We're going to keep automating more and more things. I think that much is inevitable. Eventually, we may get to a point where very few jobs are necessary for society to function. This should be a good thing, because it would mean fewer people would have to work and could therefore pursue things that actually interest them, but it would be a catastrophe under the current system.
People, NOT machines, are the ultimate judgers of what is valuable and the ultimate producers of value.
“no one should have to work to eat” is the most ridiculous gen Z meme going around lately. Like, technically yes, not eating would make you unhealthy and thus unable to contribute yourself, but we also don’t want the opposite of people just sitting home all depressed about being oppressed and not utilizing their gifts while living off mysteriously-produced (paid for or labored over by whom?) gourmet sushi. How about another common meme in response? “We live in a society.”
So if a human is unable to produce value, they don't get (food/education/heathcare/<resource>)? That seems to be the implication. We in developed countries already have some amount of "value risk hedging" (I'm loathe to say "socialism" here), we just disagree endlessly how much is the optimal amount. But we've determined that wards of the state, universal education, and some amount of food support for the poor is the absolute bare minimum for a developed society.
> People, NOT machines, are the ultimate judgers of what is valuable and the ultimate producers of value.
Uhhh we already have software which sifts through resumes to allow/reject candidates, before it gets to any kind of human judge, so we are already gating value assessments.
I would agree that some people are simply unable to help and need the help themselves and should get it. UBI or some other social safety net should be there for that.
Although there is certainly a lot of fuckery going on with the money (currency) itself, but if that's the problem you're alluding to, I don't think summarizing it as "capitalism" is accurate.
I see UBI as a solution to inequality (real problem) not as a solution to lack of jobs (not a problem). AI will probably lead to reduction of inequality and therefore there will be less need for UBI.
In theory, the "mental" workers who get replaced by AI could simply move to manual jobs and total production and average wages would go up. But they may not like it, at least I wouldn't.
Why would manual job average wages go up? You're increasing the size of the labor pool.
An analogy:
Imagine that half of the labor force makes cars, the other half creates software. The average person buys 1 car and 1 software per year. There's a breakthrough, AI can now be used to create software almost for free. It can even make 2x more software per year. The programmers switch to making cars. So now the economy is producing 2 cars and 2 softwares per worker per year! Salaries have now doubled thanks to technological progress.
You could argue that this will increase inequality and all of the productivity gains will go to the top 1%. I don't think so.
I don't have to argue.. others have done it for me
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/01/richest-one-percent-gained-t...
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/16/richest-1percent-amassed-alm...
https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-ameri...
We're looking down the pipe at a truly dystopian future.
Aside from rolling out the guillotine, I don't see UBI a possibility until the 2nd half of the 21st century. There's just too many forces and entities alive that don't want it
