Automation Job Loss UBI

The answer is right above you. Universal Income. However I suspect that instead society will let the owners of the automation become staggeringly wealthy while 50% of the working population are on the bread-line. Then there will be riots, then perhaps we will get a more equitable sharing of the value that society has created.

Technically, no one will need jobs.However, our society rations resources, including resources that are needed for living, and including resources that are not actually scarce, on the basis of money, which can be returned based on capital or labor. Most people have no capital, so are forced to sell their labor. As work is automated, the return on capital increases, but the return on labor decreases (because more people are competing for a decreasing amount of paying labor).Capital-holders

when robotic physical labor and the cognitive tasks capable by automated software eliminates the ability for the bottom 50, 60, 80% of the population to compete economically, what's going to happen?For all intents and purposes, we're already here. Farmers are only about 1% of the population, yet they feed us all. Add in house construction and clothing, and there's a very small number of people that provide the rest of us with food, shelter, and housing. That's all w

Another one would think with automation doing most of our jobs. Why can't we share the spoils more?

Me neather, short term. But in the long run Capitalism will not want humans, we're too expensive. It also really makes no sense to work, I think this will become increasingly more evident.Note: Marx wouldn't agree with me. He would say that the rich will still have the means of production (automation), so the poor will still do stupid jobs to get paid that little to afford the products made by automation. It's basically like it now, but I hope this will change.There is no s

Yes, exactly! Imagine as a thought experiment that we can produce everything we do today, but with zero labor due to automation. This would be a miracle for humanity!For one thing, we could use all our free time however we want, including working to produce still more stuff, or just go hiking.The real problem is how to distribute the goods and services produced - and there a UBI is probably the right answer.Machines do all the (necessary) work, UBI ensures that everybody benefits, and h

We could eventually replace (parts of) the workforce if we were happy with the current standards of living (and prevented a small group from hoarding all the wealth). If we were satisfied with a 1850s standard of living, only a small portion of the modern workforce would need to work. What automation enables is greater productivity with the same amount of human effort/time. But because we seek to improve out living standards, we need to keep the same portion of people employed and productiv

seems like you're missing the main idea behind ubi? if automation gets good enough at enough things, there might not be jobs for everyone to do. if, when, where, and how the above might happen are up for debate - but your post just sounds like typical anti-welfare nonsense

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past.You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated.Don't want so many people? Mandate reversible ster

Just that there is a future where those who don’t want to work a menial job aren’t forced to do so in order to survive. Which may mean accepting a lower level of productivity. But a lot of people get bored without work, and extra money to buy nice things will always motivate people, so there will still be a large labor pool and automation can take care of the rest.