IF everyone benefits from it in the form of higher wages/less working hours due to the higher productivity.
I know this is a common philosophical statement, but I haven’t yet seen a great implementation of it in reality. I’m interested if your approach is viable.
Scenario:
Lets say we have a 25 year old worker named Jim. Jim was hired and his job for 1 year was to log into a system, look up specific values, and populate these values into fields in an Excel spreadsheet. At the beginning of the second year, a small Bash script (computer code) was written by an engineer and set to run on a repeating daily schedule that did all of the lookups and sheet population that was Jim’s entire job. The entirely of Jim’s job has been replaced by automation.
Result:
Jim no longer has any work to do for the organization. There aren’t any other open positions at the company for Jim (or if there are Jim is not even remotely qualified to do those other jobs).
So how would you apply your philosophy to this situation?
Do you believe the organization should continue to employ Jim even without any work for him?
Should he be let go, but still paid? If so, how much, and for how long?
UBI is a fantasy all the money will go to the wealth hoarders at the top. People are already dying on the streets everyday, we hardly have any access to healthcare or working protections unless there’s a revolution it’s a fantasy. The meager safety net we have gets gutted every time we have a Republican in office and the democrats almost never reverse the damage. The Trump administration has stated it intends to get the United states population down at least 100 million. They posted it on the DHS website and miller has been talking about it. More than likely the cruel policies that expedite deaths from poverty will be rapidly expanded. I had to watch my own mom die in this cruel system where you can not access healthcare if you don’t have a house to liquidate and it’s disgusting beyond belief. I think more and more people are going to be ground up and die inside when they realize that these dark realities of the cruelty that our system is built on start expanding. The working class is running out of money for them to grift from us so we’re disposable now
I’m a proponent of UBI, but that has nothing to do with the “IF everyone benefits from it in the form of higher wages/less working hours due to the higher productivity” philosophy OP posted though.
With UBI, Jim would be getting basic income (like everyone else) irrespective if he ever had the job in the example or not, and irrespective if the automation occurred or not.
Automation, in the case of UBI, would mean that the productivity gain would translate into less hour worked, with a minimum guaranteed revenue every month/year.
The reality is that automation efficiency is going straight into capitalists pockets. And people having a bigger workload for the same amount of money as before.
Without a societal shift, automation is not for the benefits of the general populace.
Automation, in the case of UBI, would mean that the productivity gain would translate into less hour worked, with a minimum guaranteed revenue every month/year.
That is a typical answer I get to my question. It fully contains the philosophy that automation gains will somehow be funneled into state coffers or UBI initiatives but its completely missing in any substance about how that translates into reality.
The reality is that automation efficiency is going straight into capitalists pockets. And people having a bigger workload for the same amount of money as before.
I gave an example with Jim above. At the end, Jim is out of work, and the organization has gained money because they aren’t paying Jim, and their automation is doing the work now. Does your actual implementation of your philosophy attempt to tax or clawback some of what Jim was being paid? If so, how and against what metrics? Alternatively, do you propose that what pays the UBI is completely divorced from what the organization earns or pays?
Capitalism as it is applied today is incompatible with any kind of increase in quality of life for the general population and any efficiency gain is pocketed by the richs, and the different branches of the government are captured in pretty much every country in the world.
In a fairer world, companies would be highly taxed. To reduce the taxation burden, companies would need to invest in R&D, employees compensation and community building/support, which would include a UBI of some sort. Companies could still generate profit, but not in the absurd amount that we are seeing today.
In that context, automation would be a no brainer.
But I genuinely believe that UBI or anything similar will not happen in my lifetime because rich people’s influence is too strong and the common person will vote against their interests because of the constant barrage of propaganda.
I have a different idea. The government should provide a jobs guarantee. There are plenty of things that need to be fixed in this country, and Jim can apply whatever skills he has to fixing some of them.
imagine wrecking your life working to advance a thing for which the ultimate end goal is to replace you entirely
I don’t have to imagine :(
That isn’t new with AI. Non-AI Automation has been the goal (and achievement) of business for decades.
Automation is great , everything should be automated as much as possible.
IF everyone benefits from it in the form of higher wages/less working hours due to the higher productivity.
I know this is a common philosophical statement, but I haven’t yet seen a great implementation of it in reality. I’m interested if your approach is viable.
Scenario:
Lets say we have a 25 year old worker named Jim. Jim was hired and his job for 1 year was to log into a system, look up specific values, and populate these values into fields in an Excel spreadsheet. At the beginning of the second year, a small Bash script (computer code) was written by an engineer and set to run on a repeating daily schedule that did all of the lookups and sheet population that was Jim’s entire job. The entirely of Jim’s job has been replaced by automation.
Result:
Jim no longer has any work to do for the organization. There aren’t any other open positions at the company for Jim (or if there are Jim is not even remotely qualified to do those other jobs).
UBI is the obvious solution to this and study after srudy has proven its efficacy.
UBI is a fantasy all the money will go to the wealth hoarders at the top. People are already dying on the streets everyday, we hardly have any access to healthcare or working protections unless there’s a revolution it’s a fantasy. The meager safety net we have gets gutted every time we have a Republican in office and the democrats almost never reverse the damage. The Trump administration has stated it intends to get the United states population down at least 100 million. They posted it on the DHS website and miller has been talking about it. More than likely the cruel policies that expedite deaths from poverty will be rapidly expanded. I had to watch my own mom die in this cruel system where you can not access healthcare if you don’t have a house to liquidate and it’s disgusting beyond belief. I think more and more people are going to be ground up and die inside when they realize that these dark realities of the cruelty that our system is built on start expanding. The working class is running out of money for them to grift from us so we’re disposable now
I’m a proponent of UBI, but that has nothing to do with the “IF everyone benefits from it in the form of higher wages/less working hours due to the higher productivity” philosophy OP posted though.
With UBI, Jim would be getting basic income (like everyone else) irrespective if he ever had the job in the example or not, and irrespective if the automation occurred or not.
Automation, in the case of UBI, would mean that the productivity gain would translate into less hour worked, with a minimum guaranteed revenue every month/year.
The reality is that automation efficiency is going straight into capitalists pockets. And people having a bigger workload for the same amount of money as before.
Without a societal shift, automation is not for the benefits of the general populace.
That is a typical answer I get to my question. It fully contains the philosophy that automation gains will somehow be funneled into state coffers or UBI initiatives but its completely missing in any substance about how that translates into reality.
I gave an example with Jim above. At the end, Jim is out of work, and the organization has gained money because they aren’t paying Jim, and their automation is doing the work now. Does your actual implementation of your philosophy attempt to tax or clawback some of what Jim was being paid? If so, how and against what metrics? Alternatively, do you propose that what pays the UBI is completely divorced from what the organization earns or pays?
I wasn’t the original OP.
Capitalism as it is applied today is incompatible with any kind of increase in quality of life for the general population and any efficiency gain is pocketed by the richs, and the different branches of the government are captured in pretty much every country in the world.
In a fairer world, companies would be highly taxed. To reduce the taxation burden, companies would need to invest in R&D, employees compensation and community building/support, which would include a UBI of some sort. Companies could still generate profit, but not in the absurd amount that we are seeing today.
In that context, automation would be a no brainer.
But I genuinely believe that UBI or anything similar will not happen in my lifetime because rich people’s influence is too strong and the common person will vote against their interests because of the constant barrage of propaganda.
I have a different idea. The government should provide a jobs guarantee. There are plenty of things that need to be fixed in this country, and Jim can apply whatever skills he has to fixing some of them.