Automated Economy Explained: Mechanics of a Basic Income
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- The Rest Of Us on Patreon:
/ therestofus
The Rest Of Us on Twitter:
/ trouchannel
The Rest Of Us T-Shirts and More:
teespring.com/TheRestOfUsClothing
Humans Need Not Apply by CGP Grey:
• Humans Need Not Apply
Thanks to my Patrons:
Joe Mako
Sumit
Alex Tsankov
August Noë
"You, my friend, probably love your job"
Ah I see this video isn't for me
no wonder, it's neolib trash and you're working class
How is this video neolib? UBI is about the opposite of neolib.
"probably" is the key word here
😂
Pretty much my though too. "Love my job? Enjoy it sometime, but love? What are you smoking and is it legal?"
I gotta say props to all you people who like my videos literally seconds after I uploaded (so evidently before they've even seen it)! I feel the love!
I would like to share your video in robotic socialism page (facebook.com/roboticsocialism), and I would like to help to translate it into Chinese if you allow to open collaborative subtitles.
Of course! I just activated collaborative subtitles.
Thanks! I'd submitted the translation and please check
I gotta admit I am new to collaborative subtitles. Not sure where to find them. All it tells me is to share this link: ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=OEkT14RBzDI
Try it, maybe it will help.
I've now published your subtitles you submitted. Thanks again for your contribution!
Andrew Yang watched this video
To cut it short, investment is what brings you assets and assets buy you freedom. You don't need to work for no one. I invest in financial market and i earn not less than$ 9,000 in a month which most workers can not earn in 5months. No disrespect but investment is the key to financial freedom.
Financial market is a smart investment. People make 6 figures from it but I have no experience.
You must be a pro to make that much.
@@sanamagar4401 I'm not a professional, I don't trade by myself. I have a regulated broker who handles all my trading activities.
@@michaelpearson2518 I'm interested to invest in financial markets. It is very profitable and will also serve as a second stream of income but i would need some help. Please can you refer me to your broker?
@@natashajohnson9779 my broker is expert Jeffrey Matthew.
I hope you enjoyed the video! Maybe it inspires you to think about the part I didn't talk about: How would people strive for happiness in an automated economy? What would the educational system look like? Etc. I believe this will be one of the most interesting issues of our time!
The Rest Of Us Post-Scarcity economy. Now please someone determine the possibility of that thing in a game theoretic perspective.
The Rest Of Us people could run out of things to do, so they would make sex for half a day and think about mars the other half
Most people hate their jobs.
"How would people strive for happiness in an automated economy?"
People would strive to be decent people among fellow people, and sometimes people would add value in ever less essential, more niche ways, using ever more productive tools to take care of the supply chain and production side of things.
Eventually, the process of being an entrepreneur would turn into one of being a customer of automation, and spreading the word about what cool thing the automation created for you, so others can enjoy it too. As much as it'll take a couple decades to get there at least. But ever increasing unconditional income value (thanks to automation, and tying the thing to economic figures like ownership portfolio valuations or GDP) would enable us to go in that direction, towards there to be opporunity to make money, doing such, even (while increasing automation devoid of a UBI that grows with net value of the economy, might lead us god knows where). Things like kickstarter today, could in the future be much more relevant, to award additional resources to projects that require more resources, or where people chose to be vocal about their desire to get a load of money for their involvement in the process of envisioning something. In context with these considerations, unconditional incomes propose to democratize the economy to some extent.
Either way, it's going to be a tendencially monopolistic marketplace, as names, respect, recognition, tend to stick around, because people seek the convenience of sticking to what they know. So the argument towards redistribution is ever more important, even if it turns out that everyone is still 'working' every now and then. The connection between quality/quantity of work, and people appreciating something, would simply become less strong.
"What would the educational system look like? "
It'd hopefully involve open discussions about different philosophical frameworks that are internally consistent, and encourage people to take a look at the world with open eyes. Also less memorizing and more practical skills. More autonomy over one's time for the students. Additional educational offers as something to voluntarily use, if and only if one sees a practical application or chance to further one's perspective in there. Free of charge, but also free of reward, beyond the reward you seek from having the additional knowledge. There's plenty education that has purpose to individuals, even in a fully automated future. We should be supportive of making known good knowledge available to everyone. I see some overlap with publicly funded neutral platforms that propose to be an alternative to the paid-for processes of advertisement, as well.
edit: some fleshing out!
The Rest Of Us then everyone become businesses xd
It really made no sense to me when he said ''It doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong, whether the market goes up and down. I'm good regardless''. People are really losing a sh*t ton of money out here. I personally have been buying stocks since the beginning of the year and yet nothing's changed, but I've been reading articles of people still in the same market pulling off over 350k in just a couple months. Its tough out here!
Sometimes, the strategies to stay on constant green in a downturn markets are quite rigorous for the regular-Joe. Matter of fact, they are most successfully carried out by experts who have had a great deal of skillset/knowledge of the market. Maybe you should hire one.
@@sherryie2 Agreed! I first contacted a Financial Analyst because these days, it's easy to buy into trending stocks, but the task is knowing when to sell or keep. That's where my manager comes in, to help me with entry and exit points in the industries I'm engaged in. I’m currently 60% up in profits just in 5months with my initial capital of $160k
@@corrySledd Please can you leave the info on how to reach your investment advisor here? I’m in dire need for one.
@@McElvinn Sure. NICOLE DESIREE SIMON, a well-known person in her field, is my advisor. I got to know her through my wife. It's my wife that has her number, but you could further investigate her credentials and contact her yourself.
@@corrySledd Thank you for the lead. I searched her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.
"You probably love your job"
You're joking right? I can't imagine the majority of population enjoying their jobs unless the video is targeted towards the upper middle class
+Raitis "People like to work" is usually the first line of defence which the anti-automation advocates rush to. That and "not all jobs can be automated". I simply wanted to take some wind out of both those sails with the first part. So yes, I completely agree with you that most people hate their job. But they will never admit it.
Seems like Wall-E
So what's going to happen to the government if they get all their money from corporations do they have any reason to listen to the people. You may have a economic model (basic one at that) but what about the government structure something would have to change.
We need a more libertarian system, backed by blockchain technology, to make decisions in a more peer-to-peer manner.
The politicians don't get the money. The goverment does. And in a democracy only the people vote not the corporations. (For that to work properly we obviously have to get money out of politics though)
Oh yeah, the govt has to change, *any* way. We have to get the money out of it. We have to take away the power (money) of the powerful, so that we all have the same amount of power. We need this UBI but also MI or maximum income. Dont allow anyone to get mega rich, no one deserves it. Tax everything over $1M, for example. Anyway, the point is, the govt doesnt work, for us, now. Publicly financed campaigns and MI will fix that.
how would a libertarian system address the problem of unemployment and automatization? the system would collapse unless you regulate it.
Libertarian means little goverment, not no goverment, anarky.
How would new firms come into being in such a system with vast economies of scale in existing markets? It seems that early adopters and large firms could easily monopolize the system. What changes in the regulatory environment would accompany this change? What does this mean for representative government with respect to campaign finance? Would those not working be at a disadvantage politically?
"How would new firms come into being in such a system with vast economies of scale in existing markets?"
Just like startups do it now. Since they start out with less automation they woudn't have to pay much (if any) extra.
" It seems that early adopters and large firms could easily monopolize the system"
Anti-trust laws should still be apply
"What changes in the regulatory environment would accompany this change?"
Due to more automation I'd think that the power requirements would rise drastically. Which hopefully won't be that big of a deal seeing who much clean energy solution like solar power are growing.
"What does this mean for representative government with respect to campaign finance? "
In the current (american) system. I'd would be a disaster and would never be implemented, since most politicians are at least partially corrupt.
We'd need campaign finance reform first to completely get money out of politics.
"Would those not working be at a disadvantage politically?"
Hopefully not if we stay at a democratic system.
sinecurve9999 The whole point is that firms aren't fucking run by humans anymore. Creation machines will be run by thinking machines.
Sinecurve, how about now? How can new firms come into being in such a system with vast economies of scale in existing markets? How can you develop a social network to compete with Facebook? Or a search engine to compete with Google?
Nothing new that's already happening for ages with big corps like google swallowing new startups all the time.
//Would those not working be at a disadvantage politically?// They should be at some disadvantage.
They won't pay any taxes and they'll be the majority of people so they're not accountable for their vote.
People will simply vote for higher and higher UBI until the entire system collapses. They'll vote for socialist policies because they don't pay taxes and have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Step 1: Vote in a fact-based, forward thinking gov- OH SH....
Now you can.
www.yang2020.com
Or automate the Government.
@@skillmeup53 Choosing to be lorded over by soulless machines may disturb many people, but it may actually be our best bet at a ideal, unbiased government.
@@blakksheep736 the problem is on who creates this machine lol.
@@mn1298 that it is.
Your art of explaining is a beauty. This is the first one watched by me. I insist you along with others to upload more videos.
this will create the ultimate two-class society. and as technology progresses, the upper class will become godlike
canguar It has already started. The only way it will end is in a mass genocide of 80% of the world's population. The super rich will have all they ever need from technology doing everything for them. After the billions of man hours of labourers & inventors throughout human history, the slaves are discarded & they will inherit the earth as gods.
Depends if they have enough security. Any population is only 9 missed meals away from utter chaos. If it got really bad, you can be sure people would start storming the "castles" of the rich.
Yeah, but given modern force multipliers, it doesn't take all that large a security force to keep much larger populations in check.
Historically, people only start 'storming the castles of the rich' when they are being funded and supplied by other rich people. Actual poor people and civilian uprisings are almost unheard of, despite how they tend to get retold later on.
And there is no way back anyway. We can only slowdown the process.
ok, then start learning programming and robotic now XD
This is probably one of my favourite if not my favourite channel, mind blown as always! looking forwards for more interesting content!!
'Do you want the red pill or the blue pill?'
'Goddamit! I'm colorblind!'
I was hoping & waiting for such an explanation since yeas!! Spares me some time explaining it to others by myself ;) Ingenious!
Automated economy will only make you look like a dog, your job is only vote your owner to get dog's food AKA free minimum wage
kosa kata In this analogy, we're already dogs but we have to do tricks to get the food. With machines we get the food regardless.
What if I enjoy doing the tricks?
Do them for free then
And better food is valuable to you how? Especially considering that you getting better food means someone else has to get no food? At what point is the food good enough? By the end of it you'd have to drizzle gold dust on your food just to make it "better", there are already people doing that while other people die from starvation, that is the result of capitalism.
Great idea in theory. There is only one little flaw: what make you believe the corporations will share the increased profits to finance this system?
Now, before you start telling that everything will come to a grinding halt if they dont, because jobless people cannot take part in the economic circulation - I know that already.
And those managers in the corporations know that, too. At least they should, since their education on elite universities did cost a fortune.
Nevertheless they will opt to keep the profits, to maximize their bonuses and get adored by their share holders. And they will do anything to prevent any changes in laws or society structures to secure that, until a mob with torches and pitchforks is standing outside their offices.
So better dont have too high hopes for a smooth transition into a automated production society, with a basic income system and such things.
Well people don't need to pitchforks and torches. Voting a party in to use power of state to compel corporates is possible. Democracy means evolution and/or peaceful transition is possible ...revolution is not inevitable/necessary.
Simple. You tax the AI worker. This tax would be at least a little less than paying someone's salray so companies still profit from automation. If this tax gets implemented they will have to share their profits because that will be the law.
Because if they are not taxed, no one will receive a universal basic income. Then, no one could purchase their products and the company would lose revenue, and hence, profits.
Exactly, they are gonna make sure that this transition doesn't happen for as long as possible and then make the transition itself last as long as possible.
I'm gonna ask you
Where did the rich got their money on the first place?
Love these videos!!! KEEP THEM COMING
awesome channel man, it just now showed up in my recommended, but it should have been there a long time ago. I'm sure you'll start growing a lot here soon
Very interesting!
You need a team and more attention.
You do such a great job with your Videos! :)
+Techtastisch | Experimente und Lifehacks Thanks
this system will collapse. if common people will have no job, they will become redundant for society, they will lose all the power and businesses owners will be looking for ways for to eliminate them. and government will not protect them, because only income for government are taxes from businesses, so common people are basically screwed.
"Not to scale" - lol
This video is fantastic! Please make another video explaining the finer details of the transition to an automated economy, a more in depth guide of the complexity of an automated economy and further elaborate on BAIs and NAIs!! Love you channel thank you :)
This is incredibly eye opening. Thank you for sharing
Whether we like this outcome or not, we are definitely heading in this direction!
the real winners are the bot manufacturers...
manufacturer:oh is your bot broken??? that will be 1 million
company:here, it's like 0.1% of my income
Great work Tom! Keep up with the awesome content!
DAMN , bro that was crystal clear . i think you have a talent
As a business I'll just move to a country who will charge my company less.
Income gap still occurs.
Exactly. I'll be the Prime Minister/President and I'll invite all the businesses to come to my country with extremely low taxes ahahaha
J. Wu yes but if the country takes less tax it will have less left for maintaining the infrastructure , development and the less UBI to the citizens
So it will not be a Long run for the country to have less tax , so Any country cannot afford or arbitrage the average of universal tax
@@shashankrao23 Hopefully my country will be lucky enough to have oil or some other natural resources
The country which imports your products can tax you at the border.
Wait Wait Hola hola... sooo ummm I just sit back and watch RUclips while government pays me?
done deal! where do I sign...
Thanks for all these videos
I love that in the pie chart at 3:57 you separate people and lawyers
Everybody seems to forget that households will also have increasing access to automation. Most people don't grow their own food or build their own houses because those things require effort and specialized skills. Yet, even today you can customize and download open source files that you can send to an open source CNC router that will turn sheets of plywood into a snap-fit house frame. Others are trying to design robotic systems to tend home gardens. Those unemployed people in your model are going going to have more capability to take care of their own basic needs. Who needs UBI once you've got ROBOT?
Well UBI frees people to engage in those projects/learn those skills so yes ultimately it could reduce need for mass production but always will be people specialising in things and not interested in making some things themselves so ubi enables a trampoline underneath. UBI will help get us where you're talking but I don't think we'll get there without it.
I think it makes more sense to just spend more on existing benefits like income support and unemployment benefit and make them easier to clam rather than switch to UBI.
Robots are products manufactured by companies. Hence, they require the companies to invest money in their production and thus they will be costly. In a society with high unemployment due to automisation robots may be cheaper but the "middle class" won't have enough money to buy them.
We will never make better products than highly capitalized businesses outside a few niches. People have the ability to grow their own food now but if you've tried it you know its at the least a part time job. It also doesn't save any money. I can also buy solid wood furniture cheaper than I can make it. The only reasons for making things are niche, I cannot find the design I want, I want to experiment and wood working gives me personal pleasure but in reality capital spent on tools and the time investment are in pure dollar terms a loss.
You cannot compete with big money and scale, even for your own dollars unless you enjoy having fewer of them. Before that corporations are more likely to buy government influence to ban civilians owning 3D printers with the ability to use steel, carbon or ceramics. Just like they stop you growing your own tobacco and weed. Realistically though automation is going to create consolidated giants like we've never seen before, market competition is going to be over because the cost of entering markets will be beyond absurd.
Once you're at that stage, GREAT. Poverty has been eliminated. However most people will not reach this stage before automation begins to kick vast portions of the population out of meaningful employment. This is because businesses have more money to invest in automation than almost all households.
The risk, obviously, lies in leaving those people behind. Once your civilization reaches a certain level of automation, you can give everyone a "ROBOT" automation suite to take care of their basic needs, grow their personal wealth and industrial capacity, and perform directed tasks. But until then, you reach a point where many people are at risk of becoming staggeringly poor, due to having no effective means of acquiring wealth through labor.
this is very interesting...
I am a post scarcity futurist and the most critical problem is that just like regular jobs automated jobs are also going overseas where less regulations are.
This means while everyone will get a standard UBI only a dedicated few will get any active income and it will be minimal except for the ownership elite,
You will have as much chance of selling your products as you have handmade goods, any goods n services will be a incredibly niche market and wealth will bottom out most of those jobs as well.
Many jobs not gone will be a minimum wage after UBI....welcome to the machine.
I've always wondered how something like this would actually happen, this video clarifies so much
"Story for another time" again?
I'm still waiting the "Relative mass gain" from twin paradox...
Yes, I too wish I had a team of 20 people...
The Rest Of Us Just keep going! You have my support dude!
He means, if you want more videos, donate!
Dave, another time? We need it now.
Bravo.
+ChristianIce Thanks. And thank you especially for keeping up such a dedicated fight in the comment section. :) I underestimated how attached people are to the system they grew up in.
Mitico ChristianIce ;)
Sono tuo fan storico (con il mio vecchio account) e sono contento di ritrovarti qui a favore dell'UBI ;)
Thank you for explaining. Very good. I am all for it. Let's begin !!
RUclips Andrew Yang
Yang2020.com
Awesome video, thanks a lot
It's an interesting model, but if the corporations are the only ones that finance the states through taxes their vote is "more valuable" in a democracy. In other words the state will probably not be interested in the needs of the general population but just get closer to big corporations. A solution would be a totalitarian regime that focuses on the needs of the general population but totalitarian regime puts more power in the hands of the state where there is also no guaranty that the general population gets money or freedom or power. There might be an argument that in a capitalist society everyone can start a big business with robots and everyone has the same opportunity to gain good income but this is more of wishful thinking rather than a reality. people are still struggling and work hard but are covered in debt, no access to clean water or opportunity to express themselves. Saying that still i think you have some good videos though you need to read more sociological works like Mosse, Tilly, Cleaver, Norman Long etc. Economics and mathematics do not show the whole picture (neither do sociologists but a combination might help).
"corporations are the only ones that finance the states through taxes their vote is "more valuable" in a democracy"
You say it like that isn't true already.
Valer K Corporations don't vote. Political parties only care about their votes!
And that's why the Roman Republic turned into Roman Empire
But corporations do pay money to their preferred candidates to persuade them to change their opinions on things that the corporation doesn't want, and that money can be and is used to make a bigger political campaign which results in more votes. So yeah, it's corporations who decided who is the winning political party, almost always has win the one who spent more on his campaign, sadly.
I genuinely believe that UBI will be necessary in any capitalist society after the automation of the workforce, but that the way politics in the US functions today will never allow for it.
You need to be able to govern without baseing policies mostly on the will of the companies to be able to help the people when work no longer exists.
As much as I would love to loaf around all day in this concept of an economy,
the biggest problem arises in the incentive to maintain such a cycle;
the government has no incentive to pay the ordinary people,
as outlined here in CGPGrey's The Rules for Rulers:
ruclips.net/video/rStL7niR7gs/видео.html
Current economics exist because there is a demand for work and a supply to fill said work.
We, individuals, get paid because corporations need work and we fulfill said work
With the demand gone(and technically with it, the supply too),
what reasons does the government need us to be alive for?
We, individuals, are no longer contributing to the growth of the economy.
One might think, "We're buying stuff the corporations are making!"
What makes you think there's a reason for the corporation to cater to us individuals?
Search: Paradise Papers
You're making it sound like corporations and governments aren't being run by individuals. They are and that's the beauty of UBI. EVERYONE would get UBI which means everyone benefits from it. I like to call it free money for everyone and I really don't know why anyone would say no to that.
Yes but what happens when the company flees the UBI system to a different country, only to just import the products. But now without paying a tax. Like me I dont like paying taxes, so I work in a country that doesnt charge tax.
The point of the government is to organize and provide services to the people. A proper government is ran by the people. The government's entire purpose is to help the people, so it requires the companies to pay taxes to give to the people.
Very nice simple explanation, well done
I like how The Rest Of Us defines lawyers separate to people in that pie graph @ 3:57 I sure had a chuckle at that one.
Oh boy, I can't wait until the libertarians get here...
*Puts popcorn in the microwave*
~You wouldn't have that microwave if it wasn't for the free market.
I didn't know this video advocated a command economy
*Takes popcorn out*
+John Garrison Obviously, but already have microwaves and we do not need to keep using update dated tools like 'free markets without basic income'.
+MrC0MPUT3R I am economically left and socially libertarian. Where is the drama is in this video? Everything is perfectly reasonable.
~ How are you going to innovate without the invisible hand of the market? Pfft whatever you guys just don't understand you can't tax a nation into prosperity. We don't have handouts in America and that's the way it should be!
waiting for UBI 😄 .. wait I'm Egyptian !! 😭😭😭
It seems like gradually eliminating personal taxes seems like the better place to start; it will incentivise people to continue working even as the last jobs dissappear, removing shortfalls in automation rolls out.
Fantastic....lets get started!
Doesn't his crest a permanent ruling class?
Also, that's not what communism is
yes it is
No, it isn't, that is socialism. Communism requires the absence of money, classes and state.
which is the ultimate goal
The only political entity this far ahead, I believe, is the Pirate Party, which posits that every citizen can play a role in government via computer technology.
Yang2020 Just me?
Im a Yanger :)
Yang Gang!
Love your animations!
You just blew my mind - you totaly changed my view on the future it doesnt has to be a total mess this is genius
Have you heard about Automated Luxury Communism? Would it be the same as this system?
I think in a sense yes, but communism would probably entail the destruction of hierarchical structures which this UBI system still preserves. i.e. there still is private ownership of means of production and there still is profit motive driving companies. Under UBI we'll go from exploiting people and nature for profit to exploiting only nature for profit. Maybe fully automate luxury communism is the next step?
420master baiter I guess it would be the next step after UBI. Approach a "Culture" universe style post scarcity society.
Firstly, obligatory AUTOMATED LUXURY SPACE GAY COMMUNISM. Secondly, no not really, communism advocates for a total abolition of capital, as it is the main driving cause behind inequality, as the bourgeois have only one thing above them, and that is capital, at they will go to any means necessary to gain more of it.
+Ravioli Ravioli "Communism=bad"
You=idiot
If you want to know why, you should be the one to explain your point 1st.
Francisco Galárraga No, UBI is NOT communism. Watch bad mouse productions video about UBI. It’s getting closer to our FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY SPACE COMMUNISM
This takes all control out of the hands of the workers. Without a centralized means of production, society is in the hands of corporations with only one thing in mind: Profit.
Actually, it puts control back in the hands of the workers. If your basic needs are covered no matter what, you're free to decline any job that doesn't pay enough for what they want you to do. The essential-but-dirty jobs that can't be automated yet would quickly become some of the highest-paying just to find people to do them.
These videos are amazing! Just randomly discovered this gem. This video is a great introduction to why things are getting unbalanced these days...An interesting followup video would be, what political, socioeconomic, or ideological factors prevent people from seeing this as a "win win" situation. Mainly, in this diagram businesses are supposed to be motivated by consumption in order to put up with subsidizing a UBI for people, but because reality is a lot more complicated with things like international trade, lobbying, selling to foreign markets when domestic consumption goes down, the fact that global markets don't exist in a level playing field etc. These are all fascinating topics. But then again I guess the reason these videos are so good is because you do kind of restrict the scope...just throwing some suggestions out there just in case
I love how it @3:57 shows the pie chart of People, Lawyers and Production....
And who is gonna fix the millions of robots?
We will. That's what people don't get. Dead end jobs will disappear but we will have new, better jobs. It will never end.
Other robots. Or, what, do you think that somehow a robot can be programmed to put a part down and screw it in, but can't be programmed to unscrew something, remove it, and install a new part?
You might still need humans in the loop at some point, be it supervision or checking the robots' work, but at the and of the day the problem remains:
Millions of robots will take over the jobs that millions of humans do.
There will new jobs in managing the robots, but it won't be millions of new jobs: That would defeat the whole purpose of replacing the humans with robots.
You'll get 10s, maybe 100s of thousands of new jobs, tops, which just leaves millions of people out of work.
Yes in the short term they'll be out of work but humanity is better off. The former workers are now free to do greater things. And the few supervisors that control the robots will not stay competitive for long because others are working to replace them too.
the robots
Very few humans will be required for that, and if we create AGI's that can fix each other without the help of human supervision, than we are essentially planting our own doom in the name of faster progress & un-restricted economic growth !
This is the sort of thing that sounds good in theory but will never work in today's economy. My experience has been that governments will be always more prone to government spending rather than giving out free money. Plus there is also the additional problem of lobbying. If a government body has increased control over the distribution of wealth, wouldn't it get distributed to the demographics that support their party the most? Is it also possible that some industries could benefit through this more than others? If this plan goes into full effect, could this also stun innovation and thus cause the economy to collapse?
miss the point dude ubi goes to everyone so it doesn't matter if you lean one party or another though the party that brings it in will get a lot of new voters once they realise how it makes their life better. Any party trying to kill it after that would lose votes. Most parties in a democracy would soon hold to a general consensus and a party calling for increases would tend to get more support than one for cutting it. UBI frees people up so more people could lobby. Tech enables direct democracy through online discussion and voting. The evidence from pilots and trials indicates uptick in innovation & entrepreneurship. All industries benefit from automation I think. I don't see any industry benefiting less from increases consumption of goods and services by people with more money in pocket.
*Universal* basic income implies everyone, rich or poor, gets a cheque from the government each month. You're then free to do with that money as you please.
You can live from that money as you please or you can spend it in other ways like investing in businesses or starting your own.
The thing is that the government doesn't necessarily have to charge tax. They could charge a flat rate for every employee the business has replaced with a robot.
Great video! What happens though if companies choose to move to other countries with no BAI/Automation Index to up their profit margin? Is there a solution to that problem?
Hi, thank you for this great video, it's really interesting and I would like to know of you could provide references to allow those of us interested to dive into the literature surrounding the topic?
Keep up the good work!
i live this life now in Canada.lol
Thats great....how much they give each month?..is it good enough...or just for peanuts?
Where?
what would the point of life be if. We have nothing to do. Everything needs a purpose
fantastic video !!
Great video! A very important question that needs solving before UBI can fully function is the social and spiritual aspect: what will people do all day without a job? How will you transform the social mindset of having focus in life, without a job that used to take up most of one's day? How will you deter people from indulging themselves in addictive chemicals, and selfish pleasures? How will you maintain social cohesion where people are still somehow contributing to the social fabric?
For the majority of human history, humans didn’t spend all or most of their time laboring, they spent it building relationships, resting, creating music and culture, storytelling, swimming, etc.
@@katieakin9397 They did though. How else would you get food, drink and shelter? If you’re not directly supplying yourself with food, drink and shelter, you have to compensate someone else to provide you with those. Thus, you need some exchange of value or currency. One has to work for this currency, there’s no free money.
To those who say this system would kill economic growth:
Even if it did, why would that be bad? Something cannot grow indefinitely anyways and as long as everybody is happy with their lives I wouldn't mind a lack of economic growth!
How rare to hear the growth mantra questioned. It's incredible how this fantasy of infinite growth has become invisible like an axiom.
Zahlenteufel1 There is only one thing that can grow indefinitely: cancer.
I don't remember where I heard it, but some economist said we're eventually going to have to decide between growth and prosperity, because those two things don't inherently equal each other
The premise of the economy is that investments today will yield profits tomorrow. And it's all out on a limb of debt. Debt is where money comes from, and where it goes. (Unlike wealth.) So if there's one dollar today, there must be $1.02 tomorrow, or the world (of the investor classes) blows up.
It's not an Iron law of economics. We're not doomed unless we stick to this doomed system. (So we're doomed.)
No, cancer eventually kills the host and then the cancer goes too. But it may be like cancer: economic growth goes until it kills us and then there is no economy because there is no us.
Or we could evolve beyond consumerism.
a UBI would be a step in the right direction towards abolishing consumerism.
soooo communism?
You gonna tell people not to buy things they want?
Good idea! Who needs to consume bread anyways! XD I just won't consume anything!! Genius!
you have no fucking idea what it is meant by consumerism. i just explained just above you. i highly suggest you read what i wrote and stop talking nonsense.
thanks for the video. but it was a little tough for me. gotta watch it again and again to understand!
Hey man, recently subbed and I'm not regretting it - I love your channel! You are one smart guy. I would love to hear your thoughts on a Resource Based Economy and The Zeitgeist Movement... maybe a subject for another video? ;)
Also Direct Democracy (Iceland) and Mag-Lev technology (how it works and how it might impact our societies).
Thanks, and keep up the great work!
D
Thanks for the flowers! Coincidentally I'm currently working on a video related to the Zeitgeist films. Though I should tell you in advance, that I'm not exactly sympathetic to it - but as always I'll be explaining myself as clearly as possible, so you can judge for yourself.
But for this to work, the money saved from no employees would just be given to the people so there isn't much savings. I can't see that businesses will make more
Matt Ryu
true, an example with realistic numbers would be great.
Increased productivity. Even if all the money you gained from automating your workforce got lost to taxes, you still have robots working 24/7/365.
GoldenSodaXbox Even if you increase productivity you still dont want that if it gets you fewer profits, the solution to that is simply putting a tax that lets them win more with automatization but still collects for the rest of the people. Obviously, this is still a flawed idea anyways, since it will make it take longer for robots to take humans jobs since they would have to be more productive than humans and also overcome the tax over automatization but i guess thats better than having millions dying of hunger in the streets.
True, but if you're manufacturing something and nobody can buy it, then it becomes completely pointless and your profits will collapse.
The simple answer is to just tax industries by sector, i.e. having the same tax bracket for all companies that do the same thing. To compete you'd have to automate, so individual business owners would still want to automate. The more an industry is automated, the more you tax it.
I don't know anything about the topic but I think with automatization new job areas will arise.
Historically this has only sorta been the case. With automation you tend to get a concentration of opportunity, the total income increases but it takes the form of a smaller number of much better paying jobs and a larger number of worse paying ones. When this happens slowly, with only a small percentage of people getting hit per generation, the economy can absorb it through the regular cycle of life and death, so the effect is only really apparent when one crunches the numbers.
It’s different this time compared to the industrial
revolution.
With the industrial revolution, mechanization would let 1 person do what 100 could, but in most cases, would require the operator.
This causing a finite amount of human work be necessary. The type of work being
replaced was mainly labor only.
Then in the information area of personal computers,
cognitive tasks where not outright replaced but enhanced, 1 person could now do
their task faster, but the person was still required.
The difference this time is no human is required at all, be it labor or cognitive. These new AI can operate on their own, improve on their own, and come up with their own solution or methodology for the given
presented task, this includes what was originally considered creative.
The bulk of what lawyers and paralegals do will be replaced, along with general
practitioners (family doctors), musicians, editors, translators, tradesmen, machinery
operators, technicians, code monkeys, bureaucrats, and on and on.
The rate of jobs replaced will grow rapidly, and the rate of
new jobs will grow slowly as there will become fewer and fewer types of
work that a human can do that a AI/robot can’t.
What will be left are research type positions and a few
director/management positions. But these positions will have higher
education requirements and higher competitive/IQ requirements from
before. So not all people can switch to them. For the average folk there
will be nothing left.
I am an electrical engineering student and will be going
into the field designing these new systems. A thing I have been trying
to do daily is look at what I see people doing as a job, and trying to find a job
that can’t be replaced with upcoming tech, I can not.
sure thing, but not hard jobs like 8hours a day, maybe 1 day at month
Deponensvogel, commonsense says the opposite. If you automatize bus driving then all bus drivers will eventually lose their jobs.
Moreover, 21first century big corporations have a much lower number of employees than older corporations.
Facebook employees: 20,000
Some for sure but not enough to provide high-paying jobs for everyone. Not everyone is capable of being a programmer, engineer, scientist though more people will be doing this.
Excellent presentation
@The Rest Of Us
Great video! I would like to ask your permission to share your video on www.bilibili.tv to make it available for main land Chinese viewers (since RUclips is blocked there). Is it OK?
Wow, why am I not shocked at the financial illiteracy in this comment section?
John Sanchez >implying there's only one view of economics instead of there being two major competing systems that both seem to work well enough
John Sanchez >implying the only possible choices are 100% free market totally unregulated capitalism and full on communism >implying the new deal wasn't a thing >implying Obama's spending policies didn't see us out of a recession
Bread lines work well enough.
Seems as though this will simply cause the businesses to move elsewhere to avoid extreme taxation. No business will want to pay the taxes needed for this to be effective, and there's likely going to be plenty of places for them to go without worrying about tax. The business world is non altruistic, and even though they wont have to pay for employees, what reason do they have to stay in a country with those kinds of taxes. With almost complete automation, there's no need for them to stay in any country, if all they need to worry about is electricity; they could move to a third world country and pay minimal taxes compared to those that the first world countries would need to keep the same standard of living.
Yeah the businesses don't have to pay for employees, but why would they want to stay somewhere where they'll have that cost replaced with taxes. Governments could tariff them heavily, but what prevents 75% of businesses from moving somewhere else where the government doesn't care about the quality of life of their citizens, and doesn't tax them more than enough to line the leaders' pockets? As long as the profits stay high enough, there's no reason to stay where they'll be taxed. The only way this is feasible is if such a large amount of the world's population becomes unemployed to have taxation be cheaper, and that isn't likely to occur until the damage is already done.
All in all, I think that nothing is going to change until massive damage has already been done, and a significant portion of the population is unable to buy products to keep businesses running. I think that this is one of the more optimal ways of dealing with the impending unemployment, however I honestly think that this, or any other method, is extremely unlikely to occur until it's the only profitable option left, and by then, the damage will have already been done.
99jdave99 But what if the whole world does this 😉
99jdave99 This will work as long as some people keep some jobs. But what if 50% of the population is unemployed? Who will buy your stuff? Rich countries will not have anymore money since companies took it all. Poor people in countries without bot taxes had no money in the first place. Ok what about the super rich you ask? They have no need for 2000 pieces of bread a day. Or 12.000 smartphones. If they won't share they will have to downscale, since there will be nobody left to buy. Maintaince costs will skyrocket, and most stuff will be unused. Companies will have no choice but to give a UBI.
Well you fail to recognise that UBI is going to come in many countries. When one country does ubi others will follow. Also Govs are coming together already to get agreement on corporate tax regimes/tax havens etc/tax evasion/avoidance. Also people of countries where ubi is not offered will be clamoring for it and if Gov won't do it they will vote in one that will or rise up in revolution. All the countries that introduce it will want it to globalise it to reduce people wanting to migrate to get ubi and prevent corps wanting to shift jurisdiction. Govs can penalise any company that tries to leave a country to escape their obligations with a hefty exit tax thus making it uneconomical for them to leave. Also could refashion tariffs/sanctions to prevent their goods from being imported. Could pass a law to say 50% of a company's/corporations goods must be sold in country the goods are selling in for example. State has power to constrain, regulate & compel corporations if necessary.
Michael Steinberg Then the buissneses owners will get old and die. and the business will die with them because no one is going to study so hard to own a business where they just make slightly more money than everyone else. Then where where dose the money come from? It's rebranded communism, don't fall for it.
You earned my subscription.
where can I find more information about the complete model, including how a VAT tax, savings, and trade interact with this type of system?
But in the UBI, it is necessary to make sure that the company owners and the few remaining employees still make more money than those who don't work in order to provide impetus for them to work in the first place. Else, it falls to the same fallacy as Communism: If one who doesn't work earns the same amount of money, then why work at all?
Because most people will want to make more than what the UBI provides. And yes...those who will be working will make more than UBI, because the lower wage will rise above UBI.
In most proposals, UBI only covers the very basics - housing and food. If you want to do fancy stuff like travel and buy lots of stuff, you need to work, so work is still incentivized.
answer: humans arent working, only robots works
Of course they still make money. 60% tax on 100 million still leaves them with $40 million in bank for their endeavours for example. Everyone who does a job/earns money above their ubi by definition makes more money and is better off than not working. So not everyone will have the same amount coz different people will do different things. Some will do less hours, some more, some jobs will still pay more than others. Straw Man.
Vagelis 4VP That's not what actually happens. Check black communities that live with social welfare programs. If they get money enough just to squander around, they will drag others who want to live a better life down. Because it is much easier to drag other people down than to fix your shit and get yourself up.
I'm a little confused by the comments on this video. How come by replacing a human worker with a mechanized worker changes the economy. Put simply that is all they are doing.
Yes to get the money to the people they pay it to the government first. But that is only a path to the people. Would people find it easier to understand if each company had to pay a certain amount of people and call them employees although they do not actually work for the company. Nothing else has changed. The companies are still producing goods. They still need people to buy those goods so they can stay in business and make a profit. People are still getting money to buy those goods.
People are still paying tax on those goods and will still pay tax on the basic income they get and any extra money they get from other means.
People will still pay other taxes and tariffs that exist today.
All that is happening is the company no longer pays a person because in this scenario that person will no longer exist as a worker. I may not be understanding this but I think a lot of people do not like the idea of people not working and see it as the end of civilization and thus complicate things and make out that by simply taking a human worker and replacing it with a machine that somehow that act changes everything else. To make it easier perhaps the companies can pay the same amount they were paying in wages increased each year according to cpi but pay that as the Basic income tax. Thus what they pay out will be exactly the same.
Basically people seem to be saying if you replace me with bob the robot and the company has to pay the same as it did before for some reason because I am not working the whole economy changes. Please explain how doing that changes everything about the economy. Please explain that by doing this a business having the same costs and getting the same income can survive with a human worker but cannot survive with robots and paying an automation wage the same amount and most likely less than they were paying before. Please explain how this changes anything else because I fail to see it. But perhaps I am looking at it too simplistically but perhaps others are adding in complications that simply do not exist.
+Margaret Lillian Well said. Not only in the comments here, but also in the world people are genuinely confused. It feels like many people don't want this to work and will tell you nonsensical complicated reasons for it. That's because people are always attached to the status quo. They grew up in a world of jobs and don't want to imagine anything else. I think one of the first things that need to change is the mindset of people.
Think of it this way, if companies buy machines to replace labor they're paying a fixed cost to replace a variable flow (wages). For every fixed cost investment the company decides to take on it must justify that cost in one of two ways: higher revenue or lower variable costs. Currently, companies have begun to replace low-skill workers (this is a technical term) with machines that can replicate the tasks of said workers. The companies now don't have to pay wages, they have to buy machines once and repair and replace machines over time. If there is a difference between the wages and the fixed costs + maintenance, firms transfer the difference into pricing (see economies of scale & price advantage).
Now imagine many companies are switching to machines to replace labor... but they keep former laborers on the payroll. Firms can't replace wages with fixed costs, they can only take on additional fixed costs. With higher costs, prices rise. Now after a year, the wages the companies are still paying are too low relative to the new price levels in the economy. Companies start to pay higher wages but they don't hire new machines and they don't bring human labor back. Prices rise again to match the new costs of increased wages. Rinse and repeat.
That's about as simplified as I can get, I think. Does that help highlight some of the concerns you've read?
Matthew Wiegert you assume lower or higher commodity prices even matter. My gadget prices at the Walmart made by third world sweat shops are dirt cheap... but my food prices are going up, my rent is going up, my healthcare is going up and my jobs are disappearing.
I would rather pay 90 dollars for a decent pair of shoes, if it meant I had a job that paid the rent - sure the shoes are pricey, but I can afford my food.
Spoonikle, I'm not sure what you mean. The price level I'm referring to is the idea of the total market price, it doesn't necessarily have to involve changes in commodities. Ceteris paribus if just one good or service in the economy increased in price, price levels rise. If the price of shoes increases while the price of food decreases proportionately then price level holds steady. I'm talking about inflation.
Margaret Lillian wrong. Manufactured goods and necessities are different things. Humans are not "models".
The fact that food is a need allows market forces to inflate its cost where it "can". As long as the market has the money to support it regardless of pain to the consumer.
Rents and property are similar-
A glut of capital from increased profits due to automation and cheap overseas labor seeks returns. Spreading into overvalued investments and driving asset prices up, buying businesses, homes, apartments - anything it can.
When established business are purchased, ROI is needed and the "economy of scale" takes a back seat to recouping the purchase and boosting share value with nice earning statements. In the case of New Hampshire, their entire electric grid was sold off to eversource and rate hikes and fees have been abysmal.
Rents and homes becomes over valued when too much capital is chasing them, yet it's not the people who use or live in the properties driving up the prices, speculators looking for return are. Rents are rising to recover investments made by private equity firms.
You can't automate your way out of this shit. Cheap manufactured goods... great... have fun eating plastic spoons and old electronics.
Prices are not "leveling out", the poor and working class are being squeezed. Kids are staying home longer, parents taking less time off. Normally we would just... not buy the fancy tv and keep using our old one, yet the tv isn't the expensive thing any more, now we have to bunk up 5 people to an apartment, put ourselves in debt to go to school (ever more expensive schools since the rich don't wanna pay taxes and the states keep cutting funding to community colleges) to work a small pool of management and high level high skill jobs that in all honesty only 20% of humans are even born intelligent or motivated to do. ( 80% Ron W. 20% Hermione G. )
Classic economic thinking ignores the fact that people are stupid, too much capital is toxic to asset markets and that all goods and services are not equal (medicine to save your life vs new jet ski )
Quite genius :) Good video!
this is literally the first piece of information that doesn't suggest the end of society and the mass death of people as a result of automation. Keep up the good work
No, its not...some people are talking and explaining UBI for decades now, and there are many other videos from other sources made prior to this.
The more, the better though.
Lets just say someone gets 2k a month. They're not gonna have enough money to pay for luxury products. Small business owners would all fail because no one would be able to afford their products
Sure, the type of businesses which exist might change, just like it does every day. 10 years ago nobody would have thought that newspaper will go broke. Businesses come and go and need to adjust to the times they're in.
Many people, since they have free time, will want to work, create or sell something to buy more stuff. The basic income would only provide basic needs. Many people are good at something and they will offer that to earn a bit more, and spend it on this or that, traveling, buying a car, house,...
But people wouldn't be locked in to a 9 to five jobs. And if a job is really hard or dirty? Then will have to pay people a lot better to do that job. That is free market capitalism. Currently it is used in favor of companies, but not in favor of working people.
They will always find people for jobs, they just have to offer the right pay, set by the free market.
There will still be a lot of high earners buying luxury goods that's not gonna disappear. Straw Man. Most people will still be striving to earn more above the basic level.
You can work and have more money just like how it is now.
Tax automation. Any company that is using a machine that is automated (does not require a human to operate it) tax the employer on what a human would make doing that job. What would the payroll tax have been if a human did the job? The employer must pay this payroll tax which will go into the basic income fund. The more automation there is the higher the basic income check becomes.
Now you end up witbthe same problem as we face today. Companies would move their production to places where bot taxes are lower/non-existent
www.geekwire.com/2017/tax-robots-bill-gates-even-automation-held-human-requirement/
Then I hope Bill Gates will help with the 2nd Revolution.
That's bullshit, everyone should be taxed equally, people and corporations, same percentage. Taxing robots would slow down automation, that's bullcrap, why would you want that? When taxes are equal proportion then everyone is happy and everything is fair, if company get's bigger they pay more taxes, even though same percentage as everyone.
Walter, how about companies like Facebook? How can you "tax the employer on what a human would make doing that job"?
Also, robots do not need restroom facilities, a huge capital saving: one producer uses robots that do not need the lights on and no need for AC or heating in the area the robots are working in.
Finally someone who understands and clearly words what I have been trying to tell to people for years.
Let's see...I'm a fully automated company who doesn't *want* to pay 97% tax...hmm...off to Mexico I go! Then I get to *keep* my earnings and I don't have to pay much at all to the state! Then other, less well off countries will compete to see who can make the most attractive offer to entice big, clean, efficient, money-generating companies like me! It'll be great! Heck, I may even start a country of my own --what with all this dang cash! Isn't competition great? It's like things are the way they are for a reason!
Afford what exactly? My terms are conditional. Wherever the market is stable and nice to me, that's where I move.
Well after we slap a 97% tariff on your imports,, we'll still have the cash. Or the product will be made here, which accomplishes the same thing.
Resource Based Economy.
...is the next step, after the UBI.
That's realistically the best option after mass automation but there will still be people bitching about it but won't bother coming up with any better ideas.
Love your content
Thank you for putting this rationally.
Seen by Andrew Yang
Yang 2020!
Please expand more on this model!
I freaking love this theory! I hope it works out in the decades to come :) I run a rental house & the incomes of my tenants are critical to my own income!
So... You're a parasite
I've been saying this for a while now. But I don't see anyone moving in this direction, so it's probably gonna take a few decades at least.
Look at Finland for example they are experimenting with universal basic income and so are a couple of cities/municipalities in the Netherlands. It is small start but it's something :
www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/03/finland-trials-basic-income-for-unemployed
I think it's going to happen over the next 10 years. Phase 1 will be the permeation of the metasphere, which will gradually shift from fear-based to futurology-based. Phase 2 will be the emergence of ideas and models that will provide the foundational system to allow Humanity to sustainably transition into an automated economy. This will be around the same time as the meta-singularity that helps permeate the idea of the technological singularity. Phase 3 will be execution of the safe transition to a post-scarcity automated economy. World peace ensues. Singularity preparation begins.
And its great in Scandinavia when the average person can't afford a car, the economy is stagnating, there is no innovation or start-up companies because the upper class has all of their money taxed away with over 50% tax average.
You should play or observe a bit of the greatly modifiable simulation 'Democracy 3'. If you can get your daily reports to state you've created a society with 100% positive levels of education, health, and GDP with no measurable levels of unemployment, crime or poverty.. while keeping both capitalists and socialists fully pleased, and create a budget surplus... and do so without introducing a Bernie Sanders-style approach, I'll hear anything you have to say with more than just an open-mind. I'd be truly pleased to hear of another way you did it (Especially if you cater to my anti-religious pro-environmental views, but hey, that's a whole other can of unrelated worms). I've achieved this kind of simulation result above in my time experimenting with it, but only with high regulation, high taxes, and a smaller military. I did so, by the way, while being able to automate or eliminate more than half of the current government. That means socialism, without big government. Something usually impossible without the prospects of automation, e-democracy, and judicially-enforceable regulations.
P.S., Motorists aren't going to be a thing forever. Afford a car? To drastically rephrase: "Where we're going, we don't need our own cars." As for Innovation.. it's great, so long as it's out of a desire to create naturally or problem solve, but you shouldn't need to do so in order to survive or thrive. You wouldn't need to innovate in a properly-ran automated society. "The goal of the future is full unemployment, so we can play." - Arthur C. Clarke. Read a few of his books as well as some Isaac Asimov and you may start humming a different tune. It'll seem almost inevitable after digesting only around 1000+ pages on its probability.
Another solution is a Resource Based Economy. If you're interested in UBI then search THE VENUS PROJECT or THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT on RUclips
+Brian Kelly In my view the Zeitgeist movement is a bullshit conspiracy that's not providing any workable solutions to anything.
Yes TZM seems to be more about getting people thinking and doesn't really have a good detailed, outlined plan, but TVP and many other RBE advocators do have good outlined plans, ideas and suggestions
Brian Kelly That's not another solution. It's the definitive solution. UBI is just a step. Persistent UBI perpetuates inequality, cast systems and useless consumerism while still draining Earth resources. Resource based economy with a constant watch in Earth resources input and output levels should be the real goal. No conspiracy, just another future vision. Anyone could say UBI is BS as well.
"In my view the Zeitgeist movement is a bullshit conspiracy that's not providing any workable solutions to anything." Oh great. Always good when someone doesn't know anything about something and then provides their opinions on it. Doesn't mean shit. This video is like training wheels for retards compared to the sophistication of what an RBE advocates, and the details given by Peter Joseph. Read Peter's new book The New Human Rights Movement if you're literate enough to get through it.
I think UBI will help transition into RBE
“Not drawn to scale” - thumbs up for dry humor.
I like how lawyers aren't people at 3:57 lmfao :D
first
A lazy person's dream, getting money without earning it.
+Cajunofthe9th A dream indeed. Not only a lazy person's dream. Anyone's dream really. Don't pretend that if YOU won the lottery, you wouldn't cash that cheque.
If I earned it, Ill take it. If it's a handout, no thank you.
It's teaching people that they "deserve" things just because. Same with the feminist and SJW today, they think, or rather demand respect and and these special treatment just because they want it. Don't be like that.
For example, what if all the people who make a video on RUclips will get what you said the UBI, a guy making a 5 second farting video would get the same amount of views and money from this video you made that you spent tens of hours researching, making a script, editing, and all.
If that's everyone's dream then the world will be a stinky place to live in, and I believe you would not want to live on that planet as well.
so to answer the question you wouldnt cash a cheque if you won the lottery right? because winning the lottery isnt exactly earning money.
also i take it you really hate 2nd generation rich people right? you surely support implementing estate (or death) taxes, those people didnt earn their money, they have gotta be super lazy right?
you cant froze that money, taxes block that
cajunofthe9th watch the video again, you didnt understand it
good presentation
Excellent idea