Universal Basic Robot
(why I think Universal Basic Income should be expressed in units of robot work) So, in year 222 of the debate over Basic Income, I find myself at a crossroads. On the one hand, I do believe that there is a future that may be near at hand where some people are struggling to find work — any work at all. On the other hand, I also believe that this same future so near at hand provides a place where all people are presented with unlimited opportunity — though perhaps not in the form expected. So — what to do?
The Struggle To Find Work
Like a constant drumbeat, there is a litany of articles nearly daily about the loss of jobs in the United States. Given that I live in the US, I can’t authoritatively speak to the punditry in foreign countries, but here at least, there is a definite trepidation on the topic. Things like the “robot apocalypse,” “loss of jobs through automation,” “technology driven job loss,” and other phrasing are often used to pump the drumbeat of fear. Videos with robotic looking humans, robots serving humans and humans asking for handouts from robots show up in various mediums depending on how hard you look. Is it the end? Have we finally done ourselves in by replacing ourselves with machines that are smarter, faster, harder working, longer working, etc.? Are we all the lonely elevator operator, suddenly and forever replaced by automated button driven panels better able too move people about the building?
Maybe we should take a look at some essential employment statistics. The following charts have been taken from the bureau of labor statistics for the United States and is entitled Current Employment Statistics survey: 100 years of employment, hours, and earnings, published August 2016.
In the first chart, below, we see the evolution of employment for non-farm jobs throughout the US over a 76 year period.
In the second chart, we see the evolution of employment within the government during the same period.
Ok — so non-farm and government don’t look so bad. What about coal mines:
Not so rosey. But, underneath these 3 charts is something more nuanced. To further quote overall employment trends according to the report:
Since January 1939, job growth in the United States has averaged 2.1 percent per year. (See table 2.) Private service-providing industries have experienced relatively consistent growth and increased their share of employment from 50 percent to 71 percent through December 2015. By contrast, the share of total employment in goods-producing industries fell from 37 percent to 14 percent over the same period.
So, the struggle for work appears to be more nuanced than simply a reaction to a loss of jobs. Globalization hasn’t prevented an increase in job availability and also, notably, employment. Job loss in manufacturing has not caused the net number of jobs to permanently decrease. Technology has not prevented those who seek employment from having employment. All of this appears to be true, at least, on a statistical basis. So, the struggle for work is maybe better defined as the struggle for work with static skills. In other words, all things being equal, as employment undergoes transformation and skill requirements change, people with unchanging skills struggle for work.
The Struggle To Find Workers
What about the other side of the coin — is there truly a struggle to find workers? Who’s struggling? Why is there a struggle? Is this actually a thing? Well, it may come as a surprise that currently as of June 2017, there are 6 million job openings in the US and 6.8 million people unemployed. Fine, great, let’s just match those jobs and those people and we’re done essentially right? Maybe not. It appears, according to CNNMoney that there may be a mismatch. It seems like the jobs and the jobless aren’t necessarily on the same page — but why? According to CNNMoney:
What the numbers illustrate is one of the key problems that has plagued the U.S. labor market in recent years. Job seekers tend to lack the skills in demand, they’re not willing to move to jobs that are available, or employers have unrealistic expectations.
Ok, so what’s being done about this. Can’t we just train everyone for the 6 million jobs. Well — maybe — but maybe not. It turns out there is another discrepancy out there — in job training. According to the New York Times:
coordination with local industry, ideally touching on everything from curriculum to recruitment, is now seen by policy experts as a crucial dividing line between programs that work and those that don’t.
Sounds easy right? In fact, it’s a pretty big paradigm shift. Traditionally, Universities and Vocational Colleges have set their own agenda, created their own programs, listened to the march of technology and job vacancies and tried to carve out the best fit between available programs degree or otherwise and the situation in which students find themselves. All of this tends to be disconnected somewhat from local and global industry needs. Can it be solved? Yes, but do we have the formula right today? Not just yet. Which leads us back to…
What About The Robots
The robots have been marching toward us for some time, really. This isn’t new. Technology and automation have been a part of human existence since the first of our ancestors put a stick and a rock together to make an axe or a club. We created wheels and automation began. We created mills and we could make more flour with less effort. We found a way to put two metals together and we made stronger tools. The march of technology and the march of automation is written into our progress across our world. Does it mean that there are fewer farmers farming than 2 centuries ago? Yes. Does it mean that the decline in farm jobs put the entire world out of work? No. Like the partially automated machines we dreamed up a century ago, these new semi and fully autonomous machines that we are building today will fit into thousands of rolls and situations that we don’t even realize we have use for today. But…where does that leave us…
Universal Basic Income
As we started, I may have expressed some misgivings about the idea of Basic Income. I’m skeptical that giving everyone a check that covers food, shelter, healthcare and that semi-inalienable right — internet access will solve all our problems. After 222 years of discussion, it’s not clear that much has changed since Thomas Paine broached the subject in 1795. The world is testing the idea in multiple countries including the US, but as a commission of the German parliament noted in 2013:
The commission further pointed out a number of additional points simultaneously that caused them to feel the system to be “unrealizable”:
- it would require a complete restructuring of the taxation, social insurance and pension systems, which will cost a significant amount of money
- the current system of social help in Germany is regarded more effective because it’s more personalized: the amount of help provided is not fixed and depends on the financial situation of the person; for some socially vulnerable groups the basic income could be insufficient
- it would cause a vast increase in immigration
- it would cause a rise in the shadow economy
- the corresponding rise of taxes would cause more inequality: higher taxes would translate into higher prices of everyday products, harming the finances of poor people
- no viable way to finance basic income in Germany was found
What about…
Universal Basic Robot
Instead of providing a check every month — perhaps something else might work. With all respect to the many peope who have rallied behind the idea of taxing sufficiently to create a balance between basic living wage checks for all vs. necessary taxes to achieve that, it seems pretty unlikely that we can achieve a fair system where the productivity of all is rewarded and the needs of all are also met. The why, in my mind — stems from the participants in each society we find ourselves in. This why also forms the basis for my thesis that Basic Robot provides better value than Basic Income.
The Four Demographics Of Participation In Society
I think that people come in 4 essential stripes or types. The types can be broken down by behavior in society and represent components of the supply versus demand pie that makes society succeed or fail. Some move and produce, some suffer from inertia and fail to produce. Some take from society because they aren’t as much in a position to give, some take because they don’t really care to give.
The Motivated
You’ve met them — they’re the ones who can’t seem to be unbusy. They have a constant energy to be doing something. Could be building a raft to go out on a lake. Could be exploring some dark cave deep underground. Maybe the doing comes in the form of starting a business. Maybe it even comes in the form of working hard on days and hours off supporting some volunteer program. This is probably also the group that’s busy learning some new skill every week, month or year.
The Unmotivated
I’m sure you’ve seen some of these as well. This individual is the ultimate consumer with a plate in their hand, a television remote right next to it and a beverage on the side. It’s possible they may have a job. It’s also possible they may not. They learned what they wanted to learn long ago. Their job is a human right — right? They may still live where they grow up. They may have moved because there wasn’t a choice. They aren’t looking to get ahead, but they don’t want to be left behind.
The Incapable
There’s not a lot to say specifically about the incapable. We as a global society for the most part have agreed to take responsibility for those who need help. This may be a relatively new position, but this really is the heart of the community contracts we create with one another as a part of any society. Incapable of course can mean physically, mentally, as a consequence of age whether very young or very old.
The Corrupt
The corrupt are those who essentially do not agree, for one reason or another, with the general societal contract. Whatever the basis, the corrupt will find a way to take unreasonable advantage of the benefits available even to the point of theft.
The Balance Of Types
To balance out an income based model — we could write this as an equation. For the balance of basic income to be achieved, MotivatedX contribution must equal or exceed UnmotivatedY + IncapableZ + CorruptP. In a society with a high productivity and a population that can sustain that high productivity, where there is less corruption, fewer people incapable and societal rejection of unmotivated behavior — Basic Income can thrive. In a society with a high productivity but a population that is rapidly aging, faced with more corruption, a significant number of incapable and some who are unmotivated — Basic Income can not thrive.
The Balance Of Types + Basic Robot
So, let’s rebalance the equation. If we add Basic Robot productivity to the equation and cancel out the affects of populations that Basic Robot directly augments or supports, the equation starts to look a little different. MotivatedX + BRobotX + BRobotY + BRobotZ must still equal or exceed UnmotivatedY + IncapableZ + CorruptP. First thing’s first. On an essential level, BRobotY cancels out UnmotivatedY. The robot has the capacity to ensure that UnmotivatedY’s essential needs are met (Roof, Food, Healthcare). The same holds true for BRobotZ who cancels out IncapableZ. This isn’t to say that IncapableZ doesn’t impose some cost on society, but the capacity and capability of BRobotZ has the potential ability to offset the imposed cost as well as directly contributing to the essential care for IncapableZ, again meeting essential needs (Roof, Food, Healthcare). So we are left with a situation where MotivatedX + RobotX must equal or exceed CorruptP. The equation at a minimum is simpler. The options for theft and corruption are actually potentially reduced without all that Basic Income flying around waiting to be hacked, stolen, embezzled, etc. So long as MotivatedX essentially is a larger population than CorruptP, it’s likely that the society can be sustainable.
The Robot Nonpocalypse
So — on the whole, at least for me, the existential threat of replacement by AI or Robots is a nonthreat. I think in fact that Universal Basic Robot actually represents the best possible outcome for society with the greatest chance of meeting the needs of all while not creating revolution, chaos, negative disruption, etc. With any luck, others will feel the same.
