Jump to content


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, sho said:

 

I think someone making $60K as an accountant because it pays the bills would consider quitting to follow their dream of being a chef at 40K.   I think it will allow the janitor to chase their dream of owning their own cleaning service company instead of working for someone else.

 

I don't think it'll end people's reliance off of working and needing to find money.  I think it will open opportunities that they normally wouldn't take out of fear of not being able to make it.

 

 

And I would argue, it's needed now, not in the future.

 

There's more jobs available than there are people to fill them.... It's not needed now, imo

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

8 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

There's more jobs available than there are people to fill them.... It's not needed now, imo

 

It's not about the availability of jobs.   It's about the ability to do the jobs you want instead of the job you need.  For example, my wife would love to find a less stressful job that fit with some of her passions (and there a lot of them available), but she won't even entertain the idea, because it would be too much of a pay cut.   The fact that she could find a job easily in her passion isn't enough, the loss of income prevents her from even persuing the idea.  Our family getting the $2K monthly, she would jump at the chance of doing that work.  

 

The UBI is about security and peace of mind to do what you want to do instead of what you have to do and giving people an opportunity to still make a decent life even if they aren't making the same wage at a job.   Some of the lost income will be because of automation, others because they are chasing their passions.   Either way, country morale will grow and that would tie in to Yang's measurement for his GDP change.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, sho said:

 

It's not about the availability of jobs.   It's about the ability to do the jobs you want instead of the job you need.  For example, my wife would love to find a less stressful job that fit with some of her passions (and there a lot of them available), but she won't even entertain the idea, because it would be too much of a pay cut.   The fact that she could find a job easily in her passion isn't enough, the loss of income prevents her from even persuing the idea.  Our family getting the $2K monthly, she would jump at the chance of doing that work.  

 

The UBI is about security and peace of mind to do what you want to do instead of what you have to do and giving people an opportunity to still make a decent life even if they aren't making the same wage at a job.   Some of the lost income will be because of automation, others because they are chasing their passions.   Either way, country morale will grow and that would tie in to Yang's measurement for his GDP change.

 

I'm a firm believer that you shouldn't follow your passion, but pursue opportunity. Your wife, and many people like her I'm sure, are making a choice. There's really nothing stopping her from pursuing her passion. She just chooses to make more money. It's not the government, or taxpayer's responsibility to provide those "passion" opportunities to people.

Link to comment

I think I understand the need for UBI in a world where robots and AI have displaced too many workers. The thing I don’t get is how people think giving everyone a basic income is going to help equalize anything. The economy will adjust, everything will increase in price and mostly the same people who struggle now will also struggle to get by with another $1k per month. In my mind it’s much like increasing minimum wage. It sounds great on the surface for those who toil in those lower wage jobs but the net result is their cost of living increases at a similar pace and they’re back to not being able to afford the burgers they’re flipping.

 

If there is a way to fund it from the ultra rich and from specified high tech companies who are benefitting from an expanded robot/AI workforce then I suppose the negative effects can be minimized. But to think 1 or 2 grand a month is going to free people to do what they love and quit worrying about money, imo that will never come to fruition. It won’t be long and the resultant inflation is going to negate any leg up they once had. In the entire history of the world there have always been haves and have nots. I don’t see this changing that reality.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I'm a firm believer that you shouldn't follow your passion, but pursue opportunity. Your wife, and many people like her I'm sure, are making a choice. There's really nothing stopping her from pursuing her passion. She just chooses to make more money. It's not the government, or taxpayer's responsibility to provide those "passion" opportunities to people.

 

You are right, she is making a choice that she feels is best for her family.  And with UBI, she would have the luxury of making a different choice that would make her happier while still providing the requirements she has for her family.   That's what UBI is, it's allowing people to have more choices that fits their needs best all while allowing industry to replace workers with automation.   Some people will pick getting more education and moving up the corporate ladder, more people would do jobs in the arts and entertainment industry, more people would pick lower level jobs where there is less stress.  That's the joy of UBI, it's not about just to pay people because they lost their jobs, it's about giving more choices.   It doesn't matter that there are more jobs than workers, that IMO, is a capital problem, that can be solved with common sense immigration policies.

Link to comment

10 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I'm a firm believer that you shouldn't follow your passion, but pursue opportunity. Your wife, and many people like her I'm sure, are making a choice. There's really nothing stopping her from pursuing her passion. She just chooses to make more money. It's not the government, or taxpayer's responsibility to provide those "passion" opportunities to people.

I tend to agree but.....

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

 

just sayin. ;)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Just catching back up with this thread. Regarding the point about AI taking all the jobs brought up by @knapplc and @B.B. Hemingway I think much of the situation being over-blown. Yang always brings up the point using truckers as an example because it would affect a large amount of people. However, there are many sectors (agriculture being one) that rely on trucking and really wouldn't be able to utilize self-driving trucks. Trucks are required to navigate gravel or even muddy roads with ever-changing obstacles. And it would still require someone to be there to load and unload (livestock, grain, etc).

 

In addition to that, the coding and implementation of AI that's capable of even all-highway travel is a lot further off than it's being sold. Even once the AI is developed, it will still require pretty extensive testing and a "passenger" to make sure the trip goes well.

 

By and large, I don't buy the dystopian idea of there being almost no jobs for people in the future due to AI. There are certain jobs that either a robot could never do, we wouldn't want them to, or it wouldn't make economical sense for them to do. Overall, as we've seen in the past 20+ years with technological advancements, AI might take a large number of jobs, but it will also create jobs that pay better and require more technical skills. 

 

I also think we're going to continue to trend more into entertainment industry jobs. Think about how many people are already employed by non-essential entertainment type jobs (Athletes, commentators, concession workers, ushers, sports journalists, etc.), and I see that continuing to expand.

22 minutes ago, sho said:

 

It's not about the availability of jobs.   It's about the ability to do the jobs you want instead of the job you need.  For example, my wife would love to find a less stressful job that fit with some of her passions (and there a lot of them available), but she won't even entertain the idea, because it would be too much of a pay cut.   The fact that she could find a job easily in her passion isn't enough, the loss of income prevents her from even persuing the idea.  Our family getting the $2K monthly, she would jump at the chance of doing that work.  

 

The UBI is about security and peace of mind to do what you want to do instead of what you have to do and giving people an opportunity to still make a decent life even if they aren't making the same wage at a job.   Some of the lost income will be because of automation, others because they are chasing their passions.   Either way, country morale will grow and that would tie in to Yang's measurement for his GDP change.

 

This would undoubtedly be one of the major benefits of UBI

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I think I understand the need for UBI in a world where robots and AI have displaced too many workers. The thing I don’t get is how people think giving everyone a basic income is going to help equalize anything. The economy will adjust, everything will increase in price and mostly the same people who struggle now will also struggle to get by with another $1k per month. In my mind it’s much like increasing minimum wage. It sounds great on the surface for those who toil in those lower wage jobs but the net result is their cost of living increases at a similar pace and they’re back to not being able to afford the burgers they’re flipping.

 

If there is a way to fund it from the ultra rich and from specified high tech companies who are benefitting from an expanded robot/AI workforce then I suppose the negative effects can be minimized. But to think 1 or 2 grand a month is going to free people to do what they love and quit worrying about money, imo that will never come to fruition. It won’t be long and the resultant inflation is going to negate any leg up they once had. In the entire history of the world there have always been haves and have nots. I don’t see this changing that reality.

 

 

The one theory I have read, and I wish I could remember the article, the ultra rich will actually be able to make more money without raising costs.   Increased automation will, in theory, reduce the main cost of human labor.   An example I read, Company A can invest 300K for 6 machines and spend 30K a year in maintenance and run those machines 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  Doing so would eliminate 50 salaries saving $1.50M in annual expenses.  So, after the initial investment, they are saving $1.2M annually.  With proper VAT, the executives would still be making more profit and could pay for UBI.   Those 50 people who would now be out $30K annually, would actually only be out $6k and could afford to go to school to get new skills for a new job market, create a new business, etc.  

Link to comment

4 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

The government isn’t stopping her.

 

One could argue against that, what with predatory student loans offered by said government.

 

But is simply "not stopping" a high enough bar? Should not government work in favor of the people, rather than merely not being an active hindrance to them?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, sho said:

 

 

The one theory I have read, and I wish I could remember the article, the ultra rich will actually be able to make more money without raising costs.   Increased automation will, in theory, reduce the main cost of human labor.   An example I read, Company A can invest 300K for 6 machines and spend 30K a year in maintenance and run those machines 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  Doing so would eliminate 50 salaries saving $1.50M in annual expenses.  So, after the initial investment, they are saving $1.2M annually.  With proper VAT, the executives would still be making more profit and could pay for UBI.   Those 50 people who would now be out $30K annually, would actually only be out $6k and could afford to go to school to get new skills for a new job market, create a new business, etc.  

I’m sure that is basically true and that it could work that way. But we’re going to have find some different executives that are going to satisfied to let go of what amounts to extra profit and be happy to let it pay the VAT without most of it finding its way into their pockets and buying them more power with our government officials. We seem to be in extremely short supply of executives and politicians who would be content to let it play out to anyone’s benefit other than their own.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

One could argue against that, what with predatory student loans offered by said government.

 

But is simply "not stopping" a high enough bar? Should not government work in favor of the people, rather than merely not being an active hindrance to them?

I agree but there is what SHOULD be happening and then there is today’s reality and historical precedence.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...