Skeptic Project

www.demandthegoodlife.com

Okay, let's discuss it seriously here. Plz keep mudslinging to a minimum.

My area of expertise is technology, so I will pick on automation:

1. How did you work out the percentage of jobs we can automate right now? (70% and/or 55%, I saw both percentages. Yet, you also claim it would reduce our workload by 80% somehow)

2. Where will you get the money to pay for this? There are economic reasons why this isn't done right now - i.e. the costs outweigh the benefits.

Other points:

3. Redefining "leisure activities" as essentially "creative work" is unnecessarily confusing and potentially misleading.

4. Is this movement supposed to be global or national? If global, I think it is extremely unlikely to be implemented due to ongoing conflicts of ideology and power in the world. If national, I think it will hurt our economic competitiveness in many ways. I hope I don't have to point them out, do I?

I was going to endorse DemandTheWooLife since they namedropped Fuller, but without namedropping Tesla as well I'm afraid I simply can't do that.

Uh, what if someone's job falls under neither type and is instead a combination of the two?

How did you work out the percentage of jobs we can automate right now?

I couldn't find the info I wanted to paste. But I can give you general info. This comes from the bls.gov website.

Keep in mind that what is meant by an automatable job is a job that can be automated in a hypothetical scenario where every single person refused to work a job. In the real world, there will always be people willing to do jobs that are automatable and be companies willing to pay people to do a job instead of using a machine.

It also does not mean that automating is always better than not automating.

There are about 135 million people who work (Jobs plus Leisure Activities). Here are a list of Jobs that can be automated and the number of people who are employed in them:

1. Office and Admin support (19.2 million)
These are low level employees who do routine tasks. Most can be automated today. But the process will be much easier with their proposed digital platform. If we had standards for sharing all data and documents as well as easy access to all business data in a central location you would not need armies of employees to shuffle paper.

2. Sales (16.2 million)
Most sales can be done over the internet.

3. Management (15.8 million)
Most of these management jobs are actually sales managers which the internet can automate.

4. Transportation (8.8 million)
We already have the tech for driverless cars and trucks. All that is needed is a government effort to create the infrastructure that makes driverless cars work on our roads.

5. Food prep and related (7.8 million)
These are mostly people who work in restaurants. Industrial robots can automate any chef. And moving a plate of food from the kitchen to a table does not require a human being.

6. Business and Financial Operations (6.2 million)
These are accountants (not needed with digital banking since purchases and sales are categorized digitally as they happen), loan officers (credit is automated), retail purchasers (retail is largely obsolete with the internet), etc.

7. Buildings and Ground Maintenance (5.4 million)
We already have automated mowers, blowers, rakers, window cleaners, vacuum cleaners, etc. so most of these jobs can be automated.

They amount to about 75 million mind-numbing, soul-crushing jobs that people currently do that can be automated today. It makes up about 55% of the total Work we do.

contd...

2. Where will you get the money to pay for this? There are economic reasons why this isn't done right now - i.e. the costs outweigh the benefits.

Their plan is based on 2 assumptions: the economy is producing $18 trillion per year in total income (which we would have reached in about 4 years if we weren't in a recession) and the tax code is made fair (everyone pays the same flat 50% tax on all their income). If this was implemented today the numbers would be about 20% lower.

Here are then the calculations:

$18 trillion: Total National Income
$6.3 trillion: Total Revenue Raised From 35% Income Tax (6.3 = 18 * 35%)
$2.7 trillion: Total Revenue Raised From 15% FICA Tax (2.7 = 18 * 15%)
$9 trillion: Total Revenue Available To Pay Out In Dividends (9 = 6.3 + 2.7)

$4.4 trillion: Cost of Paying $20,000 To All 220 Million Adults
$3.8 trillion: Cost of Paying $30,000 To All 126 Million Workers
$0.3 trillion: Cost of Paying $30,000 To All 10 Million Unemployed/Volunteers
$0.5 trillion: Cost of Paying $30,000 To All 18 Million Students
$9 trillion: Total Cost Of Dividends (9 = 4.4 + 3.8 + 0.3 + 0.5)

There is absolutely no reason why this cannot be implemented today. If people were aware of this as an option, they would demand that it get implemented. It is a simple, elegant solution to the problems people face in society.

4. Is this movement supposed to be global or national? If global, I think it is extremely unlikely to be implemented due to ongoing conflicts of ideology and power in the world. If national, I think it will hurt our economic competitiveness in many ways. I hope I don't have to point them out, do I?

The website is about the US. But this model can be applied to any country.

Although corporate tax rates would go up, individuals who make less than $400k would pay less in taxes. And tax rates are only one variable that determines where a company chooses to do business. This program would not have any significant impact on a US company's ability to compete. Most companies do not relocate whenever they can get a better tax rate.

Because we "don't get it," Matt.

Just like with Zeitgeist, it is impossible to understand what The Good Life is proposing and be against it. The fact that you and I oppose it means, by definition, that there's something terribly wrong with us. In my case (according to the Zeitgeisters) I "love the death of billions," but I'm sure GEI will come up with some reason why you're defective as well.

What happens if there's a war? The "dividend" the government gives everybody will have to shrink, right?

@Kaiser Falkner

Lets first ask the important question of how this does not, in turn, result in inflation. If everyone recieves a boost in their total spending power, the overall value of the dollar decreases.

This does not increase the total money supply or increase total income, so it does not cause inflation. It just redistributes existing income. Some people will get more income, some people will get less.

this is simply not even in accordance with Econ 101 principles that show that producing wealth, and controlling it, causes a highly synthetic situation which eventually leads to devaluation of the money in circulation.

I don't know what you mean by synthetic but econ 101 does not say that producing and controlling wealth devalues money.

Money gets devalued when the total supply is increased greater than the amount of stuff available to buy.

Capital flows would be highly disrupted and the overabundance of wealth will create significant problems.

This does not impact capital flows and does not change the overall wealth that exists. It just redistributes existing income.

This is not to say that inequity is not a problem, but rather that its simply a pipedream to think everyone can be wealthy.

$14.5 trillion in GDP per year is more than enough to make every US resident wealthy. See the calculations above.

how does one intend to keep people from ceasing to make enough to pay taxes to generate the dividends?

Everyone gets paid at least $20k. But most people want to earn more than that so they will work.

And since you will get paid another $30k in addition to whatever salary you make, there is plenty of incentive for people to work.

But keep in mind a decreasing workforce does not mean decreasing overall income. If you quit your job and your company automates what you used to do so they produce the same amount without you, the overall economy has not lost any production.

The overall economy has 1 less worker, but it still produces the same income.

Second, what happens as the tax base shrinks? This is exactly the problem social security came up against

SS is funded by wage earners who make less than $106k which is a group of people that will change over time. And it is paid out to seniors which is a group that will also change over time. So adjustments are to be expected as demographics change.

However, the dividend is based on total income not just wage earners who make less than $106k (so the funding will grow over time as the economy grows). And it is paid to the entire adult population not just a segment of it (so that will remain constant over time).

So the dividend will not have the same problems as SS. But there is nothing about our SS system that requires us to pay out less money or require people to get benefits when they are older. You could require everyone to pay the SS tax and then you would not have to decrease benefits ever.

@Matt

So how about answering the simple questions that don't involve copying and pasting numbers?

What question would you like me to answer?

"They amount to about 75 million mind-numbing, soul-crushing jobs that people currently do that can be automated today. It makes up about 55% of the total Work we do."

How can you possibly support this statement? Mind numbing and soul crushing are both value judgements. Not facts.

"If people were aware of this as an option, they would demand that it get implemented."

Are we not people?

WOULD THERE BE BUBBLE HOUSES? A UTOPIAZ CAN ONLY WORK IF THERE ARE BUBBLE HOUSES NO BUBBLE HOUSES IS A UTOPIAZ DEAL BREAKER FOR ME CAN WE PLEASE HAVE BUBBLE HOUSES UTOPIAZ BOY?

@Matt

How can you possibly support this statement? Mind numbing and soul crushing are both value judgements. Not facts.

They are mind numbing and soul crushing to me. They most likely are not that way to everyone.

Are we not people?

I meant that it is of interest to people in general. It certainly will not be of interest to every single person on the planet. However, no scientific study has been done to determine its popularity. That statement was based on my experience. I do not know what the actual popularity is.

@Matt

So the defense budget remains the same regardless of external threats?

The defense budget used in the example is the same as it is today to illustrate how the plan works. The country will be free to adjust the defense budget any way they see fit.

@Matt

Oh, so basically you're pulling things out of your ass and presenting them as facts until someone calls you out on it?

I thought it would be obvious that the adjectives I used to describe a Job were my opinion alone. If that was not clear to you, then let this serve as clarification.

Your post does not answer my question #2. My question was in regards to how automation would be paid for, not how the basic income would be paid for.

As for your answer to my question #4, the US would lose a lot of economic competitiveness because the cost of automation would outweigh the benefits of automation. It is cheaper right now to hire people to do the jobs that you are proposing to automate, which is why we have people doing those jobs right now. If you automate those jobs, businesses will have to spend more money to deliver the same product or service, which hurts competitiveness.

Here's another question. What if a large chunk of the population decided that volunteering and getting $50k/yr was enough for them (which I suspect might be the case - I sure would do that)? Wouldn't that also hurt our economic competitiveness? Not only are those volunteers not creating value within the economy, they're also not paying taxes to help fund this massive government payout. Same goes for students.