Jeremy Rifkin - 1995 - The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work</a><p>In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminated tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He predicted devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers would reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class would continue to shrink and the workplace become ever more stressful.<p>As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sector—voluntary and community-based service organizations—that would create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocated scaling down the military budget, enacting a value added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers.<p>--------------<p>Jeremy Rifkin - 2005<p><a href="http://www.foet.org/press/interviews/Spiegel-%20August%203%202005.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.foet.org/press/interviews/Spiegel-%20August%203%2...</a><p>European politicians often like to blame outsourcing for the disappearance of jobs. But
in reality the work isn't going to the Chinese --it's going to the robots.
Basic income is a nice idea, but as long as we cannot automate <i>everything</i>, I do feel that it misses the point somewhat because it doesn't address unemployment.<p>As long as <i>somebody</i> has to work, unemployment is very divisive for society. Those who are employed tend to be valued over those who do not work, even when the unemployment is involuntary (actually, unemployment is usually <i>defined</i> to be involuntary).<p>This can have jarring psychological consequences. It also reduces the overall size of the economy. If somebody <i>wants</i> to work, shouldn't we make it possible for them? Finally, it means that a basic income is always going to be a politically unstable proposition. It will always be easy for those who hate basic income to attack it with "welfare queen" type smears. This attack will likely be even more effective than it is with current welfare programs.<p>This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage.<p>One can still have Basic Income on top of a Job Guarantee, of course. The two proposals aren't mutually exclusive. But I think the Job Guarantee is better at addressing the real issues, at least as long as we cannot automate everything.
Basic Income has been a hot topic in Germany for years, and while it is radical, I still think it's worth a try. It completely shifts the labor market, and has the potential to raise average life quality tremendously.
Basic income could pay for itself with the things created by people who are doing what they want, as a result of losing their fear of falling below a basic level of living.
Progressive taxation that starts from negative tax rate and goes upwards from there as more income is generate by working more is quite reasonable.<p>You always get <i>something</i> but most people want slightly more or much more, so they can choose to work just enough to get what they wanted. The tax rate goes up as the more work you do, so at some point you actually start paying taxes instead of receiving money as negative taxes. In this scheme, if you work more then you always get more money. Currently it doesn't always make sense to go to work because welfare/unemployment subsidies will disappear at some point.
I think these things tend to miss that work is not only about providing sustenance for oneself (and family) but also about what people want to do with their lives.<p>Also these things assume the role of some centralized entity in this age when governments have been cutting back massively on things considered to be for the public benefit (because of their own financial short falls eg. Detroit). We seem to be thinking of doing more of the same in this paradigm when its falling apart around us…<p>Who is going melt the PVC to build this pipe dream?
As a Briton, I never thought I'd see a New Statesman link on the Hacker News front page - especially not to see that people are defending it in the comments! (It's the leftest of left wing magazines, save the SWP rags, even a wooly liberal like me finds it a bit much.)<p>There must be fewer Americans on here in the middle of the night or something...
The transition is rough but I would like automation to reach 100% and nobody having any jobs.<p>At that point money is no longer needed, as long as there is an abundance of things (what the 100% automation is all about).<p>People spend their days doing what they like and the robots do the heavy lifting.
I like that they point out that alternative to basic income isn't business as usual but rather all out communist-like revolution like the last time.
> We are continually being pushed into the territory that distinguishes us from machines: emotion, relationships, synthesis, abstraction, beauty, art, meaning, and more.<p>Our future depends on the humanization work: <a href="http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2013/02/our-future-depends-on-the-humanization-of-work.html" rel="nofollow">http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2013/02/our-future...</a><p>We still have the idea of a discrete education, that once we obtain a skill, we can be employable using that skill. Such specialization is not going to cut it going forward. We have to view learning as a life-long continuous endeavour of an experimentation of ideas.<p>Start by making university free. Pay people to study. Don't let young people go 30K+ in debt just to get a basic education. That load of debt starting out limits possibilities. Mostly limiting the ability to be creative or entrepreneurial but it can also hinder one's ability to be mobile and to travel and acquire new perspectives.
In Switzerland there will probably be a voting about introducing a basic income. At least if the initiators manage to get 100'000 signatures for their initiative until October (so far they have about 90'000 valid signatures).
It will be cheaper to engineer a die-off via covert bioweapons and such. From the perspective of the superclass, why give useless eaters money when that money could be invested in the consolidation of power?
Basic income is an interesting idea but the argument that automation and robots will replace all our jobs is no more true now than it was when I started my career as an engineer 20 years ago or when the Luddites smashed the power looms. Anybody who has worked in manufacturing knows that introducing robotics is expensive and a lot less flexible than you would hope. I guess it would be a scary prospect for believers of the singularity.
He does have a good point and this is going to happen eventually the question is how it's going to happen.
Are the big corporations going to accept this or are the going to lobby their asses off to stop it.
If they do and they win then we will most likely have another massacre of the rich and greedy.
Seems World War 3 is inevitable if corporations are going to fight this. Hope nobody uses the nukes or we're all screwed.
I am not sure whether I find it more disturbing to see that people here think it is in any way fair to pay people for not doing anything, or that they think it is economically possible to take something with a perceived value, exchange it regularly for zero on a mass scale and for this thing to retain its value.<p>Suppose you give a bar of gold to everyone, for nothing, every month.<p>Question: what's gold going to be worth on the market in half a year?
I guess something like that will be inevitable. Unfortunately it will have to be combined with a control of population size or it will be unsustainable.
>and it allows for a recognition of the value of certain types of non-market labour, like caring or raising children.<p>How? It looks like a full-time carer and a full-time layabout would be equally rewarded.<p>That said, I agree with the idea in general, the removal of the claim stigma is pretty important.
I see more problems than benefits.<p>1. Poverty is a relative term. Giving the entire population a basic income would shift everyone up, but ultimately it's a zero sum game. Obviously, the additional income will be marginal for high earners and the income gap will largely remain.<p>2. Massive distribution of money tends to be inflationary. As purchasing power and demand go up, so does the market pricing. Think of rent prices around poor neighborhoods for example.<p>3. It will not mitigate the "reverse Darwinism" that occurs across the socioeconomic layers. High earners have neutral or negative population growth, while the poor are procreating at a much higher rate. This phenomena crosses communities, countries and continents. It's the reason some rich European countries have declining indigenous population, with any growth attributed to poor immigrants.<p>4. It reduces the incentive to adapt to the new employment situation.<p>5. It does nothing to curb to social unrest that will happen due to income gaps. I don't want to sound like "The Man", but in effect this has the potential to make the income gap much more volatile; a large portion of the population that's idle and feels neglected is a massive unrest waiting for a cause.<p>The talks of automation as if it's the end of the materialistic society - as everything is produced effortlessly and cost effectively - are premature. We'll be there when we ultimately master the matter at a particle level (think of the Culture novels).
Society can, and will adapt to the added manufacturing capabilities with strong demand for better products and services. In fact, I think automation will be the saving grace of manufacturing in the first world nations.<p>As controversial as it sounds, I think the solution lies in balancing the growth across the different socioeconomic levels. There should be a policy of encouraging growth across the upper echelons of society, while discouraging the growth among the lower ranks:<p>1. Immediately, it will reduce poverty levels;<p>2. It will provide a better opportunity to take care of low income families, including government sponsored education, health and food programs;<p>3. In the long run, it will be the most effective redistribution tool of wealth. For every kid the Walton family had, each of the others had billions less in inheritance.
Accumulation of individual wealth is greatly amplified when successful families make 1 or 2 children. If they have an average of 4 children, the transfer of wealth between and across generations will be more reasonable.<p>The current situation of the financially weakest population multiplying in the quickest rate is bad for everyone (first and foremost to themselves); it is a demographic and economic dead end. No matter how much you try patching it with wealth redistribution, you WILL eventually "run out of other people's money".
If we envision an eventual time with mostly-automation or full automation, there will be a transitioning period. Say that there are jobs for 50% and the rest have basic income: how will those two classes look? The people that are working will probably want to be compensated fairly well, since they are dedicating their time and sometimes taking on heavy responsibilities (like doctors). But how will the folks on basic income handle this new income-divide? Will they be content with their hobbies, non-profit work etc; or will they be jealous of the people with (I'm guessing) a substantially higher income and all their status symbols and trappings? Will this mean a much, much more competitive labour market, starting from early school and continuing into university and eventually a more demanding wokplace? Will the "jobless" be seen as a new low-class, being looked down on not simply for having low-skill jobs while at the same time working hard, but truly being people with no responsibilities (like I said, non-profit work and such might be a possibility)?<p>In short; will human nature be able to gracefully handle the transitioning period?
>Now, redistribution is already, prima facie, one of the absolute best things a government can do. Simply put, rich people don't need money, and poor people do. All else being equal, taking some money from rich people and giving it to poor people is therefore the absolute best way to improve worldwide welfare we know of.<p>This is the most bullshit paragraph I have read all year.