I Worked at an Amazon Fulfillment Center; They Treat Workers Like Robots

[Half-Life]

I've had kids who worked in warehouses before, but none as inhumane as Amazon's warehouses. The work is monotonous, dirty, dusty, boring, repetitive and not kind to bodies or brains. Those are not bad jobs to move to robots. It would be better and more humane to mandate improvement to workers' working conditions. It is common in my town for factory employees to have mandatory overtime on an unpredictable schedule, and to have 20 minute meal breaks along with poor working conditions, low wages and the ever present threat of being fired/factory sold if a union comes in. Where there are unions, they are extremely weak and virtually powerless. This is possible because this town is relatively isolated and because for the most part, factory owners all offer very similar work conditions and compensation packages that really, truly suck. Very little choice is around for most people without professional degrees unless you are willing to drive more than an hour each way, 4-6 months of the year, risking that commute time doubling due to blizzards. This is a serious problem. Workers today are treated like disposable cups: use 'em and toss 'em and buy/hire a replacement for just as cheap or cheaper.

For a time, I worked in a clinical laboratory and during my tenure there, I saw an increase in the number of tests that moved from manual platforms to automated platforms that really just needed humans to load the machines with samples and reagents, monitor and maintain the instruments and monitor and release results. Much of that became more automated over a period of only a few short years. It made my job less interesting but also made the results more rapid and, by some measures, possibly more reliable because it removed much of the potential for human error. These are good things, but it will ultimately reduce the need for some kinds of lab technologists and lab workers.

It isn't a bad idea to replace human workers with automated workerbots where it reduces human exposure to hazardous materials and substances--where the use of those hazardous materials and substances cannot be completely eliminated.

The issue is how society will find ways to employ those who formerly did some of these repetitive, body/brain/soul killing jobs with jobs that allow them to be healthier and better engaged in their lives and society.

Unions certainly are a big problem. We wouldn't have a national debt if it wasn't for unions. Our national debt is 22 trillion and unions are estimated to have lost 50 trillion since the 50's. Leftists won't tell you this though.

 

[Toni]

I've had kids who worked in warehouses before, but none as inhumane as Amazon's warehouses. The work is monotonous, dirty, dusty, boring, repetitive and not kind to bodies or brains. Those are not bad jobs to move to robots. It would be better and more humane to mandate improvement to workers' working conditions. It is common in my town for factory employees to have mandatory overtime on an unpredictable schedule, and to have 20 minute meal breaks along with poor working conditions, low wages and the ever present threat of being fired/factory sold if a union comes in. Where there are unions, they are extremely weak and virtually powerless. This is possible because this town is relatively isolated and because for the most part, factory owners all offer very similar work conditions and compensation packages that really, truly suck. Very little choice is around for most people without professional degrees unless you are willing to drive more than an hour each way, 4-6 months of the year, risking that commute time doubling due to blizzards. This is a serious problem. Workers today are treated like disposable cups: use 'em and toss 'em and buy/hire a replacement for just as cheap or cheaper.

For a time, I worked in a clinical laboratory and during my tenure there, I saw an increase in the number of tests that moved from manual platforms to automated platforms that really just needed humans to load the machines with samples and reagents, monitor and maintain the instruments and monitor and release results. Much of that became more automated over a period of only a few short years. It made my job less interesting but also made the results more rapid and, by some measures, possibly more reliable because it removed much of the potential for human error. These are good things, but it will ultimately reduce the need for some kinds of lab technologists and lab workers.

It isn't a bad idea to replace human workers with automated workerbots where it reduces human exposure to hazardous materials and substances--where the use of those hazardous materials and substances cannot be completely eliminated.

The issue is how society will find ways to employ those who formerly did some of these repetitive, body/brain/soul killing jobs with jobs that allow them to be healthier and better engaged in their lives and society.

Unions certainly are a big problem. We wouldn't have a national debt if it wasn't for unions. Our national debt is 22 trillion and unions are estimated to have lost 50 trillion since the 50's. Leftists won't tell you this though.

Wow. I confess that no one (until now) has tried to sell me on such a steaming pile of shit about unions before—not even my conservative friends and family.

 

[bilby]

Large company, low level job. Is there any place like that that doesn't treat them like robots?

And 15 miles a day is a big deal to those who aren't used to it but I've met hikers who do it for fun--and over uneven terrain with a lot of elevation change. Just yesterday I encountered a woman on the trails that was doing roughly 19 miles--with about 5,600' of climb involved.

JFC, why did you post this?

You've been posting here long enough to know that a thread without a contrary personal anecdote of Loren's just isn't a thread of worth at all.

Well, his wife has yet to make an appearance, so the jury's still out on the worth of this one.

 

[Half-Life]

Wow. I confess that no one (until now) has tried to sell me on such a steaming pile of shit about unions before—not even my conservative friends and family.

http://www.deltafa.org/pdf_library/do unions help the economy.pdf

"An even more dramatic statement of the economic cost of unions is provided by cumulating the lost income and output over the entire 54-year period under consideration. The result exceeds $50 trillion(1992–1994 prices), a breath-taking total."

Look no further for the people who hate America: Union workers.

 

[bilby]

If your skillset can be replaced by a robot, then you should be thankful anyone has any use for your work efforts at all... and your focus should be on increasing your value beyond an arm on a dolly.

Yeah, the problem with this sentiment is that most people are going to be replaceable by robots in a rapidly approaching world. It's coming for everyone. And you can't just expect all these people to become software engineers (most of the roles where that would even be realistic are rapidly being automated away as well...).


So, "sucks to be you" is one way you can look at things, I suppose.

Honestly, I don't care. I don't have kids and I'm not going to have kids.

Having machines do all the work should be a recipe for universal prosperity and leisure.

That it's a disaster is an indictment of a society that is configured to treat most people like shit for being idle against their will, while massively over-rewarding a tiny proportion of idle people who had grandparents who won the lottery of wealth accumulation (usually by having a single good idea, plus a selfish attitude and a supportive family).

This is not a healthy way to run a technologically advanced society.

People whose jobs are replaced by machines are not undeserving of the income they no longer command.

 

[Half-Life]

If your skillset can be replaced by a robot, then you should be thankful anyone has any use for your work efforts at all... and your focus should be on increasing your value beyond an arm on a dolly.

Yeah, the problem with this sentiment is that most people are going to be replaceable by robots in a rapidly approaching world. It's coming for everyone. And you can't just expect all these people to become software engineers (most of the roles where that would even be realistic are rapidly being automated away as well...).


So, "sucks to be you" is one way you can look at things, I suppose.

Honestly, I don't care. I don't have kids and I'm not going to have kids.

Having machines do all the work should be a recipe for universal prosperity and leisure.

That it's a disaster is an indictment of a society that is configured to treat most people like shit for being idle against their will, while massively over-rewarding a tiny proportion of idle people who had grandparents who won the lottery of wealth accumulation (usually by having a single good idea, plus a selfish attitude and a supportive family).

This is not a healthy way to run a technologically advanced society.

People whose jobs are replaced by machines are not undeserving of the income they no longer command.

Yeah the robots can do their jobs now! So this means all the people should just stay at work watching the robots all day and still get paid for it! Brilliant!

 

[Toni]

Wow. I confess that no one (until now) has tried to sell me on such a steaming pile of shit about unions before—not even my conservative friends and family.

http://www.deltafa.org/pdf_library/do unions help the economy.pdf

"An even more dramatic statement of the economic cost of unions is provided by cumulating the lost income and output over the entire 54-year period under consideration. The result exceeds $50 trillion(1992–1994 prices), a breath-taking total."

Look no further for the people who hate America: Union workers.

Probably not a single one of my economist friends (and I have a number) would agree with Vedder's conclusion. Vedder, btw, teaches at or taught at a university where he was covered by a (gasp) union contract.

 

[Half-Life]

Probably not a single one of my economist friends (and I have a number) would agree with Vedder's conclusion. Vedder, btw, teaches at or taught at a university where he was covered by a (gasp) union contract.

So you think he fudged the numbers? Doubtful. It's just such a shocking number for our economy to lose that it's disgraceful. I know what unions are. They are unfair. You can't get fired for working as slow as you want and promotion is based on who was at the company the longest, NOT on who is most qualified.

So, hypothetically, if I worked at a company for 5 years and I'm one of the worst workers there, and someone else shows up and after a month he's faster than I am, he wont get considered for the promotion. I would because I was there for 5 years.

 

[ZiprHead]

I've had kids who worked in warehouses before, but none as inhumane as Amazon's warehouses. The work is monotonous, dirty, dusty, boring, repetitive and not kind to bodies or brains. Those are not bad jobs to move to robots. It would be better and more humane to mandate improvement to workers' working conditions. It is common in my town for factory employees to have mandatory overtime on an unpredictable schedule, and to have 20 minute meal breaks along with poor working conditions, low wages and the ever present threat of being fired/factory sold if a union comes in. Where there are unions, they are extremely weak and virtually powerless. This is possible because this town is relatively isolated and because for the most part, factory owners all offer very similar work conditions and compensation packages that really, truly suck. Very little choice is around for most people without professional degrees unless you are willing to drive more than an hour each way, 4-6 months of the year, risking that commute time doubling due to blizzards. This is a serious problem. Workers today are treated like disposable cups: use 'em and toss 'em and buy/hire a replacement for just as cheap or cheaper.

For a time, I worked in a clinical laboratory and during my tenure there, I saw an increase in the number of tests that moved from manual platforms to automated platforms that really just needed humans to load the machines with samples and reagents, monitor and maintain the instruments and monitor and release results. Much of that became more automated over a period of only a few short years. It made my job less interesting but also made the results more rapid and, by some measures, possibly more reliable because it removed much of the potential for human error. These are good things, but it will ultimately reduce the need for some kinds of lab technologists and lab workers.

It isn't a bad idea to replace human workers with automated workerbots where it reduces human exposure to hazardous materials and substances--where the use of those hazardous materials and substances cannot be completely eliminated.

The issue is how society will find ways to employ those who formerly did some of these repetitive, body/brain/soul killing jobs with jobs that allow them to be healthier and better engaged in their lives and society.

Unions certainly are a big problem. We wouldn't have a national debt if it wasn't for unions. Our national debt is 22 trillion and unions are estimated to have lost 50 trillion since the 50's. Leftists won't tell you this though.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[ZiprHead]

Wow. I confess that no one (until now) has tried to sell me on such a steaming pile of shit about unions before—not even my conservative friends and family.

http://www.deltafa.org/pdf_library/do unions help the economy.pdf

"An even more dramatic statement of the economic cost of unions is provided by cumulating the lost income and output over the entire 54-year period under consideration. The result exceeds $50 trillion(1992–1994 prices), a breath-taking total."

Look no further for the people who hate America: Union workers.

National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC)* is a front group and industry funded right-wing political and policy lobbying organization. NLPC was founded in 1991 by Peter Flaherty and Ken Boehm, who previously worked for "Citizens for Reagan".[1]

*The people that wrote the report you cited.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Legal_and_Policy_Center

People making $250 an hour convincing people making $25 an hour that low wage workers and unions are the problem.

 

[Half-Life]

WTF are you talking about?

If we had no unions, we would have never lost $50 trillion. This means we would be $28 trillion UP instead of DOWN.

 

[Half-Life]

National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC)* is a front group and industry funded right-wing political and policy lobbying organization. NLPC was founded in 1991 by Peter Flaherty and Ken Boehm, who previously worked for "Citizens for Reagan".[1]

*The people that wrote the report you cited.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Legal_and_Policy_Center

People making $250 and hour convincing people making $25 and hour that low wage workers are the problem.

But unions lost $50 trillion! I highly doubt they are making up these numbers.

And what is wrong with a right-wing source? Should I be using left-wing sources to get a clear fair picture?

And why would people making $250 an hour care about people making $25 an hour? It's always the reverse! People who make $25 are crapping on the people who make $250! If I was making $250 an hour, I wouldn't care if someone was making $25 an hour.

 

[ZiprHead]

National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC)* is a front group and industry funded right-wing political and policy lobbying organization. NLPC was founded in 1991 by Peter Flaherty and Ken Boehm, who previously worked for "Citizens for Reagan".[1]

*The people that wrote the report you cited.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Legal_and_Policy_Center

People making $250 and hour convincing people making $25 and hour that low wage workers are the problem.

But unions lost $50 trillion! I highly doubt they are making up these numbers.

And what is wrong with a right-wing source? Should I be using left-wing sources to get a clear fair picture?

And why would people making $250 an hour care about people making $25 an hour? It's always the reverse! People who make $25 are crapping on the people who make $250! If I was making $250 an hour, I wouldn't care if someone was making $25 an hour.

Money doesn't get lost. It always goes somewhere so your first point is already ridiculous.

I'm not going to read an anti-union industry inspired hit piece. It's almost assured to be bullshit. See the sentence above.

And of course you're misinterpreting my last point. The people running NLPC probably make $250/hr if not more. They've convinced you, a person that makes $25 (although I doubt it) that it's low wage workers and unions that are ruining your life. In other words, just like the orange idiot in the White House did to you, you've been conned.

 

[Toni]

National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC)* is a front group and industry funded right-wing political and policy lobbying organization. NLPC was founded in 1991 by Peter Flaherty and Ken Boehm, who previously worked for "Citizens for Reagan".[1]

*The people that wrote the report you cited.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Legal_and_Policy_Center

People making $250 and hour convincing people making $25 and hour that low wage workers are the problem.

But unions lost $50 trillion! I highly doubt they are making up these numbers.

And what is wrong with a right-wing source? Should I be using left-wing sources to get a clear fair picture?

And why would people making $250 an hour care about people making $25 an hour? It's always the reverse! People who make $25 are crapping on the people who make $250! If I was making $250 an hour, I wouldn't care if someone was making $25 an hour.

I haven't read the entire piece you wrote but there are certainly economists who have data as convincing that unions have added much more value to the US than they cost.

 

[bilby]

Having machines do all the work should be a recipe for universal prosperity and leisure.

That it's a disaster is an indictment of a society that is configured to treat most people like shit for being idle against their will, while massively over-rewarding a tiny proportion of idle people who had grandparents who won the lottery of wealth accumulation (usually by having a single good idea, plus a selfish attitude and a supportive family).

This is not a healthy way to run a technologically advanced society.

People whose jobs are replaced by machines are not undeserving of the income they no longer command.

Yeah the robots can do their jobs now! So this means all the people should just stay at work watching the robots all day and still get paid for it! Brilliant!

No, the people should be paid to do something else^TM.

Not something productive - that's already being done by the robots - just whatever they feel like doing. Take a college course for the sheer joy of learning something new (rather than as a means to a "productive" job). Sculpt. Paint. Write poerty. Go surfing. Go out to nice restaurants with friends and family. Whatever they feel like doing.

There's a minimum amount of basic stuff. "Essentials": clean water, basic clothing, food, shelter, healthcare, etc. that people need to survive. Back in the middle ages, about eighty percent of the population had to devote their entire lives to these things (mostly growing food), in order for everyone to be able to just live. The remaining twenty percent were able to do something else, which almost invariably meant making "luxury" goods - stuff people wanted, but which they didn't need for survival: Fine clothes, jewlery, furniture, beer, wine and mead, art, music, all that stuff.

These "luxuries" were mostly consumed by the wealthiest few percent of aristocrats and royals; Though some of the middle class artisans were also able to afford some of them.

Fast forward to the 1950s, and the industrial revolution, plus the innovations in manufacturing and technology fostered by two world wars, mean that only a few percent of the population are needed to make all the "essentials". Everyone else is making "luxuries", and the world is a fantastic place. Ordinary people live lives that medieval kings would envy. Everyone has a job making luxuries (or supporting their manufacture), because while there has been some mechanisation, there's not enough to supply all the luxuries people can afford - and with full employment, people can all afford some luxuries.

But then it goes to shit. Automation increases, and now only twenty percent of the population need to work in order to produce BOTH essentials AND luxuries for everyone. And so people are employed in "bullshit jobs" that achieve little or nothing; Or worse, are not employed at all. But society is geared to the assumption that everyone can do something productive. So it denies luxuries (or even essentials) to those who don't - which was an important safeguard against freeloaders, in an economy where it was beneficial for everyone to be productive.

And by denying the ability to demand goods (through not providing an income) this highly automated society breaks down. Demand collapses, leading to less need for productive workers, and hence to further reductions in demand.

The need is there. The desire to buy both luxuries and essentials still abides; But a large fraction of society cannot realise that desire into demand, because they have no money.

And they have no money, because freeloaders are penalized by the structure of the economy. And that structure was put in place because without everyone being productive, society couldn't produce all the luxuries people might want.

But now it can. Automation has created the conditions for a post-scarcity society. But economics is structured with the assumption of scarcity.

Money is a signal. It says "The bearer is allowed stuff to this value". By allowing people to be poor, we deny them the ability to signal the economy to make the stuff they need or want. But as the economy is now able to make that stuff whether or not they work to "earn" it, this becomes needless cruelty.

A common solution to the lack of liquidity in a market is to lower interest rates. This allows the creation of money, as people borrow to do stuff that they wouldn't have bothered to do if money was more expensive. If too much money is created, inflation can be reigned in either by raising interest rates, or by removing money from the economy by taxation.

But now we have interest rates that are at or near zero; And historically low tax rates - but still the economy refuses to boom, and inflation remains so low that deflation becomes a threat.

The solution? Stop trying to lend money to wealthy people (who don't want to borrow it); And instead "lend" it to poor people.

Of course, that's not commercially viable. But governments don't need to be commercially viable. They can "lend" money for an indefinite term at zero interest to all people whose income is below a given threshold. (This is more commonly known as "benefits" or even "handouts").

But the fact is that the boost to the economy from a big cash handout to the poor would be massive. And would almost certainly pay for itself in the long run - some of those "loans" would be repayed with handsome interest, in the form of increased tax revenues in the economic boom that would result.

We can easily afford to pay people to just do something else^TM. We just need to get off this outdated idea that everyone must be productive.

In fact, we already tolerate a large fraction of the population living unproductive lives of pure leisure - retirees and children being the major classes of such "leeches".

We can easily afford for a far larger fraction of society to live this way. We just need to give them money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If your skillset can be replaced by a robot, then you should be thankful anyone has any use for your work efforts at all... and your focus should be on increasing your value beyond an arm on a dolly.

Do you have any idea how many jobs have been automated away or become redundant through contraction? While higher tech jobs are around, job growth isn't what it used to be, as computers and connectivity continue to absorb more and more jobs.

Remember the 1980s movie Norma Rae with Sally Field as the Union organizer? That type of factory - a textile mill that used to employ 2000 workers in 1980s now employs 125 - the rest is done by robot. Until recently these mills were closed until manufacturers like American Giant helped reopen them. Story Here

It's not an easy answer - many of these manual jobs moved to China and other places overseas for cheap labor and to avoid the unions. As they return they are fewer and need high tech skilled workers.

And most of them never left in the first place, they were simply replaced by high tech workers dealing with the machinery that's now doing the job.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Software Engineer" is not the only job that takes experience, intelligence, and creativity.

I actually think that the effort to build a robot that has the manual dexterity of the human hand is a harder problem to solve than building an AI to take care of the majority of software engineering tasks. Software people are highly paid because there's a lot of domain specific knowledge that needs to be acquired to work in the field, but the majority of the work is dealing with routine boilerplate stuff.

So the question really is, are you going to welcome your new robot overlords?

The boilerplate stuff has been reducing the number of programmers needed (but the explosion of things using code has increased the demand even more than this) but I think we are a very long way from AI threatening the heart of the profession. What has been happening is the building blocks from which we assemble our programs are getting better and better but that's all, the heart of the job is untouched. It requires a lot of understanding and basically everything is a one-off. It's the one-off type jobs that are most resistant to AI replacement.

 

[Half-Life]

Having machines do all the work should be a recipe for universal prosperity and leisure.

That it's a disaster is an indictment of a society that is configured to treat most people like shit for being idle against their will, while massively over-rewarding a tiny proportion of idle people who had grandparents who won the lottery of wealth accumulation (usually by having a single good idea, plus a selfish attitude and a supportive family).

This is not a healthy way to run a technologically advanced society.

People whose jobs are replaced by machines are not undeserving of the income they no longer command.

Yeah the robots can do their jobs now! So this means all the people should just stay at work watching the robots all day and still get paid for it! Brilliant!

No, the people should be paid to do something else^TM.

Not something productive - that's already being done by the robots - just whatever they feel like doing. Take a college course for the sheer joy of learning something new (rather than as a means to a "productive" job). Sculpt. Paint. Write poerty. Go surfing. Go out to nice restaurants with friends and family. Whatever they feel like doing.

There's a minimum amount of basic stuff. "Essentials": clean water, basic clothing, food, shelter, healthcare, etc. that people need to survive. Back in the middle ages, about eighty percent of the population had to devote their entire lives to these things (mostly growing food), in order for everyone to be able to just live. The remaining twenty percent were able to do something else, which almost invariably meant making "luxury" goods - stuff people wanted, but which they didn't need for survival: Fine clothes, jewlery, furniture, beer, wine and mead, art, music, all that stuff.

These "luxuries" were mostly consumed by the wealthiest few percent of aristocrats and royals; Though some of the middle class artisans were also able to afford some of them.

Fast forward to the 1950s, and the industrial revolution, plus the innovations in manufacturing and technology fostered by two world wars, mean that only a few percent of the population are needed to make all the "essentials". Everyone else is making "luxuries", and the world is a fantastic place. Ordinary people live lives that medieval kings would envy. Everyone has a job making luxuries (or supporting their manufacture), because while there has been some mechanisation, there's not enough to supply all the luxuries people can afford - and with full employment, people can all afford some luxuries.

But then it goes to shit. Automation increases, and now only twenty percent of the population need to work in order to produce BOTH essentials AND luxuries for everyone. And so people are employed in "bullshit jobs" that achieve little or nothing; Or worse, are not employed at all. But society is geared to the assumption that everyone can do something productive. So it denies luxuries (or even essentials) to those who don't - which was an important safeguard against freeloaders, in an economy where it was beneficial for everyone to be productive.

And by denying the ability to demand goods (through not providing an income) this highly automated society breaks down. Demand collapses, leading to less need for productive workers, and hence to further reductions in demand.

The need is there. The desire to buy both luxuries and essentials still abides; But a large fraction of society cannot realise that desire into demand, because they have no money.

And they have no money, because freeloaders are penalized by the structure of the economy. And that structure was put in place because without everyone being productive, society couldn't produce all the luxuries people might want.

But now it can. Automation has created the conditions for a post-scarcity society. But economics is structured with the assumption of scarcity.

Money is a signal. It says "The bearer is allowed stuff to this value". By allowing people to be poor, we deny them the ability to signal the economy to make the stuff they need or want. But as the economy is now able to make that stuff whether or not they work to "earn" it, this becomes needless cruelty.

A common solution to the lack of liquidity in a market is to lower interest rates. This allows the creation of money, as people borrow to do stuff that they wouldn't have bothered to do if money was more expensive. If too much money is created, inflation can be reigned in either by raising interest rates, or by removing money from the economy by taxation.

But now we have interest rates that are at or near zero; And historically low tax rates - but still the economy refuses to boom, and inflation remains so low that deflation becomes a threat.

The solution? Stop trying to lend money to wealthy people (who don't want to borrow it); And instead "lend" it to poor people.

Of course, that's not commercially viable. But governments don't need to be commercially viable. They can "lend" money for an indefinite term at zero interest to all people whose income is below a given threshold. (This is more commonly known as "benefits" or even "handouts").

But the fact is that the boost to the economy from a big cash handout to the poor would be massive. And would almost certainly pay for itself in the long run - some of those "loans" would be repayed with handsome interest, in the form of increased tax revenues in the economic boom that would result.

We can easily afford to pay people to just do something else^TM. We just need to get off this outdated idea that everyone must be productive.

In fact, we already tolerate a large fraction of the population living unproductive lives of pure leisure - retirees and children being the major classes of such "leeches".

We can easily afford for a far larger fraction of society to live this way. We just need to give them money.

Thank you for typing all that. With that being said, I would like to say that giving people money to do nothing is not very smart. You'd have a big portion of the population that will just spend it on booze and drugs, even more so than they do now. This will increase addiction. Give an addict 1,000 dollars a month from UBI and no job and he will be high and drunk all day every day.

We need more educated people. But sadly, we live in a society where 40 year olds work at McDonald's demanding more money.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, the people should be paid to do something else^TM.

Not something productive - that's already being done by the robots - just whatever they feel like doing. Take a college course for the sheer joy of learning something new (rather than as a means to a "productive" job). Sculpt. Paint. Write poerty. Go surfing. Go out to nice restaurants with friends and family. Whatever they feel like doing.

There's a minimum amount of basic stuff. "Essentials": clean water, basic clothing, food, shelter, healthcare, etc. that people need to survive. Back in the middle ages, about eighty percent of the population had to devote their entire lives to these things (mostly growing food), in order for everyone to be able to just live. The remaining twenty percent were able to do something else, which almost invariably meant making "luxury" goods - stuff people wanted, but which they didn't need for survival: Fine clothes, jewlery, furniture, beer, wine and mead, art, music, all that stuff.

These "luxuries" were mostly consumed by the wealthiest few percent of aristocrats and royals; Though some of the middle class artisans were also able to afford some of them.

Fast forward to the 1950s, and the industrial revolution, plus the innovations in manufacturing and technology fostered by two world wars, mean that only a few percent of the population are needed to make all the "essentials". Everyone else is making "luxuries", and the world is a fantastic place. Ordinary people live lives that medieval kings would envy. Everyone has a job making luxuries (or supporting their manufacture), because while there has been some mechanisation, there's not enough to supply all the luxuries people can afford - and with full employment, people can all afford some luxuries.

But then it goes to shit. Automation increases, and now only twenty percent of the population need to work in order to produce BOTH essentials AND luxuries for everyone. And so people are employed in "bullshit jobs" that achieve little or nothing; Or worse, are not employed at all. But society is geared to the assumption that everyone can do something productive. So it denies luxuries (or even essentials) to those who don't - which was an important safeguard against freeloaders, in an economy where it was beneficial for everyone to be productive.

And by denying the ability to demand goods (through not providing an income) this highly automated society breaks down. Demand collapses, leading to less need for productive workers, and hence to further reductions in demand.

The need is there. The desire to buy both luxuries and essentials still abides; But a large fraction of society cannot realise that desire into demand, because they have no money.

And they have no money, because freeloaders are penalized by the structure of the economy. And that structure was put in place because without everyone being productive, society couldn't produce all the luxuries people might want.

But now it can. Automation has created the conditions for a post-scarcity society. But economics is structured with the assumption of scarcity.

Money is a signal. It says "The bearer is allowed stuff to this value". By allowing people to be poor, we deny them the ability to signal the economy to make the stuff they need or want. But as the economy is now able to make that stuff whether or not they work to "earn" it, this becomes needless cruelty.

A common solution to the lack of liquidity in a market is to lower interest rates. This allows the creation of money, as people borrow to do stuff that they wouldn't have bothered to do if money was more expensive. If too much money is created, inflation can be reigned in either by raising interest rates, or by removing money from the economy by taxation.

But now we have interest rates that are at or near zero; And historically low tax rates - but still the economy refuses to boom, and inflation remains so low that deflation becomes a threat.

The solution? Stop trying to lend money to wealthy people (who don't want to borrow it); And instead "lend" it to poor people.

Of course, that's not commercially viable. But governments don't need to be commercially viable. They can "lend" money for an indefinite term at zero interest to all people whose income is below a given threshold. (This is more commonly known as "benefits" or even "handouts").

But the fact is that the boost to the economy from a big cash handout to the poor would be massive. And would almost certainly pay for itself in the long run - some of those "loans" would be repayed with handsome interest, in the form of increased tax revenues in the economic boom that would result.

We can easily afford to pay people to just do something else^TM. We just need to get off this outdated idea that everyone must be productive.

In fact, we already tolerate a large fraction of the population living unproductive lives of pure leisure - retirees and children being the major classes of such "leeches".

We can easily afford for a far larger fraction of society to live this way. We just need to give them money.

Thank you for typing all that. With that being said, I would like to say that giving people money to do nothing is not very smart. You'd have a big portion of the population that will just spend it on booze and drugs, even more so than they do now. This will increase addiction. Give an addict 1,000 dollars a month from UBI and no job and he will be high and drunk all day every day.

We need more educated people. But sadly, we live in a society where 40 year olds work at McDonald's demanding more money.

I agree. If you give white people that much money for nothing, they'll do nothing but get high. Because $1,000 a month is more than enough for housing, food, and copious amounts of drugs (mainly sugar pills).

 

[bilby]

No, the people should be paid to do something else^TM.

Not something productive - that's already being done by the robots - just whatever they feel like doing. Take a college course for the sheer joy of learning something new (rather than as a means to a "productive" job). Sculpt. Paint. Write poerty. Go surfing. Go out to nice restaurants with friends and family. Whatever they feel like doing.

There's a minimum amount of basic stuff. "Essentials": clean water, basic clothing, food, shelter, healthcare, etc. that people need to survive. Back in the middle ages, about eighty percent of the population had to devote their entire lives to these things (mostly growing food), in order for everyone to be able to just live. The remaining twenty percent were able to do something else, which almost invariably meant making "luxury" goods - stuff people wanted, but which they didn't need for survival: Fine clothes, jewlery, furniture, beer, wine and mead, art, music, all that stuff.

These "luxuries" were mostly consumed by the wealthiest few percent of aristocrats and royals; Though some of the middle class artisans were also able to afford some of them.

Fast forward to the 1950s, and the industrial revolution, plus the innovations in manufacturing and technology fostered by two world wars, mean that only a few percent of the population are needed to make all the "essentials". Everyone else is making "luxuries", and the world is a fantastic place. Ordinary people live lives that medieval kings would envy. Everyone has a job making luxuries (or supporting their manufacture), because while there has been some mechanisation, there's not enough to supply all the luxuries people can afford - and with full employment, people can all afford some luxuries.

But then it goes to shit. Automation increases, and now only twenty percent of the population need to work in order to produce BOTH essentials AND luxuries for everyone. And so people are employed in "bullshit jobs" that achieve little or nothing; Or worse, are not employed at all. But society is geared to the assumption that everyone can do something productive. So it denies luxuries (or even essentials) to those who don't - which was an important safeguard against freeloaders, in an economy where it was beneficial for everyone to be productive.

And by denying the ability to demand goods (through not providing an income) this highly automated society breaks down. Demand collapses, leading to less need for productive workers, and hence to further reductions in demand.

The need is there. The desire to buy both luxuries and essentials still abides; But a large fraction of society cannot realise that desire into demand, because they have no money.

And they have no money, because freeloaders are penalized by the structure of the economy. And that structure was put in place because without everyone being productive, society couldn't produce all the luxuries people might want.

But now it can. Automation has created the conditions for a post-scarcity society. But economics is structured with the assumption of scarcity.

Money is a signal. It says "The bearer is allowed stuff to this value". By allowing people to be poor, we deny them the ability to signal the economy to make the stuff they need or want. But as the economy is now able to make that stuff whether or not they work to "earn" it, this becomes needless cruelty.

A common solution to the lack of liquidity in a market is to lower interest rates. This allows the creation of money, as people borrow to do stuff that they wouldn't have bothered to do if money was more expensive. If too much money is created, inflation can be reigned in either by raising interest rates, or by removing money from the economy by taxation.

But now we have interest rates that are at or near zero; And historically low tax rates - but still the economy refuses to boom, and inflation remains so low that deflation becomes a threat.

The solution? Stop trying to lend money to wealthy people (who don't want to borrow it); And instead "lend" it to poor people.

Of course, that's not commercially viable. But governments don't need to be commercially viable. They can "lend" money for an indefinite term at zero interest to all people whose income is below a given threshold. (This is more commonly known as "benefits" or even "handouts").

But the fact is that the boost to the economy from a big cash handout to the poor would be massive. And would almost certainly pay for itself in the long run - some of those "loans" would be repayed with handsome interest, in the form of increased tax revenues in the economic boom that would result.

We can easily afford to pay people to just do something else^TM. We just need to get off this outdated idea that everyone must be productive.

In fact, we already tolerate a large fraction of the population living unproductive lives of pure leisure - retirees and children being the major classes of such "leeches".

We can easily afford for a far larger fraction of society to live this way. We just need to give them money.

Thank you for typing all that. With that being said, I would like to say that giving people money to do nothing is not very smart. You'd have a big portion of the population that will just spend it on booze and drugs, even more so than they do now. This will increase addiction. Give an addict 1,000 dollars a month from UBI and no job and he will be high and drunk all day every day.

Which he is today. The difference being that at the moment he robs people instead of just being given the money he wants.

I don't think that there would be as much addiction if people weren't hopeless and poverty stricken - but even if there were more, what's the harm to society? Addicts are a problem for society, because they steal to support their habits. Take away the need to steal, and the problem becomes theirs alone.

We need more educated people.

To do what? We already have more educated people than we have jobs for educated people.

People might benefit from an education, as individuals; but WE don't (as a society) need more than we already have.

But sadly, we live in a society where 40 year olds work at McDonald's demanding more money.

Yeah, that's crazy. The McDonalds jobs should be automated, and the 40 year olds should be given enough money to live comfortably without having to do shit jobs.

And $1,000/month isn't enough. In most places that won't even cover rent and food. There's no need for anyone to be poor in any modern developed nation.