,, But a proper goal for policy should be for automation to complement rather than replace workers''
This is actually trivial to do: get rid of income tax. Taxing land property by its value makes much more sense, as it correlates with the burden a property has on the government (city, country infrastructure), but I guess that policy is not that popular with the older generation.
> Taxing land property by its value makes much more sense, as it correlates with the burden a property has on the government
This is trivially false.
The same house will cost vastly different amounts depending on where it is, and yet assuming the same occupancy, the burden will be approximately the same.
I'm not that sure about it. In an expensive area people expect more money to go towards making the area nicer as well, and costs of people to do maintenance is higher as well. Anyways, my main point is that taxing people who want to work just tells them a signal not to.
I always thought a good tax would be on automation. It's hard to define. But, at 100% automation, where no human is efficient at working -vs- machine labor, then all automation output should flow to the people, or a 100% automation tax. Conversely, at 0% automation, tax is 0%; the part of the middle is hard.
The thing is: it is much easier to move robots to another jurisdiction than to move workers. That is why robots won't be taxed anytime soon. Whoever starts with it, will cripple competitiveness of their own industry on the world markets.
Hopefully we can agree that automation is, on the whole, a good thing. If all work were automated, we could all live a life of idle luxury.
If I were an employer running a factory with little automation, then I could spend some R&D money to develop machinery to automate my manufacturing, and then spend money to retool my lines to use that automation, and then under your proposal I would now lose all of my profits, since 100% of my profit would now be taxed. This would seem like a pretty big disincentive for me to invest in automation.
I can tell from the downvotes that people heavily disagree with me. But if no one is able to work, and one person ( the automation owner ) now has all the money. I don't see that as a good thing. But, we'll see how that plays out.
I've been wondering for a while why individuals pay tax on income, while companies pay tax on profit.
But even if we stick with that - perhaps using profit-per-employee to determine corporate tax bands would be the way to go. Or, allowing them to count salaries at 2-3x other expenses when calculating expenditures.
We take care of children, old people, disabled people, and others that can't take care of themselves. We will likely have to take care of low skilled individuals who can't do a job better or more economically than a robot. Universal Basic Income is one proposed solution but faces opposition due the attitude that able bodied people should have to work for a living. This becomes harder and harder for people who can't learn to keep up and get left behind. The need for UBI seems like a forgone conclusion at this point.
It is a foregone conclusion only because of assumptions that conspire to make the argument circular.
I think you’re mischaracterizing some part of the opposition with “should have to work”. To my school of UBI skepticism, it’s not at all about Lutheran work ethic as a deontological good.
To clarify: I don’t believe we take care of elderly/disabled/children solely because it’s “the right thing to do”. Instead I believe we do it due to other conditions e.g. “it could be me one day” and “it’s just a few people so we can afford it”. Based on that, I think the stance will change if the conditions change.
The actual problem is not that there is less work for humans to do, but that the remaining work is divided unevenly. Currently, personal overproduction just gets eaten up by the hedonic and financial treadmills, while the underemployed see little benefit from developing skills for jobs that are already taken. Significantly dropping what is considered "full time" employment would be a good start. A target of twenty hours per week is a good immediate target, as well as getting rid of that "exempt employee" loophole.
Longer term, if we wish to continue having a distributed economy, then the gains of automation need to accrue to people directly, through something resembling ownership. Basic Income should only ever been seen as a social safety net. Collecting most of the wealth by a centralized entity ("government") to distribute back out to people is fraught with political hazard, if it is even possible to sustain.
Well, it hasn’t worked yet for that, while taking care of elders has.
Where I live, optometry and dental medicine are carved out of socialized healthcare. Hard to reconcile that with the purely utilitarian theory.
I think the “few people” aspect is important in practice. If the prevalence is too great, it could stop feeling like an accidental curse of fate. Just theorizing.
If there are any people that can do a job better than a robot, then the answer is very heavy education and genetic engineering for improved IQ and work ethic, to constantly improve humans to be able to achieve more without personal strain.
Remember back in the 1400’s there was little education and what like 95% farm work. Developed nations have reduced farm work to like 5% of the population, through education and better nutrition, to focus on improved medicine and leisure. See the Flynn effect.
> the answer is very heavy education and genetic engineering for improved IQ and work ethic, to constantly improve humans to be able to achieve more without personal strain
That sounds like a lot of work. Isn't tech supposed to make life easier?
There are many programs to help homeless people in camps who are functional. The homeless problem is more about non-functional people who refuse help due to drug addiction and mental illness. We need laws that allow communities to force these people into rehab. We need money for rehab. Most Americans don't want to spend the money to do this. I don't know how it is in other countries.
UBI only sounds good if you don’t understand human motivation and game theory.
If 10% of the population doesn’t have to work I can justify I’m helping those in need. If 70% of the population doesn’t have to work there’s zero chance I’m working.
Looking at what drives pretty much everybody I know, there is about a zero percent chance that any sizable portion of the population will chose to not work.
Sure. Now let's imagine you're in the top 10% of competence that has to work and I'm in the 15th percentile so I don't have to work because the robots outcompete me. Why would you work all day at a traditional job knowing that I get to do whatever I want all day? I get to travel, spend time with my family, enjoy my hobbies, focus on romantic relationships, all while you're working. And not just me, 90% of everyone on the planet gets to just do whatever we want while you must work. Would you accept that deal? Do you think the majority of the most competent people on the planet would accept that kind of deal?
Looking at people I know, they'd just sit around and smoke weed all day if they didn't have to work. I'd be interested to know what portion of the population is which.
I feel it only makes sense to stick to the definition implied in the original post. If you change the definition, you’re having a completely different discussion.
The point is to apply game theory to the given premise, not change the premise in some way. Once you consider, even for a moment, how all the players in the proposed system would respond to their situation it obviously would not work.
I get what you mean, but you would expect people to import game theory yet importing anything yourself just confuses the whole thing?
Politics aren’t manipulated and how things work are organic. So we should just be happy since look at this math, cause behavior and statistics aren’t game-able.
I think you are under-estimating the number of people who like having a job. Many retired people report not liking having nothing to do. The challenge will be to create more opportunities for people to learn, socialize, do something creative, find a hobby or some outdoor activity. I think it will be a better world when we transition people away from being wage slaves and enjoy the benefits of the creative activities of newly freed people.
Retirement is instructive as the intention of the retired to stay busy doesn’t match what they, in aggregate, actually do. We should expect similar difficulty with younger ages if we expand retirement to them.
It's not about what the "non-productive" people will do to entertain themselves. They will socialize, pick up a hobby, spend time with their family, etc. There's no concern about them whatsoever. It's the rest of the population, the minority that is the most competent. These people, by definition laid out in the premise, cannot be replaced by one of the non-productive people because the non-productive cannot outcompete the robots. Let's imagine that robots get so good that only the most competent 30% of the population must work, in the traditional sense of the word work, to maintain the infrastructure, keep the robots going, whatever that looks like.
Why would anyone in the most competent 30% of the population be willing to accept a deal where they must work because they are the most competent, but the less competent people get to spend all their time traveling, socializing, enjoying romantic relationships, etc? And remember, they must ALL accept this deal because if any significant percentage of them drops out the infrastructure isn't maintained.
Once you get down to 30 percent, you have an inner party/outer party situation within the 30 percent itself, in which society (as far as they are concerned) is mostly limited to those two groups, and their interplay. I mean: The 30 percent aren't really aware of the 70 percent, even when their upkeep comes out of every paycheck.
When you add up everyone on social security, disability, government make-work jobs (which includes 95 percent of the military) and the assemblage of programs (section 8, EBT, medicaid) that constitute modern welfare, you are pretty much at 30/70 now. So...to answer your question, why are you accepting the deal as we speak?
You answered your own question. Most of the unproductive still have to show up and pretend to be net inputs.
Sure, some will accept a system where the less productive stop pretending and just brazenly take. But most won’t. The fairness/justice system is ingrained in primate dna. It would take an evolutionary time scale to remove it and the productive would kill the nonproductive either directly or indirectly long before that happens.
That's the 'B' in the UBI. If people want more than the basic, they'll work. Just like today, most people don't stop building a career once they have a basic salary.
You’ve broken the premise. We instituted UBI because robots are so good nobody can justify paying you for your work. You don’t get to come behind that and say you’ll work for additional compensation.
And the place it falls apart is the other side. Why would the 10% most competent people work a traditional job when everyone else can leisure travel, take up hobbies, spend time with family, or focus on romantic relationships?
> We instituted UBI because robots are so good nobody can justify paying you for your work
Not nobody. There's enough work for some people. Just not enough for everyone, working 45 hours a week.
> Why would the 10% most competent people work a traditional job when everyone else can leisure travel, take up hobbies, spend time with family, or focus on romantic relationships?
> due to the attitude that able bodied people should have to work for a living.
This reads as though this shouldn’t be the case. People need to contribute to society, and not everyone will be an artist or pursue their passion if freed from labor.
I no longer support a UBI (unless we’re in a post scarcity society), but I do support a CBI.
there's plenty of work for everyone to do. there's plenty of work that needs doing. the problem isn't that there are extra people, the problem is that we live under an economic system that can't use everyone, that disincentivizes work that needs doing, work that would make life better for everyone.
only when you think the only work that needs doing is work that makes someone's boss money does it look like there are all these extra people that need to be taken care of because there's nothing they can contribute.
> We take care of children, old people, disabled people, and others that can't take care of themselves. We will likely have to take care of low skilled individuals who can't do a job better or more economically than a robot.
It's not just "low-skilled" people who will have trouble finding good employment. It's most people.
I like the idea of a society sharing the wealth from resources, cooperation, and technological advancement, and trying to ensure that everyone is lifted up by it.
I'd like to be careful of language around that, since I often hear comments from people who happen to be benefitting from the status quo (for now), talking down about people who aren't benefitting.
For example, some people hear about how "we" need to take care of others, and they seem to think it means asking "meritorious" them "for a favor, to benefit those less meritorious." But I think more appropriate is that the we is society, and that we need to revise our rules and conventions, because they're unfair, reward the wrong things, etc.
Right now, our rules and conventions seem to be under something like regulatory capture. So, exploiters benefit wildly disproportionately, and some of the rest of us (myself included, at times) effectively ride the coattails of that economic setup.
I propose that those of us who are currently making tech money would do well to speak up for those currently getting less a share of society. One reason is that it seems the right thing to do. Another reason is that, while we may be benefitting now, we might not later, and current rules&conventions are to listen to those with money, so we should speak up while we can.
There are a lot of interesting issues here, but some distracting sloppiness as well.
The piece starts by noting that our current market systems are coming up short for laborers, but then suggests that a government job guarantee would somehow necessarily produce quality opportunities with fair compensation. It is possible that methodologies for making labor markets fair might apply both to market and government subsidized opportunities.
Cost disease gets called out with respect to education but is misunderstood. Education is not inherently a harmful cost but rather is having a problem with unsustainable cost increases that result in an existential threat. This phenomenon of labor intensive products becoming unreasonably expensive over time is extremely important to understand and characterize and should not be glossed over.
I'm not an expert in this area. It seems like an interesting thought experiment for a transitional period to UBI+automation would be to have government pay for higher minimum wage.
For example, current minimum wage is $7.25. We up this to $10 paid by employer and $5 paid by government. For each 2c above that the employer pays, the government kicks in 1c less up until $20. Exact numbers are just examples.
The issue with only higher minimum wage is that it accelerates the economic move towards automation. That may be seen as a good thing in this crowd, but too high of a pace of change could cause suffering.
It's not a bad idea, but it leads to weird situations where a job generates $11/hour for the employer, the employer pays $10, the government pays $5, and the end result is that society is paying this person $15/hour to do work that only generates $11/hour. So the social cost of this program is $4/hour. (I'm going to round that up to $5/hour for simplicity.)
My question is: if we're okay with doing this, why not just give them $5/hour whether they have a job or not? (For people who have jobs, the phase-out can be made to be the same as what you described using an income tax.) That program would have the same social cost, the person could still get a job that pays $10/hour and generates $11/hour, they'd take home the same amount of money, except now the subsidy isn't tied to a job that isn't worth as much to society as what the person is making.
Perhaps the difference is that UBI doesn't pay you for working. In your counter-example, for the UBI to result in the same thing requires that the worker work exactly the same number of hours. UBI is usually per-person, not per hour worked.
If you tie UBI to per-person, for better or for worse, you distort the market to increase the price of labor. Each person has to work fewer hours to have the same income as before, thus you'd likely see less labor supply and thus higher price.
By tying UBI partly to labor, for better or for worse, you distort the market to decrease the price of labor at least in comparison to per-person UBI. I'd imagine vs. the status quo it's an price increase, but stacked against per-person UBI it should generate more labor supply and thus a price decrease.
If made independent from livable wages, it isn't clear that increasing the price of labor is optimal at the moment. It would seem to accelerate the pace of automation which would increase the pace of inequality. It would also slow overall economic output - the $11/hour generating job may cease to exist.
61 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadThat doesn’t make intuitive sense to me. I’d expect marginal spending for each marginal dollar of income to be far higher in the latter households.
This is actually trivial to do: get rid of income tax. Taxing land property by its value makes much more sense, as it correlates with the burden a property has on the government (city, country infrastructure), but I guess that policy is not that popular with the older generation.
This is trivially false.
The same house will cost vastly different amounts depending on where it is, and yet assuming the same occupancy, the burden will be approximately the same.
If I were an employer running a factory with little automation, then I could spend some R&D money to develop machinery to automate my manufacturing, and then spend money to retool my lines to use that automation, and then under your proposal I would now lose all of my profits, since 100% of my profit would now be taxed. This would seem like a pretty big disincentive for me to invest in automation.
But even if we stick with that - perhaps using profit-per-employee to determine corporate tax bands would be the way to go. Or, allowing them to count salaries at 2-3x other expenses when calculating expenditures.
I think you’re mischaracterizing some part of the opposition with “should have to work”. To my school of UBI skepticism, it’s not at all about Lutheran work ethic as a deontological good.
To clarify: I don’t believe we take care of elderly/disabled/children solely because it’s “the right thing to do”. Instead I believe we do it due to other conditions e.g. “it could be me one day” and “it’s just a few people so we can afford it”. Based on that, I think the stance will change if the conditions change.
Longer term, if we wish to continue having a distributed economy, then the gains of automation need to accrue to people directly, through something resembling ownership. Basic Income should only ever been seen as a social safety net. Collecting most of the wealth by a centralized entity ("government") to distribute back out to people is fraught with political hazard, if it is even possible to sustain.
Where I live, optometry and dental medicine are carved out of socialized healthcare. Hard to reconcile that with the purely utilitarian theory.
I think the “few people” aspect is important in practice. If the prevalence is too great, it could stop feeling like an accidental curse of fate. Just theorizing.
Remember back in the 1400’s there was little education and what like 95% farm work. Developed nations have reduced farm work to like 5% of the population, through education and better nutrition, to focus on improved medicine and leisure. See the Flynn effect.
That sounds like a lot of work. Isn't tech supposed to make life easier?
Sounds like Eugenics
Not since the Reagan era. That's why there are homeless camps.
If 10% of the population doesn’t have to work I can justify I’m helping those in need. If 70% of the population doesn’t have to work there’s zero chance I’m working.
Culturally it tends to lean in a direction I’d call “make some richer person happy for a portion of nation-state scrip.”
If you take a more scientific, physical, definition, raising kids is work. Learning anything is work.
Politics aren’t manipulated and how things work are organic. So we should just be happy since look at this math, cause behavior and statistics aren’t game-able.
Why would anyone in the most competent 30% of the population be willing to accept a deal where they must work because they are the most competent, but the less competent people get to spend all their time traveling, socializing, enjoying romantic relationships, etc? And remember, they must ALL accept this deal because if any significant percentage of them drops out the infrastructure isn't maintained.
When you add up everyone on social security, disability, government make-work jobs (which includes 95 percent of the military) and the assemblage of programs (section 8, EBT, medicaid) that constitute modern welfare, you are pretty much at 30/70 now. So...to answer your question, why are you accepting the deal as we speak?
Sure, some will accept a system where the less productive stop pretending and just brazenly take. But most won’t. The fairness/justice system is ingrained in primate dna. It would take an evolutionary time scale to remove it and the productive would kill the nonproductive either directly or indirectly long before that happens.
And the place it falls apart is the other side. Why would the 10% most competent people work a traditional job when everyone else can leisure travel, take up hobbies, spend time with family, or focus on romantic relationships?
Not nobody. There's enough work for some people. Just not enough for everyone, working 45 hours a week.
> Why would the 10% most competent people work a traditional job when everyone else can leisure travel, take up hobbies, spend time with family, or focus on romantic relationships?
Because they want a bigger house/car/yacht
This reads as though this shouldn’t be the case. People need to contribute to society, and not everyone will be an artist or pursue their passion if freed from labor.
I no longer support a UBI (unless we’re in a post scarcity society), but I do support a CBI.
Andrew Yang and Mark Cuban debate UBI vs CBI https://podverse.fm/clip/__ihv7eFk
Citizen’s Basic Income in Scotland https://www.alliance-scotland.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017...
I look forward to learning the difference, which doesn't seem that great at first glance
only when you think the only work that needs doing is work that makes someone's boss money does it look like there are all these extra people that need to be taken care of because there's nothing they can contribute.
It's not just "low-skilled" people who will have trouble finding good employment. It's most people.
I like the idea of a society sharing the wealth from resources, cooperation, and technological advancement, and trying to ensure that everyone is lifted up by it.
I'd like to be careful of language around that, since I often hear comments from people who happen to be benefitting from the status quo (for now), talking down about people who aren't benefitting.
For example, some people hear about how "we" need to take care of others, and they seem to think it means asking "meritorious" them "for a favor, to benefit those less meritorious." But I think more appropriate is that the we is society, and that we need to revise our rules and conventions, because they're unfair, reward the wrong things, etc.
Right now, our rules and conventions seem to be under something like regulatory capture. So, exploiters benefit wildly disproportionately, and some of the rest of us (myself included, at times) effectively ride the coattails of that economic setup.
I propose that those of us who are currently making tech money would do well to speak up for those currently getting less a share of society. One reason is that it seems the right thing to do. Another reason is that, while we may be benefitting now, we might not later, and current rules&conventions are to listen to those with money, so we should speak up while we can.
That might soon include almost all people in society.
The piece starts by noting that our current market systems are coming up short for laborers, but then suggests that a government job guarantee would somehow necessarily produce quality opportunities with fair compensation. It is possible that methodologies for making labor markets fair might apply both to market and government subsidized opportunities.
Cost disease gets called out with respect to education but is misunderstood. Education is not inherently a harmful cost but rather is having a problem with unsustainable cost increases that result in an existential threat. This phenomenon of labor intensive products becoming unreasonably expensive over time is extremely important to understand and characterize and should not be glossed over.
For example, current minimum wage is $7.25. We up this to $10 paid by employer and $5 paid by government. For each 2c above that the employer pays, the government kicks in 1c less up until $20. Exact numbers are just examples.
The issue with only higher minimum wage is that it accelerates the economic move towards automation. That may be seen as a good thing in this crowd, but too high of a pace of change could cause suffering.
My question is: if we're okay with doing this, why not just give them $5/hour whether they have a job or not? (For people who have jobs, the phase-out can be made to be the same as what you described using an income tax.) That program would have the same social cost, the person could still get a job that pays $10/hour and generates $11/hour, they'd take home the same amount of money, except now the subsidy isn't tied to a job that isn't worth as much to society as what the person is making.
(This is essentially a UBI)
If you tie UBI to per-person, for better or for worse, you distort the market to increase the price of labor. Each person has to work fewer hours to have the same income as before, thus you'd likely see less labor supply and thus higher price.
By tying UBI partly to labor, for better or for worse, you distort the market to decrease the price of labor at least in comparison to per-person UBI. I'd imagine vs. the status quo it's an price increase, but stacked against per-person UBI it should generate more labor supply and thus a price decrease.
If made independent from livable wages, it isn't clear that increasing the price of labor is optimal at the moment. It would seem to accelerate the pace of automation which would increase the pace of inequality. It would also slow overall economic output - the $11/hour generating job may cease to exist.