politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The robots are coming
Comments
-
It's interesting to see this thought of in the context of legal profession. Document standardisation (LMA, ISDA,GRMA, US PP, EXIM, UKEF harmonised documents and the like) has been with us for some years and yet the requirement for professional service providers has remained, and, if anything, grown.
Much of this could have taken, in some form, from one of Richard Susskind's many works on the subject. His most recent work covers the theme in detail -was it inspiration?0 -
Productivity is still increasing (though slowly in the UK). There is an interesting suggestion that work will become alot... lazier.... less clock watching etc. One thing I've wondered is whether employers have allowed productivity to stagnate by making jobs in some white collar areas less... challenging.. rather than increase pay. In IT, you see alot of places ditching formal hours, games rooms etc etc....FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.
The point where jobs would be lost, though, is when there isn't demand to mop up the increasing productive capacity. For example, employment in agriculture collapsed with industrialised farming - there is only just so much bread anyone wants to eat. Same with industry itself. Hence the rise of services - spare human productive capacity and a large appetite to consume them....
So the pattern will continue - high employment, increasing wealth for those involved in the production of it... until we run out of consumption. i.e. when we achieve the Culture, probably.0 -
Tax credits: trading productivity for unemployment. Not necessarily a bad thing.Speedy said:
That is something of a conundrum, productivity has stalled even with modern IT and robots.David_Evershed said:Overall wealth can only be increased by increased productivity.
Robots should enable increased productivity and maybe shorter working hours.
When I started work as a production engineer in a factory in the 1960s I worked 44 hours per week.
When I finsihed as Head of Strategy for one of the big banks in the 2000s I was working far longer hours despite the vast increase in productivity in the meantime.
In the last ten years, productivity growth in the Uk has come to a halt. If we are to increase overall wealth we ned to increase productivity. Bring on the robots.
I suspect we spend too much time on the internet.0 -
Exactly rightMTimT said:
Yes. As I understand it, genetic algorithms (see JH Holland) simply evolve to best fit. Neural networks randomly generate pathways that are then pruned against historical data.RobD said:
That can't be true, surely? The code itself doesn't get re-written by the computer.. or does it?Barnesian said:
Genetic algorithms evolve themselves. Neural networks eg that recognise speech are not programmed but are trained. Many software processes that we depend on are not understood in detail by any human.David_Evershed said:
0 -
Two questions: (1) Where are the revenues going to come from to pay the Citizens' Income? (2) Will people really be happy not to work? Having something worthwhile to do seems to me to be necessary to people's wellbeing beyond the simple fact of needing to support oneself.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.0 -
Good luck exploiting Deep Minds bugs when you play it at GoSpeedy said:I have found out that there is always a weakness in such systems, we give them 100% trust even when they are not 100% perfect and can never be 100% perfect.
You can always exploit the bugs for your own advantage.0 -
And when the greens or FDP ask for her head in a three party coalition?rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's all been agreed.Speedy said:
Will the CSU approve ?williamglenn said:0 -
It's the same process that drives human evolution and sometimes humans fail spectacularly.Speedy said:
Garbage in garbage out.Barnesian said:
Yes it does. The computer generates a random set of say 1000 programs to solve a particular problem. The first batch is terrible at solving the problem. The best 10% are kept then randomly mutated to generate another 1000 programs and this goes on for thousands of generations until a program evolves that best solves the problem. It is analogous to genetic evolution - hence its name.RobD said:
That can't be true, surely? The code itself doesn't get re-written by the computer.. or does it?Barnesian said:
Genetic algorithms evolve themselves. Neural networks eg that recognise speech are not programmed but are trained. Many software processes that we depend on are not understood in detail by any human.David_Evershed said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
No wonder when algorithms fail they fail spectacularly.0 -
Are you suggesting that labour demand is price elastic? Absurd.Sandpit said:
I was in a Waitrose last week, and thought their hand scanner was rubbish - kept hangings ringing up twice or not at all and in serious need of better UI design - and of course, like all these things, tied to the loyalty card so your efforts also help with their data mining.TwistedFireStopper said:Whilst it's hardly SkyNet, I'd take self scanning in supermarkets as a prime example. When the first scanners appeared in my local Tesco, I made a point of ignoring them. I took the moral high ground about keeping people in jobs and interacting with actual humans.
Now, I breeze past, flash my phone at the console, pick up a scanner and do my shopping without ever having to talk to another human being, unless I've bought some booze or razor blades.
At Waitrose, it's even easier, just use my phone. It is a bit annoying having to ask someone behind the desk for a cup so I can abuse the free coffee, though.
In the US, McDonalds are now developing automated order takers and robotic order assemblers, in part spurred on by California's raising of the minimum wage to $15/hr.0 -
Appreciate the IB reference ;-)Malmesbury said:
Productivity is still increasing (though slowly in the UK). There is an interesting suggestion that work will become alot... lazier.... less clock watching etc. One thing I've wondered is whether employers have allowed productivity to stagnate by making jobs in some white collar areas less... challenging.. rather than increase pay. In IT, you see alot of places ditching formal hours, games rooms etc etc....FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.
The point where jobs would be lost, though, is when there isn't demand to mop up the increasing productive capacity. For example, employment in agriculture collapsed with industrialised farming - there is only just so much bread anyone wants to eat. Same with industry itself. Hence the rise of services - spare human productive capacity and a large appetite to consume them....
So the pattern will continue - high employment, increasing wealth for those involved in the production of it... until we run out of consumption. i.e. when we achieve the Culture, probably.0 -
No - it is one of the things that always gives me hope in the human condition. Some people won't bend or break - and to him, that would be break faith.glw said:
He might get angry when he can't change industry again.Malmesbury said:The most remarkable thing, to me, is that he is socially liberal and not angry.
We have some time left.0 -
I have been a lawyer now for 34 years (sob). My first job in a lawyers office was transferring cash room information onto a new fangled thing that was laughably called a computer. Then I had to put information about properties for sale on a machine that had punched holes in cards to allow selections by purchasers. Cutting edge technology in the office was the fax machine and a typewriter that could remember a whole line of type.
Maybe 20 years ago I started to get e-mails on a regular basis. Within a very short time I was getting more e-mails than mail. Some of them were even useful to my job. Over time I have moved from textbooks to data bases such as Westlaw (not nearly as much fun as Westworld). 16 years ago now I came to the bar where I have to do pretty much everything for myself with no clerical staff.
In all this time some of this kit has improved my productivity. Some, such as doing all my own typing, not so much. In the profession it is obvious that a lot of work I used to do as a trainee is now being done by paralegals. Some areas, such as conveyancing, seem somewhat deskilled. And yet the number of lawyers has grown.
I think about what I do. So much of my advice seems more about business than law. Certainly understanding the law is pretty useless unless you are able to understand what the client wants to do with it, what is practical and realistic and what you are going to be able to sell to your opponent or, in extremis, the Court.
Can a smart system do my job? I don't think so. It could do some of it. But not the important parts.0 -
While what they have achieve at deep minds is seriously impressive, a lot of the theory is actually 30 years old and there are some serious theorical limitations (Which are beyond the scope of this site). There has been a lot of misrepresentation in the media about what is possible with deep neural networks of the kind used by deep minds.rcs1000 said:
Good luck exploiting Deep Minds bugs when you play it at GoSpeedy said:I have found out that there is always a weakness in such systems, we give them 100% trust even when they are not 100% perfect and can never be 100% perfect.
You can always exploit the bugs for your own advantage.
I was at a talk only last week by one of the worlds foremost experts in ML who stated that he didn't even think neural networks were really the future. He theorized that alternatives will be required to solve many ML tasks (again beyond the scope of this site). It isn't a matter of requiring a more computational power / memory / storage.0 -
No, I really do think we spend too much time on the internet, it's countless of times that I have seen workers wasting their time online or playing solitaire instead of working.Barnesian said:
I think stalled average productivity is a changing mix effect caused by a shift from high value activities (manufacturing) to low value activities (call centres, shelf filling).Speedy said:
That is something of a conundrum, productivity has stalled even with modern IT and robots.David_Evershed said:Overall wealth can only be increased by increased productivity.
Robots should enable increased productivity and maybe shorter working hours.
When I started work as a production engineer in a factory in the 1960s I worked 44 hours per week.
When I finsihed as Head of Strategy for one of the big banks in the 2000s I was working far longer hours despite the vast increase in productivity in the meantime.
In the last ten years, productivity growth in the Uk has come to a halt. If we are to increase overall wealth we ned to increase productivity. Bring on the robots.
I suspect we spend too much time on the internet.
Take a population of 100 workers.
80 workers produce 10 units of value.
20 workers produce only 5 units of value.
So average productivity is 9.0 units per worker.
Increase productivity of both sets of workers by 20% but change the mix to 50/50.
50 workers produce 12 units of value.
50 workers produce 6 units of value.
So average productivity is now still 9.0 units per worker, even though the productivity of both sectors have increased by 20%.
Even in households I have seen people spending far too much time online and too little doing things.
This is the absolute proof that we spend too much time online instead of doing productive things:
https://twitter.com/amyxwang/status/7982560605869260800 -
Another brilliant UK start up sold on the cheap.rcs1000 said:
Good luck exploiting Deep Minds bugs when you play it at GoSpeedy said:I have found out that there is always a weakness in such systems, we give them 100% trust even when they are not 100% perfect and can never be 100% perfect.
You can always exploit the bugs for your own advantage.
0 -
Re: Ed Balls. I watched some of It Takes Two and Ed and his dance partner seemed very friendly. I await TSE's expert judgement from Blackpool on Saturday as to whether Yvette should be worried.Cyclefree said:
What a cool video! Take that, Ed Balls!TheScreamingEagles said:Another excellent piece by Miss Cyclefree.
The choice of video atop this thread was entirely down to me.
I feel I should retire now. What could possibly top that?
0 -
It is terribly easy to think that a theory which describes how the world has worked up until now will accurately predict how it will work in the future.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.0 -
Welcome to the world of proportional representation.MaxPB said:
And when the greens or FDP ask for her head in a three party coalition?rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's all been agreed.Speedy said:
Will the CSU approve ?williamglenn said:
In the Netherlands, it's highly unlikely they will have a coalition of fewer than four parties, and it could be five. And it's highly possible that five different parties will get between 13% and 17% of the popular vote. Good luck working out who "won" that.0 -
I've known Demis since he was a kid with a video game company :-)MaxPB said:
Another brilliant UK start up sold on the cheap.rcs1000 said:
Good luck exploiting Deep Minds bugs when you play it at GoSpeedy said:I have found out that there is always a weakness in such systems, we give them 100% trust even when they are not 100% perfect and can never be 100% perfect.
You can always exploit the bugs for your own advantage.0 -
I know him and his work. But, funnily enough, no. I think the costs pressures on many of the clients of professional services firms coupled with the improvements in automation/AI is making it harder and harder for such firms to assume that the existing model will work.matt said:It's interesting to see this thought of in the context of legal profession. Document standardisation (LMA, ISDA,GRMA, US PP, EXIM, UKEF harmonised documents and the like) has been with us for some years and yet the requirement for professional service providers has remained, and, if anything, grown.
Much of this could have taken, in some form, from one of Richard Susskind's many works on the subject. His most recent work covers the theme in detail -was it inspiration?0 -
Genetic Algorithms are fun but rather limited. They can work for simplistic single-result requirements, but fail at anything complex.
Neural networks are clever though. The breakthrough was a few years back when someone worked out how to convert human language into multidimensional numbers, which meant neural network pattern recognition was then available to understand human sentences. It has allowed a lot of breakthroughs.
0 -
rcs1000 said:
Are you suggesting that labour demand is price elastic? Absurd.Sandpit said:
I was in a Waitrose last week, and thought their hand scanner was rubbish - kept hangings ringing up twice or not at all and in serious need of better UI design - and of course, like all these things, tied to the loyalty card so your efforts also help with their data mining.TwistedFireStopper said:Whilst it's hardly SkyNet, I'd take self scanning in supermarkets as a prime example. When the first scanners appeared in my local Tesco, I made a point of ignoring them. I took the moral high ground about keeping people in jobs and interacting with actual humans.
Now, I breeze past, flash my phone at the console, pick up a scanner and do my shopping without ever having to talk to another human being, unless I've bought some booze or razor blades.
At Waitrose, it's even easier, just use my phone. It is a bit annoying having to ask someone behind the desk for a cup so I can abuse the free coffee, though.
In the US, McDonalds are now developing automated order takers and robotic order assemblers, in part spurred on by California's raising of the minimum wage to $15/hr.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ_fSP3LGw80 -
That's easy - the people owning the betting exchanges will win.rcs1000 said:
Welcome to the world of proportional representation.MaxPB said:
And when the greens or FDP ask for her head in a three party coalition?rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's all been agreed.Speedy said:
Will the CSU approve ?williamglenn said:
In the Netherlands, it's highly unlikely they will have a coalition of fewer than four parties, and it could be five. And it's highly possible that five different parties will get between 13% and 17% of the popular vote. Good luck working out who "won" that.0 -
(1) From the same place that benefits currently come from: taxation. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to achieve roughly the same distribution of income that we currently have, but without the complexity and disincentive to work. Though I'd like to see a significant part of the tax burden shifted away from labour and towards raw material consumption.Cyclefree said:
Two questions: (1) Where are the revenues going to come from to pay the Citizens' Income? (2) Will people really be happy not to work? Having something worthwhile to do seems to me to be necessary to people's wellbeing beyond the simple fact of needing to support oneself.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.
(2) A change in social attitude is needed here. There are many ways to make a worthwhile and satisfying contribution to society that don't involve being frogmarched to the job centre. A CI would give people more freedom to try out different activities rather than living in fear of penury through losing their job.0 -
Dancing has been described as the vertical expression of a horizontal desire.SandraM said:
Re: Ed Balls. I watched some of It Takes Two and Ed and his dance partner seemed very friendly. I await TSE's expert judgement from Blackpool on Saturday as to whether Yvette should be worried.Cyclefree said:
What a cool video! Take that, Ed Balls!TheScreamingEagles said:Another excellent piece by Miss Cyclefree.
The choice of video atop this thread was entirely down to me.
I feel I should retire now. What could possibly top that?0 -
There has been talk for some time about artificial intelligence as an existential threat to the human race. And people just laugh at it.foxinsoxuk said:
Those will be the last to go automated. aspects of physical and psychological care are hardest to get right.chestnut said:OT: the real grumbling will come when automation finally makes it's way into the public sector (education/NHS), some of which seems stuck in the last century with it's processes, diagnostics etc.
I have a cousin who works in artificial intelligence for a major bank, and in his circles there is real discussion of the pointof lift off, when the machines become self evolving. They have seen the movie and know where it is leading.
We will probably become extinct first, having lost interest in each other screwing sex robots in virtual reality in preference.
Do things like Brexit and Trump make it more or less likely that we will be able to regulate how robots evolve?
I would actually argue in some ways it may be good news, because the logic of small state hyper capitalism that the current system nurtures means that it is difficult for governments to regulate the activities of business.
Of course it could also be very bad news.0 -
There is certainly evidence that work is good for health, but increasingly the distinction between worktime and own time is getting blurred.Cyclefree said:
Two questions: (1) Where are the revenues going to come from to pay the Citizens' Income? (2) Will people really be happy not to work? Having something worthwhile to do seems to me to be necessary to people's wellbeing beyond the simple fact of needing to support oneself.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.
Ultimately though steel and car production are not going to be producing well paying jobs in tbe Midwest.
0 -
We've never had a shitposting President before.Speedy said:This is the absolute proof that we spend too much time online instead of doing productive things:
https://twitter.com/amyxwang/status/798256060586926080
0 -
I've just donated 5% of my POTUS winnings to good causes. Split roughly evenly between;
Liberty
The Jo Cox fund
The Guardian
OGH (to help with PB's running costs)
Anyway, I'm zoning out of politics for a while - at least until the betting picks up again. I may occasionally lurk and/or post, but not regularly.
If anyone wants to reach me, ping @Pong 0 -
To be slightly glibber about this than the article deserves, but it is one my mind:
Would our robot government lawyer be able to argue one thing to the High Court and then in the appeal to the Supreme Court select to argue the exact opposite on many of the points. And could he set up a system in which some of the most senior lawyers in the land are somehow able to do this without consequence when suspected criminals or those simply appealing for a school place trying to do the same would seriously damage their causes if they tried the same?
How exactly can it be that all the talk of the Article 50 appeal is that completely opposite arguments will be brought by the government to those they used just a couple of weeks ago? What allows lawyers to pull such a stunt and not just be told to 'go and do one'?
That is going to take one hell of a lot of machine learning.0 -
Where are the £10bn unicorns in the UK? If anyone is going to pay for the computer that wipes my arse when I get even more decrepit they are.MaxPB said:
Another brilliant UK start up sold on the cheap.rcs1000 said:
Good luck exploiting Deep Minds bugs when you play it at GoSpeedy said:I have found out that there is always a weakness in such systems, we give them 100% trust even when they are not 100% perfect and can never be 100% perfect.
You can always exploit the bugs for your own advantage.0 -
Katya's husband is also on Strictly.SandraM said:
Re: Ed Balls. I watched some of It Takes Two and Ed and his dance partner seemed very friendly. I await TSE's expert judgement from Blackpool on Saturday as to whether Yvette should be worried.Cyclefree said:
What a cool video! Take that, Ed Balls!TheScreamingEagles said:Another excellent piece by Miss Cyclefree.
The choice of video atop this thread was entirely down to me.
I feel I should retire now. What could possibly top that?
Mind you Brendan Cole's fiancee was also on Strictly and that didn't stop him bumping uglies with his dance partner Natasha Kaplinsky0 -
Reading Speaking Out suggested to me that Ed and Yvette are solid. But no one is a saint*.TheScreamingEagles said:
Katya's husband is also on Strictly.SandraM said:
Re: Ed Balls. I watched some of It Takes Two and Ed and his dance partner seemed very friendly. I await TSE's expert judgement from Blackpool on Saturday as to whether Yvette should be worried.Cyclefree said:
What a cool video! Take that, Ed Balls!TheScreamingEagles said:Another excellent piece by Miss Cyclefree.
The choice of video atop this thread was entirely down to me.
I feel I should retire now. What could possibly top that?
Mind you Brendan Cole's fiancee was also on Strictly and that didn't stop him bumping uglies with his dance partner Natasha Kaplinsky
* Edit, apart from saints obviously.0 -
It's a bit like old age pensions and the NHS. Some people seem to think they were a unique invention. In fact they occurred in a very similar form in a rather short space of time in all teh countries that were now rich enough to afford them.foxinsoxuk said:
There is certainly evidence that work is good for health, but increasingly the distinction between worktime and own time is getting blurred.Cyclefree said:
Two questions: (1) Where are the revenues going to come from to pay the Citizens' Income? (2) Will people really be happy not to work? Having something worthwhile to do seems to me to be necessary to people's wellbeing beyond the simple fact of needing to support oneself.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.
Ultimately though steel and car production are not going to be producing well paying jobs in tbe Midwest.
A citizens income will become affordable in the next century, on current trends. Or in about 10 minutes, if you believe in the Singularity.
Actually, steel and car production may well be producing well paid jobs in the Midwest. There will just be not very many of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G41VHi5M8U
0 -
I can see the arguments for a national basic income, that people can innovate and start their own businesses if they don't *have to work, that massive savings can be made in bureaucracy etc.FeersumEnjineeya said:
(1) From the same place that benefits currently come from: taxation. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to achieve roughly the same distribution of income that we currently have, but without the complexity and disincentive to work. Though I'd like to see a significant part of the tax burden shifted away from labour and towards raw material consumption.Cyclefree said:
Two questions: (1) Where are the revenues going to come from to pay the Citizens' Income? (2) Will people really be happy not to work? Having something worthwhile to do seems to me to be necessary to people's wellbeing beyond the simple fact of needing to support oneself.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.
(2) A change in social attitude is needed here. There are many ways to make a worthwhile and satisfying contribution to society that don't involve being frogmarched to the job centre. A CI would give people more freedom to try out different activities rather than living in fear of penury through losing their job.
What I'm yet to see is actual figures for the proposed NBI, remembering that his has to be sufficient to house, feed and clothe people, especially in London and the South East. Also, what would be the proposed tax rates for earned income?
Also many questions to answer about pensions, immigrants etc. Obviously a prerequisite is that we leave the EU fully, as allowing 500m people to claim it would bankrupt the country.0 -
Indeed, plus there's the curse of Strictly that always makes something like this happen.DavidL said:
Reading Speaking Out suggested to me that Ed and Yvette are solid. But no one is a saint.TheScreamingEagles said:
Katya's husband is also on Strictly.SandraM said:
Re: Ed Balls. I watched some of It Takes Two and Ed and his dance partner seemed very friendly. I await TSE's expert judgement from Blackpool on Saturday as to whether Yvette should be worried.Cyclefree said:
What a cool video! Take that, Ed Balls!TheScreamingEagles said:Another excellent piece by Miss Cyclefree.
The choice of video atop this thread was entirely down to me.
I feel I should retire now. What could possibly top that?
Mind you Brendan Cole's fiancee was also on Strictly and that didn't stop him bumping uglies with his dance partner Natasha Kaplinsky0 -
Crowdscores?DavidL said:
Where are the £10bn unicorns in the UK? If anyone is going to pay for the computer that wipes my arse when I get even more decrepit they are.MaxPB said:
Another brilliant UK start up sold on the cheap.rcs1000 said:
Good luck exploiting Deep Minds bugs when you play it at GoSpeedy said:I have found out that there is always a weakness in such systems, we give them 100% trust even when they are not 100% perfect and can never be 100% perfect.
You can always exploit the bugs for your own advantage.
Every competitive game of every sport in every country in the world.
That's at least a £10bn opportunity.0 -
I would probably change the rules of the game to win.rcs1000 said:
Good luck exploiting Deep Minds bugs when you play it at GoSpeedy said:I have found out that there is always a weakness in such systems, we give them 100% trust even when they are not 100% perfect and can never be 100% perfect.
You can always exploit the bugs for your own advantage.
After all nothing is static in reality.0 -
I find strictly quite soporific too.Cyclefree said:
Dancing has been described as the vertical expression of a horizontal desire.SandraM said:
Re: Ed Balls. I watched some of It Takes Two and Ed and his dance partner seemed very friendly. I await TSE's expert judgement from Blackpool on Saturday as to whether Yvette should be worried.Cyclefree said:
What a cool video! Take that, Ed Balls!TheScreamingEagles said:Another excellent piece by Miss Cyclefree.
The choice of video atop this thread was entirely down to me.
I feel I should retire now. What could possibly top that?0 -
Talking your own book by any chance??rcs1000 said:
Crowdscores?DavidL said:
Where are the £10bn unicorns in the UK? If anyone is going to pay for the computer that wipes my arse when I get even more decrepit they are.MaxPB said:
Another brilliant UK start up sold on the cheap.rcs1000 said:
Good luck exploiting Deep Minds bugs when you play it at GoSpeedy said:I have found out that there is always a weakness in such systems, we give them 100% trust even when they are not 100% perfect and can never be 100% perfect.
You can always exploit the bugs for your own advantage.
Every competitive game of every sport in every country in the world.
That's at least a £10bn opportunity.0 -
Fewer than 4,000 people in Ford's Fort Dearborn plant produce more automobiles than 130,000 did.Malmesbury said:
It's a bit like old age pensions and the NHS. Some people seem to think they were a unique invention. In fact they occurred in a very similar form in a rather short space of time in all teh countries that were now rich enough to afford them.foxinsoxuk said:
There is certainly evidence that work is good for health, but increasingly the distinction between worktime and own time is getting blurred.Cyclefree said:
Two questions: (1) Where are the revenues going to come from to pay the Citizens' Income? (2) Will people really be happy not to work? Having something worthwhile to do seems to me to be necessary to people's wellbeing beyond the simple fact of needing to support oneself.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.
Ultimately though steel and car production are not going to be producing well paying jobs in tbe Midwest.
A citizens income will become affordable in the next century, on current trends. Or in about 10 minutes, if you believe in the Singularity.
Actually, steel and car production may well be producing well paid jobs in the Midwest. There will just be not very many of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G41VHi5M8U0 -
Shhhh...DavidL said:
Talking your own book by any chance??rcs1000 said:
Crowdscores?DavidL said:
Where are the £10bn unicorns in the UK? If anyone is going to pay for the computer that wipes my arse when I get even more decrepit they are.MaxPB said:
Another brilliant UK start up sold on the cheap.rcs1000 said:
Good luck exploiting Deep Minds bugs when you play it at GoSpeedy said:I have found out that there is always a weakness in such systems, we give them 100% trust even when they are not 100% perfect and can never be 100% perfect.
You can always exploit the bugs for your own advantage.
Every competitive game of every sport in every country in the world.
That's at least a £10bn opportunity.0 -
I hope not. That book made me like them both more. Even the poisonous pixie.TheScreamingEagles said:
Indeed, plus there's the curse of Strictly that always makes something like this happen.DavidL said:
Reading Speaking Out suggested to me that Ed and Yvette are solid. But no one is a saint.TheScreamingEagles said:
Katya's husband is also on Strictly.SandraM said:
Re: Ed Balls. I watched some of It Takes Two and Ed and his dance partner seemed very friendly. I await TSE's expert judgement from Blackpool on Saturday as to whether Yvette should be worried.Cyclefree said:
What a cool video! Take that, Ed Balls!TheScreamingEagles said:Another excellent piece by Miss Cyclefree.
The choice of video atop this thread was entirely down to me.
I feel I should retire now. What could possibly top that?
Mind you Brendan Cole's fiancee was also on Strictly and that didn't stop him bumping uglies with his dance partner Natasha Kaplinsky0 -
So England fans. Are you willing to tolerate total tedium for some decent results? Have you found your manager?0
-
I wonder who might be involved in thatrcs1000 said:
Crowdscores?DavidL said:
Where are the £10bn unicorns in the UK? If anyone is going to pay for the computer that wipes my arse when I get even more decrepit they are.MaxPB said:
Another brilliant UK start up sold on the cheap.rcs1000 said:
Good luck exploiting Deep Minds bugs when you play it at GoSpeedy said:I have found out that there is always a weakness in such systems, we give them 100% trust even when they are not 100% perfect and can never be 100% perfect.
You can always exploit the bugs for your own advantage.
Every competitive game of every sport in every country in the world.
That's at least a £10bn opportunity.
Seriously, are there any plans to expand it to other sports? I try and get to 3 or 4 F1 races and 3 or 4 Test matches a year, as an example. There must be loads like me out there all over the world.0 -
Who will be taxed? Presumably not those on CI. We are not currently raising enough tax to pay for what we are spending. What happens if the balance between the earners and the non-earners shifts in favour of the latter? That is why I mentioned the EU functionary who suggested taxing robots.FeersumEnjineeya said:
(1) From the same place that benefits currently come from: taxation. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to achieve roughly the same distribution of income that we currently have, but without the complexity and disincentive to work. Though I'd like to see a significant part of the tax burden shifted away from labour and towards raw material consumption.Cyclefree said:
Two questions: (1) Where are the revenues going to come from to pay the Citizens' Income? (2) Will people really be happy not to work? Having something worthwhile to do seems to me to be necessary to people's wellbeing beyond the simple fact of needing to support oneself.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.
(2) A change in social attitude is needed here. There are many ways to make a worthwhile and satisfying contribution to society that don't involve being frogmarched to the job centre. A CI would give people more freedom to try out different activities rather than living in fear of penury through losing their job.0 -
rcs1000 said:
I find strictly quite soporific too.Cyclefree said:
Dancing has been described as the vertical expression of a horizontal desire.SandraM said:
Re: Ed Balls. I watched some of It Takes Two and Ed and his dance partner seemed very friendly. I await TSE's expert judgement from Blackpool on Saturday as to whether Yvette should be worried.Cyclefree said:
What a cool video! Take that, Ed Balls!TheScreamingEagles said:Another excellent piece by Miss Cyclefree.
The choice of video atop this thread was entirely down to me.
I feel I should retire now. What could possibly top that?
0 -
I take it if you sell Crowdscores for £10bn we won't be bothering about the donate button for a while?rcs1000 said:
Shhhh...DavidL said:
Talking your own book by any chance??rcs1000 said:
Crowdscores?DavidL said:
Where are the £10bn unicorns in the UK? If anyone is going to pay for the computer that wipes my arse when I get even more decrepit they are.MaxPB said:
Another brilliant UK start up sold on the cheap.rcs1000 said:
Good luck exploiting Deep Minds bugs when you play it at GoSpeedy said:I have found out that there is always a weakness in such systems, we give them 100% trust even when they are not 100% perfect and can never be 100% perfect.
You can always exploit the bugs for your own advantage.
Every competitive game of every sport in every country in the world.
That's at least a £10bn opportunity.0 -
To view globalisation as merely a force which allows Western workers to be undercut by their competition in the developing world is to miss half the story. The other half is that of a corporatist elite that creams off and accumulates vast sums for itself, enriching neither the working classes of the West or the East.0
-
This is some gossip that looks appropriate for PB:
https://twitter.com/BrentScher/status/798592670511808513
Also I just realized there is going to be an aircraft carrier called USS Trump now, since american aircraft carriers are named after Presidents.0 -
Also, the method used for setting the income and tax rates.Cyclefree said:
Who will be taxed? Presumably not those on CI. We are not currently raising enough tax to pay for what we are spending. What happens if the balance between the earners and the non-earners shifts in favour of the latter? That is why I mentioned the EU functionary who suggested taxing robots.FeersumEnjineeya said:
(1) From the same place that benefits currently come from: taxation. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to achieve roughly the same distribution of income that we currently have, but without the complexity and disincentive to work. Though I'd like to see a significant part of the tax burden shifted away from labour and towards raw material consumption.Cyclefree said:
Two questions: (1) Where are the revenues going to come from to pay the Citizens' Income? (2) Will people really be happy not to work? Having something worthwhile to do seems to me to be necessary to people's wellbeing beyond the simple fact of needing to support oneself.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.
(2) A change in social attitude is needed here. There are many ways to make a worthwhile and satisfying contribution to society that don't involve being frogmarched to the job centre. A CI would give people more freedom to try out different activities rather than living in fear of penury through losing their job.
How many years of a Gordon Brown type figure in charge would it need for 60-70% of the population to vote for income increases as their first priority, in perpetuity?0 -
Dow Jones has just closed at all time record high.0
-
She was so off her face while making the Original Star Wars films I'm surprised she can remember anything from that time...Speedy said:This is some gossip that looks appropriate for PB:
https://twitter.com/BrentScher/status/798592670511808513
0 -
And the next generation plants are on the way - more like 400 employees for those.rcs1000 said:
Fewer than 4,000 people in Ford's Fort Dearborn plant produce more automobiles than 130,000 did.Malmesbury said:
It's a bit like old age pensions and the NHS. Some people seem to think they were a unique invention. In fact they occurred in a very similar form in a rather short space of time in all teh countries that were now rich enough to afford them.foxinsoxuk said:
There is certainly evidence that work is good for health, but increasingly the distinction between worktime and own time is getting blurred.Cyclefree said:
Two questions: (1) Where are the revenues going to come from to pay the Citizens' Income? (2) Will people really be happy not to work? Having something worthwhile to do seems to me to be necessary to people's wellbeing beyond the simple fact of needing to support oneself.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Yes, I'd largely agree with you. The same basic argument about machines making humans superfluous has been repeated over and again since the days of the Luddites, and yet here we are, with close to full employment. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that a couple of social shifts in direction are warranted.AlastairMeeks said:When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world.
Firstly, the moral insistence that everybody must work to support themselves is becoming antiquated. There is simply no need for it when so much can be automated. So let's get on and introduce a Citizens' Income.
Secondly, taxation needs to be shifted away from labour and towards raw materials and emissions in order to mitigate environmental degradation and resource depletion. These, rather than unemployment, will be the main problems facing our children.
Ultimately though steel and car production are not going to be producing well paying jobs in tbe Midwest.
A citizens income will become affordable in the next century, on current trends. Or in about 10 minutes, if you believe in the Singularity.
Actually, steel and car production may well be producing well paid jobs in the Midwest. There will just be not very many of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G41VHi5M8U0 -
I don't think you can separate the issue of automation from the issue of job security. In the private sector (and increasingly the public sector) we have a very flexible labour market, and so as well as the existential threat posed by automation, you also have very weak statutory protections against redundancy. This all leads to massive job insecurity.
Someone posted earlier on today a letter in the FT, about how the 48% of people who voted remain would eventually organise to get our country back. I campaigned for remain, trudged around the whole of this large town getting to know the people outside my social networks, and it was a real eye opener. This majority of working age, aspirational, middle class group of people just doesn't actually exist. It is actually a statistical minority of people who are over represented in the media and popular discourse. The majority of people of working age are struggling, because there just aren't any decent jobs. Here in leaverstan a decent graduate job is working for a credit card company or insurance company for 24 grand a year and no real prospects of increased wages. These jobs are at most risk of automation. One or two people who met this description were actually campaigning for Brexit, I met them at the count. On the remain side, as you can imagine, it was full of property developers, wealthy people, a guy from the liberal democrat party who drives a Tesla, independent school kids, etc.
You can fully understand the resentment these ordinary workers have towards the elites comprising public sector workers, people in certain industries (science, biotech etc) and people who work in London earning 100k a year. Work outside of these industries is simply being pushed down to minimum wage levels, or slightly above it, with no security, and the existential risk of obsolescence due to automation.0 -
OK, let us say we have a NBI that provides enough to house, feed, clothe a person and his/her dependants. Why should the average person bother to go out to work? If your basics are covered and you can do a few cash in hand jobs to pay for the luxuries why on earth would someone who in is on a basic wage job that is not fulfilling and which they hate bother? I bloody well wouldn't because I could think of much better uses of my time.Sandpit said:
I can see the arguments for a national basic income, that people can innovate and start their own businesses if they don't *have to work, that massive savings can be made in bureaucracy etc.
What I'm yet to see is actual figures for the proposed NBI, remembering that his has to be sufficient to house, feed and clothe people, especially in London and the South East. Also, what would be the proposed tax rates for earned income?
Also many questions to answer about pensions, immigrants etc. Obviously a prerequisite is that we leave the EU fully, as allowing 500m people to claim it would bankrupt the country.
The whole idea is idealistic bollocks.
0 -
Trump's economic policies, just like Brexit, is good for domestic companies, bad for foreign ones and tech.MikeL said:Dow Jones has just closed at all time record high.
His proposals for $500 billion extra spending on infrastructure projects, plus keeping low interest rates, plus deregulation outweights his protectionist policies.
Especially if the extra money is spent domestically thanks to protectionism, it will push economic growth and inflation something the economy badly needs.
The changes in the bond market is also consistent with investors anticipating a high growth high inflation environment.0 -
O/T
In 1997 the British Election Study found that 81% of people thought Labour could provide a strong government, whereas only 27.7% of people thought the Conservatives could.
I wonder if 27.7% of people think Labour could provide strong government today.0 -
nielh Very true.nielh said:......Someone posted earlier on today a letter in the FT, about how the 48% of people who voted remain would eventually organise to get our country back. I campaigned for remain, trudged around the whole of this large town getting to know the people outside my social networks, and it was a real eye opener. This majority of working age, aspirational, middle class group of people just doesn't actually exist. It is actually a statistical minority of people who are over represented in the media and popular discourse. The majority of people of working age are struggling, because there just aren't any decent jobs. Here in leaverstan a decent graduate job is working for a credit card company or insurance company for 24 grand a year and no real prospects of increased wages. These jobs are at most risk of automation. ...
0 -
I don't think it's completely idealistic bollocks, but I do think the numbers don't add up. The NBI would have to be around £8k / year / adult and £4k / year / child or student, and the income tax level would have to be in the 45-50% range with no personal allowance past the NBI. This will result in serious disincentives to work, especially if the minimum wage is also abandoned.HurstLlama said:
OK, let us say we have a NBI that provides enough to house, feed, clothe a person and his/her dependants. Why should the average person bother to go out to work? If your basics are covered and you can do a few cash in hand jobs to pay for the luxuries why on earth would someone who in is on a basic wage job that is not fulfilling and which they hate bother? I bloody well wouldn't because I could think of much better uses of my time.Sandpit said:
I can see the arguments for a national basic income, that people can innovate and start their own businesses if they don't *have to work, that massive savings can be made in bureaucracy etc.
What I'm yet to see is actual figures for the proposed NBI, remembering that his has to be sufficient to house, feed and clothe people, especially in London and the South East. Also, what would be the proposed tax rates for earned income?
Also many questions to answer about pensions, immigrants etc. Obviously a prerequisite is that we leave the EU fully, as allowing 500m people to claim it would bankrupt the country.
The whole idea is idealistic bollocks.
There will also be millions of people significantly worse off - pretty much everyone inside the M25 claiming housing benefit, for example.
It would also have to be set by a committee similar to the MPC, as there would be a permenant majority in favour of increasing the NBI and tax rates.0 -
Who funds the national basic incomeand all their other costs such as the NHS, education, their kids and pensions? Wealth will increasingly be mobile. If land and buildings are taxed more heavily, the wealth holders will just re-locate.HurstLlama said:
OK, let us say we have a NBI that provides enough to house, feed, clothe a person and his/her dependants. Why should the average person bother to go out to work? If your basics are covered and you can do a few cash in hand jobs to pay for the luxuries why on earth would someone who in is on a basic wage job that is not fulfilling and which they hate bother? I bloody well wouldn't because I could think of much better uses of my time. The whole idea is idealistic bollocks.Sandpit said:
I can see the arguments for a national basic income, that people can innovate and start their own businesses if they don't *have to work, that massive savings can be made in bureaucracy etc.
What I'm yet to see is actual figures for the proposed NBI, remembering that his has to be sufficient to house, feed and clothe people, especially in London and the South East. Also, what would be the proposed tax rates for earned income?
Also many questions to answer about pensions, immigrants etc. Obviously a prerequisite is that we leave the EU fully, as allowing 500m people to claim it would bankrupt the country.
0 -
Like the bankers have left after Brexit?TCPoliticalBetting said:
Who funds the national basic incomeand all their other costs such as the NHS, education, their kids and pensions? Wealth will increasingly be mobile. If land and buildings are taxed more heavily, the wealth holders will just re-locate.HurstLlama said:
OK, let us say we have a NBI that provides enough to house, feed, clothe a person and his/her dependants. Why should the average person bother to go out to work? If your basics are covered and you can do a few cash in hand jobs to pay for the luxuries why on earth would someone who in is on a basic wage job that is not fulfilling and which they hate bother? I bloody well wouldn't because I could think of much better uses of my time. The whole idea is idealistic bollocks.Sandpit said:
I can see the arguments for a national basic income, that people can innovate and start their own businesses if they don't *have to work, that massive savings can be made in bureaucracy etc.
What I'm yet to see is actual figures for the proposed NBI, remembering that his has to be sufficient to house, feed and clothe people, especially in London and the South East. Also, what would be the proposed tax rates for earned income?
Also many questions to answer about pensions, immigrants etc. Obviously a prerequisite is that we leave the EU fully, as allowing 500m people to claim it would bankrupt the country.0 -
When you say high inflation, Mr. Speedy, what sort of figure are you thinking of?Speedy said:
Trump's economic policies, just like Brexit, is good for domestic companies, bad for foreign ones and tech.MikeL said:Dow Jones has just closed at all time record high.
His proposals for $500 billion extra spending on infrastructure projects, plus keeping low interest rates, plus deregulation outweights his protectionist policies.
Especially if the extra money is spent domestically thanks to protectionism, it will push economic growth and inflation something the economy badly needs.
The changes in the bond market is also consistent with investors anticipating a high growth high inflation environment.0 -
You are utterly misjudging human nature. Most people don't simply settle for jobs that just about pay for the basics. They strive to compete with others. They want bigger houses, flasher cars, higher status. The idea that everybody would be sit around twiddling their thumbs so long as their basic needs were satisfied is absurd.HurstLlama said:
OK, let us say we have a NBI that provides enough to house, feed, clothe a person and his/her dependants. Why should the average person bother to go out to work? If your basics are covered and you can do a few cash in hand jobs to pay for the luxuries why on earth would someone who in is on a basic wage job that is not fulfilling and which they hate bother? I bloody well wouldn't because I could think of much better uses of my time.Sandpit said:
I can see the arguments for a national basic income, that people can innovate and start their own businesses if they don't *have to work, that massive savings can be made in bureaucracy etc.
What I'm yet to see is actual figures for the proposed NBI, remembering that his has to be sufficient to house, feed and clothe people, especially in London and the South East. Also, what would be the proposed tax rates for earned income?
Also many questions to answer about pensions, immigrants etc. Obviously a prerequisite is that we leave the EU fully, as allowing 500m people to claim it would bankrupt the country.
The whole idea is idealistic bollocks.0 -
They are doing well against Spain ffs. 2 nil up and 10 mins to go.DavidL said:So England fans. Are you willing to tolerate total tedium for some decent results? Have you found your manager?
0 -
‘The robots are coming’
Well, that got my attention. Cheers Ms Cyclefree, quite a thought provoking article.0 -
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/798641830787223552
Are the dimmer Brexiteers determined to goad the court into slapping them down at every turn?0 -
I think this is the biggest problem. The increasing casualization of work for the unskilled and semi-skilled. Jobs that don't let you get a mortgage or a decent car or make savings for your retirement and make you dependent on State support when the kids come along or work gets that bit shorter.nielh said:I don't think you can separate the issue of automation from the issue of job security. In the private sector (and increasingly the public sector) we have a very flexible labour market, and so as well as the existential threat posed by automation, you also have very weak statutory protections against redundancy. This all leads to massive job insecurity.
Someone posted earlier on today a letter in the FT, about how the 48% of people who voted remain would eventually organise to get our country back. I campaigned for remain, trudged around the whole of this large town getting to know the people outside my social networks, and it was a real eye opener. This majority of working age, aspirational, middle class group of people just doesn't actually exist. It is actually a statistical minority of people who are over represented in the media and popular discourse. The majority of people of working age are struggling, because there just aren't any decent jobs. Here in leaverstan a decent graduate job is working for a credit card company or insurance company for 24 grand a year and no real prospects of increased wages. These jobs are at most risk of automation. One or two people who met this description were actually campaigning for Brexit, I met them at the count. On the remain side, as you can imagine, it was full of property developers, wealthy people, a guy from the liberal democrat party who drives a Tesla, independent school kids, etc.
You can fully understand the resentment these ordinary workers have towards the elites comprising public sector workers, people in certain industries (science, biotech etc) and people who work in London earning 100k a year. Work outside of these industries is simply being pushed down to minimum wage levels, or slightly above it, with no security, and the existential risk of obsolescence due to automation.
These people are completely excluded from the productivity gains of robots, indeed the robots are an existential threat to what work there is. In good years they just get by. In the bad not so much. And they are heading towards a majority. This is not stable.0 -
You want to come with me down to my local council estate? In a small little place like Hurstpierpoint I can show you dozens if not hundreds of them, now. And that is before they get the "pay rise" that would be inherent in a NBI.FeersumEnjineeya said:
You are utterly misjudging human nature. Most people don't simply settle for jobs that just about pay for the basics. They strive to compete with others. They want bigger houses, flasher cars, higher status. The idea that everybody would be sit around twiddling their thumbs so long as their basic needs were satisfied is absurd.HurstLlama said:
OK, let us say we have a NBI that provides enough to house, feed, clothe a person and his/her dependants. Why should the average person bother to go out to work? If your basics are covered and you can do a few cash in hand jobs to pay for the luxuries why on earth would someone who in is on a basic wage job that is not fulfilling and which they hate bother? I bloody well wouldn't because I could think of much better uses of my time.Sandpit said:
I can see the arguments for a national basic income, that people can innovate and start their own businesses if they don't *have to work, that massive savings can be made in bureaucracy etc.
What I'm yet to see is actual figures for the proposed NBI, remembering that his has to be sufficient to house, feed and clothe people, especially in London and the South East. Also, what would be the proposed tax rates for earned income?
Also many questions to answer about pensions, immigrants etc. Obviously a prerequisite is that we leave the EU fully, as allowing 500m people to claim it would bankrupt the country.
The whole idea is idealistic bollocks.
What is absurd is the idea that people at the bottom of the heap with bugger all worthwhile education wake up wondering how they can make a constructive and worthwhile contribution to society.0 -
-
Common sense surely is that you don't talk about an extremely high profile case before you are about to sit in judgement on it?Scott_P said:https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/798641830787223552
Are the dimmer Brexiteers determined to goad the court into slapping them down at every turn?0 -
I've been to Tesla's Oakland factory. There aren't many people there.Malmesbury said:
And the next generation plants are on the way - more like 400 employees for those.0 -
What pay rise? With a CI, people without work would receive an amount just sufficient to cover the basics, as they do now.HurstLlama said:
You want to come with me down to my local council estate? In a small little place like Hurstpierpoint I can show you dozens if not hundreds of them, now. And that is before they get the "pay rise" that would be inherent in a NBI.FeersumEnjineeya said:
You are utterly misjudging human nature. Most people don't simply settle for jobs that just about pay for the basics. They strive to compete with others. They want bigger houses, flasher cars, higher status. The idea that everybody would be sit around twiddling their thumbs so long as their basic needs were satisfied is absurd.HurstLlama said:
OK, let us say we have a NBI that provides enough to house, feed, clothe a person and his/her dependants. Why should the average person bother to go out to work? If your basics are covered and you can do a few cash in hand jobs to pay for the luxuries why on earth would someone who in is on a basic wage job that is not fulfilling and which they hate bother? I bloody well wouldn't because I could think of much better uses of my time.Sandpit said:
I can see the arguments for a national basic income, that people can innovate and start their own businesses if they don't *have to work, that massive savings can be made in bureaucracy etc.
What I'm yet to see is actual figures for the proposed NBI, remembering that his has to be sufficient to house, feed and clothe people, especially in London and the South East. Also, what would be the proposed tax rates for earned income?
Also many questions to answer about pensions, immigrants etc. Obviously a prerequisite is that we leave the EU fully, as allowing 500m people to claim it would bankrupt the country.
The whole idea is idealistic bollocks.
What is absurd is the idea that people at the bottom of the heap with bugger all worthwhile education wake up wondering how they can make a constructive and worthwhile contribution to society.0 -
About 6 or 7 years of net contributions. Not the end of the world. although those hospitals will have to go on the back burnerScott_P said: 0 -
Lol. All bluster.Scott_P said:
Edit to add: pay us €60bn now, or in two years you'll have to pay NOTHING.0 -
Interesting article. Whilst it's nice and seductive to apply a C19 model to C21 technology, I can't help but feel that things will play out differently.
So whilst the demise of lawyers and bankers is something to aspire to, it is unlikely to be a reality.0 -
0
-
2-1. And it is pretty dull stuff.TCPoliticalBetting said:
They are doing well against Spain ffs. 2 nil up and 10 mins to go.DavidL said:So England fans. Are you willing to tolerate total tedium for some decent results? Have you found your manager?
0 -
Shall we sign up to become the 51st state of the union ?Scott_P said:
London should have the Jaguars franchise by my estimation in a few years anyway.0 -
Sorry I thought , as per Mr. Sandpits post, we were talking about an income that would House, Clothe and Feed, a person and his/her dependents. I misunderstood, perhaps.FeersumEnjineeya said:
What pay rise? With a CI, people without work would receive an amount just sufficient to cover the basics, as they do now.HurstLlama said:
You want to come with me down to my local council estate? In a small little place like Hurstpierpoint I can show you dozens if not hundreds of them, now. And that is before they get the "pay rise" that would be inherent in a NBI.FeersumEnjineeya said:
You are utterly misjudging human nature. Most people don't simply settle for jobs that just about pay for the basics. They strive to compete with others. They want bigger houses, flasher cars, higher status. The idea that everybody would be sit around twiddling their thumbs so long as their basic needs were satisfied is absurd.HurstLlama said:
OK, let us say we have a NBI that provides enough to house, feed, clothe a person and his/her dependants. Why should the average person bother to go out to work? If your basics are covered and you can do a few cash in hand jobs to pay for the luxuries why on earth would someone who in is on a basic wage job that is not fulfilling and which they hate bother? I bloody well wouldn't because I could think of much better uses of my time.Sandpit said:
I can see the arguments for a national basic income, that people can innovate and start their own businesses if they don't *have to work, that massive savings can be made in bureaucracy etc.
What I'm yet to see is actual figures for the proposed NBI, remembering that his has to be sufficient to house, feed and clothe people, especially in London and the South East. Also, what would be the proposed tax rates for earned income?
Also many questions to answer about pensions, immigrants etc. Obviously a prerequisite is that we leave the EU fully, as allowing 500m people to claim it would bankrupt the country.
The whole idea is idealistic bollocks.
What is absurd is the idea that people at the bottom of the heap with bugger all worthwhile education wake up wondering how they can make a constructive and worthwhile contribution to society.0 -
We will see, but the bond market is definitely expecting both economic growth and inflation to rise sharply under Trump.HurstLlama said:
When you say high inflation, Mr. Speedy, what sort of figure are you thinking of?Speedy said:
Trump's economic policies, just like Brexit, is good for domestic companies, bad for foreign ones and tech.MikeL said:Dow Jones has just closed at all time record high.
His proposals for $500 billion extra spending on infrastructure projects, plus keeping low interest rates, plus deregulation outweights his protectionist policies.
Especially if the extra money is spent domestically thanks to protectionism, it will push economic growth and inflation something the economy badly needs.
The changes in the bond market is also consistent with investors anticipating a high growth high inflation environment.
Unemployment is already very low in america, but most jobs are low paid ones and most people have dropped out of the labour market too.
It will be interesting to see what happens when you push economic growth with tons of cash in that labour environment.
A spurt of 5% growth 5% inflation could be the top side, Trump will definitely try to buy tons of cheap popularity by giving voters jobs and money, and if he goes protectionist that cash will stay inside the economy.0 -
This is fantastical rubbish. On what basis would we agree to pay a cent of this? We might claim for our share of EU institutions but I think we will let that slide too.Scott_P said:0 -
Vardy Motm.DavidL said:
2-1. And it is pretty dull stuff.TCPoliticalBetting said:
They are doing well against Spain ffs. 2 nil up and 10 mins to go.DavidL said:So England fans. Are you willing to tolerate total tedium for some decent results? Have you found your manager?
0 -
2-2. Hmm....0
-
FFS 2-2 and the Spanish second is a few seconds after the 5 minutes of extra time.TCPoliticalBetting said:
They are doing well against Spain ffs. 2 nil up and 10 mins to go.DavidL said:So England fans. Are you willing to tolerate total tedium for some decent results? Have you found your manager?
0 -
LOL. Oh dear.0
-
England still top of the league for throwing away a good lead in the last few minutes.0
-
There is this type of employment, and it is increasingly common. But the majority of work is 17-25k per annum, tokenistic pension scheme etc. service industry, IT based. Enough to get a mortgage, but not enough to fund childcare even if you have two incomes, and no benefits. And little real job security, little career path.DavidL said:
I think this is the biggest problem. The increasing casualization of work for the unskilled and semi-skilled. Jobs that don't let you get a mortgage or a decent car or make savings for your retirement and make you dependent on State support when the kids come along or work gets that bit shorter.nielh said:I don't think you can separate the issue of automation from the issue of job security. In the private sector (and increasingly the public sector) we have a very flexible labour market, and so as well as the existential threat posed by automation, you also have very weak statutory protections against redundancy. This all leads to massive job insecurity.
Someone posted earlier on today a letter in the FT, about how the 48% of people who voted remain would eventually organise to get our country back. I campaigned for remain, trudged around the whole of this large town getting to know the people outside my social networks, and it was a real eye opener. This majority of working age, aspirational, middle class group of people just doesn't actually exist. It is actually a statistical minority of people who are over represented in the media and popular discourse. The majority of people of working age are struggling, because there just aren't any decent jobs. Here in leaverstan a decent graduate job is working for a credit card company or insurance company for 24 grand a year and no real prospects of increased wages. These jobs are at most risk of automation. One or two people who met this description were actually campaigning for Brexit, I met them at the count. On the remain side, as you can imagine, it was full of property developers, wealthy people, a guy from the liberal democrat party who drives a Tesla, independent school kids, etc.
You can fully understand the resentment these ordinary workers have towards the elites comprising public sector workers, people in certain industries (science, biotech etc) and people who work in London earning 100k a year. Work outside of these industries is simply being pushed down to minimum wage levels, or slightly above it, with no security, and the existential risk of obsolescence due to automation.
These people are completely excluded from the productivity gains of robots, indeed the robots are an existential threat to what work there is. In good years they just get by. In the bad not so much. And they are heading towards a majority. This is not stable.0 -
Is that not what the unemployed currently receive? Surely shelter, clothing and food are the basics?HurstLlama said:
Sorry I thought , as per Mr. Sandpits post, we were talking about an income that would House, Clothe and Feed, a person and his/her dependents. I misunderstood, perhaps.FeersumEnjineeya said:
What pay rise? With a CI, people without work would receive an amount just sufficient to cover the basics, as they do now.HurstLlama said:
You want to come with me down to my local council estate? In a small little place like Hurstpierpoint I can show you dozens if not hundreds of them, now. And that is before they get the "pay rise" that would be inherent in a NBI.FeersumEnjineeya said:
You are utterly misjudging human nature. Most people don't simply settle for jobs that just about pay for the basics. They strive to compete with others. They want bigger houses, flasher cars, higher status. The idea that everybody would be sit around twiddling their thumbs so long as their basic needs were satisfied is absurd.HurstLlama said:
OK, let us say we have a NBI that provides enough to house, feed, clothe a person and his/her dependants. Why should the average person bother to go out to work? If your basics are covered and you can do a few cash in hand jobs to pay for the luxuries why on earth would someone who in is on a basic wage job that is not fulfilling and which they hate bother? I bloody well wouldn't because I could think of much better uses of my time.Sandpit said:
I can see the arguments for a national basic income, that people can innovate and start their own businesses if they don't *have to work, that massive savings can be made in bureaucracy etc.
What I'm yet to see is actual figures for the proposed NBI, remembering that his has to be sufficient to house, feed and clothe people, especially in London and the South East. Also, what would be the proposed tax rates for earned income?
Also many questions to answer about pensions, immigrants etc. Obviously a prerequisite is that we leave the EU fully, as allowing 500m people to claim it would bankrupt the country.
The whole idea is idealistic bollocks.
What is absurd is the idea that people at the bottom of the heap with bugger all worthwhile education wake up wondering how they can make a constructive and worthwhile contribution to society.0 -
You are Emily Thornberry and I claim my £5!HurstLlama said:
You want to come with me down to my local council estate? In a small little place like Hurstpierpoint I can show you dozens if not hundreds of them, now. And that is before they get the "pay rise" that would be inherent in a NBI.FeersumEnjineeya said:
You are utterly misjudging human nature. Most people don't simply settle for jobs that just about pay for the basics. They strive to compete with others. They want bigger houses, flasher cars, higher status. The idea that everybody would be sit around twiddling their thumbs so long as their basic needs were satisfied is absurd.HurstLlama said:
OK, let us say we have a NBI that provides enough to house, feed, clothe a person and his/her dependants. Why should the average person bother to go out to work? If your basics are covered and you can do a few cash in hand jobs to pay for the luxuries why on earth would someone who in is on a basic wage job that is not fulfilling and which they hate bother? I bloody well wouldn't because I could think of much better uses of my time.Sandpit said:
I can see the arguments for a national basic income, that people can innovate and start their own businesses if they don't *have to work, that massive savings can be made in bureaucracy etc.
What I'm yet to see is actual figures for the proposed NBI, remembering that his has to be sufficient to house, feed and clothe people, especially in London and the South East. Also, what would be the proposed tax rates for earned income?
Also many questions to answer about pensions, immigrants etc. Obviously a prerequisite is that we leave the EU fully, as allowing 500m people to claim it would bankrupt the country.
The whole idea is idealistic bollocks.
What is absurd is the idea that people at the bottom of the heap with bugger all worthwhile education wake up wondering how they can make a constructive and worthwhile contribution to society.0 -
I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?Scott_P said:0 -
That's 3.3 years worth of NHS funding at £350m a week. Quite a bargain really.Scott_P said:0 -
This is not anchoring. This is someone wildly adrift and moving out of the real world. Fast.rcs1000 said:0 -
Presumably if we simply refused to pay, we'd be out in March 2019, with no deal and an EU refusal even to discuss one until we paid up.DavidL said:
This is not anchoring. This is someone wildly adrift and moving out of the real world. Fast.rcs1000 said:
Anyway, since we're back on Brexit, I think I'll be off.0
