Author Topic: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need A Guaranteed Basic Income  (Read 1873 times)

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need A Guaranteed Basic Income
« Reply #80 on: October 15, 2016, 03:12:21 am »
I'm not sure I would consider "A basic income" to allow for anything else than subsistence living. I would definitely not approve of it if it didn't.

"A job" should still be highly encouraged. Even if 40 hrs/week is not possible, people should still be expected to work.

A basic income should only provide the absolute minimum. Not sustain a middle-class lifestyle. I believe that would be highly detrimental.

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11031
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need A Guaranteed Basic Income
« Reply #81 on: October 15, 2016, 04:23:25 am »
I think there is a lot of room between the absolute minimum and bathing in luxury. While I agree that people shouldn't live in so much luxury without working that there would be no advantages in finding their own source of income, I don't think it suitable to leave people in a precarious situation. For one thing, not everyone has the same resources available, some can live with less money because they have access to a cheaper source of food or because their rent is very low, or just because they have better subsistence skills. So what constitutes the bare minimum for one may be ample for another and may be a desperate situation for yet another, and it's not necessarily possible to determine which is which. Job search also comes with its own expenses.

It's better too come with a balanced approach then to go for the extremes of either forcing people to desperation or giving them everything they want. Where exactly to draw the line is of course ambiguous and subject to interpretation.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Govna

  • Member
  • Posts: 135
Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need A Guaranteed Basic Income
« Reply #82 on: October 15, 2016, 05:14:13 am »
I live in TX and used to only pay $500/mo for rent. It wasn't an amazing place but I've certainly stayed in worse.

Sure, but if you were making $10k/year and paying $500/mo in rent, could you have anything other than a subsistence living on the remaining $4000?  That's $333.33 a month for utilities, transportation, food, necessities, entertainment, and savings.  Without being on some other kind of government assistance, having some other form of income, or growing/hunting your own food and generally being off the grid, I don't see it being very likely in the U.S.

20 years ago, I could spend $35-40/week on groceries & necessities and be fine; these days, I don't walk out with less than $60-80, and that's just for myself.  Granted, I'm not pinching pennies, but I think I'd be hard-pressed to regularly spend $50 or less unless I was consistently eating cheap, unhealthy garbage, like ramen noodles and hot dogs.

By comparison, my grandmother survives alone on about $900 a month.  But her home is paid for and she has around $100k from the sale of investment properties to dip into if necessary.  And she was making money from garage sales 30 years before anyone ever heard of eBay or Amazon, so she can always find ways to make extra cash that way.  That's a woman who can rub two pennies together to make a nickel!


EDIT - coincidentally topical:  http://www.dailyfailcentral.com/473437

I made about 15k/yr and lived pretty ok. It helped a lot that I already owned a car before I got into it, since without it I really would have been in an incredibly tight spot.

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need A Guaranteed Basic Income
« Reply #83 on: October 15, 2016, 01:26:54 pm »
I think there is a lot of room between the absolute minimum and bathing in luxury. While I agree that people shouldn't live in so much luxury without working that there would be no advantages in finding their own source of income, I don't think it suitable to leave people in a precarious situation. For one thing, not everyone has the same resources available, some can live with less money because they have access to a cheaper source of food or because their rent is very low, or just because they have better subsistence skills. So what constitutes the bare minimum for one may be ample for another and may be a desperate situation for yet another, and it's not necessarily possible to determine which is which. Job search also comes with its own expenses.

It's better too come with a balanced approach then to go for the extremes of either forcing people to desperation or giving them everything they want. Where exactly to draw the line is of course ambiguous and subject to interpretation.

I believe 10k to be enough given current standards. If you can't make it be enough, get a job. If you can't, make it so you can, you no longer are the one setting the rules.

If you rent out a house, losing ones income means losing the house. The government shouldn't be expected to pick up your slack.

We are also still working in the frameworks of a capitalistic society. The onus to get a job should be massive, it just accounts for that your previously high in demand profession and skillset is now worthless and you need to retrain from time to time/go to work in a sector that's less profitable, if you completely abandon work, all it should allow for is "student living conditions"

Also, this system work per person, not families. What we're discussing is effectively singles only. A system like this, by its very definition allows for "housewives/househusbands", this already lowers the pressure on the job market. Also, if you're a family of two, that 10k becomes 20, which yet again allows for better living conditions as the cost of living doesn't scale linearly to the number of people in a family.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2016, 01:35:56 pm by Saras »

Online Krudda

  • Member
  • Posts: 10336
  • 私は 日本語 が 上手 じゃ ありません
    • My Anime List
Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need A Guaranteed Basic Income
« Reply #84 on: October 15, 2016, 03:33:52 pm »
"Get a job" is the problem here.
Take where I live, there's literally no available jobs as is. Graduates from the local highschool are being forced to move to another town, to find work. Now automate half of the jobs in this town. Suddenly half the town is forced to live a frugal life, or move somewhere else to find another job.

Lets take me as an example, rent per year is $17,160 kangaroo dollars. As per my previous remark, 10k 'murican dollars is about 13k dollaridoos. I'm 4.156k dollaridoos in debt, just to live in this house. I haven't eaten yet, I'm probably naked (not really, but clothes don't last forever), my car is not full of fuel.
How would I survive on 13,000 dollaridoos? I can't afford to go job hunting. The car is out of fuel, and to put fuel in it, I gotta dip into the rent money. Assuming I haven't died of starvation.

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need A Guaranteed Basic Income
« Reply #85 on: October 15, 2016, 04:27:53 pm »
If it is a small town, it won't be automated anytime soon. Automation requires scale to be worth it.

I will however agree that 10k/yr probably shouldn't be universal for every place on the planet. I'd probably put it at around 5 in my own country, 10k is basically minimum wage where I'm from. America is generally the cheapest of the first world countries to live in, as the prices for products are generally noticeably lower there than they are even here.

So by that consideration places like Australia or say Norway would have to put it up higher. I can't however honestly think of what the amount should be as I don't know the details of their economies. Still, given how large the minimum wage is in Australia, I'd expect that to have resulted in a significant inflation of basic services.

Also, I'm not really a sentimental person, but my own opinion is that "saving" a place with no prospects is a waste of money, time, and effort. If the place you live in is economically dead, it's time to pack your shit and go.

Offline Burkingam

  • Member
  • Posts: 11031
  • Love, Science & Music
Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need A Guaranteed Basic Income
« Reply #86 on: October 15, 2016, 04:44:14 pm »
 A lot of small towns rely on truckers for a big part of their economy. Auto-trucks won't need to eat or sleep on their way. All auto-trucks need is to get fuel (which could get automated too) and the occasional oil change and mechanical tune up which will most likely be done in big cities.
Altmed is altfact!

Offline Saras

  • Member
  • Posts: 2918
  • How might I assist you?
Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need A Guaranteed Basic Income
« Reply #87 on: October 15, 2016, 04:45:33 pm »
A lot of small towns rely on truckers for a big part of their economy. Auto-trucks won't need to eat or sleep on their way. All auto-trucks need is to get fuel (which could get automated too) and the occasional oil change and mechanical tune up which will most likely be done in big cities.

And unless they figure out what they can do for income instead, they'll go the way of the dodo. As they should.

Realistically autotrucks will require the creation of teams that can service the trucks in a mobile fashion throughout wide ranging areas. Basically whenever a truck gets into a position where it won't know what to do. These will most certainly be high skill positions that will have to be adaptable and react to whatever comes up. I believe this will require the experts to get to the trucks and not the trucks getting to a city. Granted I'm thinking more of a "commute by helicopter" than small town shop here.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2016, 04:59:44 pm by Saras »

Offline Ixarku

  • Member
  • Posts: 5871
  • (V)_|*,,,*|_(V)
Re: As Our Jobs Are Automated, Some Say We'll Need A Guaranteed Basic Income
« Reply #88 on: October 15, 2016, 05:07:43 pm »
A lot of small towns rely on truckers for a big part of their economy. Auto-trucks won't need to eat or sleep on their way. All auto-trucks need is to get fuel (which could get automated too) and the occasional oil change and mechanical tune up which will most likely be done in big cities.

And unless they figure out what they can do for income instead, they'll go the way of the dodo. As they should.

Good or bad, this kind of thing has happened before and will happen again regardless.  It makes me think of the "old days" in the U.S., when new rail lines would go in, or new highways, and towns would spring up to service travelers.  Those rail lines and roads literally brought economic prosperity to new locations.  When economic or travel patterns changed, those towns would dry up and disappear.  I can think of a few instances where writers were aware of this phenomenon -- Stephen King, for example.  The idea of small towns being depopulated without anyone really noticing was integral to the story Salem's Lot.  And the Phantasm series of movies relied on the same plot device.

So it is quite probable that automated trucks could mean further doom to certain small American towns.  It's not a reason to delay progress, but it is another consideration that has to be made.  Automation will continue to progress, but it doesn't benefit anyone a whole hell of a lot if the consumer base lacks the funds to purchase your products because of lack of jobs.  I certainly understand the desire to preserve small towns and the character that they represent, but nothing stays the same forever.
If I ever meet God in person, I'm going to ask Him why he created so many stupid people, and then punch Him in the nose before he answers.