Universal Income.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you just need a simple graphic whipped up for a sales flyer... maybe.

There are already websites that use crude AI to come up with suggestions for corporate logos (with inputs like choosing from various symbols), and I've read two papers where an AI took text inputs of a brief and then created a range of logos fitting the brief, and where those were compared to a variety of humans who had been given the same task. The AI-generated ones were often better.

If you just need a simple melody for a jingle... maybe.

We're definitely getting close to this, and I think we're not far off much more.

There exists an AI at the moment (called AI Jukebox, IIRC), where you can input the first 10 seconds of a song and it'll continue generating the music. You can also input one song and have it change it so that it's as if a different artist* were doing a cover version.

And what's remarkable about this is that it generates an entire music file - drums, bass, guitar, vocals, everything. It's not like it generates a bass file and a guitar file, but the whole thing.

It still sounds fairly crude, of course, but give that software a few more generations and it'll be remarkable what it can do, I reckon.

I mean, listen to these examples:



The sound quality isn't there, but if you didn't know the original song, those are credible continuations, for the most part.

Or how about this 15 minute Beatles album:



It's not there yet, but give it a few iterations and improvements and who knows where that's going to end up?

*One of a list of specific ones, obviously, not just anybody you can think of off the top of your head.

You're always gonna go (again on a timeframe worth discussing in this context) to your A-list human actor to play important historical figure so and so in your Oscar bait biopic... but what about crowd scenes? Stuntmen?

Crowd scenes are often CGI these days, using the Massive engine invented for The Lord Of The Rings. And a lot of stunts are also mixes between real stunt people and CGI doubles.

And the industry is very definitely moving towards having fully CGI human main characters. Started off by Paul Walker, of course, but there is currently a film in pre-production set to star James Dean.

It's going to be a while yet before it's more than a gimmick, and before the uncanny valley problem is truly solved (see the scary haunted puppet of Grand Moff Tarkin), but it's definitely something that the industry is moving towards. And what's prohibitively expensive today will only get cheaper as time goes on.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The simple fact is that most people making that argument could. I know I could if I were content to live on $1000/month I would never have to work another day in my life.

And that would be way more than UBI. £100 a week is a high figure. £60 a week is more likely what people would get. Which, in my back-of-a-fag-packet calculation works out at about $370 a month.

And how much money do you want to waste on making them jump through hoops for benefits that they eventually will get anyway?

Or have them jump through hoops, deny them benefit, and let them starve to death.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Economics isn't my strong point by far. Would a Universal Income have any effect on things such as prices? I mean if people have more money, would retailers put their prices up?

The truth is that nobody knows. But research into the data on minimum wages suggests that there is no strong correlation between an increase in wages and an increase in prices. UBI would be likely to have even less of an effect because the justification for an increase in prices linked to an increase in wages is that that makes the expenses of producing goods and services greater, which UBI wouldn't, for the most part.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's going to be a while yet before it's more than a gimmick, and before the uncanny valley problem is truly solved (see the scary haunted puppet of Grand Moff Tarkin), but it's definitely something that the industry is moving towards. And what's prohibitively expensive today will only get cheaper as time goes on.

In the meantime, movies are going to save money by using what's already been done. That's right, Grand Moff Tarkin is going to appear in a lot of new movies. And I, for one, look forward to that immensely. He will be an evil car driver in the next Fast and Furious film. He will be the stern nanny in a kids movie. He will be the manic pixie dreamgirl in a romcom. He will be a superhero in a Marvel movie. And, best of all, he's replacing the one who left in the new Sex and the City movie. Remember, she was the alpha cougar, a role which Grand Moff Tarkin steps into seamlessly. The future of entertainment is bright, and terrifying.

 

[Abooga]

There's no reason to believe that this is the cut-off point after which everything collapses. The same argument could be used (and probably has) to excuse child labour, sweatshops, unsafe work conditions, etc.

It´s very difficult to know where the cut-off point is, of course, but when whole sectors of an industry are being closed down because they can´t compete, then clearly the cut-off point has been crossed. And it´s not like closing these industries is going to bring an end to unsafe work conditions etc., those products are still going to be made, just somewhere else, where work conditions are unsafe enough, where pay is low enough etc. to be profitable

Maybe a company that can't remain profitable without exploiting it's workers shouldn't exist.

Aren´t workers exploited by definition? Or are you talking about a hypothetical company where workers go to work just for the giggles, in this future full-automation-work-if-you-want-to utopia?

 

[Chanakya]

It´s very difficult to know where the cut-off point is, of course, but when whole sectors of an industry are being closed down because they can´t compete, then clearly the cut-off point has been crossed. And it´s not like closing these industries is going to bring an end to unsafe work conditions etc., those products are still going to be made, just somewhere else, where work conditions are unsafe enough, where pay is low enough etc. to be profitable



Aren´t workers exploited by definition? Or are you talking about a hypothetical company where workers go to work just for the giggles, in this future full-automation-work-if-you-want-to utopia?

I don't see that. There are plenty of people who do work for, as you say, giggles. That is, they'd probably turn up for work just the same even if they won a lottery, or a UBI comparable to their salary. That may or may not be commonplace, probably not, but it isn't too much of a rarity either.

That does apply to your "productive" sectors as well. I speak from personal experience. After my graduation (in Engineering), I'd worked for a few years in a factory, in hard-core production, before I moved off to study some more, and a career not related to that experience. But I remember I'd had a great time doing what I did then. That had been a very happy phase of my life (of course, being young may have had something to do with it!). And nor was I the only one who wasn't miserably being exploited there (although there probably were those who were, as well -- and I'd probably have counted myself among those had I not been able to afford to take a few years off to study some more when I wanted to).

If you've read my previous post referencing your first post on this thread, you'll know that I've partly agreed with your POV. But only partly. I don't think your depiction of the "productive" sectors as gangs of miserable Morlocks toiling away so to feed the clueless academics in their ivory towers is not wholly apt. In part, but not wholly. And not necessarily. And to the extent you're right, that right there is an argument not for perpetuating this exploitative state of affairs, but to correct it. With some short term pain for those who benefit from this exploitation -- "by definition", because, if there are the exploited, then naturally there are those who benefit from said exploitation and have a vested interest in perpetuation this system -- if need be.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Aren´t workers exploited by definition?

Of course not. Many (hopefully most) workers work in exchange for money (and other benefits) which are of sufficient value to them to make the labor worth their time and effort. It's only exploitation if the workers are compelled to work, or if they are receiving less than their work is reasonably worth.

 

[Chanakya]

Of course not. Many (hopefully most) workers work in exchange for money (and other benefits) which are of sufficient value to them to make the labor worth their time and effort. It's only exploitation if the workers are compelled to work, or if they are receiving less than their work is reasonably worth.

Actually Abooga does have a point there, you know. You're right, in what you say above, but that still would amount to exploitation if the only reason these people are turning up for work is because otherwise they and their families would be destitute. Nor is this kind of exploitation fantasy, unfortunately it is a fact of life.

Where I disagree with Abooga is in his depiction of this kind of thing as universal. I don't think it is. Nor do I think this state of affairs is something that is inevitable. And, most importantly, to the extent that it is true -- and it is true to an extent -- to that extent what we have here is not, as Abooga concludes, an argument to perpetuate this system, but -- IMV -- to dismantle it in favor of something more equitable, with some short term pain if need be. And a UBI would be a great way to achieve this, because in that case the short term pain would not accrue to the exploited, who'd have their UBI to fall back on, but to those benefiting from this exploitation.

 

[Abooga]

The explotation thing was a bit tongue in cheek, please don´t latch on to it. You are disregarding the main point I wanted to make, you can´t implement a UBI system if your economy is going to collapse. And it will, for example the Spanish economy would, because low paid jobs in industry and the service sectors are sustaining the economy. If you implenent UBI, where will you find steelworkers, assembly line workers, fruit pickers, bar staff? Will people work those jobs as a hobby? Nope. You´ll have to increase the salaries. Then the industries will be non-profitable and will close. Tourist resorts will be more expensive and tourists will stop coming, they´ll do to Tunisia, Turkey or wherever they offer cheap stuff.

My point is that the global market doesn´t allow for UBI experiments, unless they were made globally, but good luck with that... or unless they are made in countries that have a strategical advantage, like Norway with their petrol... the USA with the control of financial markets etc. But is that fair? Is that what you are demanding, that the citizens of the richest nations get to live the good life while the rest toil away?

 

[Matthew Best]

Is that what you are demanding, that the citizens of the richest nations get to live the good life while the rest toil away?

Isn't that, to a large extent, the way things are at the moment?

 

[Chanakya]

Well, not all economies can support a UBI, that much is fairly obvious. I've no clue about Spain specifically, but such wide-scale redistribution would make sense only if there were enough surplus to redistribute, not otherwise.

On the other hand -- and I'm speaking off the cuff here -- a poorer economy might still be able to afford UBI on a far lower scale, a level that might be unacceptable even as base level elsewhere, but that might be better than nothing.

If in a poor economy the poor end up getting just enough to barely eat even if they don't work -- as opposed to starving if they don't work -- then I doubt that would keep people from working. A poor economy getting the kind of UBI that a richer economy can afford may give rise to the difficulty you mention, but that is moot because the poorer economy won't be able to afford that kind of payout in the first place. I've no evidence to back this, obviously, but I really don't think people in large numbers are going to say, I've got enough to eat the basest food for the next week, so I don't need to work.

I hope I'm not misunderstanding you? I think you're assuming that just because richer economies might consider a substantial UBI (relative to base salaries in poorer economies), therefore all economies must pay the same kind of money.

(Not to forget benefits. Those would be part of a UBI, let's not forget that.)


eta: That was in response to Abooga's post #169.

 

[Abooga]

Isn't that, to a large extent, the way things are at the moment?

Yes, and UBI would be a more blatant sign of if, wouldn´t it? workers (without UBI) in sweatshops and factories around the world churning out products to be consumed by some lucky idling citizens of some privileged countries... if only the richest countries can afford it, it´s not very universal, is it?

 

[Matthew Best]

Would it make the workers around the world any worse off? If not, then the fact that it makes some lucky idling citizens of some privileged countries better off doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

[Abooga]

Would it make the workers around the world any worse off? If not, then the fact that it makes some lucky idling citizens of some privileged countries better off doesn't seem to be a problem.

It would leave them just the same. The companies that require low paid workers would go to developing countries and those workers would be in the same situation. Just somewhere else. Out of the view.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Would it make the workers around the world any worse off? If not, then the fact that it makes some lucky idling citizens of some privileged countries better off doesn't seem to be a problem.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention for the last fifty years. If something good or even not unpleasant happens to any party, and there's another party elsewhere that doesn't get equal or better or isn't able to turn a profit off it, then it's the grossest injustice ever.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I do think the whole "UBI won't make prices go up" is laughably naive though and I don't think the comparisons with minimum wage are accurate.

I'm reminded on my Navy days where the Navy would announce that housing allowances are going to go up 35 dollars at the start of the year, and literally every single military lease (in most areas they have a special category for military leases) would, without any pretense that that wasn't exactly what they were doing in fact they would often just literally say it, would go up the exact amount.

 

[Matthew Best]

It would leave them just the same. The companies that require low paid workers would go to developing countries and those workers would be in the same situation. Just somewhere else. Out of the view.

Then it's an overall positive then. Some workers in the developed world would be better off, while no workers in the non-developed world would be worse off.

Hooray!

 

[Matthew Best]

I do think the whole "UBI won't make prices go up" is laughably naive though and I don't think the comparisons with minimum wage are accurate.

I'm reminded on my Navy days where the Navy would announce that housing allowances are going to go up 35 dollars at the start of the year, and literally every single military lease (in most areas they have a special category for military leases) would, without any pretense that that wasn't exactly what they were doing in fact they would often just literally say it, would go up the exact amount.

That sounds like a policy that did exactly what it was designed to do - make sure more money went to the landlords.

 

[Dr. Keith]

We are already seeing the effects of the government giving out tons of money. Employment markets are super tight because people are being paid to sit at home. Inflation is increasing rapidly. I don't think the current stats of affairs makes UBI look very good.

I don't think that is why employment markets are tight. Employment markets are tight because workers aren't willing to go back to a **** job that treated them like **** during the pandemic for **** pay. Before the pandemic there was a certain momentum and then everything got thrown up in the air for a bit and employers expected everything to be the same. But having taken a break for a bit of time a lot of workers are not willing to go back to the old ways.

They already had to move in with their folks or a sibling, they already sold their car, they already stopped spending money on luxuries and there is going to have to be something a bit better to get them to go back to the same crappy jobs.

It's a bit like when you you've been dating the same person for so long you can't remember not dating them, but you also can't imagine marrying them. You walk away for a bit and realize that's not really what you want in your life. It doesn't matter if you find a new person or not, you just aren't going back to that stalemate situation.

A **** job with no future is a lot like that.

Some employers are going to have to make their jobs a bit more attractive if they want to move people in the door and it has little to do with unemployment benefits and everything to do with the value proposition of their offers being soberly considered by people with more time on their hands to do the considering.

I just hired a new professional and will likely be paying less than I would have for the same experience before the pandemic. I'm offering less money, but more interesting work, more access to new types of work, and maybe less hours of work per year. I had more interest than ever. People are thinking more about their futures and employers have to make their job attractive to the right people. That's not something they have put much thought into in the past.

 

[psionl0]

If you implenent UBI, where will you find steelworkers, assembly line workers, fruit pickers, bar staff?

People who take those jobs now lose unemployment benefits and that is a massive disincentive to taking those jobs. If their UBI is not at stake then that disincentive to taking those jobs is removed.

Your notion that wages must be kept as low as possible or - armageddon was disproved more than a century ago. Henry Ford showed that by paying his workers double the standard rate of his day, that living standards rose, more people could afford his cars and he became very profitable.