Switzerland just rejected this proposal, but its very interesting to hear these types of ideas to combat the issues of automation occurring in the job market. Love to hear your thoughts on this as I'm certainly more knowledgeable on the technology side vs. the social impact side.

http://icdn4.digitaltrends.com/image/screen-shot-2013-04-03-at-3-04-44-pm-816x553.png

Decoupling Income From Work

Fortunately, people are beginning to ask these questions, and there’s an answer that’s building up momentum. The idea is to put machines to work for us, but empower ourselves to seek out the forms of remaining work we as humans find most valuable, by simply providing everyone a monthly paycheck independent of work. This paycheck would be granted to all citizens unconditionally, and its name is universal basic income. By adopting UBI, aside from immunizing against the negative effects of automation, we’d also be decreasing the risks inherent in entrepreneurship, and the sizes of bureaucracies necessary to boost incomes. It’s for these reasons, it has cross-partisan support, and is even now in the beginning stages of possible implementation in countries like Switzerland, Finland, the Netherlands, and Canada.

The future is a place of accelerating changes. It seems unwise to continue looking at the future as if it were the past, where just because new jobs have historically appeared, they always will. The WEF started 2016 off by estimating the creation by 2020 of 2 million new jobs alongside the elimination of 7 million. That’s a net loss, not a net gain of 5 million jobs. In a frequently cited paper, an Oxford study estimated the automation of about half of all existing jobs by 2033. Meanwhile self-driving vehicles, again thanks to machine learning, have the capability of drastically impacting all economies — especially the US economy as I wrote last year about automating truck driving — by eliminating millions of jobs within a short span of time.

And now even the White House, in a stunning report to Congress, has put the probability at 83 percent that a worker making less than $20 an hour in 2010 will eventually lose their job to a machine. Even workers making as much as $40 an hour face odds of 31 percent. To ignore odds like these is tantamount to our now laughable “duck and cover” strategies for avoiding nuclear blasts during the Cold War.

All of this is why it’s those most knowledgeable in the AI field who are now actively sounding the alarm for basic income. During a panel discussion at the end of 2015 at Singularity University, prominent data scientist Jeremy Howard asked “Do you want half of people to starve because they literally can’t add economic value, or not?” before going on to suggest, ”If the answer is not, then the smartest way to distribute the wealth is by implementing a universal basic income.”

AI pioneer Chris Eliasmith, director of the Centre for Theoretical Neuroscience, warned about the immediate impacts of AI on society in an interview with Futurism, “AI is already having a big impact on our economies… My suspicion is that more countries will have to follow Finland’s lead in exploring basic income guarantees for people.”

Moshe Vardi expressed the same sentiment after speaking at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science about the emergence of intelligent machines, “we need to rethink the very basic structure of our economic system… we may have to consider instituting a basic income guarantee.”

Even Baidu’s chief scientist and founder of Google’s “Google Brain” deep learning project, Andrew Ng, during an onstage interview at this year’s Deep Learning Summit, expressed the shared notion that basic income must be “seriously considered” by governments, citing “a high chance that AI will create massive labor displacement.”

When those building the tools begin warning about the implications of their use, shouldn’t those wishing to use those tools listen with the utmost attention, especially when it’s the very livelihoods of millions of people at stake? If not then, what about when Nobel prize winning economists begin agreeing with them in increasing numbers?

No nation is yet ready for the changes ahead. High labor force non-participation leads to social instability, and a lack of consumers within consumer economies leads to economic instability. So let’s ask ourselves, what’s the purpose of the technologies we’re creating? What’s the purpose of a car that can drive for us, or artificial intelligence that can shoulder 60% of our workload? Is it to allow us to work more hours for even less pay? Or is it to enable us to choose how we work, and to decline any pay/hours we deem insufficient because we’re already earning the incomes that machines aren’t?

What’s the big lesson to learn, in a century when machines can learn?

I offer it’s that jobs are for machines, and life is for people.

_________________

I have been reading "The Expanse" series of books. They take place in the 23rd century and it mostly takes place in space but one of the interesting ideas that they gloss over is the idea of being on 'basic' versus working for an income. It is interesting that there are some who want to rise above basic but the safety net is there. But in a world where there are 20 billion people, it is probably hard finding jobs for everyone.

Also, the books are fantastic and the tv show based on the books is good too.

_________________

Great books! I'm on the third one, Abandons Gate...enjoying. It.

SYfy show was ok as well

Okay, I know what I'm reading next I guess.

_________________

The last part of the article tries to insinuate UBI would lead to a disruption of consumer based economies. I just don't think that's true. With a standard, accepted income wouldn't consumerism increase due to the poor now being able to afford more products and goods?

_________________

These articles really seem to miss the point.

UBI is a very bad idea right now. Yeah, the Swiss can probably do it because of how their country is setup and how they have created a unique immoral niche of being the place for hiding money of all sorts. Countries that actually produce things can't do it yet.

However, at some point in our lifetimes, it will be advantageous for all people to pay people not to work. Otherwise, even the current "good" jobs will basically be minimum wage. The only thing keeping any of us paid more than minimum wage is that there aren't a bunch of equally qualified people wanting to do the work for cheaper and then the race to the bottom begins. That is why the McDonalds "$15 an hour" thing is funny. A lot of people don't think they deserve it for "flipping burgers" when their jobs at some point will either be automated or there will be a mad rush of people looking for any job that still exists by humans. If your company had 9 people at the door wanting your job you better believe you'll never get a raise again.

Job scarcity will be a real thing. We already see it with a lot of older workers that were literally automated out of the job market and will likely never be able to find work again in their chosen field. It's not their fault. They did what they were supposed to do. They worked hard and gained skills and experience. It just so happens that they chose something that dried up.

So, UBI won't work now. It will be required eventually.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Do it. I just finished the second book and like SG I am starting the third. Normally I am not a science fiction guy (I prefer fantasy...which for those who think GRR Martin is the end all/be all, I say he has nothing no Joe Abercrombie) but this series is fantastic.

_________________

I'm doing Abercrombie first law trilogy right now. He have anything else to check out? In the second book right now.

The shattered sea trilogy is also really good. It is a different world but also pretty violent. I also liked the stand alone First Law novels, particularly Best Served Cold.

_________________