taking all the work, they can't be sure the machines will take all the work, but they can be absolutely sure 99% of the people will need to retrain, maybe for years, and try again and again until they find something worthwhile. And our current society simply does not allow that.

Another certainty is that for a long while salaries will trend down. Because machines will displace people faster than those people can move around. Without a support structure, we risk people averaging less than what they need to survive, for a looong while.

Besides, labor that comes with personal realization is rare even now, with plenty of jobs around. If we want people to have personal realization we must set things so that those people don't need their salary to live. At least not every month.

[losvedir]

I was formerly a UBI proponent but I think, at least, in the near to medium term, it's too much of a cultural shift about the role of work in life. That's why these days I'm more a fan of a negative income tax coupled with a repeal of the minimum wage. Consider if the "tax brackets" were something like:

    * 0   - $2k  : -1,000%
    * $2k - 4k   : -500%
    * $4k - 6k   : -100%
    * $6k - $8k  : 0%
    * $8k - $15k : 5%
    * ...
    * $10M+      : 40%

(Something like that, exact numbers to be fiddled with.)

What it essentially does is it provides a government money multiplier on low wage jobs. A company could offer $1/hr jobs, which the employee would perceive as $10/hr. That is, $1/hr = $2k/yr = $20k, after taxes. The negative income tax benefit decreases steadily, until eventually you start paying taxes, but there's always an incentive to work more or get a raise.

Just think of it! At $1/hr there would be a gazillion jobs for things like greeters at every store, crosswalk guards, picking up trash at the park. And people would be motivated to work for them because they're actually making $10/hr.

I think this is more politically palatable than UBI as well, too, since it avoids the issue of "moochers who will just sit around and collect their checks". Since with a NIT, if you don't work, you don't get anything.

I do foresee some issues making this actually feasible. For example, it certainly won't work for the employee to just receive $1/hr and then a big payout on tax day. I think we could adjust "withholding" to actually pay out what the employee will receive as part of their tax benefit, but it will be important to get it right or else they could be hit with a bad tax bill.

[dragonwriter]

> This scares me because people like Sam Altman and Elon Musk are job creators.

No, they aren't. “Job creators” aren't a thing. They are labor purchasers, but that's only incidental and to the extent that labor has no cheaper substitute for their commercial users.

[dv_dt]

I'd agree with the suspicion that UBI alone is not sufficient to handle our future economy. Though I'm not sure you have the right breakdown with what might be needed beyond UBI.

I've been feeling that in order to really accelerate/maintain a future economy beyond our current stagnation, some improved capital circulation mechanism is needed to release huge accumulations of capital from essentially centralized controls. This could be accomplished via multiple methods on a spectrum of compulsory / voluntary scale. From proposed taxes on capital or enticements to apply capital in non-traditional/higher-risk paths. If you can cause mega-accumulations of capital to actually circulate, I think that there would basically be no problem for people looking for work to find it.

[michaelmrose]

Maybe as the true wealth of the world grows massively due to productivity provided by automation the check we cut people shouldn't be what current people consider a pittance enough to live a waste of a life.

We are either feel a moral duty to keep those who don't contribute in poverty or believe we need to incentivize the rest of the slackers to keep their noses to the useless grindstone.

We can either keep both the useless moralizing and the social carrot long after they cease to make sense or we can recognize that sharing the wealth of the world makes increasing sense and lift each other up in lives where we make the meaning rather than finding it in doing pointless work.

[shkkmo]

Work != Jobs

I'm all for the right to work, I just really don't think jobs are at all necessary to provide that right.

> people like Sam Altman and Elon Musk are job creators. And their vision of the future is "We eliminate your jobs, cut you a check for a pittance and call it even, then wash our hands of your pathetic future. Not our problem.

People are quite capable of finding something to do on their own without being forced into by the necessity of earning a wage. People write blogs, build cars from kits, maintain gardens, volunteer, raise kids, make youtube videos, play in bands, perfect recipes, etc... frequently for little or no monetary compensation.

To presume that people need Sam Altman and Elon Musk to make jobs so that people can leading fulfilling lives is incredibly dismissive of people's capabilities.

> For many people, UBI in a world with drastically fewer jobs would be like a tragic accident cutting you off from the ability to work.

Our present alternative to UBI is the idiotic combination of unemployment/welfare and a minimum wage. We either pay you to not work (distorting the labor market), or we force employers to provide a basic income at an above market rate (also distorting the labor market). Any jobs that don't provide enough value to the employer don't exist.

By gradually decoupling jobs from providing a basic standard of living to our citizens, we allow them to choose what type of work to occupy themselves. If they wish to occupy themselves with something we can automate at an equivalent quality level for a certain price, they simply need to beat that price. They can do this because they receive UBI and any further income provides an improved quality of life.

> Why can't you understand how horrifying that would be if you are "the wrong kind of employee" and your job has been eliminated and now you are being handed some check for less money than you made previously and basically being told "Fuck you. You are useless and don't deserve a job."

Someone should not have a right to force other people to pay higher prices just because someone thinks they should be paid a certain amount to do their job. Many of my friends who graduated from college in 2008 and 2009 struggled to find decent paying jobs. Why should they have to pay higher prices so that someone who does have a decent paying job can hold onto it?

> In the last Industrial Revolution when automation was threatening to eliminate jobs, we created the 40 hour work week to redistribute work more evenly and raise quality of life for the masses.

I'm pretty sure supporters of the 8hr day were primarily concerned with the health and well being of workers, not with reducing unemployment. Given that the process of implementing the 40 hr week took almost 150 years, it's pretty hard to tie it to automation eliminating jobs.

> you are talking about a horrifying dystopian future which will almost certainly end in bloody revolution. Large numbers of unemployed people who have no hope of getting a job, time on their hands and just enough money to keep themselves fed but no hope of ever returning to a middle class lifestyle would make for a scary army.

While idle peasants certainly scare the capitalists, I think that the threat of violent revolution has been radically diminished by our unprecedented success in inventing new forms of entertainment. Violent revolution is also no longer practical in developed countries given the governments surveillance and military capabilities

Our current situation where people do pointless, mind numbing and demeaning work just to survive leads to plenty of depression and suicidality.

[dgfgfdagasdfgfa]

Automation doesn't benefit the people when profits flow toward landlords and business owners.

[rasz]

how to spot an American

>catastrophic healthcare

you already have one of those ;) What is it with US and lack of compassion?

[fastball]

Paying for someone else's healthcare shows compassion.

Not paying for someone else's healthcare does not indicate a lack thereof.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and many Americans seem to draw that line as "primary rights need to be protected, and all else is every man for himself". Let's say you really want new Macbook Pro. It costs a lot more money than you got. So someone else in society pays for it. Ok, same situation, but someone else doesn't wanna pay for it. Does that really make them a person without compassion.

[edpichler]

Totally agree. Here is an interesting video about automation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5OyrsHmjW0

[anigbrowl]

Sounds like Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.

(not a joke, this is a tongue-in-cheek but serious project aimed at transitioning to a Star Trek type society).

[mason240]

>Those who don't want to learn should be given enough for basic subsistence.

Everyone should be be given that through UBI (universal basic income).

[phkahler]

>> The people that want to learn will be incredibly leveraged and provide a ton of value to society.

Great, who is going to pay them? Serious question.

[Applejinx]

Moochers looking for fun ways to spend their free money.

(it boggles my mind how often people see an artificial consumer class as some kind of money sink into which the 'good' people dump their hard earned dollars. This is madness. What you're looking at in that event is a money ocean made up of would-be customers you just aren't selling to yet, and handled properly it's a titanic resource for anybody who DOES want to provide value and be compensated. You can't get paid unless there's people out there with liquid resources who are free to pay you if they like your stuff.)

[tpeo]

>We should not be employing people in jobs that can be automated. We should try and automate everything.

Suppose that automation can be automated. Not that implausible, really. Will we just sit in a corner waiting through eternity on the machines to appear on their own?

I like theorizing too, but we've gotta live in the meantime.