Universal Income.

[The Atheist]

It cannot, and will not stay that way... it is inevitable that we will end up with many more people than we have jobs for.

I love that fallacy - definitely worthy of its own thread.

Just one personal example:

• Bank tellers (replaced by ATMs and online banking)

Oh, the memories of those long-gone times.

I ran a series of stopwork meetings across the Bay of Plenty in 1981, demanding that staff strike. In part, this was because of the dangers of coming automation that was going to decimate the industry. (and union membership!)

40 years later, nationwide ATMs and universal online banking, I'm still hearing crickets.

I was wrong then, and it's still wrong now.

Well I posted a link to skill shortage occupations in Australia. You?

Seeing as how that hasn't been answered, I'll gladly provide a list to the very large list of long term shortages NZ is showing right now: https://skillshortages.immigration.govt.nz/

Another guide is Covid. Tourism lost 75% of its jobs, so unemployment was expected to skyrocket.


Yet, here we sit at 4.5%.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh, the memories of those long-gone times.

I ran a series of stopwork meetings across the Bay of Plenty in 1981, demanding that staff strike. In part, this was because of the dangers of coming automation that was going to decimate the industry. (and union membership!)

40 years later, nationwide ATMs and universal online banking, I'm still hearing crickets.

I was wrong then, and it's still wrong now.

https://www.which.co.uk/money/banki...sures-is-your-local-bank-closing-a28n44c8z0h5

Banks and building societies have closed (or scheduled the closure) of 4,188 branches since January 2015, at a rate of around 50 each month. Along with the rest of the figures in this article, this includes branches at 20 major current account providers.

The NatWest Group, which comprises of NatWest, Royal Bank of Scotland and Ulster Bank, closed 1,086 branches during this period.

Lloyds Banking Group, made up of Lloyds Bank, Halifax and Bank of Scotland, shut down 680 sites.

Barclays is the individual bank that has reduced its network the most, with 650 branches have closed - or scheduled to - by the end of 2021.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...e than 500 branches have,M&S 29 and NatWest 6.

Banks’ profit margins have narrowed in the financial crisis as some of their traditional income streams, such as fees from overseas card transactions and withdrawals from cash machines, have dried up. They have been forced to write off huge losses on debts and their profits have been further squeezed by the legacy of low interest rates.

The pandemic has accelerated the trend towards digital banking, as the closure of branches last year during the first lockdown forced millions of people online for the first time. This has led to many customers never returning to bank branches, and the closure of those that have become unprofitable.

Barclays’ chief executive Jes Staley has previously admitted that it was “better for us” if more customers went online, and Jackie Uhi, HSBC’s head of network, said the pandemic had “emphasised the need” for the changes it was making to its branch network.

High street banks won't disappear any time soon, but in the UK at least it's certainly a declining industry.

And not just because people are turning to online banking at their regular banks, there are also banks like Starling, Monzo, and Revolut which exist purely as apps. They have no physical branches at all, and they're growing incredibly quickly.

The landscape really is changing.

 

[angrysoba]

I think there is a mistake here of posting examples of obsolete jobs as evidence that there will be job losses.

Buggy whip makers obviously are not jobs that need to be supported for infinity, and that goes also for human computers and ice-cutters etc...

That is not the issue. The issue is with AI, and it doesn't stop at menial work, but, as some such as Andrew Yang have noted, the types of professions that usually take many years of schooling to do. Radiographers can never have the dataset of AI, accountants cannot crunch the numbers as quickly as computers, computers even seem to be getting better than humans at diagnosing diseases.

On top of that, you have drivers, pilots, administrative jobs etc... in fact, things that used to be thought the preserve of humans because they require some "magical" element as imagination or creativity (artists, writers, designers, architects, painters, composers etc...) may become better at producing works that engage humans more.

Some of this could be far in the future, but some of it is coming like Christmas, and we won't all be able to be re-employed as shopping mall Santas.

 

[smartcooky]

I love that fallacy - definitely worthy of its own thread.

Just one personal example:



Oh, the memories of those long-gone times.

I ran a series of stopwork meetings across the Bay of Plenty in 1981, demanding that staff strike. In part, this was because of the dangers of coming automation that was going to decimate the industry. (and union membership!)

40 years later, nationwide ATMs and universal online banking, I'm still hearing crickets.

I was wrong then, and it's still wrong now.

So you are unaware of all the bank and post office closures that have taken place in the last 20 years?

When was the last time you went into your bank?

My local bank branch used to have a staff of over 20, with eight teller stations, and an express teller station, as well as a few office cubicles which were used for things that would take too long for to be done at a teller. Now it has two teller stations and an express/foreign currency exchange station (and I have never seen more than two of them staffed), The cubicles were taken out and have been replaced with in-bank ATM machines. There are now only five staff.

 

[The Atheist]

So you are unaware of all the bank and post office closures that have taken place in the last 20 years?

Of course I am, but they're nowhere near disappearing, and still employ relatively similar numbers to where they were in the 1980s. Obviously, they haven't grown, but they're not about to disappear, no matter how hard the shareholders would like to shut retail.

While some branches have closed, then add back in the new TSB, Heartland, Co-Op, Bank of Baroda, HSBC and other banks that have opened in the meantime.

 

[smartcooky]

Of course I am, but they're nowhere near disappearing, and still employ relatively similar numbers to where they were in the 1980s. Obviously, they haven't grown, but they're not about to disappear, no matter how hard the shareholders would like to shut retail.

While some branches have closed, then add back in the new TSB, Heartland, Co-Op, Bank of Baroda, HSBC and other banks that have opened in the meantime.

Bwhahahah! "Some branches!!!". Seriously, do you keep up with anything in the News?


BNZ: 38 branch closures
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/300162532/bnz-to-close-38-bank-branches

ASB: 23 branch closures
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/12...her-23-branches-as-customers-move-online?rm=a

Since banks started closing branches in the late 1990s, there have been over 400 branches closed, and more will follow. Your claim that they are replaced with new banks opening is just BS - the tiny number of those in no way compensates for the loss of the others.

 

[cullennz]

Bwhahahah! "Some branches!!!". Seriously, do you keep up with anything in the News?


BNZ: 38 branch closures
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/300162532/bnz-to-close-38-bank-branches

ASB: 23 branch closures
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/12...her-23-branches-as-customers-move-online?rm=a

Since banks started closing branches in the late 1990s, there have been over 400 branches closed, and more will follow. Your claim that they are replaced with new banks opening is just BS - the tiny number of those in no way compensates for the loss of the others.

Not being funny smartcocky, but did you actually read your own links?

You arer bright so thinking yes.

With Covid they are just closing branches, because they worked out all their staff can work from home.

 

[smartcooky]

Not being funny smartcocky, but did you actually read your own links?

You arer bright so thinking yes.

With Covid they are just closing branches, because they worked out all their staff can work from home.

Yeah, because the bank's customers are going to whizz around to the tellers' homes to do their banking. That's what you're going with, really?

Those branches are remaining closed, and work from home or not, they are not accessible to the public, which means, for all intents and purposes.. they.... are.... closed!!! The only ones working from home are those who are branch managers, assistant managers and admin staff such as clerks. The tellers? No, their jobs are gone for good.

Try thinking beyond your own knee-jerk reaction to the first buzzword you see.

 

[cullennz]

Yeah, because the bank's customers are going to whizz around to the tellers' homes to do their banking. That's what you're going with, really?

Those branches are remaining closed, and work from home or not, they are not accessible to the public, which means, for all intents and purposes.. they.... are.... closed!!! The only ones working from home are those who are branch managers, assistant managers and admin staff such as clerks. The tellers? No, their jobs are gone for good.

Try thinking beyond your own knee-jerk reaction to the first buzzword you see.

Actually you are probably right. Would imagine one of the first things they did was shift their call centers to cheap off-shore.

 

[ThatGuy11200]

I think there is a mistake here of posting examples of obsolete jobs as evidence that there will be job losses.

Buggy whip makers obviously are not jobs that need to be supported for infinity, and that goes also for human computers and ice-cutters etc...

That is not the issue. The issue is with AI, and it doesn't stop at menial work, but, as some such as Andrew Yang have noted, the types of professions that usually take many years of schooling to do. Radiographers can never have the dataset of AI, accountants cannot crunch the numbers as quickly as computers, computers even seem to be getting better than humans at diagnosing diseases.

On top of that, you have drivers, pilots, administrative jobs etc... in fact, things that used to be thought the preserve of humans because they require some "magical" element as imagination or creativity (artists, writers, designers, architects, painters, composers etc...) may become better at producing works that engage humans more.

Some of this could be far in the future, but some of it is coming like Christmas, and we won't all be able to be re-employed as shopping mall Santas.

A lot of my work when I was in accounting was typing up transactions from physical cashbooks or, in one case, typing up thousands of printed transactions from a business that was still using an MS DOS accounting system. That situation won't have changed much over the last ten years, because small/medium businesses won't want to pay out for expensive software that they can't make money from.

Most of the rest of my work was auditing, which meant checking physical invoices and receipts.

The remainder was chasing up clients for extra information that they hadn't provided.

Accounting won't be automated anytime soon (if ever).

 

[gnome]

I have what I think is a slightly different take--I'm not especially afraid that a UBI will make too many people refuse to do anything beyond the bare minimum. I've always thought we can share necessities and compete for luxuries and that's a fully functional economy when there's enough resources for it, and I think clearly there are.

I like it as a sort of replacement for a more complicated safety net. I'm less sure of relying on it as a solution to automation--if that is an especially large and persistent set, then in the long term their survival relies upon the UBI program operating functionally--and I'm not sure we can count on that kind of stability in policy. The thought that a political turn against the concept could take it all away worries me about making it a load-bearing policy, if that makes any sense.

 

[rjh01]

<snip>
Seeing as how that hasn't been answered, I'll gladly provide a list to the very large list of long term shortages NZ is showing right now: https://skillshortages.immigration.govt.nz/
<snip>

Had a look at those jobs. Most of them need a bachelor's degree. Some need several years of work experience. A few tradespeople needed. But then they take years to train. Unskilled or semi-skilled people would have no hope. That is the future. You need more and more qualifications to get a good job.

 

[lionking]

Had a look at those jobs. Most of them need a bachelor's degree. Some need several years of work experience. A few tradespeople needed. But then they take years to train. Unskilled or semi-skilled people would have no hope. That is the future. You need more and more qualifications to get a good job.

Did you see my post about critical shortages of hospitality, service and factory workers in Australia. None of these require bachelor degrees.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, you are wrong. There are a massive number of unskilled jobs, which used to be filled by people on visas, waiting to be filled. In hospitality, agriculture, cleaning, factory work etc etc.

The problem we have is that unemployed people are unwilling to do these jobs. A UBI system would make this worse, assuming the UBI would be higher than unemployment benefit.

UBI would replace unemployment benefit and other forms of welfare.

 

[cullennz]

UBI would replace unemployment benefit and other forms of welfare.

It would still have to be seperate from our ACC.

Which would be an issue.

Also we have different levels of benefits depending on how many sprogs you have dropped, which means it can't really be a one size fits all.

 

[arthwollipot]

Had a look at those jobs. Most of them need a bachelor's degree. Some need several years of work experience. A few tradespeople needed. But then they take years to train. Unskilled or semi-skilled people would have no hope. That is the future. You need more and more qualifications to get a good job.

With a UBI, you could undergo that training and not starve while you did so. Your unskilled work would pay for your training while your UBI paid for your food and shelter. Then when you have completed your training you are eligible for a higher-paying job. When none of that higher pay is required for you to not starve to death, you start circulating your wealth, feeding the economy. And if you suddenly lose your job, you can still be reassured that your Basic will continue to arrive, keeping you and your family out of poverty, permanently.

This is the thing about UBI. The Welsh Jeff Bezos will not even notice the miniscule addition to his income. It's a drop in a vast ocean. However, for the struggling small family it will make all the difference in the world. It'll keep them off the poverty line. It'll mean that they won't have to wonder where their next meal is coming from.

Rich people hoard wealth. Poor people circulate it. I don't have a citation for it, but I read an article somewhere that claimed that every $1 spent on UBI generated an additional $1.50 into the economy. Something like that anyway.

UBI doesn't just make social sense. It doesn't just make humanitarian sense. It makes economic sense.

 

[lionking]

UBI would replace unemployment benefit and other forms of welfare.

I understand that. My point is that it has to be higher than Newstart for it to work.

 

[rjh01]

Did you see my post about critical shortages of hospitality, service and factory workers in Australia. None of these require bachelor degrees.

Yes, you must have missed my reply. Reproduced here for your convenience.

Horrible work with poor pay and conditions. That is why we need to import workers to do these jobs. One example is fruit picking. $13 per hour for someone who knows how to do the job, with no job security and poor housing.
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2...-pickers-critical,-but-wages-abysmal/13023950

 

[arthwollipot]

I understand that. My point is that it has to be higher than Newstart for it to work.

Yes, Newstart is not even remotely sufficient to keep someone off the poverty line.

And for those who are asking how to pay for it? Apart from the complete elimination of all other forms of social welfare, it could be paid for just by closing corporate tax loopholes and taxing churches. Add in a slight tax rise for the mega-wealthy and a reduction in defence spending, and you will have more than enough revenue to eliminate poverty for every human being in the country, and several others that might not have the luxury of mega-wealthy citizens or high defence budgets.

 

[lionking]

Yes, you must have missed my reply. Reproduced here for your convenience.

No. Doesn’t even remotely address my point.