Where Automation Poses the Biggest Threat to American Jobs: "No, it’s not in the Rust

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

this all just sounds like welfare on steroids. working people being taxed at a even higher rate, to subsidize those out of work, due to impending technological improvements. nobody has yet answered the question, where is all of this money coming from, besides taxing those that have employment. will we make cuts to other programs? reduce aid to foreign countries? how will the economy be sustained? consumer spending? in that case, will goods and services become cheaper?? this just sounds like the emperor's new clothes. also, will we be limited on what we can spend this money on. I think its a naïve assumption idle people will spend their money on wholesome, life improving things. given what I see on the streets of porltand city, when you give bums money, they probably spend it on booze...none of this sits well with me.....

I understand it doesn't align with your ideological priors. Set aside your skepticism for a moment about the eventuality of it happening. If it did happen that a great proportion of the population - say everyone who was of average or below-average intelligence - was unemployable, how should the government respond? If you just tell people to go pound sand, but there really aren't any jobs to be had, people won't just quietly sit in a cardboard box and starve to death. They'll do what they have to to survive, including stealing from those who have more than they do. And if they have the power they'll try to start a revolution. Ultimately there are no options that don't boil down to executions or some form of social welfare.

Anyway, we already support many people in our society who do not provide much in terms of economic output. Parents are legally obligated to provide for their children financially, but children are generally not allowed to earn their keep. The elderly, disabled, are paid for via social programs with the understanding that they no longer can provide a decent living standard for themselves with their labor.

Also note that if concentration of wealth towards the top of the income scale continues, basic income would actually help keep economic growth stronger. This is for a very simple reason - a poor person spends close to 100% of what they earn, while a rich person saves a considerable amount of money, with that savings not directly stimulating the economy in the same way.

Regarding money, there is nothing inherent about it - it's basically a shared delusion (literally an Emperor's New Clothes scenario, which becomes clear when currency crises happen). We have all agreed that money has a set (or rather, in the modern era, floating) value because when dealing with an economy with finite resources, having a method of exchange beyond the barter method is advantageous. But what if someone dropped Star Trek style replicators in our laps tomorrow. If we're heading towards a post-scarcity economy in some areas (most notably around labor) then there's no reason why money will have the same relevance it does today. Hell, I could see a future, say 100 years hence, where money still exists, and there are still inequalities in wealth, but the amount of things money can buy you is so curtailed that most people could live their lives without thinking much about a market economy even existing.

The financing, there are many ideas, some of which I have already mentioned. One popular with more conservative proponents is the idea that the government basically grant a stock portfolio to every citizen which is diversified and large enough to allow them to live on dividends for the rest of their life. They find such a system advantageous because the government doesn't have to directly tax for the benefit, but the government would need to engage in initial expropriation (or at least diminution) from existing stockholders to hand them over to the people.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Basic income is feasible within the context of a modern western economy, but it is not yet globally - nor would it be if we had open borders. Perhaps in the future as automation reaps further productivity increases we'll be able to provide for the whole world in that fashion, but as of now I'm just concerned about the U.S.

.

good well im glad we can agree about something....i am skeptical of the concept but not entirely against a type of single payer safety net of some variety. it will have to come with some stipulations though. anything that is regarded as free or without some kind of reciprocation from the party receiving the benefit is going to get abused big time. i just fear a macro scale Portland, where neer do wells without any kind of obligation for output just laze around doing nothing. this city's near sighted generosity is being exploited by opportunists and now we have a hobo meltdown that is wrecking the civic fabric of this city. i picture that on a grand scale....

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

UBI is probably the very beginning of a very dark/dystopian future for mankind.

"man these skynet stocks aren't worth #$$^%........"

[Xelebes]

So back to the original article, I find this split interesting.

86% of jobs that will be lost will be due to automation. 13% will be to offshoring.

In the rust belt, 30-50% of the jobs to lose will be due to automation, since most of the jobs have already been lost to automation. How many of the jobs in the Rust Belt will be lost due to offshoring?

[pdxtex]

i still call baloney on the whole thing. 1, automation is being used as a synonym for computerization.....oooh, sounds so scary. we've been "computerizing" things for 4 decades. learn to use one. 2, were not even discussing replacement. its as if in 20 years we will have reached our technological zenith. hey we made it! we've conquered everything. time for umbrella drink. we will have mastered every task we "need" and there won't be any room to move forward. not likely. someone will still need to maintain these things, upgrade it, replace it, edit it or improve it. . again it comes down to producers and end users. producers of knowledge capital and those who use it. you have the internet, the worlds largest wall to foresee the writing upon. so we can't say we didnt see "it" coming if were speaking of job destroying technology. were all smart around here, start creating some sh!t or learning something new, become your own boss. our skillsets should be like a stock portfolio, diverse! so start planning your plan B now. not then. and who knows what our needs will be in 20 years. technology in general creates more jobs than it destroys.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

i still call baloney on the whole thing. 1, automation is being used as a synonym for computerization.....oooh, sounds so scary. we've been "computerizing" things for 4 decades. learn to use one. 2, were not even discussing replacement. its as if in 20 years we will have reached our technological zenith. hey we made it! we've conquered everything. time for umbrella drink. we will have mastered every task we "need" and there won't be any room to move forward. not likely. someone will still need to maintain these things, upgrade it, replace it, edit it or improve it. . again it comes down to producers and end users. producers of knowledge capital and those who use it. you have the internet, the worlds largest wall to foresee the writing upon. so we can't say we didnt see "it" coming if were speaking of job destroying technology. were all smart around here, start creating some sh!t or learning something new, become your own boss. our skillsets should be like a stock portfolio, diverse! so start planning your plan B now. not then. and who knows what our needs will be in 20 years. technology in general creates more jobs than it destroys.

I think you are right in theory but not so right in reality--the general pop has to catch up a bit, and Portland is a great example of this.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

I think you are right in theory but not so right in reality--the general pop has to catch up a bit, and Portland is a great example of this.

well thats why you need a critical mass of thinkers, not consumers.....I don't know why richard florida recanted his "creative culture" stance but he was right. you want people that think out of the box, lots and lots of them. even if it initially affects affordability, which of course it will if a city becomes more popular. but if you can have smart people and more loose planning that's willing to take a few economic risks, you might find yourself in that sweet spot of a high standard of living and affordability. something few cities have accomplished. that's the problem with liberal run cities, they attract creative people but stifle their housing options, which turn into an affordable mess. cities shouldn't worry about the may or may nots of automation, they should worry about attracting idealists and providing them with any sort of housing option and numerous price points that fits their bill. if we were all smart, we'd reach out to Gen Z, not boomers or their millennial children. They are too stuck in social politics to be economically useful anymore. Gen Z will be more centrist and conservative, having spent their childhood during the recession. They will be more in line with gen x and their parents, but also tech savvy and careful with money, exactly the leaders we will need, not spend happy globalists....