Universal basic services could work better than basic income to combat 'rise of the robots'

> Agreed. Who suggested that? That's what will happen with basic universal income or universal basic support that is suggested by the original article. I think we are pretty close in our thinking. I think the main difference is what we are calling demand. You got the concept (you know your stuff). And I honestly had the same opinion as you that robots were going to wipe out everyone's job. > I feel you might not be getting what I'm trying to say. Demand in general won't run out. But demand for any skill you have will. Low skilled labour is begining to phase out already (eg.mcdonalds). And then moderate skilled will follow, and then most others. At least in any significant amounts. > > You will be made obsolete. > Businesses will become able to eliminate human staff. > Arts and education only go so far. This needs to be accounted for. I think the error in my old thinking (and possibly yours) is that this demand won't change. If things progress like you say then no one will be able to afford that Robo-unit or any automated product and we are all fucked and progress will stop. But the the reality is that an equilibrium will be reached. We are social beings by nature and we want to interact with other humans, even in our economic transactions. While most of the "back of the house" jobs are probably going away for ever, people will still "demand" to interact with people over robots and it will make economic sense for companies to hire people. One, because people will demand it by their economic decisions and secondly so people will be able to afford their products. We like to think that people are completely logical and will always go for the cheapest option in a cold Capitalist sense, but in reality that isn't often the case. The future will belong to companies that can automatize their back end and provide humans and robots working along side each other on the front end. I think that one point we haven't brought up is that populations will begin to decrease as well which will let off pressure on the labor markets. We already see that in Europe and the US. The native population is already reproducing at a below replacement level. The only reason that population is increasing is due to immigration (which will disappear as low skill jobs automatize). As the third world becomes industrialized, it too will see its population level off. > You're really not getting where I'm coming from. I don't fear it, I don't want to stop automation, I don't want to protect any jobs. > I am looking forward to it. > > In the end, when the dust settles, the new society that emerges will be much better. The question is whether we look ahead and make a smooth transition. Or clutch onto what is, then build the new society on the ruins after the inevitable collapse. > > It's gonna be a bumpy ride if we don't plan for it. 100% agree. I just don't trust government to do anything that plans for making it smooth. They are going to get protectionist. We already seeing that with the bill just passed by Congress that authorized self-driving cars but excluded trucks -- gotta save those truck driving jobs. (http://fleetowner.com/autonomous-vehicles/senate-bill-self-driving-vehicles-excludes-trucks) There are too many conflicting interests. We are going to get a hodgepodge of welfare and protectionist laws that make the painful transition even worse. PS. Thanks for debate. This does remind me of the early Voat days.