Software Is Eating the Job Market(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Software Is Eating the Job Market
http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/09/software-is-eating-the-job-market/
12 comments
This is in the class of problems that naturally corrects itself over time. When your firm can't hire anyone with experience, and there's no entry-level jobs, it will discover the same solution to that problem that has been discovered any number of times in any number of other situations already: Mentoring and something that looks like apprenticeship.
Compared to the prospect of there being no job at all because software ate the whole thing, at the societal level this is barely interesting at all. Yeah, it sucks if you get caught in that moment where the problem hasn't quite become acute enough for the field to realize it needs to do apprenticeships instead of expecting experience, but, well, there isn't necessarily a better solution than waiting for the field to figure it out.
Compared to the prospect of there being no job at all because software ate the whole thing, at the societal level this is barely interesting at all. Yeah, it sucks if you get caught in that moment where the problem hasn't quite become acute enough for the field to realize it needs to do apprenticeships instead of expecting experience, but, well, there isn't necessarily a better solution than waiting for the field to figure it out.
> When your firm can't hire anyone with experience, and there's no entry-level jobs, it will discover the same solution to that problem that has been discovered any number of times in any number of other situations already
Yes, hire a temporary worker with an H-1B visa or outsource it outright.
Yes, hire a temporary worker with an H-1B visa or outsource it outright.
Guess what? There are other countries with people in them that can program too. Everyone has to compete with that fact. Don't be a hypocrite that dismisses people complaining about Mexicans, software, and robots yet gets upset that people from other countries are playing on the same field.
No one is entitled to be the only person that gets to do a job that many other people can do.
No one is entitled to be the only person that gets to do a job that many other people can do.
> There are other countries with people in them that can program too.
I didn't say anything that disagrees with this statement, I simply said that for the last decade the way to increase profits has been to bring in migrant workers from overseas, and lay off skilled domestic workers, and there's no reason wh the approach won't continue to be the same in the face of a hypothetical domestic skills shortage.
In fact, the idea that there are "other countries with people [...] that can program" is a strong disincentive to have an apprenticship/training program, and reinforces that the primary solution to expanding hiring is going to continue to be H-1B visas and not education.
I didn't say anything that disagrees with this statement, I simply said that for the last decade the way to increase profits has been to bring in migrant workers from overseas, and lay off skilled domestic workers, and there's no reason wh the approach won't continue to be the same in the face of a hypothetical domestic skills shortage.
In fact, the idea that there are "other countries with people [...] that can program" is a strong disincentive to have an apprenticship/training program, and reinforces that the primary solution to expanding hiring is going to continue to be H-1B visas and not education.
Shouldn't an economist be able to figure out when such a phenomenon is happening? It seems like this should be quantifiable. It seems like a 21st century government should be looking for these situations to be arising with some regularity now, and that a "template" program for helping mentoring/apprenticeship practices to come about faster might make sense.
(Modulo one's faith in the (in)competence of government interventions and its degree. obLibertarian objection noted -- so please expand and not just repeat if you are commenting in that direction.)
(Modulo one's faith in the (in)competence of government interventions and its degree. obLibertarian objection noted -- so please expand and not just repeat if you are commenting in that direction.)
Yes, and in countries like Germany there's a three-way relationship between government, employers, and unions, who seem to start from a broad assumption of being on the same team. That relationship is much more fraught in the US, where relations between business and unions are historically antagonistic (with both sides deserving some blame for this), and you have a large contingent of people that are convinced government shouldn't exist and is fundamentally incompetent to solve problems (but often simultaneously a highly effective tyrannical entity).
a large contingent of people that are convinced government shouldn't exist and is fundamentally incompetent to solve problems (but often simultaneously a highly effective tyrannical entity).
Well, yes. Nutters are louder everywhere. Not sure if it's worse over here. Not sure if there's as much pandering to the nutters all across the political here as elsewhere. On trips abroad, I did detect that many Europeans were aghast at our politics in the early 2000s and were still (but for different reasons) as of 2014.
Well, yes. Nutters are louder everywhere. Not sure if it's worse over here. Not sure if there's as much pandering to the nutters all across the political here as elsewhere. On trips abroad, I did detect that many Europeans were aghast at our politics in the early 2000s and were still (but for different reasons) as of 2014.
No, they won't. Counterexample: Engineering shortage!
Interesting points.
> The problem is that we are eating entry-level jobs, and in turn, creating an artificial scarce supply of "experienced" workers.
On the other hand, it is easier than ever to get cheap, basic education in a variety of things, with the Internet and MOOCs making information widely available. So entry-level jobs may be less necessary these days. On the other hand, it means the people who can afford to spend time acquiring this knowledge without receiving pay will have a bigger advantage than ever. Yet another argument for basic income, I guess.
> The problem is that we are eating entry-level jobs, and in turn, creating an artificial scarce supply of "experienced" workers.
On the other hand, it is easier than ever to get cheap, basic education in a variety of things, with the Internet and MOOCs making information widely available. So entry-level jobs may be less necessary these days. On the other hand, it means the people who can afford to spend time acquiring this knowledge without receiving pay will have a bigger advantage than ever. Yet another argument for basic income, I guess.
But education isn't what you need to be an experienced worker, you need experience. I think the parent's point is a great one, and would add to it that things are headed toward a glut of well-educated but nonetheless inexperienced people.
Fair enough. But experience can be garnered outside companies, and the Internet is making that easier, too: OSS development, nonprofit / pro bono work, etc.
Absolutely true, but "well, we've replaced entry-level jobs with working for free" is a terrible answer.
Also, would edit my original reply if I could to say that things seem to be heading this direction, not that they definitely or inevitably are.
Also, would edit my original reply if I could to say that things seem to be heading this direction, not that they definitely or inevitably are.
It is only a terrible answer without basic income, which was the other point I was trying to make.
How does nonprofit/pro bono work help when you're trying to eat?
One of the most popular questions I hear being asked about MOOC is, "Will employers recognize this as a standard university education". I think, in a way, it's telling that question gets asked so frequently, as if looking for an assurance that MOOC will not be a waste of time, or just as good as traditional education.
When employers use education as a minimum bar, it may often be the case that the actual bar is the history as qualification, rather than the actual content of the information. It's similar to how a degree in theory would prove the employer that the person has some discipline to finish a degree.
When employers use education as a minimum bar, it may often be the case that the actual bar is the history as qualification, rather than the actual content of the information. It's similar to how a degree in theory would prove the employer that the person has some discipline to finish a degree.
That's assuming there's any incentive to pursue that free education. A large segment of the population has no interest in working save for the fact that if they don't they'll starve; these are not self-motivated people who seek out academic pursuits in their spare time.
Entry-level jobs are absolutely necessary, first for learning to get to work on time daily, then for the job-specific education needed to work up to something actually productive and which cannot be simply taught by an independent "expert".
Those advocating "basic income" need to go look up the phrase "going Galt" (upshot: given enough unproductive leeching off the productive, the latter are apt to say "screw this" and disappear from society).
Entry-level jobs are absolutely necessary, first for learning to get to work on time daily, then for the job-specific education needed to work up to something actually productive and which cannot be simply taught by an independent "expert".
Those advocating "basic income" need to go look up the phrase "going Galt" (upshot: given enough unproductive leeching off the productive, the latter are apt to say "screw this" and disappear from society).
The entire point is that automation is taking away those entry level jobs. Without those, people aren't going to be able to get a foothold into the workforce, and won't be able to become productive members of society.
Those advocating "basic income" need to go look up the phrase "going Galt" (upshot: given enough unproductive leeching off the productive, the latter are apt to say "screw this" and disappear from society).
"Going Galt" appears to primarily be a fantasy scenario. People largely tend to consumption rates which are smoothed and that factor in long-term expectations of income as opposed to marginally increasing rates that follow short-term signals like a linear input-output device. So it seems that tax burdens alone are not enough to cause massive "dropping out of society", as rational actors have determined that participation in consumer society in light of regulations and other externalities is still preferable to the costs of off-the-grid living. Not that taxation can't cause disincentive, but it's more complicated than just that.
"Going Galt" appears to primarily be a fantasy scenario. People largely tend to consumption rates which are smoothed and that factor in long-term expectations of income as opposed to marginally increasing rates that follow short-term signals like a linear input-output device. So it seems that tax burdens alone are not enough to cause massive "dropping out of society", as rational actors have determined that participation in consumer society in light of regulations and other externalities is still preferable to the costs of off-the-grid living. Not that taxation can't cause disincentive, but it's more complicated than just that.
More than off-the-grid, you see expatriation. Still not in tremendous numbers, for the most part.
While predictive coding (using machine learning to identify potentially interesting documents in discovery) exists, it is not common. Armies of first year associates have mostly been replaced by armies of contract lawyers, not machines. I imagine that's true in a lot of other industries. Entry level jobs pay less and have less prospect for growth simply because labor supply continues to grow while the economy and consequently demand is pretty stagnant.
Worse, we seem to be eroding the nature of those entry level roles so that they don't teach the broader parts of a role.
Was I excited to get an analyst job right out of school for $28K/year (many years ago), after earning a math degree from a prestigious school? Uh, not really. But...
- Only about 50% of my job was actually excel nerf-herding
- The other 50% was a mix of research projects and building the department budget...this allowed me to meet everyone in the building and learn a little bit about how their area worked (and how the company made money)
- Better yet, I was one of three analysts in a 50 person marketing unit...so it was expected my next role would be outside of analytics and I was trained/coached accordingly. The company put less focus on my excel wrangling skills (low value) and more on me as a future program manager or senior tech (high value).
- Ah yes...and we were sufficiently small, I had to learn how to pull my own data (SQL and some light SAS scripting)
The net result? Pretty much everyone in my 10 person class of recruits amounted to something, professionally. Most are manager/director level, about half technical, half business.
The same company today splits the same work into a couple of specialist teams, consolidated across the company, with minimal cross training. You don't join as talent, you join as an Excel monkey. And dang it, we're gonna make you a very productive Excel Monkey. No need to learn the other stuff.
The results have been disappointing...
Was I excited to get an analyst job right out of school for $28K/year (many years ago), after earning a math degree from a prestigious school? Uh, not really. But...
- Only about 50% of my job was actually excel nerf-herding
- The other 50% was a mix of research projects and building the department budget...this allowed me to meet everyone in the building and learn a little bit about how their area worked (and how the company made money)
- Better yet, I was one of three analysts in a 50 person marketing unit...so it was expected my next role would be outside of analytics and I was trained/coached accordingly. The company put less focus on my excel wrangling skills (low value) and more on me as a future program manager or senior tech (high value).
- Ah yes...and we were sufficiently small, I had to learn how to pull my own data (SQL and some light SAS scripting)
The net result? Pretty much everyone in my 10 person class of recruits amounted to something, professionally. Most are manager/director level, about half technical, half business.
The same company today splits the same work into a couple of specialist teams, consolidated across the company, with minimal cross training. You don't join as talent, you join as an Excel monkey. And dang it, we're gonna make you a very productive Excel Monkey. No need to learn the other stuff.
The results have been disappointing...
The ultimate winners here would be the software employees in my opinion. The money flows from investors/public to the geeks. Dont know how the economy is going to work out with that though.
That's a false narrative. Owners and executives are the winners here. We are underpaid for the value we bring in and the industry has been caught trying to keep it that way.
The software employers are probably accumulating capital at a higher rate than the software employees.
Probably, but an increasing number of software employees are striking out to become software employers as well. Software is interesting in that virtually all capital is human capital, and that small changes in the environment (a shift from web to mobile, for example) can invalidate large swaths of accumulated domain knowledge.
Who were the true winners of the industrial revolution? The employees making the machines? Nah. The true winners here will be the ones that always have been and always will be the winners.
Maybe. There is also a lot of work going into providing tools for domain experts so that entry-level programmers aren't needed for, e.g. data visualization. So it's not clear to me that the dynamic is any different in software engineering than anywhere else.
I wonder where that leaves the job market, given that there will still be a need for these roles in the future (and plenty of incentive for someone to learn the roles via whatever means become available).
Are unpaid internships a symptom of this flow perhaps? They read a lot like apprenticeships (but with a significant burden of responsibility missing).
Are unpaid internships a symptom of this flow perhaps? They read a lot like apprenticeships (but with a significant burden of responsibility missing).
Interesting anecdote: at a devbootcamp event, I ran into two high school graduates who skipped a traditional bachelor's in favor of three months of intensive web development training followed by a year of unpaid internships. They evaluated this as considerably less expensive than a university education while providing a comparable level of experience.
I'm not sure I agree, but it's interesting that very young people and their families are beginning to question the established educational model in such a bold fashion.
I'm not sure I agree, but it's interesting that very young people and their families are beginning to question the established educational model in such a bold fashion.
Only those who's family is already relatively well off, and who live in an area where these types of work are available can really do it, though. That's not a reasonable solution.
"But to get to the higher-quality jobs, you generally need experience. Not many employers are willing to hire someone and put him in a responsible position based off their potential alone. It follows, then, that we need substantial number of entry level positions to, so to speak, open the door for future potent workers."
I've been wondering about a similar (far more narrow) dynamic around the C programming language. There are still a number of places C is the best fit, but those are increasingly in places where expert knowledge of C is required.
There are presently enough legacy projects where people can cut their teeth usefully that this isn't soon a major issue, but if we continue to displace more but not all uses of C, this could get interesting in the long term (maybe).
I've been wondering about a similar (far more narrow) dynamic around the C programming language. There are still a number of places C is the best fit, but those are increasingly in places where expert knowledge of C is required.
There are presently enough legacy projects where people can cut their teeth usefully that this isn't soon a major issue, but if we continue to displace more but not all uses of C, this could get interesting in the long term (maybe).
Do you have some data on this?
Also, this is a perspective I've not considered or heard of before. Thanks for that.
Also, this is a perspective I've not considered or heard of before. Thanks for that.
[deleted]
There's no solution for this short of a revolution in free real-world education and something like apprenticeships.
Also, the people who make the decisions are experienced and so don't directly profit from changing anything.
This article is written in such a pompous style that I can't immediately tell if it isn't tied to some form of public relations press release.
The shortage of software developers is well-documented and increasingly discussed.
It's certainly discussed, though its ostensible documentation is a subject of dispute [1]. The role of poor hiring practices is also often omitted.
Far more than just a fad or buzzword, references to analytical and data-oriented skills appeared in 4 million postings over the last year – and data analysis is one of the most demanded skills by U.S. employers, according to Burning Glass data.
That it is commonly cited as a term doesn't necessarily contradict that it's a buzzword.
The aforementioned in-demand skills areas represent more of a structural shift than an issue du jour or passing trend. It is precisely the rapid, near daily change in software- and technology-related skills needs that necessitates new approaches to human capital development. While traditional long-term programs such as college degrees remain meaningful, new software platforms, languages, apps and tools rise annually.
This is the classic equivocation of tools and techniques in action. New platforms and tools indeed do arise annually, but our techniques have remained in stasis, and are only being painfully reinvented in a rat race. See David A. Wheeler's essay "The Most Important Software Innovations" [2], and perhaps mentally add in CRDTs, I suppose.
Who in the mainstream a few years ago had heard of Hadoop or Ruby?
Many.
Finally, it's curious to note given the assertion of software eating the job market or world, that many of the examples listed are media companies or companies whose business models are augmented by software (often via data entry, really), rather than engulfed by it. Fintech's an exception. But I didn't find any examples of technical infrastructure or CS and software research.
[1] http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-i...
[2] http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html
The shortage of software developers is well-documented and increasingly discussed.
It's certainly discussed, though its ostensible documentation is a subject of dispute [1]. The role of poor hiring practices is also often omitted.
Far more than just a fad or buzzword, references to analytical and data-oriented skills appeared in 4 million postings over the last year – and data analysis is one of the most demanded skills by U.S. employers, according to Burning Glass data.
That it is commonly cited as a term doesn't necessarily contradict that it's a buzzword.
The aforementioned in-demand skills areas represent more of a structural shift than an issue du jour or passing trend. It is precisely the rapid, near daily change in software- and technology-related skills needs that necessitates new approaches to human capital development. While traditional long-term programs such as college degrees remain meaningful, new software platforms, languages, apps and tools rise annually.
This is the classic equivocation of tools and techniques in action. New platforms and tools indeed do arise annually, but our techniques have remained in stasis, and are only being painfully reinvented in a rat race. See David A. Wheeler's essay "The Most Important Software Innovations" [2], and perhaps mentally add in CRDTs, I suppose.
Who in the mainstream a few years ago had heard of Hadoop or Ruby?
Many.
Finally, it's curious to note given the assertion of software eating the job market or world, that many of the examples listed are media companies or companies whose business models are augmented by software (often via data entry, really), rather than engulfed by it. Fintech's an exception. But I didn't find any examples of technical infrastructure or CS and software research.
[1] http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-i...
[2] http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html
I think I have to quibble with Wheeler's attribution of the invention of the computer virus. Credit should go to John Brunner in his 1975 novel, "The Shockwave Rider". He invented the term worm for a sophisticated virus that could propagate through a network.
So, when we came up with agriculture some millenia ago, all those jobless people, those hunters/explorers/etc., did not stay jobless, did they? What about when we came up with machines in the 19th century? All those people in agriculture would still be jobless, but they are not, are they?
Point is, every technological innovation will be absorbed in the long term. It's been historically this way for millennia, at least. People are very good at reinventing themselves as long as they have an incentive (food, money) to do so.
Point is, every technological innovation will be absorbed in the long term. It's been historically this way for millennia, at least. People are very good at reinventing themselves as long as they have an incentive (food, money) to do so.
Except when robots take the jobs, what jobs are left? Especially in the entry level?
The term "past performance does not guarantee future results" comes to mind.
A past trend being unbroken is a good heuristic for it to continue, but it is not proof that it will do so. The coming issue is that our software is getting better at replacing jobs faster than new jobs can be created. Not only is manual labor jobs being replaced, but so are knowledge jobs and creative jobs.
> The coming issue is that our software is getting better at replacing jobs faster than new jobs can be created
That is a pretty big assumption right there. There is no absolute amount of jobs being created, right? I mean, wouldn't you pay $1 per hour to have your shirts ironed? Then is it a problem of jobs count or jobs pay? It's pay, isn't it? If it's pay, then you are asking the wrong question. The question would be: is software making jobs cheaper? That is a very tough question. Implications are not that clear: from one end you cut jobs, from the other you are improving the productivity of your economy. With more productivity you get... you guessed it: more wealth. Then what's the problem? It's a problem of wealth distribution isn't it? It's wealth concentration in few segments of the population. That is a completely different problem then what you just said. Wealth distribution has nothing to do with value created and it's a topic in its own way.
Bottom line: it's not about how many jobs you have, but how spread is the wealth your economy is creating and how spread it's going to be in the future.
That is a pretty big assumption right there. There is no absolute amount of jobs being created, right? I mean, wouldn't you pay $1 per hour to have your shirts ironed? Then is it a problem of jobs count or jobs pay? It's pay, isn't it? If it's pay, then you are asking the wrong question. The question would be: is software making jobs cheaper? That is a very tough question. Implications are not that clear: from one end you cut jobs, from the other you are improving the productivity of your economy. With more productivity you get... you guessed it: more wealth. Then what's the problem? It's a problem of wealth distribution isn't it? It's wealth concentration in few segments of the population. That is a completely different problem then what you just said. Wealth distribution has nothing to do with value created and it's a topic in its own way.
Bottom line: it's not about how many jobs you have, but how spread is the wealth your economy is creating and how spread it's going to be in the future.
My 'jobs are being replaced faster than created' has an implied 'and our economic model doesn't otherwise change' to it when I state that it is a problem.
Now you can disagree with the notion that jobs are being replaced faster than created and even take the stance that such a thing will never happen. But assuming you don't disagree that this will eventually happen (eventually here meaning in our lifetime or maybe our children's; not counting thousands of years down the road), then it is going to be a problem. Yes, it is only a problem because of how our economic situation is set up, but all of that isn't the bit that changed that created our problem. And yes, changing the economic set up can resolve the problem. But the problem itself remains the same (unless you disagree with it ever happening).
Now you can disagree with the notion that jobs are being replaced faster than created and even take the stance that such a thing will never happen. But assuming you don't disagree that this will eventually happen (eventually here meaning in our lifetime or maybe our children's; not counting thousands of years down the road), then it is going to be a problem. Yes, it is only a problem because of how our economic situation is set up, but all of that isn't the bit that changed that created our problem. And yes, changing the economic set up can resolve the problem. But the problem itself remains the same (unless you disagree with it ever happening).
Every innovation is absorbed in the long term, but in the short term the results often include recessions, revolutions, wars and so on, which have a non-negligible cost. As Keynes said 'in the long run we are all dead,' so we need to be cognizant of how these changes play out on the scale of human lifespans as well as national ones.
> those hunters/explorers/etc., did not stay jobless
A lot of them were killed by agricultural invaders, since you can feed a much larger army with agriculture.
> All those people in agriculture would still be jobless
Agricultural countries like India got invaded by industrial countries like Britain.
Even now, increasingly autonomous drones are killing people in the middle east.
It's often not good to be on the sharp, pointy end of new technology.
A lot of them were killed by agricultural invaders, since you can feed a much larger army with agriculture.
> All those people in agriculture would still be jobless
Agricultural countries like India got invaded by industrial countries like Britain.
Even now, increasingly autonomous drones are killing people in the middle east.
It's often not good to be on the sharp, pointy end of new technology.
>Even now, increasingly autonomous drones are killing people in the middle east.
Increasingly? No, they're the same amount autonomous as they've ever been.
Increasingly? No, they're the same amount autonomous as they've ever been.
Ironically, in the software job market for companies of say over 100 people, the desire to hire H1Bs is overwhelming due to the cheaper cost + lock-in.
Yeah, I don't see any indication there's a shortage of software developers. There are a lot of 50+ year old software developers out of work, and a whole lot of companies refuse to hire people without a degree.
Nothing new.. If i can replace a security guard of my office for a cheaper more efficient, less error prone, robot/software instead of a human for half the price, WHY NOT! The exact same philosophy goes into "software is eating the world".
It works until you run out of consumers with cash, at which point it no longer works.
Universal Basic Income is the best post-labor system I've read of.
Everything is still based on the same capitalism we have now, and the ~20% of people who work will still be able to make income (meaning there will still be incentive for enterprise).
Everything is still based on the same capitalism we have now, and the ~20% of people who work will still be able to make income (meaning there will still be incentive for enterprise).
I'm getting really tired of hearing Basic Income cited to handwave away the real problems of economic dislocation. Look, I support the idea of a basic income, but when your simple solution is a radical top-to-bottom change in the entire economic system then I can't take you any more seriously than someone who thinks that communism would make all our problems go away if only every country would adopt it at once.
I mean we can't get single-payer healthcare going in this country, despite the numerous models of it working quite well (and at lower cost than our system) in a number of other developed countries that are glad to share their experience with us. UBI is a fine idea, but proponents are awfully short on specifics. It would be very nice if people would cite a particular scheme or gameplan they consider to be credible when they mention the topic.
I mean we can't get single-payer healthcare going in this country, despite the numerous models of it working quite well (and at lower cost than our system) in a number of other developed countries that are glad to share their experience with us. UBI is a fine idea, but proponents are awfully short on specifics. It would be very nice if people would cite a particular scheme or gameplan they consider to be credible when they mention the topic.
> UBI is a fine idea, but proponents are awfully short on specifics. It would be very nice if people would cite a particular scheme or gameplan they consider to be credible when they mention the topic.
Social Security and Medicare expanded to everyone, regardless of age.
No handwaving, that's the general idea. The devil is in the details, and there are many details to work out.
Social Security and Medicare expanded to everyone, regardless of age.
No handwaving, that's the general idea. The devil is in the details, and there are many details to work out.
Of course I know what the idea is. I'm saying that UBI proponents need to say 'it'll cost X, we'll save Y by slashing all this bureaucracy, the rest will come from Z,' as well as some sort of strategy to shepherd it through the political process, figure how it will mesh with immigration policy, and so on.
What I'm complaining about is that hardly anyone seems to be making a serious effort to fill out those details, and if proponents of the idea can't even point to a detailed proposal for how to implement it over a reasonable timeframe, how do you expect to convince people to sign on to it? 'Let's elect politicians who support it and then work out the details once they're in office' has not IMHO worked out very well historically.
I'm not saying you have to come up with the whole plan or type it out every time the subject comes up, f course! But I wish you could point me to who you think has something resembling an actionable plan.
What I'm complaining about is that hardly anyone seems to be making a serious effort to fill out those details, and if proponents of the idea can't even point to a detailed proposal for how to implement it over a reasonable timeframe, how do you expect to convince people to sign on to it? 'Let's elect politicians who support it and then work out the details once they're in office' has not IMHO worked out very well historically.
I'm not saying you have to come up with the whole plan or type it out every time the subject comes up, f course! But I wish you could point me to who you think has something resembling an actionable plan.
I've run some numbers in the past, though I don't have them in front of me anymore. While of course they should be taken with a rather large grain of salt, providing $6-9k/yr to every American doesn't seem to produce crazy numbers. It's also an amount that's low enough that we're not likely to see crazy numbers of people opting out of the workforce, while high enough to increase the bargaining power of workers a bit. If I had to pick an optimal level of UBI to institute nationwide (which in some senses must exist), I would guess it to be around there.
That said, recently I've been thinking of a different approach. Concerns about scale (and migration) are smaller if we start with a smaller amount. I've been thinking an approach might be creation of a private institution tasked with designing and coordinating a basic income program for regions (probably at the city or county level, in the US) that opt in and who meet whatever necessary standards. The program would then apply to anyone who lives or works in a participating locality. The program could then be gradually rolled out and scaled up as (/if) it's found to work. National benefits can be phased out by treating BI income as income. One thing that makes this plan seem more workable is that the organization could raise money from supportive individuals to build a buffer for the program, to serve as something of a carrot for prospective localities.
That said, recently I've been thinking of a different approach. Concerns about scale (and migration) are smaller if we start with a smaller amount. I've been thinking an approach might be creation of a private institution tasked with designing and coordinating a basic income program for regions (probably at the city or county level, in the US) that opt in and who meet whatever necessary standards. The program would then apply to anyone who lives or works in a participating locality. The program could then be gradually rolled out and scaled up as (/if) it's found to work. National benefits can be phased out by treating BI income as income. One thing that makes this plan seem more workable is that the organization could raise money from supportive individuals to build a buffer for the program, to serve as something of a carrot for prospective localities.
> Social Security and Medicare expanded to everyone, regardless of age.
That's an idea, but its not the idea of UBI. Medicare is a complex health insurance system consisting both of government provided and government-subsidized-private health insurance, it isn't anything like UBI.
Social Security is, aside from age or disability test to withdraw from it, a system with benefits governed by your (or your spouse's) past contributions, as such its also (even ignoring the age/disability part) very much not like UBI.
That's an idea, but its not the idea of UBI. Medicare is a complex health insurance system consisting both of government provided and government-subsidized-private health insurance, it isn't anything like UBI.
Social Security is, aside from age or disability test to withdraw from it, a system with benefits governed by your (or your spouse's) past contributions, as such its also (even ignoring the age/disability part) very much not like UBI.
> That's an idea, but its not the idea of UBI. Medicare is a complex health insurance system consisting both of government provided and government-subsidized-private health insurance, it isn't anything like UBI.
Single-payer healthcare removes a HUGE problem with providing basic income. I don't see how providing universal healthcare interferes with UBI.
> Social Security is, aside from age or disability test to withdraw from it, a system with benefits governed by your (or your spouss) past contributions, its also (even ignoring the age/disability part) very much not like UBI.
And.....? The SSA is already extremely efficient at distributing funds. Allow them to issue no-fee debit cards they issue, remove age/disability testing, ignore contributions, and then get funding from the general fund.
I'm not saying its easy. I'm saying its how you eat an elephant: one bite at a time.
Single-payer healthcare removes a HUGE problem with providing basic income. I don't see how providing universal healthcare interferes with UBI.
> Social Security is, aside from age or disability test to withdraw from it, a system with benefits governed by your (or your spouss) past contributions, its also (even ignoring the age/disability part) very much not like UBI.
And.....? The SSA is already extremely efficient at distributing funds. Allow them to issue no-fee debit cards they issue, remove age/disability testing, ignore contributions, and then get funding from the general fund.
I'm not saying its easy. I'm saying its how you eat an elephant: one bite at a time.
> Single-payer healthcare removes a HUGE problem with providing basic income.
Whether or not that's the case, single-payer healthcare is a different idea from UBI, not a component of UBI (and, indeed, something that conservative supporters of UBI -- of which there are quite a few -- are more likely to see UBI as an alternative to rather than to see as part of UBI.)
> > Social Security is, aside from age or disability test to withdraw from it, a system with benefits governed by your (or your spouse's) past contributions, its also (even ignoring the age/disability part) very much not like UBI.
> And.....?
And so your claim that the idea of UBI is Social Security and Medicare for everyone regardless of age is simply grossly inaccurate.
Whether or not that's the case, single-payer healthcare is a different idea from UBI, not a component of UBI (and, indeed, something that conservative supporters of UBI -- of which there are quite a few -- are more likely to see UBI as an alternative to rather than to see as part of UBI.)
> > Social Security is, aside from age or disability test to withdraw from it, a system with benefits governed by your (or your spouse's) past contributions, its also (even ignoring the age/disability part) very much not like UBI.
> And.....?
And so your claim that the idea of UBI is Social Security and Medicare for everyone regardless of age is simply grossly inaccurate.
You seem to be objecting to an attempt at defining UBI. I'd interpreted the context as "give me a proposal for how to do UBI", in which case "Social Security and Medicare for everyone" does seem an attempt at such a proposal. The proposal is substantially incomplete, as the question certainly arises of how to calculate social security benefits for those who haven't worked long enough to qualify under existing rules... but with certain answers to that question, it would be implementing a UBI system (along with other stuff as well).
Fair enough. It's certainly, at least, a place to start a discussion of the mechanics.
Except you'll have increasing encroachment on motivation of the productive.
When Ronald Reagan was a top-billed Hollywood actor, he faced a ~90% tax bracket. Rather than work hard only to see most of his earnings confiscated, he'd make just a few movies and then enjoy those profits instead of spending time on diminishing returns. Same for plenty of us motivated ones: if 80% are living off the 20%, that will require taking so much from the 20% that most of those will opt for doing something interesting and untaxable. The "seriously productive" ones you're expecting to leech off MUST have lots of less-but-still-productive people working for them - and you're tearing out the incentive to do so. Raise my taxes enough (only to "redistribute" to those opting to not work) and I'll switch to untaxable yet satisfying "off the grid" living.
When Ronald Reagan was a top-billed Hollywood actor, he faced a ~90% tax bracket. Rather than work hard only to see most of his earnings confiscated, he'd make just a few movies and then enjoy those profits instead of spending time on diminishing returns. Same for plenty of us motivated ones: if 80% are living off the 20%, that will require taking so much from the 20% that most of those will opt for doing something interesting and untaxable. The "seriously productive" ones you're expecting to leech off MUST have lots of less-but-still-productive people working for them - and you're tearing out the incentive to do so. Raise my taxes enough (only to "redistribute" to those opting to not work) and I'll switch to untaxable yet satisfying "off the grid" living.
Movie stars aren't a very good example. Ronald Reagan was not 100X times better actor than the next guy. He could command a big salary because he won a tournament market based on name recognition. If he works less, someone just as good gets a chance and there is the same output.
Where a 90% tax really hurts is entrepreneurship and risk taking. If that 90% tax includes taxes on capital gains, then I have no incentive to start a business or invest in a business. If it fails I lose my money and sweat equity. If it succeeds, I get taxed so much I barely make more money than if I had just worked.
One of the reasons the economy was good in the 50's despite the high taxes was that those high taxes only applied to salaries, not capital gains. Also, there were lots and lots of loopholes so a lot of people didn't end up paying that 90%.
That all said. Americans already pay a ton of taxes. There is plenty of money for UBI already. It just needs to be reallocated from failed programs and bureaucracies - such as 90% of the educational system.
Where a 90% tax really hurts is entrepreneurship and risk taking. If that 90% tax includes taxes on capital gains, then I have no incentive to start a business or invest in a business. If it fails I lose my money and sweat equity. If it succeeds, I get taxed so much I barely make more money than if I had just worked.
One of the reasons the economy was good in the 50's despite the high taxes was that those high taxes only applied to salaries, not capital gains. Also, there were lots and lots of loopholes so a lot of people didn't end up paying that 90%.
That all said. Americans already pay a ton of taxes. There is plenty of money for UBI already. It just needs to be reallocated from failed programs and bureaucracies - such as 90% of the educational system.
"If he works less, someone just as good gets a chance and there is the same output."
Given the pay disparity, if he works less there's probably more output.
(... note that this is considering his decision to work less, in isolation - not the effect of the tax level that purportedly motivated that as a whole, which would take a much deeper analysis...)
Given the pay disparity, if he works less there's probably more output.
(... note that this is considering his decision to work less, in isolation - not the effect of the tax level that purportedly motivated that as a whole, which would take a much deeper analysis...)
> Raise my taxes enough (only to "redistribute" to those opting to not work) and I'll switch to untaxable yet satisfying "off the grid" living.
You're assuming what you do can't be automated. I want to automate what you do so you can live "off the grid" if you want.
Capitalism only entitles you to profits on your labor capital until it has no value.
You're assuming what you do can't be automated. I want to automate what you do so you can live "off the grid" if you want.
Capitalism only entitles you to profits on your labor capital until it has no value.
The problem is, labor capital is the only thing that everyone has. And most people don't have the other form of capital. So if their labor capital has no value, then they're probably going to starve.
"When Ronald Reagan was a top-billed Hollywood actor, he faced a ~90% tax bracket. Rather than work hard only to see most of his earnings confiscated, he'd make just a few movies and then enjoy those profits instead of spending time on diminishing returns."
Is that what happened? Or did he simply realize that he had enough, and he didn't need to work himself to death to have all the money? Seriously, what's wrong with people realizing they have enough, and don't need to overwork themselves just to have more?
Is that what happened? Or did he simply realize that he had enough, and he didn't need to work himself to death to have all the money? Seriously, what's wrong with people realizing they have enough, and don't need to overwork themselves just to have more?
> Raise my taxes enough (only to "redistribute" to those opting to not work) and I'll switch to untaxable yet satisfying "off the grid" living.
That's actually not a harm, and its exactly why you aren't tearing out the incentive for productive activity; when you devote more of your time to that because you've hit a high-enough marginal tax rate that the marginal benefit post-tax from additional gain through taxable activity is not sufficient to meet your marginal opportunity cost from that activity, simple supply and demand increases the incentive for others for whom that balance works out differently -- perhaps because they are lower on the progressive tax scale so that the marginal realized net monetary return is greater, or perhaps because they are at a similar place to where you are but weigh the costs differently -- to engage in the activity you are forgoing. In fact, a net upward (on the wealth/income) scale shift in tax burden increases the incentive for productive activity at the lower end of the scale.
That's actually not a harm, and its exactly why you aren't tearing out the incentive for productive activity; when you devote more of your time to that because you've hit a high-enough marginal tax rate that the marginal benefit post-tax from additional gain through taxable activity is not sufficient to meet your marginal opportunity cost from that activity, simple supply and demand increases the incentive for others for whom that balance works out differently -- perhaps because they are lower on the progressive tax scale so that the marginal realized net monetary return is greater, or perhaps because they are at a similar place to where you are but weigh the costs differently -- to engage in the activity you are forgoing. In fact, a net upward (on the wealth/income) scale shift in tax burden increases the incentive for productive activity at the lower end of the scale.
I think the point (in the context of this discussion) is that we don't need everyone to be maximally productive - machines and automation can do so much that we could all enjoy a very nice standard of living if everyone worked ~2 hours/day.
I'm a little skeptical of basic income as well, just like I'd be skeptical of any untested widespread social policy, but the orthodox reasons why it doesn't work are based on a model of reality that's ~3 generations and 70+ years old. I suspect that if it doesn't work, it'll be because of some problem we haven't thought of yet, not the old "tax on the productive". The top candidate, IMHO, is that we're outcompeted by some other society that doesn't have basic income.
I'm a little skeptical of basic income as well, just like I'd be skeptical of any untested widespread social policy, but the orthodox reasons why it doesn't work are based on a model of reality that's ~3 generations and 70+ years old. I suspect that if it doesn't work, it'll be because of some problem we haven't thought of yet, not the old "tax on the productive". The top candidate, IMHO, is that we're outcompeted by some other society that doesn't have basic income.
> Rather than work hard only to see most of his earnings confiscated, he'd make just a few movies and then enjoy those profits instead of spending time on diminishing returns.
Sounds good to me. More actors, more variety. Maybe we wouldn't see every single sci-fi/action movie star Tom Cruise.
Sounds good to me. More actors, more variety. Maybe we wouldn't see every single sci-fi/action movie star Tom Cruise.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your example seems to imply the existence of a marginal propensity to consume. I don't think this is commonly accepted in light of work by Friedman and others on the permanent income hypothesis, which puts to question relatively simplistic supply-side and "Going Galt" scenarios.
>The "seriously productive" ones you're expecting to leech off MUST have lots of less-but-still-productive people working for them - and you're tearing out the incentive to do so.
The situation UBI applies to is in a more post-labor world. One where a McDonald's only needs 2 people working instead of 16. At this point it's not going to be taxing those 2 workers but the company itself.
If you want to earn more money than your UBI check (which you would still get if you work), you will still have an incentive to earn more money.
The situation UBI applies to is in a more post-labor world. One where a McDonald's only needs 2 people working instead of 16. At this point it's not going to be taxing those 2 workers but the company itself.
If you want to earn more money than your UBI check (which you would still get if you work), you will still have an incentive to earn more money.
I understand this issue of maintaining motivation under conditions of artificial full employment was a problem under the Soviet system, but I'm not sure it is necessarily a problem in a post-scarcity economy. For one thing employment can be increased by reducing the work week. After all we went from 60 hour work weeks to 40 hour, even less in Europe where there are longer vacations than in the US. Education over the past century has gone from mostly primary only to mostly college, absorbing excess labor capacity.
I think the idea of 80% leeches living off the 20% productive is just wrong headed. What we will see is the general quality of life improved for everyone. Sure there will some that need to be entirely supported by the rest of us: the homeless, the mentally ill, the infirm, the elderly. The real danger is that the increases in productivity are being siphoned off by the rich and not being equitably distributed. Capitalism is inherently an unstable system tending towards monopoly and the destruction of the commons (pollution and the like) and must be reasonably constrained.
I think the idea of 80% leeches living off the 20% productive is just wrong headed. What we will see is the general quality of life improved for everyone. Sure there will some that need to be entirely supported by the rest of us: the homeless, the mentally ill, the infirm, the elderly. The real danger is that the increases in productivity are being siphoned off by the rich and not being equitably distributed. Capitalism is inherently an unstable system tending towards monopoly and the destruction of the commons (pollution and the like) and must be reasonably constrained.
> I understand this issue of maintaining motivation under conditions of artificial full employment was a problem under the Soviet system, but I'm not sure it is necessarily a problem in a post-scarcity economy.
Post-scarcity economy is a contradiction in terms, and if post-scarcity conditions existed, one wouldn't have any need to worry about economy -- which is, after all, nothing but the system by which scarce resources are allocated.
But we're not really discussing post-scarcity conditions, we're talking about managing conditions where the rewards from production are increasingly concentrated in the holders of capital and the returns to labor are mostly extremely low with a (proportionally) very small set of high-value labor positions available.
Post-scarcity economy is a contradiction in terms, and if post-scarcity conditions existed, one wouldn't have any need to worry about economy -- which is, after all, nothing but the system by which scarce resources are allocated.
But we're not really discussing post-scarcity conditions, we're talking about managing conditions where the rewards from production are increasingly concentrated in the holders of capital and the returns to labor are mostly extremely low with a (proportionally) very small set of high-value labor positions available.
Given the political landscape today, we need a different solution. That's basically socialism (something I don't have a problem with), and I'm sure you've seen how well things with even the hint of socialism have gone over in the US. Most Tea Partiers would be completely happy to have things turn out Hunger Games style, as they're assuming that they'd be on top, rather than having to send their child in to fight.
This isn't socialism at all. The main tenants of socialism are ending profit and private property. UBI embraces the same kind of capitalism we have now with private property and profit. In order to say that UBI is socialist, you also have to be calling Social Security socialism, and you have to think that President Obama is a socialist.
I think you would find a lot more support among conservatives than you think (it seems like you have quite the caricature of them). It seems like there would opposition from left, and UBI would require a complete dismantling of all non-healthcare entitlement programs, a serious reduction of the tax code, and heavily clamping down on all immigration.
I think you would find a lot more support among conservatives than you think (it seems like you have quite the caricature of them). It seems like there would opposition from left, and UBI would require a complete dismantling of all non-healthcare entitlement programs, a serious reduction of the tax code, and heavily clamping down on all immigration.
Something actually being socialism or not has never stopped those on the right from rallying against it. All they'll hear is taxes and people getting money, and they'll be all against it.
>I think you would find a lot more support among conservatives than you think (it seems like you have quite the caricature of them).
I don't. And it's not a caricature when based on statements they've actually made. Remember Mitt Romney's 47%?
>I think you would find a lot more support among conservatives than you think (it seems like you have quite the caricature of them).
I don't. And it's not a caricature when based on statements they've actually made. Remember Mitt Romney's 47%?
"In order to say that UBI is socialist, you also have to be calling Social Security socialism, and you have to think that President Obama is a socialist."
And that's exactly what the Tea Party types are saying.
And that's exactly what the Tea Party types are saying.
UBI is absolutely a kind of socialism; it may embrace the same kind of 'capitalism' we have now, only in that what we have now and sometimes call 'capitalism' is a system which blends many elements of socialism with some structures of capitalism in an attempt to address the kind of problems with capitalism that were the center of the critique by the socialists who named "capitalism" as a thing while at the same time maintaining the desirable features of capitalism, e.g., reward mechanism and incentives. UBI builds on that to, to be sure, but it certainly reflects an idea of common ownership of some commons on which rents are collected (and, if its going to work at all in an increasingly capital-intensive and less-labor-dependent economy, those "commons" are going to include a share of superficially privately-held capital -- i.e., the means of production -- so its pretty hard not to see the direct connection with socialism.)
I think the fact that the use and disposition of the "superficially privately-held capital" is determined by individual private entities is actually fairly significant, even if they're losing a cut of the revenues. It strikes me as similar to the way in which paying taxes on our labor does not make us "slaves". Whether the lack, in this sense, of "state control of the means of production" is enough to make it "not Socialism" seems to be something people could reasonably disagree about.
The net production capacity of humanity (per capita and absolute) is constantly increasing. Why would you ever run out of consumers? Just because fields occasionally become irrelevant doesn't mean that those workers and their descendents will never find work ever again.
Right, this is the problem with capitalism. It's predicated on the assumption of returns increasing to infinity, which is clearly impossible.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. There may well be individual capitalists who believe that, and certainly in the heat of speculation some individuals act as if that is their belief, but the system itself has no such requirement.
Economics 101. Both parties are supposed to gain additional utility from any trade. I'll wait while you do the math.
Both parties are supposed to gain additional utility from any trade or it doesn't happen. That's not to say that both parties gain utility from any trade that could be made (obviously), and there's nothing that implies an infinitude - just a difference in how much people value different things.
Of course, past Econ 101, we also get into issues of people making trades they think will be beneficial but aren't.
Of course, past Econ 101, we also get into issues of people making trades they think will be beneficial but aren't.
Alright, we have an economist here. So the bank makes you a loan and they expect you to pay it back with interest. Where is that extra capital supposed to come from?
The extra money ("capital" means something else in econ than finance) comes from trading things valued, by another, more highly than that other values the money.
It comes at a cost, but a person and the bank might both come out ahead in utility if the person has a stronger preference for money in the short term than the long term (see "Time Value of Money", "Hyperbolic Discounting") compared to the bank. There are a number of forms this can take, but one worth calling out is when the person is able to use the money to produce the thing they are going to trade for more value.
Does all of this assume growth? Not really. It assumes someone is creating something somewhere, but it doesn't assume society is creating more tomorrow than today.
That said, even that is not assumed by Economics - because nothing in Economics says banks will always be willing to make loans. If conditions are such that they do not expect to be able to be paid back (often enough to have a positive expected value), Economics says banks stop lending. There is no assumption of infinity.
It comes at a cost, but a person and the bank might both come out ahead in utility if the person has a stronger preference for money in the short term than the long term (see "Time Value of Money", "Hyperbolic Discounting") compared to the bank. There are a number of forms this can take, but one worth calling out is when the person is able to use the money to produce the thing they are going to trade for more value.
Does all of this assume growth? Not really. It assumes someone is creating something somewhere, but it doesn't assume society is creating more tomorrow than today.
That said, even that is not assumed by Economics - because nothing in Economics says banks will always be willing to make loans. If conditions are such that they do not expect to be able to be paid back (often enough to have a positive expected value), Economics says banks stop lending. There is no assumption of infinity.
Economics 101 doesn't usually reflect conditions in the real world.
sounds like capitalism is broken.
It's not broken, it's just that reality of labor is changing to the point that the ideas we have about how to create a healthy economy won't work anymore. It's similar to how Marx's theories were only applicable when the vast majority of labor was simple factory or agricultural work, and you assume everything about the industrial revolution would remain static.
The #1 method for creating a strong economy has been to try reaching maximum labor participation - everyone has a job, and government does what it can to move people into a position to meet labor demand.
Once we move into a post-labor economy, we will just have to adjust how we make capitialism work through things like Universal Basic Income.
The #1 method for creating a strong economy has been to try reaching maximum labor participation - everyone has a job, and government does what it can to move people into a position to meet labor demand.
Once we move into a post-labor economy, we will just have to adjust how we make capitialism work through things like Universal Basic Income.
Do you mean people trading with others on a voluntary, win-win basis, or do you mean what today is labeled capitalism but is characterized by coercive force and cronyism?
Capitalism always tends toward monopoly, there's only a difference in the minds of idealistic libertarians.
Did you miss the use of the word "voluntary" in my comment?
Absent force, a person is free to either accept or reject a given deal.
Absent force, a person is free to either accept or reject a given deal.
A deal implies ownership. Ownership requires force. Try again.
Does a deal actually imply ownership? Where is the ownership in a deal trading service for service?
Only in the corporate welfare system we have today (see Chevrolet bailout). Without corporate welfare in the forms of subsidies, bailouts, and regulations, companies like Telsa would be destroying the major auto manufactures. What old major companies would still be around without un-capitlistic like interventions from the government?
No, it was true for East India, it was true for Standard Oil, and it's still true today. Much of regulation was intended for the protection of consumers, not to cement incumbents, and the subversion of the same is evidence of capitalism's predatory nature.
Businesses continue their regulatory capture in the US. The line between corporations and government grows thinner every time a burdensome regulation is created that only companies with significant resources can follow.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060815-756320-domin...
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060815-756320-domin...
Of course they do. This is not unique in history or in the US. This is simply capitalism working as intended.
What did you think Tesla would do after they finished "destroying the major auto manufacturers"?
What did you think Tesla would do after they finished "destroying the major auto manufacturers"?
> or do you mean what today is labeled capitalism but is characterized by coercive force and cronyism?
That's what has always been labeled capitalism, starting with the socialist critiques of the dominant system (filled, as it was, with coercive force and cronyism) in the developed world in the mid-to-late 19th century who invented the term "capitalism" as a label for that system.
Outside of incoherent, fantasies the neither exist in the real world or stand up to much examination even in theory -- fantasies constructed largely as a propaganda to defend that coercive, cronyistic system from its critics -- nothing else but coercive, cronyism-dominated systems has ever been referred to with the label "capitalism".
That's what has always been labeled capitalism, starting with the socialist critiques of the dominant system (filled, as it was, with coercive force and cronyism) in the developed world in the mid-to-late 19th century who invented the term "capitalism" as a label for that system.
Outside of incoherent, fantasies the neither exist in the real world or stand up to much examination even in theory -- fantasies constructed largely as a propaganda to defend that coercive, cronyistic system from its critics -- nothing else but coercive, cronyism-dominated systems has ever been referred to with the label "capitalism".
I mean if efficiency leads to no one having jobs and thus cash to buy anything. That sounds like a broken system to me.
>It works until you run out of consumers with cash, at which point it no longer works.
edit: spelling
>It works until you run out of consumers with cash, at which point it no longer works.
edit: spelling
Having an economy dominated by private, profit-seeking businesses isn't really the problem here. For example, communist societies also face some awkwardness when there isn't enough work to go around, albeit to a lesser degree. The fundamental problem is the assumption that people have to work to live.
Why would i run out of money if i pay half of what i pay to a normal guard.. would i not be saving more money? there is more money to spend on more gadgets :)
thats how the economy works
thats how the economy works
You would have money. The people who used to work the security positions would not have money, and it's an open question whether your consumption of many products (such as food) could keep up the consumption rates to justify the production to keep the market operating at its current flow levels. If they can't, the market would have to contract, which means if what you're guarding is a food store, you may also find yourself out of a job because we no longer need to guard the food nobody is buying. This is how Great Depressions occur.
And that's just looking at the numbers. Stepping away from the simulation and getting into what it represents, we realize we're looking at a situation where some people have the money to do whatever they want and many, many more starve. If the system is structured to make that happen, the system is flawed by several quite reasonable metrics.
And that's just looking at the numbers. Stepping away from the simulation and getting into what it represents, we realize we're looking at a situation where some people have the money to do whatever they want and many, many more starve. If the system is structured to make that happen, the system is flawed by several quite reasonable metrics.
Where do you get your money? I'm assuming from customers paying you. But customers will only pay you as long as they have money. If the trend toward this kind of automation keeps going, then the number of customers with money will keep shrinking and shrinking.
From your perspective, it's pretty black and white. However, from society's perspective, it's pretty nuanced. What are the people who would have taken that guard position going to do now? They have to eat and pay rent too. Some might be able to go study and get better jobs, but many will not. They simply may not have the economic freedom to not have a job and go study, which is a HUGE luxury. So what is to become of them?
But again, there is no shortage of engineers as the article says. The only problem is the quality. Atleast from what i saw in India people just take computer science as a degree because it pays more, not because they love to code.. There is a problem with this kind of people. People who LOVE what they do always over take people who dont.
Well, the distinction between those that love what they do and those that don't isn't the only way to slice things. You don't have to love what you do to want to conduct yourself in a professional manner. Even if you aren't passionate about your work, so long as you take pride in it you won't be producing "crap code."
There is a shortage of experienced engineers willing to work for an entry-level salary. Also there is "change your job for this fantastic opportunity - we gonna give you a 10% raise max".
Somehow nobody is discussing a shortage of CEOs... Maybe because they are compensated fairly?
Somehow nobody is discussing a shortage of CEOs... Maybe because they are compensated fairly?
I think we need this to happen. We need McDonald's to move to an entirely robotic store. We need every store to mechanize every thing they possibly can.
That way we can increase our efficiency as a country by multitudes and get on with the nasty part of Universal Base Income.
It has to happen. And for America, as a competitive nation, the sooner the better.
That way we can increase our efficiency as a country by multitudes and get on with the nasty part of Universal Base Income.
It has to happen. And for America, as a competitive nation, the sooner the better.
>That way we can increase our efficiency as a country...
How are you measuring efficiency here? If it makes sense to hire someone to do something and instead you go entirely robotic, that's the less efficient way to do something.
How are you measuring efficiency here? If it makes sense to hire someone to do something and instead you go entirely robotic, that's the less efficient way to do something.
Seriously? You honestly think that the political landscape is anywhere closer to accepting that kind of socialism? I'm gonna tell you right now that it's not. And even if that automation happens, it's not going to change anything regarding UBI.
Here's the problem: If the automation happens before UBI gets into place, you are condemning those people to incredibly poor lives, and possibly homelessness and starvation.
Here's the problem: If the automation happens before UBI gets into place, you are condemning those people to incredibly poor lives, and possibly homelessness and starvation.
>Seriously? You honestly think that the political landscape is anywhere closer to accepting that kind of socialism?
If businesses start automating everything, unemployment skyrockets, they're going to be pushed there. They won't have a choice. What do you predict? Half the country is unemployed, poverty is rampant, chaos in the streets, the fatcats in Washington and 1% just sit back and do nothing?
>And even if that automation happens, it's not going to change anything regarding UBI.
It has to.
>Here's the problem: If the automation happens before UBI gets into place, you are condemning those people to incredibly poor lives, and possibly homelessness and starvation.
Here's the problem: UBI won't get into place without automation. If it were up to me, I'd have it right now. But it's going to take motivation by SELF-INTEREST for people to realize that it HAS to happen. That self-interest? The generally deplorable state of their country.
I just want society to progress, that's all. If we were running this country effectively many of the inventions we are only seeing come to market today would have been here long ago. Greed holds us back, greed drives us forward. So let's stop letting it hold us back, let's push for automation, and then watch the chips fall from there.
If you don't think automation will change anything, how do you think it will change without automation? Isn't that what you're proposing?
If businesses start automating everything, unemployment skyrockets, they're going to be pushed there. They won't have a choice. What do you predict? Half the country is unemployed, poverty is rampant, chaos in the streets, the fatcats in Washington and 1% just sit back and do nothing?
>And even if that automation happens, it's not going to change anything regarding UBI.
It has to.
>Here's the problem: If the automation happens before UBI gets into place, you are condemning those people to incredibly poor lives, and possibly homelessness and starvation.
Here's the problem: UBI won't get into place without automation. If it were up to me, I'd have it right now. But it's going to take motivation by SELF-INTEREST for people to realize that it HAS to happen. That self-interest? The generally deplorable state of their country.
I just want society to progress, that's all. If we were running this country effectively many of the inventions we are only seeing come to market today would have been here long ago. Greed holds us back, greed drives us forward. So let's stop letting it hold us back, let's push for automation, and then watch the chips fall from there.
If you don't think automation will change anything, how do you think it will change without automation? Isn't that what you're proposing?
I hate to be that guy, but the people he'll be condemning are most likely the exact same people so opposed to UBI. I have never seen so many "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" as I have in American trailer parks. The most vocal "anti-socialism-anything" crowd is the exact same crowd that would benefit from UBI.
And honestly, that America deserves a rough wake-up call more than any other group. And the sooner it happens, the better.
And honestly, that America deserves a rough wake-up call more than any other group. And the sooner it happens, the better.
America has the most job openings in 15 years - http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/09/news/economy/us-job-opening-...
Not per capita it doesn't. Come on, that's a novice error.
The chart on the first page of his link is "Job openings rate" which graphs the number of job opening by percentage of the population per year. How is that not per capita?
What chart? The linked PDF goes back to May 2012. The title claims 15 years.
What's the median wage of those jobs?
[deleted]
Last year I was working on trying to fix this - the constantly changing skill gap, specially in Software. My idea was that users could choose what they want to do, what they already know. And algorithmically show them what exactly they need to do. Stopped working on it for personal reaons. Would love feedback - FillSkills.com. While still lots to do on the backend, the UI is represntative of what I wanted to do.
Still, if you have brains, it is much easier and less risky to make a decent living by becoming a doctor, or a lawyer.
I don't think becoming a doctor or a lawyer are easy or low-risk. You have to go through years of school after which you are faced with a high probability of being unemployed. If you do find a job, you're likely going to work a crushing number of hours.
Isn't the lawyer profession way over-saturated right now?
In one sense, yes. On the other hand, many people take law degrees without any intention of working directly as lawyers, so "it's complicated"
Really, it doesn't make any sense to lump the two careers together (at least in the US), anymore.
Really, it doesn't make any sense to lump the two careers together (at least in the US), anymore.
What if your 'risk/reward' was based off 'happiness' instead of financial gain?
I know I wouldn't be able stomach a 5+ year law degree and practice law for the rest of my life and be happy. I'd rather do something with numbers.
I know I wouldn't be able stomach a 5+ year law degree and practice law for the rest of my life and be happy. I'd rather do something with numbers.
I for one welcome our robot overlords. As a member of the technical class, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
But seriously, the Luddite argument has been debunked many times. There's no reason to think this time it's any different. (for example: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite...)
That doesn't mean there aren't real issues:
1. The inflexibility of the labor market makes it harder for those who have lost their jobs to find new ones. Further, if a company does not have the option to fire someone relatively easily (and cheaply), they will be less willing to take a chance on someone who may not exactly fit all of their criteria.
2. A monolithic, Prussian-inspired state educational system has not responded well to imparting new skills to people (or even basic competency, in some cases). Math and science curricula are notoriously weak in the U.S., yet that is where the growth and the high-paying jobs are. There are also opportunities in the trades, but these have been cut from most schools.
But seriously, the Luddite argument has been debunked many times. There's no reason to think this time it's any different. (for example: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite...)
That doesn't mean there aren't real issues:
1. The inflexibility of the labor market makes it harder for those who have lost their jobs to find new ones. Further, if a company does not have the option to fire someone relatively easily (and cheaply), they will be less willing to take a chance on someone who may not exactly fit all of their criteria.
2. A monolithic, Prussian-inspired state educational system has not responded well to imparting new skills to people (or even basic competency, in some cases). Math and science curricula are notoriously weak in the U.S., yet that is where the growth and the high-paying jobs are. There are also opportunities in the trades, but these have been cut from most schools.
But to get to the higher-quality jobs, you generally need experience. Not many employers are willing to hire someone and put him in a responsible position based off their potential alone. It follows, then, that we need substantial number of entry level positions to, so to speak, open the door for future potent workers.
But those doors are closing at an alarming rate.
Consider law firms. Discovery work(going through past records to find cases of relevance, law clauses of relevance) that used to be the "first year" work, is almost exclusively done by software. It's cheaper and more accurate. We may still need more quality lawyers, but as we remove the uses for inexperienced lawyers, we are decreasing the number of future experienced lawyers.
Translation used to be a very non-trivial work. Not just for heavy-publishing prose or fiction, but even for simple phrases, if the need was great enough, we would hire an entry level translator. Now we would generally use Google translate for a phrase or two because it was "good enough" at a marginal price.
The problem for prospect high-earning society isn't that software is eating jobs. As long as we are vain and greedy to aspire for higher quality, we will have those sophisticated jobs. The problem is that we are eating entry-level jobs, and in turn, creating an artificial scarce supply of "experienced" workers.
And those "experienced" workers, now that they have put their foot into the door, and with the huge demand for work to be done, will enjoy the job market(aren't we all, as developers?), but what of those that are left, for no fault of their own?