Pyro as Bill said:
Yes. |
Depends. In a way you're just asking for corporations to "give" free money away to essentially have jobs they don't really even need. So that is basically a form of welfare.
99.9% of elevators don't have someone there to call out the floor any more and I don't think that's changing either.
If this program is being paid for by increasing the federal deficit then wouldn't it eventually crumble on itself during a recession or from the interest rates?
ArchangelMadzz said:
Obviously it's going to magically appear in the air right? That's obviously what all the studies that have been done on this concept assume. This is how my thought process works: |
Weird idea?
The study didn't account for practicality or common sense. As of 2016, there's 249,485,228 adults in the US. If you give them each $1000 per month.... 249,485,228 X $1000 = $249+ billion per month X 12 = nearly 3 trillion dollars per year.
Where's that money gonna come from?
I'm saying "fuck that" because it's a fucking stupid idea because it wouldn't work in the REAL world.
Ka-pi96 said:
Isn't it better to ask corporations to do that than the government? Besides, the assumption that it will even be necessary is still just an assumption. |
Well I think you could ask corporations, the answer you'd get would be a simple "nope" though, lol.
We do know already 78% of American *workers* live paycheque to paycheque already though.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-living-paycheck-to-paycheck/
I would guess this is probably worse for younger people like those on this board.
Great idea if you want to stimulate Mexico's economy.
People would just send most of it to Mexico to their families lol.
I agree eventually this will happen as automation will kill a lot of jobs but will governments around the world have the ball to charge higher taxes on automated manufacturers to cover the UBI they need to pay. The UBI should not be causing the debt to go up. It needs to be paid by someone.
In 2008 when the GFC hit our stupid Gov did two hand outs which totaled 40Billion (a lot for Australia lol). 9 years later and we are still paying for it through taxes. Most people either paid some of their debt off with a bank, the refugees sent the money back home as they get government handouts weekly anyway and those who spent it bought TVs abd stimulate Samsung and SOny' profits lol,
The study is profoundly stupid when it doesn't take into account debt growth or interest rates ...
The author(s) must not realize how dangerous it is to play with debt. Taking over $20T in debt to grow the economy by $2.5T is dumb and even more so when interest rates would only outstrip the growth ...
If we go through with this I wonder how people would feel like to know that their carrying toilet paper as their currency ? 
(At that point it would be wise to buy some gold before inflation takes effect.)
Pyro as Bill said:
Yes. |
"What innovation is going to spark this boom? Cuz unlike previous industrial revolutions' ability to enhance human input, the autonomous revolution is all about replacing it. "
haxxiy said:
If it were the case the US would be losing 350,000 job positions a month, right now, on average. Even more, I assume, since one would expect the first years of automation to be faster, given all the low hanging fruit, and since there are still advances to come on computing until 2025 or so, when we run out of die shrinks and even die stacking. Even now, the complexity of neural networks and algorithms matches and demands more of hardware, after all. Instead, even, most of the countries on the technological forefront, such as the US, Germany, Japan and South Korea have all some of the lowest unemployment rates on the world. Not to mention it varies from country to country, with most developed economies outside the US standing to lose less to automation even according to those predictions. That include countries with a shrinking population and workforce, such as Japan, where, you might imagine, automating large swadths of the workfore over the upcoming decades might seem a Heaven-sent gift to fill all those vacant spots and keep their economy from shrinking. These negative outlooks pop up from time to time since the industrial revolution. Time and time again we severely overestimate the capacities of our own machines and underestimate the adaptability of the market. Hell, Azimov in the fifties said that in the year 2000 the only job left would be of the psychiatrist, to take care of the unemployed, obsolete human masses thanks to robots. In fact, the current 2025 labour outlook for the US is many new job spots to open until then, specially on health care, so I wouldn't take seriously the Silicon Valley equivalent of "no arctic icecap by 2020!" alarmists. |
Mass automation hasn't hit just yet. It's still in the trial phase. Self driving cars need a bit more work and approval but will start gradual rollouts next year, Amazon Go is still experimenting in Seattle but has plans for large stores that need only single digit staffs, multipurpose robots like Baxter are still a bit limited but get cheaper and smarter all the time, but when technologies like these and more do hit in a handful of years they will be extremely disruptive. This automation will indeed be a godsend for Japan's plummeting population and net production for most countries will increase, but that will do little for the common man under today's economic models. Many more developing countries that depend on basic work and goods will be hit extremely hard.
TallSilhouette said:
"What innovation is going to spark this boom? Cuz unlike previous industrial revolutions' ability to enhance human input, the autonomous revolution is all about replacing it. " |
"It's different this time"
No, it isn't.
Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)
Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!
Pyro as Bill said:
"It's different this time" No, it isn't. |
...So, automation isn't about replacing human input?...
haxxiy said:
If it were the case the US would be losing 350,000 job positions a month, right now, on average. Even more, I assume, since one would expect the first years of automation to be faster, given all the low hanging fruit, and since there are still advances to come on computing until 2025 or so, when we run out of die shrinks and even die stacking. Even now, the complexity of neural networks and algorithms matches and demands more of hardware, after all. Instead, even, most of the countries on the technological forefront, such as the US, Germany, Japan and South Korea have all some of the lowest unemployment rates on the world. Not to mention it varies from country to country, with most developed economies outside the US standing to lose less to automation even according to those predictions. That include countries with a shrinking population and workforce, such as Japan, where, you might imagine, automating large swadths of the workfore over the upcoming decades might seem a Heaven-sent gift to fill all those vacant spots and keep their economy from shrinking. These negative outlooks pop up from time to time since the industrial revolution. Time and time again we severely overestimate the capacities of our own machines and underestimate the adaptability of the market. Hell, Azimov in the fifties said that in the year 2000 the only job left would be of the psychiatrist, to take care of the unemployed, obsolete human masses thanks to robots. In fact, the current 2025 labour outlook for the US is many new job spots to open until then, specially on health care, so I wouldn't take seriously the Silicon Valley equivalent of "no arctic icecap by 2020!" alarmists.
|
Well first of all indeed automation is certainly nothing new, it is just the speed that is different than before.
That's why it is interesting because we now have years of jobs getting added but the participation rate is hardly changing;
South Korea does a little better but Japan/Germany are doing worse with around a 60-61% participation rate. Japan solution is basically no Job we create one for you and please don't check our high debt numbers.
Isn't it strange that since 2010-2011 the economy was growing and we had 60-70 months of job reports with positve news but the participation rate since then only went down, a recession could drop the participation rate down to under 60% in no time (that did not happen for 50 years). The economy is not growing because of the new workforce but rather because companies are getting more productive with new automation/sofware and it has led to a lot of people getting fired in even high tech companies like IBM/Microsoft and many more.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
