TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

What is a viable alternative to basic income?

22 点作者 tanto超过 8 年前
Assumption 1: Basic income is bad and will destroy the world economy.<p>Assumption 2: Automation of white collar jobs will happen at a scale of 99% of all white collar jobs (through AI or otherwise) and automation of low skilled jobs will be achieved for 99.9999% of all work through one or another way.<p>Assumption 3: 0.1% of the human population will be enough to do all work which machines can&#x27;t do to theoretically support all human life on earth.<p>Is A2&#x2F;3 exaggerated? Lets not dispute A1 even when its highly disputable. Just assume we can&#x27;t have basic income in any form.<p>My question is what are viable alternatives to basic income in this scenario?

12 条评论

Someone1234超过 8 年前
Money is a [bad] stand-in for value. If &quot;AI&quot; is doing most of the work we have today both mental (programming, financial, etc) and physical (building homes, unclogging toilets, picking up litter) then people would just shift to work which does continue to exist (e.g. creative endeavours) and put value on that instead.<p>No matter how much you automate and how many jobs are displaced there will always be an infinite amount more work and different jobs will be assigned different values artificially.<p>To get specific, very few people are needed anymore to supply all the food&#x2F;water&#x2F;basics of life to a society. It is all already heavily automated. But are less people employed or are working hours shorter? No. We just found new ways to occupy our time and assigned those a value.<p>Take the Star Trek universe (where they got rid of money). There&#x27;s a lot of unanswered questions about that concept, for example how do you divide up land? And who&#x27;s to say running a wine vineyard is a more productive use of a plot than building a science facility (in particular with replicators in this context).<p>The more the deep you get into these questions the more artificial the way human society is structured seems. I legitimately think that people will always have jobs&#x2F;work and there will always be some kind of compensation, but that work will move further and further away from the core resources that keep a society running (and the jobs themselves will have less and less actual value).
评论 #12384432 未加载
评论 #12386480 未加载
评论 #12386275 未加载
评论 #12384424 未加载
评论 #12384325 未加载
runT1ME超过 8 年前
Instead of income, what about necessities for a modern life? Shelter, safety, medical care, nutrition and internet access? These could be provided at a minimum instead of the income (ostensibly) designed to be used for these things.
评论 #12385499 未加载
评论 #12383735 未加载
评论 #12383848 未加载
Mz超过 8 年前
I blog about this sometimes. I think well designed gig work and more affordable housing would solve this. I think if we don&#x27;t tackle the affordable housing angle, no amount of basic income (aka supplementing the income of the poorest people) is going to be enough to solve the problem. Housing keeps getting bigger and more expensive and there is no upper limit to how far that can go. We need to put down a floor so housing is accessible for ordinary people with ordinary jobs.<p>Here are a few of the posts I have written on this topic:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;06&#x2F;gig-work-done-right-portable-income-for.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;06&#x2F;gig-work-don...</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;07&#x2F;minimum-decent-housing-not-minimum-wage.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;07&#x2F;minimum-dece...</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;05&#x2F;gig-work-that-works-flexibility-and.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;05&#x2F;gig-work-tha...</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;07&#x2F;money-is-not-wealth.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;07&#x2F;money-is-not...</a>
BjoernKW超过 8 年前
You&#x27;d have to make additional assumptions in that scenario to come up with a viable solution other than &quot;Kill all the humans.&quot;.<p>Perhaps there is a category of jobs that hasn&#x27;t been invented yet or that already exists but under the current economic conditions can&#x27;t support more than a handful of people. White collar jobs have existed for millennia, too (scribes, accountants, civil servants). However, it was only with the Industrial Revolution demand for those jobs really took off.<p>Maybe, some day we&#x27;ll all be some kind of artists or entertainers. On a more sinister note, perhaps we end up like the humans in the Black Mirror episode &quot;15 Million Merits&quot;, where humans have to cycle on exercise bikes day in and day out to generate power and receive credits in return.<p>Those are all very hypothetical assumptions, though. In my opinion, not making any additional assumptions a basic income as of now is the by far most realistic - perhaps even the only - way of dealing with such a - quite likely -scenario.
评论 #12383554 未加载
rskar超过 8 年前
Could it be that humanity at large is doomed to repeat its usual method of a &quot;reset&quot;? Planet Earth isn&#x27;t getting any bigger, and if we&#x27;re lucky worldwide population may plateau around 11 billion. Per Wikipedia, &quot;Global workforce&quot;: &quot;As of 2012, the global labor pool consisted of approximately 3 billion workers, around 200 million unemployed.&quot; Per The World Bank (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.worldbank.org&#x2F;indicator&#x2F;SL.TLF.CACT.ZS" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.worldbank.org&#x2F;indicator&#x2F;SL.TLF.CACT.ZS</a>), labor force participation has dropped from a little over 66% in 1990 to barely 64% in 2014. They give a per-country overview of these rates, and also per-income levels:<p><pre><code> High income 60% 60% Upper middle income 72% 67% Middle income 67% 63% Lower middle income 62% 59% Low &amp; middle income 68% 64% Low income 77% 77% </code></pre> High and Low income held steady, every other level shows decline.<p>Take a look at <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mckinsey.com&#x2F;global-themes&#x2F;employment-and-growth&#x2F;the-world-at-work" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mckinsey.com&#x2F;global-themes&#x2F;employment-and-growth&#x2F;...</a>, which has this byline (June 2012): Strains on the global labor force are becoming painfully evident. Market forces will fail to resolve demand and supply imbalances for tens of millions of skilled and unskilled workers.<p>As automation becomes ever more adaptive and versatile, it will be interesting to see in what ways human employment may somehow remain economically of interest. But right now the labor force participation trends downward, and the only way that could be good is if the non-participation people are having healthfully happy lifestyles - perhaps as retirees or married to well-to-do spouses.<p>But if the social order of things is changing such that the prospect of gainful employment becomes less tenable for most, here&#x27;s to hoping that a better world may yet emerge with minimal strife. Otherwise, it&#x27;s all too easy to imagine us collectively squabble and fret over moral hazards, free-loaders, and property rights (including the intellectual kind), and that the crisis must first reach a breaking point before any material changes can happen.<p>If UBI is a non-starter, I&#x27;ve got no ideas other than for maybe getting serious about space travel and colonization.
评论 #12391501 未加载
petra超过 8 年前
I actually think what will happen is a combination of a welfare state with some type of &quot;jobs program&quot; even if the job is just something useless or &quot; study in university&quot; etc.<p>But one thing is very worrisome - this all depends on the power of the people to rule , but companies seem very good at resisting that power (for ex. Tax loopholes, lobbying) , and if companies and psychopathic tendencies have their way - it would be pretty bad .
Zelmor超过 8 年前
Here&#x27;s some food for though:<p>When the automated looms were invented, people thought all jobs would soon go away to the machines, with nothing to do. Surprisingly, new jobs were invented and people have been busy since then. I bet there was something similar happening in ancient Egypt as well, knowing how there are writings about how &quot;the youth do not write properly these days, and the world is going to the dogs soon. Everything was better during my childhood.&quot; Look it up.<p>So I would suggest you clean your pants and don&#x27;t worry about automation. Just go with the flow and keep an eye open for the radically new form of jobs that will open up.<p>Also, most of you folks work in services. You build webpages, web applications, SaaS, corporate software or consult on their integration, yada yada. You will never go out of work. This is a big world, and opportunity will remain plenty. It&#x27;s just changing like it was changing in the early days of industrial machines. Put in the effort to find new frontiers.
评论 #12391562 未加载
bbctol超过 8 年前
Income-less, post-scarcity society, where the limits of what goods&#x2F;services you can access are so much higher than you could ever need that the only limitations put in place can be set democratically?<p>That, or just increase typical socialist democratic welfare state principles, tax the hell out of the .01% and invest in public goods.
sharemywin超过 8 年前
it could be more distributed. currently, if you own about $1,000,000 US in assets you can probably live of your return on your assets. what if you could retire on 10k or 1k in assets because of massive deflation and control of information(patents, copyrights) was loosened or replaced.
jomamaxx超过 8 年前
The industrial revolution had a much greater impact on labour than anything we are seeing happening today.<p>Previous to this era - humans and animals did <i>everything</i>.<p>Can you imagine how many buggies the steam engines put out?<p>But the factories employed a lot of people who would have been doing other things.<p>Since then, we&#x27;ve constantly been going through this process.<p>Moreover - the biggest impact on labour today is <i>not</i> automat ion - it&#x27;s cheaper labour in the rest of the world.<p>As factories become a little more automated, it will start at the bottom - with the simplest tasks. Those jobs are already mostly outsourced. &#x27;Automation&#x27; is going to hit China harder than it hits the US.<p>As for &#x27;basic income&#x27; - even applied in a normal context without the treat of disastrous unemployment ... &#x27;means tested welfare&#x27; is one option. If we adjusted it a little so that people could possibly find work while still on welfare without losing benefits, this would take away some of the limitations.
评论 #12386021 未加载
debacle超过 8 年前
Social darwinism (our current system to some degree) is viable for a certain continuing percentage of the population.<p>The social darwinists are in charge of a society that benefits them. Changing that reality is going to be prohibitively difficult.
niftich超过 8 年前
Resource contention with coercion, violence and&#x2F;or warfare, which AFAIK is something we&#x27;ve had for thousands of years.