Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to
Forward Thinking. Hey there, everyone, and welcome to Forward Thinking,
the podcast that looks at the future and says money
don't get everything. It's true, but what it don't get
(00:21):
I can't use. I'm Jonathan Strickland, I'm Lauren, and I'm
Joe McCormick. And today we're gonna be talking about a
topic related to economics, something that we have I would
say we've brushed up against it before on this show
when we talked about Star Trek economics, some some other
issues related to automation. But today we thought it would
(00:43):
be a good time to jump headfirst into the topic
of the basic income. Yeah. I almost think of this
as like a a stepping stone, if you will, toward
that Star Trek future where money no longer is a
thing except when the plot requires to be right right
or I mean for Ferengie who just really like it. Yeah,
(01:04):
the latinum, the press latinum. Yeah. Yeah. And it's been
a topic of our conversation because as artificial intelligence and
robotics become more advanced and less expensive, robots are going
to take our jobs and specifically our tedious dangerous and
damaging hard labor type jobs, especially those those will happen
first question about it, others will follow. That's that's kind
(01:30):
of the scary thing, isn't it. Like one of the
things I want to talk about later in this episode
is a paper that I've referenced in a couple of
things I've written for how Step Works that came out
in by the Oxford researchers Carl Benedict Fry and Michael A. Osborne.
And this paper is essentially a big look at where
(01:50):
the future trends in automation are going to be, what
jobs are going to be taken over by machines and
by computer software. And as we record this podcast, Lauren
and are actually preparing to fly to Austin, Texas to
attend south By Southwest two thousand sixteen. Yeah, by the
time you hear this, it will have already happen. Yeah,
So we're giving you the future of the past right now.
(02:11):
But one of the things that we both noticed as
we looked at the different track programming, uh you know
lists on south By south West, which is an enormous
conference that's interactive, film, music, tons of different stuff going
on there, but one of the really big topics that
we saw coming up again and again was this idea
of automation. How is that going to impact the job
(02:32):
market and how is that going to impact things like income?
And so that's very much in line with what we're
going to talk about today. Yeah, So if you want
to listen to a couple of those prior episodes that
we've done, tune into one from December called will Robots
Steal Our Jobs? Um? And then two from July called
(02:53):
Hailing the Robotcab and Robot Taxis and the Future of
Cab Drivers. Uh. And I don't have the the the
episode title and date for the Star Trek Economy episode
right in front of me, the Star Trek Economy, Okay,
so just google Star Trek Economy. I have faith in you. Um.
But but to summarize what we said there, you know,
(03:13):
in the long term, this is great, like what an
incredible future, y'all, Like no one has to clean toilets,
or drive cargo trucks, or turn and burn burgers or
like mine, toxic heavy metals unless they're really psyched about it. Um.
In the short term, this is going to lead to
so many growing pains and stands to specifically disenfranchise the
people who are already living below the poverty line, even
(03:35):
though they're working full time, because those are the kind
of jobs that are going to go first, right, Yes.
And one reaction to this trend, and I should say,
it's not just a reaction to the automation trend, but
it's a it's an idea that is bigger than a
reaction to automation, but may specifically come into play because
of automation, is the basic income, what's known as a
guaranteed basic income. So I want to start with a
(03:58):
little news story that was the basis of a of
a house Stuff Works Now video I shot earlier this
week about the Ontario provincial budget. So. Ontario is a
province of Canada. It's their largest province. It's home to
almost fourteen million people. And they release their budget online
and it in chapter one, Section E Towards a Fair
(04:21):
Society they write, and I'm just gonna read a longish
quote here, but bear with me for a minute. One
area of research that will inform the path of comprehensive
reform will be the evaluation of a basic income pilot.
The pilot project will test a growing view at home
and abroad that a basic income could build on the
success of minimum wage policies and increases in child benefits
(04:45):
by providing more consistent and predictable support in the context
of today's dynamic labor market. I like that term dynamic.
That seems kind of euphemistic, but I like that they
spell labor with a U A supposed to volatile or
something like, Yeah, it's so dynamic it's terrifying. Yeah, would
be another great work with this rickety old roller coasters dynamic.
(05:09):
But anyway, continuing with the quote the pilot, and they're
referring to the basic income pilot project. The pilot would
also test whether a basic income would provide a more
efficient way of delivering income support, strengthen the attachment to
the labor force, and achieve savings in other areas such
as healthcare and housing supports. The government will work with communities,
(05:29):
researchers and other stakeholders in sixteen to determine how best
to design and implement a basic income pilot. And this
seemed really interesting to me because essentially, with this budget statement,
the provincial government is announcing it's intentions. You might note
that there aren't a lot of specific series, so we'll
have to see what actually comes of this, but they're
at least announcing their intention to do science on the
(05:53):
governmental level. They want to run an experiment to see
what happens when you try this new form of economics
and find out whether or not it actually is efficacious.
If so, does it make sense considering the the amount
of investment required to make it happen? Sure, and and
what kind of less numbers based qualifiers wind up coming
(06:17):
out of it, like like how do how does it
impact people's happiness and people's productivity? Right? Good points. So
we we shouldn't start with the definition. I guess what
is a basic income? And how is it different from
all the other types of welfare and social security that
that are already in place in governments all around the world.
So there are a few different details and qualifications you
could run variations on, you know, they're there are different
(06:39):
ways to slice the pie. But in essence that the
idea of a basic income is there's a government payout
that's awarded to all citizens, without restrictions on use, without
means testing. And it's these latter two parts of it
that make it so different from most social security type
programs today. So governments already have a lot of programs
that a ward financial assistance. But maybe you're only supposed
(07:03):
to spend it on certain types of food items, like
you you're only really supposed to spend it on food
like food stamps. Or maybe you only get it if
you're over a certain age, or maybe you only get
it if you're under a certain income, or if you're
unemployed but actively seeking work, or you know, any number
of conditions. Family structure is a certain way. The basic income,
(07:25):
on the other hand, is it strips away all of that.
It is an unconditional direct payout of money that every
citizen receives, and anything on top of that you would
get based upon your employment or lack thereof. So you work,
you get it. You don't work, you get it right.
You're young, you get it, you're old, you get it.
(07:47):
It doesn't matter. Every citizen gets the basic payout right.
And ideally the basic payout is somewhere in the level
where you can see two very basic necessities at least
at the very least um not necessarily some basic income
things I've seen. It's more along a small stipend that
could offset your expenses, It doesn't necessarily take care of
(08:11):
the basic needs even at that level. And in some
cases I've seen people argue for advocate for a basic
income that goes above what you would need for the
the most essential necessities had to get you above the
poverty line, right, which I believe in the United States
study rate equals a little bit over eleven grand a
year right now, I think it. It can be calculated
(08:34):
different ways depending on how many dependents you have, absolutely,
and and honestly I didn't look up the most recent
number right in two thousand and twelve, it was somewhere
between eleven and twelve thousand dollars for and that will
come into play in a little bit later in our
our conversation as well. Right. So, obviously, as I've said,
you can tinker with the idea, you can offer different
(08:55):
variations on it. There's no one idea everybody agrees on.
But that's the basic idea. It's a direct, unconditional payout
of money that you can spend however you want, and
everybody gets it. But there are questions you can mess with,
like should the payout be graduated according to your other income?
Like should the poorest people get a bigger payout than
people who have more money. I don't know. You might
(09:17):
be able to argue one way or another. Uh do
you give the payout to adults ownly adults? Yeah? Or
only to or to everybody including dependent children? Uh? And
you know you mentioned this new idea. It's really the
interesting thing is it's not that new of an idea.
It's just it's one that we're starting to hear a
lot of. Yeah. So if you want to look at
(09:40):
maybe the origins of this idea are people who are
advocated for something similar in years past. You can look
all the way back to the sixteenth century early Dreds
with Thomas Moore. What a guy. You know, this is
not the place we want to go if you're trying
to make the case that the universal basic income is
not necessarily utopianism, because Thomas Moore was explicitly utopianist. Yes. Yes,
(10:05):
in fact he wrote on the subject quite extensively. He
was a humanist and uh. He advocated an idea similar
to basic income, though specifically intended for the poor, as
opposed to a universal basic income that would go to
every single citizen of whatever country. He was specifically looking
at England, but also did numerous uh He wrote a
(10:28):
lot about the various countries in Europe at the time
and talked about the idea of this minimum income. He
argued that the minimum income would minimum income let me,
let me enunciate properly, would create a greater social benefit
than it would create a burden for the the state,
the government to pay this out. His argument was that
(10:51):
if people are not making enough money, they end up
turning to theft in order to meet their basic needs,
and then we end up spending resources capturing them and
punishing them, often killing them, which removes them from being
able to make any sort of social contribution at all.
If you are curious about that set of situations, you
(11:12):
can go listen to our Future of Burials episode which
was just last week. So he argued that with a
minimum income, you remove the the necessity for theft, and
you remove the necessity for punishment and removing people from
the possibility of contributing to society, and everyone benefits. Yeah,
and and for furthermore, you know, if if you really
(11:34):
care about human life, you you remove the necessity of
the state at that time to you know, kill people
to commit murder. He also he also admittedly said, maybe
killing people for what amounts to petty theft is a
little excessive. That was a radical idea at the time
of Thomas Moore. Uh Now, the notion evolved over time.
(11:54):
Lots of other people ended up contributing to this idea
and and tweaking it or adding different ideas that ended
up kind of being folded into the concept of basic income.
Later on, in the eighteenth century, we started seeing the
idea of basic endowment, which was sort of a precursor
of life insurance. The idea being that, if, for example,
(12:17):
a the the person who provided for a family were
to die, would there be a system in place in
order to keep that family sustained now that the person
who was responsible for providing has passed away. That kind
of concept. Then in the nineteenth century, utopian socialists began
(12:38):
to argue for what would become basic income. It was
still a very early version of that. At that time.
The notion was that people were really moving into cities,
and there was this kind of this this idea that
the earth is there for all of us, right, that
we all have an equal share of the earth, but
we don't all have equal ability to reap the benefits
(12:59):
of our share, especially if we're moving into cities and
therefore you know, can't hunt or farm or exactly right,
so we might not be able to benefit and someone
else may be able to benefit well beyond their quote
unquote share of the earth. And so it was kind
of an argument that there need to be this redistribution
(13:19):
in some ways just for basic survival. Again, not meant
to have someone thrive at the expense of someone else,
which actually is what was going on already, but but
to to make sure that people who were having difficulty
meeting their basic needs could in fact meet them through
this philosophical argument, and that was really interesting. Then moving
(13:41):
on to the twentieth century, philosophers began to argue for
a more refined approach. Bertrand Russell and Roads to Freedom
suggested that a secured minimum incomes sufficient for meeting the
basic necessities for a person survival should be available to everyone.
Larger incomes would be available to those willing and able
to do more work, so those who contribute more to
(14:02):
society get more out of it. So it's not People
sometimes equate basic income with concepts like communism, but that's
not what Russell was arguing. He was arguing, no, if
you if you do work, you should be rewarded for
that work. We're talking about a baseline income everyone gets
beyond that. It. Yeah, It's all comes down to your
(14:25):
willingness to actually work and contribute to society, and those
who do more earn more. Uh So that's kind of
an interesting idea that I think appeals to a lot
of people on a very basic level. Now, as we
go into discussing more about basic income, you'll understand that
things that intellectually sound very simple in reality turn out
(14:46):
to be insanely complicated. In reality. There is no such
thing as simple. That's sort of what reality means. Yeah,
I guess so. Uh. Nonetheless, there are several places that
have been experimenting with implementing a program like this. Yeah,
so we mentioned that the the Ontario Budget statement has
announced that it has intentions to look into it. But
(15:08):
there's also there are also activists in Switzerland who have
managed to get a version of basic income sort of uh,
at least up for a vote. I mean, if it
has any chance of actually becoming the law, I don't know,
but it's it's it's on the table, right Switzerland. Uh,
and it's also i know, been discussed in Finland and
in communities in the Netherlands, and you mentioned in your
(15:31):
now video that that Quebec has also been thinking about. Yeah,
there's been discussion about it. Okay, Yeah, So so what's
the appeal of having a basic income today? Well, as
we've kind of been discussing, there's a lot of social
issues that could potentially be alleviated by this, you know, homelessness, hunger,
petty crime, maybe even connected issues like criminal violence, gang
(15:52):
and mob activity, substance abuse, poor mental health, and you know,
related issues like domestic abuse, uh and the general a
gory of like citizens lack of health insurance, creating this
undue taxpayer burden through the overuse of emergency medicine rather
than the healthier and cheaper preventative medicine that people with
you know, money can access um It can also potentially
(16:13):
boost the economy, like a kind of canes in perspective
there sure, sure, the you know, the effects of this
kind of thing on economies are always unpredictable because there's
just so many factors at play. You know. The economy
is is like a like a version of the weather
that for me is a lot less fun to think about. Um,
But you know, it seems likely that there would be
(16:36):
a stimulus effect short term as people receive new spending power,
and there's certainly a possibility that the effect would continue
long term. And one of those people have money to spend,
they spend it. Businesses make more money, they hire more people.
One of the arguments specifically about boosting the economy falls
down on that that not falls down but is specifically
(16:56):
directed at the homelessness problem, saying that it is extremely
difficult to to break out of that problem of homelessness,
that this would address that, and that people who were
homeless would have the money to uh end up getting
a roof over their heads, and from that baseline, they're
(17:17):
much more likely to succeed in becoming a contributing member
of society. Uh That Without that, the the cards are
so stacked against them. It's it's incredibly remarkable when someone
is able to emerge. Yeah. Sure, you know, because because
if you can't take a shower, it's harder to get
a job and etcetera. Um, But all of our our
(17:39):
personal like quasi socialism, fuzzy wuzzy feelings about all of
this aside there are also lots of conservatives who have
been talking about this as a as a potentially good plan.
Oh yeah, I mean this idea actually does have conservative supports.
Certainly not among all conservatives, but there have been conservatives
who backed it. One of the main reasons is that
it's a government reducing plan essentially. So right now you
(18:03):
have a whole bunch of different means tested social security
and welfare measures, and you have massive administrations and bureaucracies
to oversee how these funds are given out and to
make sure that they're they're given to the right people,
and that people aren't trying to game the system by
getting funds that they're not supposed to get, by trying
(18:25):
to falsify or commit fraud. And you know, it's there's
there's massive systems in place just trying to hold everything
together to meet the requirements. And what if you just
get rid of all the requirements. No more means testing,
no no more any of this, it's just everybody gets
the payout. That that's a that is a government reduction
(18:48):
and so it replaces bureaucracy with the simple egalitarian system
of social security. And in fact, there's one instance this
is not exactly basic income, but along the same lines.
The Eco him as Milton Friedman, who is usually considered
a libertarian or some form of economic conservative, talked about
the idea of a negative income tax. And this is
(19:09):
essentially a two way inverted progressive taxation. So the more
money you make, the more taxes you pay. But also
below a certain threshold that that tax tax fee inverts
to a payout rather than a fee, so you are
you receive money from the government rather than paying in. Uh.
In In in the nineteen sixties, Richard Nixon actually proposed
(19:31):
a version of basic income. So yeah, yeah, so it's
it's We should also point out that while uh, you know,
this is not this is not simply a liberal versus
conservative issue, that there are supporters on both sides, they're
also critics on both sides exactly, and that that's, uh,
that's a very good thing to point out. So one
(19:51):
of the most obvious criticisms but something worth talking about
in a little bit of detail is how do you
pay for it? Sounds like if you're giving everybody money,
you need do have a lot of money to give them?
And where do you get it? Well? Shared like how
but how much money are we talking about? Yeah, that
that's worth talking about. So here we go. There is
a November twelve thirteen piece by a guy named Danny
(20:12):
Vinnick in Business Insider that did some math on this,
actually just crunch some numbers to see roughly how much
something like this would cost in the United States at
the time. And so he was working off of twelve
numbers from the budget in the census, and what he
came up with was that from the twelve numbers, if
you wanted to pay every adult in the United States
(20:34):
between the ages of twenty one and sixty five, and
he excluded over sixty five because that's when Social Security
kicks in, and that's a different that's a different paying pool.
So they just beginning social Security twenty one to sixty five.
If you wanted to pay all those people an amount
equal to the poverty line, which at the time he
said was eleven thousand, ninety five dollars, it would cost
(20:58):
two point fourteen trillion dollars. That's a that's a chunk
of change. It is uh And he offers a point
of comparison just to say, okay, two point fourteen trillion,
how much is that compared to other big chunks of
the US federal budget. Well, at the time g d
P was sixteen trillion, so that's the the value of
(21:18):
all final goods and services produced in the United States
was sixteen trillion, So this would be a little more
than one eighth of all the value of goods and
services produced in the United States. But at the same time,
the US military budget was seven hundred billion dollars, So
I mean the government spends a lot of money in
the United States. Well wait, wait, wait, wait, Joe, that
you were talking earlier, though, the conservatives were pointing out
(21:40):
that this approach also is about streamlining government, right, so
it wouldn't just be two point fourteen trillion on top
of everything the government already spends, but it would be
partially replacing existing spending. So I want to read a
quote where he deals with this part. He says, Aggressional
Research Service report found that the federal government spins approximately
(22:04):
seven hundred and fifty billion each year on benefits for
low income Americans, and that rises to a clean trillion
when you factor in state programs. Eliminate all those and
the net figures. So there he's saying, the cost of
the basic income minus the cost of the eliminated programs
comes out to about one point two trillion needed to
(22:25):
pay for a universal basic income. Still a hefty sum,
and I have to agree that's still a pretty hefty sum. Yeah,
I think that's a pretty uh, pretty nice understatement. So
you could experiment with different payout options and sent compensations. So,
for example, you could say, well, we're not going to
pay people the entire all the way up to the
poverty line, pay everybody almost twelve thousand dollars um. Or
(22:49):
you could say that, well, we're gonna make other cuts
to the federal budget to compensate for that that one
point to trillion, Or you could increase tax revenue on
the richest. Uh. There lot of ways you could slice
the pie to make it work. But no matter what,
somebody's going to feel the squeeze. This would be an
expensive thing to pay for and somehow you would have
(23:10):
to find that money, right, So one of the things
that the Ontario pilot program will have to find out
is whether or not, again the money invested into the
program ends up creating a better return, not just not
just financially, which obviously that would be important, but obviously
in the quality of life of the people the program
(23:32):
is meant to help. If it's not helping them, that's
a huge problem. If it's helping them but it's really expensive,
that that might be a problem people are willing to
talk about. And uh, and and overcome through whatever means,
whether it's increase in taxes or something else. Sure, and
(23:53):
while we're talking about those kinds of sociological and psychological issues, Uh,
is this going to make people just quit their jobs?
That's the other big question, isn't it. Because economists debate
about this on one hand, you've got this view that
it sort of makes sense. Think about this. Anytime you
subsidize something, you encourage it. If you that's kind of point, right,
(24:15):
If you pay out for something, you you are fostering
more of that thing. And so the basic incomes subsidizes,
according to these people, subsidizes unemployment or underemployment, and so
you can just sort of expect if you subsidize that
you're going to get more of it. But then again,
the basic income isn't just paid to people who don't work.
(24:37):
It's paid to everybody, even those who do work. And
in most formulations, it's not a whole lot people are
gonna want more. It's just enough so that people can
have some kind of security, something to work with. I
think if you were to argue that everyone in the
United States, that's going with the example we had mentioned earlier,
(24:58):
everyone in the United States gets twelve dollars, I think
the vast majority would say that's going to help. But
I can't live on twelve thousand. Twelve thousand dollars like
the poverty line. Yes you could, you could maybe get
your your basic necessities, but it's at a level that
I think most people, particularly most people who are capable
(25:19):
of listening to this podcast. Since presumably you have some
kind of yeah, you've got something that allows you to
do this, you probably would not feel like that would
be a quality of life you would be you would
be comfortable and comfortable with. Yeah, you would definitely want
something better than that. So the twelve thou dollars, I
(25:40):
think for most people would be that's that's my baseline.
I want more than that. It's hard to imagine a
vast population of people who say that's gonna be enough
for me, and I'm just gonna sit on my butt
and not do anything. Also, I think I think this
argument puts or an assumption that I don't entirely agree with,
(26:02):
which is that most people left to their own devices
wouldn't do anything if they could get around, if they
could get by without it. It's certainly a widespread assumption.
A lot of people think this about other people. I
think most folks find at least some satisfaction in doing something.
It may not be that you love your job. I'm lucky.
(26:23):
I love the job I do. Uh, And I realized
there are people who aren't in that situation. But I
think a lot of people get at least some sense
of satisfaction in doing something and earning something from the
activity they're doing. Yeah. Well, no matter what you do,
there's dignity and honest work. Yeah. There's a really excellent
piece in the Atlantic from the July August issue called
(26:44):
a World Without Work, in which the writer Derrick Thompson
spoke to a bunch of psychologists who pointed out that
that most people, and most Americans in particular, base a
pretty large part of their identity and their social sphere
and their mental health on their jobs. That like be
being productive and working towards a common goal are are
(27:04):
pretty basic things that humans like doing anecdotally. I mean,
how many of your conversations with someone new have the question,
so what do you do as one like that's one
of the first things that you ask people. Now, all
of this is to say that that the basic income
is one approach to trying to uh to solve a problem,
(27:25):
and not necessarily the right approach. We don't know yet.
We'd have to see, and it may not be the
right approach for all places at all times. It may
be that it works for certain countries or communities, but
not everyone. And we certainly aren't advocating that a basic
income goes out to everybody right now, unless it turns
(27:45):
out that, yes, this is the best best way to
solve this problem and we all benefit as a result.
One of the reasons we're bringing this up, this topic
up is what we talked about at the beginning. We're
getting to a point where there are very real concerns
over a growing population about jobs being eliminated as a
result of automation. So it may turn out that something
(28:08):
like basic income ends up being a necessity not just
for populations that are disenfranchised right now, but a growing
population of people who were contributing to society were hard
working people who have nowhere to work anymore because advances
in technology have eliminated the need for people to work. Right.
(28:29):
So we we talked about this in the episode about
will robots steal our jobs? But the basic principle is
that automation makes human labor sets obsolete. And this isn't new, uh.
You know, in previous centuries farm workers were replaced by
farm machinery, and traditional weavers were replaced by the mechanization
of the textile industry. But it does appear to be
(28:51):
accelerating now. And it's not only accelerating, it's making different
types of human skills less and less comparatively valuable. So
there used to be this set of skills you could
separate off from all of the mechanical and menial labor
and say, you know what those are safe. Like, you
might worry that a job welding parts on an assembly line, think, well,
(29:13):
you're doing a kind of routine task that's the same
motions over and over again. I think a robot could
probably do that job. Um. But on the other hand,
you'd say, well, you know, a person answering service calls
for a tech support line or something like that that
needs to be a human, of course, because that you know,
they've gotta have language skills and stuff like that. Turns
(29:35):
out it probably doesn't have to be a human. A
human might be better at it in certain cases. But
you can design a computer program to handle lots of
different kinds of tech support calls well. And until recently,
I would argue that having a robot UH working within
a warehouse environment to retrieve one of thousands of different
(29:57):
types of products, to bring it in and pack it
up and send it out would have been impractical because
because you think about the different range of skills there.
You've gotta you gotta recognition of the item you're looking for.
You've got to be able to move around and pick
things up, different types of locomotion and manipulation. That's a
lot of different skill sets that robots aren't very good
at or very good at up until now. Is yeah,
(30:21):
And if you see an Amazon warehouse now you you
will probably see a lot of happy, go lucky robots
running around and not so many humans anymore. Most of
the robots are actually robotic shelves like the like the
products are on the robot, the robot comes to the
area where the product needs to be moved off of
the shelf onto like an assembly for for packing and shipping.
(30:42):
It's uh, it's amazing. And we're seeing things also in
all other industries, like we're seeing a growing concern and uh,
and things like the trucking industry. Yes, that that's a
very possible automated job in the in the not too
distant future. Huge number of human beings practice professions that
involved driving cars. That's the main part of their profession,
(31:05):
transportation logistics, trucking, cab drivers. Once you see how good
Google's driverless cars are, you can quickly begin to see
the problem when these millions of people are suddenly out
of work because replaced by self driving cars. And it's
and it's easy for for people like us to sit
around and go like, well, it's better for you in
(31:26):
the long run, because the types of wear and tear
that your body goes through when you're when you're sitting
in a vibrating piece of machinery all day are are terrible. There.
It's it's honestly not good for you. That's cold comfort
to a person, but exactly exactly food on the table. Yeah, yeah,
So Anyway, at the beginning of this episode, I mentioned
(31:48):
that study by by Fry and Osborne, the Oxford researchers
who who essentially they took a huge list of occupations,
basically a comprehensive list of US occupations, and tried to
characterize the skills that are required for each of those
occupations according to how easy they would be to automate
in the near future. And specifically, this is with reference
(32:10):
to advances in three different fields machine learning, big data,
and mobile robotics. And these are three fields that where
it seems that automation is pushing the limits of what
types of skills are available to machines that only humans
could do before. Well, I mean, and we see news
(32:30):
every single day about new developments and artificial intelligence that
end up telling us well, sure, in this particular case,
it's something very specific. I'm thinking right now of Google
defeating top Go players. That go as a game that
for a long time people thought humans are going to
be the best at this game. For a really long time.
(32:51):
It's just so complicated. We thought it was going to
be another twenty years. Wasn't it cute when when people
were saying, well, yeah, now computers can beat the best
human chess player free time, but they won't do it
with Go well, because there were just so many more
possibilities of moves and GO compared to chess. That the
thought was that if in fact everyone continued with the
(33:12):
brute force approach, yeah, it's a lot less linear than
something like chess. Yeah, it just it was just one
of those things, the number of possible moves is so
great that that brute force will never work. It's it's
it's easy. It's easy for a human and difficult for
a machine. And it was based upon a presumption that
brute force was going to be the way of right.
Machine learning was not necessarily something that people were thinking
(33:32):
about at that point. So, but that that illustrates that
things that we previously thought were completely outside the domain
of machines may not be. Uh. And and I think
it was in that Oxford paper that that Oxford paper
was mentioned in the Atlantic piece that that I was
talking about. Uh. They said that that some fields that
we would be very surprised to find can be done
(33:55):
by machines, like like like psychology. As as it turns out,
people can sometime even be more honest talking to a
robot psychologist than a human psychologist or an AI psychologist. Rather,
I should say, but because they're not afraid of human judgment.
I'm just imagining a robot psychologist saying, tell me about
your toaster. Well, one thing they definitely point out in
(34:17):
their paper is they they quote previous research in economics
that had essentially looked at the same problem, but from
a few years earlier, and these earlier researchers had said, well, look,
there are a few things that are not going to
be done by machines anytime soon because they just require
you know, basically human human intelligence that cannot be substituted
(34:38):
by machines. And examples they gave were recognizing handwriting and
driving cars. Oh goodness, my gracious, and what do you know,
just just a few years later. Now, that is hilarious
that somebody said that, and they weren't dummies. These were
very smart people who made those kinds of statements. Again,
you can I know, our show is all about talking
(34:59):
about the future. As it turns out, really knowing what's
going to happen in the future is uh is next
to impossible. In fact, I should just say it's impossible
because you cannot anticipate what is what? What is? What
will happen? I mean, yeah, there will be there will
be things that happen where whether it's an enormous Aha
moment or just a series of developments that reached to
(35:22):
this point where you didn't have any way of anticipating
that when you were making your predictions that happens. Uh
doesn't necessarily always happen for for good either. Sometimes it
happens and things you were accounting on are now impossible.
So here's the question. Assuming that this this set of
circumstances continues, and we see growing automation, and we see
(35:46):
that fewer and fewer people are able to work jobs
to get money, what does that mean in a big
picture kind of way. Yeah, that that's a good question,
And that's sort of why we brought this up in
this episode. It's how we get back to the basic income.
Because a number I'm sure you've you guys have encountered this.
A number of experts in robotics, artificial intelligence sort of,
(36:09):
computer scientists and other technologists have talked a lot about
the basic income. And when I first started noticing this phenomenon,
I thought it was kind of weird. But now it
makes sense to me, and I think it makes sense
because they're the people doing the research that is going
to make something like this possibly necessary in the future.
Just one example, there was a February interview with Huffington's
(36:34):
Post with the AI expert mosche Vardi from Rice University,
and I've already said this. Our current economic system requires
people to either have wealth or to work to make
a living, with the assumption that the economy creates jobs
for all those who need them. If this assumption breaks down,
and progress in automation is likely to break it down,
(36:56):
I believe, then we need to rethink the very basic
structure or of our economic system. For example, we may
have to consider instituting basic income guarantee, which means that
all citizens or residents of a country regularly received an
unconditional sum of money in addition to any income received
from elsewhere. Uh And and I think that's one example
(37:18):
of this general trend I talked about. I'm sure you
guys have observed this absolutely, And like I said, you
know this is if you think this sounds like a
kind of a stepping stone towards the star Trek economy,
that's exactly the way I think of it too, is
that ultimately, if you continue down this road far enough,
you eventually come to the conclusion of, well, if all
work is being done by machines, and all things that
(37:41):
once we're scarce are now relatively easy to access, what
is the point of money? And if there's no way
to get it and there's no real expense and you know,
no real reason to spend it, do we need it anymore?
And then what happens next? And that's what we kind
of explored in our Star Trek episode. This one is
(38:02):
more of a all right, well, let's look, let's look
at that period of of of chaos between now and
what could be one possible future. Not you know, of course,
the Star Trek economic future may never come to pass.
We may never see that particular version into anything resembling reality.
(38:23):
But it seems like a nice stick And and I'll
say again as I have said before, that you know,
if it leads to to fabulous jumpsuits for everyone, that
I'm into it. Um. But okay, so, so there's there's
that period of chaos that we're talking about. There there
are so many unknowns in this in between time, um,
But there are a few historical precedences that we can
(38:43):
kind of look at, Like during the Depression era here
in the United States, the National Works Progress Administration hired
some forty thou artists and writers to produce cultural work. Uh,
you know, know, anything from from films to two paintings
to uh to travel brochures and all kinds of stuff
like high Yeah. Yeah, of course performance are highly offensive. Uh.
(39:09):
And and and also a little bit more on the
on the end of that chaos UM in Youngstown, Ohio,
the dismantlement of the steel industry in the nineties seventies
has created this, uh, this this long term, kind of
terrifying space in which a struggling but but increasingly strong
(39:29):
community has come together to create um, to create art,
and to create a four higher workforce. And and and
it's fascinating. It's a fascinating case study. Yeah. So, I mean,
it's I think the the what the takeaway here is
that we are seeing people come up with potential um,
(39:50):
if not solutions, at least measures to try and offset
some of the problems we currently have and ones that
we know are on the horizon. There's no denying that
it is going to happen. The question is how do
we respond to it? Basic income is one of those strategies,
not necessarily the one that's gonna win out. So I've
(40:10):
got a question I want to ask you, guys, and
it's pretty much the same question I asked in my
house Stuff works now video, But I think it's an
important one. Let's let's say you're in a middle camp
on your opinion about the basic income. You can see
the appeal in the technological obsolescence future, So you accept, Okay,
if robots can do of human jobs better than humans can,
(40:33):
and most of us cannot find paying work, yet there's
all this wealth in the world because the robots can
do all the labor for us, Yeah, then of course
basic income makes sense. So you accept that. But at
the same time, you say, well, now, right now, we
do not have justification for such an expensive system. How
do you know when it's time, when it's your job?
(40:54):
You know, Like, how do you know? How do you
know when you've reached the threshold of of technological wealth
and human skill obsolescence? After we high after we elect
our first artificially intelligent representative to the House or congress
person or president, I think at that point we're all
(41:15):
going to have to agree with Okay, we we need
to fix this for for people, or else we won't
be around for much longer. It is an interesting question
like what is what is the you know, when does
the thermometer fill up with red and you say let's
throw the switch? Um, Honestly, I that that's an impossible
question for me to answer. I I honestly don't know enough.
(41:41):
And being the person I am, I'm probably more likely
to throw that switch earlier than other people are. Uh.
That being said, I also recognize the monumentally difficult task
of actually providing for this approach, and that it's one
that would require some people to potentially make some pretty
(42:04):
hefty sacrifices, uh, in order for other people to do well.
And that's not kind of a system that we have,
Like our system doesn't reward altruism. We have people who
are very altruistic, very charitable, who are great philanthropists, but
that's kind of outliers and the system exactly. And then
(42:24):
I don't I don't fault the system necessarily for that.
I don't think that our system is is good or bad.
I think of it as mostly a moral uh not immoral,
but a moral and a moral systems. They run the world, man,
they do, And it's just a question of where do
you where in your philosophy does this idea makes sense? Well,
(42:49):
something I think I can, or I can at least
hope we all agree on, is that it does make
sense to run test cases and pilot projects absolutely like
what it sounds like Ontario is proposing here. So you
might not say, well, uh, it's time to throw the
switch and put the entire country on this plan, but
to test it within some communities and see what happens. Yeah,
(43:12):
and if even if it doesn't turn out, well, it's
good to have that knowledge and understand how it plays
out in front. And it could also lead to two
better policies about uh, like like vaguely related issues like
like increasing um, increasing the minimum wage. Yes, so it
may be one of those things where after after a
pilot program has run its course, financial experts take a
(43:35):
look at it, sociologists take a look at it, and
they all say whether or not there was a net
benefit or a net net detriment to this program, And
then from that point forward you could say, all right, well,
if based upon the results here, do we want to
run another pilot program somewhere else, find out if in
fact this is something that is common to all areas.
(43:55):
Maybe it's one of those things that we see works
well in one region but not in another. Then if
it doesn't work, what are are all What are the
alternatives that we can look into, Because we still have
a problem. So if that's not the solution, it may
not be we need to find something else that is. Yeah,
and in direct answer to your question, Joe, I would
(44:15):
I would say that there's probably a particular percentage of
the population, a percentage which should be chosen by people
who are way better at economics than I am, um
at which like like beyond which, uh, we're going to
need something like this, a percentage of our population losing
their jobs to automation. Okay, So maybe you could say, like,
(44:38):
if we reach a point where there's x per cent
of the people who are unemployed actively seeking work and
cannot get it, then time for us to realize, yeah,
flip that switch. I guess. So, yeah, I mean, at
least to see if it in fact will work. If
it's one of those things words it all right, So
(44:58):
we're gonna be strapped for cash for a little while
because we tried this program and it didn't work, so
we had to figure out something else. I mean that's yeah, yeah, no,
I mean, I mean, let let's let's do the testing
now while we're still at a relatively low percentage of
people who are directly losing their jobs because of ribots.
But let's work towards it, right. And also, remember, don't
blame the robots. They're just doing their jobs. I'm sorry,
(45:21):
they're just doing your jobs. Built They're just trying to
do what they're told. Yea. And eventually if you do
blame them, they might say I'll show you why you
created me. So on that cheerful note, let us conclude
this episode of forward thinking. I'm curious to hear what
you guys think. Do you think there's some alternative approach
(45:42):
that works better? Are you all for basic income? At
what level would you argue that would be an effective, uh,
you know measure or is it just one of those
things that you think will never work. I'm curious to
hear what you think. And also, if you have any
suggestions for future episodes, write those in and send it
in an email. The little address thing that you can
(46:04):
put in in the two field is FW thinking at
how Stuff Works dot com, or you can drop us
a line on Twitter or Facebook. At Twitter, we are
f W thinking. Just type FW thinking into Facebook search
bar and we'll pop right up. You can leave us
a message there and we will talk to you again
really soon. For more on this topic in the future
(46:29):
of technology, I'll visit Forward Thinking dot com h brought
to you by Toyota. Let's Go Places,