**** Work

[Mato]

Most societal wealth, both private and public, came from all the efforts of previous generations, for which none of us currently alive are responsible.

To pay everyone in the US 40K a year would cost 12 trillion dollars a year. The total financial value of EVERYTHING in the US is 129 trillion dollars. 11 years, and every penny ever saved is gone. Every day of hard work evaporated. Everything humanity ever worked for. Every parent who ever saved for their kids future. Gone.

You get a 10 year free ride in the middle class, and then you go back to the stone age.

Do you have any better long term plans?

 

[Constatine]

To pay everyone in the US 40K a year would cost 12 trillion dollars a year. The total financial value of EVERYTHING in the US is 129 trillion dollars. 11 years, and every penny ever saved is gone. Every day of hard work evaporated. Everything humanity ever worked for. Every parent who ever saved for their kids future. Gone.

You get a 10 year free ride in the middle class, and then you go back to the stone age.

Do you have any better long term plans?

Also what are the people going to spend the money on? No one is working or providing services. And if someone was working the inflation will be so high it would be like no one was making any money anyways.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

To pay everyone in the US 40K a year would cost 12 trillion dollars a year. The total financial value of EVERYTHING in the US is 129 trillion dollars. 11 years, and every penny ever saved is gone. Every day of hard work evaporated. Everything humanity ever worked for. Every parent who ever saved for their kids future. Gone.

You get a 10 year free ride in the middle class, and then you go back to the stone age.

Do you have any better long term plans?

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't understand how money works.

Money spent is not money burnt. Money circulates through an economy. This is why Ben Bernanke "spent 7 trillion dollars" to save us from a 2nd great depression in 2009.

He and every other great economist knows that such seemingly aggressive government deficit spending can be useful for growing the economy (or in this particular case, saving the economy from complete collapse). I should add that Bernanke had the courage to do this despite knowing that no non-economist would understand his reasoning and that he'd be criticized and misunderstood by 99% of the population as a "wall street crony for bailing out the rich" for generations to come. He saved the middle and lower classes from total poverty and despair, he did what he knew was right--his legacy and reputation be damned--and he deserves a lot of credit for that.

The U.S. economy produces $17 trillion in GDP annually and that number will continue to rise. So $12 trillion a year for a large basic income for every citizen is actually doable, not that I think that's necessarily an optimal amount. Just saying: your analysis is way off.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

Also what are the people going to spend the money on? No one is working or providing services. And if someone was working the inflation will be so high it would be like no one was making any money anyways.

Why assume nobody is working or providing services? Everyone just has $40k more than whatever else they're making.

And inflation depends on many variables. While moderate inflation would be a near certainty, that's not a major problem in and of itself.

 

[Constatine]

Why assume nobody is working or providing services? Everyone just has $40k more than whatever else they're making.

And inflation depends on many variables. While moderate inflation would be a near certainty, that's not a major problem in and of itself.

If you give everyone 40k a year that is more than moderate inflation. I think it would be as if no one was given any money at all. Except everyone loses money on property, the stocks crash, and thus the worlds stock crashes. Do you disagree with our societies version of the job or are you providing a solution to potential mass unemployment? Or both? I agree that there is something wrong with American culture and how much we idealize our jobs. It seems to define us. If we had a more relaxed perspective on it like many European countries I think many of our problems would be solved.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

But not enough to have a functioning society. It takes so much coordination of different jobs to simply get food into a grocery store.

No, not really. And especially not when you've got self-driving vehicles, robotic warehouses, etc.

Yeah this will probably happen (perhaps through enhanced tools though not AI). Though jobs are both created and destroyed here. Mechanics and engineers will be happy with these changes. Though unfortunately that leaves many who can no longer pay their bills.

Mechanics and engineers will mostly not have jobs. Software engineers will still have jobs for a while, but that's about it. AI will take over most other engineering and mechanical jobs.

I am definitely not overestimating the complexity of machine learning. Facial recognition is one of the more basic types of machine learning. Though I don't see how I can prove all this to you.

I didn't say it wasn't "a basic type." I said the advances within it as well as other areas of AI have outpaced what many experts believed would be the likely rate of advancement. If you yourself are unimpressed, I'm not sure what would impress you.

I take it you're also not impressed by the advances in neural networks? And AI teaching itself to become better than the best human at Go? This also happened several years before experts expected it to happen. And we still don't even know why it made the moves it made. We just know its strategy was far superior.

One of my points was that many fields are not profitable to automate. The fact we are talking about a hairdresser is arbitrary. Americans will not lose 50 percent of their jobs to machines because it is not profitable nor do we have the resources to design AI for every job.

They can easily become profitable in a short amount of time though. This is a principle that robotics folks often fail to take into account: AI can surpass humans by teaching itself skills and methods which our monkey brains aren't equipped to understand. Give it enough data and run large and powerful enough simulations, and the AI can learn and it doesn't much matter whether we know why it's better at whatever skill it's doing, but it's clear to us when it's better than humans.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

If you give everyone 40k a year that is more than moderate inflation. I think it would be as if no one was given any money at all.

You'd be very wrong. It might be such that $40k ends up being only $25k after the inflationary effects, which I admit is some serious inflation, but it's not the end of the world.

Except everyone loses money on property, the stocks crash, and thus the worlds stock crashes.

Huh?

Do you disagree with our societies version of the job or are you providing a solution to potential mass unemployment? Or both? I agree that there is something wrong with American culture and how much we idealize our jobs. It seems to define us. If we had a more relaxed perspective on it like many European countries I think many of our problems would be solved.

I'm saying the American middle class is mistaking its jobs as being more valuable than they really are, partly because people identify with their jobs too much and partly because the people with highly-skilled jobs don't interact much with the middle class anymore. Elites have created their own culture in just a few major cities. The the rest of America (the middle and lower classes) is about to suffer catastrophic job losses and destabilization. Since no steps are being taken to soften the oncoming blow, I predict we'll just see a massive expansion of the welfare state. I don't think this is a good thing, but I think it's what will happen.

If the government wanted to prevent such a situation, it should've taken steps more than a decade ago to incentivize every young and reasonably intelligent person to learn some form of programming, software engineering, data analysis/predictive modeling, etc. as these types of skills are the only skills that will be valuable in the decades ahead.

 

[Constatine]

No, not really. And especially not when you've got self-driving vehicles, robotic warehouses, etc.




Mechanics and engineers will mostly not have jobs. Software engineers will still have jobs for a while, but that's about it. AI will take over most other engineering and mechanical jobs.



I didn't say it wasn't "a basic type." I said the advances within it as well as other areas of AI have outpaced what many experts believed would be the likely rate of advancement. If you yourself are unimpressed, I'm not sure what would impress you.

I take it you're also not impressed by the advances in neural networks? And AI teaching itself to become better than the best human at Go? This also happened several years before experts expected it to happen. And we still don't even know why it made the moves it made. We just know its strategy was far superior.



They can easily become profitable in a short amount of time though. This is a principle that robotics folks often fail to take into account: AI can surpass humans by teaching itself skills and methods which our monkey brains aren't equipped to understand. Give it enough data and run large and powerful enough simulations, and the AI can learn and it doesn't much matter whether we know why it's better at whatever skill it's doing, but it's clear to us when it's better than humans.

But in a society without jobs (or jobs are less important) who will design and build the self driving vehicles and robotic warehouses. It would take an AI more human than humans to replace engineering. Also the thing with modern day AIs and the Go thing is that the artificial intelligence is designed to do a very specific thing and deal with dynamic situations within given parameters. This is why we are able to make an AI that is the best at playing Go but never an AI that can replace engineers. Mind you one can construct programs that can design bridges and even computers but such a program will dwell within certain parameters. When new information is added outside those parameters such AI will fail. Though this new efficiency does mean a company can get by with less engineers.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

The problem is no one is going to give you a sufficient amount of money so you can not work. People are not going to distribute wealth without getting anything for it.

Of course they aren't. But notice you can make the same argument to justify slavery if you replace the word "money" and "wealth" in your above quote with "human rights." We all claim to accept basic human rights, yet we don't accept it as a basic right for everyone to have enough cash flow for a roof over their heads and food on the table while not being forced to submit to a minimum wage job (a job that barely contributes anything to our economy anyways).

And to demean these people by giving them food stamps and other non-cash entitlements is not helping the situation. Give them cash. And if you're giving them cash, give everyone cash, again, so as to not draw a clear distinction between those who need it and those who don't. In other words, get rid of the toxic social divide that the welfare system has created between the "moochers" and the "non-moochers." This way, everyone has at least some cash, and everyone knows everyone has at least some cash.

Even in socialism where wealth is distributed people are made to have jobs. Though in such societies people often neglect their jobs which leads to many problems. This is made infinity worse if people are given money without jobs. Quite simply no one would work and if no one would work you don't have a society.

Socialism has no relevance to this discussion, as the U.S. isn't socialist. We have free markets, private property, and the benefits which follow from basic capitalism. What we don't have is the common sense understanding and acceptance that our infrastructure and public wealth was created not by us but by our parents and our parents' parents and every previous generation. I'm arguing we should all be entitled to a steady dividend that represents a sliver of that wealth.

In the current setup, the wealthy benefit disproportionately from the public infrastructure because they often inherit capital, which yields far higher returns than labor, especially in the modern economy. And in the future economy, capital will earn orders of magnitude more than labor, as automation will push wages down much further and increase capital gains without bound.

Who will be the barista at starbucks just because? Who will manage the starbucks and make sure the food is of good quality just because? Who will grow the food just because? Who will distribute the food just because?

People will do all those things for money. Giving them some free money doesn't disincentivize them from wanting to make even more money. The jobs you've listed above are low-paying and therefore aren't very valuable anyways; we shouldn't be concerned about temporarily losing some demand for such jobs.

When you just give money to people you are literally destroying the purpose of that money.

Nonsense. A few people will be content with some free money. Most people will desire some more money. Many people will desire a lot more money.

In such a society people will still do things but money will be useless. You would not be able to walk up to someone and give them money for a car because everyone makes money for doing nothing and it is useless to try to make extra money via a job like selling cars because there would be an infinite positive feedback loop of inflation. In such a society one would have to trade goods for goods but this cannot work for large companies as there would be no standardization and no way to mobilize the masses of goods traded. It only works that inherently rich people can have money without a job because no one else does.

If you gave everyone $40k a year, people with high-skilled jobs aren't going to quit. They didn't invest in those valuable skills to make $40k a year--they wanted to eventually make $500k or more per year. People at low-skilled jobs might quit, which is good--they weren't contributing much to the economy anyways. And maybe they'll use their newfound time to invest in better skills rather than serving people coffee at Starbucks.

Our economy produces $17 trillion of GDP per year. Low-skilled jobs make up a very small percentage of that, depending on what we consider "low-skill." If we're talking anything less than $15 per hour, that's less than 1% of GDP when you add all those jobs up. Economic productivity comes from highly-skilled workers, not from wage slaves.

 

[raypeatclips]

.Even in socialism where wealth is distributed people are made to have jobs. Though in such societies people often neglect their jobs which leads to many problems. This is made infinity worse if people are given money without jobs. Quite simply no one would work

Which socialist societies are you basing that statement off? Or is this just what you imagine in your mind would happen?

. Who will be the barista at starbucks just because? Who will manage the starbucks and make sure the food is of good quality just because? Who will grow the food just because? Who will distribute the food just because?

When you say "just because" do you think in a world where people get given universal basic income that regular jobs just stop paying people? People aren't working in Starbucks now "just because" they work there now for money and that won't change.

You also underestimate the boredom of having free time and no job. It is great at first but before long it gets boring. There is a sense of purpose with having a job aside from financial gain. There is a routine which people enjoy and also the social aspect of seeing people at work and forming a team. There are beneficial aspects of having a job, but it should be a job people want to have and enjoy doing. The world isn't just going to stop and people sit on their couch 24/7 because people get 40k a year for nothing. There are other reasons for having a job other than money.

A universal basic income would cause mass amounts of people leaving shitty jobs they don't like which would cause companies to have to increase the quality of the job. With a universal basic income people would have a security in unemployment, so would have greater choice over what jobs they choose, so employers must make a job seem pretty attractive for someone to want to work there. Nobody would be taking jobs out of desperation because they need to make rent by the end of the week. Companies like Starbucks that dodge paying taxes would have to increase their wages, listen to what their employees would like or people just simply wouldn't work there. If you were earning 40k a year for nothing you wouldn't work at Starbucks for peanuts, but if they offered a good wage and added other incentives, it suddenly seems more attractive.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

But in a society without jobs (or jobs are less important) who will design and build the self driving vehicles and robotic warehouses. It would take an AI more human than humans to replace engineering.

I've never advocated a society without highly-skilled jobs. I'm advocating a society with a lot less low-skilled jobs, particularly minimum wage jobs which we want to incentivize companies to automate ASAP. Such jobs crowd out peoples' time which could otherwise be invested in learning more valuable skills, or (if they're not intelligent enough or lack the desire to learn more valuable skills) partaking in leisure at virtually zero cost to the economy.

Also the thing with modern day AIs and the Go thing is that the artificial intelligence is designed to do a very specific thing and deal with dynamic situations within given parameters. This is why we are able to make an AI that is the best at playing Go but never an AI that can replace engineers.

Engineers are doing specific things within those "dynamic situations" though. Such situations can be simulated given enough data and enough statistical analysis. In the near-term, it may be far more efficient to just copy an engineer's brain and replicate that a bunch of times (that's a whole different argument) but in the long run, I don't see why AI won't be better at engineering than humans.

Mind you one can construct programs that can design bridges and even computers but such a program will dwell within certain parameters. When new information is added outside those parameters such AI will fail. Though this new efficiency does mean a company can get by with less engineers.

You're taking more of a robotics/programming perspective on all of this, but I tend to see it more from an algorithmic angle, in a way similar to how Max Tegmark describes it--we won't understand what or why the AI is doing what it's doing or how it's learning to be better than humans at the various tasks that make up the intelligence of an engineer. You seem to assume we always do know, but there's no reason to believe an AI won't overtake humans in some facets while lagging in others which seem trivial to humans, all before suddenly surpassing us in every facet within a very short amount of time.

 

[Mato]

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't understand how money works.

To the real world, money represents capital accumulation. To you, it represents green things your parents give you on your birthday.

I don't think we're going to have any productive level of discourse when you are willful ignorant to how economies work. Enjoy your life as a leech, begging other people to work hard and pay for your life of leisure.

I'll be out working while you're pathetically whimpering about how unfair the world is.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

To the real world, money represents capital accumulation.

No it doesn't. I suggest reading more on the subject. Fiat money functions much differently than how most people imagine. When a government can print its own money and control the interest on its debt, money within such a country becomes more of a mathematical abstraction rather than the "store of value" it's commonly thought of. It's still a "store of value" from an individual's perspective, but it's more of an "economic tool" from the government's perspective (assuming the government has a sovereign currency like the U.S. does). This is why government deficits aren't like household deficits or municipality deficits; the former are often useful and necessary while the latter are almost always problematic.

You'll never really understand money or the economy until you grasp this critical difference.

To you, it represents green things your parents give you on your birthday.

Parents no, but grandparents, aunts and uncles yes.

I don't think we're going to have any productive level of discourse when you are willful ignorant to how economies work. Enjoy your life as a leech, begging other people to work hard and pay for your life of leisure.

Can you clarify what the above 2 sentences are referring to?

I'll be out working while you're pathetically whimpering about how unfair the world is.

You sound like you might be triggered by something I wrote. Can you clarify?

 

[Mato]

When a government can print its own money and control the interest on its debt, money within such a country becomes more of a mathematical abstraction rather than the "store of value" it's commonly thought of.

Zimbabwae and Venezuela disaree.

Good luck with your life. I'm sure girls are flocking to court you.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

Zimbabwae and Venezuela disaree.

Good luck with your life. I'm sure girls are flocking to court you.

You're confusing dysfunctional governments with governments that use fiat money. Any other misunderstandings I can help you clear up?

 

[Mato]

I think you've done a better job defeating your own position than I ever could have.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

I think you've done a better job defeating your own position than I ever could have.

You seem to be mistaking this as some sort of debate. I was actually not taking a position on anything but rather just explaining some foundational Economics concepts to you, since your posts indicate that you're new to the subject.

 

[Mato]

I was actually not taking a position on anything but rather just explaining some foundational Economics concepts to you, since your posts indicate that you're new to the subject.

You know a ton about economics for someone who has never made a penny from your knowledge of it.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

You know a ton about economics for someone who has never made a penny from your knowledge of it.

You lost me. Can you clarify?

 

[yerrag]

Yes, Fiat money is an abstraction of wealth. That abstraction makes paper a good representation of value, if that piece of paper backed by something of value. Gold has served that role until the US and its accomplices changed the rules. Fiat money now is mere abstraction. It serves the US well, as it uses the US dollar for trade, where it obtains goods. Other nations get paid in a currency that has little worth except that it is also backed by a military power that can project its gangster power with heavy weapons. Ghadafi of Libya and Saddam Hussein of Iraq stands as an example to the world to think twice before questioning the almighty dollar.

Russia and China are laying the groundwork for shifting the world's reliance on the US dollar. It is a long time coming.

It very well should be done. To put the world back to thinking that debt accumulation is not a policy not a practice nor a habit that instills good character. This thinking has put the US into a collision course between conservatives and liberals. Liberals rely on a continuation of living beyond one's means to provide an illusory safety net for the unemployed and unproductive masses. This is a throwback to Nero and his fiddle, and the masses he panders to, and stands as an instance of Rome's decay.