Millions of robo-conscripts are marching to take away your job through a lot of fields all over the world. It seems to be unstoppable, but we have to react quick. How we gonna react to the automation?
Artificial intelligence (AI) will leave thousands unemployed. But paying people that they do not work is a direct way to greater inequality and social resentment. The development of machine learning and robotics in the coming decades will lead to the fact that hundreds of millions of jobs will disappear, and then the economy and trade networks around the world will collapse.
The industrial revolution had created the urban working class, and its problems took center stage in the social and political history of the twentieth century. Similarly, a revolution in the field of artificial intelligence can create a new "non-working class" whose hopes and fears will determine the history of the 21st century.
Many of the socio-economic models that we inherited from the last century are no longer relevant in the new era. For example, socialism argued that the working class is vitally important for the economy, and its ideologists tried to teach the proletariat to transform enormous economic power into political influence. These ideas can finally become obsolete in the coming decades, as the masses lose their economic value.
However, it can also be argued that the UK's exit from the EU and the victory of Donald Trump show opposite tendencies.
In 2016, many British and Americans, who lost economic importance, but retained a certain political force, expressed their indignation with the help of an urn for voting. They did not rebel against the economic elite that exploits them, but against the economic elite, which they no longer need. It is much more terrible to become useless than to be a puppet. To cope with this unprecedented technological and economic imbalance, absolutely new models are needed. Popularity of the concept of unconditional basic income is increasing.
An assumption: some institution - most likely the government - will tax the billionaires and corporations in whose hands the new algorithms and robots are, and the received money will be directed to benefits to meet the basic needs of the average citizen.
Presumably this will protect both the poor in the loss of jobs and economic ruin, as well as the rich from the discontent of the common people. Not everyone agrees with the need to introduce an unconditional base income. Fears about mass unemployment as consequences of automation were born in the XIX century, but have not been justified yet. In the twentieth century, every work where a tractor or computer replaced a man came to replace another, new work, and in the 21st century automation leads to very moderate unemployment.
People basically have two types of skills - physical and cognitive. Earlier machines competed with people only in the field of physical abilities. People always had a huge psychological advantage over cars. Thus, when work in agriculture and production was automated, new jobs appeared - they required the mental abilities that only people had. Now the AI begins to gradually excel people in the ability to cognize, and so far we do not have a third field of activity where people would retain an unconditional advantage. Of course, some relatively new jobs designed specifically for the person will remain popular in the 21st century - for example, a programmer or a yoga instructor.
Nevertheless, they will require a high level of knowledge and creativity, and therefore will not solve the problems of the unemployed, unqualified workers. During previous spikes of automation, people usually switched from one rough physical work to another. In 1920, a farmer, fired because of the mechanization of agriculture, could find a new job at the vehicle factory. In 1980s, an unemployed factory worker could work as a cashier in a supermarket. Such a change of activity was not uncommon, as the transition from farm to plant and from plant to supermarket required minimal retraining. But in 2040 a cashier or textile worker, who lost his job because of AI, is unlikely to be able to create websites or teach yoga. He will not have the necessary skills.
Supporters of an unconditional base income hope to solve this problem. Having emerged from the financial impasse, the unemployed could simply forget about exhausting attempts to stumble anywhere and devote themselves to their families, hobbies and social activities, go in for sports or art, immerse themselves in religion or practice meditation.
And yet the formula of unconditional base income is a little lame.In particular, it is not clear what the definitions of "unconditional" and "base" mean.
When one speaks of universal basic income, usually refers to the national basic income. For example, Ilon Mask and former US President Barack Obama announced the need to consider some schemes of unconditional basic income. But when Musk said that "there is a great chance that we will arrive at an unconditional base income due to automation," and Obama confirmed that "regardless of whether this is the right model, we will return to this discussion for the next 10 or 20 years ", It is not clear who is it -" we ". The Americans? The human race? So far, steps in this direction have been strictly in the national or municipal format.
This year, Finland began a two-year experiment to pay 2,000 unemployed Finns at 630USD per month, regardless of whether they find a job or not. Similar projects are being implemented in Ontario, Holland and Livorno (Italy). Last year, Switzerland held a referendum on the creation of a national scheme for basic income, but voters rejected this idea.
In the US, the representative of the California branch of the Democratic Party, Roh Hannah, proposes to significantly expand the program on the tax credits for earned income, which will increase the income of poor Americans by about $ 1 trillion. Although the plan does not prescribe unemployment benefits, it is regarded as the first step towards a national basic income. The problem with such national and municipal schemes is that the main victims of automation can not live at all in Finland, Amsterdam or the USA.
Globalization has made people in one country dependent on the markets of other countries, and automation can unravel much of this global trade network with catastrophic consequences for the weakest links. In the 20th century, developing countries achieved economic progress mainly through the export of resources or the sale of cheap labor.
With the development of artificial intelligence, robotics and 3D printers, the demand for cheap labor will decline, as will the need for raw materials. Instead of sewing clothes in Dhaka and driving it across the ocean to New York, you can buy a T-shirt code on Amazon and "print" it right in Manhattan. Zara and Prada shops will be replaced by 3D printing centers, and some printers will be at home.
And what about health care? If by 2050, advances in medicine will slow the aging process and significantly increase life expectancy, will new drugs be available to all 10 billion people on the planet, or only to selected billionaires? If biotechnology allows parents to "improve" children, will this be considered a basic need, or will we see the division of mankind into different biological castes, when rich superhumans will have the abilities far superior to that of ordinary, poor people?
Or rich space stations
Whatever the basic needs, they will be taken for granted, if they are provided to all free of charge. There will be a fierce struggle for non-verbal luxury items - expensive unmanned vehicles, access to virtual reality parks or upgraded bodies. But if the unemployed do not have money, how can they afford all these things? Consequently, the gap between the rich (managers of Tencent and the shareholders of Google) and the poor (depending on the base income) can become wider and deeper than ever. Even if in 2050 people receive much better medical care and education than today, they will still feel that the system works against them, the government serves only the interests of the super rich, and in the future they are not expecting anything good. People tend to compare themselves with more successful contemporaries than with their ancestors. If an ordinary human being from the poor area says that today he has access to much better medical care than his great-grandparents before the invention of antibiotics, he is unlikely to be particularly pleased. In fact, such words will sound terribly smug and condescending. He can answer: "Why should I compare myself with the peasants of the XIX century? I want to live like celebrities from TV, or at least like people in rich suburbs. "
What if the "proletariat" of the future is to say that health care is now much better than it was in the distant 2017, they are unlikely to be enthusiastic about this, as they will compare themselves with the super-minded people of that time, the world's rulers. Modern communications make this comparison almost inevitable. 5 thousand years ago a man living in a village compared himself with 50 neighbors. Compared to them, he could look pretty successful. Today, villagers compare themselves to the 50 most successful and attractive people on the planet, whom he sees on television and advertising posters every day. Modern man is much less satisfied with his life and appearance.
Will the basic income include a plastic surgeon??
Homo sapiens is arranged in such a way when our happiness depends less on objective conditions and more on our own expectations. When life gets better, expectations are skyrocketing. Therefore, a person will never be satisfied. Improving the objective living conditions with the help of universal basic income has a good chance of success.
https://www.producthunt.com/ - better than morning coffee
