Let's talk UBI

Its not gloom and doom if it is happening NOW. Andrew Yang created Foundation for America to help laid-off workings find new work. For every 5 jobs he is able to find them, 100 more lost their jobs. He described it as pouring water in a bucket that has a large hole in it. He then realized that the 4th industrial revolution (automation) is here

Freight trucks will no longer have drivers. Uber and Taxi drivers will be thing of the past. Moving objects is one of the simplest things that a machine can perform. A CT Scan can diagnose a lot of health problems that we are aware of without the need of a professional doctor.

There is nothing that humans can do that an IA (once perfected) will not be able to do. Silicon Valley is working 24x7 to making AI technnology better. Because if you are a business owner, you would rather have a machine because it does not get sick, does not complain, does not benefits and you can work it 24x7.

If you don't see the writing in the wall, then you have not been observing well.

 

So your argument is based on the anecdotal evidence from a politician plus pure speculation. I would rather you provide objective data to support your position. Until you do that, there is no handwriting to be seen on any wall.

It is difficult to find a job if you dont have the skills or qualifications required, that does not mean that there are no jobs. The tech boom has seen India, via the IIT system, capitalize on the opportunity. The world is not going to stand by so that you can keep your old job.

When technology takes away some jobs, it will often create new opportunities to replace them. That is simply how the world develops and evolves. The internet saw to the demise of many large companies that did not adapt quickly enough, and yet it has also created larger entities and new industries that didnt exist prior. It is the responsibility of a country to have a dynamic labor force that can adapt to these changes. Failure to adapt means that your economy will soon go the same way as the blockbusters of yester years.

But thinking like yours is what truly kills companies and eventually kills the economy of a country. All you see is a problem, while others see the opportunities, and many will take them.

 

I didn't say that to give you a hard time. I'm genuinely interested. I've talked to a lot of people there over the years. My significant other's mother immigrated to the US in the 1930's from the Netherlands and she has a bunch of relatives there we see when we visit that country.

You can get you back up if you wish, but I'm far from saying you have to have "been" somewhere in order to have an opinion about a place. I've never been to Russia. I live with someone who has and my late father had a bit of an adventure there during the 1970's (he was drugged at his hotel bar in Moscow, as was a professor traveling with him, they both had their rooms searched while they were passed out, and then were followed through Scandinavia for several days), but as you may have noticed, I have strong opinions about the Russian government. Relax.

 

Nobody likes a Luddite. Unfortunately all revolutions displaces the masses. We do not need to be inhumane about it, but we should be realistic about it.

 

Statistics are fun! It reminds me of a Trump Tweet ... depending on how one wants to skew the data, they can interpret anything they want.

https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm

Record highs and record lows found two months apart.

 

We’ve already automated right wing trolls

 

It costs some 3T a year. That’s a big deal but feasible with how much wealth the US have. The problem is not the math, it’s politic. Hard to convince either or both expanding the national debt and increasing taxes to cover the cost. You have to more than convince the public and those holding power that the benefits is worth the cost. We are no where near that point today.

As I was thinking about this, I wondered how big program came to be. Recently read a bit about public education. Thomas Jefferson was a champion of it - to self govern require a public that is not ignorant. He called for free public education (for almost all - exclude slave).

It eventually happen in the early 20th century. I think it somewhat was due to economic factors and a more enlightened society.

In the early 1800s, the % of people working in agriculture plummets as large business gobbled up all the small family farms. People were forced to look for work in cities, which grew quickly fueled by the new manufacturing industries. Industry realize they need an educated pool of worker for their industries while public start to realize child labor is immoral. Good behaviors from citizen was also a driver - education was initially religious based. Education means less crimes, civil society and more responsible adult. All those forces together help slowly propelled it forward.

Today, public education for all cost roughly $700B per year. I tried to calculate the cost, inflation adjusted, in the 19 and 20th century but wasn’t able to yet. I imagine without any major public program outside of common defense, the cost probably was staggering, % wise. This, again, tell me it’s not about the cost so much as a will and determination to make it happens because of its value.

I see UBI or it’s cousin, UBS (universal basic services), as the floor for the next progression of a more civilized and enlightened society. It’s a baseline to ensure a happier, healthier, and more responsible public. It help reduces stress, a major underlying factor in mental and physical health, which also contribute to yielding more responsible adults with less violence and crimes. It allow individuals that wanted to, stay focus in higher education, a definite need for future advance jobs. It can be a win for both businesses, the new much more technically advance industries and the common people. When those two are clearly aligned (it’s not now), then I think it has a good shot.

This concept isn’t new. So form of it has been around since 1930. Thank to Yang for bringing it up to a national level. Hopefully we’ll get there some day soon.

 

A simple Google search will show you that this is not coming from one source. Its not anecdotal if there is data to back it up.

You state that there will jobs if you look for them yet you have not provided which industry is going to create jobs. If there is a lot of money to be made in providing automating services, you will have a lot of smart people competing to make this happen. The graph shows that jobs lost to automation are trending up. I will place my bet on thoae charts rather than your assertion that things will be OK.

How much manpower was lost to this?


Here's more anecdotal evidence :-(

25% of US jobs at risk of being lost to machines

 

I did give you data from bls.gov to support my position. There are many growing sectors with projected labor shortages, healthcare being the biggest one.

You posted a video of Amazon potentially losing warehouse jobs to robots, but its nothing new. Amazon has been using robots in their warehouses for about a decade (see Meet the Little Orange Robots Making Amazon's Warehouses More Humane ). If your claim was true, Amazon should be laying off workers. Yet the same Amazon has actually seen their employees grow 10x from 80k to 800k in the same decade (see Amazon: Number of Employees 2006-2020) and are still hiring at record rates this year (Amazon Hiring Record rate). That is a direct rebuttal of your claims.

The question is not whether some jobs will be lost to automation, but what the overall effect will be. Technology and development has been rendering jobs obsolete for centuries, yet the human population has continued to grow while employment levels have been maintained more often than not. A few decades ago, you could work as a switch board operator but automated switches killed those jobs. Yet many more have been employed in the Telco industry since then.

If you are unwilling to adapt, when the world around you changes, you will become unemployed and obsolete. For those who are willing to adapt, there will always be opportunities for them.

 

U keep stating that there is a shortage of labor in certain areas but do not address the fact that the amount of jobs that are being lost to automation is outpacing the amount of new blue collar jobs being created. It is just a matter of time where all these new jobs that you speak of will also be eliminated. Just like your Amazon example, yes they hired more people but how many jobs did they automate that would have otherwise needed manual labor 20 yrs ago. Their profit margin is primarily affected by their LOW overhead in labor relative to their income.

This is simple math that uses trends to predict the future.

CHART

Addition. When u buy an item in Amazon, u just click one button and you get your package in the mail. 25 years ago, you would have to provide.

• Customer service to take your order
• Tons of Shipping and receiving workers
• Analyze inventory and order more when needed
• Accountants for incoming and outgoing costs
• Calculate the most efficient way to ship orders so most of the trucks are full

All these activities used to require human intervention. All these jobs has mostly been eliminated

 

The type of data that can be used to convince a country where over 70 million voted for Trump due to “radical left”....

Which is why I asked for domestic examples as I think foreign examples are less helpful in the political context. I wouldn’t really count Alaska but I did forget about that situation but it’s good to hear some cities are rolling it out.

 

Yes statistics are fun! Rather than looking at fluid unemployment rates how about a more constant chart, labor participation rate.

This is all workers and active job seekers divided by the civilian working age population. The percentage in Feb (before everything tanked in March) was 63%. That's about where it was in the 50's when women really entered the labor market and where it's been since 2010. It peaked in the 90's (low 70%) before the dot-com bust in 2000.

More recently it bottomed out at 60% in April and has risen to over 61% as of Oct.

So, we're only talking about 3-4 percent of the working age population that has exited the labor market (not making money from a job) right? That 3% represents millions of people.

There are reasons that it has declined like baby boomers retiring, but it is also due to jobs being eliminated. In addition to automation workers are more productive now which requires less labor. The people are still here but jobs aren't coming back.

What is your solution for relief?

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

 

Nobody is saying jobs will not be eliminated (or isn't that the whole point of automation) but that more jobs will be created.

The facts simply dont support your claims. Even in the same chart you linked, Mckinzie predicted that by 2030, automation will destroy 400-800 million jobs worldwide but will create 555-890 million jobs, which is more than what would be lost i.e. there will be about 100m+ more jobs worldwide due to automation.

What should be of concern to you (and many americans) is that the prediction for the US is very poor, with Forrester predicting 25m job loss with only 15m jobs created by 2027 i.e. a loss of bout 10m jobs in the US. Given that the whole world will see job growth due to automation but the US is expected to see job losses, simply shows that the problem is not with automation (like you are claiming) but with the US labor force not being in a position to capitalize on the opportunities that automation will bring. This is what should be the focus and not some silly doom and gloom false prediction.

If you would like to remain in the past while the rest of the world moves on into the future, that is your choice. I really dont have the intent nor patience to proselytize to you (or anyone else) and have simply tried to debunk your misinformation for those that may have been misled by you. History has shown that change is constant and one needs to prepare for it. Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.

 

This is the same argument made for NAFTA. Don't worry, manufacturing jobs will dwindle but they'll be replaced! How's that worked out for middle America? The rest of the country?

Isn't this the argument for UBI? Adding 10 million people to the permanent unemployment class is going to have dire consequences.

 

Not even close to being comparable. Comparing automation to NAFTA is like comparing apples to bricks.

NAFTA is voluntary trade agreement in which the devil is in the details and implmentation. You can get into it and if you dont like it, opt out or renegotiate it.

Automation is technological development. It is inevitable and no country is going to stop it. The best you can do as country is prepare to get the best out of it.

What happens in the folllowing decade when the US loses maybe another 20-30m jobs? Keep adding to UBI? How long will your dwindling labor force be able to continue supporting the growing dead weight?

Your proposal is like saying I have a leaking bucket and to fix the problem I should add more water, when adding water is only going to make the bucket leak faster.

If other countries are seeing job growth because of automation while the US is seeing job losses, the solution is to fix what is wrong with the US job market and labor force, and not to compensate people for being resistant to inevitable change

 

What do you mean jobs will NOT be eliminated? I have shown you a chart which clearly shows a TREND that number of jobs being lost to automation is exponentially growing. ANY BLUE COLLLAR job can be automated.

If you think I am using anectdotl evidence, how about personal experience. I work for a company that automates tasks such as network and computer analysis, automated tasks which would have needed a tremendous workforce. Our list of clients range from all the largest financial institutions to the US military and goverment agencies. I know off hand how many millions of people were laid off due to our software.

I have given you FACTS on what is currently happening and the prediction of the future while you on the other hand, has not provided ANY details on where americans will find work in the future.

If you are not convinced that this is the trend, then you will not understand why there is a need for UBI.

 

With the extra income people would pay the extra for things made in the USA and not depend on the countries you don't like.
(Just looking for some ways to sell this to the marco rubios of the states.)

 

How long before all of this happens do you think?

 

Please review what I posted - many jobs will be lost but much more jobs will be created by automation!

Over the next decade, automation is estimated to create a net increase of 100m+ jobs world wide, while the US is expected to lose a net of 10m jobs due to automation.

The problem is not automation, the problem is with the US job market and labor force.

EDIT: and putting people on UBI is not a feasible solution

 

You forgot to include the fact that a large amount of that number is people leaving the workforce because they want to.

http://archive.jsonline.com/busines...nce-2009-downturn-b99303175z1-265866551.html/