Rather than proposing universal basic income as the solution to robots supposedly taking all our jobs, the task should be to improve federal worker adjustment assistance programs.
Thanks as always, Robert, for looking at something and then logically arguing the pros and, often, the cons of an idea or policy. Universal basic income definitely falls into the latter category.
A “Basic Income Lab”? This sort of indicates the problems at some universities today, where programs are created simply because they have the money or often because they need the money. I thought a university should be focused on educating its students to make sure they will never need a handout from government. Now they are trying to research ways to justify it.
And on the relationship between the need for UBI and AI, well, I just gave a talk on AI and the internet yesterday (3/17; no, I did not have a few green beers before OR after my talk) at the Bank of America Securities Asia Technology Conference in Taipei. I was in the internet industry for more than a decade here in Taiwan, during the early days and starting in the mid-1990s.
Perhaps there are some similarities between the internet then and AI now, but there are many more key differences. And keep in mind, the firms doing a lot of investing in AI today - Amazon, Google, and more - were small firms then, embracing the internet and becoming eventually large firms that have hired thousands and created entire industries. Yes, new technologies can create disruptions, but mismanagement, misunderstandings, bad policies, and fear often create more problems than do technologies themselves.
Most people don’t create technologies - nor do most societies put them to use - to harm themselves and others. Usually, a technology is created to solve a problem or problems. The internet did, and AI can, too.
I like to say (and undoubtedly others have) the first technology man created was fire. It did burn people if they did not understand it, but it also ensured the food they ate did not kill them if cooked properly, or that they did not freeze to death from the cold. Then again, I am not a steak tatare eater, but I did like the cold when playing ice hockey growing up.
You are correct in asserting that UBI is simply “welfare” by another, currently more palatable name. And undoubtedly, there are some industries or jobs - such as transportation or delivery services, for example - where the goal has to be keeping costs low. We try to not just eliminate transaction costs, but also try to keep such transactions at least at a lower cost.
Instead, UBI could wind up ensuring that rather than coming up with a solution to have wages for workers in the industry remaining low so the industry performs its role, along with some other ideas or ways to augment those low wages (as you and the ITIF argue, such as improving federal worker adjustment assistance programs), workers simply do not go into the industry and instead collect their welfare, er, I mean, UBI check each month.
Work - and working - matters, and as you have argued elsewhere, we also cannot create jobs simply to put people to work if the need and rationale are not there. Productivity is what matters. Again, I argue perhaps the problem is that we’ve created in advanced societies the view that work is something for developing societies to do, while we in the rich societies simply think, enjoy and consume.
Okay, I’ve never felt comfortable in a “consumption”-focused economy given being raised by parents who were kids themselves during the Great Depression. They were skilled people and often built, designed or fixed things themselves rather than buying them. The work did not do them harm, and at least for our four-person firm, “Cottorone, Inc.”, the work and productivity mattered.
Then again, I outsourced myself from a developed society in the mid-1990s to a developing one where I knew I could get to work, after more than a few executives back home had said the future was all about “brands,” consumption and leisure, with other, less-developed areas doing the grunt work for us.
I’d like to say more discussion and writing is needed on this - I’m sure those university labs would love that and also sign me up, perhaps for a fee, to join the discussion groups on UBI and other “ideas.” But values are lacking, particularly with regards to the idea that work and productivity matter, we are all “developing” nations - and some nations believe they aren’t, then they should get with the program, fast - and that you don’t empower and protecting yourself by outsourcing your key, needed efforts to empower and protect yourself. And as we’ve seen, there are large, not so noble systems in the world that are more than happy to do the work for you, at an often initially unseen but eventually clearer, enormous cost.
BTW, when speaking of costs, your point about when labor is no longer part of the equation, all costs fall to zero is one few take the time consider as they often are not thinking through the arguments all the way. I’m not sure when or how it happened, but we fear the future more than ever, it appears. We assume the future will be worse, yet most are unwilling to use the tools we already have afforded to us to, from democracy, the respect for competition, and faith.
We can either use productivity and other goals to empower ourselves and others, or we can continue to focus on power. Marx focused on power, often on how to take it away from some and redistribute to others, brutally if needed. Empowerment, though, is the way to go, even if it means having to live with some discomfort and pain along the way.
It's simply astounding how confidently and energetically universities, supposedly meant to sow progress and humanism, are pushing this inhumane and degenerate idea of universal basic income. Don't they understand that they're pushing the masses down the evolutionary ladder to a state of apes? Universal basic income is a diabolical temptation for government and corporate managers, because creating new jobs is far more difficult than throwing pitiful scraps to the plebs. Hasn't the fall of the Roman Empire taught us anything?
Thanks as always, Robert, for looking at something and then logically arguing the pros and, often, the cons of an idea or policy. Universal basic income definitely falls into the latter category.
A “Basic Income Lab”? This sort of indicates the problems at some universities today, where programs are created simply because they have the money or often because they need the money. I thought a university should be focused on educating its students to make sure they will never need a handout from government. Now they are trying to research ways to justify it.
And on the relationship between the need for UBI and AI, well, I just gave a talk on AI and the internet yesterday (3/17; no, I did not have a few green beers before OR after my talk) at the Bank of America Securities Asia Technology Conference in Taipei. I was in the internet industry for more than a decade here in Taiwan, during the early days and starting in the mid-1990s.
Perhaps there are some similarities between the internet then and AI now, but there are many more key differences. And keep in mind, the firms doing a lot of investing in AI today - Amazon, Google, and more - were small firms then, embracing the internet and becoming eventually large firms that have hired thousands and created entire industries. Yes, new technologies can create disruptions, but mismanagement, misunderstandings, bad policies, and fear often create more problems than do technologies themselves.
Most people don’t create technologies - nor do most societies put them to use - to harm themselves and others. Usually, a technology is created to solve a problem or problems. The internet did, and AI can, too.
I like to say (and undoubtedly others have) the first technology man created was fire. It did burn people if they did not understand it, but it also ensured the food they ate did not kill them if cooked properly, or that they did not freeze to death from the cold. Then again, I am not a steak tatare eater, but I did like the cold when playing ice hockey growing up.
You are correct in asserting that UBI is simply “welfare” by another, currently more palatable name. And undoubtedly, there are some industries or jobs - such as transportation or delivery services, for example - where the goal has to be keeping costs low. We try to not just eliminate transaction costs, but also try to keep such transactions at least at a lower cost.
Instead, UBI could wind up ensuring that rather than coming up with a solution to have wages for workers in the industry remaining low so the industry performs its role, along with some other ideas or ways to augment those low wages (as you and the ITIF argue, such as improving federal worker adjustment assistance programs), workers simply do not go into the industry and instead collect their welfare, er, I mean, UBI check each month.
Work - and working - matters, and as you have argued elsewhere, we also cannot create jobs simply to put people to work if the need and rationale are not there. Productivity is what matters. Again, I argue perhaps the problem is that we’ve created in advanced societies the view that work is something for developing societies to do, while we in the rich societies simply think, enjoy and consume.
Okay, I’ve never felt comfortable in a “consumption”-focused economy given being raised by parents who were kids themselves during the Great Depression. They were skilled people and often built, designed or fixed things themselves rather than buying them. The work did not do them harm, and at least for our four-person firm, “Cottorone, Inc.”, the work and productivity mattered.
Then again, I outsourced myself from a developed society in the mid-1990s to a developing one where I knew I could get to work, after more than a few executives back home had said the future was all about “brands,” consumption and leisure, with other, less-developed areas doing the grunt work for us.
I’d like to say more discussion and writing is needed on this - I’m sure those university labs would love that and also sign me up, perhaps for a fee, to join the discussion groups on UBI and other “ideas.” But values are lacking, particularly with regards to the idea that work and productivity matter, we are all “developing” nations - and some nations believe they aren’t, then they should get with the program, fast - and that you don’t empower and protecting yourself by outsourcing your key, needed efforts to empower and protect yourself. And as we’ve seen, there are large, not so noble systems in the world that are more than happy to do the work for you, at an often initially unseen but eventually clearer, enormous cost.
BTW, when speaking of costs, your point about when labor is no longer part of the equation, all costs fall to zero is one few take the time consider as they often are not thinking through the arguments all the way. I’m not sure when or how it happened, but we fear the future more than ever, it appears. We assume the future will be worse, yet most are unwilling to use the tools we already have afforded to us to, from democracy, the respect for competition, and faith.
We can either use productivity and other goals to empower ourselves and others, or we can continue to focus on power. Marx focused on power, often on how to take it away from some and redistribute to others, brutally if needed. Empowerment, though, is the way to go, even if it means having to live with some discomfort and pain along the way.
Thanks again.
It's simply astounding how confidently and energetically universities, supposedly meant to sow progress and humanism, are pushing this inhumane and degenerate idea of universal basic income. Don't they understand that they're pushing the masses down the evolutionary ladder to a state of apes? Universal basic income is a diabolical temptation for government and corporate managers, because creating new jobs is far more difficult than throwing pitiful scraps to the plebs. Hasn't the fall of the Roman Empire taught us anything?
THey all have drank the Kool-Aid of job destruction, along with becoming " mommy-staters" (no one should suffer any kind of discomfort)