Finland and the Basic Income experiment

[I1L2T3]

9 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

 

 

 

10k was always only an example (and not even my example), but obviously the government has all the facts and can actually do the maths.

 

 

 

 

If we make some huge assumptions, like pension won't exist and all adults from 18+ until death will get the NI (thus replacing pension).  10k is actually an increase above the existing state pension (and so arguably is too high a value).

 

There are about 35 million adults in the UK.  So we have a budget of 173.1+6.2billion/35 million.

 

That's £5122/adult/year as it stands, assuming that the DWP is disbanded entirely.  And that's totally flat, so there's no child benefit, no disability benefit, nothing extra for anyone, just a flat £5k/annum for every adult.

Yeah, just like the combined harvesters replaced jobs and so on.

You've not shown any reason why this is any different to all the progress that's occurred over the last 2,000 years.

Combine harvesters meant less people were needed to harvest crops, and it freed people to do other jobs. Not disputing that.

 

The point I’m making is that without a technological and/or a societal and economic revolution I think we are at the end of the line.

 

Too many people. Not enough to do

[Cyclone]

Hang on, "freed people to do other jobs", well people have been "freed" from your company then to do other jobs.

 

What has changed that makes you think that this minor technological change is somehow different to the huge changes we've already experienced?

[Anna B]

4 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Very low skilled jobs.  And someone had programmed the software that could learn to do that, someone else built the hardware (maybe more robots involved), someone delivered and installed it, etc...

 

The plow put a lot of people out of work, so did the combined harvester, but we managed to get by.  We no longer employ people to run in front of cars waving a flag, and what happened to all the coach drivers (that's horse and coach, not the motorised version).

Once again, you can't keep referring back to the 19th century. The Agrarian revolution luckily coincided with the Industrial revolution, so people moved from the land into the new factories, and regular wages fostered consumerism. It wasn't called a revolution for nothing. Nor had it been a continual process over 2,000 years. At the time it was a sudden change, unprecedented, affected the entire population, and everything changed. particularly for the 'peasants' who had their first taste of a regular wage and what they could do with it. A new working class was born. 

 

This is where we were in the recent past. But we are now realising that this rampant consumerism, which has fueled growth, is wrecking the planet and has to be cut back. 

 

The new future, again, has no precedent, and will effect everything. Robots are now capable of learning and replicating, solving problems, and developing new  systems all on their own. Yes, a few people will be involved, but not in the numbers they will be displacing.  (Look at the effect online shopping has had on the high street: Jobs have been lost, but where's the jobs gain? Even Amazon and the like are now replacing warehouse 'pickers' with fully automated systems, and are even talking about drones to do the deliveries.) 

 

As  l1L2T3 says in post 68, their company held off with a system that would have replaced 40% of their workforce, but in a competitive system where other employers do not have such scruples, how long are they going to survive unless they join in and tool up?

Edited February 20, 2019 by Anna B

[Cyclone]

The agrarian revolution didn't just coincide did it...  They were inextricably linked.

Disruptive new technologies are nothing knew though, those are just some of the biggest.

Computers have been incredibly disruptive.  How many out of work typists do you know though?  Or clerks?

 

The jobs that are lost are typically low skill and low pay.

 

I don't think that he means they held of implementing the system, but perhaps I was mistaken.

[carosio]

Unless I've missed something earlier in the thread,  there's approx 50m over-16s in the UK, so at £10k each = £500 billion. Now I'm sure that can be pared down somewhat, but still a sizable bill, and then there's the question of a single parent with 6 kids under 16.

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

The agrarian revolution didn't just coincide did it...  They were inextricably linked.

Disruptive new technologies are nothing knew though, those are just some of the biggest.

Computers have been incredibly disruptive.  How many out of work typists do you know though?  Or clerks?

 

The jobs that are lost are typically low skill and low pay.

 

I don't think that he means they held of implementing the system, but perhaps I was mistaken.

Not any more.

According to experts, its going to creep inexorably up the pay scale to a lot of more middle class jobs. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/27/jobs-risk-automation-according-oxford-university-one/

 

[ECCOnoob]

4 hours ago, Anna B said:

Not any more.

According to experts, its going to creep inexorably up the pay scale to a lot of more middle class jobs. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/27/jobs-risk-automation-according-oxford-university-one/

 

So what?   There was huge disruption to the "middle class" jobs centuries ago too.  

 

It is constant evolution -   this is the whole point. The world changes and people adapt.

 

The way you people are talking its as if we have reached the absolute finite of technological advancement.   The way the hysterics are speaking you would believe there is nothing further forward in the future and we are all going to be unemployed and starving to death  An obsolete species just lying back while the robots take over.

 

Complete nonsense.   

 

These studies creep up every time there is something new advancements and every time it's always proven to be exaggerated.

 

I think the fact that in the age of AI and robotics we still have high profile organisations in my own industry still slavishly using handwritten file notes,  carbon paper and fax machines clearly demonstrates how slow progress is in the real world.  

Edited February 20, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[I1L2T3]

7 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Hang on, "freed people to do other jobs", well people have been "freed" from your company then to do other jobs.

 

What has changed that makes you think that this minor technological change is somehow different to the huge changes we've already experienced?

Because I’m struggling to see, given the scale of automated change that is going to happen, how the economy is going to be transformed sufficiently to provide enough jobs. We are already seeing the endgame I think, with a return to what is effectively piece work, enabled by technology.

55 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

So what?   There was huge disruption to the "middle class" jobs centuries ago too.  

 

It is constant evolution -   this is the whole point. The world changes and people adapt.

 

The way you people are talking its as if we have reached the absolute finite of technological advancement.   The way the hysterics are speaking you would believe there is nothing further forward in the future and we are all going to be unemployed and starving to death  An obsolete species just lying back while the robots take over.

 

Complete nonsense.   

 

These studies creep up every time there is something new advancements and every time it's always proven to be exaggerated.

 

I think the fact that in the age of AI and robotics we still have high profile organisations in my own industry still slavishly using handwritten file notes,  carbon paper and fax machines clearly demonstrates how slow progress is in the real world.  

There was no sizeable middle class centuries ago. Only really in the last 100-150 years

[Cyclone]

18 hours ago, carosio said:

Unless I've missed something earlier in the thread,  there's approx 50m over-16s in the UK, so at £10k each = £500 billion. Now I'm sure that can be pared down somewhat, but still a sizable bill, and then there's the question of a single parent with 6 kids under 16.

Well, I used adult as the criteria to qualify, which cut it down immediately to 35 million.  And since there would be no means testing or calculation the number of kids wouldn't have any impact.

12 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

Because I’m struggling to see, given the scale of automated change that is going to happen, how the economy is going to be transformed sufficiently to provide enough jobs. We are already seeing the endgame I think, with a return to what is effectively piece work, enabled by technology.

If you could see it then you'd be some kind of savant and would make billions by getting into the market early.

But your fears are identical to those expressed during every period of change and there's no evidence to suggest that anything is different.

[I1L2T3]

57 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Well, I used adult as the criteria to qualify, which cut it down immediately to 35 million.  And since there would be no means testing or calculation the number of kids wouldn't have any impact.

If you could see it then you'd be some kind of savant and would make billions by getting into the market early.

But your fears are identical to those expressed during every period of change and there's no evidence to suggest that anything is different.

There’s a lot of evidence. Like I said the return to technologically-enabled piece work is one. That is normalising the idea that people should accept reduced conditions, pay and erratic work patterns. Couple that with a seeming unresovable energy crisis, a booming human population and climate change and you have a very different situation.