Thank you for creating a platform...

I am not sure if UBI is the right course, but if we only help people with displaced jobs, the next generation of workers will receive nothing for a displaced job.

Yes, that would be an awesome topic to see you tackle. I feel like the main suppositions of why we built civilizations to begin with have been buried by years of social story telling. We don't want to have to work, and we want access to goods and services, and we are also all inevitably creative and want outlets for that. After those basic premises we get artificial constructs like money, jobs, corporations, ownership, etc. At some point it breaks down when we really dig into the transition zone between now and a future in which basic goods and services are not scarce.

Little teaser? :3 What do you think about it, really quickly?

was just about to comment "Why didn't you mention UBI as a solution?"

for sure

@@SmashedHatProject Perfect example :D

simply wrong. The number of people working in logistics is like 20-30% of the US working force. Logistics alone has more people than software. engineers.

@@robosergTV how much of logistics is admin?

Job!!! Eventual they will all go, a good thing in the right socioeconomic system and none of the historical "ism's" will be relevant in this AI directed context.

Totally agree. Automation is no different than software being used to reduce headcount. At the end of the day why do we want people doing monotonous work? At some point there will be less work than people and we'll have to figure that out, but I don't think a "robot tax" is the answer. That's how you ensure work goes to other countries.

Let's not create another welfare program to support people too lazy or unwilling to work in another field.

@Matthew Frost, taking it to its logical conclusion where a few people own ALL of the production, the whole system we have now would break down, nobody has a job and so cannot purchase anything, who you going to sell your widgets too? robots? this may be a way off but that day is coming.

@@matthewfrost3677 what about if they find learning stressful due to childhood trauma at least 30% of people get bullied alone and parent abuse to children causes problems in itself. So without strong healthcare these people will full into depression and not work

I suspect a robot tax would hurt welfare far more than it could help it, since it will keep the cost of goods artificially high. It would likely be better to leverage the productivity of robots (and other automation techniques) to drive down the cost of important things like food etc. In world of cheaper goods, welfare money goes further. I suspect rather than focusing on taxing robots, it would far more effective to focus on how to re-skill workers into valuable areas that can't as easily be automated. That won't be an easy task but it's going to be crucial as technological unemployment pressure increases.

could you lend me some of your internet speed pls?

Sen, yor point is absolutely right! The whole concept of a job will become obsolete. The point is humanity has always been enslaved by its own needs, to the work needed to fulfull them. Take away the work, and you will free humanity to do just anything for the sake of itself. AI has made the ultimate scarce good, human work, infinitely abundant. So, the question is, will ownership of the means of production collapse along with the obsolescence of the concept of a job?

and gay

your awesome!

work is part of our life already.

Badmus Kaybee Survival is part of our lives; work is only an extention of that

Bend those girders, Bender!

That will not work in in the US! The Republicans would no allow a taxon robots to beneft workers!

RISE OF THE MACHINES IS HERE! Arnold voice!

there won't be a 3rd world war there's to much real estate involved

@@geoh1896 yeah iran would love to carpet bomb dubai, but damn they just had that new building polished, it cost a lot and they would feel bad about destroying it.

Well at some point the CEO would also lose his/her job to a robot/computer that makes much more calculated decisions. When the common folk don't have jobs, and can't buy the products the companies makes, money loses it's meaning, everything becomes free, because everything is being made by robots, even new robots. Humanity enters the age of goDoWhatYouWantForWhateveReason..

our welfare community grows everyday, the government has no answers..

Its easy to remove said billionaire. Just take one for the team.

Correction. Those with wealth and power will benifit and minions will be enslaved or killed off.

My take on this has more to do with the displacement of the human worker and what that ex-worker will do for an income. Of course, in a TRUE socialist world no one would need money/credits/funds and the necessities and some luxuries would be available to all at no charge. The problem I see with that is, what will people do with all the free time? We are not made to do nothing with our time, we still have the need to be useful. Continuous vacations do not help as there is no productivity to ease our minds and prove our usefulness to our families and society. I can see this as a major psychological tumbling block. Is there an answer to this?

@@greypoet2 One solution is to prioritize the development of human augmentation. If the problem is that Human 1.0 is going obsolete, we need to upgrade. A high bandwidth IO for the human brain, a direct high speed connection between computer systems and the brain would change the entire dynamic. AI that supports and enhances human capability directly would keep us on top until something like a true superintelligence is created. That's a much harder undertaking than the kind of AI we have today. Remember that the AI that will replace the most human workers will still be very narrow. Just being able to get data in and out of the brain as fast as a computer would be enough for a while. The human brain is still the best general intelligence in the known universe. Of course, that would do nothing to prevent robots from taking human jobs, but trying to actually fix that would require much more invasive augmentation. Powered exoskeletons could be a short term solution.

@@icyknightmare4592 could we ban all technology which incease overall human saddness?

By the second half of the century. I'd bet much less time than that. Japan already has an experimental, but operating hotel, that is run exclusively by robots. The only employee is the owner. People quickly adapt to machinery. Just like most of us pull up to an ATM for cash, (which is also on the way out - more jobs gone), we will adjust to self-driving buses, cars, delivery vehicles, etc. We're surrounded by so much tech that could be someone's job, we don't even think about it.

A FEW JOBS THAT ONCE REQUIRED HUMAN (or MORE HUMANS) - receptionist - telephone operator - office pool (a group of secretaries typing) - harvesting crops - traffic cops (lights instead) - security guard (cameras) - car washer - teller (ATM replaces) - loan officer (go online) - tax specialists (apps for that) - Wall Street data analysts (computers do that) - eye glass grinder (tech is in cue) - cashier (self check out) - inventory officer (apps for that, no training, experience or degree needed) - logistics BA (software can configure most effective workflow chart and minimize materials waste) - furniture craftsman - leather craftsman - shoemaker - artists/painter (framed poster prints more popular) - sculpture (factories mass produce them) - explorer (satellites and probes) NO DOUBT YOU CAN THINK OF MANY MORE

As if people are stupid enough not to notice that Asimo fell xD

Generations of robots?

@@Yankeeprepperasshat All civilised beings such as cyborgs, androids and extraterrestrial life form.

Horse are cooler anyway

The government will take even more of your freedom and rights away once cars are level 5 only.

Evil is a construct of humanity, technology is simply a tool

@Pete's Guitar Lessons TV everything's a physical phenomena, but i'm not just talking about thought.. it's just semantics :P for example, the color red actually exists. humans say red to describe a certain wavelength of light that's already there in the natural world. but when you say "evil" you are describing actions conscious beings take towards others. it is just a concept that we made up. doesnt mean its not real... but by that definition, technology can not be evil.

They're already take our jobs if you open your eyes.

@@amrfwws4461 your special eyes My brand!

It's happening now. Think. The first ATMs eliminated hundreds of teller positions. Today, there are no full time tellers. Hospitals use carts to deliver meals. And check this out - Amazon and FedEx have rolled out wheeled machines that handle same day deliver of small parcels. So any small parcels can be loaded onto one of these robots from a truck and it will expedite delivery times, while a human carries larger parcels (some requiring a signature). With GPS all over the place, programming them will be a piece of cake. They're armed with cameras of course which will help minimize theft.

I thought about that first, but my next thought was that the revenue must somehow has to go to those immediately affected first, and not randomly distributed. However, I'm not a fan of government bodies and I think the government is inefficient at most things, so I'm stuck on which entity should sort through the generated profits.

@@ColdFusion What about 75% of Robotax goes to the immediately affected for a period of time and 25% goes to UBI ? Because there will only be so many that are immediately affected and eventually there will be way more robots than immediately affected. If that makes any sense.

@@ColdFusion Also, I've been playing with the thought of how robots will affect us. I have an idea which might be designed to do good in theory, but might not be good in practice. Here's the idea (a set of rules/laws): 1. Robot manufacturers may only sell their robots. 2. Non robot manufacturing companies may only rent robots. 3. Civilians may buy/sell/rent robots however they wish.

Where does the line get drawn regarding what is a robot? Factories have been using automation for decades now. I am not in favor of a tax that punishes improved productivity. By this same logic, there should be an email tax for the lost postal revenue and an automobile tax for the deprecated horse & carriage industry.

Arkane-BLUE that’s a good question and a great topic to discuss. Much like anything, things evolve. So starting to tax email today cirka 25 years after we started using email would just do more harm than good. With that in mind we don’t really have to discuss automotive tax at all. However, right now is the best time to discuss everything robots and everything UBI since it hasn’t blown up yet. As to what draws the line for shat a robot is, I guess the socially acceptable definition will change too. I’d assume that a static robot is not the same as a dynamic robot, but then again a large fleet of static robots could fo more damage job-wise too. So maybe we should put rules to robot-to-business-size ratios. Or maybe stick to a standardized tax system for robots. Maybe pay tax based on how much energy a robot needs. Who knows how we should solve this problem. Only we can decide. Looking at all possible options and narrowing down the best one will let us optimize for the future.

Imagine if if we made it mandatory to use spoons to farm. We would have ZERO unemployment!

Question is what new jobs will there be in the future in a robotic era? Recently, Yang: "Would you support a robot tax to prevent rioting truck drivers, etc. on the streets?" His Silicon Valley CEO friends: "Absolutely."

​ Rb S A) Cool if the silicon people want to start a charity to help people transition there is (or should be) nothing stopping them if they want the government to do it that is where the problem lies. B) Implementing a tax or regulation on business that are or have transitioned WILL limit the speed of the transition which is bad. C)This transition will make cost of living go down and allow for people to use their newly freed money on what they want or better other unmet needs. D) Where do we stop with this tax? we could have it be that ANYTHING that you use to augment your job falls in the tax which at the far end means PAPER AND PENCIL. D.2)The fax machine, now considered primitive by my generation, only started seeing wide spread use near the end of the cold war. Meaning its wide spread use only started 30~35 years ago. The fax limits the D.3) Where do you draw the line? The super subjective, the robot replaced a possible job or took part of someones job? Or is it a one to one type deal if a person gets fired the Company has to pay taxes? This will trap companies that are smaller, Just starting, or are tight on cash, the big boys can deal with the slight (to them) cost increase of buy a new device and pay a tax. This is how you get MAJOR imbalance in the economy. I think the majority of people wont want to let the big companies get bigger. D.4)Of course the silicon peps want this it makes it easier for them and harder for the smaller people this is how you get . E) If the transition is slow it will hurt and we will have real problems like what yang is predicting. E.2) the thing is we are not near the jobs situation that the doomers are saying we are near. We have jobs and there will continue to be so. E.3) There was one job field that had 90% of the work force in late 1800 and we were able to transition to a plethora of new jobs with in half a century. F) If you look at all the innovation of the tech world and the leaps and bounds that have happens in the last 30 years it is shocking. You can look and see the limit of limitations (specifically taxes and regulations) on the coding world they have free reign to experiment, start, grow, and die. F.1) If you take this there is a lot that we all could gain from the advancement of robots. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ A) if the ex truckers are just demanding their old jobs back then they should be ignored, if they get violent then they have stepped out of civil discourse and will have to deal with the consequences of their own actions. IF they are asking/ willing to change with the times. B) We should support trade schools and other certificate type jobs. B.2) there are jobs that are going to be harder to automate and are good paying. B.3) We should not follow the error we have made with college with having student loans. There are many problems that have come from this. both right and left agree that its there but do not agree with how to fix this is. C) We should push for reforms that make getting a job or starting a business easier. C.2) If it is hard to get or change a job we will continue to run in to this problem. C.3) If it is easier for the average Joe to start a business that will allow for more competition which is healthy for everyone.

I specifically clicked on this just to see that reference. DEY TOOk ER JEERRBS!

@@shadowrealmcitizen1149 Then production in these firms would increase leading to additional demand for labor: > Spoon production and recycling > Back and knee pads and bands. > Meds and therapy for repetitive motion injuries.

Robot tax! Carbon Tax! Game tax! Car Fax! Seed Flax! Brass Tax!

I'm not sure why we have to tax everything when government is very inefficient in using it.

mazimadu Don’t forget the cow fart tax. 🐄

Trump president? Ridiculous. Never.

Jim Batey might as well tax my coffee maker. Or my tea!

"any time soon" good luck with that, the rate of change is accelerating, peoples labour will become obsolete.

@@vizionthing Dont overestimate it. People though we'll have flying cars by now.

@@redhidinghood9337 taxi drones were tested couple weeks ago in Dubai :)

I don't think companies should be forced to pay a robot tax, however I don't think it's as simple as people should learn new skills and "getting a different job" because some people aren't able to work higher skilled jobs due to education or where they live.

@@DeLvoy1988 theyre not common place/ not economical

Agree all taxes on corporations and businesses are ridiculous, because all costs are passed on to the consumer regardless. The public buying the product or service of the companies that are taxed are paying for the tax. Yes, technology marches on. Will we be able to keep up?

So without it you will just have wealthy ppl with robots and that's it... No one could buy what the robots will produce. That's why global Income will be the future and yes... a robot tax might be one of the sources for the basic income

They should replace the government with robots then they would have to tax themselves

It has always been about funneling wealth to the few. This is no different. What are they going to do when they own every piece of currency in existences. Will they give it all back again and start over. lol

Yeah, very true. I don't know why google sold this company

He showed a video from Boston dynamics and talks about robot tax...

@Darktron and what is that?

Well, we already have personal assistant AI like Cortana or Alexa, a robot would be just a body for them to do physical tasks.

like sending a robot to work in your job position as replacement while we can go do whatever we want with our time? that should be the future, but unlikely they will let us have it easy, least to mention this easy

cell phones with hands and feet?

that little pool cleaner bot.lol

I loved that episode

Awesome TV series

That was the most useless episode in the series. And that yogurt one.

Not necessarily, since the companies developing the robots are not the ones paying the tax (yet), this would affect the users of robots in the workplace, which would potentially still be cheaper than human workforce.

@@pirateKaiser how would this tax be calculated? Some robots in use today are already far more efficient that these funny Boston dynamics projects. Is it only humanoid bots that are inherently far less productive than tasked bots that will be taxed? That doesn't make sense. Lol

Or just move all automated manufacturing to Mexico where it's still close enough to save money on transport, without the need for pointless taxes.

@@pirateKaiser exactly robot even when taxed doesn't require insurance healthcare and are will be more productive soo net wage could be taxed and companies would be still more productive question is how would you divide tax without making people lazy and dependent and stupid

@@Stanton_High gradually it would be taxed as net wage paid by a job which is being automated there is still room for automation since productivity will be more and cost less than having full-time employees it would give us time to find a suitable solution without getting us into socialism

True!

No pay, no vacations, won't ask for a raise, no medical benefits, no retirement pensions, what corporation wouldn't want a completely robotic run company honestly

Worm Hole I like it. Grandfathered robot workers. They’d probably have to keep the old original robots, constant upkeep.

For UBI to even work, robots would have to create more wealth than those displaced jobs actually cost and that's no easy task.

@@Galaf it maybe possible because robot doesn't need a salary nor they want rest, it may work 20 hours a day... It's a one time investment

@@dryatish2102 Yes but people would not invest in robots if the economic output they provide is being redirected towards people you don't know or don't care about.

Andrew Yang 2020 is pushing for UBI.

you got it right there :9)

What if putting in work for reward is part of psychology? Will it be freedom; or boredom, laziness and obsolescence?

@@Miquelalalaa freedom. No one says we won't still work and do stuff. If humans are good at anything it's finding things to do and there's still lots to do.

@@Miquelalalaa it doesn´t mean you won´t do anything it means you are released from doing the same things over and over you can learn whatver you want you could get so creative you could help others more effectifly that what it means to be free

@@rickuslastname6305 point is not all in fact boredom would exist is that would be true

social security... a system where you take someone's money, loan it to your self and then take more money from that person to pay back the loan plus interest. We are all suckers.

Social Security is when A and B decides how to spend money from C on D. An efficient system indeed...

Lmao

We already have doctors that can operate with robots over hundreds of miles away in real time. I think it depends on the skill level of the job required if a surrogate would be worth it. If your job isn't overly complex then no need for the surrogate human.

😂😂😂😂😂

I'm voting for that!!! Pay me to sit at home while robots have taken the work.... Heaven!

Before I step on any toes, I urge you to check out this article which explores ALL the arguments/concerns being made here... link.medium.com/oS1eTkWRuV No worries, it’s written in simple English for those not fluent in economics.

The only problem is there aren't many ways the government can make the money back from the amount big corporations get from consumers. The burden will be put on to the citizens as income tax increases. I'm not against corporations, its just that the money has to come back into the system somehow, and that's usually some sort of new tax.

Up we go to near full automation

Agree. The notion that the government does anything efficiently anyway is a complete joke. The productivity gained will mean that costs lower and people won’t need to work as much to pay for the same good / service. This is the whole purpose of the economy - to economise

@@MechArms430 Or through investment, what do you think happens to the money once business get it, do you think they hide it? Well they do but only because government taxes them, if government would reduce taxes the money would be freed up and reinvested. And frankly busies is way better than government anyway at investing money. If you don't believe me, see about the Bradley fighting vehicle, or the massive amount of money spent on the f35, or NASA's SLS vs space x, and there are loads of examples just like that. And that is just from America. Automation fear is irrational anyway, the thing about automation, is that it will make it a lot easier for the little guy to compete against massive cooperation. And you know what, Cold Fusion is an example of that. With new computing technology such as the youtube platform, the low cost video editing software (which I am sure many people lost their job because of this, such as people who used to have to cut and glue the video tape back together again) and various other forms of automation that he enjoys he can now compete against the big boys in big media. None of this would be possible without automation or a ridiculous automation tax.

@@MechArms430 revenue and profit taxes would work just fine, but we keep voting for right wing politicians who slash these.

They never do though. Just grab your bootstraps and float over the fence, it'll be fine...

Exoskeletons are more expensive than robots. You also still have insurance and wages and what not. Unless businesses are subsidized heavily for employing human labor, for being less productive than a firm who doesn’t employ humans, there’s very little that can be done to make humans as viable.

It's true that exoskeleton are more expensive than automation but if we can make them cheaper then I believe companies would prefer exoskeleton because only humans are capable of certain critical decisions and best possible result would be humans in a AI exoskeleton suits (in far future).

As a factory manager, why would I rent from you when I can own my staff?

Joe T, I have a hammer, it was made before I was born, it has never needed upgrading. if something it built to do a task, it only needs upgrading if it has an error. it may be replaced with a more efficient version, but upgrades are more used today to sell you new stuff you dont actually need.

@@vizionthing You probably wouldn't because I'd be talking to the owner... because I have a "factory manager" robot and if you're still there making decisions, it shows there's a need for an upgrade of that position.

but where does the income come from?

Canada and and some states in Europe have started in experimental lvl & people are signing up for it.. but there own govt is spectacle about it... And in India it's a possibility if Rahul Gandhi comes to power...

@@dryatish2102 it failed in finland

No it is not. Universal basic income will begin with making the majority of the population feel satisfied, giving them less incentives to get jobs or fight for their jobs. Helping businesses to completely automate the workplace, they will do this as fast as possible to increase profit and out compete eachother. Since the capitalists don't depend anymore on human labour, the general population won't have any "power" anymore over the capitalists, now the human population depends completely on the handouts of the elites. No the government won't be able to intervene since they depends on those buissineses. UBI is just the last breath of a dying economic system.

@@SmashedHatProject my info was 1 year old... Thank you for the update

Exactly, people are so fixated on the *Job* that they forget to think about why they actually work to begin with and for what purpose. We don't work to get paid really (that's only for our own motivation), we work to keep the world going (although a lot of jobs are bloat anyway), and money is still a pretty new concept in human history, and I'm not so sure anymore if we actually need it in the future to be honest. If machines can replace all the essential stuff in the job market, we will have time to pursue what we are passionate about instead and not worry about having enough just to live.

@@YeeLeeHaw really the concept of money was here as soon or probably sooner then writing was

Sipp Yea, if UBI paid 5K a month.

Sipp There is only so much money to go around. If we relied only on UBI then everybody would just have a 20k a year salary where you couldn’t be able to live life to the fullest extent and you wouldn’t be able to travel or buy cool shit and you’d be stuck making that exact same income every year with no way to make more.

Automation and AI are going to devastate the job market for unskilled workers. Retail, trucking, fast food, etc. Today’s leaders must prepare for a not so distant future where we have millions more jobless because of technology. The old paradigms will be useless. Morally and practically there must be a solution or semi solution for the millions with no jobs and incomes.

That's the answer I was looking for.

Yawn... Look at history, the same scares were all over the place a hundred years ago: the loom, assembly line production, yadda yadda. Humans are always scared of change. Luckily we only live 70-80 years or so, so our children can take advantage of the new things we build bravely, and we take the scares to the grave.

@@jcdenton1111 True. But we're not just talking about unthinking machines anymore. We're talking smart machines. Machines that will be able to be the operators of the looms.

No, don't.

Or Antony Sameroff for, you know, both sides.

are those two new most used words for nex 50 years of political speeches

@@damianpos8832 "Under my watch, no more jobs will be robbed. A vote for me is a vote for humanity!"

It's that simple!

I'm not sure. A tractor and farming machines replace dozens of people right away, as did many other machines like the steam engine, cars etc.. There is constant shifting in what jobs are available and what skills are needed. Still, despite this progress, we always found new jobs. The only thing this video showed was that in some years, warehouse workers could be replaced by robots, like most work horses were replaced by combustion engines.

@@GerhardSchroeder I see your point and although I think new jobs are gonna get created it'll still be less than in the industrial revolution. There the muscles were replaced by machines which then did the hard work. Many people shifted to jobs that require more brain and don't really include "hard work". Now the whole thing is different. Now machines can/will be able to replace our brains. They are/will be able to make smart decisions far better and predictions far more accurate as us humans and to add to all of that they don't really cost much, are always productive and are super fast (relative to humans). If you can tell me another capability of us humans other then utilizing muscles and brain, then there might be hope. btw. Society will probably change so it can accommodate the large unemployment percentage, so I don't think there's gonna be an apocalypse.

@@-._ Yes, I mean, that is what we think about AI. But currently, AI is not very smart. If you look at the video, you see two robots doing very repetitive and not very complicated work. Many warehouses are already much more sophisticated than these two robots. Stuff gets sorted and transported automatically, while these two robots only load some boxes onto each other. I don't know any part of industry, where AI replaced a lot of people. Even in medicine, where we hear so much news lately, AI is always and only used alongside doctors to support them. And it takes really long, before these inventions are implemented on a large scale. First tractors were available in 1900 but it still took several decades before they were used on a large scale.

Akula The capabilities of AI as you said are limited right now, but the development of new techniques and system is getting faster and faster. And just for some examples AI is used in security, anti theft and stock trading. Thought I'm not a real expert in this topic, I predict that in the next 10 years a lot of the simpler labors will wanish and there will only be the backend employees left, that are specialized in something and the frontend employees that talk to customer face to face

@@-._ We'll see, I think it takes longer but still good to exchange arguments.

what year was it?

You're right, it can be far beyond it ;) We have very limited perception, we are driving mostly by bio-chem reactions in our bodies

anand bs You have it backwards. A human can NEVER understand an AI perspective. Unless you can multiply yourself by 1 million and train on the same task with yourself millions of times per day. Unless you can monitor thousands of cameras for a specific face, license plate, or pixel formation at the same time. Unless you can absorb data from tens of thousands of healthcare records and output a probability that your tumor is cancerous. Unless you can take a recording of someone’s speech and translate it to a dozen other languages in real time. Unless you can drive a vehicle of any kind perfectly in all conditions 24/7/365 and while the battery recharges you’re working on computational tasks for the locals. A human will never understand the perspective of an AI, just like our cells can never understand the perspective of ourselves.

I appreciate your sarcasm w/ you on that above (main comment)

Andrew yang has the real anwsers. If you are American look into Andrew yang and the ubi proposal

Fixing robots

Yang doesn't understand scarcity.

We should also pay people with rainbows and sunshine for appreciating them for who they are, instead of whether they contribute.

@@aaron4820 So "work" and "contribution" are the same thing? I would say that a person's physical utility (what I mean by "work") and their "contribution" are very different, but that Western culture doesn't do a very good job of distinguishing between the two. It's not surprising then, that most people (you included?) make no distinction. My point is that anyone who thinks that merely working hard is sufficient to make it, is in for some serious disappointment. It takes more than work to succeed. And it's that "more than" part that differentiates people from robots (in their current form).

@@danlindy9670 For jobs that can be replaced by mechanical machines, "work" is "contribution", the value of a factory worker is 100 leather die cuts per hour, the value of a robotic die cut is 500 cuts per hour, each of those stamped leather piece are made into products which are then sold. The contribution difference is 10 to 1 provided the machine pays for itself within realistic time frame, with the latter unlikely to suffer physical injury due to stress or fatigue. A robot is unlikely going to replace an experience university lecturer or a software engineer any time soon, as their work and their contribution is yet to be replaceable, but like the human computer, coal mining breaker boy, switchboard operators, some jobs become obsolete due to technological improvements, and for the better.

@@aaron4820 Agree. And so if a person's value, even w.r.t. how they value their own self-worth, is measured in leather die cuts per hour, then society is severely ill-equipped to handle the resulting devaluation of human beings that is happening as their utility is replaced by machines. Be aware that this applies, not just to physical tasks, but also some types of difficult mental tasks as well. For example, reading x-ray charts and diagnosing the presence or absence of malignant tumors turns out to be well-suited to some current forms of AI (machine-learning) which now exceed the capacities of humans.

@@danlindy9670 We're clearly having a good conversation so apologies for the unnecessary sarcasm at the start. I doubt anyone would value themselves as how many die cuts they can do per hour, but unfortunately not everybody are under the circumstances that allow them to get jobs that aren't pure drudgery, I'm also not entirely sure radiologists would be "replaced" by AI, however, they would be heavily aided by AI, just as CAD/CAM never replaced designers and architects, but it aid their work, as being specialised in these software in the future also take some amount of training and know how. As per your initial comment, I just had an issue with the idea that drudgery work exist because of how "people" put value on others work, as if it was a subjective concept and can be eradicated if mindsets were changed, as oppose to my understanding of the reality which is through necessity. People didn't use to plough fields because others "place value" in them doing so, they placed value in having food, and fields had to be ploughed and so food can grow. Leather die cuts for 10 hours a day suck yet the demand was there for humans to do it, until machines could do it better (machines that are still operated by humans, fewer humans with different backgrounds in training). A huge number of our jobs today would make no sense to people of the past, as far as the UBI solution, before we get there, if we ever do, I can't help but feel that even in the future, drudgery work would still exist for those who aren't fortunate enough to have the right background, education or motivations to get into fields that pay. They may not be leather stamping or driving cars, but they could be something such as going through millions of photos to help train AIs, or some other work that would make no sense to us today.

@driftster99 why is that?

no single person is solution ever