Browse categories:

Hide popular topics:

/r/technology is a place to share and discuss the latest developments, happenings and curiosities in the world of technology; a broad spectrum of conversation as to the innovations, aspirations, applications and machinations that define our age and shape our future.

Rules:

1. Submissions

Guidelines:

Submissions must be primarily news and developments relating to technology

Submissions relating to business and politics must be sufficiently within the context of technology in that they either view the events from a technological standpoint or analyse the repercussions in the technological world.

Please do not submit the following:

i) Submissions violating the guidelines.

ii) Images, audio or videos: Articles with supporting image and video content are allowed; if the text is only there to explain the media, then it is not suitable. A good rule of thumb is to look at the URL; if it's a video hosting site, or mentions video in the URL, it's not suitable.

iii) Requests for tech support, questions or help: submit to /r/techsupport, /r/AskTechnology, another relevant community or our weekly Support Saturday threads.

iv) Petitions, Surveys or Crowdfunding (Including ICOs) - submissions of this nature will be removed.

vii) Mobile versions of sites, url shorteners: please directly submit the desktop version of a webpage in all cases.

viii) Social media links/profiles or promotions (eg. Facebook, Instagram, Pintrest etc). Tweets should not be used as a news source unless an official announcement by a verified company or spokesperson.

2. Behaviour

Remember the human You are advised to abide by reddiquette; it will be enforced when user behaviour is no longer deemed to be suitable for a technology forum. Remember; personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form are therefore not allowed and will be removed.

3. Titles

Submissions must use either the articles title and optionally a subtitle. Or, if neither are accurate, a suitable quote, which must:

Removed threads will either be given a removal reason flair or comment response; please message the moderators if this did not occur.

All legitimate, answerable modmail inquiries or suggestions will be answered to the best of our abilities within a reasonable period of time.

Rule violators will be warned. Repeat offenders will be temporarily banned from one to seven days. An unheeded final warning will result in a permanent ban. This may be reversed upon evidence of suitable behavior.

I'm a fan of Basic Income as a short-term transitional strategy that enables us to decouple human labor and access to the goods/services being produced through automation. Once that decoupling is complete, we can probably throw away money altogether and simply shift to a 'take what you need, but be respectful of others and what you are taking" format for goods distribution.

Basic income has been promoted by people associated with political views that are not generally opposed to the public provision of welfare services, such as monetarists. These people support basic income as a strategy to reduce the amount of bureaucratic administration that is prevalent in many contemporary welfare systems, as well as acting as a form of compensation for fiat currency inflation. Notable libertarian proponents of basic income include Milton Friedman (in the form of negative income tax),[35] Gary Johnson (In the form of the fair tax "prebate") and Charles Murray.[36]

Nothing is inherently wrong with the principles of communism. However, it's method of execution in the past—which involved forcible compliance, totalitarian control, top-down management, uneven distribution of power and decision-making, terror tactics, mass displacement of people, etc.—did not serve those principles.

The principles of communism cannot sustain themselves in a juvenile human society, where the collective mindset is narcissistic, aggressive, cliquish, materialistic, selfish and self-serving, controlling, insecure and fear-driven, melodramatic, short-sighted, founded on punishments and rewards, and hungry for external validation. Such a mindset can only be managed by systems that support those perspectives.

As such, communism was always an adult-oriented philosophy, meant to sustain a society where the majority of human beings in it had an adult level of consciousness. Sadly, it was co-opted by juvenile minds who twisted it for their own selfish agendas. Don't throw the whole thing out because the people who abused it didn't have the necessary skill set to use it properly. That's like hating automobiles because a drunken teenager crashed one into your family car one night and killed your sister.

Not the way it's been practiced, nor with an adolescent worldview that perceives things, plants, animals and people as separate objects instead of integrated and fully interconnected dynamic systems...you're correct.

However, humanity at large is undergoing a massive shift in its understanding of the world at this time. When enough of that transformation is complete that we hit the "tipping point," we will not be able to continue supporting systems that foster feelings of separation, or treat each other, and all else, as if they are separate from ourselves.

It's not about implementation man. It's about the fact that it denies basic human condition. Man is greedy. There is no way around that no matter the level of education. It is instilled in our selfish genes. Denying that simple fact, and others while thinking a form of societal organization will cascade into a construct that yields horror. I know, it's seductive, it's noble and uplifting but it's wrong and it is a very very dangerous meme to infect people with. Please document yourself about why it didn't work in none of the former communist states before preaching it. Implementation is not the only culprit.

And by the way...I don't advocate for communism, or any other mechanical system that's implemented in any top-down way. I appreciate the nature of "organism," in which interconnected systems cooperate because they naturally intuit (or in our case, comprehend, because we possess a more advanced level of consciousness) that they are part of a single, larger unified whole living system.

With that simple shift in worldview, the systems we design no longer serve objectivism, reductionism or materialistic self-interest. They serve the entirety of the larger living system that contains the myriad subsystems that comprise it.

I don't label something and then react to it based on how I feel about the baggage that label carries. I look at a proposition and ask: Will it work? Is it useful? Is it life-affirming? Does it help advance humanity's situation over time? Will its impacts be beneficial for the planet?

In what way is this economically feasible. If you give everyone money for food, then food demand at today's prices will rise and you either have to raise prices or you'll have a shortage of food eventually.

If you give everyone money for rent, then demand for housing will rise and housing prices will increase or there will be a shortage of housing.

If you give people food and housing just for being alive, then the population will increase, further increasing the cost of food and housing or the likelihood of a shortage of both.

In what way is this economically feasible. If you give everyone money for food, then food demand at today's prices will rise and you either have to raise prices or you'll have a shortage of food eventually.

Demand for food will not rise because food is already almost always guaranteed. Everyone having money will not increase the amount of food consumed.

If you give everyone money for rent, then demand for housing will rise and housing prices will increase or there will be a shortage of housing.

Rent and housing will increase, but not nearly enough to offset BI. Just like everything else real estate is subject to supply and demand. If someone tries to take advantage of the increase in yearly income, people will either build their own home or find another renter that doesn't charge as much.

If you give people food and housing just for being alive, then the population will increase, further increasing the cost of food and housing or the likelihood of a shortage of both.

Source? There have been several experiments that show that even with cash incentives, rate of procreation stayed constant. People don't have more kids just because they have more money.

In fact, it's quite the opposite. Only two factors have been proven to reduce fertility rates throughout history: better education and better income.

Even the effect of widely-available contraception falls within the statistical noise. (Apparently it's because people only use contraception to better choose the timing of children rather than just leaving it up to chance, not, ironically enough, to actually not have children altogether).

BI doesn't earmark the money for any particular good. Further, if you think extra money will equal increase price that exactly negates the increased income, then you don't really believe in free markets and supply and demand economics.

If there's a shortage of housing wouldn't that lead to a construction boom to compensate? If there's a shortage of food, wouldn't the solution be to stop paying farmers to leave fields fallow and start growing?

The best way to describe natural fairness is that it's a pack of wolves attacking a deer and eating it for their own survival. UBI is one possible solution to the looming economic crisis of the free market becoming more fair.

I'm not staunch and I recognize that government plays a necessary role in modern society. It's taken a long time but I think I would support a basic income in light specifically of the robot economy that has been emerging and will likely mature over the next 20 years or so.

It's against my political and moral philosophy, but then again so are all compulsory taxes, and there comes a time when perhaps the ends do justify the means.

It pains me to say all this, and I can only reconcile the disparity if a basic income comes as a direct result of inhibiting the US military budget and the elimination of US imperialism.

No nation on the planet presents a legitimate threat to the US. If we reduced military spending by 75% that would continue to be the case.

$680 Billion for 2011. 75% reallocated means $1,943 split among 350 million people. While that's not enough to put everyone on the dole, it doesn't have to be. If only 1 in 10 take it (which is a high estimate since a lot of our population are kids or retired) that's $19,430 per head, which is enough for people to live on and take some classes. Pay some medical bills. Get on their feet.

I'll take supporting a violation of a minor moral code (wealth redistribution) over apathy that enables a violation of a much more serious transgression (killing people on the other side of the planet, um, why? For what? And in the name of my country?)

You could say the same thing about tractors, tractors allow farmers to produce more goods to sell while saving money and cutting jobs because it requires less people to work the farm.
Does this mean less jobs and a crisis of capitalism?
NO
Why can't people understand the basic concept reallocation of resources.
The robots kill the labor jobs the robots themselves produce labor jobs.

Example.
Robot is made from mostly steel, that is mined and produced by people so the production of steel is increased and jobs will be created.
It is also made out of plastic/copper/gold.
It is all sent by distributors IE people truck drivers and other forms of transportation and logistics that require people.

Then it is made and designed by PEOPLE from a company created to make robots those people IE Engineers/programmers+ many more then create the robots and with more logistics ship it to company's who pay for them.

Then that company hires mechanics and supervisors and people to clean and maintain the areas.

They then produce goods at an even greater profit this results in cheaper goods.

Even if robots replace 90+% of the jobs of labor it's still just a reallocation of resources.

You fail to see the problem, you are not looking at a situation where robots are implemented. You are looking at the transition period and there certainly are plenty of new jobs during that time.

But afterwards, all the value creating jobs(~supply of "solid" products), are in the hands of robots, and hence the robot owners, the wealthy people.

The main flow of currency will be towards that end of the market, and even in todays economy with millions of people working in that field, there already is an imbalance in the currency flow and it will just get worse.

Even if there were new jobs, there would be less and less currency around to pay each other as it all goes towards the robot owners who won't spent it all.

We need some kind of solution, but luckily there is still plenty of time.

Here is where the logic fails. Why should robots cost more than a personal computer and a half dozen kitchen appliances? The computer part should be obvious, and the appliances are to account for a robot having metal joints and several motors.

When you factor in personal robots (and other machines) making parts for more machines, the cost should go even lower than the equivalent in today's consumer items.

And anyway, if you mean that everyone should buy one so everyone earns money... than it would be the same as UBI.

No, it would not be the same. Let's use as an example an automated greenhouse, that grows various vegetables. If you own a small one, or a share of a larger one, you get food on a regular basis. You don't need to work some kind of job to pay for the vegetables. You don't have to depend on some politician or bureaucrat deciding how much basic income is "enough". You don't have to depend on the businesses or the wealthy not fleeing to another country to avoid paying the UBI taxes. You are independent of them, and have food security.

Now extend that example to the other basics people need - other kinds of food, a home to live in, and utilities. You can either own shares of production units that supply those things, or own one of them, and trade for the rest. So all your basic needs are taken care of, without having to tax someone else.

All kinds of manufacturing trace back to a core set of machines and processes. These include lathes, milling machines, hydraulic presses, furnaces, etc. This core can copy itself, as well as make the parts for other machines. In turn those other machines make the end products we use. If you automate that core and feed it instructions to copy itself and also make the other machines, then everyone can benefit. Jobs and taxes can be eliminated.

You do realize Milton Friedman and Hayek, etc. were the biggest proponents of basic income? They realized this is the best way to reconcile social and economic issues between the left and right. I'm on my phone currently so I won't link but google "Milton Friedman negative income tax" and its a 14 minute video of him advocating this exact plan. Hayek was quoted to the effect of "I am and always have been an advocate of a basic income".

Thank you! I was just thinking this exactly, Friedman and Hayek have been documented to be supporters of the very thing killzon is using them to oppose.
Imho, killzon you should spew less opinion and ill-chosen references. Simply articulate your point with some validity. At this point however I think StingAuer summed up your statement rather accurately.

And the premise of "technology", its reason for existing, is to make those "robots" ever cheaper and easier to produce and maintain.

For a short period of time during the transition, there will be "markets" too small and niche for robots to be developed to do work in (like the creation and design of Ball-Jointed Dolls) or too creative for weak-AI to be competitive in (like Game Design and Fine Arts).

But those markets won't hold out for long and certainly cannot sustain all of humanity on their backs.

Which is why it has been long observed that, until we can get UBI established, the world's oldest profession will be its last. Most people, hikkikomori aside, won't be satisfied with sexbots (though those will be relatively early in the transition) and will want human companionship. The problem here is that there is a limit to how much sex an ever-dwindling population of people-with-income can seek. So the prostitution and companionship market can't sustain all of humanity either.

No market can.

It's a disaster worse than global warming and an asteroid strike combined -- and, nightmarishly enough, it's one with such an easy solution. An easy solution that will never happen because of the FoxNewsTards all yarping together that it "can't be done". It's a classic example of the Game Theory concept of a "collective action" dilemma.

We're at the beginnings of the equivalent of an economic traffic jam. The solution is so simple: everyone just accelerating at the same time. And yet it's impossible because the drivers are all instead bickering about being in a traffic jam...

And "the 1%", in the meantime, are living beyond the wildest excessive dreams of the old French aristocracy -- let us eat cake.

At less wages. The epidemic of part time low wage service industry is spreading. Good luck getting the next generation to buy a car, get a home loan, or investing. The money isn't there anymore. Especially with ever increasing levels of debt service.(Student loans)

You need more parts to build your robots out of, we already know the production line is highly automated and will only become more so.

You need more mechanics to service your robots - this is true.

But you need a lot less mechanics/service/repair men then you will be replacing with the robots in the first place, so you also need less facilities, less HR, less catering staff, payroll.. etc.

You lose a lot more jobs than you create to support this new system.

You need more people to design your robots/programmers - no... not really, it takes relatively few people to design a robot and program it for a task. That's basically the whole reason its becoming so popular with companies in the first place - it saves them money.

If robots replace 90+% of the jobs, what are those 90% going to do, to earn a wage to buy those products?

More upvotes for you sir, well spoken and to the point, I believe these statements have covered many of the points which, for some reason, continue to be debated in regards to the UBI and its influences!

The tractor didn't cost millions of dollars, and only 3 or 4 companies that had monopolies in the industry could afford them, neither does it do most of the work by itself and them pull in money for it's owners without them doing anything. It's not a 1:1 comparison, It's a hey, if you look closely the only jobs left fall into 3 categories, something the robot can't do yet, maintaining the robots, and owning the robots that pull in the money. Most importantly the owning the robots/infrastructure means that the resources are not reallocated. I can't go down to best buy and become a major cell phone network operator, I can't buy a machine that makes 10 pepsi cans a second that costs 3 million dollars and then break up all of the exclusive agreements to only carry pepsi. The resources ARE NOT BEING REALLOCATED.

...and what's one of the best ways to produce a spontaneous reduction in the number of kids people have? Pulling people out of poverty, offering access to contraception options, etc. Hence, a basic income is exactly in line with your sentiment, because it would allow people to escape poverty and pay for contraception more easily.

(the only other alternative shown to work is One Child Policy-style population control program using fines for people that have more than X number of children)

How about "some" who have proposed a UBI in the past have suggested linking it to birth control. There are all kinds of different approaches. I think saying "those who have adcvocated this in the past" is way too broad.

What power exactly will the people or government have over the robot makers? They will have to force a giant tax rate on them. The problem is they can just pick up and move elsewhere not to mention you cannot compete with them so you have no leverage other than appeal to the goodness of their hearts. If they are a corporation you are dealing with a sociopath so you can see where that ends up.

What we need is more starvation. It is a great motivator, and will get people out off the sofa, out of the house, and into regular jobs. What we don't need is an entire population that doesn't need to do anything to avoid starving to death. Idle hands do the Devil's work, and that's a lot of idle hands.

The reason why people in undeveloped countries have so many children is because they don't all survive to adulthood. Having half a dozen or more children is "insurance" to make sure some do reach maturity.

We allow starvation, and it's going to create a booming unsustainable population growth, increase in violent crime, and increase in short term environmental damage as people use unsustainable, subsistence farming practices in small family lots because they're desperate to grow enough food to right now, this season, regardless of what consequences occur next year or down the line (erosion, water shortages from overuse, depletion of soil minerals and nitrogen, etc.).

Come on. Just look at the third world to understand what happens when you let people starve. You have access to the internet and can obviously read and write, you have no excuse not to learn about this. This isn't complicated.

Yes and HELL no. You have to consider the physie of some people. If enough is afforded to them they will have no desire to do anything more since they don't have to. The drive to live is living itslef. I won't say capitalism correlates perfectly but it can give a carrot to a donkey who has walked a mile vs one that has the carrot and sits on its ass.

Basic income is intended to be just enough to get by on. Enough for basic food, basic housing, and probably not much else. Most people will probably aspire to more, and work at least part time to live more comfortably. Many will have the chance to chase dreams or start new businesses without needing to worry about where their next meal comes from.

But yeah, some people will choose not to work. Is that such a bad thing? The number of jobs will likely be shrinking in coming decades. Or, to use your analogy: we have enough carrots to go around, and don't need every donkey to walk a mile. So everyone gets a carrot, and if you choose to walk a mile you get an extra carrot.

1) The dollar will always, always have value so long as the government accepts it as payment for taxes. In a way, that is the final, absolute backstop to the value of the dollar.

2) Ideally, you hand out that $10K as a redistribution of taxes, so the overall money supply doesn't change.

Now, if you go as far as $10k/month the price of many goods will probably go up, because you've just massively increased demand and it will take time for supply to catch up. The problem with your theoretical is that all economic effects are sensitive to the magnitude of the action. Giving everyone $10,000/month vs $1,000/month is just as apples and oranges as $1,000/month vs $100/month. Very different effects show up at those three points.

Most goods are not produced at anything resembling maximum capacity. As many are made as can be sold for a profit. Do you really think China and South Korea can't put half a dozen dozen big screen TVs into every home in the US? Because they could, if someone wanted to pay them for that. If you increase demand by moving money into the hands of the poor, who spend a much higher percentage of their income, many more of those goods can be produced. There will be a bit of a lag time, but the market is very, very efficient at building capacity when there's money to be made.