Universal Income.

[Belz...]

Indeed.

BACK IN THE 1990s WHEN I FIRST STARTED MY BUSINESS
I used to have to send my accountant a printout of my Quicken Cashbook for the year, as well as wages documents such as staff payslips and copies of returns for PAYE (Income Tax Withholding in the US), GST (VAT in UK, Sales Tax in US). Six to eight weeks later, I would receive, in the mail, a printed set of accounts, with my pre-printed IRD (IRS in the US) Provisional Tax Forms showing me when and how much those payments will be.
My accountant had a staff of about 15.


NOW
I upload my Quicken cashbook directly to the accountant's website. The accountant gets the PAYE and GST information direct from the IRD website. Within three or four working days my accountant emails me a secure download link to PDFs of my accounts and my Provisional Tax Forms
My accountant's staff now consists of him and a secretary (his wife).

I don't think anyone really denies that many sectors have lost jobs, but is employment significantly up in recent decades? It doesn't seem so. And if it isn't, then those jobs went elsewhere. Humans find things to do and sell.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That's a very nice theory, really, but does it work in practice? Has it been tried anywhere? I could see employers relying on the government to pay a decent wage to their employees, for instance.

I know it was not intended, but when I read your post it reminds me of an American talking about single payor healthcare or reasonable gun control. Nice theories, sure, but that would never work in reality!

Where do we think good policies come from? They start as good ideas that are then implemented on a small scale and studied.

 

[JoeMorgue]

(From an earlier thread on the same topic)

1. Increased technology leading to mass unemployment has been a scare mongering talking point probably since Og first smashed a rock against the ground to make two smaller rocks was gonna decimate the Mammoth Hunting industry or something. And I'm inherently skeptical of any and all "But this time it's different, I know we said it was different last time but this time we mean it" arguments. More technology has actually lead to more jobs overall (affects on individual jobs/industry not withstanding) has been the rule like since forever.

2. That being said I agree that if does feel like we're on the cusp of something that is different for reasons that aren't 100% easy to verbalize. For me mass automation of the transport industry and the domino effect off of that is the most likely candidate to be a real "Okay this does change thing" tipping point, but I'm open the possibility of being wrong.

3. All that being said isn't all this the point of technology? To make it so we don't have to do the boring, dangerous, repetitive, or meaningless jobs?

4. That that being said a post-job world is one of those things that's easy to imagine and impossible to imagine any sort of transitory phase toward getting there. It's hard to imagine a society where someone people are just expected to work and others aren't without a lot of resentment brewing.

5. That, that, that being said this is all a moot point since the technologies that are going to lead to automation are going to happen, they aren't genies that are going to be kept in the bottle. We can't order progress to stop and can't (within any reasonable context) order companies to not use new technology.

6. I think some people (and I have to fight the urge to place myself in this category I must admit) are kind of smugly sitting there thinking "No computer/machine is ever going to replace me!" and they might be bluffing with cards they don't have. I'm in the IT field and we've always been bemused by fears of automation safe in the "Well somebody's gonna have to fix those computers!" argument and while that probably is true in the short to mid/sorta far term I wonder if it is... really long term. Computers that fix computers aren't that crazy of an idea. A robot on the assembly line who's purpose is to fix the other robots is not that crazy of an idea. An algorithm who's job it is to write algorithms... is already pretty much what an algorithm is to a large degree.

Okay so what about other things. Medicine? Are we (on a timeline worth discussion) going to have computer doctors? Probably not but a hospital full of automated systems to do all the blood pressure checking and questionnaires and routine injections staffed by only a small percentage of the doctors and nurses they have now? That's not just possible giving health care costs that is practically certain in some form.

Or let's hit the big one... art. No I'm not saying the next Hemingways and Rembrants and Daniel Day Lewis's are going to be computers per se, we don't need to have the "Does this unit have a soul?" argument here, but... basic aesthetics and route design... maybe. If you just need a simple graphic whipped up for a sales flyer... maybe. If you just need a simple melody for a jingle... maybe. You're always gonna go (again on a timeframe worth discussing in this context) to your A-list human actor to play important historical figure so and so in your Oscar bait biopic... but what about crowd scenes? Stuntmen? Bit parts? The attractive but down to Earth mom in your yogurt commercial? What's more attractive SAG wages for your background actors, safety concerns for your stuntment, the possibility that you might end up in a PR disaster because your casting director tried to bang Yogurt Mom..... or just download "Generic Suburban Mom Template #323" from StockActorSims.com and let the CGI boys handle it?

 

[Dr. Keith]

And one thing that I don't see very often in this particular part of the argument, is the fact that most people want to work. Even if they have enough money to live - even if they win the lottery - most people still want a regular 9 to 5. They may not want **** jobs but, as above, there should be pressure to make bad jobs better, whether that be through making the pay more appealing, or through changing toxic working environments.

Of the good points you made this one seems to have been ignored by the thread. When I hear that a decent UBI would kill off the labor force I ask one simple question: you could retire today if you lived like a poor person so, why don't you?

The simple fact is that most people making that argument could. I know I could if I were content to live on $1000/month I would never have to work another day in my life. But I'm not content to live on that. Actually, I'm certain that if I were content to live on $5000/month I could retire today. The number may even be higher than that, and yet I go to work. Why? Because I like what I do and I like making more money and the options that extra money affords me and my family.

Every person who has ever made that argument to me has been in largely the same position. And yet they think other people are so different from them. For the most part we are all the same. We want nicer things and are willing to work for them.

Will there be people who try to live their whole live off UBI without ever lifting a finger to helps society? Sure. But, do you want any of those people working for you? And how much money do you want to waste on making them jump through hoops for benefits that they eventually will get anyway?

----------------------

A separate issue that is often raised is that people over a certain wage would be getting a benefit they don't need. The thing is that the Universal aspect of the UBI is part of what makes it more efficient. If everyone gets it then you don't have to waste money moving people on and off the system. It is cheaper.

At a certain threshold it will be a monthly deposit from the government that will be matched by a similar monthly increase in taxes. If I get a govt check for $1,000 and my taxes increase by $1,000 then it is a wash. And those two transactions are nearly costless in our system. Especially when compared to a system that verifies your earnings on a continuing basis to determine your eligibility.

And that leads to another great thing about UBI: It kicks in to help without any notice when you really need it. During these stimulus rounds in the US there were people who made really good money before covid, but then lost their jobs and didn't qualify for stimulus checks because of their prior earnings. A UBI would be there when you lost your job without you having to go fill out paperwork at the unemployment office.

And think how much easier a stimulus would have been if there were already a functioning UBI: temporary increase in UBI for 6 weeks.

And finally, it would get poor people into bank accounts. I know this sounds odd, but everyone would have to have an account for this to really work so more poor people would end up getting actual bank accounts and have the benefits of doing so. Which could lead to a reduction in cash transactions which is good for reducing crime.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The issue is that right now might be the absolute worst time to try and introduce it, because an entire generation has been accustomed to working their asses to the bone (ass have bones right?) for next to nothing.

Introducing UBI at a time when most people's financial dreams max out at "Not living in my parent's house until I'm 30 because of crushing student debt" might be... less than ideal.

UBI might, ironically, be one of those thing's that better to introduce in a period of financial excess.

 

[Olmstead]

The issue is that right now might be the absolute worst time to try and introduce it, because an entire generation has been accustomed to working their asses to the bone (ass have bones right?) for next to nothing.

Introducing UBI at a time when most people's financial dreams max out at "Not living in my parent's house until I'm 30 because of crushing student debt" might be... less than ideal.

UBI might, ironically, be one of those thing's that better to introduce in a period of financial excess.

Wouldn't this be the best period as it would allow them to stop worrying about homelessness and start working towards something nice and worthwhile?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wouldn't this be the best period as it would allow them to stop worrying about homelessness and start working towards something nice and worthwhile?

//Trying to think of the exact way to word this//

The issue is introducing UTI at a time when everyone's standards are so low they might be satisfied with a very low quality of life and might not have huge levels of motivation.

//That's not exactly it, there's nuance I'm having trouble getting across, but that's in the ballpark//

 

[Belz...]

I know it was not intended, but when I read your post it reminds me of an American talking about single payor healthcare or reasonable gun control. Nice theories, sure, but that would never work in reality!

Where do we think good policies come from? They start as good ideas that are then implemented on a small scale and studied.

Of course, but the point is that until they are they can seem a bit pie-in-the-sky.

I can also come up with a counter example, like communism. Works just fine on paper.

 

[Belz...]

3. All that being said isn't all this the point of technology? To make it so we don't have to do the boring, dangerous, repetitive, or meaningless jobs?

I'd take it further and say that the logical end-point of technology is that we don't have to do anything.

 

[Olmstead]

//Trying to think of the exact way to word this//

The issue is introducing UTI at a time when everyone's standards are so low they might be satisfied with a very low quality of life and might not have huge levels of motivation.

//That's not exactly it, there's nuance I'm having trouble getting across, but that's in the ballpark//

I don't know. I think it might be a case of a vicious cycle. People can't improve if all their energy is spent on keeping their low quality life together. They spend their days in horrible jobs, and then they spend their free time recovering from those horrible jobs. No time, no prospects.

Of course, apparently we need those jobs and need them to be low-paying. I guess the system works.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Of course, but the point is that until they are they can seem a bit pie-in-the-sky.

I can also come up with a counter example, like communism. Works just fine on paper.

Agreed. And there have been some studies that have typically turned out really well. I'm not aware of any that had horrible outcomes.

But it is funny that this complaint is being tossed at a country that is willing to give it a try. Isn't that exactly what we need? We need a smallish country to I've it a go and see if it works. We need to be willing to make mistakes to learn and I think it should be encouraged.

Although, if it is successful I look forward to hearing about how America is different and just because it was successful there doesn't mean it will be successful here . . . even as the rest of the world implements it. See Health Care and Gun Control.

 

[Dr. Keith]

//Trying to think of the exact way to word this//

The issue is introducing UTI at a time when everyone's standards are so low they might be satisfied with a very low quality of life and might not have huge levels of motivation.

//That's not exactly it, there's nuance I'm having trouble getting across, but that's in the ballpark//

I think the lack of motivation that is currently palpable is based more on knowing that the system is built on keeping them poor and that no matter how hard they work the system will never let them get ahead. Change that perception and you have a chance to change their outlook. Don't change that perception and you will never change a thing.

 

[Dr. Keith]

UBI might, ironically, be one of those thing's that better to introduce in a period of financial excess.

Not to pile on, but aren't we in a period of financial excess?

Sure it is all going to uber wealthy, but the rich are getting richer faster than they ever have in history.

We have financial excess, but we also have massive financial inequality. This would offset some of that inequality.

 

[The Atheist]

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.

That's the list which guarantees entry to NZ.

The hospo industry has (and still is) screaming to be allowed to include highly trained jobs like barista.

The skill shortage is a lot wider then the Immigration Dep't shows.

Well you certainly don’t in Australia. Free skills training is everywhere. This is the work I do.

Ditto here.

My middle son is on a course at the moment. He pays nothing and is getting first class training, and all PPE given to him permanently, not just supplied for the training period.

In the same vein, I'm currently trying to find 4 apprentices. No experience required, and I can't fill them.

 

[Belz...]

Agreed. And there have been some studies that have typically turned out really well. I'm not aware of any that had horrible outcomes.

But it is funny that this complaint is being tossed at a country that is willing to give it a try. Isn't that exactly what we need? We need a smallish country to I've it a go and see if it works. We need to be willing to make mistakes to learn and I think it should be encouraged.

I'm not complaining. Give it a go. I'm just skeptical, and wondering if it's been tried before.

 

[smartcooky]

I work in middle management in a metal industry, and I have my doubts of how universal income can work in a globalised economy. Does any of you work in the productive sector? Industry, food production, etc., you know, actually "making stuff"? In my (admittedly simplistic) view of economy, I can´t stop thinking that "making stuff" is the base of the economy, and the rest follow. If a UI makes us have to pay bigger salaries to our blue collar workers...

(who have to sit for 8 hours in front of a dirty machine pumping out metal parts, with noise, dirt and boredom guaranteed for the rest of their working life, I mean, they would ask for a raise or just go home and live off the UI, unless you make the UI so low that they can´t afford enough good things for their kids... )

...then our industries would not be competitive, compared to other countries without UI.. and the whole thing would tumble down. Unless your economy can sustain itself from petrol, tourism or something else, but even then, strategically letting the industrial and productive tissue die off is quite blindsighted in the long run, IMO. (just more of what is happening to industry in Europe and the USA in the last few years with globalisation).

I think you fail to understand what UBI is.

It is a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money on a regular basis. The goals of a basic income system are to alleviate poverty and replace other need-based social programs that potentially require greater bureaucratic involvement. The wages you pay your blue collar workers are over and above what they recieve from UBI, so any of them decide to "go home and live off the UBI" are going to take a drop in income... because you won't be paying them any more.

 

[The Atheist]

Just to dismiss the idea that bank staff are disappearing, I see this: Currently banks employ 25,000 people.

In 1980, they employed a touch over 10,000, so 2.5 times more now.

The population of NZ has increased by about 1.8 times in that period.

So, despite the massive investment in automation, they still employ more people.

End of that story.

 

[psionl0]

If a UI makes us have to pay bigger salaries to our blue collar workers...

(who have to sit for 8 hours in front of a dirty machine pumping out metal parts, with noise, dirt and boredom guaranteed for the rest of their working life, I mean, they would ask for a raise or just go home and live off the UI, unless you make the UI so low that they can´t afford enough good things for their kids... )

...then our industries would not be competitive, compared to other countries without UI.. and the whole thing would tumble down.

So you must also be against unions and legal representation when employees have to sign work contracts.

 

[smartcooky]

Just to dismiss the idea that bank staff are disappearing, I see this: Currently banks employ 25,000 people.

In 1980, they employed a touch over 10,000, so 2.5 times more now.
The population of NZ has increased by about 1.8 times in that period.

So, despite the massive investment in automation, they still employ more people.

End of that story.

Nope, it isn't the end by a long shot. I'm calling BS on your 10,000 figure in 1980.

In 1980, there were at least seven registered, nationwide and "trading" banks in New Zealand - POSB, ANZ, BNZ, National, BNSW, CountryWide & ASB. There were also 12 regional banks that took a common name of 'Trustee Banks' in 1984 - and changed their names to reflect this. They became known as "TrustBank (region name)".

In 1980, the ANZ alone employed 2,806 staff in NZ
Warning: 6.75 MB PDF -https://www.anz.com/content/dam/anzcom/shareholder/1980AnnualReport.pdf

In 1980, the BNZ had 321 branches employing 455 managerial staff alone, and over 2500 other staff (total 2955)
Warning: 7.69 MB PDF - https://www.bnzheritage.co.nz/assets/Uploads/Annual-Report-1980-reduced.pdf

That is just two of the 19 banks, over 5700 staff (more than half your BS 10,000 figure), and they were not even the biggest banks in NZ at that time (which was the National Bank, with over 700 branches, more than twice the size of the ANZ)

Based on just these two, realistically, the 1980 figure is more likely to be over 23,000.

Since you introduced population, I'll take the liberty of doing that too. The NZ population in 1980 was 3.1 million, by 2013 it was 4.4 million, and now its almost 4.9 million (by the way, that's 1.6x not 1.8x)

So, if we take the more realistic 23,000 in 1980 then the staffing now, in 2021, should be more like 34,150 - a figure that ties closely with the actual figure in 2013, when banking and finance industries in New Zealand employed 35,793 staff and managers.
Warning: 11.18 MB PDF -https://www.productivity.govt.nz/assets/Documents/bcea812a17/New-jobs-old-jobs-Working-paper.pdf

The fact is that if, as you claim, bank staff levels are unaffected by, say automation, then there should be over 34,150 bank staff in NZ. You say there are 25,000, so that is a estimated nearly 10,000 (27%) reduction, and a definite over 10,000 (31%) reduction since 2013!!

My researched, actual facts trump your BS guesswork!

 

[arthwollipot]

If a UI makes us have to pay bigger salaries to our blue collar workers...

It doesn't. There is absolutely no requirement for you to do so. UBI doesn't come out of your staffing budget. The salary that you give to your staff is on top of the UBI. Which means that your workers can use it on quality-of-life purchases, rather than mere subsistence.

Why would you need a UBI to do training?

There are lots of people in the world who don't have time for training because they have to work three jobs at fourteen hours per day just so that they can feed their children. Remove the burden of having to work to feed the children and you have more free time that you can spend in upskilling.

Or, you know, artistic expression. Or just sitting around playing video games if you want. Heck, if my tax money allows one person to just bludge about being a "burden" on society, but prevents one child from starving to death, then that's money damn well spent in my opinion.