We’re heading into a jobless future, no matter what the government does(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
We’re heading into a jobless future, no matter what the government does
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/07/21/were-heading-into-a-jobless-future-no-matter-what-the-government-does/
12 comments
Is this were we start talking about "basic income" again? Where the few that work are taxed almost all of their income to pay for the rest that isn't?
> Where the few that work are taxed almost all of their income to pay for the rest that isn't?
Basic income is more about charging rents on the commons, and in the "jobless future" those rents are mainly in the form of taxes on capital ownership than on "the few who work". (Pretty much reversing the present status quo, where taxes fall heavier on those who work than those who hold capital.)
Basic income is more about charging rents on the commons, and in the "jobless future" those rents are mainly in the form of taxes on capital ownership than on "the few who work". (Pretty much reversing the present status quo, where taxes fall heavier on those who work than those who hold capital.)
A few counter-points to your framing:
- As more work becomes automated, it is more likely the owners of productive capital who would bear the brunt of the tax burden, not the minority of full-time laborers.
- Many valid forms of productive work do not necessarily pay a salary (raising children being the most obvious example, but also community service, open source projects, or rolling the dice on a startup). These still create value for society in ways that our current economy measures poorly.
- In a basic income environment, there is no reason for a minimum wage to exist. This would open the doors to many jobs that would otherwise be cost-prohibitive, whether people do it for the extra income, or for the other intangibles of employment.
- As more work becomes automated, it is more likely the owners of productive capital who would bear the brunt of the tax burden, not the minority of full-time laborers.
- Many valid forms of productive work do not necessarily pay a salary (raising children being the most obvious example, but also community service, open source projects, or rolling the dice on a startup). These still create value for society in ways that our current economy measures poorly.
- In a basic income environment, there is no reason for a minimum wage to exist. This would open the doors to many jobs that would otherwise be cost-prohibitive, whether people do it for the extra income, or for the other intangibles of employment.
Why would I want to work, if I am just paid to do nothing? Minimum wage exists now and is raised every couple of years. You don't think the same thing will happen with basic income?
If it ever happens, I can see people eventually fighting for more, because it can't support a family of 4.
On top of this, it just creates a culture of dependence, which politicians love..because why would you vote against your own free handouts?
If it ever happens, I can see people eventually fighting for more, because it can't support a family of 4.
On top of this, it just creates a culture of dependence, which politicians love..because why would you vote against your own free handouts?
A couple of things.
1. Many people have an innate desire to do something productive. I might get paid to sit at home and do nothing, but in all that spare time I have been tinkering with electronics and now I've just invented a new robotic vacuum cleaner. Now I have a business and I'm making big money.
2. How much money and time and resources do we spend forcing people to work when they don't want to? There are people whose entire job revolves around forcing people to work, ensuring they're doing adequate work, and distributing government money to them anyway because their income from their forced job doesn't cover the bills. Why bother?
3. There are many things that would motivate a person to find a job, or find a better job. Not being able to support their family is one of them. Give them enough money to get by and if they want more they have to work. There's your motivation.
4. We already have a culture of dependence. What's wrong with that? Everyone depends on everyone else in a well-functioning society.
Why do freeloaders bother people so much? You can get paid to not work right now. I've done it, I've been on unemployment and food stamps when I legitimately needed the help. That's why I have no problem supporting the next person who needs help too. It's not a culture of dependence, it's a culture of support. And for the few who just don't want to work... who cares?
1. Many people have an innate desire to do something productive. I might get paid to sit at home and do nothing, but in all that spare time I have been tinkering with electronics and now I've just invented a new robotic vacuum cleaner. Now I have a business and I'm making big money.
2. How much money and time and resources do we spend forcing people to work when they don't want to? There are people whose entire job revolves around forcing people to work, ensuring they're doing adequate work, and distributing government money to them anyway because their income from their forced job doesn't cover the bills. Why bother?
3. There are many things that would motivate a person to find a job, or find a better job. Not being able to support their family is one of them. Give them enough money to get by and if they want more they have to work. There's your motivation.
4. We already have a culture of dependence. What's wrong with that? Everyone depends on everyone else in a well-functioning society.
Why do freeloaders bother people so much? You can get paid to not work right now. I've done it, I've been on unemployment and food stamps when I legitimately needed the help. That's why I have no problem supporting the next person who needs help too. It's not a culture of dependence, it's a culture of support. And for the few who just don't want to work... who cares?
> Why would I want to work, if I am just paid to do nothing?
Because -- as research has shown is generally true of humans -- your satisfaction function is driven significantly by relative affluence, not solely by absolute affluence.
> Minimum wage exists now and is raised every couple of years. You don't think the same thing will happen with basic income?
I'd expect it to generally rise with productivity, and consider that to be a generally desirable result.
> If it ever happens, I can see people eventually fighting for more, because it can't support a family of 4.
And why shouldn't they argue for more? At the same time, people would argue against it because of the taxes it would take, and the people whose narrow short-term economic self interest was driving the latter advocacy would have a lot more resources to use to promote their argument.
> why would you vote against your own free handouts?
For one thing, because someone convincingly makes the case that short-term increases will be unsustainable over an extended period and result in collapse.
Because -- as research has shown is generally true of humans -- your satisfaction function is driven significantly by relative affluence, not solely by absolute affluence.
> Minimum wage exists now and is raised every couple of years. You don't think the same thing will happen with basic income?
I'd expect it to generally rise with productivity, and consider that to be a generally desirable result.
> If it ever happens, I can see people eventually fighting for more, because it can't support a family of 4.
And why shouldn't they argue for more? At the same time, people would argue against it because of the taxes it would take, and the people whose narrow short-term economic self interest was driving the latter advocacy would have a lot more resources to use to promote their argument.
> why would you vote against your own free handouts?
For one thing, because someone convincingly makes the case that short-term increases will be unsustainable over an extended period and result in collapse.
Why (if an alternative is feasible, as the basic income proponents would argue) _should_ people be forced by threat of destitution to "work" for a living? Why does it upset you that people might seek some increased freedom over how to spend their limited time? [There is, after all, a reason the term "wage slavery" came to be, extreme though the analogy it draws may be]
> Why would I want to work, if I am just paid to do nothing?
Try not working. Boredom is unbearable. Most people would do some kind of work even if they have enough money to spend the rest of their lives doing nothing.
Try not working. Boredom is unbearable. Most people would do some kind of work even if they have enough money to spend the rest of their lives doing nothing.
I think you underestimate the number of consumers and how little many people need mental stimulation. In today's world, it's easy to stay occupied with nothing more than the content on a typical cable subscription.
I'm not one such person, even though I'm much more of a consumer than a producer (I read 4-5 books a month, watch probably 15-20 hours of TV a month and 2-3 movies a month), but I know people that watch 4-5 hours a night! It doesn't even have to be good content. Instead of going "I've seen this movie/show, or it's not very good," turning it off and doing something productive, they watch the lest boring thing on, even if it's a movie they've seen 3 times, and it's halfway over. It boggles my mind.
I'm not one such person, even though I'm much more of a consumer than a producer (I read 4-5 books a month, watch probably 15-20 hours of TV a month and 2-3 movies a month), but I know people that watch 4-5 hours a night! It doesn't even have to be good content. Instead of going "I've seen this movie/show, or it's not very good," turning it off and doing something productive, they watch the lest boring thing on, even if it's a movie they've seen 3 times, and it's halfway over. It boggles my mind.
Wanting more is a fundamental human trait. Capitalism is built upon companies wanting more and competing against each other to get more profit. Doesn't that motivation hold true for people too?
Basic income proposals offer a very minimal income. Most people will want more. Do they want to visit far away places, or drive a nicer than minimal car, or live in a larger home. There are many motivations to continue to work even if one has access to a basic income.
Basic income proposals offer a very minimal income. Most people will want more. Do they want to visit far away places, or drive a nicer than minimal car, or live in a larger home. There are many motivations to continue to work even if one has access to a basic income.
> Basic income proposals offer a very minimal income.
And can only really (barring better production technology) only support that. If it targetted much more than minimal income now it would drive runaway inflation until the level at which the BI was set would represent only minimal income. The sustainable level of BI, in terms of the actual standard of living supported, is a function of productivity.
And can only really (barring better production technology) only support that. If it targetted much more than minimal income now it would drive runaway inflation until the level at which the BI was set would represent only minimal income. The sustainable level of BI, in terms of the actual standard of living supported, is a function of productivity.
What are the alternatives? I still believe at a point we won't need very much human labor. So what do we do with all of those people that don't/can't work?
Others have mentioned that the economy will just create new, even more mindless, tasks for us to be paid for. I don't believe that because there is no incentive for companies to employ people for jobs machines can do cheaper.
Others have mentioned that the economy will just create new, even more mindless, tasks for us to be paid for. I don't believe that because there is no incentive for companies to employ people for jobs machines can do cheaper.
I believe that the new jobs that will appear will probably be related to what now one might see as a luxury service.
For example, there might be an increase in housemaids. It's a fairly simple job, although some tasks might be too hard for a machine to do (eg. "Please feed the dog and make sure that it eats its pill").
Also, assuming that those with jobs would have a smaller work week, then there might be a rise in tourism and entertainment industries (people have got to do something in their free time). I'm not really sure what new jobs might appear in this area though.
Of course, this is assuming that we don't end in a dystopian future with 80% of the population unemployed, homeless and begging on the streets. I'm expecting that suply and demand will force these new jobs to appear and everything will work out in the end.
For example, there might be an increase in housemaids. It's a fairly simple job, although some tasks might be too hard for a machine to do (eg. "Please feed the dog and make sure that it eats its pill").
Also, assuming that those with jobs would have a smaller work week, then there might be a rise in tourism and entertainment industries (people have got to do something in their free time). I'm not really sure what new jobs might appear in this area though.
Of course, this is assuming that we don't end in a dystopian future with 80% of the population unemployed, homeless and begging on the streets. I'm expecting that suply and demand will force these new jobs to appear and everything will work out in the end.
We won't need human labor because labor will be abundant. Anyone can have access to production technology. You don't need to steal to make that happen.
How can 'anyone have access to production technology' (which incidentally includes the education necessary to utilize it), if they have no income?
Some charitable rich guy will give away a cheap nano-factory, and then that guy uses the nano-factory to make more nano-factories, gives those away, etc.
Education is basically already free, and free education is on the way to being as good as paid education. Information reproduction costs are near zero.
You are stuck in the pre-free-labor mindset.
Education is basically already free, and free education is on the way to being as good as paid education. Information reproduction costs are near zero.
You are stuck in the pre-free-labor mindset.
When does this magical tipping point arrive?
The article's title is a bit misleading, since the author brings up (although then argues against) Kurzweil's idea that there may be jobs created that we don't yet know about to fill the void left by current jobs automated out of existence.
Your point remains though -- basic income will raise its head more often whenever the specter of automation is invoked.
Your point remains though -- basic income will raise its head more often whenever the specter of automation is invoked.
This is a peculiar viewpoint. Kurzweil is a utopian. This accepts Kurzweil's premise that technology is accelerating, so it's not quite dystopian. Anti-utopian, maybe?
Meanwhile, in "first-world" places like Spain we're on the verge of starvation due to global unemployment and poverty.
i think saying that spain is on the verge of starvation kind of does a disservice to people who actually are.
there's no shortage of food in europe.
there's no shortage of food in europe.
Saying Spain is on the verge of starvation is a bit over the top. It's true that we got a lot of families without income now, but that's not starvation.
More people not doing menial tasks means more people able to apply their brains. The society that can best capitalize on that resource will win.
I think this notion of a jobless future is extreme. Hear me out.
What we're witnessing is the dawning of a new era in which relying upon a job to earn a livelihood becomes extinct.
That's very different.
Instead of submitting to an employer to be productive members of society, we'll need to actually produce.
We'll all need to be entrepreneurs: creative problem-solvers who go out and get our own. Not necessarily venture-backed billionaire-destined heroes, but tradesmen solving small to midsize problems in our communities. Remember human life before the 401(k)? Enterprising souls who earned livings without mega-corporations?
All this technology we're developing now will be instrumental for that era. With Meteor, a tattoo-artist can (and has) create an enterprise-ready app. That's the epitome of productivity in a technology-driven society, and I think we'll see more of that as we move into this 'jobless' environment. AKA 'innovate or die'.
Problems to solve aren't going anywhere (technology always causes people to think there's "nothing left to do." there always is). The need to earn our keep isn't either (we'll always need food, shelter, and love).
This jobless future is exaggerated...but the effects aren't. We'll just need to be more enterprising and more creative in how we handle those effects.
What we're witnessing is the dawning of a new era in which relying upon a job to earn a livelihood becomes extinct.
That's very different.
Instead of submitting to an employer to be productive members of society, we'll need to actually produce.
We'll all need to be entrepreneurs: creative problem-solvers who go out and get our own. Not necessarily venture-backed billionaire-destined heroes, but tradesmen solving small to midsize problems in our communities. Remember human life before the 401(k)? Enterprising souls who earned livings without mega-corporations?
All this technology we're developing now will be instrumental for that era. With Meteor, a tattoo-artist can (and has) create an enterprise-ready app. That's the epitome of productivity in a technology-driven society, and I think we'll see more of that as we move into this 'jobless' environment. AKA 'innovate or die'.
Problems to solve aren't going anywhere (technology always causes people to think there's "nothing left to do." there always is). The need to earn our keep isn't either (we'll always need food, shelter, and love).
This jobless future is exaggerated...but the effects aren't. We'll just need to be more enterprising and more creative in how we handle those effects.
A problem with your vision of the future is that finding (and keeping) a profitable niche is hard.
Historically, you could always own the corner store, and always get business from at least your block. However the trends driving the "jobless future" will see local businesses absorbed into larger entities. The corner store will be replaced with instant delivery.
So you have to find a niche that is global, and when you find it, you'll instantly be bombarded by global competitors, and you'll have to grow or die.
In the "jobless future," individualism looks like etsy--super-niche artisan work for the status of owning something unique. Handmade luxury items can't replace an entire economy.
Historically, you could always own the corner store, and always get business from at least your block. However the trends driving the "jobless future" will see local businesses absorbed into larger entities. The corner store will be replaced with instant delivery.
So you have to find a niche that is global, and when you find it, you'll instantly be bombarded by global competitors, and you'll have to grow or die.
In the "jobless future," individualism looks like etsy--super-niche artisan work for the status of owning something unique. Handmade luxury items can't replace an entire economy.
>> finding (and keeping) a profitable niche is hard
...which is why evolution will have to regain control.
Governments are antinatural in their obsession with increasing the number of citizens - not healthy, prodctive, citizens, but SSNs.
Initially, living was for the fittest, not for everyone.
As someone extremely average, I will be among the first to go extinct. And I see no problem with this, as my disappearance will free up space and resources for those who are better.
...which is why evolution will have to regain control.
Governments are antinatural in their obsession with increasing the number of citizens - not healthy, prodctive, citizens, but SSNs.
Initially, living was for the fittest, not for everyone.
As someone extremely average, I will be among the first to go extinct. And I see no problem with this, as my disappearance will free up space and resources for those who are better.
I agree that artisan work can't replace an entire economy. But I also don't think that artisan work will be the only viable means of earning a living in that world.
Notably, I don't think the corner store (in terms of local services) is going very far. Sure, retail has an enormous battle to fight. But that's just one front.
People will always depend on each another for one thing or another. Beyond retail, whether it's local products like food or local services like domestic contracting or professional services, I think the community will play an even more significant role than it does now in spite of a burgeoning global scene.
I've been deeply influenced by Charles Hugh Smith's writings on community. It's a term we tend to devalue, but it's one Smith thinks is a fundamental building block for the future. He's a bit extreme, as he tends to expect a large macro-disturbance, but his ideas are sound. Here's one piece:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogsept13/community-economy9-13.h...
Notably, I don't think the corner store (in terms of local services) is going very far. Sure, retail has an enormous battle to fight. But that's just one front.
People will always depend on each another for one thing or another. Beyond retail, whether it's local products like food or local services like domestic contracting or professional services, I think the community will play an even more significant role than it does now in spite of a burgeoning global scene.
I've been deeply influenced by Charles Hugh Smith's writings on community. It's a term we tend to devalue, but it's one Smith thinks is a fundamental building block for the future. He's a bit extreme, as he tends to expect a large macro-disturbance, but his ideas are sound. Here's one piece:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogsept13/community-economy9-13.h...
> Notably, I don't think the corner store (in terms of local services) is going very far.
A lot of services can be automated, and actual retail -- well, once you have sufficiently economical self-driving vehicles and product picking robots, local automated delivery hubs from which products are dispersed to purchasers are a lot more likely than local retail shops -- they'll be "stores" in the sense of places that store things, but customers won't ever have to set foot in one; potentially, no one will go there except to service the robots.
A lot of services can be automated, and actual retail -- well, once you have sufficiently economical self-driving vehicles and product picking robots, local automated delivery hubs from which products are dispersed to purchasers are a lot more likely than local retail shops -- they'll be "stores" in the sense of places that store things, but customers won't ever have to set foot in one; potentially, no one will go there except to service the robots.
My contention with the idea of everyone-as-a-producer is the same forces that enable companies to produce without employees also increasingly drives winner-takes-all behavior that leaves little room for being second-best.
While the disruptions in distribution mechanisms and increasing ease of deploying web-apps has provided the appearance of it being easy to launch your own business and make money, I'd argue that it might very well be a transitory period until bigger players with deeper pockets lock down profitable sectors.
I just can't see a long term steady-state where the market is spread so thinly that everyone can simultaneously be a business-owner serving some small collection of a few hundred customers, instead of aggregating into single, monolithic companies that serve thousands or millions.
While the disruptions in distribution mechanisms and increasing ease of deploying web-apps has provided the appearance of it being easy to launch your own business and make money, I'd argue that it might very well be a transitory period until bigger players with deeper pockets lock down profitable sectors.
I just can't see a long term steady-state where the market is spread so thinly that everyone can simultaneously be a business-owner serving some small collection of a few hundred customers, instead of aggregating into single, monolithic companies that serve thousands or millions.
True. While it's tough to predict the future, I'll counter that every trade isn't endlessly scalable and winner-take-all.
As a business-owner, that's where you want to be, but there will be plenty of 'jobs' serving others that will scale linearly (whether that's in relation to people, time, etc) to keep people busy.
Examples: inspecting Uber cars, community development, specialized consulting.
As a business-owner, that's where you want to be, but there will be plenty of 'jobs' serving others that will scale linearly (whether that's in relation to people, time, etc) to keep people busy.
Examples: inspecting Uber cars, community development, specialized consulting.
> Examples: inspecting Uber cars
Automated inspections aren't a particular radical application of automation, once automated its subject to the same factors that favor the biggest player in terms of relevant capital as other industries.
> community development
But where's the market?
> specialized consulting.
Lots of things that used to provide demand for specialized consulting have narrowed markets from advances in information technology (both delivery and processing); I'd expect that to continue as technology advances. There's probably some level at which this becomes are hard AI problem, though, sure.
OTOH, the market for specialized consulting is driven by the number of firms in other markets, so as other markets go winner-take-all the size of the market for "specialized consultants" narrows within the same overall economy. So, the market here looks largely winner-take-all as a second-order effect of the markets supported by consultants going that way.
Automated inspections aren't a particular radical application of automation, once automated its subject to the same factors that favor the biggest player in terms of relevant capital as other industries.
> community development
But where's the market?
> specialized consulting.
Lots of things that used to provide demand for specialized consulting have narrowed markets from advances in information technology (both delivery and processing); I'd expect that to continue as technology advances. There's probably some level at which this becomes are hard AI problem, though, sure.
OTOH, the market for specialized consulting is driven by the number of firms in other markets, so as other markets go winner-take-all the size of the market for "specialized consultants" narrows within the same overall economy. So, the market here looks largely winner-take-all as a second-order effect of the markets supported by consultants going that way.
>I just can't see a long term steady-state where the market is spread so thinly that everyone can simultaneously be a business-owner serving some small collection of a few hundred customers...
That's interesting, because that's how the market was for thousands of years.
That's interesting, because that's how the market was for thousands of years.
The idea that there was an entrepreneurial "market" thousands of years ago is just wrong. The entrepreneur is a fairly recent social role. Thousands of years ago it was possible, without selling your labour to another person, to make your own living off of the land. This was how most people survived. The aristocratic class was created through the employment of slave labour. Life consisted not of running a business but of social life. Most people were not "business owners" in any sense of the word that would be recognizable to us. So the idea that this is somehow a return to a more ancient way of life is simply wrong.
>Remember human life before the 401(k)?
I guess this is well before my time, but was the effect of having a 401k really that profound? Your post suggests 401k's was (or at least one of) the cause of large corporations.
I guess this is well before my time, but was the effect of having a 401k really that profound? Your post suggests 401k's was (or at least one of) the cause of large corporations.
I didn't mean to suggest the 401(k) causes large corporations to exist. It doesn't.
It does, however, create a mentality of dependence on relying on companies for employment and livelihood.
In this new environment, that's a toxic mentality to have...continued employment is not as good of a bet as it once was.
But yeah, in general, I think having a 401(k) was a profound idea. At no other time in history could you rely on the markets to subsidize the latter third of your life.
And at the rate markets are going now, I don't think we'll see that time again for a while (i.e., rapid booms + busts).
It does, however, create a mentality of dependence on relying on companies for employment and livelihood.
In this new environment, that's a toxic mentality to have...continued employment is not as good of a bet as it once was.
But yeah, in general, I think having a 401(k) was a profound idea. At no other time in history could you rely on the markets to subsidize the latter third of your life.
And at the rate markets are going now, I don't think we'll see that time again for a while (i.e., rapid booms + busts).
> It does, however, create a mentality of dependence on relying on companies for employment and livelihood.
The 401k and similar defined-contribution arrangements largely -- and by design -- replaced the defined-benefit benefit pensions. So I don't think that historically this argument makes much sense, even if we accept the premise that having some connection between an employer and a retirement savings fosters a "mentality of dependence for employment and livelihood".
(Argue, I'd say that capitalism and the wage labor structure themselves do that, by design, and that any effect of the particular details of the common retirement programs are minor compared to the basic structure of the employee-employee relationship itself.)
> But yeah, in general, I think having a 401(k) was a profound idea.
The idea of the 401(k) was to provide a taxpayer subsidy to the financial services industry while allowing employers to appear to be providing for employees retirements, without actually incurring any obligations to retirees.
> But yeah, in general, I think having a 401(k) was a profound idea. At no other time in history could you rely on the markets to subsidize the latter third of your life.
You can't rely on that with the 401k system (as many people have discovered the hard way as a result of the market collapses since the 401k became the major retirement vehicle), either. I mean, you can, but not, generally, justifiably. Its just a capital investment, not a "subsidy" from the "markets" any more than any other capital holding is.
The 401k and similar defined-contribution arrangements largely -- and by design -- replaced the defined-benefit benefit pensions. So I don't think that historically this argument makes much sense, even if we accept the premise that having some connection between an employer and a retirement savings fosters a "mentality of dependence for employment and livelihood".
(Argue, I'd say that capitalism and the wage labor structure themselves do that, by design, and that any effect of the particular details of the common retirement programs are minor compared to the basic structure of the employee-employee relationship itself.)
> But yeah, in general, I think having a 401(k) was a profound idea.
The idea of the 401(k) was to provide a taxpayer subsidy to the financial services industry while allowing employers to appear to be providing for employees retirements, without actually incurring any obligations to retirees.
> But yeah, in general, I think having a 401(k) was a profound idea. At no other time in history could you rely on the markets to subsidize the latter third of your life.
You can't rely on that with the 401k system (as many people have discovered the hard way as a result of the market collapses since the 401k became the major retirement vehicle), either. I mean, you can, but not, generally, justifiably. Its just a capital investment, not a "subsidy" from the "markets" any more than any other capital holding is.
Prior to the 401(k) (late 1970s), we all had lifetime employment and solid company pensions. So I don't think that your 401(k) created this 'mentality of dependence' on companies - that was something that had been around for a while. The nature of 'having a job' changed a lot in the '80s, and the market-driven and sometimes indiscriminate culture of layoffs in the corporate world had a much bigger effect than any tax-shelter retirement plan did.
As a non-American, it does seem a bit odd that you can't have a 401(k) or some equivalent outside of your job - or can you? In Canada you can have an RRSP through your employer, where your contribution is made automatically through your paycheck, pre-tax. Or you can make contributions yourself to a private RRSP, and then claim the contribution on your taxes and get a refund.
As a non-American, it does seem a bit odd that you can't have a 401(k) or some equivalent outside of your job - or can you? In Canada you can have an RRSP through your employer, where your contribution is made automatically through your paycheck, pre-tax. Or you can make contributions yourself to a private RRSP, and then claim the contribution on your taxes and get a refund.
>As a non-American, it does seem a bit odd that you can't have a 401(k) or some equivalent outside of your job - or can you?
That's call an IRA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_IRA
That's call an IRA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_IRA
I guess "coming full-circle" isn't quite the term I want to use, but I'm old enough to remember when 401(k)'s were branded as the corporation's way of throwing their employees to the wind to fend for themselves. Compared to the defined benefit pension that was commonplace.
>At no other time in history could you rely on the markets to subsidize the latter third of your life.
So now saving for retirement is an act of benevolence on the part of the companies who receive the investment? Since that doesn't make sense, are you maybe referring to the small tax deferral provided by section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code?
Here's a link to describe what 401(k) is all about, for those who are curious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401%28k%29
>At no other time in history could you rely on the markets to subsidize the latter third of your life.
So now saving for retirement is an act of benevolence on the part of the companies who receive the investment? Since that doesn't make sense, are you maybe referring to the small tax deferral provided by section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code?
Here's a link to describe what 401(k) is all about, for those who are curious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401%28k%29
I don't disagree with the article, but I hope this isn't taken as an excuse to do nothing about current high unemployment due to low aggregate demand, which the government can certainly do something about.
Keynes put forward a similar thesis decades ago and we were supposed to be there by now. Check this out:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/revisiting-keynes
Perhaps there is something more basic in our natural dispositions than either of these great economic thinkers is appreciating. We don't really want an excess of leisure to the extent that mass boredom results.
I'm reminded of two quotes by Pascal:
"The source of all man's unhappiness is his inability to sit alone in a room with his own thoughts."
"If a soldier or labourer complains of the hardship of his lot, set him to do nothing."
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/revisiting-keynes
Perhaps there is something more basic in our natural dispositions than either of these great economic thinkers is appreciating. We don't really want an excess of leisure to the extent that mass boredom results.
I'm reminded of two quotes by Pascal:
"The source of all man's unhappiness is his inability to sit alone in a room with his own thoughts."
"If a soldier or labourer complains of the hardship of his lot, set him to do nothing."
Somehow he misses few crucial points :
1. Medicine is not getting better. We are losing the war with bacteria. Rate at which antibiotics are rendered useless because of resistance is greater than the rate at which they are being discovered.
2. Energy cost of Food production has been increasing since industrial times. (combine this with energy scarcity)
3. Energy cost of producing energy has been increasing.
Once taken into account, all is not rosy in the future. We have lots of work to do to make future better.
"robots will drive our cars, manufacture our goods, and do our chores."
"Drones will take the jobs of postmen and delivery people."
I can't take seriously an article that makes absolute statements like this.
Not only are drones not able to operate during certain inclement weather (and in certain geographic environments) but you can't deliver a refrigerator (as only 1 example) with a drone.
There was a time when people thought that everyone would be flying around in their own personal airplane so the devil is in the details of course being able to predict human behavior as well as technology is very important as well.
"Drones will take the jobs of postmen and delivery people."
I can't take seriously an article that makes absolute statements like this.
Not only are drones not able to operate during certain inclement weather (and in certain geographic environments) but you can't deliver a refrigerator (as only 1 example) with a drone.
There was a time when people thought that everyone would be flying around in their own personal airplane so the devil is in the details of course being able to predict human behavior as well as technology is very important as well.
Seeing all the debate whenever this topic comes up, it reminds me of the argument that Star Trek was actually a dystopia. Surprisingly, a jobless future with basic income really scares people.
Some people just feel the need to be told what to do. They lack the desire or insight to choose their own path.
Also, some people just simply don't understand how a 'jobless'/basic-income future would look...and what they don't understand scares them.
Also, some people just simply don't understand how a 'jobless'/basic-income future would look...and what they don't understand scares them.