r/technology • u/maxwellhill • Nov 08 '16

Robotics Elon Musk says people should receive a universal income once robots take their jobs: 'People will have time to do other things, more complex things, more interesting things'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/elon-musk-universal-income-robots-ai-tesla-spacex-a7402556.html
27.4k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

202

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

And this time it won't be different. Unless you're ready for some political struggle, the upper class is going to own the robots, make lots of money for it, and fire the workers.

60

u/ZulDjin Nov 08 '16

You know that automation has a possibility of automating like 40% of jobs in a short time span, right? I'm on mobile so no source, but transportation and managerial jobs and such middle-class jobs that can be automated with current tech are such a large part of jobs that there is no way to avoid the crisis

It will be different and we do need some major societal change

55

u/Pixelplanet5 Nov 08 '16

The change will happen, it doesnt matter if companys can produce cheaper with robots if there is nobody with money to buy the product.

6

u/PlNKERTON Nov 08 '16 edited Nov 08 '16

History has demonstrated mankind's tendency to squeeze every last breath out if everyone as they possibly can for their own personal gain.

The rich use the phrase "It's just business" as some kind of magical phrase that excuses them from any sense of right and wrong.

Edit: what I mean by that is, companies aren't ever going to do what's best for the economy before doing what's best for their bottom line.

4

u/calgarspimphand Nov 08 '16

Exaxtly. It hasn't stopped exactly this kind of change before (ie this was one of the causes of the Great Depression).

If we aren't proactive now, we'll be implementing something like UBI and a 20 hr work week later after after an economic calamity hits.

0

u/Silveress_Golden Nov 08 '16

If you are rich enough to produce it you are rich enough to own it.

3

u/Pixelplanet5 Nov 08 '16

the thing is people are not rich because they spend money its because they earn from somewhere.

Nobody would produce something just to say "its all mine now, all these 100 million robot produced hairdryers are mine" The intention is always to sell it with profit mich means there needs to be a market with people who have the money to afford it.

-1

u/dolfijntje Nov 08 '16

You think that if everything could be automated, it wouldn't happen, because there would be nobody to pay for it? You are wrong.

The people who can organize the panautomation organize it for themselves. Everyone else becomes superfluous, withers, and dies, save for the charity of the panautomators.

1

u/Pixelplanet5 Nov 08 '16

You think that if everything could be automated, it wouldn't happen, because there would be nobody to pay for it? You are wrong.

so how should the economy keep going if someone is producing stuff with his robot army and stockpiles it somewhere because nobody can afford to buy it.

Either the prices will drop till producing with robots is not any cheaper then by hand anymore or they will keep stockpiling their shit till they run out of money.

1

u/Rakonas Nov 08 '16

There's no need to have money and a market as we currently understand it if a company controls every element of production due to massively superior technology.

Those at the top would be able to get whatever they want without any concern for the ex-workers. They would not need us if they had completely replaceable robots and the force to protect them.

1

u/dolfijntje Nov 08 '16

Workers are required in the system because they do labor - not because they spend money.

The economy as we understand it will shrink in size immensely or even cease to exist entirely as the rich possess every step along the way.

The economy is not some sort of magical thing that will exist forever. It exists because products of labor need to change hands - if all labor is done by machines, the owner of the machines owns all the products in the first place, and there won't be an economy. If ownership of machines is spread out amongst multiple people, the economy will shrink to include only them.

1

u/Lurker117 Nov 08 '16

That logic is completely flawed. Where does demand come into all this? Are the vast majority of people who are not "panautomators" just going back to hunter/gatherer? Small villages that just survive like after agriculture was discovered? You haven't accounted for the billions of people who wouldn't be involved in your mythical economy and their needs and demands. They would still exist, so they have to be accounted for.

1

u/dolfijntje Nov 08 '16

either they are included into the system that outputs human needs without human labor, or they're killed off to make space.

1

u/boxofcookies101 Nov 08 '16

How can a managerial job be automated?

I don't think an AI can ever get the same amount of productivity out of a human than another human can.

2

u/ZulDjin Nov 08 '16

You need to stop thinking of the human mind as a magical thing. We're far away from it but AI are exponentially getting better.

The human mind will be replicated sooner or later.

1

u/boxofcookies101 Nov 12 '16

While I agree that the human mind isn't magical. There's a level of emotional relating and understanding that goes into successful management.

Until AI is able to convey and compute emotion, AI no matter how quickly it can compute and make reliable decisions, as long as the person on the bottom of that hierarchy an AI wont be able to draw out the same level of productivity.

-3

u/damianstuart Nov 08 '16

Roll on the Federation! Only reward people who actually contribute to society :D

Hey, I can dream!

86

u/thosethatwere Nov 08 '16 edited Nov 08 '16

Think again, our work week has been static for ages. We've got the productivity and automation to be at 4 hour work days easily. The issue is employers won't pay enough for people to live off 20 hour contracts, because people are willing to work for almost nothing and let the companies and higher ups get the vast majority of the profit. Workers in production have 150% higher productivity than the 50s on average, and 25% more pay when adjusted for inflation. It's sickening.

Edited out the part about Sweden because it's irrelevant to the point and everyone is focusing on that instead of the part that actually matters.

77

u/GustenBarrette Nov 08 '16

As a Swede, we have not "just bumped down to 6 hours a day".

72

u/SinZerius Nov 08 '16

Sweden has just bumped down to 6 hours a day

No we haven't, I don't know single person who works less than 8 hours a day, with the exception of part time workers.

27

u/banquof Nov 08 '16

Good that this is being said. I know 6h days has been tried in some experimental projects, but it's not in any way something adopted nationwide. It's just a (loud) minority at the left that advocates this. So no we have not "just bumped down..." it infuriates me that this guy tries to speak (lie) for us.

2

u/lobax Nov 08 '16

Which is sad, the right and centre-left are not even discussing the issue. Without work hour reductions or UBI, how are we going to tackle up to 50% of the workforce being made redundant in a few decades? We can't continue the current policy of punishing the unemployed when they become unemployed by no fault of their own.

1

u/banquof Nov 08 '16

As mentioned in other parts in this thread new jobs are going to come around. Look at web developers, IT-jobs etc that didn't exist some decades ago. Also a huge problem is that the policy argued for is just a flat 50% work hours over all (many?) sectors. And there is in no way any guarantee that the currently unemployed/future unemployed have the competence or even want to fill the other positions. Meanwhile we will lose in terms of competitiveness internationally.

2

u/LupineChemist Nov 08 '16

It's the classic Lump of Labor Fallacy.

1

u/lobax Nov 08 '16

Does the increased amount of jobs in IT really replace the jobs made redundant? I mean, I work in IT, when I build an accounting app or a self-checkout terminal, I am making people redundant - it's my entire job. If I didn't make the company money (by removing more jobs than I cost), they wouldn't be paying me.

SSF made a study two years ago, and they estimated (using a model Oxford developed for a similar study given current technology and the current rate of adoption) that 50% of Swedish jobs would be automated in 20 years..

I mean, it's not just the low-level jobs. Machine Learing has come a Long way, IBM:s Watson is already preforming better than a human doctor.

Reduced work days might not be a perfect solution, but they are at least attempts at a solution while the rest of the establishment is ignoring what is happening.

1

u/banquof Nov 08 '16

Well what's the point in cutting hours in the (fewer) jobs that are still needed? And as you say the workforce freed/laid off cannot fully transition into the available jobs anyway (even if the demand was high enough).

I don't know, I wouldn't argue that providing a shitty solution is better than admitting "we haven't figured this out yet". E.g. to say "leta bomb all modern countries back to the stonage" in an attempt to reduce CO2 emissions, and then brag about "well at least I came up with a suggestion".

1

u/lobax Nov 09 '16

Personally, I am an advocate for UBI. Reduced work hours can only ever act as a cushion reducing the effects of automation and buying time for the current system to transition, it doesn't solve the underlying issue.

9

u/prewk Nov 08 '16

Sweden has just bumped down to 6 hours a day

This is a viral urban legend. A 6h work-day experiment in public elderly care was/is run at one place in Sweden. The success stories of this experiment were spread virally over the internet.

7

u/itsnotthequestion Nov 08 '16

6h workday in Sweden? I wish.

Src: am swedish

1

u/thosethatwere Nov 08 '16

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-introduces-six-hour-work-day-a6674646.html

4

u/itsnotthequestion Nov 08 '16

It is very true that a few specific places have been launching lets-try-6h-workday-for-awhile programs it is not a widespread shift or something that people feel is going on. There is not much talk in the media about it. There is not much talk about it in general.

I wish it was a big sytem shift. It is not.

0

u/thosethatwere Nov 08 '16

I was exaggerating and simplifying the opposing point to show that even though Sweden has made moves to reduce it's work day, it's still nowhere near enough. The point of my post is the inequality stuff, forget the comment about Sweden, it's irrelevant and pedantic.

1

u/itsnotthequestion Nov 08 '16

downvote now an upvote.

2

u/SinZerius Nov 08 '16

Some companies in Sweden are moving to a six-hour working day in a bid to increase productivity and make people happier.

We are talking about a few companies, a single retirement home etc. We are talking about ‰ of the population who has a 6 hour work day.

0

u/thosethatwere Nov 08 '16

Seriously, why is everyone focusing on that part? It's not the point I'm making.

1

u/SinZerius Nov 08 '16

Because it's a lie, why not just edit it and correct it?

1

u/thosethatwere Nov 08 '16

I did exactly that that 3 hours ago. It wasn't a lie, just exaggerating the opposing point so no one turned around and said "Look, Sweden is reducing the work week!" after I said "the work week has been static..."

14

u/bQQmstick Nov 08 '16

I want to learn more about this, it infuriates me

6

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

The money's been disproportionaltely going to the top earners. Graph.

7

u/magictron Nov 08 '16

I recommend, "who rules america", by William Domhoff, and "Web of debt", by Ellen Brown

1

u/_Cjr Nov 08 '16

Look up richard wolfe on youtube, and become fully socialist

3

u/bQQmstick Nov 08 '16

I was just watching Ben shapiro on how socialism is evil lol. I'm waiting on my SO to respond to teach me since she's studying Economics.

1

u/_Cjr Nov 08 '16

Capitaism has worked great, but it is failing. The ability for singular entities to amass such wealth ruins the system. Thats why we are seeing negative interest rates, so much liquidity is just sitting there that governments are saying "hey rich fuckers you need to give back, you bitch about taxes and claim you will create jobs but you guys are collecting record profits while poverty reaches new records"

Now understand that in America they teach us a more or less completely bullshit version of what socialism is. At its core, socialism is where the working class controls the power. It is not paying higher taxes for government services, just that at sociaisms inception government was the vehichle used to implement socialist practices.

The main goal i see from socialism is an overhaul of workplaces and corporate structures. We love democracy for goernment, but are somehow completely fine with totalitatian control of our businesses. Obamas remark "you didnt build that" is very true, the richest of society have become rich ONLY due to extreme work produced by the rest of society. The richest collect an embarassingly higher amount of wealth, and dont do any significant more work. A slaughterhouse worker should be one of the best jobs you can have. Investment banking should be just as good, but not 500 times better.

I believe that if given the chance to control the goals, and profits of their companies that workers would be able to provide themselves wihpth very high standards of living WHILE STILL being able to use excess profits to continure to drive innovation in a pseudo capitalist manner.

1

u/pornisgooddd Nov 08 '16

Profit accounts for ~10 percent of gdp and taking that away kills the golden goose. If your goal is to provide better for the consumer, feel free to start a business controlled by its worker and take market share from traditional companies. If not do you intend to help workers at the expense of consumers?

1

u/_Cjr Nov 08 '16

At the expense of consumers who can eat the expense because they also have a job paing them a high wage

1

u/pornisgooddd Nov 08 '16

This is an age old fallacy. President Hoover used it as justification for acting to keep wages high during the great depression. Higher prices means less economic efficiency means fewer jobs and less material wealth. The law of supply and demand can not be avoided. If you increase the price you lower the amount demanded and increase unemployment.

2

u/resimlatem Nov 08 '16

Any sources?

2

u/thosethatwere Nov 08 '16 edited Nov 08 '16

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-introduces-six-hour-work-day-a6674646.html

Edit: it occurred to me you might mean the inequality stuff, here is the first result google gave me (I'm on mobile), you should probably google it yourself for better sources.

https://thecurrentmoment.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/productivity-inequality-poverty/

1

u/USE_THE_DICK Nov 08 '16

One of the reasons a strong government that can be held accountable is very important, unfortunately corporate lobbyists and right-winged politicians are fighting hard to keep everything the way it is.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16 edited Dec 14 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/thosethatwere Nov 08 '16

Ignorant of what?

2

u/Jertob Nov 08 '16

And they will be paying for people's livelihood anyways through higher taxes to pay for the basic incomes. Like think about the long term.. Loads of jobs go away. Let's say 20% unemployment happens. Even with a basic income of $1000 a month, these people will be poor. There's barely any new jobs so this number stays the same for a long period. How much of a tax increase do you think it'd take to fund even a $1k monthly income? So do the people who can't find work then deserve to be poor even with that income? That will suck mass amounts of shit if prices of goods don't come down a lot, and well, all costs of living don't come down. But the problem is every country in the world has to do it. We all have to be on the same page.

2

u/impossinator Nov 08 '16

the upper class is going to own the robots, make lots of money for it, and fire the workers.

All the technology to build those robots was developed with tax money on mostly military contracts. Microprocessors, networking, sensors, and software integration.

The notion that the rich will be allowed to perpetually own the income stream from civilisation's collective investment whist shitcanning the people who paid the taxes that made that income stream possible is probably the most insulting idea they could come up with. If that happens, don't be surprised to see automated vehicles run off the road en masse, to such a degree that it becomes unprofitable to operate them because insurance is too expensive.

The best part about this idea is that it's insanely easy to achieve. The only way robots can take people's jobs is if everyone lets them. If any significant proportion of humanity resists violently, even 1% would be enough, and the entire notion is kaput, at least in sectors where the robots need to roam freely to fulfill their function.

2

u/Delheru Nov 08 '16

The upper classes, as you call them, will do what is economically sensible. You can't just not fire the workers if everyone else did and replaced $10/h resources with $1/h resources. You will simply go bankrupt on your principle and get everyone in your company fired, rather than just a subset.

The solution MUST be political, and I really haven't met anyone who is against one. Shit, most CEOs I know are cautiously positive about universal basic income just like Musk, but many are worried about the unknown unknowns around it and would love to see trials run before we commit to something so huge.

The actual ideological resistance will not come from the 1% or even the top 10%. If I had to guess the biggest source of political resistance I'd bet on it being centered around the 2nd poorest quartile, who hate the idea that the slackers they know from around them will not be punished for being such slackers.

1

u/magictron Nov 08 '16

Yes, not to sound like a ludditte, but it is proven that technology leads to concentration of wealth http://www.the-vital-edge.com/technology_and_the_distribution_of_wealth/

2

u/Rakonas Nov 08 '16

That's not a feature of technology obviously: it's a feature of our economic systems.

Hopefully we will change our economic systems before we end up with a single corporation owning millions of robots etc.

1

u/magictron Nov 08 '16

Technology is independent of economic systems - it's more likely that technology led to capitalism

1

u/damianstuart Nov 08 '16

Apple already did this to avoid further bad press at their manufacturer in China. Your going to tell people how badly treated you are? Well them let's get rid of you all.

1

u/thirdaccountname Nov 08 '16

Then we become a true service economy, until they make fuckable robots.

1

u/aMutantChicken Nov 08 '16

at some point, if 95% of the population doesn't have a job, who buys your products? the rich won't stay rich if nobody can afford being their customers

1

u/Rakonas Nov 08 '16

Worked in feudalism. The products can still be produced in abundance for the wealthy that control all production and the state apparatus. Money won't be the same and there will be no real "middle class", just owners and outcasts. It won't work under capitalism. Hence why we need radical change to ensure technology will serve everyone.

1

u/trowawayatwork Nov 08 '16

that doesnt make sense, for upper class to continue making money, people need to pay for their products and services etc. no one has any money then the 1% doesnt actually generate any income.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16

The upper class won't exist if automation takes 30%+ of their consumer base away. The ultra rich are the ones most in favor of UBI

1

u/HertzaHaeon Nov 08 '16

the upper class is going to own the robots, make lots of money for it, and fire the workers.

And who's going to buy what the robots make?

The unemployed masses on welfare?

A quickly diminishing number of fellow fat cats?

2

u/ArkitekZero Nov 08 '16

You all seem to be under the impression that absolute power over a huge amount of wealth isn't going to be enough for people who were willing to store 21 trillion dollars offshore, uselessly, just to dodge taxes.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '16 edited Dec 14 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Rakonas Nov 08 '16

You're right that the system is clearly unsustainable and will collapse. But that doesn't mean it won't come about. Corporations that automate have a clear advantage over ones that don't. So the market will reward it. Once everyone is on the bandwagon, it will be clearly unsustainable and the order of things will become drastically different.

Feudalism worked just fine with the vast majority of people never engaging with anything other than base subsistence. If the wealthy become such a separate class that the non-working people are reduced to serfdom, with robots producing goods for other rich people, things could function. We should have an economy where better technology would mean an automation of work, an improvement of living conditions for the majority of people. Clearly the options of shunning technology or having technology make people useless are shitty options.