First TED talk by a PF staff member

[anorlunda]

Yes, that's me in the video @anorlunda .

The TedX experience was great. They worked with me for 3 months refining and practicing the talk. I got great feedback from many polished speakers. The result was that the message changed almost totally from my first draft to the final draft. I think changed for the better. I had my kids visit for the TedX event. They're proud of their dad and we made a family weekend out of it.

Help me to convince @Greg Bernhardt that the PF story would make a great TED talk. There are local TedX events all over the world now, so almost everyone is within reach of one locally.

My follow-up duty is to promote the video to hopefully make it go viral. So please, share it if you like it.

Also, If you want to challenge what I said in the talk, this thread is the place to do that.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So awesome! Congrats! Share the video everyone!

 

[hagopbul]

Congrats , pf could be a good story for TEDx, but the person who you are trying to convince should also like the idea to talk in this public events , right ?

 

[hagopbul]

A nice ted talk , but had few things I would like to ask , universal basic income , is an idea talked about for quite some time , but how could we talk about that idea in the fact of a lot of corruption .

Science is not that advanced yet to realize that technological jump .current lose of jobs related to capital market forces that made the creation of new companies harder increasing difficulties for small businesses

Work as an idea needs to re-evaluated but how ?

Best
Hagop

 

[zoki85]

Cool.
Bring it on!

 

[anorlunda]

universal basic income , is an idea talked about for quite some time , but how could we talk about that idea in the fact of a lot of corruption .

Alaska has had a UBI for a long time now. It's not big enough to make it your only income, but nevertheless it has been very successful. Finland also tried it, but their experiment didn't work.

The problem is urgent. As I said in the talk, millions of people already suffer, and opioid use soars. If we have something better than UBI, we better get it working fast. Ideally pilot programs should already be running. If it takes us another 10 years to make a plan we like, that will be tragic for many people.

 

[chemisttree]

Great job! Congratulations as well. Greg, shouldn’t there be a badge for something like this?

 

[hutchphd]

Very interesting talk and on point. Congratulations.
Indeed

The problem is urgent

and one thing that could be emphsized more, IMHO, is the degree to which keeping people in jobs leads directly to needless plunder of resources. So change is existential on both a personal and planetary scale.

 

[hagopbul]

UBI , interesting idea , but how , not the why is the main question , yes I agree with you on the idea of jobs becoming a serious problem if it becomes a survivor necessity

But again how you can pay for it

And how to answer the corruption that will bankrupt the UBI system just like it is doing with other programs ?

Best
Hagop

 

[anorlunda]

The UBI idea has attracted much study and scrutiny. This wiki article is a good summary of the multiple aspects of the question, pro and con. The references at the bottom make a good bibliography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

The former candidate Andrew Yang did a lot to publicize and explain the UBI, but alas his website was taken down when he dropped out. Here's an article both critical and supportive of Yang's ideas.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/2...or-universal-basic-income-are-pretty-far-off/

When I wrote the talk, my logic was to presume that the singularity is coming. We can't stop it. The jobs problem will be real and acute and accelerating. We must deal with the problem; no choice. The UBI, whatever its flaws, sounds like the most promising approach to bridge the gap from now to money obsolescence.

Remember my theme, "We can deal with change." Not dealing with it is not an option.

 

[hagopbul]

A good answer but some are talking about shorting the job hours making it 6 hour a day , with 4 shifts of workers

remember that job problem originated from the fact that big businesses aren't allowing anyone in the market , they lobby the government using it for that goal

UBI will just be part of the solution

You didn't answer for corruption problem also

 

[jack action]

It's funny, because not long ago, one of my uncle came to me with his fear of everyone losing their jobs because robots will do everything. Even though he's retired and have no kids, he was literally panicking for future generations. His point was: If you have no job, how will you pay for stuff?

So I first told him:

«But people will have to build and maintain the robots, that's a job.»

«No, robots will do that. They will do everything!», he replied.

«OK then. You don't need money.», I responded. «Since robots are doing EVERYTHING, all you ever need will be done by a robot and you won't need to pay for it. All you will have to do is ask. And with AI, you may not even need to do that, as your needs will be predicted before you know it.»

Personally, I'm not convince such a world will exist, but if it does - by definition - it cannot be a problem. But, that idea couldn't get into my uncle's head. Life without money, or without working for somebody else, was just inconceivable.

Alaska has had a UBI for a long time now. It's not big enough to make it your only income, but nevertheless it has been very successful. Finland also tried it, but their experiment didn't work.

The problem is urgent. As I said in the talk, millions of people already suffer, and opioid use soars. If we have something better than UBI, we better get it working fast. Ideally pilot programs should already be running. If it takes us another 10 years to make a plan we like, that will be tragic for many people.

UBI , interesting idea , but how , not the why is the main question , yes I agree with you on the idea of jobs becoming a serious problem if it becomes a survivor necessity

But again how you can pay for it

And how to answer the corruption that will bankrupt the UBI system just like it is doing with other programs ?

AS for UBI, I don't understand why this is thought as a "future" thing. From my point of view, it's a thing that was implemented a long time ago. At least here in Canada.

As a provincial responsibility, anyone who doesn't have enough revenue (or none) to pay for his/her livelihood, will have an assured minimum income. There are many conditions for how much you will get, and it can be quite low if you are considered apt to work, but this is still a guaranteed basic income. The cost of this program is about 2.5-3.0% of the province budget (Québec) and helps about 5.5% of the population.

Nationally, there is also a program that guarantees a revenue that is considered the "poverty line" (about a third of the average salary, which is usually more than what you would get on the provincial social security program) to anyone over 65 years old. So, whatever your revenues are at 65, you will be compensated up to the poverty line, if they are lower. I don't know the cost of this program, though.

There is no way we are the only country who have programs like these.

 

[PeroK]

The UBI idea has attracted much study and scrutiny. This wiki article is a good summary of the multiple aspects of the question, pro and con. The references at the bottom make a good bibliography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

The former candidate Andrew Yang did a lot to publicize and explain the UBI, but alas his website was taken down when he dropped out. Here's an article both critical and supportive of Yang's ideas.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/2...or-universal-basic-income-are-pretty-far-off/

When I wrote the talk, my logic was to presume that the singularity is coming. We can't stop it. The jobs problem will be real and acute and accelerating. We must deal with the problem; no choice. The UBI, whatever its flaws, sounds like the most promising approach to bridge the gap from now to money obsolescence.

Remember my theme, "We can deal with change." Not dealing with it is not an option.

I must admit I'm quite sceptical about this. The technological changes to reach the singularity could be far in the future. The National Health Service in the UK employs 1.2 million people. How is that going to be automated by computers and robots in 27 years? It's more likely it will employ 2 million people by then.

We'll be lucky if HS2 (the new high-speed rail network) is built in 27 years. The project is already planned out to 2040. I can't see construction being automated/computerised by then.

Leaving the technology issues aside, the sociological and political consequences would be totally unpredictable. Money obsolescence might be the least of your worries.

 

[anorlunda]

UBI will just be part of the solution

No argument with that.

You didn't answer for corruption problem also

In the talk, I said, "What will the

AS for UBI, I don't understand why this is thought as a "future" thing. From my point of view, it's a thing that was implemented a long time ago. At least here in Canada.

UBI do about [stigma]? Initially, it may make things worse." Sure there will be lots of problems, and missteps, but we need to move forward despite those.

I'm not sure what kind of corruption worries you. If the UBI is paid to everyone, then there is no question of undeserving people getting paid UBI. If you mean politicians pocket the money, we already have had that since the dawn of governments.

From my point of view, it's a thing that was implemented a long time ago.

A safety net is not the same thing as a UBI where everyone (including rich people) get the same payment. If the UBI replaces social welfare and social security, then one effect (not the only one) will be to eliminate the social stigma of welfare. In the talk, I talked about the connection of social stigma and the opioid crisis.

Also unmentioned by me and by everyone else is the problem of taxes. If machines take over all jobs, then nobody earns a paycheck to tax. Both UBI and social welfare would necessarily collapse because of lack of government tax revenue. Obsolescence of money is not optional when we look at the full implications of 0% employment. Where is the tipping point? I summarily pegged it at 50% unemployment, when the unemployed become the majority.

 

[jack action]

Also unmentioned by me and by everyone else is the problem of taxes. If machines take over all jobs, then nobody earns a paycheck to tax. Both UBI and social welfare would necessarily collapse because of lack of government tax revenue.

Why would the government need taxes for?

Health care, education, road maintenance? All those needs - and every possible need you can think of - is fulfilled by a machine (i.e., no jobs). I'm not even sure you need a government. After all, "politician" is always presented as a job.

 

[anorlunda]

Why would the government need taxes for?

Precisely. As I said in the talk, UBI is only a transient thing needed to transition from now to then. Before we can achieve no money, we must transition.

 

[hagopbul]

I'm not sure what kind of corruption worries you. If the UBI is paid to everyone, then there is no question of undeserving people getting paid UBI. If you mean politicians pocket the money, we already have had that since the dawn of governments.

money emblazonment that kind of problem , this problem made a lot of government programs a complete joke , why UBI will be different ?

the money thing is more problematic than you think , social security , welfare and other programs was considered answer to the problem of society why UBI won't face the same dilema

 

[anorlunda]

money emblazonment that kind of problem , this problem made a lot of government programs a complete joke , why UBI will be different ?

We have always had embezzlement. It depends on your level of cynicism. Do you consider every program from every government in every nation, past and present, to be a joke? They have all been vulnerable to theft. Some people would say yes to that question, and they are entitled to their opinion.

 

[anorlunda]

Wow! Speaking of viral. I shared the TedX stage with a friend, Diane Thomas. Her Ted talk video has been viewed 37K times in the first 24 hours. (Mine got 0.5K so far.) It truly was an inspiring talk.

 

[hagopbul]

We have always had embezzlement. It depends on your level of cynicism. Do you consider every program from every government in every nation, past and present, to be a joke?

I know few examples I can tell you that

My last claim is just only one problem of many other ones

Without considering the fact that current advancement in technology won't take all the jobs , we need to think of how to apply UBI , the jobs itself as a concept and more

You didn't answer the job remarks

I think the main problems with jobs is related to capitalise market forces , big businesses aren't allowing small ones in the market resulting in job losses

 

[jack action]

I think the main problems with jobs is related to capitalise market forces , big businesses aren't allowing small ones in the market resulting in job losses

I don't see how big businesses taking the place of small businesses makes people jobless.

It may be argue that this is not good for many reasons, but it cannot remove jobs. There may be a need for less work because it is (should be?) more efficient to regroup everything, therefore less working time needed for EVERYONE to get what they need.

Big corporations making huge profits at the expense of the consumers (because they don't hand down the economy due to centralization) is another story.

 

[hagopbul]

don't see how big businesses taking the place of small businesses makes people jobless.

It is statistics , with less small business you need smaller working force that all

 

[hutchphd]

Precisely. As I said in the talk, UBI is only a transient thing needed to transition from now to then. Before we can achieve no money, we must transition.

Apropos money flow in the interim, what is your opinion of an "income tax" for robots. I think Bill Gates floated the idea a few years back. It is all about the money, at least near term...

 

[256bits]

Where is the tipping point? I summarily pegged it at 50% unemployment, when the unemployed become the majority.

Are you talking about the employment rate, or the dependency rate?
Employment rate is the percentage of the working population able to find work.
Dependency rate it the percentage of people not of labour force age to the labour force,
Both are fluidic .for a population. For example, we have had the baby boomer explosion after the second world war, which seemed to have driven economic development, and social structure expansion, first as young children and their needs were met, then as a driver as they became of working age with the desire for homes, food, and other articles of consumption. Now nearing retirement for many they are falling into the statistic of dependency ration.
As seen here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio, this ratio hovers around 70% for most OECD countries in financial health. The 30% not working may be unemployed, not looking for work, enrolled in re-education programs, etc,

Also seen here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_ratio, the dependent population, those that rely on someone else to supply, either of child dependency, or age dependency has varied over the recent decades for regions of the world, where on average it has hovered around 60%.
Have more kids and the rate goes up. More old people and the rate goes up. In both these instances, the number of working people providing for a dependent of the population, will decrease, putting a strain on the income apportioned towards the dependent, versus that available to themselves.

One can play with the definitions of labour force and dependency to easily change the ratios.
That I have not done, but can envision the labour market having an age reduction from the present 15 to 65, ( to perhaps 30 to 40, or whatever ) which if jobs are scarce, would keep the employment ration constant ( if that is a desirable ) for a particular economic and demographic situation. The effect on dependency ratio is self evident. An expansion of the labour force could come about by increasing the age of retirement ( as people live longer ), or lower the age from 15 as an entrance into the work force ( reversal of when child labour becomes an issue ).

Recent efforts to raise the retirement age for certain countries - the point at which the aged can collect their pension - in order to reduce the dependency ratio for the population, have been met with resistance. In turn, efforts to increase the child dependency ratio dependency ratio ( with incentives for couples to have more children in first world countries ) meets some support in certain quarters.

Perhaps in the future, if the scenario of AI robots doing all the 'work', the position for a job will entail big button pusher, and blinking light monitor, and that it. For which of course one would need a highly educated and trained individual, with compensation of excellent monetary value and providing needed self-worth to the individual.

How it plays out, and will it play out well, is an unknown. I do not think that for most individuals, continuous play sits favourably, even if we have some jobs that already do such, such as sports, art, parades for example.
Ask anyone in those fields if they have a job and they say yes. Definition of a what is a job will most likely continue the change the from the traditional definition of hewers of wood and drawers of water ( manual labour ) to more service ( people service and manufacturing service ) and entertainment venues.

Nice TED talk.
The discussions are meant for people to think about the issues, and apparently this has.

 

[jack action]

I summarily pegged it at 50% unemployment, when the unemployed become the majority.

@256bits brought this quote back and that goes with the point I'm trying to make with @hagopbul .

Assuming the whole population can work, how could it be possible that 50 % of the population is unemployed? How can 50 % of the population can sit there, doing nothing, watching others working while the other half is working, knowing they will share whatever they produce with the people sitting down, doing nothing? It is an impossible scenario. One way or another, the people working will begin to reduce their work load and/or the people not working will get bored and begin doing something. No matter who is the first to begin, it will end up all the same: people will work equally, but less overall.

So if we assume that everybody has a 40 h/week work load, you cannot end up later on with 50 % working 40 h/week and 50 % unemployed. You will necessarily end up with 100 % of the people having a 20 h/week work load.

 

[anorlunda]

Assuming the whole population can work, how could it be possible that 50 % of the population is unemployed?

50% is a necessary milestone on the road to 100%. Did you watch the video?

I agree that people will find something to do, and we can't predict what that is and what they'll call it. That's why I included the historical anecdote about 98% of colonists working to provide food leaving only 2% to do other things.

But the point I make in the talk is that the link between jobs and survival will be broken. Call it social welfare or call it UBI or call it moneyless, we won't let unemployed people starve in the streets no matter what they do to fill their days.

The record of job retraining in the USA is dismal. Yang claims it is 0 to 15% efficient. It is unrealistic to expect coal miners to be retrained to share jobs with white collar workers, or retail cashiers to become solar panel designers and installers.

We already eliminated most secretarial and typing pool jobs. Truck drivers (all professional drivers) are threatened in the near future. The brick and mortar retail business model is collapsing. Corporations are looking to eliminate back office departments. Think of those skyscrapers in cities (many owned by big banks); they are filled with back office workers doing who knows what.

 

[jack action]

we won't let unemployed people starve in the streets no matter what they do to fill their days.

You will have to define unemployed here. If they do something to fill their days, then they are not unemployed.

If you fill your days by gathering food, maintaining your house and make clothes for yourself, then you are self-sufficient and cannot be considered unemployed, even if you don't work for someone else, even if there is no money involved in your life.

If you find a way to do all of those things more efficiently and it takes half the time to do them, you are not "less employed", no matter if you choose to do more with your free time or if you choose to do nothing.

If you are so efficient that you have to do nothing to get all those things (say, robots do it for you), you cannot considered yourself unemployed either, as you have done everything you need to survive; in this particular case, nothing. This is still true whether you choose to do something else with your time or you choose to do nothing.

In this hypothetical world, you will probably not do anything. This becomes a matter of survival, not for keeping your body healthy, but to keep your sanity. One apparent advantage is that you have the liberty to choose what to do instead of being imposed to gather food and find protective shelter & clothing. Another one is that if you cannot work, life is more forgiving on you as you will not miss the essentials.

50 % unemployment is not a necessary milestone. A reduction by 50 % for the work load per capita could be though.

 

[PeroK]

We already eliminated most secretarial and typing pool jobs. Truck drivers (all professional drivers) are threatened in the near future. The brick and mortar retail business model is collapsing. Corporations are looking to eliminate back office departments. Think of those skyscrapers in cities (many owned by big banks); they are filled with back office workers doing who knows what.

On the other hand, from the UK Office for National Statistics:

The estimated number of vacancies in the UK fell sharply during the recession of 2008 to 2009. Since 2012, it has generally increased, reaching a record high in November 2018 to January 2019. For November 2019 to January 2020, there were an estimated 810,000 vacancies in the UK, 7,000 more than for the previous quarter (August to October 2019) but 50,000 fewer than for the previous year.

Moreover, the number of people employed in the UK is higher than ever - about 33 million.

 

[anorlunda]

On the other hand, from the UK Office for National Statistics:

Yeah. Statistics are hard to use because there are so many ways of counting. Unemployment in the USA is also historically low right now, but many people dropped out of the labor market and they are no longer counted. Since the recession of 2009, there are also many people considered underemployed. Nevertheless, seasonal agriculture and construction industries have many unfilled vacancies. There are jobs that people won't take that count as vacancies.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

 

[hagopbul]

Hello back :

I understand why some of my claims are hard to believe , for example if you look for the different social programs you will see that those programs was considered the answer for a lot of society programs , but they failed , so if not every program is basically some kind of problem what is the answer then , there is welfare , social security , medical insurance , food stamps , and a lot more , if those aren't working why UBI won't face the same problem

I know a country middle Eastern to be exact were the government give money to the family if they had children , in the 1st years of the system was great then this days the program gives only 10$ a month for every child or 5$ I don't remember due to money problems

I can agree like I said in the old posts UBI is great but how you can apply it ? Whit out facing the same faith of the other programs

 

[anorlunda]

Hello back :

I understand why some of my claims are hard to believe , for example if you look for the different social programs you will see that those programs was considered the answer for a lot of society programs , but they failed , so if not every program is basically some kind of problem what is the answer then , there is welfare , social security , medical insurance , food stamps , and a lot more , if those aren't working why UBI won't face the same problem

I know a country middle Eastern to be exact were the government give money to the family if they had children , in the 1st years of the system was great then this days the program gives only 10$ a month for every child or 5$ I don't remember due to money problems

I can agree like I said in the old posts UBI is great but how you can apply it ? Whit out facing the same faith of the other programs

You can ask it the other way. When we reach 50% unemployment (or 70 or 90) what will it be like? Do you really believe that we will just let people starve? If no, then it becomes mandatory to have something that works.

It is a difficult question what that something will be. We should expect plenty of problems. The UBI is just one proposal. There is no limit on how many other proposals are out there. I reject only one without a lot of thought. That is that the world continues to evolve with zero change, that the way of the future is the way of the past.

 

[hagopbul]

I reject only one without a lot of thought. That is that the world continues to evolve with zero change, that the way of the future is the way of the past.

A good saying indeed but let's take a look on numbers of social programs what is the problem with them , if we could figure that out any problem with UBI is easily averted

For example what is the relationship between medical insurance and the charge master ?

Another example what is the problem with food stamps