Humans need not apply

K4t

After Hours ~ when they tire of criticising and bashing the unemployed and the jobseekers, suddenly robots are going to take all of the existing jobs!

The other fella

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords....

Glock Lesnar

Can't see robots making good lawyers, I feel safe.

unkel

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I get the idea but why not means test it? And taxing people who earn under 30k? You're also taking away things like free courses for unemployed people.

The whole thinking behind the basic income system is to get rid of the nanny state socialism employing thousands of people administring the rules, who don't contribute anything, but only cost us money!

Give everyone enough to live on (€200 a week) and let them look after themselves after that. Good luck! No subsidies for anything, no tax deductions or section 23 (or any other number) for investors, no household packages, no need for any means testing as no one gets anything based on their situation, except their basic income.

And thousands of civil servants in this country working on systems around this can be used more productively. Problem is, implementation of a basic income system is extremely costly in the first few years and will not have paid for itself for at least 8 years, possibly more. Longer than the lifespan of an elected government, so no political party is interested in ever implementing it. That's the reality, but also such a shame as in the long term we would all be much better off in a basic income society

Iwasfrozen

unkel wrote: »

The whole thinking behind the basic income system is to get rid of the nanny state socialism employing thousands of people administring the rules, who don't contribute anything, but only cost us money!

Give everyone enough to live on (€200 a week) and let them look after themselves after that. Good luck! No subsidies for anything, no tax deductions or section 23 (or any other number) for investors, no household packages, no need for any means testing as no one gets anything based on their situation, except their basic income.

And thousands of civil servants in this country working on systems around this can be used more productively. Problem is, implementation of a basic income system is extremely costly in the first few years and will not have paid for itself for at least 8 years, possibly more. Longer than the lifespan of an elected government, so no political party is interested in ever implementing it. That's the reality, but also such a shame as in the long term we would all be much better off in a basic income society

What about people who are unemployed? 200 euro isn't enough to live off for a week when you remove rent allowance and childcare allowance. Single mothers will have to pay all their bills, rent and costs of food on 200 euro a week...

Sounds like a rubbish society to me.

unkel

There still would be childrens allowance. But the whole point of the basic income system is to give everyone an incentive to work, even a little bit. Even a few hours even in a single parent situation, maybe from home when the kids are asleep? Because it would pay off for every hour you work.

Not like the present system where as a family with one working person on a low to middle wage losing their job, they would be better off not working and on the dole (with the state paying full mortgage interest etc.)

My figure of €200 is also a bit arbitrary. It would have to be figured out in more detail. And sorry if I'm dragging this off topic. The basic income system deserves its own thread too.

House of Blaze

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm just wondering...if automation becomes as big as CGP Grey says it could be (in that it replaces at least 45% of the workforce), what do you do with those newly-redundant people? Would they have a right to survive that overrides the right of anyone who has shares in a company that benefits from automation to their dividends?

Internships for all!!

Lux23

Who will fix the machines? Other machines? Who will fix those machines? The industries around automation will create all sorts of jobs. We got through the Industrial Age and the Information Age, I don't see vast swathes of people dying out because of no work.

Iwasfrozen

unkel wrote: »

There still would be childrens allowance. But the whole point of the basic income system is to give everyone an incentive to work, even a little bit. Even a few hours even in a single parent situation, maybe from home when the kids are asleep? Because it would pay off for every hour you work.

Not like the present system where as a family with one working person on a low to middle wage losing their job, they would be better off not working and on the dole (with the state paying full mortgage interest etc.)

My figure of €200 is also a bit arbitrary. It would have to be figured out in more detail. And sorry if I'm dragging this off topic. The basic income system deserves its own thread too.

You give the figure of 200 euro and frankly I think if you're going to expand it over the whole population that would be the maximum you could take on. Think about it 200*5,000,000*52 = 52,000,000,000 every year. 52 billion is an awful lot of money. Even by firing the entire department of social welfare (making hundreds more people unemployed), I seriously doubt the governments ability to afford that without cutting education and healthcare too...

Cutting rent allowance doesn't incentivize unemployed people to work it just makes them homeless or dependent on other people and some people (like single mothers) are out of the labour market. Cutting their child allowance, rent allowance, one parent family support, back to school allowance and heating allowance won't incentivize the mother to work, it will just make her life miserable. Not that she could work because now she doesn't have childcare allowance or funding for courses.

Like I said basic income sounds like a terribly regressive system, great if you're a young professional. Terrible if you're a single parent or if you're a long term unemployed person with no skills.

unkel

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

some people (like single mothers) are out of the labour market.

Of course it is more difficult when you are a single parent and all your children are under 4, but it would be easy enough for the system to cater for that.

One of the major incentives of the basic income system is to include everyone in the labour market!

Whatever work you do, you will make money! Every single hour you work, you will make money. Do it when the kids are asleep, when your mum / dad / neighbour is minding the kids for a few hours. There are 168 hours a week and a new born baby sleeps half of that (if you are luckier than me), still leaving 84 hours a week to do household jobs and to work!

unkel

And to add to that, I've seen families around me (and single parents) giving up on the idea of going to work because it just doesn't pay. They are better off financially on the dole. Fair play to them, can't really blame them.

But make no mistake, this costs our society a lot of money. We would all be better off if they did work, even a little bit.

sink

Part of the formula of basic income is lowering the wages business have to pay directly to employees. Somebody earning €600 today direct from their employer would with a basic income from the state of €200 instead be paid €400 direct from their employer. An general effect of this would be to make it cheaper to employ additional employees. However with basic needs taken care of people wouldn't be forced into menial labour simply to survive, meaning difficult dirty jobs will receiver a higher compensation which will also have the effect of incentivising them to be automated.

Business revenue and rather than income would have to become the primary source of direct taxation. It would fundamentally change the dynamics of our economy in so many ways, many of which we can't predict. However the net effect looks to be positive.

Iwasfrozen

unkel wrote: »

Of course it is more difficult when you are a single parent and all your children are under 4, but it would be easy enough for the system to cater for that.

One of the major incentives of the basic income system is to include everyone in the labour market!

Whatever work you do, you will make money! Every single hour you work, you will make money. Do it when the kids are asleep, when your mum / dad / neighbour is minding the kids for a few hours. There are 168 hours a week and a new born baby sleeps half of that (if you are luckier than me), still leaving 84 hours a week to do household jobs and to work!

How would the system cope for that? Every euro extra you give above 200 will cost the government 260 million a year because everyone has to be paid the same. The government couldn't afford to pay much more than 200 euro a week at 52 billion a year that pretty much takes up their entire social welfare budget.

How can a person who can't afford to pay rent, bills and groceries work! Mothers of new born babies can't work! She probably wont work for at least another eight years! You're taking the average unemployed person, removing rent allowance, heating allowance, free courses and if they're single mothers, child allowance, once parent family support and back to school allowance and telling them to get a job? How can they when they can't support themselves?!

On top of that there are no free courses or back to education allowances either so if a person wants to upskill they cant!

A basic income is a terrible idea, it's horribly regressive.

unkel

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Mothers of new born babies can't work!

And shouldn't work imho. Mothers of new born babies should be with their babies 24/7

99.9% of people in this country are not mothers of new born babies though. And the good thing about the basic income system is that you get paid enough to cope on average. You have a bit to save when you are young, you need to draw on your savings when you have a kid, you have a bit again to save when you are old, etc.

Iwasfrozen

unkel wrote: »

And shouldn't work imho. Mothers of new born babies should be with their babies 24/7

99.9% of people in this country are not mothers of new born babies though. And the good thing about the basic income system is that you get paid enough to cope on average. You have a bit to save when you are young, you need to draw on your savings when you have a kid, you have a bit again to save when you are old, etc.

You still don't understand, 200 euro is not enough to live on. The fundamental concept of a basic income, i.e paying everyone the same amount of money without means testing, is flawed because some people require more state help than others. By paying everyone the same the weakest members of society suffer horribly because the government can't afford to cover their needs since they're paying the same amount of money to people who don't need it. That's the bottom line.

How can a person without a job save money when they can't afford to pay their rent, bills, groceries etc.?

unkel

You're missing my point completely

You save money when you are young (18) and without kids, still staying in your parents. Save, save, save. And work, work, work. Pay your parents €100 per week for food and rent. So save the other €100 basic income plus €100 - €400 from work. On that base you will have €5,000 basic plus the likes of €5,000 to €20,000 to spend or put towards your deposit in 4 or 5 years time

Iwasfrozen

unkel wrote: »

You're missing my point completely

You save money when you are young (18) and without kids, still staying in your parents. Save, save, save. And work, work, work. Pay your parents €100 per week for food and rent. So save the other €100 basic income plus €100 - €400 from work. On that base you will have €5,000 basic plus the likes of €5,000 to €20,000 to spend or put towards your deposit in 4 or 5 years time

So the stability of the whole economic system depends of the frugality of college students? Seriously?

Also when basic income is implemented, some people obviously won't be young. What do middle aged unemployed people do?

seantorious

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You still don't understand, 200 euro is not enough to live on. The fundamental concept of a basic income, i.e paying everyone the same amount of money without means testing, is flawed because some people require more state help than others. By paying everyone the same the weakest members of society suffer horribly because the government can't afford to cover their needs since they're paying the same amount of money to people who don't need it. That's the bottom line.

How can a person without a job save money when they can't afford to pay their rent, bills, groceries etc.?

200e is quite alot if the cost of living goes down, your 4e coffee is grown, picked, transported and served by a wagefree machine, your car is driven by a petrol mined from dangerous sites by a autonomous drone. The theory is remove people and the cost will drop, bit of a stretch that the saving will be passed down, but government intervention could enforce it.

MS.ing

I saw a stephen hawking series where one of the episodes was all about one of the robots in that clip (the one on four legs that looks mostly like the lower end of a horse) and I nearly fell of my chair watching it grasp the physical intelligence needed to navigate certain terrain. it was literally unbelievable how this thing moved so sure footed and balanced like a human across rough terrain and even down 60 degree slopes on its legs!! :eek:

robots certainly have come a loooong way lately

House of Blaze

MS.ing wrote: »

I saw a stephen hawking series where one of the episodes was all about one of the robots in that clip (the one on four legs that looks mostly like the lower end of a horse) and I nearly fell of my chair watching it grasp the physical intelligence needed to navigate certain terrain. it was literally unbelievable how this thing moved so sure footed and balanced like a human across rough terrain and even down 60 degree slopes on its legs!! :eek:

robots certainly have come a loooong way lately

I dunno if this is the one, but it sounds like the 'Big Dog' from Boston Dynamics.

After about 30 seconds they start putting it through its paces, crazy stuff!

Basically boston dynamics were pretty much the cutting edge in robotics for the last decade until google bought them last year.

Tail Docker

House of Blaze wrote: »

I dunno if this is the one, but it sounds like the 'Big Dog' from Boston Dynamics.

After about 30 seconds they start putting it through its paces, crazy stuff!

Basically boston dynamics were pretty much the cutting edge in robotics for the last decade until google bought them last year.

That thing worries me. Pop a minigun and a grenade launcher onto it and imagine that coming up the hill for you. You're in a hole with a rifle, waiting for it. Worrying. That's one glimpse of the future that won't be so shiny, happy and labour saving. Being military focussed, the investment will pour in too.

MS.ing

House of Blaze wrote: »

I dunno if this is the one, but it sounds like the 'Big Dog' from Boston Dynamics.

After about 30 seconds they start putting it through its paces, crazy stuff!

Basically boston dynamics were pretty much the cutting edge in robotics for the last decade until google bought them last year.

thats the one alright, but thats a whole other level of 'tests' than the program I saw :eek:

look at the way and fluidity with which it tries to keep from falling on the ice
its basically human, unfookin believable, its literally like watching human legs move, truely incredible flow and balance of movement. the days of clunky jittery moving robots are long gone!

Tail Docker wrote: »

That thing worries me. Pop a minigun and a grenade launcher onto it and imagine that coming up the hill for you. You're in a hole with a rifle, waiting for it. Worrying. That's one glimpse of the future that won't be so shiny, happy and labour saving. Being military focussed, the investment will pour in too.

thats exactly what its being developed for! (warfare troop replacement)

BeerWolf

Be in maintenance or design and you'll be perfectly fine

gozunda

sink wrote: »

...summation is that we're on the verge of a major revolution in automation. Machines are reaching an apex at which they will out compete humans in as much as 45% of current jobs over the next 20 years and there will not be enough new economy jobs to replace them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

....
Such monumental change is scary, however I think if it's managed right it could turn out very well on the other hand **** could go very badly wrong.

The rise of the robots cue Terminator and Isaac Asimov, I, Robot

The Master created humans first as the lowest type, most easily formed. Gradually, he replaced them by robots, the next higher step, and finally he created me, to take the place of the last humans.

Calina

On the subject of self-driving vehicles, this is worth a read: http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/cars-may-think-but-will-they-achieve-artificial-stupidity/ particularly in the context of whether we expect self driving cars to be better drivers than humans.

Another issue relates to decision making in terms of no good outcome - what do you expect an expert system to decide when the choice is swing left and run down 4 pedestrians or swing right and kill its occupant. In reality, a lot of the issues around automated systems, are philosophical and ethnical in nature rather than technical. For a lot of things the technology exists.

One point I would note is our understanding and view of artificial intelligence has changed and broadened over time, such that we're doing a lot of stuff now - a lot of automated decision making systems - in a way which is very different to how artificial intelligence was envisaged even when Turing wrote his paper.

The Dagda

House of Blaze wrote: »

The crazy thing is that video was uploaded almost 5 years ago.

5 years is an eternity in technology so God knows how much they've improved on that by now?! :eek:

Tail Docker

gozunda wrote: »

The rise of the robots cue Terminator and Isaac Asimov, I, Robot



thisisinfamous.Terminator-terminator

I think there's a clue there...:D

The West got to the stage quite a while ago that a 5 day working week was pretty much unnecessary. Globalisation is being used as an excuse to keep it propped up.

gozunda

Tail Docker wrote: »

I think there's a clue there...:D

No don't get the ref? Do you mean the Terminator who terminates the Robots?

Also I wonder how shares in Skynet are doing?.....

ScumLord

This is where the real development in robotics are going and it's much scarier than that mule yolk.

Anyone will be able to program one of these bots as easily as telling a person to do something.