UBI - If robots are taking jobs, their wages can be given to us

[The Great Zaganza]

Sure - in India.

a very good point.

Most of the labor required to buy&sell virtual goods requires very little in hardware and can be done wherever there is internet access.

Compare that to any kind of factory that, once build, cannot easily be relocated.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It should be noted that new technology that radically eliminated the need for large swaths of menial labor, and corresponding claims of mass unemployment, have been very common through history.

Rather than everyone becoming a society of leisure, the nature of work has just changed. I suppose an argument could be made that sufficiently sophisticated AI could truly replace all need for human labor, both intellectual and physical, but we should be wary of falling into the same trap that previous doomsayers have been snared by.

Perhaps more of our labor would be dedicated towards entertainment and arts, rather than producing necessary material goods.

 

[theprestige]

That makes them jobs. Which will then be done by robots.

No. What I'm saying is that the same government that is handing out the UBI should commission manual labor from its citizens in exchange. This is separate from automation occurring in private business.

 

[theprestige]

Community service orders for people who haven't broken any laws?

Yep. Think of it like a draft.

I presume you realize that these are all tasks that can be done by robots now (or in the near future).

Yep. I'm saying the government should commission people to do these tasks, not robots.

 

[theprestige]

Video and Music Streaming.
Video games.
Computer programs and Apps.
Shared content.
And yes, digital news.

Distributing these does require more than just uploading a file, but far less than manufacturing and shipping a physical object.

Yes. However, you said "no labor beyond the initial work". This is flatly not true.

We might not be at the limit of consumption, but more and more products are virtual and therefore require no labor beyond the initial work.

 

[Leftus]

No. What I'm saying is that the same government that is handing out the UBI should commission manual labor from its citizens in exchange. This is separate from automation occurring in private business.

How is it not a job? Money for labor is a textbook definition of employment. Also, if the goal is to have them gainfully employed, eventually, sucking up their time on backbreaking labor seems self defeating. If you are commissioning, you are essentially engaging in a contract for labor.

 

[theprestige]

a very good point.

Most of the labor required to buy&sell virtual goods requires very little in hardware and can be done wherever there is internet access.

It requires more hardware than you think. You just don't think about it because it's buried underground, or housed in a datacenter in an industrial park somewhere out of sight and out of mind.

Compare that to any kind of factory that, once build, cannot easily be relocated.

DARPA is working on that, actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Vehicle_Make#Instant_Foundry_Adaptive_through_Bits

https://www.darpa.mil/program/adaptive-vehicle-make

https://cps-vo.org/group/avm/ifab

https://arstechnica.com/information...he-future-looks-like-open-source-development/

The basic concept is to modularize and decouple the various stages and tasks of manufacturing. Factory components can be geographically distributed, and assembly lines can be changed much more quickly and easily. I think an obvious next step in such a progression is "containerized" assembly line components that can be easily relocated.

The US military has already tested portable repair shops in the field.

 

[theprestige]

How is it not a job?

It is a job.

Money for labor is a textbook definition of employment.

Yes.

Also, if the goal is to have them gainfully employed, eventually, sucking up their time on backbreaking labor seems self defeating.

Who said it has to be backbreaking? That sounds like a stupid way to run things.

If you are commissioning, you are essentially engaging in a contract for labor.

Also yes.

 

[Leftus]

It is a job.

So which is it? You initially objected to that characterization.

Also, you are going to put a number of private construction companies out of business. If the government wants X built, they contract that out to the private firms. It's not done inhouse.

As far as backbreaking goes, if manual labor can be done by robots, but you ban that practice to keep, let's say ditch diggers digging ditches, and pyramid builders pyramid-ing, then, yes it's backbreaking labor.

 

[psionl0]

Yep. Think of it like a draft.

Yep. I'm saying the government should commission people to do these tasks, not robots.

This is nothing more than the broken window fallacy.

You would allow large numbers of people's livelihoods to be taken away and then punish those same people by forcing them into menial labour that could be done by robots instead.

Supply side economics at its worst.

 

[theprestige]

So which is it? You initially objected to that characterization.

My apologies. I objected to the premise and the conclusion, together as a complete argument.

Also, you are going to put a number of private construction companies out of business. If the government wants X built, they contract that out to the private firms. It's not done inhouse.

I'm okay with leaving necessary construction projects requiring skilled labor off the list of citizen public works.

As far as backbreaking goes, if manual labor can be done by robots, but you ban that practice to keep, let's say ditch diggers digging ditches, and pyramid builders pyramid-ing, then, yes it's backbreaking labor.

Even ditch-digging doesn't have to be back-breaking labor. Light work, part time, on non-urgent projects doesn't seem to me like it needs to be a hardship.

Keep in mind we're talking about a world where all the difficult, time-sensitive, critical, for-profit labor is being done by robots. I'm saying that in such a world, some light labor like tidying up the rest stops along the nation's highways can be left to citizens working part time as part of their civic obligations.

Do you have a principled objection to the government reserving some tasks for manual labor in exchange for a UBI? Or are you concerned primarily with questions of practicality?

 

[theprestige]

This is nothing more than the broken window fallacy.

You would allow large numbers of people's livelihoods to be taken away and then punish those same people by forcing them into menial labour that could be done by robots instead.

Supply side economics at its worst.

We seem to be talking past each other.

 

[Leftus]

Do you have a principled objection to the government reserving some tasks for manual labor in exchange for a UBI? Or are you concerned primarily with questions of practicality?

Besides the compelled service? Do I really need more than that? If the UBI goes to everybody, which is has to, the U in UBI, I have no way to reject that money, and thus the work. So it's going to cost me a weekend and pay less than minimum wage AND I can't pass on this opportunity? No principal objection to be found there, right?

If there is actual work to be done, then the government should hire competent people to complete the task. Compelling people to do it, part time, will lead to the worst kind of waste. Sloppy, half-assed projects. A contractor, who hires staff to half ass it risks losing those contracts. There really is no penalty for someone to half ass it.

 

[rjh01]

It should be noted that new technology that radically eliminated the need for large swaths of menial labor, and corresponding claims of mass unemployment, have been very common through history.

Rather than everyone becoming a society of leisure, the nature of work has just changed. I suppose an argument could be made that sufficiently sophisticated AI could truly replace all need for human labor, both intellectual and physical, but we should be wary of falling into the same trap that previous doomsayers have been snared by.

Perhaps more of our labor would be dedicated towards entertainment and arts, rather than producing necessary material goods.

What has happened in the past has been
1. People have stayed at school longer. Thus can do more than manual labour.
2. Reduced hours.

The problem is that neither will work now. Most people who leave school without a degree now do not have the ability to get one. We are turning into a nation of part timers. People who want more work. That is not good.

What would be ideal, as mentioned above would be to stimulate the economy so that there is more work, but use renewable resources so that we do not use more non-renewable resources or create extra pollution. Then living standards go up. We even have the option of building modern pyramids. Whatever that is.

 

[theprestige]

Besides the compelled service? Do I really need more than that? If the UBI goes to everybody, which is has to, the U in UBI, I have no way to reject that money, and thus the work. So it's going to cost me a weekend and pay less than minimum wage AND I can't pass on this opportunity? No principal objection to be found there, right?

If there is actual work to be done, then the government should hire competent people to complete the task. Compelling people to do it, part time, will lead to the worst kind of waste. Sloppy, half-assed projects. A contractor, who hires staff to half ass it risks losing those contracts. There really is no penalty for someone to half ass it.

Okay then. Thanks for clarifying your position.

 

[Trebuchet]

My previous post was partly in jest so I'll state it more seriously: What's a robot?
A mechanically programmed machine, capable of performing various tasks through changing of cams or punch cards?
A device with analog electronics which cause it to respond to sensors in controllable ways?
A device with a digital controller which can accomplish much the same as the analog one but with a bit more versatility and easier reprogramming?
A device with a digital controller that gives it a degree of autonomy, such as a Mars rover capable of recognizing and reacting to a dangerous situation by stopping or backing up?
Or does it require full sentience, like the robots in Questionable Content? Who work for wages, like everyone else.

 

[psionl0]

We seem to be talking past each other.

How so?

The tasks you describe are given to criminals in lieu of jail sentences. You want to punish people for the "crime" of losing their livelihood by forcing them to do the same tasks.

 

[Leftus]

My previous post was partly in jest so I'll state it more seriously: What's a robot?

In my world, it's a device that performs a task with minimal input. My Roomba and other vacuum devices are robots. I just tell them to go and they, through programming, go and then reset themselves for the next job. I would liken the difference between an independent contractor and an employee. I'm responsible to train said employee. The contractor should come in with the skills already learned to do the job.

I'd even allow for virtual robots. While not fully configured, all I have to do is tell my google device that I'm going to bed and it locks down the house, sets the alarm to wake me up, locks the doors (still working on that one) and turns off the lights downstairs and the bedroom lights come on for like 5 minutes.

My washing machine, while all sorts of smarts, is not a robot. While it does save me labor, it doesn't take soiled laundry and make it usable all by itself. I have to load it with clothes and detergent, then unload it to it's companion device, the dryer, to complete the task. While it measures the load to calculate how much water to use, it's not automated enough to fit my definition of robot.

As another example, a self driving car would be a robot when it can refuel/recharge itself. I should be able to get into the back seat and say "Vegas" and have it navigate and plan out the route, including time to refuel, and get me there with no more input (maybe which hotel).

Just some examples that would meet my definition of robot.

 

[HoverBoarder]

What has happened in the past has been
1. People have stayed at school longer. Thus can do more than manual labour.
2. Reduced hours.

The problem is that neither will work now. Most people who leave school without a degree now do not have the ability to get one. We are turning into a nation of part timers. People who want more work. That is not good.

What would be ideal, as mentioned above would be to stimulate the economy so that there is more work, but use renewable resources so that we do not use more non-renewable resources or create extra pollution. Then living standards go up. We even have the option of building modern pyramids. Whatever that is.

It is not always the case that people who leave school will not be able to get a degree, but it definitely is much harder. I definitely saw this as I worked a retail job while I was going beck to school for a Nanotechnology degree.

I had a co-worker who worked three jobs just to get enough money to survive. Another one had previously been going to a technical college before his program was shut down, and other colleges would not accept his credits for transfers. With expenses and college debt, he was also just trying to make enough to survive.

Customers would ask if they had tried one of the new computers or other tech, and the would smile and say "not yet." Knowing that they would definitely not have the money to buy them anytime soon. It is somewhat infuriating to me when I hear people say that people like that just need to "try harder and apply themselves," or "go back to school." If they want to be successful.

Neither of them would be able to afford the cost, or the cost in time to be able to afford to go back to school. Even though they both had told me that they would have loved to do that. The person working three jobs was saving as much as possible to be able to do that, but I am not sure how many years it would take for her to actually be able to. Their fate is pretty much set, and they have little opportunity to be able to change that. Economic slaves to their fate.


Both of them are very smart and hard working though. They both could do more if given the opportunity.


That is one of the reasons why I think that UBI is a great idea. It gives the option for more specialized and trained workers than there would be otherwise. It certainly would address many of the social problems in our society, and overall I think that it would create a much stronger economy and workforce as well.

 

[rjh01]

<snip>


That is one of the reasons why I think that UBI is a great idea. It gives the option for more specialized and trained workers than there would be otherwise. It certainly would address many of the social problems in our society, and overall I think that it would create a much stronger economy and workforce as well.

I agree. A UBI would cause huge long term changes to society. The higher the amount the bigger the changes. People going back to school / university who dropped out too early, would only be the start. A few people would start campaigning for what they see as just causes. Harassment of the unemployed by the government would no longer be needed, as there would be no unemployment benefits, or other government pensions, beyond the UBI.