Automation: Where did all the jobs go?!

[Gormongous]

Public services require infrastructure, both physical and bureaucratic, to implement. That's much more expensive than you think. I can't find the specific article by Jessamyn West, but somewhere on Metafilter is a good description of how public transportation infrastructure, the public library system, the civil service, and telecommunications infrastructure all have to interact perfectly for an elderly person to be able to apply for disability funding—and that's if everything goes right. If the bus is late, if the librarian is busy, if the form is filled out incorrectly, if the web address doesn't work, then that elderly person goes hungry next week or next month or until they can beg the time off from their part-time job at the grocery store to try again. As several people have observed, a lot of the preexisting systems don't work well enough, either through insufficient coverage or excessive overhead, and simply increasing the funding to those systems doesn't necessarily make them more effective, not if they've been built under the assumption that people need to be vetted for coverage and sometimes denied it. In those cases, increasing funding is just increasing bloat in a way that puts most "minimum income" proposals to shame.

 

Also, and I can't stress this with enough heat, it is a profoundly classist and capitalist concern that, if the poor are given money, they might use it to make themselves comfortable or happy rather than just alive. Billions of human beings spend money on luxuries, usually without any comment from the peanut gallery, but we are all raised to believe that poverty is a personal failing, whether we're aware of it or not, and so the poor have to suffer appropriately to deserve our help—and they can never suffer enough to deserve the luxuries that the rest of us take for granted, as part of our just desserts as "successes" in the capitalist morality play. It's a nineteenth-century mentality to its core: back then, the "cure" for the suffering of physical or mental illness was invariably some kind of physical or mental torture to force the body to "cure itself," through pressure-sweating or electroshock therapy, and likewise the "cure" for poverty is invariably austerity, to force the poor to work harder. It's a broken assumption, without any consistent statistical support, but people still cling to it, for various reasons.

[clyde]

I would support removing the vetting of anyone (rich or poor) to receive public services. I don't mean to suggest that the best course of action would be to take mincome off the table and throw the money at existing public infrastructure without consideration by the groups that most need infrastructure and those who operate it.

And just to be clear, I think that rich people spend their money poorly in the vast majority of cases. If that's something that you value enough to choose over a public program then I understand, but if I'm choosing, I would rather people have guarantees of certain living-standards than the high they get from shopping for consumer goods.

[Erkki]

I already prefer dealing with machines than people. So do many others. I was in the supermarket and found myself walking past empty cashiers to the self serve. So were others. The only time I actually go to a person in the supermarket is if the queue is shorter than the self serve.

 

Why would anyone want to choose to do their human interaction in the supermarket of all places? It's a much better idea to find people with common interests and interact with them. Or just go to a place where people are generally expecting to be interacted with. I don't know, bars? I usually don't do that.

 

 

 

Being a programmer is weird though because of the push towards open source. It's the most economically polarized creative industry I'm aware of.

 

I don't know. Programming isn't really a creative industry, it's a thing businesses need as much as plumbing and electricity.

 

I don't think that the majority of people have the ability to use free money for basic needs like healthcare, rather than luxury items. Advertising has convinced the population that consumable fads and convenience are necessities.

...

Saving up funds by not eating healthy is exactly the kind of thing that I wouldn't support.

... etc.

Uh... Blocked.

[James]

Another voice against Clyde's "but what if they spend their last dollar on frivolous indulgences" concern is that of the charity GiveDirectly, as attested in this episode of Planet Money. It's by no means conclusive, but I find it quite convincing.

[Erkki]

In my mind, basic income, mincome, living wage, or whatever it's called, is not something where the government pays you ONLY IF you don't already make more. That would be really complicated and would probably need more bureaurcracy. In my idea the only way to make it work is to have them pay it to everyone. Any salary from working would be on top of that. And I guarantee you most people will still want to work, and if they don't it's still not a problem because, hey, robots are probably doing their work.

 

What might be still complicated is when to start paying you. Some people may not take it well if they suddenly start receiving a decent sum every month when they turn 18, and without doing anything.

[complexmath]

I don't know. Programming isn't really a creative industry, it's a thing businesses need as much as plumbing and electricity.

 

I think programming is a creative industry in that it's sufficiently young that standard engineering practices haven't been formed around it yet. Despite its commercial utility, programming is still very much a craft. Like blacksmithing.

[Spenny]

Yeah programming is creative in a way that is not about expressive but more about creating bespoke solutions (generally).

[clyde]

The idea that groups should make decisions about which resources are available to individuals within the public because the infividuals are not capable of making the best decisions is obviously unpopular here. Do y'all feel that public schools should be dissolved and vouchers for charter schools should be distributed instead? How about environmental regulations? Would you prefer that individuals dispose of their garbage however they can (and not pay a mandatory garbage bill) rather than providing municipal waste-collection? If not, how do these examples seem different from what I'm proposing?

[Spenny]

I think it's pretty obvious that present societies don't make the choice as black and white as you describe it. Our societies to this point know that the nuanced truth lies somewhere in the middle. I think as people have pointed out before that a mincome program better compensate for individual needs, how much food, what food, where to live. The single payer (hope i'm using that right) systems we have now, health care (sorry USA), education, municipal services create an even field that serves everyone equally. How far do you take your point clyde? In the automated future are we all on the government meal plan? Taco Tuesdays? You're advocating affordable housing, but in our automated future how do i afford housing when my income is zero?

[osmosisch]

The idea that groups should make decisions about which resources are available to individuals within the public because the infividuals are not capable of making the best decisions is obviously unpopular here. Do y'all feel that public schools should be dissolved and vouchers for charter schools should be distributed instead? How about environmental regulations? Would you prefer that individuals dispose of their garbage however they can (and not pay a mandatory garbage bill) rather than providing municipal waste-collection? If not, how do these examples seem different from what I'm proposing?

Your dichotomies are inappropriate at best and false at worst.

[Twig]

The concepts of public education and basic income and universal health care are all pulled from the same bucket...

[clyde]

I think it's pretty obvious that present societies don't make the choice as black and white as you describe it. Our societies to this point know that the nuanced truth lies somewhere in the middle. I think as people have pointed out before that a mincome program better compensate for individual needs, how much food, what food, where to live. The single payer (hope i'm using that right) systems we have now, health care (sorry USA), education, municipal services create an even field that serves everyone equally. How far do you take your point clyde? In the automated future are we all on the government meal plan? Taco Tuesdays? You're advocating affordable housing, but in our automated future how do i afford housing when my income is zero?

 

Regarding how far I would take it, I'm looking at my position more like where should we start. Until we have housing, medical care, food, transportation, environmental protections (which is a poverty-issue since environmental ailments are more likely to affect the poor), public education, communications, and an array of means of production guaranteed for all.. I think that a basic income is not as good of a value proposition than free public services. From what I understand, y'all are suggesting that basic-income is a good starting point and that public services should take less priority; that's what I'm disagreeing with.

As far as our automated future and housing goes, I think that a better way to house everyone is through public housing programs (such as community-run collective residences) rather than just giving everyone cash and saying "Do what you want with it."

I suspect that I think of currency in a much different way than y'all. In my view, basic-income would just be a new profit-stream for capital to vacuum back up. If we want to provide alternatives to the dystopian future that benefits capital, then I think funding (mostly) local community works that benefit more than single individuals would be far more likely to succeed.

[Mangela Lansbury]

Funding local communities is a great proposition, but it's ultimately unsustainable. You end up where we are now -- with neighborhoods that succeed and neighborhoods that fail, and where you land is ultimately determined by the circumstances of your birth. Paired with systemic changes, like a guaranteed basic income, people have real choice and the power to exercise their voice.

Just look at the American housing market. Community driven initiatives have made real gains in keeping people in their homes after the mortgage collapse thanks to both federal funding and local grown initiatives, but the system the collapse was built on still stands. The federal funding is there, but the problem of distribution can't be solved at a community level. It must be paired with systemic change.

[Gormongous]

If communities are composed of the same short-sighted and advertising-addled people who can't be trusted to spend their own money intelligently, how exactly are these community-based programs going to come about and be sustained? Are they going to be imposed top-down via centralized government and, if so, how are they going to be administered, vetted, and reviewed? It seems to me that you have a greater faith in institutions than in people and I'm not really seeing a basis for the former without the latter. People have a sense of ownership for their own property that is unfortunately absent from communal property, hence the tragedy of the commons. Additionally, "community-based" has a very urban tinge to it and doesn't apply to the large numbers of poor people living in rural conditions, where there is no "community" outside of their extended (or sometimes even just their immediate) family.

[Griddlelol]

Why would anyone want to choose to do their human interaction in the supermarket of all places? It's a much better idea to find people with common interests and interact with them. Or just go to a place where people are generally expecting to be interacted with. I don't know, bars? I usually don't do that.

 

I feel like you're missing my point. It's not about enjoyable socialising, it's about how I'm already skipping over people to use machines. 

[Erkki]

I feel like you're missing my point. It's not about enjoyable socialising, it's about how I'm already skipping over people to use machines.

No, I think I understood, I just think buyig food is not one of the places where you should care about interacting with humans and also in some other areas robots are making some processes faster by removing human interaction where it isn't needed and actually enabling you to have more time for meaningful interactions.

[Griddlelol]

It's not about the interaction though...It's about how I've changed my behaviour in a way that limits the number of people required to work there. 

[brkl]

What scares me about basic income is putting all the social welfare eggs in one basket, ready accidentally dropped by a right wing government.

[Cordeos]

What scares me about basic income is putting all the social welfare eggs in one basket, ready accidentally dropped by a right wing government.

True, but a world requiring mincome is also a world where current political parties are going to be very different. Issues will change driving parties to change as well.

[brkl]

There will always be short-sighted people. It's sexier.

[Dewar]

I wish I could be short-sighted, I would probably spend a lot less time worrying.

[Professor Video Games]

Someone at the New York Times is lurking this thread...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/technology/plan-to-fight-robot-invasion-at-work-give-everyone-a-paycheck.html

[clyde]

If communities are composed of the same short-sighted and advertising-addled people who can't be trusted to spend their own money intelligently, how exactly are these community-based programs going to come about and be sustained? Are they going to be imposed top-down via centralized government and, if so, how are they going to be administered, vetted, and reviewed? It seems to me that you have a greater faith in institutions than in people and I'm not really seeing a basis for the former without the latter.

I think groups make different decisions than individuals do due to the difference in social pressures (both attractive and repulsive) in operating as a single agent and operating as member of a group. Inefficient biases still exist in groups, but I suspect that they are less likely to make inefficient decisions because of things like vetting, diverse self-interests, and how individuals want to be seen by their peers.

I hate working in groups, but I'm also paralyzed when making decisions such as which type of health-insurance I should buy or where I should get my car repaired; groups take a lot of the pressure of failure off me and have a wider spectrum of perspectives with which to inform decisions. Also, I'd rather fail as a group than fail as an individual.

As far as how to distributed funds to the groups, I don't know, but I would certainly prefer that individuals would still maintain some mobility between groups.

People have a sense of ownership for their own property that is unfortunately absent from communal property, hence the tragedy of the commons.

It depends on whether or not the individual identifies with the group. Part of the reason I think it would be a better idea to fund groups rather than individuals is that it would hypothetically encourage the skill and ideology of collectivism. This becomes more problematic the larger the group and the lower levels of investment of individuals, but I'm thinking that funds would be proportional to the size of the group. By the way, we aren't talking about permanent, distinct groups necessarily. It could be something like project-proposals that individuals can choose to align themselves with and contribute their time or support to. Hypothetically they could move between projects.

Additionally, "community-based" has a very urban tinge to it and doesn't apply to the large numbers of poor people living in rural conditions, where there is no "community" outside of their extended (or sometimes even just their immediate) family.

Churches exist in rural communities, I don't see any reason something like what I'm suggesting couldn't. Still, they would be the ones making decisions of how best to work together.

[Apelsin]

It's not about the interaction though...It's about how I've changed my behaviour in a way that limits the number of people required to work there. 

 

There's a store opening up in Sweden that has no staff at all. You just pay through an app: http://www.svd.se/premiar-for-obemannad-butik-lanthandel-20

Fairly small store in a smaller community and it's uncertain whether this would work in something as large as a supermarket, but it does at least show that there is a movement towards these kinds of solutions where staff may no longer be required. 

[Twig]

I brought up automation the other day when we went to taco bell for lunch. Was saying how everyone working there would eventually be replaced by robots. One guy just couldn't wrap his head around it, insisting that there would need to be multiple people there to handle any complaints. It's like he'd never heard of a vending machine before! That's all the idea is, really. A glorified vending machine. And make no mistake, taco bell doesn't deserve any other name!