Skeptic Project

My question was in regards to how automation would be paid for, not how the basic income would be paid for. 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.

Business would implement the systems and they would incur those costs.

But automation will lower cost, not raise it. If a task requires expensive automation equipment then they just need to scale in order to capture the savings. If it is not feasible for a small business, a larger business will replace them. Industry will always make the numbers work.

However, the jobs above do not require expensive automation that will change the dynamics of those industries. Businesses are reluctant to automate when their competitors are not. For example, some customers like a human cashier rather than an automated one. So if a store automated all their cashiers they would lose business to the store that still employs humans.

What if a large chunk of the population decided that volunteering and getting $50k/yr was enough for them

We are able to automate all the jobs listed above. So we would need an unemployment rate greater than 55% in order to decrease production. I do not think that is likely. But even if it was, then people are just choosing more rewarding work in exchange for less overall wealth. Plus, some of the volunteer work will have commercial value.

But this is something that will most likely be gradually rolled out. So you will be making adjustments in response to how it works.

//Did you do those calculations?//

That must be the part where they get rid of money.

"But the only thing that matters is the ability for customers to get product."

Can you prove this? I think you would probably be the worst small business owner ever.

The purpose of Gateway computers is to enable people to use computers not to create electronics stores.

Just to be clear, the plan does not call for the government to mandate automation. It is just talking about how labor would change when people receive a basic income.

Why would automation become more widespread when everyone gets a basic income?

To keep with the cashier example...

No, I understand how automation CAN be more cost effective. My point is that automation that is NOT implemented currently is not implemented BECAUSE it is not cost effective.

The unemployment rate does not have an effect on income taxes. Income taxes is a percentage of GDP. So tax revenue will go down only if GDP goes down. But if business is able to produce the same amount with less employees using automation, GDP will stay the same.

You're conflating two lines of debate here. In my high-volunteer-rate example I'm assuming mass automation has already been implemented. What if I, as a business owner, decide hey, screw it, I'm cashing out, selling my company, and going off to do some volunteer work. Surely that would affect the GDP. Or if I'm one of those employees whose jobs are not automatable, I might also opt for this. $50k/yr is a lot for not working. And I hear volunteer work is very satisfying......

Why would automation become more widespread when everyone gets a basic income?

Some people may choose not to work. Some people may choose not to do menial work. So if the labor force decreases, business would be forced to automate.

If people decide they would rather live off of $20k instead of being a cashier, the grocery store would have no choice but to use automated checkouts.

It is a similar to the jobless recovery that happens after a recession. Business lays off workers because they have lower sales and can't afford the salaries. The business is forced to make-do without them. Then when business picks up, they already automated the job so they are able to handle the increased sales without increasing the workforce.

During a jobless recovery (like the one we are in now), GDP rises but the number of employees in the workforce does not. It is due to the recession forcing businesses to automate.

What if I, as a business owner, decide hey, screw it, I'm cashing out, selling my company, and going off to do some volunteer work. Surely that would affect the GDP.

It wouldn't affect GDP. If your business produced $100k in sales when you owned it and continued to produce $100k in sales for the new owner after you sold it, the GDP would remain the same.

Or if I'm one of those employees whose jobs are not automatable, I might also opt for this.

At the end of the day, if there are paying customers who want something, business will find a way to deliver it to them.

If you quit a job we can't automate, business will find a way to get someone to do it who is currently doing a job we can automate.

50k/yr is a lot for not working. And I hear volunteer work is very satisfying.

You would get $20k for not working. You would need to work or attend school or volunteer to get the additional $30k.