Finland to pay unemployed basic income of $587 per month

[Robert]

AI is being developed by large corporations at a tremendous cost. They will not give it away for free. Any device produced that runs ( in part of whole) on AI technology will have to pay to the developer through a licensing system.

Failure 1. What happens when AI becomes self aware and the artificial become autonomous?

There are literally libraries of SF written about this from book like the Culture novels to Games like Fallout 4.

Sooner or later it won't be corporations that develop newer better AI it will be AI because they will be better at it than we are.

Sure and that is when humans become obsolete.

Or maybe you refer to a future much further ahead in which the whole world is 'managed' by AI ? Good luck with that. I don't think that will ever happen and if it does, the ' combine' will soon enough figure out humans are the least efficient beings on the planet for which there is no need and certainly not in their current numbers.

You admit that is a failure of imagination yourself.

Less cryptic please.

Other sectors of activity will emerge replacing the old jobs. In the 80's people thought the same as you think about AI. With the emergence of computers, all our jobs would be taken away! Truth is , unemployment rates today are lower than they were in the seventies.

They aren't really though are they? Levels of employment are higher, levels of unemployment are higher and the earning power of most jobs is far far lower. With capitalism seeing Labour as a cost this isn't going to reverse any time soon is it?

What is replacing the industry and manufacturing of the post war period are non jobs in service industries where we all basically deliver online shopping to each other for breadline wages that have to be supported by government subsidy. We provide services to each other based on the dwindling amount of money that isn't hoarded by the super rich and is constantly pumped up by inventing money via Quantitative Easing.

How long can that go on?

Yes unemployment is lower. See below table.






The same goes for earning power. The average US wage went from $ 37000/annum in 2005 to $ 48.000/annum in 2015. That is an increase of 29,7% where inflation during that same period has been 21,4%

I can imagine a society in which everyone does what he can and takes what he needs. There are indeed some small tribes hidden in the Amazone or places like that that function like that. Those are exceptions. I see no indication in history this has ever worked on a larger scale. It can still be imagined though.

It can if you can imagine the rapidly approaching point where goods cost nothing to produce because you have no labour or resource costs.

As I said, not our lifetime, but within a few centuries rather than millennia unless global warming knocks us for six. AI makes it inevitable in my view, we will create intelligences superior to our own and they will create intelligences vastly superior to our own. The idea that this would be dystopian seems pessimistic to me.

No we're not heading that direction and certainly not rapidly. Any intelligence superior to ours will quickly decide humans are unnecessary. Soon after that AI will destroy itself too.

[copehead]

Your post is too complicated due to formatting problems. Let's try starting again without any quotes.

And that graph does not show current unemployment is lower than the 1970s.

Also earning power is nowhere near the level of the 1970s where an average, single wage earning family with two kids could afford a 3 bed semi in Southern England.

I imagine your figures include the vast expansion of salaries in the rarified upper reaches of the economy.

USA
http://www.epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

UK
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/31/real-wages-falling-longest-period-ons-record

[Robert]

For the US, minimum wages developed as below:



While unemployment rates were:



If we take the middle of the seventies,1976, it is easy to see that the minimum wage was $ 2/hour and unemployment approx. 7,5%.

In 2015 this went to $ 7/hour with an unemployment rate of approx. 4,5%


The average wage in my post above will of course include high salaries too. That doesn't matter, it is easy to see that the US minimum wage more than tripled since the seventies and labour participation increased.

Also in The Netherlands we see a similar situation, minimum wages in the same period went from 1500/month to 2200/month.




Labour participation was a bit slower to develop favourably but still, it is clearly visible that unemployment peaked before computers made their entrance and went down since:

[Robert]

Good, that's cleared up then.

[Dr Markus]

Do we have to find like SIN or TAN or something?

[copehead]

I think we are supposed to wonder what those graphs have to do with spending power
We may have to introduce the concept of inflation, especially in housing costs.

[Robert]

I think we are supposed to wonder what those graphs have to do with spending power
We may have to introduce the concept of inflation, especially in housing costs.

Inflation may play a role in this, I am not sure and I am not going to investigate it either.

But to remind, you were painting a picture that robots would make all labour redundant
and eventually we would enter some hippy Walhalla where everybody does what he can and takes what he needs.

I disputed that all jobs would be lost and mentioned that people thought the same in the age of automation.

The graphs serve to demonstrate that.

Unemployment decreased after computers were widely introduced in business and private homes.

Then you remarked those were only badly paid jobs.That is why I posted the other graph demonstrating that minimum
wages ( in USA) more that tripled since.

[Dr Markus]

I think we are supposed to wonder what those graphs have to do with spending power
We may have to introduce the concept of inflation, especially in housing costs.

Just for the record I was making a self-deprecating joke about being shit at maths, not at rob's expense.

[Robert]

I think we are supposed to wonder what those graphs have to do with spending power
We may have to introduce the concept of inflation, especially in housing costs.

Just for the record I was making a self-deprecating joke about being shit at maths, not at rob's expense.

Appreciated Marcus.

[copehead]

I think we are supposed to wonder what those graphs have to do with spending power
We may have to introduce the concept of inflation, especially in housing costs.

Inflation may play a role in this, I am not sure and I am not going to investigate it either.

But to remind, you were painting a picture that robots would make all labour redundant
and eventually we would enter some hippy Walhalla where everybody does what he can and takes what he needs.

I disputed that all jobs would be lost and mentioned that people thought the same in the age of automation.

The graphs serve to demonstrate that.

Unemployment decreased after computers were widely introduced in business and private homes.

Then you remarked those were only badly paid jobs.That is why I posted the other graph demonstrating that minimum
wages ( in USA) more that tripled since.

The minimum wage could go up a million times but if the purchasing power in represents has stagnated or gone down, as the articles I linked show it has, then it don't matter a hill of beans.

That is why it isn't a useful metric, what is useful is people's purchasing power.

[Robert]

I think we are supposed to wonder what those graphs have to do with spending power
We may have to introduce the concept of inflation, especially in housing costs.

Inflation may play a role in this, I am not sure and I am not going to investigate it either.

But to remind, you were painting a picture that robots would make all labour redundant
and eventually we would enter some hippy Walhalla where everybody does what he can and takes what he needs.

I disputed that all jobs would be lost and mentioned that people thought the same in the age of automation.

The graphs serve to demonstrate that.

Unemployment decreased after computers were widely introduced in business and private homes.

Then you remarked those were only badly paid jobs.That is why I posted the other graph demonstrating that minimum
wages ( in USA) more that tripled since.

The minimum wage could go up a million times but if the purchasing power in represents has stagnated or gone down, as the articles I linked show it has, then it don't matter a hill of beans.

That is why it isn't a useful metric, what is useful is people's purchasing power.

Ok then. In the US inflation from 1976 - 2015 has been such that an item you purchased back then for $ 2,- would cost you today $ 8,33
( http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)

As you can see, that is not that far off from minimum wage growth. In fact your link to Factank confirms this.

Real wage, corrected for inflation = buyingpower.

In summary, computers did NOT increase unemployment numbers as people had been thinking previously ( and you think now about robots.)
The assumption that only badly paid jobs resulted as a consequence is false.

[copehead]

[

Ok then. In the US inflation from 1976 - 2015 has been such that an item you purchased back then for $ 2,- would cost you today $ 8,33
( http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)

As you can see, that is not that far off from minimum wage growth. In fact your link to Factank confirms this.

Real wage, corrected for inflation = buyingpower.

In summary, computers did NOT increase unemployment numbers as people had been thinking previously ( and you think now about robots.)
The assumption that only badly paid jobs resulted as a consequence is false.

I will stick with the links I posted that clearly and unequivocally show a stagnation in wage growth for the last 40 years

I don't think anyone said computers increase unemployment, employment is at the highest levels it has ever been with most women coming into employment.

Computers have changed the nature of employment

The numbers of poorly paying service industry jobs that have risen to employ these record numbers of of working people may or may not have something to do with the rise of computerised manufacturing I don't know.

But at the moment you appear to be arguing that black is white to no obvious end.

[yomptepi]

$587 a month is not even remotely a living wage in most of Europe. As the money will be deducted from other benefits they receive, it is effectively merely a subsidy that allows people to take low paid jobs. Apart from the cutting of red tape, and the abandonment of any means test, it is difficult at first glance to separate it from the British tax credits system.

My thoughts exactly.

At some point, one of the parties in this country is going to have to address the fact that it is immoral to allow people to be employed for a pittance. The absurd situation where the large employers are allowed to pay tiny wages and the government makes up the shortfall, ( in effect subsidising big business) cannot go on. The idea of taking people out of taxation is also madness, No one should be paid less that the minimum tax threshold. if that is £13,000 a year, then that should be the minimum wage. Anything else is just madness. everyone has the right to be paid enough to live on, without having to battle the government for top ups or extra benefits. we need to take Big business to task. If prices go up a little, we can all live with that, especially if the net result is people earning a living, rather than an existence.

[yomptepi]

Maybe there should be some form of ratio between the highest earners in a business and the smallest to ensure a bit more equity?

As long as the government is happy to subsidise these businesses, why would that make any difference. We have to cut the relationship between low earnings and benefits, and force employers to pay a proper wage. It is very hard to control high end salaries, as they can afford to find other ways to be " compensated" Far better to ensure the remuneration of the bulk of employees than to worry about the very few who are taking the piss, and who can be controlled ( to an extent ) by taxation.

[copehead]

$587 a month is not even remotely a living wage in most of Europe. As the money will be deducted from other benefits they receive, it is effectively merely a subsidy that allows people to take low paid jobs. Apart from the cutting of red tape, and the abandonment of any means test, it is difficult at first glance to separate it from the British tax credits system.

My thoughts exactly.

At some point, one of the parties in this country is going to have to address the fact that it is immoral to allow people to be employed for a pittance. The absurd situation where the large employers are allowed to pay tiny wages and the government makes up the shortfall, ( in effect subsidising big business) cannot go on. The idea of taking people out of taxation is also madness, No one should be paid less that the minimum tax threshold. if that is £13,000 a year, then that should be the minimum wage. Anything else is just madness. everyone has the right to be paid enough to live on, without having to battle the government for top ups or extra benefits. we need to take Big business to task. If prices go up a little, we can all live with that, especially if the net result is people earning a living, rather than an existence.

You are becoming a militant leftie in your old age Mike.

This is Corbynite talk!

You are, of course, perfectly correct. This country is run for the benefit of corporate interests to allow them to maximise their profits and share dividends.

No party looks equipped to deal with that or even brave enough to broach the subject all though Corbyn is making noises that suggests that this is his view.

I'd say what has he got to lose, he is already portrayed wither as a comic figure or the bastard son of Stalin, he may as well go really radical it can't get worse for him.

I'd come out for a national income of 10,000GBP a year paid to everyone but clawed back in taxes from higher earners.

I honestly believe that that would unleash a tidal wave of pent up creativity and entrepreneurial spirit in this country.

If it didn't it would only impoverish us slightly faster than the current oligarch putsch is and it would be more fun.

[Jimbo]

Not sure it will help impede the robot onslaught but if overly onerous taxes on businesses hinder employing more workers, government needs to stop taxing business and tax only individuals who make money from the business. Also laws must be enacted to stop tax havens, loop holes and the like and promote a true venture market where an individual may invest/bet money on a business hoping it will grow and then will hire more workers. Gains from the investment will be taxed. Losses are losses.

[Robert]

[

Ok then. In the US inflation from 1976 - 2015 has been such that an item you purchased back then for $ 2,- would cost you today $ 8,33
( http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)

As you can see, that is not that far off from minimum wage growth. In fact your link to Factank confirms this.

Real wage, corrected for inflation = buyingpower.

In summary, computers did NOT increase unemployment numbers as people had been thinking previously ( and you think now about robots.)
The assumption that only badly paid jobs resulted as a consequence is false.

I will stick with the links I posted that clearly and unequivocally show a stagnation in wage growth for the last 40 years

I don't think anyone said computers increase unemployment, employment is at the highest levels it has ever been with most women coming into employment.

Computers have changed the nature of employment

The numbers of poorly paying service industry jobs that have risen to employ these record numbers of of working people may or may not have something to do with the rise of computerised manufacturing I don't know.

But at the moment you appear to be arguing that black is white to no obvious end.

Maybe apart from posting links you should read them too.

One links says the period from 2010 until now has been the longest period of stagnation in wages in 50 years. That is not a surprise, that was clear too from the graph I posted about USA minimum wages. The other link says we have been going through a period of 35 years of stagnation. The writer works on basis of average wages. The implication is that if minimum wages have kept up, it is the higher incomes that have been duped by that. But it may be equally true that these days there are relatively more low paid jobs than high paid ones. So what does that say?

No one said on this thread that computers increase unemployment. No. I was merely pointing out that your notion that robots will take away all jobs is the same as feared by vast groups of people in the pre computer age: They were going to take away all jobs and what would we do ?

[Robert]

$587 a month is not even remotely a living wage in most of Europe. As the money will be deducted from other benefits they receive, it is effectively merely a subsidy that allows people to take low paid jobs. Apart from the cutting of red tape, and the abandonment of any means test, it is difficult at first glance to separate it from the British tax credits system.

My thoughts exactly.

At some point, one of the parties in this country is going to have to address the fact that it is immoral to allow people to be employed for a pittance. The absurd situation where the large employers are allowed to pay tiny wages and the government makes up the shortfall, ( in effect subsidising big business) cannot go on. The idea of taking people out of taxation is also madness, No one should be paid less that the minimum tax threshold. if that is £13,000 a year, then that should be the minimum wage. Anything else is just madness. everyone has the right to be paid enough to live on, without having to battle the government for top ups or extra benefits. we need to take Big business to task. If prices go up a little, we can all live with that, especially if the net result is people earning a living, rather than an existence.

That's the problem. Prices would not go up a little but a lot . To keep price increases under control is only possible if higher earners are willing to sacrifice part of their income.

[copehead]

No one said on this thread that computers increase unemployment. No. I was merely pointing out that your notion that robots will take away all jobs is the same as feared by vast groups of people in the pre computer age: They were going to take away all jobs and what would we do ?

Computerisation and robotics self evidently takes away jobs and no one has ever said they will take away all jobs, you can always give people jobs.

Again I cannot see what you are arguing here, it makes little sense.

There has been a proliferation of low paid poor quality work in the Western world that is undeniable, this is replacing what was usually well paid skilled work or white collar work that is now down by computers and robots.