Yes, but it isn't just automation. It is efficiency of human labour.
Of course currently we have another source of robots..... People in 3rd world countries being treated and paid like $#!7. On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. >>> >> >> This is all predicated on there not being enough jobs. >> So some people are going to have to make do with just the insufficient >> universal income. >> > > I think your definition of a "job" is oversimplified. A job is not a > single unit entity. In many European countries nowadays the standard > workweek is 35 hours. In the US it is more than 40 hours because many > people do overtime or hold two jobs. If people had universal income, many > people now working part-time jobs, and extra jobs, would quit. That would > open up those jobs to others who want them. Other people would cut back on > overtime. People who have built up a nest egg at age 50 might retire, or go > to work for charity or teaching, or something socially redeeming. After a > while I think the US would join Europe in making the 35 hour week mandatory > (meaning if you work more than that you have to get overtime pay). This > would open up still more jobs. > > In other words, the remaining pool of necessary labor that only humans can > do would be divided among more people. Each person still working would put > in fewer hours. Overall wages would not decline much, because the value of > human labor would remain high, since workers would not be desperate for a > job at any price. People looking for a job would be picky. They would > resemble someone who is married to a spouse who makes $20,000 a year. If > your actual spouse made $30,000, and the two of you made $20,000 in the > universal income, you could afford to be very picky. You would not work for > minimum wage at McDonald's for a mere $15,000. McDonald's would have to pay > you a lot more or you would stay home. > > McDonald's would hustle to install robots, which is the outcome we want in > this scenario. We just have keep raising the universal income to keep pace > with advancing robotization. > > > >> I guess I have only one question... >> >> Please list the advantages of giving a universal wage to people in prison >> assuming they aren't being charged for their stay. >> > > The advantage would be they would spend the money eventually, or give it > to their family who would spend it right away. Most people in prison are > poor and their families need money. Poor people spend money as soon as they > get it. One of the purposes of this program is to pump money into the > economy by increasing demand. > > > >> Another thought, should unborn children get paid? >> > > No. No one under 21 should get the money. > > > >> Should people in a coma but being taken care of by the state get paid? >> > > No, that would in the same category as the severely disabled veteran who > gets $100,000. That would be a means-tested benefit. All remaining > means-tested benefits would be subtracted from this one, along with Social > Security. > > > >> Should people in suspended animation get paid? (both with and without >> expectation they will be recovered). >> > > Yes, unless they are already getting means-tested money. I suppose by that > standard prisoners should not get the universal income. > > > >> We still need truck drivers, for example. Although the technology for >>> autonomous vehicles has been developed, it is not yet in use. >>> >> >> No, but it sure seems right around the corner. >> > > Well, when it happens we will need this program. > > > >> By the time the minimum wage comes in that job will be going out. >> > > Truck drivers get more than minimum wage. Do you mean by the time this > universal income is implemented that job will be going out? Probably yes. > > By the way, I would call this the National Automation Dividend. That has a > nice ring to it. It sounds like something everyone deserves, and everyone > should get as a matter of course. > > - Jed > >
