Automation, job loss, and universal basic income
 

Millions of jobs are set to be lost to automation efforts over the next 15 or so years. UBI seems to be gaining traction on the interwebs lately for some reason (maybe because conservatives are starting to realize the need is coming, and that it could actually reduce spending on entitlements). I haven't had time to really look into it yet.

Conservative case for UBI:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...income/375600/

seems like it would be nearly impossible to regulate

this would mean businesses would be on the hook for providing, and would find any possible loophole to avoid it

has socialism written all over it

As far as points 1 and 3 go, it's no different than what we have today except it would be a single program handled by a single agency instead of 79 programs or whatever ridiculous number it is currently.

For point 2, I'm not quite sure what you mean - private companies would not be involved.

those 79 programs have requirements to offset just handing out money for nothing

did you not absorb anything from economics?

you seem to underestimate the laziness and scum sucking ability of low IQ mexicans and blacks. UBI would only encourage them

the greatest experiment yet is georgia's recent work requirement for food stamps. 80% of previous leeches suddenly became un-poor!

Sure any such program will have its share of waste and fraud (just like the IRS deals with) - the question is which system is actually more efficient/costly and what are the other benefits to society of such an approach (increases in education, entrepreneurship, etc). You seem to be overestimating how "basic" the amount of money being considered is. You might also want to look into how many poor white folks are on the gubment dole.

whites outnumber only do to the fact we are still the majority. That wont be the case for too much longer because low IQ tends to go hand in hand with fvcking unprotected.

check your per capita numbers, mate. Then project those findings when whites are the minority.

These issues will need to be dealt with in the near future, most probably in our children's generation. Hopefully they are more grown up than us and can talk about the issues without thinking everything is communism in different clothes.

I think the first step is to reduce the working week away from 40 hours to 30 or less. How that is structured I'm not sure if we move to 4 day weeks or 6hr work days. Moving beyond that I think we have to have a UBI. The reality of doing nothing and just letting the "market" take its path will result in those with capital will become ultra wealthy and the "workers" will become very very poor. The wealth inequality will result in a broken society. I think it is a perfect opportunity to evaluate what is really important in life and how all society work together for the betterment of everyone.

Oh the irony of using "do" for "due" and then talking about other people having a low IQ.

There was an article in the paper yesterday talking about other grocery retailers going towards the Aldi low cost model. Aldi is very efficient and uses the minimum of employees to get the job done. We've managed to lose a significant amount of the manufacturing sector. Now the service industry is taking a hit from automation and the spectre of reduced service industry employees. The more people that are disenfranchised from the economy, the more you can expect the vote to move towards socialism ideology. But at that point the corrections are going to be more extreme than if they are addressed early on. Being in a state of denial is only a delay tactic that will bring diminishing returns.

Another industry targeted for automation:

http://fortune.com/2017/06/18/amazon...-foods-prices/

Finally read this but answer what I thought was a question you ask on the other thread. Interesting read, however I think it would quickly just make almost all basic needs offset to $10,000. Everything would just be that much more expensive and with people not having individual responsibility, it would be an equal mess as today. Maybe it would be cheaper for the government to operate but the people would not make out.

If you want people off welfare, don't punish them for having a two parent household for starters. This has pretty much destroyed the black family in American cities. Setup a single campus in each state with dorm style housing for skills training where people could live for two years and get training while doing something worth while to earn it. The state can use their skills to help offset the costs of the facility. Kind of job core like situation or military for millions of American youth that has some sort of direct skill set training for industry. Give them relocation funds after they graduate. Make it manditory that anyone on assistance for more than a year have to relocate to this facility for training if they want to retain benefits. Any drugs or discipline issues and they are out. Set a timeline that they can only retrain once every so many years or if they prove to be smarter than the rest, continue them into advanced skills/ engineering/ medical training for a couple more years. We have too much emphasis on higher education that includes fluff material. The Navy gets engineer level personnel out in no time. I bet they did not read hamlet even once.

I'll start by saying UBI would make my goal of early retirement much easier! I would quit working sooner for sure, how much sooner depends on the UBI amount.

I am opposed to all forms of welfare, but so far as I've considered it UBI would be preferable to the massive welfare state that harms the poor and minorities, is a massive make-work program amounting to digging ditches and filling them back in, disincentivizes working to better one's financial situation, and paid for with stolen money. Less government, particularly at the federal level, is always a good thing for the individual (the smallest minority). I don't know how such a thing would be funded or the cost vs the current welfare state, I suspect more printing funny money via the private central bank... Rapid inflation is a real possibility, but it is given the current welfare/warfare state as it is now. The left has no problem enslaving the unborn with massive government deficits and debt, treating children of the next generation as tax cattle.

Stephan Molyneux on UBI (YouTube)

Lol, again UBI isn't going to make anyone rich or provide what anyone whose lifestyle includes a luxury like wakeboarding will consider "comfortable" - I don't think you're gonna go quit your job for $10k a year from Uncle Sam. It would however replace and greatly simplify the multitude of assistance programs. And in those I include things like farm subsidies and other corporate welfare. And while the deficit and debt issue you bring up is real, it's laughable that you think it's the left's baby considering the way the right spends (and refuses to pay for its spending or even acknowledge it exists) - they've all mortgaged the future.

Another aspect of UBI is all the wasted potential that goes into the grind of survival for a large swath of the population - and it's only getting larger as that number encroaches more and more into the middle class - and that includes all the peripheral things that get caught up in such a system - like poor nutrition, increased medical problems, etc. - things that become everybody's problem. Especially with the way people spend beyond their means these days and lack even the most basic financial sense. Something like 70% of people in America don't even have $1k in savings - boggles the mind. UBI can help the former - education/training programs like Rod brought up could help the latter.

The thing is that automation is here and its only going to increase. Look at the industries something as minor as the iphone (and its peers) that have been shaken up or destroyed in just 10 years and extrapolate that out another 20. Sure new jobs and opportunities get created at the same time, but realistically it's not a net positive - not even close. A 45 year old truck driver expecting to work another 20-25 years minimum is going to have a tough time jumping into software engineering when his company buys a fleet of Teslas 10 years from now.

My boat costs about $100/mo to own and operate, add $80/mo if amortizing the purchase price and of course that number will decrease over time. A luxury like wakeboarding is only as expensive as you want it to be. Personally I would absolutely retire far earlier with $10k/yr additional income. Assuming no debt and relocating to a LCOL area with low property taxes, affordable waterfront property, and a nearly year round riding season... One can live very comfortably on $20k-$30k/yr. Half to a third of expenses paid for just for existing? Sign me up for early retirement on a lake! Thanks Uncle Sam!

You're making assumptions. I never stated the republicans weren't just as happy to enslave the unborn with massive debt. The topic was welfare though, which is the left's baby. The left certainly doesn't think of the children, but neither does the right.

This is true with all welfare.


Only in a socialist or communist society. I don't want these things to be my problem, or anyone else except the individual making those choices.

Automation is the natural way of things, it's called civilization. Automation has improved the quality of life of everyone on this planet and will continue to do so. Compare the quality of life of the poor today to 100 years ago, and from 100 years ago to 200 years ago. Massive improvements in quality of life by any measure. Pick a metric, like life expectancy, car ownership, air conditioning, electricity... Or the iPhone, this is anecdotal of course but I notice "poor" people always seem to have the latest model of phone and various other luxuries I do not... But then again there's a reason those people are "poor".

The issue is government is increasing the rate of automation by artificially raising the cost of hiring people (payroll taxes, insurance/benefits cost, minimum wage, etc. Automation frees up those people to do better and more productive things, maybe make the next iPhone or some other valuable product or breakthrough. The problem is when automation occurs at an artificially rapid rate people cannot adjust quickly and there is a large increase in unemployment.

Teslas are a rich man's toy subsidized with the working man's dollar at the point of development, manufacture, and sale. Tesla also offers no vehicle that can do the work of a truck. Another anecdote... I know a few truckers. Trucking is a very highly regulated profession and there is a shortage of drivers. It's also a bad career to get into because of the level of regulation. One trucker I know retired early and sold his fleet because government regulation, poof jobs gone and less competition because government. Several others drove company trucks and have gone into other fields. The guys I know still driving do not like it anymore and are on the fence.

The government is not causing automation. That is a strawman argument. Industries around the world have been working on automated workers for decades now. It has nothing to do with minimum wage laws, etc.

There is a "shortage of drivers" because truck driving sucks unless you are an owner-operator. Trucking companies treat their company drivers like crap. Regulation has very little to do with it. If truck companies treated their drivers better and increased their pay, you would hear little gripe coming from drivers, especially when it comes to regulation. Your trucker buddy likely sold his "fleet" to another operator that has those trucks out on the road. There was no net loss of jobs.

Jeremy, please read what I wrote again...

Also, perhaps you also ignored the part where I wrote about an owner operator shutting down his business and putting a few other folks out of work as well, because government regulation sucks and makes driving not a worthwhile career. The guys I know who haven't quit are doing local work where they're home most nights, and they still debate whether it's worthwhile with all the government regulation.

You left this paragraph out from your original post:

"The issue is government is increasing the rate of automation by artificially raising the cost of hiring people (payroll taxes, insurance/benefits cost, minimum wage, etc. Automation frees up those people to do better and more productive things, maybe make the next iPhone or some other valuable product or breakthrough. The problem is when automation occurs at an artificially rapid rate people cannot adjust quickly and there is a large increase in unemployment."

If trucking companies paid better wages, the driving industry would be booming. Regulation is not causing drivers to leave the industry. Crappy pay and being away from home for weeks at a time is the cause.

^ but America shops at wallymart so it's not as simple as paying truckers more. It's reminiscent of the $15 minimum wage on the west coast where workers hours are being cut as a result. Economics, how does it work?

Human nature is to take advantage of situations. Built into us from eons ago hunting and foraging. Paying people for nothing won't end well.

The trucking industry has a very high turnover rate. Swift Transportation increased their driver pay significantly in 2014 and saw a 29.4 increase in net profit and increased retention.

Correct. You had quoted that in your first reply, so I assumed you were aware of that part at least. I don't know why I bother with you when you seem to resort to either strawman or personal attack in every post, but let's give this one more try. Back to your first response to me...

I certainly never stated the government was causing automation, and I don't recall anyone else in this thread stating that. The text of yours I quoted above is a textbook example of a strawman argument. Maybe that was what you meant by that?

Regardless, as time goes on and technology advances automation is the natural way of things for many tasks. Automation is costly initially but as technology and manufacturing processes advance, as well as economies of scale from greater adoption, the cost decreases. The decision to automate a task or process is based on weighing the labor cost vs the capital and recurring cost of automating that task, determining ROI.

Some tasks may never reach ROI at current labor and automation costs. Increase labor cost and/or decrease automation cost and ROI comes sooner. If labor cost is artificially increased (taxes on labor, minimum wage, health insurance/benefits cost artificially increased, difficult to fire bad employees who are a protected class, etc...) ROI comes sooner. If automation cost is subsidized, automation comes sooner.

To add another reality to the discussion, there are some tasks which automation is unlikely to ever be practical from a cost or quality/safety aspect. The human ability for independent thought and analysis is required. In those cases the decision is weighing the cost of labor in one location vs the initial cost of moving elsewhere and the ongoing cost of labor there.

Trucking companies paying better wages? He couldn't pay himself enough to be worthwhile because government regulation made it expensive, difficult, and frustrating. Trucking is extremely highly regulated, many (most) of those regulations make no sense, are not practical, or the enforcers are either corrupt, incompetent or generally not knowledgeable about the laws and trucking or trucks in general. There is a cost to compliance, and it is high.

You do know that Every man, woman and child gets $2,000.00 in Alaska for doing nothing, so a family of four gets 8k for just living there, it seems to be working out quite well for them.
Then there's the Army, who will dig a hole and fill it up! Lots of work getting done there, but they are doing OK, in fact, the communities around army bases seem to thrive!
Everyone knows that 2% of the US population can produce enough food for everyone in the US and about 25% of the food grown in the US is exported(we do not have a trade deficit when it comes to agriculture) but corn is so cheap, that farmers must get government subsidies to make a profit(they are not going to grow the corn if they can't make money)
And if you think about it 2% of the US population could produce all the shelter for everyone in the US, so all of our needs(food and shelter) could be met by less than 5% of the population. This means all the other jobs in the US are just fill in jobs, like the army, just giving the people something to do to get paid! So, why not just give them the money to keep the economy going?

Dude, I appreciate not having to drive down the road with a bunch of truckers that decided to run 24 hours straight to earn a bonus. They keep reducing the amount of training a trucker needs to be able to drive so I think additional regulation is warranted.

Jeremy, wild claims and "I think" is not an argument. Your feels are irrelevant, more so when standing alone with no data or even elaboration.

After seeing this go back and forth I have to chime in. The data backs Jeremy, just look at stats from driver fatigue and the % chance of an accident. The regulations keep people on the road safe, which IMO is a higher priority than how a section of the work force is doing.

Are you disputing my claim that it has become easier to get a CDL and start driving? I know you support a spooky view of no rules or regulations, but regulations are there for truck drivers because of bad $h!t that has happened in the past. Driver fatigue is a definite problem in the industry and to say otherwise is lunacy.

Jeremy, I'm waiting for you to provide some data or even anecdotes regarding drivers who have chosen to drive for 24 hours straight an had an incident, or just drive 24 hours straight with no incident. I know several drivers and to think any of them would drive 24 hours straight for any reason is lunacy. Where are all the truckers who drive 24 hours straight and cause incidents? Then or now, let's see some data. Also you have not responded regarding your strawman... I'm still waiting.

Damn dude, maybe 24 hours was a bit of an exaggeration, but it doesn't take away from my original argument. Besides, what kind of "data" do you think exists of someone that grossly broke the law? Before electronic logs dominated the scene, I know of a few drivers that doctored their logs to gain a few extra hours.

Stick to the original topic and quit trying to stray.

Pretty damning stats, especially the bottom two which is directly correlated to what Jeremy is talking about.

Jeremy, why don't you just say what you mean instead of flip flopping on a point you brought up? Preferably back it up with at least a few sentences describing your reasoning and maybe some data from another source or at least something anecdotal rather than your "feels".

Regarding data on those who grossly broke the law, there is plenty of data about crime. You mention some of that data, maybe link to something, and if you suspect it is under-reported explain why and make your case.

Some drivers will sometimes input false information in their logs, what those I've talked to it's often when they are stuck in a situation where there is no legal course of action, they do what is needed to get somewhere safe and legal to stop and wait out their time until they can legally drive again. This is common. Even with electronic logs it is done every day.

An example is no forklift operator available or other customer screwup resulting in loading time far longer than expected. Driver ends up shorted driving time being at customer waiting to load since he was already on duty and it's not practical to log sleeper time, or customer won't allow it, or any number of other reasons. Maybe he ends up burning through his 70 and needs a reset before delivering the load. That's an expensive screwup to fix and maybe lose the customer because government. Either way driver finally gets loaded and can't deliver load to local destination or can't legally drive to a truck stop or anywhere safe or legal to log sleeper time for his daily or to reset.

Maybe the driver logs personal conveyance to get 20 miles to the closest safe and legal place to log sleeper. Maybe he gets caught and government won't let him drive anymore, maybe he has bad luck and gets in this scenario a few too many times and government won't let him drive anymore after seeing a pattern in the logs, maybe he loses the customer, maybe he loses his job if a company driver, maybe the government steals his truck because he followed the law and did not drive but was parked illegally. All this because government. Never mind the drivers that are tired or fatigued because they couldn't sleep or are not well rested adn ready to drive but thanks to government regulation they have to drive rather than adjust their plan to get rest and be safe.

Interesting article on lowering minimum wage... A small victory for poor and minorities in Missouri.

UBI would not fix the poor being poor. The lowest income Americans spend 40% of their income on luxuries. These are the same group of people who on average work under 20 hours per week.

The poor are poor as a result of choices they make. UBI will not eliminate poverty, but I believe it's a less evil form of welfare, both in the stealing and the giving. The question is how do you fund giving everyone $10k of income when you'll have to take more than $10k from people? Will there be a welfare cliff where $1 more costs you $10k? That is how much of the current system works, with medicaid I know people who work less than they can to artificially limit their income as losing welfare payments would cost many thousands more than the additional income they would make (at least in the short term). Under the current welfare system there are many incentives not to work.

"It’s worth noting that by the specialized nomenclature of the dismal science, even eating at McDonald’s is a luxury "

So much for that study.:rolleyes:

Don't forget the rest of the quote that defines what a luxury item is. Unless your buying off the dollar menu, McDonalds cost more money than cooking at home will. You, the article, and I have no idea what people are ordering off the McDonalds menu and don't have any idea what the distribution of the amount of each ticket at McDonalds was. I wouldn't consider the study gospel, but to write it off because of that well, is no better. Its a good Segway for creating a deeper study to see what people are really spending their money on. I wouldn't be surprised to see that number stay around the same from my own personal experience, but thats just an opinion.

See thewakeisreal's post for the "data". Google is easily accessible for everyone. I don't need to do your research on something that is as widely known.

I think Jeremy is a troll... I took the bait.

I think you need to look in the mirror pal. I have been hanging around here for close to 10 years. I can tell you are a guy who thinks he is never wrong. I bet you are a hoot at parties.

I think asking for data, then ignoring the data when it is presented is more of a troll move.

https://www.facebook.com/numbersusa/...2415325481824/
Common sense

Growing up, it was huge to be able to get a McDonalds Hamburger or see a movie. I bet I went to the movies 3 times my entire 7 grade through college. Only time I went is when I was working and did not spend on clothes. So, I would say eating out is a luxury.

It's pretty hard to cook cheaply and feed a family when you are poor and working long hours. The cheap menus at fast food joints aren't exactly what anyone in their right mind would call a luxury. The so called luxury is that the parent or parents can feed their kids cheaply and get some rest for the next work day. Sure you can cook and feed a family cheaper. But it is a lot of work.

So a hamburger that costs less than a pack of gum is a "luxury"? Wow.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/...rsei-lannister

Lol for the GoT fans

This will be us soon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy0DDuf8fYw

Musk thinks UBI is inevitable

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/17/elon-...r-than-us.html

Less than a pack of gum? Are you serious. Yes. We did not have the money. That is the reality for many. It was a reality for many in my parents generation too. It just was not done. Welcome to life in the midwest for many. Most of these big city snow flakes have so much that they can not see it. It is a matter of priorities. Your attitude makes you poor, not money.

Musk thinks a lot of things. At the end of the day regulation will not allow it to happen. This is the bases of much of our current workforce. There are a few doers and many compliance people working the edges. Even at BART, the trains can nominally drive themselves now but they are not allowed to. Same with most airliners. They can land themselves but they are not allowed too. You can artificially manufacture jobs based on regulation. California lives off of it.

How many people do you think would get on a pilotless airliner right now? Sounds like a terrible marketing strategy.

777 and 787 can take-off by themselves, but definitely cannot land...

"Same with most airliners. They can land themselves but they are not allowed too. "

This is actually backward. My sister flys 787s. They are not allowed to land them unless there are special circumstances.

My uncle is a pilot and says that 99% of his flights the ONLY thing he really has control over is the taxi process and taking off. After that its all auto-pilot unless there is some odd-ball wind or delay keeping them from landing.

I grew up in a modest household, my dad worked in a blue-collar job. We didn't eat out often, but when we would go to McDonald's (or any other fast food joint), I never felt like it was fine dining.

That's my point. Just because machines can do these things, the law will not allow it thus protectionism of sorts. Then there is the trust factor. even if trust comes up, the law will not allow it unless there is a nice big donation.....

I grew up with a widowed mother. I did not know we were poor until I got to Jr High. Poor is an attitude. It should not shape your morals and does not control your will to work or your happiness. I know the human condition is against that, but it really shouldn't. I did not consider McDonalds fine dining, it was a luxury.

Unfortunately evolution (or God if that's your thing) has made sure that it does shape your morals. Being poor is not so much an issue if everyone is poor around you.

Saying that being poor is solely an attitude issue defies the laws of economics. I.E. people being wealthy around you makes being poor worse even if you discount the emotional effect.

I remember as kids we got to go to McDonalds almost every other Friday night. It wasnt fine dining lol, we never did that... but it was a big deal to us. I recall the employee would take the order with a pencil on a little pad and then add up everything to get the total. My dad would add it up (looking upside down at the pad) to make sure they did not add wrong. I dont know if they didnt have cash registers that did that back then or why I even remember it that way. Mid 1960's when the sign still said "Over a billion sold".

While I can see the situation, I was always happy as heck when I saw people around me get something new and cool. I guess I am wired different.

I remember that sign.

I doubt it. A friend getting something awesome isn't exactly the kind of issue we are talking about. Would you be happy to see your family struggling to get housing, HC, or food while all the families around are living the high life?

I'd agree that you are wired different WRT thinking that eating at McDonalds is a luxury.

McDonalds can and is a luxury unless you order off the dollar menu. Im in my late 20's, in school full time, work, who survives in Denver with roughly 30k annual income. I'm a meathead, go to the gym regularly and eat more than both my roommates combined. McDonalds is convenient, but it is a luxury. When I cook at home, I can and do get double the food with higher nutritional content than I would spending the same money at McDonalds. Yes its tough to cook and being a full time student that doesn't take a semester off and works knows how tough it is to cook with a struct time budget, but it doesn't stop me. That is where good food prep and time management comes into play.

Also if I don't go off the dollar menu, I can eat at Chipotle, a good sandwich shop, noodles and company, tokyo joes,smash burger, etc. for the same amount of money I would spend at McDonalds or Wendy's or any other fast food establishments. The funny thing is, I can spend the same amount at chipotle and get a meal that has a higher nutritional content and healthier foods. Mcdonalds is an absolute luxury and thats coming from somebody who while isn't living in poverty, is poor.

Eating a McDonalds was a luxury when you are poor like I was and it is for others who are poor. It is not a right to eat a McDonalds.

Well John, considering we did lose our house and I was staying on friends couches for a while, I would say yes. I was still happy for people when they got things. I was grateful when I got to partake in what they had going on. I never even BBQ'ed until my 20's. Between the ages of maybe 7 until my mid 20's, I never had steak. This whole notion that you have to be angry and want to destroy if you don't have something is societal decay.