The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)(medium.com)
medium.com
The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)
https://medium.com/@thersa/creative-citizen-creative-state-a3cef3f25775#.3n4hli2vj
101 comments
UBI seems like a good idea but it is important to recognize that the problem it seeks to solve has a cultural component too. Some people will use free money to build enriching lives. Others will fall into various addictions because they haven't found meaning. I'd like to see a UBI conversation that discusses is this point because it is significant and the history of welfare shows that it is real.
For me, I don't see this as being a problem.
First, I am a believer in economic momentum and money multiplier dynamics (perhaps irrationally so). But with this belief more money being spent (consumption) makes for a stronger economy, for everyone, including those of us who are not in need of welfare. Our current welfare system places too much restriction and I feel leaves too many welfare recipients with non-optimal purchasing decision...not to mention there is an overhead to our (America's) current welfare system as far as administration and what-else.
Another thing is that there have been studies done which show that giving cash to the poor has better outcomes than expected: http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-...
There are also deeper things we can theorize about regarding poor behavior, but at the end of the day I can't help but feel like a UBI would be a more efficient welfare distribution (more money spent actually issued as monetary welfare benefits) which would have a stronger economic impact than our current welfare system.
Disclaimer: The above is just my opinion, not claiming it to be right or wrong.
First, I am a believer in economic momentum and money multiplier dynamics (perhaps irrationally so). But with this belief more money being spent (consumption) makes for a stronger economy, for everyone, including those of us who are not in need of welfare. Our current welfare system places too much restriction and I feel leaves too many welfare recipients with non-optimal purchasing decision...not to mention there is an overhead to our (America's) current welfare system as far as administration and what-else.
Another thing is that there have been studies done which show that giving cash to the poor has better outcomes than expected: http://www.economist.com/news/international/21588385-giving-...
There are also deeper things we can theorize about regarding poor behavior, but at the end of the day I can't help but feel like a UBI would be a more efficient welfare distribution (more money spent actually issued as monetary welfare benefits) which would have a stronger economic impact than our current welfare system.
Disclaimer: The above is just my opinion, not claiming it to be right or wrong.
> But with this belief more money being spent (consumption) makes for a stronger economy, for everyone, including those of us who are not in need of welfare.
So what's your counter to the 'broken windows' objection? It's pertinent in this case because we're talking not about broken windows but broken (addicted, depressed, isolated) people.
So what's your counter to the 'broken windows' objection? It's pertinent in this case because we're talking not about broken windows but broken (addicted, depressed, isolated) people.
That's a rather complicated question, but in general I think a lot of people tend to believe in a greater broken windows effect than actually manifests in practice...from the Economist article:
> Mr Anoche’s first move on getting his windfall was to buy a new roof. Not only is thatch leaky, but it also needs to be replaced twice a year, at $40 a time. He spent half the money on his home, and half on timber and chickens. Those two businesses now turn a monthly profit of nearly $90. “If you’ve got the money and the mindset,” he says, “you can change your life.”
> Of course, not all the money has gone on things that make development economists happy. Sitting on a rough bench in his moonshine bar in a banana grove, a tipsy Bernard Okumo says his wife used her windfall to bail him out of jail, where he was facing a murder charge. But the first independent study of Give Directly’s methods, by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Johannes Haushofer and Jeremy Shapiro (who is a former board member of Give Directly), suggests this sort of spending is unusual. In randomly selected poor households in 63 villages that have received the windfalls, they say, the number of children going without food for a day has fallen by over a third and livestock holdings have risen by half. A year after the scheme began, incomes have gone up by a quarter and recipients seem less stressed, according to tests of their cortisol levels.
My own opinion still tends to believe that the net benefit will be positive, despite misapplications. At the moment the things I have read seem to indicate that while misuse occurs, it generally is the exception to the rule, not the other way around.
Edit: I should also point out that UCT (Unconditional Cash Transfers) are concluded to only be part of the solution to poverty in the article. CCT (Conditional Cash Transfers) are also useful for correcting deeper systemic issues (such as undervaluing education in the poor).
> Mr Anoche’s first move on getting his windfall was to buy a new roof. Not only is thatch leaky, but it also needs to be replaced twice a year, at $40 a time. He spent half the money on his home, and half on timber and chickens. Those two businesses now turn a monthly profit of nearly $90. “If you’ve got the money and the mindset,” he says, “you can change your life.”
> Of course, not all the money has gone on things that make development economists happy. Sitting on a rough bench in his moonshine bar in a banana grove, a tipsy Bernard Okumo says his wife used her windfall to bail him out of jail, where he was facing a murder charge. But the first independent study of Give Directly’s methods, by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Johannes Haushofer and Jeremy Shapiro (who is a former board member of Give Directly), suggests this sort of spending is unusual. In randomly selected poor households in 63 villages that have received the windfalls, they say, the number of children going without food for a day has fallen by over a third and livestock holdings have risen by half. A year after the scheme began, incomes have gone up by a quarter and recipients seem less stressed, according to tests of their cortisol levels.
My own opinion still tends to believe that the net benefit will be positive, despite misapplications. At the moment the things I have read seem to indicate that while misuse occurs, it generally is the exception to the rule, not the other way around.
Edit: I should also point out that UCT (Unconditional Cash Transfers) are concluded to only be part of the solution to poverty in the article. CCT (Conditional Cash Transfers) are also useful for correcting deeper systemic issues (such as undervaluing education in the poor).
I'm not opposed to UCT. I was wondering whether demand-side spending-for-spendings sake is a good argument here.
Efficacy of UCT compared to CCT is a different (empirical) argument that I'd definitely like to see continued research on.
Efficacy of UCT compared to CCT is a different (empirical) argument that I'd definitely like to see continued research on.
Ah you were talking about broken window from an economic perspective, not a social health perspective.
But I don't see spending for spendings sake as a bad thing. In some ways it was one of the pillars of the recovery from the Great Depression.
And I too am interested in continued research of UCT vs CCT and combinations thereof.
But I don't see spending for spendings sake as a bad thing. In some ways it was one of the pillars of the recovery from the Great Depression.
And I too am interested in continued research of UCT vs CCT and combinations thereof.
The entire point of UBI is to get rid of 19th century style notions of worthy and unworthy poor people, thats a huge part of the inefficency and waste of the current system.
> The entire point of UBI is to get rid of 19th century style notions of worthy and unworthy poor people, thats a huge part of the inefficency and waste of the current system.
So noble. When people see others spending their money in ways that they wouldn't, do you really think notions of 'worthy' and 'unworthy' will go away? People are judgmental. History and current events show it to be a dependably consistent aspect of our nature.
As an aside, I think that the biggest challenge in this century will be to cast aside idealistic visions of 'tabula rasa' humanity (largely based in Marxism and subsequent modernism) that were part of the 20th century's program. You can't fix people, you can only create systems that accommodate, deflect, and channel toward positivity rather than work against their nature.
So noble. When people see others spending their money in ways that they wouldn't, do you really think notions of 'worthy' and 'unworthy' will go away? People are judgmental. History and current events show it to be a dependably consistent aspect of our nature.
As an aside, I think that the biggest challenge in this century will be to cast aside idealistic visions of 'tabula rasa' humanity (largely based in Marxism and subsequent modernism) that were part of the 20th century's program. You can't fix people, you can only create systems that accommodate, deflect, and channel toward positivity rather than work against their nature.
> So noble. When people see others spending their money in ways that they wouldn't, do you really think notions of 'worthy' and 'unworthy' will go away?
Its not so much to make the notions "go away" from existence in society (which is a harder problem), but to make them "go away" from producing the inefficiencies the particular current reflections of them in public benefit programs and their administrative rules do in the application of government policy and expenditure of public resources.
Its not so much to make the notions "go away" from existence in society (which is a harder problem), but to make them "go away" from producing the inefficiencies the particular current reflections of them in public benefit programs and their administrative rules do in the application of government policy and expenditure of public resources.
By unworthy I assume you mean unworthy of our support and sympathy?
What differentiates the "19th century style" worthy and unworthy poor is that unworthy poor are thought to have made poor decisions and brought about their circumstances on themselves whereas the worthy poor were seen as suffering through little to no fault of their own.
Prior to the welfare state (which makes no such distinction) the "unworthy poor" served as an example of what not to do. Do we really want to discard that wisdom (even more than we already have)?
Put another way, is every poor person equally deserving of our support and sympathy? I would think not.
What differentiates the "19th century style" worthy and unworthy poor is that unworthy poor are thought to have made poor decisions and brought about their circumstances on themselves whereas the worthy poor were seen as suffering through little to no fault of their own.
Prior to the welfare state (which makes no such distinction) the "unworthy poor" served as an example of what not to do. Do we really want to discard that wisdom (even more than we already have)?
Put another way, is every poor person equally deserving of our support and sympathy? I would think not.
[deleted]
The arguement is that such distinctions are a (massive) net harm to soceity, and mostly born of fake outrage news cycyle "trailer park welfare queen" bullshit. We would be better off without such nessisarily subjective judgements, and just do a better job of ensuring everyone can meet their basic needs.
So the plan is to do UBI rather than get rid of "fake outrage news cycle 'trailer park welfare queen' bullshit"?
I think throwaway2048 meant something more along the lines of "worthy to participate in our society" and, unfortunately, whether you deem them worthy or not they are participants of society so reducing the friction of their interaction with society benefits all. (Friction rubs both ways.) The argument is that dropping this "distinction" could help lead to more pragmatically sound policies.
How do you think this can be done when it is not controlled by policy as much as outrage culture in media and social media?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying policy is controlled by the media?
Whether a distinction exists in the minds of the public or not is not something that can be controlled by policy. Especially in a world where people can communicate freely on social media, and where mainstream media has a financial incentive to to amplify outrage.
> Whether a distinction exists in the minds of the public or not is not something that can be controlled by policy.
I disagree with this, I think the interplay between policy, public opinion, and the media is more nuanced than that. I believe they can all have effects on eachother.
I disagree with this, I think the interplay between policy, public opinion, and the media is more nuanced than that. I believe they can all have effects on eachother.
> The entire point of UBI is to get rid of 19th century style notions of worthy and unworthy poor people, thats a huge part of the inefficency and waste of the current system.
Well, not the entire point (there's lots of different reasons that people advocate UBI), but its certainly one of the points.
Well, not the entire point (there's lots of different reasons that people advocate UBI), but its certainly one of the points.
Except that in any conceivable scheme in the future it doesn't, it just makes "worthy person" equal to "person with the decency to be born with the right passport" rather than "person who will be expected to contribute to our society in future if they can"
TO me, they key problem you have to solve is: how do you avoid rent-seeking, and cost of living inflation? I'm not convinced UBI works in a free market.
> TO me, they key problem you have to solve is: how do you avoid rent-seeking, and cost of living inflation?
You avoid rent-seeking by avoiding monopolies; competitive markets prevent rent-seeking.
> and cost of living inflation?
Monetary policy, the same way inflation is managed now.
That aside, before considering any corrective changes in monetary policy, any UBI is likely to produce some level of upward pressure on prices, but at a level where buying power is still increased for people on the lower end of the distribution receiving UBI.
You avoid rent-seeking by avoiding monopolies; competitive markets prevent rent-seeking.
> and cost of living inflation?
Monetary policy, the same way inflation is managed now.
That aside, before considering any corrective changes in monetary policy, any UBI is likely to produce some level of upward pressure on prices, but at a level where buying power is still increased for people on the lower end of the distribution receiving UBI.
Where has this broken down with higher education then? Costs are rising in lock step with the availability of loans.
Monopolies are not the reason that prices rise according to what the market will bear.
Monopolies are not the reason that prices rise according to what the market will bear.
For a number of reasons, higher ed supply is slow to react to increased demand (for any given student cohort; scaling out to serve different kinds of students with different demands is a slightly different story), which means you've got a low price elasticity of demand in ay least the short run.
And, in fact, part of this is that largely higher education is monopolistic. Except at the very bottom tier, degrees from established institutions are not, in the market, as having equivalent substitutes when a new entrant comes into the market. The established reputation of institutions is a big part of what people are paying for.
And, in fact, part of this is that largely higher education is monopolistic. Except at the very bottom tier, degrees from established institutions are not, in the market, as having equivalent substitutes when a new entrant comes into the market. The established reputation of institutions is a big part of what people are paying for.
Those factors have nearly always been the case though, and do not explain the massive price inflations that have occurred in lock step with loan availability. The increases have also not been confined to top tier universities so the monopoly argument doesn't explain them.
> UBI seems like a good idea but it is important to recognize that the problem it seeks to solve has a cultural component too.
I don't think you understand the problems it seeks to solve.
Among the major problems it seeks to address (different advocates may not consider all of these important, and some may consider additional problems):
(1) Means- and behavior-tested (and use-limited) welfare programs substitute external judgements of what will provide utility for the recipient for the recipients own judgement, and expend extensive resources applying the means- and behavior-tests, all of which causes significant inefficiencies.
(2) Using minimum wage to reduce economic duress in the labor market, while it has some demonstrated value such that many UBI see it as a net positive compared to no policy to address economic duress, also has drawbacks in that it eliminates the possibility of work that provides a mutual benefit being done, without economic duress, where the pay would be low. UBI provides an alternative approach to address mitigate economic duress and thus allow more work that provides net economic benefit to be done.
(3) Wealth and income inequality is accelerating, and in a way where the saying "a rising tide lifts all boats" is not an accurate reflection of the results, with virtually all of the gains in recent economic expansion going to the very top of the distribution, and this produces a variety of social harms, and is expected to be reinforced as automation and other economic changes continue to reduce the relative value of labor other than the most skilled (resulting in returns increasingly going to capital and shrinking pool of elite labor). Some mechanism to constrain this growing inequality is seen as desirable to address the social impacts.
I don't think you understand the problems it seeks to solve.
Among the major problems it seeks to address (different advocates may not consider all of these important, and some may consider additional problems):
(1) Means- and behavior-tested (and use-limited) welfare programs substitute external judgements of what will provide utility for the recipient for the recipients own judgement, and expend extensive resources applying the means- and behavior-tests, all of which causes significant inefficiencies.
(2) Using minimum wage to reduce economic duress in the labor market, while it has some demonstrated value such that many UBI see it as a net positive compared to no policy to address economic duress, also has drawbacks in that it eliminates the possibility of work that provides a mutual benefit being done, without economic duress, where the pay would be low. UBI provides an alternative approach to address mitigate economic duress and thus allow more work that provides net economic benefit to be done.
(3) Wealth and income inequality is accelerating, and in a way where the saying "a rising tide lifts all boats" is not an accurate reflection of the results, with virtually all of the gains in recent economic expansion going to the very top of the distribution, and this produces a variety of social harms, and is expected to be reinforced as automation and other economic changes continue to reduce the relative value of labor other than the most skilled (resulting in returns increasingly going to capital and shrinking pool of elite labor). Some mechanism to constrain this growing inequality is seen as desirable to address the social impacts.
> Others will fall into various addictions because they haven't found meaning.
Is that such a bad thing? I'm not even sure if the effect would be significantly different than today's situation, in which you can fall into any addiction you want if you have resources.
Is that such a bad thing? I'm not even sure if the effect would be significantly different than today's situation, in which you can fall into any addiction you want if you have resources.
I don't think it would be too much different either. The problem would be if there were negative externalities. That's likely if people try to shoot for meaning rather than addiction and find it in ways that hurt others. We've seen that throughout history with the young: gangs, terrorism, and revolution.
Yes and some people will spend their UBI on weapons and murder people.
Does that mean we try to figure out who's going to be murders so we don't give them any money?
Some people have problems. That doesn't mean you scrap a good thing just because you don't like dealing with problems.
Does that mean we try to figure out who's going to be murders so we don't give them any money?
Some people have problems. That doesn't mean you scrap a good thing just because you don't like dealing with problems.
No one said that. Reread my comment. What I said is that the cultural component needs to be addressed too.
For this to be a concern you'd have to believe that there are currently a significant amount of people that would "fall into various addictions" if only they could afford to...
When there's a deficit of meaning in people's lives, that's true.
The idea that addicts don't have meaning in their life is completely false.
But, even if that were true, you'd have to think you are a pretty special snowflake to think that there are currently people that:
a) have "a deficit of meaning" in their life (not sure where you come up with this stuff but keep it coming, I think it's great!)
b) Once the stress of wage slavery is removed, they wouldn't spend time searching for meaning... just like everyone else does. I mean, where do you think friendship, purpose, spirituality, etc come from?
But, even if that were true, you'd have to think you are a pretty special snowflake to think that there are currently people that:
a) have "a deficit of meaning" in their life (not sure where you come up with this stuff but keep it coming, I think it's great!)
b) Once the stress of wage slavery is removed, they wouldn't spend time searching for meaning... just like everyone else does. I mean, where do you think friendship, purpose, spirituality, etc come from?
[deleted]
What most of these cases get wrong is that they confuse UBI as yet another way to deal with unemployment as the market corrects itself and new jobs are created.
I.e. it's seen as this temporary state that we might or might not be in for a limited amount of time.
The truth is that UBI is meant to deal with the fact that we will more or less all be unemployed and have no jobs and thus no income.
It's not meant to solve an isolated problem with the labour market, it's meant to solve the realization that there wont be any.
I.e. it's seen as this temporary state that we might or might not be in for a limited amount of time.
The truth is that UBI is meant to deal with the fact that we will more or less all be unemployed and have no jobs and thus no income.
It's not meant to solve an isolated problem with the labour market, it's meant to solve the realization that there wont be any.
It's not so much that there won't be a labor market, but rather than radical changes to the labor market are accelerating.
Two centuries ago, well over 90% of income earners were farmers. Today, it's like 2% and dropping. But unemployment didn't become a more massive problem than it was then. Labor became available for other purposes, enabling the industrial revolution.
Two centuries ago, well over 90% of income earners were farmers. Today, it's like 2% and dropping. But unemployment didn't become a more massive problem than it was then. Labor became available for other purposes, enabling the industrial revolution.
We had 25%+ unemployment during the Great Depression, at a time when hardly any women were in the workforce. I would say that was a much more difficult time than this great stagnation we find ourselves in currently. Our economy is now largely service-based, but we are still quite a ways off from automating most services. There's a lot of speculation that the economy will imminently suffer rapid upheaval with few jobs to replace the ones that are automated, but it remains speculative.
What you and others get wrong in that analysis is that you don't take into account that just one algorithm have to learn something then all the others can do the same.
Point machine learning towards a problem and things that normally was cumbersome and took several people to do is suddenly done in the fraction of a second.
It's like claiming that if an alien race landed on planet earth with superior skills and superior technology it wouldn't effect the human ability to survive because we endured battles with other species before. We can't use history to teach us much since the opponent is different.
This is not speculation anymore. This is unfolding right in front of us and we better take it serious.
Point machine learning towards a problem and things that normally was cumbersome and took several people to do is suddenly done in the fraction of a second.
It's like claiming that if an alien race landed on planet earth with superior skills and superior technology it wouldn't effect the human ability to survive because we endured battles with other species before. We can't use history to teach us much since the opponent is different.
This is not speculation anymore. This is unfolding right in front of us and we better take it serious.
Machine learning is still far from automating most services. If anything, machine learning will create as many jobs as it will destroy.
You must be able to provide some examples of jobs that will be created.
So when machine learning will remove the need for radiologist and many surgeons as it's already well underway to. What areas is it that these doctors will then be able to work in thats going to be of value?
It's ironic how steadfast many of you are in this idea that more jobs will be created when there is no evidence it's the case and the new jobs that are created require much less than whatever it replaced.
You are also confusing globalization with actual job creation in the west.
So when machine learning will remove the need for radiologist and many surgeons as it's already well underway to. What areas is it that these doctors will then be able to work in thats going to be of value?
It's ironic how steadfast many of you are in this idea that more jobs will be created when there is no evidence it's the case and the new jobs that are created require much less than whatever it replaced.
You are also confusing globalization with actual job creation in the west.
It should probably be noted that unemployment rates then are not necessarily comparable to unemployment rates now. They were collected differently and less perfectly, as the entire concept was quite new as of the 30s afaik.
"Automated" jobs language reminds me of the old saw that "Technology is stuff that didn't exist when I was a kid". Entire industries worth of jobs have been "automated" away over the past couple of centuries.
Say, 150 years ago, you needed to move a ton of rock a hundred yards. How was it done? By hand. You needed to harvest an entire field of grain. How was it done? By hand. A couple of centuries ago, virtually everyone was employed in farming. Now, hardly anyone is. Powered vehicles and hydraulic lifting wiped out more jobs than computers ever have.
Say, 150 years ago, you needed to move a ton of rock a hundred yards. How was it done? By hand. You needed to harvest an entire field of grain. How was it done? By hand. A couple of centuries ago, virtually everyone was employed in farming. Now, hardly anyone is. Powered vehicles and hydraulic lifting wiped out more jobs than computers ever have.
> We had 25%+ unemployment during the Great Depression, at a time when hardly any women were in the workforce. I would say that was a much more difficult time than this great stagnation we find ourselves in currently.
Certainly the Great Depression was more of an acute problem that the current ones; the current ones are more persistent. We're forty years past the peak in real (inflation-adjusted) hourly wages.
> Our economy is now largely service-based, but we are still quite a ways off from automating most services.
Arguably, that should be a "because" rather than a "but".
> There's a lot of speculation that the economy will imminently suffer rapid upheaval with few jobs to replace the ones that are automated, but it remains speculative.
The idea that there will be a rapid cliff in the number of jobs is mistaken, sure. What there is -- and not merely imminently in the future, we are well into it -- is an end to the returns to labor increasing alongside economic output. There's still output growth, but the returns are captured by capital. Automation is a key reason for that.
Certainly the Great Depression was more of an acute problem that the current ones; the current ones are more persistent. We're forty years past the peak in real (inflation-adjusted) hourly wages.
> Our economy is now largely service-based, but we are still quite a ways off from automating most services.
Arguably, that should be a "because" rather than a "but".
> There's a lot of speculation that the economy will imminently suffer rapid upheaval with few jobs to replace the ones that are automated, but it remains speculative.
The idea that there will be a rapid cliff in the number of jobs is mistaken, sure. What there is -- and not merely imminently in the future, we are well into it -- is an end to the returns to labor increasing alongside economic output. There's still output growth, but the returns are captured by capital. Automation is a key reason for that.
Yeah but it's accelerating at such a rate that it's important to look at the endgame which IMO is no labour market.
I agree that even before we reach that level the issue is thre and so it will serve as a help for those who are "left behind".
I agree that even before we reach that level the issue is thre and so it will serve as a help for those who are "left behind".
If that ever happens (which I highly doubt, there is little to no evidence) it is a very long ways off. Hundreds of years at a minimum.
There is a lot of evidence that this is how things are moving.
What most people get wrong about a job is that they confuse the human doing them with the job they human is doing.
Most if not all jobs only require you to be a subset of a human to actually be useful. And so there is a general misconception that computers would need a general intelligence to take over a job when in fact most of the jobs we do require only a fraction of our abilities as humans and normally can be broken down in smaller subsets.
What most people get wrong about a job is that they confuse the human doing them with the job they human is doing.
Most if not all jobs only require you to be a subset of a human to actually be useful. And so there is a general misconception that computers would need a general intelligence to take over a job when in fact most of the jobs we do require only a fraction of our abilities as humans and normally can be broken down in smaller subsets.
There was a lot of evidence that this was how things were moving a century ago, but the predictions made at the time look more than a little bit wrong. Not only have the sons of the increasingly obsolete production line employees mostly found jobs, but so have their daughters!
Trouble with breaking down jobs into smaller subsets is that you need an awful lot of robots, and suddenly the rental on those doesn't look an awful lot better than the cost of hiring unskilled labour. I mean, the core role of the average fast food service employee in exchanging cash for heated product was rendered obsolete by the heated coin-operated dispensing machine more than a century ago, but it turns out that they're also quite good at upselling to larger items, dealing with unusual requests, getting rid of unruly customers and removing stains from locations you'd need a robot with really impressive articulated limbs and computer vision to adequately deal with. And they don't cost very much per month compared with specialist business process software licenses, never mind hardware. So fast food vendors, with some of the most obsessive attention to process optimization imaginable and some of the least highly-regarded employees, continue to be huge employers
Trouble with breaking down jobs into smaller subsets is that you need an awful lot of robots, and suddenly the rental on those doesn't look an awful lot better than the cost of hiring unskilled labour. I mean, the core role of the average fast food service employee in exchanging cash for heated product was rendered obsolete by the heated coin-operated dispensing machine more than a century ago, but it turns out that they're also quite good at upselling to larger items, dealing with unusual requests, getting rid of unruly customers and removing stains from locations you'd need a robot with really impressive articulated limbs and computer vision to adequately deal with. And they don't cost very much per month compared with specialist business process software licenses, never mind hardware. So fast food vendors, with some of the most obsessive attention to process optimization imaginable and some of the least highly-regarded employees, continue to be huge employers
> There was a lot of evidence that this was how things were moving a century ago, but the predictions made at the time look more than a little bit wrong. Not only have the sons of the increasingly obsolete production line employees mostly found jobs, but so have their daughters!
No, actually, a century ago there was reason to think things would head that way at some time in the future; now, there is evidence that it is actually happening. Real average hourly wages of production and nonsupervisory private-sector employees peaked in January 1973, and for the manufacturing sector in January 1978. Sure, there's still jobs, but more of the value they produce is going into providers of the capital necessary to do them than the labor, as labor is marginalized.
No, actually, a century ago there was reason to think things would head that way at some time in the future; now, there is evidence that it is actually happening. Real average hourly wages of production and nonsupervisory private-sector employees peaked in January 1973, and for the manufacturing sector in January 1978. Sure, there's still jobs, but more of the value they produce is going into providers of the capital necessary to do them than the labor, as labor is marginalized.
I'd reckon it probably did not peak globally. You can't ignore the effects of globalization when making such an argument.
Outsourcing is just the last step before automation.
In the same period the US lost 4mio jobs to China, the Chinese lost 15mio jobs to the robots.
Globalization is only easing the overarching trend ever so slightly until it's cheaper to do it automated.
In the same period the US lost 4mio jobs to China, the Chinese lost 15mio jobs to the robots.
Globalization is only easing the overarching trend ever so slightly until it's cheaper to do it automated.
Which would be relevant, if the level at which UBI was being proposed as a policy was the world government, rather than that of the US.
Fast food vendors are already now starting to look for ways to automate as they continue to push the prices down on their products.
Prices that needs to keep going down in order for them to 1) survive the competition, 2) deliver affordable food from the majority of their customers who are making less and less money.
Prices that needs to keep going down in order for them to 1) survive the competition, 2) deliver affordable food from the majority of their customers who are making less and less money.
The Automat has been around since before most of the fast food chains, yet half a century of continuous innovation in process optimization has continued to conclude that paying a bunch of people to mostly stand behind counters exchanging cooked food for cash is worth the money. And unlike the average service industry employee the fast food worker isn't even expected to be a particularly good generalist, is mocked for perceived lack of social skill and isn't operating in a role where new tasks can be invented to supplant tasks which have largely been automated away.
This is changing which is exactly why you have the whole discussion about minimum wage.
It basically affect how employers can make money and it will be the very reason why you would se an even bigger move towards automation of the actual service.
You keep using history as if it's any indication of the future even though the very underlying premise why have been how they have historically is changing.
It's ok you don't want accept this but that doesn't mean it's not happening. Anyone who sits u little further up than the people who work on the floor will tell you that there are in fact plenty of plans to reduce the work force to be able to keep competing by keep making it cheaper.
Ignoring that problem won't make it go away.
It basically affect how employers can make money and it will be the very reason why you would se an even bigger move towards automation of the actual service.
You keep using history as if it's any indication of the future even though the very underlying premise why have been how they have historically is changing.
It's ok you don't want accept this but that doesn't mean it's not happening. Anyone who sits u little further up than the people who work on the floor will tell you that there are in fact plenty of plans to reduce the work force to be able to keep competing by keep making it cheaper.
Ignoring that problem won't make it go away.
Fast food restaurants with no human servers existed decades ago, but the Automats were actually killed off by the more profitable franchise outlets that used people rather than technology. And there's nothing remotely new about the fast food industry's investment in process optimization, or indeed their lobbying against minimum wages
"This time it'll be different" is never a good argument, especially not when deployed with condescension in lieu of evidence.
"This time it'll be different" is never a good argument, especially not when deployed with condescension in lieu of evidence.
You are missing the key point here.
The chains have no other way to go than to reduce the cost of their staff.
It's not a this time it will be different argument it's this is the only way they can survive in the market argument.
The chains have no other way to go than to reduce the cost of their staff.
It's not a this time it will be different argument it's this is the only way they can survive in the market argument.
I don't think they've been keeping on their staff all these years out of charity, or that the repeated failure of vending machine based stores - including experiments by major fast food chains - to survive in the US market is an indication that this will be a good survival strategy.
"Now starting"? Fast food vendors have been automating since fast food was invented. And now, the industry is bigger than ever.
I mean to replace the people who actually service you.
That's one of the very first things fast food did. It got rid of waiters and other floor staff, and the complex series of customer interactions.
Automating away the human in the order process removes a way to speed up the process. Modern registers are complex enough to require training. Untrained, possibly illiterate customers using them while decision-making? That's bad news.
Automating away the human in the order process removes a way to speed up the process. Modern registers are complex enough to require training. Untrained, possibly illiterate customers using them while decision-making? That's bad news.
> Automating away the human in the order process removes a way to speed up the process. Modern registers are complex enough to require training. Untrained, possibly illiterate customers using them while decision-making? That's bad news.
A number of fast-food and similar outlets have order-ahead mobile apps, which include payment through the app. These take humans out of the order process, but do not require customers to use the kind of "modern register" that the existing counter staff use.
A number of fast-food and similar outlets have order-ahead mobile apps, which include payment through the app. These take humans out of the order process, but do not require customers to use the kind of "modern register" that the existing counter staff use.
I use them sometimes. They're a pain in the ass, way more work for me than simply ordering at a counter while a human types my order in. The only advantage is not having to wait for my food when I get there.
The real win on that front isn't fast food, it's the ability to order from local restaurants for pickup. We do that a lot.
The real win on that front isn't fast food, it's the ability to order from local restaurants for pickup. We do that a lot.
No there wasn't a lot of evidence because back then the human intellect wasn't being outcompeted by the machines.
This is what is happening now. Machines are gradually moving further and further up the abstraction ladder.
So unless you are aware of another human ability used to do a job it kind of stops there.
This is what is happening now. Machines are gradually moving further and further up the abstraction ladder.
So unless you are aware of another human ability used to do a job it kind of stops there.
As someone who is trying very hard to keep up with the latest improvements in machine learning and artificial intelligence, I see very little evidence to say we have made strides in reasoning on the level of a human intellect.
Machine learning is still unfortunately limited to very specific tasks. Even though the means through which those tasks are accomplished may be very general (neural networks, Bayesian statistics, etc...) the end result is still very limited.
Let's not fool ourselves with how far along the technology is and instead embrace it for what it is.
Machine learning is still unfortunately limited to very specific tasks. Even though the means through which those tasks are accomplished may be very general (neural networks, Bayesian statistics, etc...) the end result is still very limited.
Let's not fool ourselves with how far along the technology is and instead embrace it for what it is.
It's not just a way to deal with massive job replacement (by machines)... it's also a sensible policy to remove the poverty traps of unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, etc. These policies all create an incentive to avoid making money. UBI creates no such incentive - furthermore, it gives people the breathing space to find more productive ways to spend their time than dead-end jobs (such as getting an education).
Oh I agree I am just trying to pre-empt the typical discussion about whether someone is intensified to work if they get the basic income covered.
It's the wrong question.
It's the wrong question.
The byline appears to have a redundancy, or a contradiction:
>There is an increasing global conversation about the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ – a universal weekly payment to all eligible citizens.
Wouldn't everyone be eligible for a universal basic income? Are all persons eligible citizens? Is the article actually talking about an ‘Eligible Citizens' Basic Income’?
>There is an increasing global conversation about the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ – a universal weekly payment to all eligible citizens.
Wouldn't everyone be eligible for a universal basic income? Are all persons eligible citizens? Is the article actually talking about an ‘Eligible Citizens' Basic Income’?
If you make literally everyone eligible for a basic income, you run into the small problem of the world's GDP per capita being around $13k in US purchasing power: around the levels generally proposed for a BI in a developed country.
It's obviously not feasible to promise everyone that indefinitely with no strings attached so long as they turn up in your country and ask for it. Simplest solution is to make it passport based. This particular proposal appears to insist that young people prove they deserve it too...
It's obviously not feasible to promise everyone that indefinitely with no strings attached so long as they turn up in your country and ask for it. Simplest solution is to make it passport based. This particular proposal appears to insist that young people prove they deserve it too...
My guess is they're just hedging their bets with regard to wording. Presumably, there will be some crimes that entail losing your basic income, and it's probably up in the air whether the basic income will apply in whole or in part to children.
So "eligible citizens" in this case probably means "almost everybody, minus a few exceptions the legislature will certainly come up with".
So "eligible citizens" in this case probably means "almost everybody, minus a few exceptions the legislature will certainly come up with".
I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible. These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (sometimes) disenfranchised groups that America loves to shit on when it comes to social programs and basic rights.
> "I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible."
I believe "criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed" are all eligible under most proposed schemes, although the income level may differ for current prisoners.
Edit: according to the RSA blog introducing their proposal: "Prisoners would not receive it."
https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rs...
> "These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (sometimes) disenfranchised groups that America loves to shit on when it comes to social programs and basic rights."
The RSA (publisher of this report) is British.
I believe "criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed" are all eligible under most proposed schemes, although the income level may differ for current prisoners.
Edit: according to the RSA blog introducing their proposal: "Prisoners would not receive it."
https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rs...
> "These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (sometimes) disenfranchised groups that America loves to shit on when it comes to social programs and basic rights."
The RSA (publisher of this report) is British.
I know. I have no doubt the British have a sensible system that treats human beings with dignity. I was speaking about US hypothetically.
I would think when the state acts as ward to an individual, the agency would receive the BI on their behalf.
I've always felt basic income would greatly simplify many funding / administrative questions. Perhaps my view is too simplistic.
I would think when the state acts as ward to an individual, the agency would receive the BI on their behalf.
I've always felt basic income would greatly simplify many funding / administrative questions. Perhaps my view is too simplistic.
> I would think when the state acts as ward to an individual, the agency would receive the BI on their behalf.
Probably not a good idea if we want to see our prison population lessen in the future.
Probably not a good idea if we want to see our prison population lessen in the future.
If anything, currently imprisoned criminals should definitely keep receiving at least some of their UBI, so they can land on their feet when they're released rather than just resorting to crime again.
I see no reason why we should exclude drug addicts. What level of drug do you start to count against a person? More people die from alcohol than marijuana, and I barely know anybody who isn't on some level addicted to caffeine. Prescription opiates are entirely legal, but lots of people are addicted to those.
The willfully unemployed are more or less the entire point of UBI. The theory is that as society increasingly moves towards automation, there will be fewer and fewer jobs, making the willfully unemployed a rapidly growing segment of the population, and that's a good thing as it will allow people to do with their time what they will.
I see no reason why we should exclude drug addicts. What level of drug do you start to count against a person? More people die from alcohol than marijuana, and I barely know anybody who isn't on some level addicted to caffeine. Prescription opiates are entirely legal, but lots of people are addicted to those.
The willfully unemployed are more or less the entire point of UBI. The theory is that as society increasingly moves towards automation, there will be fewer and fewer jobs, making the willfully unemployed a rapidly growing segment of the population, and that's a good thing as it will allow people to do with their time what they will.
[deleted]
The current system in America provides a disincentive to work.
Social programs generally are not considered as income and do not preclude you from being eligible for other social programs (i.e. the benefits stack). This creates the unfortunate situation that some people that don't work at all receive more annual income (in kind) from the government than their working neighbors. It works out to nearly $60k per year in benefits.
I support the idea of a basic income that strives to create an equitable situation for the working class.
Social programs generally are not considered as income and do not preclude you from being eligible for other social programs (i.e. the benefits stack). This creates the unfortunate situation that some people that don't work at all receive more annual income (in kind) from the government than their working neighbors. It works out to nearly $60k per year in benefits.
I support the idea of a basic income that strives to create an equitable situation for the working class.
>The current system in America provides a disincentive to work.
It also artificially eliminates jobs that need to exist via austerity (e.g. not building necessary infrastructure), offshoring (moving manufacturing jobs abroad) and massive transfers of wealth to the already wealthy (e.g. wall street bailouts).
The techno-utopian notion of us approaching a post-work society glosses over these three things in a major way.
It also artificially eliminates jobs that need to exist via austerity (e.g. not building necessary infrastructure), offshoring (moving manufacturing jobs abroad) and massive transfers of wealth to the already wealthy (e.g. wall street bailouts).
The techno-utopian notion of us approaching a post-work society glosses over these three things in a major way.
The solution to beat this problem is to reduce the benefits in a gradient as people make more of their own income. Here's the key: Benefits must be reduced more slowly than the increase in income. I.e. at all possible incomes, it must always be the case that if an individual were to make $1 more income, benefit reduction is significantly less than $1.
Absolutely - and UBI would free people who want to work from having to find dead-end jobs. They would have the financial freedom to pursue education, volunteering or educational unpaid internships.
This idea of a "dead-end job" is foreign to me. Only privileged, spoiled people talk like this. All job experience is valuable and will teach you lessons if you let it. If you can't look at even an entry-level job as a chance to gather experience and use it as a stepping stone to something better, and you'd rather sit back and be idle and privileged with some welfare check over working then you're the problem, not the economy.
No, dead-end jobs are very much a real phenomenon. Working as a janitor is not a stepping stone to anything except more minimum wage janitorial work.
Meanwhile as a software engineer, the work you do can be put on your resume and used as leverage for better opportunities.
Meanwhile as a software engineer, the work you do can be put on your resume and used as leverage for better opportunities.
Not unless you make it so. No one who's ever determined to educate themselves or earn their way to a better position has ever been stuck as a janitor their whole lives.
Clearly you have never worked at mc.donalds.
No but I have been a busboy. And I did work my way through college while working a lot of other so-called "dead-end jobs".
"Breeding for welfare" is a myth. Children are a major economic burden, even with welfare subsidies.
That said, there's no reason offhand to provide basic income to minors. Parents can choose to have as many children as they want, at their own expense. One of the key advantages of basic income is getting rid of the complexities and irregularities of the current welfare model. Subsidies for children are one of those complexities.
That said, there's no reason offhand to provide basic income to minors. Parents can choose to have as many children as they want, at their own expense. One of the key advantages of basic income is getting rid of the complexities and irregularities of the current welfare model. Subsidies for children are one of those complexities.
One solution would be to not give basic income for children, but to give it to children once they are working age (~16) or when they become an independent adult (18). Everyone gets a certain amount to provide a very basic life on, where they get to decide how their money is spent. If they rather spend their BI on children instead of some other area of life, then that is their choice. If they want both, then they should continue getting a job to acquire funds beyond the BI amount.
I think the bigger issue is that women are having children that they would otherwise not be able to afford. We know that people respond to incentives. Between free healthcare, WIC credit, free or low cost child care, public education, and more, there's massive subsidization.
UBI still permits people to have children that they'd otherwise be unable to afford, but at least the absence of other sibsidies will force individuals to decide how they'd like to budget that income, on children or otherwise.
UBI still permits people to have children that they'd otherwise be unable to afford, but at least the absence of other sibsidies will force individuals to decide how they'd like to budget that income, on children or otherwise.
[deleted]
"Simply stating something does not make it a fact."
Indeed.
Indeed.
Oh how clever you are. And also most likely wrong. So it's good that you chose to be clever rather than trying to defend your assertion.
A foster care system is, in my opinion and at least in poor areas of large metros - is a good (and pretty depressing) example of what many people are willing to do for money. To some extend - childcare subsidies demonstrate the same.
A foster care system is, in my opinion and at least in poor areas of large metros - is a good (and pretty depressing) example of what many people are willing to do for money. To some extend - childcare subsidies demonstrate the same.
> The idea of basic income is commendable, but do we really want a system that incentivizes large families?
> Simply stating something does not make it a fact.
Your first quote makes it sound as if it was the inevitable outcome.
SOME people. Not all. It's a slippery slope fallacy.
What if the same type of people that try to manipulate the system do it because it seems like the only reasonable way to stay afloat?
It could be possible then that some of them would not have more kids to get more money.
> Simply stating something does not make it a fact.
Your first quote makes it sound as if it was the inevitable outcome.
SOME people. Not all. It's a slippery slope fallacy.
What if the same type of people that try to manipulate the system do it because it seems like the only reasonable way to stay afloat?
It could be possible then that some of them would not have more kids to get more money.
In a lot of cultures, realized or not, having tons of children is a form of retirement insurance. Having basic income eliminates this uncertainty.
I'll reply to the implied point in a second post.
I'll reply to the implied point in a second post.
I'm really surprised to see anyone making this kind of argument. Do you honestly believe it or is this just devil's advocate stuff?
[deleted]
Addressing the implication of breeding for money, I actually prefer the solutions explored in Larry Nivin's main fictional universe.
Importantly, in that universe, different regions of human colonization had different limits for births; including un-affiliated areas (space between planets) having unregulated birthrates.
For the context of Earth/Terra:
I forget if it was one or two children, but for sure, for two parents 'the first child is free'. Let's simplify that and say that for each contributing parent (to society) the first child is free.
After that additional children slots can either be obtained through exponentially larger tax payments, performing a significant contribution to society (E.G. Nobel Prize winners might be granted unlimited reproduction rights), or winning a lottery.
Obviously in the case of massive global war, famine, or disease (age death waves included), additional children might be built in to the quota to keep the population at desired levels.
Importantly, in that universe, different regions of human colonization had different limits for births; including un-affiliated areas (space between planets) having unregulated birthrates.
For the context of Earth/Terra:
I forget if it was one or two children, but for sure, for two parents 'the first child is free'. Let's simplify that and say that for each contributing parent (to society) the first child is free.
After that additional children slots can either be obtained through exponentially larger tax payments, performing a significant contribution to society (E.G. Nobel Prize winners might be granted unlimited reproduction rights), or winning a lottery.
Obviously in the case of massive global war, famine, or disease (age death waves included), additional children might be built in to the quota to keep the population at desired levels.
[deleted]
> ...I actually prefer the solutions explored in Larry Nivin's main fictional universe.
Was he advocating that? I thought it was just a setup for plot points explored in Ringworld.
Was he advocating that? I thought it was just a setup for plot points explored in Ringworld.
There is absolutely nothing that indicates that people would want large families just because they have more money. Having a kid is expensive both money wise and timewise.
So I think it's kind of a pseudo problem.
You could solve most of that by making sure that people use condoms and that it isn't religiously wrong.
So I think it's kind of a pseudo problem.
You could solve most of that by making sure that people use condoms and that it isn't religiously wrong.
> The idea of basic income is commendable, but do we really want a system that incentivizes large families?
In Europe and Japan, yes. Birthrates are down and that leads to a number of bad social and economic consequences.
In Europe and Japan, yes. Birthrates are down and that leads to a number of bad social and economic consequences.
We updated the URL from https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/re..., which points to this.