The Communication Cube


This isn't a new question. You always have a portion of people unable to work; for good reasons. We have kids, the elderly and (temporarily) disabled people who don't work but do need care and attention.
The group we're now talking about are the people that could work but can't or won't usefully contribute for some reason. With automation the value of those task get lowered to the costs of using automation, which is usually cheaper compared to paying for the time of a human. Increasing automation will also increase the tasks that lose value.
We've seen a similar trend in history: paintings got replaced by photos, radio got replaced by TV, TV got replaced by streaming services, etc. Those things still exists but lose their value, most people won't invest in a painting when making a photo is much cheaper.

If everyone's job got replaced by automation we would have to do other stuff.
In an experiment with rats they compared two groups where they pampered one active group and the other group had to collect their own food. The active group was more healthy and got older, while the pampered group was lazy and spend most time on cleaning themselves but got fat and died earlier.
I would expect something similar to happen to humans.

1743850931419.jpeg
 
I wouldn't. What constructive things do you expect rats to do in their freetime? What can you imaging a human do? Also, unconditional basic income doesn't mean you can affort everything. I'd expect some to work long term, for they have the drive to do so, and others to work on and off to safe up on something or whatever. And yes, there'll probably be those that are content not working.
Employers wouldn't have leverage over employees anymore. At least not like today. And what a job pays might better reflect how willing people are to do whatever it entails.

When healthcare is a human right, why not food, why not a roof over your head or cloths? And when we are that productive as a society, that there aren't as many necessary jobs as there are people, we should stop pretending there were.
 
I agree with @Djoga'Ro . In fact I believe most workers should be unemployed. Maybe 60% I don't know. Very few people work on necessary things, like care, education, growing food... Most people work on either depleting planet's resources to build useless things that become soon dangerous waste, or in ensnaring other people to buy things they don't need or spend money they think they have or will have for nothing burgers.

Most jobs are bullshit, both those people are happy doing and those that don't (not equally so, people are more happy doing useful jobs and that's why they usually get paid less money).

So I would like everyone to have granted survival, and not having to work, and then people who want to do useful things not being restrained to absurd criteria of whether those things are profitable economically in a bogus economy.

And it should work, because most jobs today are destroying more than creating, so eliminating them would create richness.

The problem is coordination, making sure everyone agrees in how to do it. Capitalism is ruinous, but it self regulates on a course. But it's a course to destruction, so it should be scraped. The problem is how.

If people keep believing in capitalism, and putting themselves before the common good, it'll never work, proletariat dictatorship or not, democracy or authoritarianism. It's people who need to understand, not a system that needs to be imposed on people.

So we're heading for extinction, but with some luck, life will strive after us. We'll have destroyed a lot of life, but hopefully some may survive.
 
I'm convinced human beings ain't built to do nothing useful. They're conditioned to do so.
I don't understand this statement.

What I'm saying is governments should balance things so even the laziest people can find a job they don't mind doing. Globalization has made job markets less diverse and tariffs bring it the other direction, is the theory. Higher prices for goods and being poorer is the tradeoff, which we are experiencing.
Capitalism is ruinous
I agree. What the market giveth the market taketh. Capitalism gave us video games and now they are being taken away. Great game studios get ruined by investors. This is why we retro game.
 
I don't understand this statement.
If I understand the phrasing, what was meant was that doing useful things is something in the nature of human beings. It is not in the human nature to stay always idle, or to fatigue for useless things.
So not having a job would not be a reason for people to stop doing useful things. Maybe they'd do more useful things because they wouldn't be tired from their jobs.
I agree. What the market giveth the market taketh. Capitalism gave us video games and now they are being taken away. Great game studios get ruined by investors. This is why we retro game.
Well, Yes. I guess if that's what you care for, it can be an example. Capitalism is just a game to try to get all the resources there are. If you need to provide something in exchange to get money you do,
but as soon as you have enough money to keep getting money without giving much in exchange you do. Or something.
But if everyone had survival guaranteed people could come together to write video games for fun, and they could share them with everybody because they wouldn't need to get pay for it.
Because the only reason investors can ruin game studios is because game writers need to eat. If they could already eat, they wouldn't need investors money.
But we can live without video games, so even if this didn't work particularly for video games, it wouldn't matter much.
 
When healthcare is a human right, why not food, why not a roof over your head or cloths? And when we are that productive as a society, that there aren't as many necessary jobs as there are people, we should stop pretending there were.
I agree, everyone should be able to live. But currently most people work and those provide the means to support the people that don't work (which can be for a good reason). This group of non-working people will grow over time placing a larger burden on the working group. Automation can reduce that burden or completely remove it, so everyone is free to do what they want. Some will live an artisan live-style maybe even without any automation in their own lives, most might not: why work if you don't have to.

Take for example the army. Most countries require (although tested in different ways) an minimum IQ of 85. This means that the army thinks with an IQ under 85 you probably couldn't contribute much. This means that from all eligible people on the planet (about 2.6 billion 18-40 years old) to join an army roughly 428 million couldn't join. Do we have 428 million jobs for people that are lower skilled compared to the lowest skill job you could do in an army, like carrying crates? Do you think with basic income we'll have 428 million potential artisans?
The challenge for artists for example is the value of art has decreased a lot, so only exceptionally high quality or famous art(ist) get paid a lot. Just like there are many football players, but only a few are really good and some of those get paid a lot.
With basic income these kind of professions get a more stable income, so you also would get more (high quality, and low quality) art. With the current monetary incentive mostly talented people are more eligible to continue their work.
I guess the problem with money is that someone could use money to disincentives people to do their job properly, with basic income this risk would get lower so people might keep doing a good job under pressure.

So probably a mix of guarantees and incentives to do more of the same talented thing would work. And I feel we have somewhat like this in place in western countries, without the good and well balanced counter measures for perverse incentives.
 
Actually we have a severe shortage of carers for the elderly. You guys don't want help the elderly? And you expect the government to give you money so you can ignore them?
 
But currently most people work and those provide the means to support the people that don't work (which can be for a good reason). This group of non-working people will grow over time placing a larger burden on the working group.
And when we are that productive as a society, that there aren't as many necessary jobs as there are people, we should stop pretending there were.
And I don't mean automation only. Just think about the most important work there is - producing food and cloths and building dwellings. How much manhours did you have to sink into that before the industrialization? How much now? Sure, now there's more kinds of infrastructure, but productivity gains ain't stopping.
And as @pyrat said, very many jobs today are BS.

Most countries require (although tested in different ways) an minimum IQ of 85. This means that the army thinks with an IQ under 85 you probably couldn't contribute much.
I'd claim, that's more because the lower the IQ the higher the chances of causing damage, for there'd be more "bright" ideas and individual interpretations of situations in the field.

Do we have 428 million jobs for people that are lower skilled compared to the lowest skill job you could do in an army
Low IQ doesn't prevent skill. And yes there are jobs, that leave few problems for the worker to solve.

Do you think with basic income we'll have 428 million potential artisans?
Nope. But low IQ doesn't hinder kindness or selflessness. One could still feel like prettying up the community or help others out or whatever. If you don't encourage a ME-culture by having an underregulated capitalism, you might be amazed how much less people would be like so many US Americans.

Actually we have a severe shortage of carers for the elderly. You guys don't want help the elderly? And you expect the government to give you money so you can ignore them?
In 5 to 10 years that problem will have been solved with robots. And no, that doesn't dictate isolation from human contact. It enables people to live self-sufficiently longer.
 
I agree, everyone should be able to live. But currently most people work and those provide the means to support the people that don't work (which can be for a good reason).
No. Most people work, and only some of them provide the means to support the other people who work and the people who don't work.
Many people who work try to obtain the riches of others (working or not) giving them nothing useful in exchange.
Because we have abandoned values and decided that the only common success measure is money, so any way to make money is good. Some are illegal, but then you don't always get caught...
Some are illegal in some jurisdiction but not others. Some are legal, but still dishonest... Some are honestly well meant but still useless.
Some would give someone bad reputation, but then you can start over elsewhere, because the world is globalized, businesses are anything but local, etc.

Maybe you could have some sort of basic income and then some compulsory social service doing part of those useful jobs for some hours a week or more full-time but only some years of your life.
And the rest of your life you could work or not. But then we should agree on what are the bare minimums we need to provide everyone, and therefore force everyone to help provide, and what is useless
and might be allowed to pursue if you don't waste many resources in it beyond your own free time or those of your willing colleagues.

This group of non-working people will grow over time placing a larger burden on the working group. Automation can reduce that burden or completely remove it, so everyone is free to do what they want. Some will live an artisan live-style maybe even without any automation in their own lives, most might not: why work if you don't have to.

You're right. But also there are part of the working group who is putting a burden in the working group. And there are profiteers who don't really work, just invest.
Some work doesn't help, some work just creates noise, waste and poverty.
If all those workers stop working and become a burden, they'll be less of a burden than they are now when working. That's only a part of workers, but not a small part.


Take for example the army. Most countries require (although tested in different ways) an minimum IQ of 85. This means that the army thinks with an IQ under 85 you probably couldn't contribute much. This means that from all eligible people on the planet (about 2.6 billion 18-40 years old) to join an army roughly 428 million couldn't join. Do we have 428 million jobs for people that are lower skilled compared to the lowest skill job you could do in an army, like carrying crates? Do you think with basic income we'll have 428 million potential artisans?
I didn't know the army effectively requires some IQ.
I once overhead a conversation in a train. It wasn't a soldier, but it was a policeman from one of those militarised police units, that once lived in quarters and worked quite like the army (think of carrabiniere, guardia civil, gendarmerie...).
One veteran (maybe already retired) was telling other passengers he got that job because he wasn't bright enough for other jobs, and there they took everyone, so there he went.
I think that has changed now.

But i think the reason they can enlisten people with low IQ is they're afraid they aren't clever enough to understand they shouldn't discuss orders even if their official is a fool.
The hardest part in the army isn't carrying crates, is making believe you adhere to discipline.

So yes, we have jobs for those 428 million people, but I can't argue that better than @Null. Hat off.
I think with or without basic income we should have everyone being an artist. I don't understand why art should be something for a few specialists. I prefer the kind of art that the community creates and shares like folklore.
The highest artists nowadays are basically con artists. And the artists managers are a darker hue of con artists.
Art, like sport should be a daily activity for everyone, not a business. We should sing together and write / improvise our own songs, not turn on spotify and listen. It would sound much worse (not always!) but we'd have more fun.

Oops. I misread you. You wrote 428 million artisans not 428E6 artists. You meant handicraft. Does that really has to do with lower IQs ?

The challenge for artists for example is the value of art has decreased a lot, so only exceptionally high quality or famous art(ist) get paid a lot. Just like there are many football players, but only a few are really good and some of those get paid a lot.
Yes. Exactly. Because instead of fostering the sport or artistic skills in everyone we have settled for looking for the best 6 doing it and then 6 billion people watching them from their armchairs.
That's an absurd waste of human potential.
Why should I care who is the best artist or the best football player ? If you set some criteria to judge that, then, yes, someone will be the best, and many others won't, that's just chance, what's the point ?
The point is how do you make it easier for everyone to become a better artist or play better (or healthier or funnier) football.
Sports or arts don't need to be an income source. Sure, when it is it may lead to some exceptional quality cases, but those are going to be so rare exceptions that they are just statistics outliers, noise.
They aren't even good examples for others to follow, because for any sane person that has other preferences in life, they just ruined their life to get vain fame. They have a right to do it, because their life is theirs, but thanks, but no, thanks.
It's not because sport or art is any bad, it's because competition is bad.

With basic income these kind of professions get a more stable income, so you also would get more (high quality, and low quality) art.
Yes, I think so too.

With the current monetary incentive mostly talented people are more eligible to continue their work.
No. Basically there's an art industry, with managers, and marketers, and publishers, (and investors like @netcat said) and those who play closer along with the system get promoted.
And many best sellers are fabricated by hollywood or bolywood or Sony or talent shows or auctions or whatever.
Talent and revenue are different things, and with the current system, artists are promoted according to revenue.

I guess the problem with money is that someone could use money to disincentives people to do their job properly, with basic income this risk would get lower so people might keep doing a good job under pressure.
Yes. I think you're right. But maybe people would find ways to exert pressure still.
So probably a mix of guarantees and incentives to do more of the same talented thing would work. And I feel we have somewhat like this in place in western countries, without the good and well balanced counter measures for perverse incentives.
I think we kind of had it while there was a dialectic between communism and capitalism, but that's long gone and we just have some remmants.
 
Just to mention explicitly, while I mention IQ there isn't a direct correlation between skill, art, etc. But there is a relationship between being able to quickly pick-up a new skill or face new challenges. The adaptation to new challenges is related to IQ. Not being able to adapt quickly doesn't make you a bad person.
The problem I'm raising is that a larger group of people are not being able to find a job that generates decent income. This can be due to automation. People that can't adapt easily will find it much harder to switch to a new job.
Eventually AI robots could be doing all the jobs in existence, so humans wouldn't need to do any job. We'll get the question: what should be do if we don't need to survive. There will be less useless jobs to, which will be creating less pollution also.
If you look like series like Star Trek you still see that people are doing jobs based on competence, even though computer-based systems can do much of those jobs already.

In any merit based society you'll see that better quality is appreciated more. Which is a value system any person currently has, which creates the situation that bad quality is rejected. Bad quality is below average, and this average can be set by cheap (foreign) labor or automation. A competition, like a race for example, shows the principle in action. The best runner will automatically end up first in the race. Much less attention is given to everyone that competed in the race but didn't win. This concept is somewhat abused by large companies who can promote themselves to be this top 3 winners, selling their brand products in shops. I don't think the merit system is the problem there, but a society needs to have guardrails to prevent fake merit (there I guess politicians come in again).
In any merit based society people with a high IQ can adapt quicker, causing people with a lower IQ to sometimes miss out. Combine this with an economy and you'll automatically have winners and losers. Introducing a basic income would lessen the pain of the people that would be in the worst spot. People could do unpaid work (which is still work), but if AI robots do all the paid work you'd see the same 'competition' there between higher/lower IQ people. As some are able to out-compete their competition to provide better service/quality (even though it's not a race, people can compete if they want to).

Unrelated to this discussion, well... mostly: Microsoft showed an AI system to play Quake 2. So, there is no game it's an AI pretending to be a game: https://copilot.microsoft.com/wham
Meaning that you could have AI generated 'games' which are pretending to be games, play like actual games, but aren't programmed in the traditional way.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. We need to protect jobs for low IQ people, such as manufacturing. But no, we sold our industries to the east and now even high IQ people can only get crap jobs and are poor.
 
Actually it's even worse than that. 80% of my team is in China. We are software engineers. China is undercutting us on skilled labour / good jobs, not just manufacturing.
 
Actually it's even worse than that. 80% of my team is in China. We are software engineers. China is undercutting us on skilled labour / good jobs, not just manufacturing.
If everyone gives money to China, they grow in all ways. Including high-end jobs.
My team used to be in India, that became expensive after a while. I assume this will also happen with China to.
 
Flight to the bottom. Apple is moving factories to India. China wants to move away from manufacturing to eg financial services and bleeding edge tech, at least that is what I am told. Good luck. And now USA is re-shoring and tech innovation is ludicrously capital intensive (AI, robotics, biotech). It's a mad world.
 
Back
Top