5 ms·

Basic income mean huge changes: For example, salary may still be partially driven by necessary education / experience, but physical, tiresome or stressfull wor

by bausson 12y ago

Basic income mean huge changes: For example, salary may still be partially driven by necessary education / experience, but physical, tiresome or stressfull works would requireask for way higher salaries (because you get up at 4AM to collect garbage when you have no other choice, or when you think it really is worth it, and those jobs would still be necessary) The same way, some companies will have huge problems filling the ranks (let's say: food industry, waiter, marts cashiers (or the people filling the mart at night), ... But education industry (and universities) would have to change their methods, because nowadays peoples are willing to commit 100,000's of $ to get a well paying job, this incentive would be gone, the better paying one being the physical labor, with low education requirement. I also wonder if people would go with their lives the same way they do now. I, for one, would get one of those hard, high-paying job straight out of high school for a few year, enough to buy a house and save a bit, then go to university (or self-studying with internet classes, choosing some classes in common with friends) and study whatever I found get my interest. TL;DR: I'm all for Basic Income, mainly because I don't see any long-terme viable alterative, and also because the changes it would bring to society would be really interesting to study.

Theodores 12y ago
You mention garbage collection, this is actually an interesting job for those that do it in Reading, UK. Reading has had the benefit of 'negative unemployment', as in more jobs than people, so how do you recruit people to collect the garbage? It actually works out well for some that do it, by starting at '4 a.m.' they finish early afternoon, around about lunch time and can be around when their kids get out of school. They also get paid rather well, as in £40K, which is well above minimum wage. They are also working, whereas chances are that 'Microsoft', 'Vodafone' or any of the other big-brand, knowledge economy employers of the area probably would not employ them. The garbage collector in Reading is quite likely to want to hold onto his/her job as it makes a lot of life possible, even if it does come with the 'stigma' of being in the 'recycling business' (okay, being a bin man!). I must say that the situation in Reading is an anomaly, it may not even exist any more, but five years ago it was a cushy number, I had friends doing it. Compare this situation to collecting the garbage in a rural no-jobs area. Here the job pays minimum wage and nobody sticks at it for very long. There is no benefit in doing it as the money is barely any more than income support and any overtime is swallowed up by tax. Consequently there is a high amount of churn as people give it a go to get off the employment register and prove to the government that they are willing to work, then, one way or another, they jack it in. So how would that work out in a 'basic income' economy in some rural town where there are no jobs? I think it would still work out rather well, even if the pay was £10K after tax + Basic Income. It would make the difference between having a subsistence style existence and one where one could cook nice meals for the kids and buy them all the things they need. Even a holiday could be afforded, subject to budgeting ability.
hnnewguy 12y ago
>But education industry (and universities) would have to change their methods, because nowadays peoples are willing to commit 100,000's of $ to get a well paying job, this incentive would be gone, the better paying one being the physical labor, with low education requirement. Why would the incentive disappear? A basic income means that people don't make zero when they don't work; filling jobs would still be based on supply/demand, hence, implicitly, ability.
- thedufer 12y ago
  People are willing to commit to unfulfilling, exhausting minimum wage jobs because the alternative is to not have a home/decent food/a little spending money. If those needs are already fulfilled, its going to take more to convince people to do something economically necessary but unfulfilling/difficult. So, the supply drops (many people choose to simply sit out the whole job thing if its going to be unfulfilling). At least, this is the theory.
  - JasonIpswitch 12y ago
    Or, to paraphrase, fast-food and big box stores might not be viable business models in such a world?
kaybe 12y ago
From your examples I'd say that change would be even greater: Why does the garbage have to be collected at 4 AM? Why do people need to fill the mart at night? Do you really need a waiter? We'd have to reconsider the price our convenience imposes on other people.
NorthGuy1 12y ago
Have you seen the improvements to garbage collection? A giant mechanical arm grabs a specially designed trash bin and tips it into the open top. The garbage man doesn't even need to get close to the bin. Hell, he barely has to get out of the heated truck (in northern Canada). The abundance of cheap labour just delays the implementation of "leisure-efficient" technology. Here's a video of the truck in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GprMe6A5DR8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GprMe6A5DR8
- mkr-hn 12y ago
  The local trash company (Winder, Georgia) switched to these recently. As much as I like new tech, I wonder about the two guys who used to run off to each side of the road to grab cans. Did they find new jobs?
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    So much for minimum wage. Cost of automation was cheaper than hiring two guys to do the same. Ask 'em if they'd have taken a pay cut to not have their jobs cut.
    - mkr-hn 12y ago
      On the plus side, Barrow County is getting a lot of new stuff. They might have gone off to Bogart to get a job at the new Caterpillar plant, or to the retail development on University Parkway. It's still not great to be replaced by a robot, but it's not a hopeless situation here like it is in a lot of places.
jerf 12y ago
"Basic income mean huge changes" I have to admit this alone is enough to give me pause. The logic goes something like: "Our current social system has produced astonishing wealth. We can therefore take this to change our current social system and distribute the wealth more widely. Hooray, we fixed things!" But this amounts to a rewriting of the social system. We have no guarantees that the next social system will produce the same amounts of wealth. This is a silent assumption that most advocates seem to make, and it is completely unjustified. Despite the vigorous handwaving, it doesn't take much Econ 101 to guess there's a darned good chance it will produce less. But, if it produces less, now we're distributing less wealth. Whatever social effects may occur when that happens, it's pretty unlikely that they're going to be happy puppies and rainbows. If one could assume a steady-state and that the effects of the first year will be the only effects ever, it's all fun and games. But the second and third order effects seem unlikely to produce a happy society, or even necessarily one that is still generating wealth at anything like our current pace. The most popular handwave seems to be "Well, we can just pay people more to do the things we need done... and look, now they're getting paid more to do these things, so it's a win! Hooray!" but, well, follow that through to its logical conclusion... a society that is paying more for its basic needs is a poorer society. Poorer in the same wealth that we're trying to redistribute. And given that the price has risen, it's also a society that is getting less of its critical needs. Sure, the first year of basic income is fun and games. But what does the twentieth look like? Or the year that you have to claw it back because the society no longer has the wealth to provide it? What does it look like when 78% of the culture votes for a larger "basic income" every year? Basic income is probably incompatible with democracy in the long term; what are we going to do about that? Basic income, democracy, and unrestricted immigration from poorer places are definitely incompatible with each other, what are we going to do about that? (Given that we already see plenty of politicians with incentives to legalize immigrants so they can have their votes, this is a huge concern.) What does it look like when a natural disaster strikes New York and society is out billions or trillions of dollars? You have to think about more than the first year, and you have to think about what real people will do in reaction, and what real people will do in reaction to those reactions, and so on and so on. Yes, clearly, Star Trek people do great on something probably quite like Basic Income, but that doesn't prove much. And I'm quite concerned that this is something that from a societal point of view is not something we'd ever be able to remove if it did become infeasible; I suspect that the populace would happily ride it into straight-up social collapse before giving it up. We may be disturbingly close to that scenario even before we try "basic income". This logic goes flying out the window if we can make robots that "just work" and can provide for us... but we're not talking about waiting that long right now, are we? We may have no practical choice but to suck it up until then. (And ye gods is there probably a thin line between a robot economy smart enough to provide for us without us doing much, and a robot economy smart enough to simply dispense with us entirely.)
electromagnetic 12y ago
I work construction, and even though my job is a long way from being lost due to automation (strong AI to work reliably with low oversight and human scale maneuverability), it's going to come in. My skills are all over, but my job is external renovations. We've gone from wood siding, soffit, fascia and shingles to predominantly metals and plastics that are now getting increased longevity. If new houses were built with the best materials, it wouldn't need work done to it for 40+ years. Stone coated galvalume (iirc aluminum coated galvanized steel) is a true 40 year shingle. Their operating lifespan is likely to extend past 60 years before it absolutely had to be replaced (ie leaks). If that was available for a siding material or for fascia cladding, it would be >100 year longevity. (Shingles on a vertical wall typically last up to 3-4 times their rated lifetime for a roofing application - so 120-160 years). If a customer gets their whole house done, they'll never be a return customer with our current materials. The work I'm doing today will be redone by a robot, I guarantee it. We need basic income because almost every job can eventually be automated out. What about the day we're using nanobots? A tree branch damaged your eavestrough? Just pick up a pail of nanobots at the store and pour it into the reservoir in your basement that your houses computer handles all repairs and renovations. Who am I kidding, they'll probably be made by a nanofabricator you have that makes all your material things.
hershel 12y ago
For critical jobs that can't find workers, there can always be some draft like mechanism, wheres people share this work. Once in while(probably long while) doing some dirty job isn't that bad as a price for basic income. But i agree with many people who replied to your thread - this would be a very small problem.

by bausson 12y ago

Theodores 12y ago

You mention garbage collection, this is actually an interesting job for those that do it in Reading, UK. Reading has had the benefit of 'negative unemployment', as in more jobs than people, so how do you recruit people to collect the garbage? It actually works out well for some that do it, by starting at '4 a.m.' they finish early afternoon, around about lunch time and can be around when their kids get out of school. They also get paid rather well, as in £40K, which is well above minimum wage. They are also working, whereas chances are that 'Microsoft', 'Vodafone' or any of the other big-brand, knowledge economy employers of the area probably would not employ them. The garbage collector in Reading is quite likely to want to hold onto his/her job as it makes a lot of life possible, even if it does come with the 'stigma' of being in the 'recycling business' (okay, being a bin man!). I must say that the situation in Reading is an anomaly, it may not even exist any more, but five years ago it was a cushy number, I had friends doing it. Compare this situation to collecting the garbage in a rural no-jobs area. Here the job pays minimum wage and nobody sticks at it for very long. There is no benefit in doing it as the money is barely any more than income support and any overtime is swallowed up by tax. Consequently there is a high amount of churn as people give it a go to get off the employment register and prove to the government that they are willing to work, then, one way or another, they jack it in. So how would that work out in a 'basic income' economy in some rural town where there are no jobs? I think it would still work out rather well, even if the pay was £10K after tax + Basic Income. It would make the difference between having a subsistence style existence and one where one could cook nice meals for the kids and buy them all the things they need. Even a holiday could be afforded, subject to budgeting ability.

hnnewguy 12y ago

>But education industry (and universities) would have to change their methods, because nowadays peoples are willing to commit 100,000's of $ to get a well paying job, this incentive would be gone, the better paying one being the physical labor, with low education requirement. Why would the incentive disappear? A basic income means that people don't make zero when they don't work; filling jobs would still be based on supply/demand, hence, implicitly, ability.

thedufer 12y ago
People are willing to commit to unfulfilling, exhausting minimum wage jobs because the alternative is to not have a home/decent food/a little spending money. If those needs are already fulfilled, its going to take more to convince people to do something economically necessary but unfulfilling/difficult. So, the supply drops (many people choose to simply sit out the whole job thing if its going to be unfulfilling). At least, this is the theory.
- JasonIpswitch 12y ago
  Or, to paraphrase, fast-food and big box stores might not be viable business models in such a world?

kaybe 12y ago

From your examples I'd say that change would be even greater: Why does the garbage have to be collected at 4 AM? Why do people need to fill the mart at night? Do you really need a waiter? We'd have to reconsider the price our convenience imposes on other people.

NorthGuy1 12y ago

Have you seen the improvements to garbage collection? A giant mechanical arm grabs a specially designed trash bin and tips it into the open top. The garbage man doesn't even need to get close to the bin. Hell, he barely has to get out of the heated truck (in northern Canada). The abundance of cheap labour just delays the implementation of "leisure-efficient" technology. Here's a video of the truck in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GprMe6A5DR8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GprMe6A5DR8

mkr-hn 12y ago
The local trash company (Winder, Georgia) switched to these recently. As much as I like new tech, I wonder about the two guys who used to run off to each side of the road to grab cans. Did they find new jobs?
- ctdonath 12y ago
  So much for minimum wage. Cost of automation was cheaper than hiring two guys to do the same. Ask 'em if they'd have taken a pay cut to not have their jobs cut.
  - mkr-hn 12y ago
    On the plus side, Barrow County is getting a lot of new stuff. They might have gone off to Bogart to get a job at the new Caterpillar plant, or to the retail development on University Parkway. It's still not great to be replaced by a robot, but it's not a hopeless situation here like it is in a lot of places.

jerf 12y ago

"Basic income mean huge changes" I have to admit this alone is enough to give me pause. The logic goes something like: "Our current social system has produced astonishing wealth. We can therefore take this to change our current social system and distribute the wealth more widely. Hooray, we fixed things!" But this amounts to a rewriting of the social system. We have no guarantees that the next social system will produce the same amounts of wealth. This is a silent assumption that most advocates seem to make, and it is completely unjustified. Despite the vigorous handwaving, it doesn't take much Econ 101 to guess there's a darned good chance it will produce less. But, if it produces less, now we're distributing less wealth. Whatever social effects may occur when that happens, it's pretty unlikely that they're going to be happy puppies and rainbows. If one could assume a steady-state and that the effects of the first year will be the only effects ever, it's all fun and games. But the second and third order effects seem unlikely to produce a happy society, or even necessarily one that is still generating wealth at anything like our current pace. The most popular handwave seems to be "Well, we can just pay people more to do the things we need done... and look, now they're getting paid more to do these things, so it's a win! Hooray!" but, well, follow that through to its logical conclusion... a society that is paying more for its basic needs is a poorer society. Poorer in the same wealth that we're trying to redistribute. And given that the price has risen, it's also a society that is getting less of its critical needs. Sure, the first year of basic income is fun and games. But what does the twentieth look like? Or the year that you have to claw it back because the society no longer has the wealth to provide it? What does it look like when 78% of the culture votes for a larger "basic income" every year? Basic income is probably incompatible with democracy in the long term; what are we going to do about that? Basic income, democracy, and unrestricted immigration from poorer places are definitely incompatible with each other, what are we going to do about that? (Given that we already see plenty of politicians with incentives to legalize immigrants so they can have their votes, this is a huge concern.) What does it look like when a natural disaster strikes New York and society is out billions or trillions of dollars? You have to think about more than the first year, and you have to think about what real people will do in reaction, and what real people will do in reaction to those reactions, and so on and so on. Yes, clearly, Star Trek people do great on something probably quite like Basic Income, but that doesn't prove much. And I'm quite concerned that this is something that from a societal point of view is not something we'd ever be able to remove if it did become infeasible; I suspect that the populace would happily ride it into straight-up social collapse before giving it up. We may be disturbingly close to that scenario even before we try "basic income". This logic goes flying out the window if we can make robots that "just work" and can provide for us... but we're not talking about waiting that long right now, are we? We may have no practical choice but to suck it up until then. (And ye gods is there probably a thin line between a robot economy smart enough to provide for us without us doing much, and a robot economy smart enough to simply dispense with us entirely.)

electromagnetic 12y ago

I work construction, and even though my job is a long way from being lost due to automation (strong AI to work reliably with low oversight and human scale maneuverability), it's going to come in. My skills are all over, but my job is external renovations. We've gone from wood siding, soffit, fascia and shingles to predominantly metals and plastics that are now getting increased longevity. If new houses were built with the best materials, it wouldn't need work done to it for 40+ years. Stone coated galvalume (iirc aluminum coated galvanized steel) is a true 40 year shingle. Their operating lifespan is likely to extend past 60 years before it absolutely had to be replaced (ie leaks). If that was available for a siding material or for fascia cladding, it would be >100 year longevity. (Shingles on a vertical wall typically last up to 3-4 times their rated lifetime for a roofing application - so 120-160 years). If a customer gets their whole house done, they'll never be a return customer with our current materials. The work I'm doing today will be redone by a robot, I guarantee it. We need basic income because almost every job can eventually be automated out. What about the day we're using nanobots? A tree branch damaged your eavestrough? Just pick up a pail of nanobots at the store and pour it into the reservoir in your basement that your houses computer handles all repairs and renovations. Who am I kidding, they'll probably be made by a nanofabricator you have that makes all your material things.

hershel 12y ago

For critical jobs that can't find workers, there can always be some draft like mechanism, wheres people share this work. Once in while(probably long while) doing some dirty job isn't that bad as a price for basic income. But i agree with many people who replied to your thread - this would be a very small problem.