In my last essay, I discussed some currents of opinion on the contemporary political right that offer important insights into the nature of our present predicament.
It occurs to me that another book you'd probably find it profitable (ha) to engage with is Cory Doctorow's _Walkaway_. It is fiction, and the author succumbs, IMO, to the typical temptation of the message-fiction author to put his thumb on the scale in favor of his "side" and give them an implausible degree of success and luck. But it's the most elaborate attempt I know to flesh out what tech-enabled local economic independence could look like, and is worth looking at just to spark thought about what pieces might actually be workable in our lifetimes.
I read it 2-3 years ago and very much enjoyed it; it definitely helped to shape my ideas about economic independence. The 3D printing technology in the book is way ahead of ours and makes possible a degree of local self-sufficiency that would be hard to attain now, but it excited me to think of how technological development could enable entirely new kinds of social arrangements.
I really enjoyed this. I would quibble over several defintions, theoretical frameworks regarding the framing of capitalism, communism and socialism but tomato, tomata, Blurred lines.
-'Frase draws up a two-by-two matrix, with abundance versus scarcity as one dimension, and equality versus hierarchy as the other.'
This framing is spot on. I don't agree with the economic/societal philosophies that get you there.
-'clean energy that can carry us past the dangers of climate change to the expanded possibilities of cheap energy abundance (though he curiously neglects to mention either nuclear or geothermal options); asteroid mining, made possible by plummeting launch costs, that can render scarcity of key mineral resources a distant memory; gene editing, anti-aging therapies, and AI diagnostics that can greatly extend lifespans while reorienting medicine toward relatively cheaper prevention and cures and away from the expensive management of chronic conditions; '
This is my capitalistic with socialist tendencies, tehncocratic scientifc dream!
-' It has degenerated into a vehicle for upward redistribution of wealth and income that actually worsens the climate for innovation by making protected ideas less accessible to downstream innovators.'
I agree and disagree with this. It speaks to the the fundamental drivers of people. Excellent work should be incentivized, even if temporarily. It creates a richer culture and heritage. From art to science. Communism will always go by way of dominance hierarchies because that's fundamentally how people are hardwired.
-'the other side of that coin is likely to be an organized capitalist system that relies more heavily on public investment.'
I tend toward this framing. People just don't give up power. Even egalitarian so called communists. We are only a 100 years, if that, out of tribalism and I'm sure there are evolutionary reasons for that.
- And in a world where AI is giving states ever greater powers to track, control, and manipulate their populations, keeping the masters benevolent over the long run strikes me as a dicey proposition for humanity as a whole (even if particular polities can pull it off).
Most economics theories fail to practically discuss the role of women, family, children in these scenarios. That's millennia long, perhaps longer, free labor. Marx is an utter failure in this regard so I wonder why so many minority women/women in general flock to these ideas.
Yes, a Universal Basic Income can a small way to recognizing the value of unpaid work by women... especially if it is set to keep the labor market in dynamic balance. See my comment to Brink, above
Brink, you are absolutely correct, even in an abundant society driven by computer algorithms, the whole system requires a set of simplified signals, even for an individual to weigh up preferences, since there will always be scarce resources (a seat at a personal concert, an apartment overlooking the park, an original piece of craftwork, etc). Money fulfills that role (as long as there are mechanisms to account for the commons). Your concerns about a UBI can be addressed by shifting from a mindset of 'survival', to one of 'thriving': where the UBI is set not at the 'minimum', but to keep what remains of the labor market in dynamic balance. My view is that we are a long way from the time when robots can provide genuine human relations in caring for our young, disabled and elderly, and there is a never ending amount of work to beautify our cities and maintain and repair the built and natural environment. I look at the jobs just around my own house to see the work that continually needs doing! However, there is undoubtedly a massive shift underway in what counts as 'paid work'. A UBI set to keep the labor market in balance can ease the transition. As automation, virtualization, and AI reduce the need for labor in traditional fields, the UBI can be raised. As it is raised, some people will choose to stop looking for work, or cut back their hours, or drop out of paid work altogether, depending on their circumstances at the time (age, health, responsibilities, wants and needs and other income or savings they have). This decision will likely vary over their life, moving in and out of the labor market as circumstances change. At some point most people wanting a job will have paid work and most jobs will be filled, with the rest doing other things with their life - by choice. In making these choices, we need to help people see the many opportunities that exist for 'self-expression' when they have BOTH the money and the time to pursue them (unlike 'unemployed people on welfare' who have only the time, but no money). Increasing the UBI will never be perfect, but it should have a much more direct and immediate impact than dropping interest rates to stimulate employment. If inflation appears, the increase in the UBI can be halted and other tools used to damp demand (such as imposing a flat% tax on all spending). In Australia, we have been working on the design of such a UBI. See: https://medium.com/@michael-haines/20-reasons-for-a-universal-basic-income-90e4b364d157
Thanks for your comments. I'm intrigued by UBI as a possibility -- enough to want to see widespread experimentation -- but I remain deeply skeptical of its political prospects. I hope some places will prove me wrong and give it a try.
You are right, politics is the hurdle. And that's because there is still amongst the population the idea that you have to work for what you get, even though only around 50% of the population can do paid work at any time. While you are in the unpaid group, if you don't have savings or family support (around 12-14% of the population), you are consigned to poverty: mostly single women and their kids, as well as people who are disabled or elderly, and some between jobs who have no savings or family support. Poverty should not be an outcome of these circumstances. As a society, we have enough to supply the basic needs of everyone, while also meeting the wants (within the limits of their income) of those who can work to earn more than the basics.
Excellent and very interesting, bringing me up to speed with these ideas. Once explained, I agree largely with your analysis. My only concern which overlaps with your expression at the end of 'need for independence or freedom from a master' is that lack of work will just leave people listless and bored or worse completely lacking in purpose and a reason for living with nothing to strive for.
I agree that, especially in contemporary mass society, it's a short trip from joblessness to purposelessness. My idea of economic independence is to give people something to do: partially provide for themselves and take care of their own kids and parents. Whether my ideas pan out or not, the challenge of maintaining challenge and purpose in our lives when we don't have to do anything is at the heart of the permanent problem. If we don't figure it out, we're on our way to a truly dismal dystopia for most people.
Brink, I regard caring for our young, disabled and elderly as a preeminent good. It should not require carers to also have to take on additional paid work to survive. Though there should be that option if people choose. That's why I favour using the UBI as the tool to keep the labor market in dynamic balance... so people choose when and how much paid work they want, while ensuring most jobs are filled within a reasonable time frame
Jacqueline, clearly you are not retired :). The idea that people become listless and bored without work, is true primarily because under the current system, if you don't have work, you have plenty of time to do stuff, but no money to do it... unless you do have money (like people who are retired with a nest egg, or those who are independently wealthy). When you have both the time and the money to pursue your interests, there is are plenty of ways to engage with life! See my comment to Brink above
Hi Michael, indeed I am not yet retired and have a love- hate relationship with it, at times feeling the time constraints it applies, at others worrying if I would find enough to do when the time comes, though I ought as my time constraints issue is centred on all the things I'd rather be doing than work.
That said, I was more referring to the dislocation that has been caused by mass unemployment in the past when people don't have the resources to adapt. Are those just financial resources lacking? Maybe, if you include (financing of) facilities where they might "pursue other interests".
What if the things people find interesting to do are very disruptive to others eg crime - even low level, thinking idle youths or harmful to themselves, eg drug use and addiction. Of course we have these issues already but I don't think ubi and idleness will improve matters.
Jacquiline, they are valid concerns. Global pilots across difference countries and cultures (inc. the US) suggest that most people, given the chance, want to better themselves and their families, and given the money find useful and interesting things to do with their life. Though that also means providing the facilities and services they require. That said, our proposal is to start at just A$10/week and increase the rate quarter by quarter over 5 years to the poverty line (currently around $500/week in Australia). That does three things. It gives the supply chain time to adapt without causing shortages that drive inflation. And, it gives those people and businesses working in the current system time to refocus their resources away from 'emergency relief' to longer term help in developing life skills... including budgeting, parenting, negotiating, etc. As importantly, it allows us to see what adverse impacts (if any) emerge as the UBI is increased. At any point the increase can be halted until the impacts are countermeasured. Or, as the pilots suggest, we can speed up as the positives emerge (lower crime, better health, less suicide from financial stress and less domestic abuse, more people taking on education and training, or spending more time caring for children, disabled or aged relatives, etc). Once the UBI reaches the poverty line, it should never drop below. However, it can be increased to keep the labor market in balance as automation, virtulization and AI change the job landscape. As the rate is raised, certain people will choose to drop out of paid work or cut back their hours. At some point most everyone who want paid work will have a job and most jobs will be filled. The rest will be doing other things with their life, as they choose. This short article provides 20 Reasons for a UBI: https://medium.com/@michael-haines/20-reasons-for-a-universal-basic-income-90e4b364d157
I agree with you entirely! Though I love my job, I would gladly do it part-time instead of full so that I would have more time for reading/writing, traveling, working here and there, socializing with friends, volunteering, etc. So many Americans value "living to work", but some of us value "working to live"...but only as much work as you have to! There are too many other meaningful things I'd like to do besides being a full-time what-have-you.
Exactly. Everyone at different times has a different propensity to reduce their hours, or cut out paid work altogether, eg someone with young kids, or an aged parent to care for, or someone who is exploring their own talents in any field of human endeavour. The higher the UBI, the more people will be attracted to taking the 'other option' :)
It occurs to me that another book you'd probably find it profitable (ha) to engage with is Cory Doctorow's _Walkaway_. It is fiction, and the author succumbs, IMO, to the typical temptation of the message-fiction author to put his thumb on the scale in favor of his "side" and give them an implausible degree of success and luck. But it's the most elaborate attempt I know to flesh out what tech-enabled local economic independence could look like, and is worth looking at just to spark thought about what pieces might actually be workable in our lifetimes.
I read it 2-3 years ago and very much enjoyed it; it definitely helped to shape my ideas about economic independence. The 3D printing technology in the book is way ahead of ours and makes possible a degree of local self-sufficiency that would be hard to attain now, but it excited me to think of how technological development could enable entirely new kinds of social arrangements.
I really enjoyed this. I would quibble over several defintions, theoretical frameworks regarding the framing of capitalism, communism and socialism but tomato, tomata, Blurred lines.
-'Frase draws up a two-by-two matrix, with abundance versus scarcity as one dimension, and equality versus hierarchy as the other.'
This framing is spot on. I don't agree with the economic/societal philosophies that get you there.
-'clean energy that can carry us past the dangers of climate change to the expanded possibilities of cheap energy abundance (though he curiously neglects to mention either nuclear or geothermal options); asteroid mining, made possible by plummeting launch costs, that can render scarcity of key mineral resources a distant memory; gene editing, anti-aging therapies, and AI diagnostics that can greatly extend lifespans while reorienting medicine toward relatively cheaper prevention and cures and away from the expensive management of chronic conditions; '
This is my capitalistic with socialist tendencies, tehncocratic scientifc dream!
-' It has degenerated into a vehicle for upward redistribution of wealth and income that actually worsens the climate for innovation by making protected ideas less accessible to downstream innovators.'
I agree and disagree with this. It speaks to the the fundamental drivers of people. Excellent work should be incentivized, even if temporarily. It creates a richer culture and heritage. From art to science. Communism will always go by way of dominance hierarchies because that's fundamentally how people are hardwired.
-'the other side of that coin is likely to be an organized capitalist system that relies more heavily on public investment.'
I tend toward this framing. People just don't give up power. Even egalitarian so called communists. We are only a 100 years, if that, out of tribalism and I'm sure there are evolutionary reasons for that.
- And in a world where AI is giving states ever greater powers to track, control, and manipulate their populations, keeping the masters benevolent over the long run strikes me as a dicey proposition for humanity as a whole (even if particular polities can pull it off).
Most economics theories fail to practically discuss the role of women, family, children in these scenarios. That's millennia long, perhaps longer, free labor. Marx is an utter failure in this regard so I wonder why so many minority women/women in general flock to these ideas.
Thanks so much for this post.
Thanks for your thoughtful reactions.
Yes, a Universal Basic Income can a small way to recognizing the value of unpaid work by women... especially if it is set to keep the labor market in dynamic balance. See my comment to Brink, above
Brink, you are absolutely correct, even in an abundant society driven by computer algorithms, the whole system requires a set of simplified signals, even for an individual to weigh up preferences, since there will always be scarce resources (a seat at a personal concert, an apartment overlooking the park, an original piece of craftwork, etc). Money fulfills that role (as long as there are mechanisms to account for the commons). Your concerns about a UBI can be addressed by shifting from a mindset of 'survival', to one of 'thriving': where the UBI is set not at the 'minimum', but to keep what remains of the labor market in dynamic balance. My view is that we are a long way from the time when robots can provide genuine human relations in caring for our young, disabled and elderly, and there is a never ending amount of work to beautify our cities and maintain and repair the built and natural environment. I look at the jobs just around my own house to see the work that continually needs doing! However, there is undoubtedly a massive shift underway in what counts as 'paid work'. A UBI set to keep the labor market in balance can ease the transition. As automation, virtualization, and AI reduce the need for labor in traditional fields, the UBI can be raised. As it is raised, some people will choose to stop looking for work, or cut back their hours, or drop out of paid work altogether, depending on their circumstances at the time (age, health, responsibilities, wants and needs and other income or savings they have). This decision will likely vary over their life, moving in and out of the labor market as circumstances change. At some point most people wanting a job will have paid work and most jobs will be filled, with the rest doing other things with their life - by choice. In making these choices, we need to help people see the many opportunities that exist for 'self-expression' when they have BOTH the money and the time to pursue them (unlike 'unemployed people on welfare' who have only the time, but no money). Increasing the UBI will never be perfect, but it should have a much more direct and immediate impact than dropping interest rates to stimulate employment. If inflation appears, the increase in the UBI can be halted and other tools used to damp demand (such as imposing a flat% tax on all spending). In Australia, we have been working on the design of such a UBI. See: https://medium.com/@michael-haines/20-reasons-for-a-universal-basic-income-90e4b364d157
Thanks for your comments. I'm intrigued by UBI as a possibility -- enough to want to see widespread experimentation -- but I remain deeply skeptical of its political prospects. I hope some places will prove me wrong and give it a try.
You are right, politics is the hurdle. And that's because there is still amongst the population the idea that you have to work for what you get, even though only around 50% of the population can do paid work at any time. While you are in the unpaid group, if you don't have savings or family support (around 12-14% of the population), you are consigned to poverty: mostly single women and their kids, as well as people who are disabled or elderly, and some between jobs who have no savings or family support. Poverty should not be an outcome of these circumstances. As a society, we have enough to supply the basic needs of everyone, while also meeting the wants (within the limits of their income) of those who can work to earn more than the basics.
Do any of these folks address a probable population decline in their visions for the future?
I don't recall reading anything by them on that topic, but perhaps I've missed something.
Excellent and very interesting, bringing me up to speed with these ideas. Once explained, I agree largely with your analysis. My only concern which overlaps with your expression at the end of 'need for independence or freedom from a master' is that lack of work will just leave people listless and bored or worse completely lacking in purpose and a reason for living with nothing to strive for.
I agree that, especially in contemporary mass society, it's a short trip from joblessness to purposelessness. My idea of economic independence is to give people something to do: partially provide for themselves and take care of their own kids and parents. Whether my ideas pan out or not, the challenge of maintaining challenge and purpose in our lives when we don't have to do anything is at the heart of the permanent problem. If we don't figure it out, we're on our way to a truly dismal dystopia for most people.
Brink, I regard caring for our young, disabled and elderly as a preeminent good. It should not require carers to also have to take on additional paid work to survive. Though there should be that option if people choose. That's why I favour using the UBI as the tool to keep the labor market in dynamic balance... so people choose when and how much paid work they want, while ensuring most jobs are filled within a reasonable time frame
Jacqueline, clearly you are not retired :). The idea that people become listless and bored without work, is true primarily because under the current system, if you don't have work, you have plenty of time to do stuff, but no money to do it... unless you do have money (like people who are retired with a nest egg, or those who are independently wealthy). When you have both the time and the money to pursue your interests, there is are plenty of ways to engage with life! See my comment to Brink above
Hi Michael, indeed I am not yet retired and have a love- hate relationship with it, at times feeling the time constraints it applies, at others worrying if I would find enough to do when the time comes, though I ought as my time constraints issue is centred on all the things I'd rather be doing than work.
That said, I was more referring to the dislocation that has been caused by mass unemployment in the past when people don't have the resources to adapt. Are those just financial resources lacking? Maybe, if you include (financing of) facilities where they might "pursue other interests".
What if the things people find interesting to do are very disruptive to others eg crime - even low level, thinking idle youths or harmful to themselves, eg drug use and addiction. Of course we have these issues already but I don't think ubi and idleness will improve matters.
Jacquiline, they are valid concerns. Global pilots across difference countries and cultures (inc. the US) suggest that most people, given the chance, want to better themselves and their families, and given the money find useful and interesting things to do with their life. Though that also means providing the facilities and services they require. That said, our proposal is to start at just A$10/week and increase the rate quarter by quarter over 5 years to the poverty line (currently around $500/week in Australia). That does three things. It gives the supply chain time to adapt without causing shortages that drive inflation. And, it gives those people and businesses working in the current system time to refocus their resources away from 'emergency relief' to longer term help in developing life skills... including budgeting, parenting, negotiating, etc. As importantly, it allows us to see what adverse impacts (if any) emerge as the UBI is increased. At any point the increase can be halted until the impacts are countermeasured. Or, as the pilots suggest, we can speed up as the positives emerge (lower crime, better health, less suicide from financial stress and less domestic abuse, more people taking on education and training, or spending more time caring for children, disabled or aged relatives, etc). Once the UBI reaches the poverty line, it should never drop below. However, it can be increased to keep the labor market in balance as automation, virtulization and AI change the job landscape. As the rate is raised, certain people will choose to drop out of paid work or cut back their hours. At some point most everyone who want paid work will have a job and most jobs will be filled. The rest will be doing other things with their life, as they choose. This short article provides 20 Reasons for a UBI: https://medium.com/@michael-haines/20-reasons-for-a-universal-basic-income-90e4b364d157
I agree with you entirely! Though I love my job, I would gladly do it part-time instead of full so that I would have more time for reading/writing, traveling, working here and there, socializing with friends, volunteering, etc. So many Americans value "living to work", but some of us value "working to live"...but only as much work as you have to! There are too many other meaningful things I'd like to do besides being a full-time what-have-you.
Exactly. Everyone at different times has a different propensity to reduce their hours, or cut out paid work altogether, eg someone with young kids, or an aged parent to care for, or someone who is exploring their own talents in any field of human endeavour. The higher the UBI, the more people will be attracted to taking the 'other option' :)