How long until a robot takes your job?

[Albert]

The more I think about it the less I like the idea about universal income advocated by some here to alleviate technological unemployment. Humans are complex enough beings that food and shelter alone is not sufficient. They also need some meaning to their existence and what would it be if everything were to be provided without doing anything in return? Some say they will do art and sports, but how many have such a great interest in it that they'd be able to occupy all their time with it? A tiny minority, I suspect. The more likely outcome for majority is drink, drugs, sex and fighting n various proportions. How many would bother with eduction if that provided no material benefit? It would make more sense to create jobs by legislation.

In addition to what I wrote above I'd like to remind everyone that just because computational power has doubled every x number of years doesn't mean it will continue to do so for decades to come. It's a rule of thumb which has proven correct so far, but it's not a scientific theory which one would expect to always be right. I don't know what will happen either, but I advise everyone to be a bit more cautious about predicting far off (>10 years) future.

[2lazy2retire]

The more I think about it the less I like the idea about universal income advocated by some here to alleviate technological unemployment. Humans are complex enough beings that food and shelter alone is not sufficient. They also need some meaning to their existence and what would it be if everything were to be provided without doing anything in return? Some say they will do art and sports, but how many have such a great interest in it that they'd be able to occupy all their time with it? A tiny minority, I suspect. The more likely outcome for majority is drink, drugs, sex and fighting n various proportions. How many would bother with eduction if that provided no material benefit? It would make more sense to create jobs by legislation.

In addition to what I wrote above I'd like to remind everyone that just because computational power has doubled every x number of years doesn't mean it will continue to do so for decades to come. It's a rule of thumb which has proven correct so far, but it's not a scientific theory which one would expect to always be right. I don't know what will happen either, but I advise everyone to be a bit more cautious about predicting far off (>10 years) future.

"Humans are complex enough beings that food and shelter alone is not sufficient. They also need some meaning to their existence and what would it be if everything were to be provided without doing anything in return? Some say they will do art and sports, but how many have such a great interest in it that they'd be able to occupy all their time with it? A tiny minority, I suspect. The more likely outcome for majority is drink, drugs, sex and fighting n various proportions."

Is that not the same as asking what are all the MMM'rs going to do when they retire. Is it not the objective of most  on this site to save enough to give themselves a universal income which allows them to do as the please. Not sure about the drink drugs and fighting, but if a bit of extra sex is a side benefit of FIRE or Universal Income I would not be opposed to either:)

[intellectsucks]

@tomsang-It’s possible we’re talking over each other, or perhaps you just believe that AI will be up to Mr Data levels faster than I do.

When I talk about analytical and interpretive jobs, I mean more along the line of identifying market needs and coming up with ideas for addressing those needs.  Think of the way amazon is constantly tweaking their services.  Computers crunch the data, spit out reports and then humans use that data to determine what areas will help Amazon grow their business.  Once they’ve figured out what they want to do (dash buttons, fire TV, etc), computers once again take over to do the majority of the work to figure out how to implement that solution.  Service jobs are also a big part of Amazon as well.  Sure Amazon has a lot of automated service, but they also pay a ton of people to interact directly with their customers to handle issues, complaints and questions.  Those jobs all require human skills: empathy, charisma, warmth, etc.  These are all the same skills required in sales jobs, managerial jobs, entrepreneurial jobs, creative jobs, entertainment, etc.  Humans have the ability to look past the surface, using subtle non-verbal cues (any married person can tell you that “I’m fine” rarely means “I’m fine”).  Nothing that I have seen shows that technology will be able to even come close to being able to interpret the vast range of human personal interactions within the timeframe I mentioned.

I also mentioned trades as another field that I don’t envision being replaced by technology.  Do you honestly believe robot plumbers are not only going to exist in 50 years but be so cost effective that they will replace human ones?

Now let’s talk about numbers.  Purely out of my ass, I would estimate that technology might replace/eliminate 30-50% of the work currently being done.  I would estimate that it will create around 20-30% additional work.  I also think that reductions in average consumption will create less need for full time employment.  I do think we will see U.S. and world unemployment rates go higher, possibly significantly higher, with technology being one of many factors contributing to this.  I do believe that there are consequences to spending a lot of money developing skills that are not very marketable, and that people should be aware of those consequences before making such a potentially damaging decision.  If I had my druthers, I would like to see a bigger push on educating people around life skills very early in life: resume building/writing, interview skills, business skills, financial skills, etc.  I would incorporate an education component into safety net programs such as unemployment and disability as well.  I also believe that there are very few people who can add NO value.  Even Walmart greeters add some kind of value, or else Walmart wouldn’t be paying them.  A lot of people may find themselves in similar “soft touch” jobs as technology takes over more and more, but that is different from humans being made obsolete by machines.

[Albert]

Is that not the same as asking what are all the MMM'rs going to do when they retire. Is it not the objective of most  on this site to save enough to give themselves a universal income which allows them to do as the please. Not sure about the drink drugs and fighting, but if a bit of extra sex is a side benefit of FIRE or Universal Income I would not be opposed to either:)

Yes, but:

1) People from this board will get there after studying and working on something for a decade or more. That's a big difference from getting it all on a silver platter at age 18. Better comparison would be trust fund kids.
2) Many here will retire or have retired already as wealthy men and women. This general income is likely to only be what some government decides is enough
3) People from here are in minority
4) Even many MMM'rs are mistaken into thinking that they'll be happy doing nothing much for the rest of their lives. Hard to judge before you actually try...

[tomsang]

@intellectsucks - Technology is currently decimating certain jobs.  Technology is advancing at a staggering pace.  Computer power is doubling every two years.  So today's technology is like using an abacus to do higher level computation compared to what it will be in 10 years or maybe 5 years.  The advances are staggering.

You use Amazon as an example.  Which I find interesting as they most likely will eliminate 80% of their workforce in the next 15 years.  They will not need people in their automated factories, they will not need FedEx drivers, they will not need people in their accounting offices, I can't think of an area that will not be eliminated.  You mentioned that they have a ton of people that interact with customers.  Have you used Amazon?  I can not recall ever interacting with a person.  If I don't like something I check a box and send it back.  The credit is on my account the next day.  I am sure that some technology is being used to repackage items that are returned because of size and preference vs. being dealt with for non working.  I think Amazon's customer service is amazing, because there is no incompetent people to deal with.  As far as I can tell it is all automated.  Regarding buying decisions.  I would be surprised if humans are involved at all.  Data is driving the purchases.  The systems are in place to carry enough inventory to cover the demand based on the computer models. I would think a person would just mess it up.  If not now, I would think that this would be fully automated in 10 years.

You then mention plumbers.  I would be shocked if we are using centralized plumbing for water and waste in 50 years.  I also think we will be off the grid for electricity and energy. Why would we move water and waste from or to our houses when we can recycle the water that we currently have into clean water and consume the waste as fuel?  We currently have 3d printers that can make amazing things.  Just think about what they will be able to do in 50 years or 20 years.

Regarding your estimates that technology will eliminate 30% to 50% of jobs and create 20%-30% of new technology jobs.  What do you think that humans will be able to do better than technology in 50 years to create those 20 - 30% of new jobs?  World wide and in parts of the US we have high unemployment.  If technology is going to eliminate 10 to 20 percent of the net jobs per your estimates, what will we do with those who do not or can not find gainful employment?  That is why in my mind politics is important.  The changes that are going to occur will occur faster than any other technological change in the past.  The social benefits and backlash needs to be determined now vs. when huge swaths of jobs are eliminated in a 5 to 10 year period of time.  IE Driverless vehicles are currently proving to be significantly safer than vehicles operated by humans.  At what point do we create a law mandating that all vehicles need to be operating autonomously?  Deaths would drop overnight but this would cause all drivers of commercial vehicles to be eliminated due to technology being so much safer for driving effective in x years.  We would have x years to find 10 million US workers another job that hasn't been eliminated by technology.  Do you make the law to save lives and improve the bottom line of corporations or do you protect the 10 million US workers involved in driving?  These drivers would not add value as the work could be done cheaper, safer, and better than using humans.  How much time do we give them to retrain or find other employment?  How do you phase in the process?  It will happen, the question is does it happen in 10,  20 or 30 years.

Technology will be a huge improvement overtime.  The question is who gets to take advantage of the technology windfall.  How do you create a fair system that improves the lives to all even if they don't have the skills or intellect to contribute?  Politics is incredibly important.  Companies have a huge vested interest to make sure that the technological windfall goes to them and their shareholders.  Not a bad thing if you are in the top 1%, but a bit rough if you are non useful and poor.

Amazing stuff coming!         

[mozar]

I'll just leave this here:
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/computers-are-learning-how-to-interpret-your-emotions-070215.html

[intellectsucks]

@intellectsucks - Technology is currently decimating certain jobs.  Technology is advancing at a staggering pace.  Computer power is doubling every two years.  So today's technology is like using an abacus to do higher level computation compared to what it will be in 10 years or maybe 5 years.  The advances are staggering.

You use Amazon as an example.  Which I find interesting as they most likely will eliminate 80% of their workforce in the next 15 years.  They will not need people in their automated factories, they will not need FedEx drivers, they will not need people in their accounting offices, I can't think of an area that will not be eliminated.  You mentioned that they have a ton of people that interact with customers.  Have you used Amazon?  I can not recall ever interacting with a person.  If I don't like something I check a box and send it back.  The credit is on my account the next day.  I am sure that some technology is being used to repackage items that are returned because of size and preference vs. being dealt with for non working.  I think Amazon's customer service is amazing, because there is no incompetent people to deal with.  As far as I can tell it is all automated.  Regarding buying decisions.  I would be surprised if humans are involved at all.  Data is driving the purchases.  The systems are in place to carry enough inventory to cover the demand based on the computer models. I would think a person would just mess it up.  If not now, I would think that this would be fully automated in 10 years.

You then mention plumbers.  I would be shocked if we are using centralized plumbing for water and waste in 50 years.  I also think we will be off the grid for electricity and energy. Why would we move water and waste from or to our houses when we can recycle the water that we currently have into clean water and consume the waste as fuel?  We currently have 3d printers that can make amazing things.  Just think about what they will be able to do in 50 years or 20 years.

Regarding your estimates that technology will eliminate 30% to 50% of jobs and create 20%-30% of new technology jobs.  What do you think that humans will be able to do better than technology in 50 years to create those 20 - 30% of new jobs?  World wide and in parts of the US we have high unemployment.  If technology is going to eliminate 10 to 20 percent of the net jobs per your estimates, what will we do with those who do not or can not find gainful employment?  That is why in my mind politics is important.  The changes that are going to occur will occur faster than any other technological change in the past.  The social benefits and backlash needs to be determined now vs. when huge swaths of jobs are eliminated in a 5 to 10 year period of time.  IE Driverless vehicles are currently proving to be significantly safer than vehicles operated by humans.  At what point do we create a law mandating that all vehicles need to be operating autonomously?  Deaths would drop overnight but this would cause all drivers of commercial vehicles to be eliminated due to technology being so much safer for driving effective in x years.  We would have x years to find 10 million US workers another job that hasn't been eliminated by technology.  Do you make the law to save lives and improve the bottom line of corporations or do you protect the 10 million US workers involved in driving?  These drivers would not add value as the work could be done cheaper, safer, and better than using humans.  How much time do we give them to retrain or find other employment?  How do you phase in the process?  It will happen, the question is does it happen in 10,  20 or 30 years.

Technology will be a huge improvement overtime.  The question is who gets to take advantage of the technology windfall.  How do you create a fair system that improves the lives to all even if they don't have the skills or intellect to contribute?  Politics is incredibly important.  Companies have a huge vested interest to make sure that the technological windfall goes to them and their shareholders.  Not a bad thing if you are in the top 1%, but a bit rough if you are non useful and poor.

Amazing stuff coming!       

Using my computer instead of my phone so quotes will work, woo hoo!!!

If you truly believe the problem is as dire as you say it is, and the only solution is political, then I encourage you even more to abandon the partisan diatribes and explore other points of view.  You are able to make a very compelling case for technology making humans obsolete, yet you haven't addressed any of your political claims that the GOP is thrilled that the 1% is screwing over the 99%.  If you truly believe certain policies will accelerate the problems created by technology then feel free to make your point, but a blanket claim that republicans are greedy and evil doesn't add anything to any discussion.

[FrancisinPa]

I am a pharmacist. There are inroads being made in replacing pharmacists with technology. Checking medications by scanning bar codes is as accurate as humans, if not more so. The catch is state pharmacy boards require a human (pharmacist) to check. If big business (cvs, Walmart, etc)  lobby the boards to change this requirement they would need a lot less pharmacists. Still  would need some pharmacists but not as many.

When will it happen? Who knows but I could see it begin to happen in less than 5 years. I'm happy to say I'll be long gone from the profession by then.

I've heard of complications from this kind of thing.  For example, a prescription will not be flagged in the system for an interaction with another drug the patient is taking, or it IS flagged, but a human pharmacist can tell that that particular dosage won't be a problem for XYZ reason not recorded by the standard publications.

What you said it true but the vast majority of drug orders have no problems. Sure you'll always need pharmacists, I'm just saying you'll need less of them due to automation.

Plus if doctors use computerized medication order entry the computer software won't let them enter he order without addressing the problems. Problems like with drug allergies, strength, duplicate therapy, etc. In the old days the pharmacist had to phone the doctor. Now automation eliminates the problem.

[2lazy2retire]

@intellectsucks - Technology is currently decimating certain jobs.  Technology is advancing at a staggering pace.  Computer power is doubling every two years.  So today's technology is like using an abacus to do higher level computation compared to what it will be in 10 years or maybe 5 years.  The advances are staggering.

You use Amazon as an example.  Which I find interesting as they most likely will eliminate 80% of their workforce in the next 15 years.  They will not need people in their automated factories, they will not need FedEx drivers, they will not need people in their accounting offices, I can't think of an area that will not be eliminated.  You mentioned that they have a ton of people that interact with customers.  Have you used Amazon?  I can not recall ever interacting with a person.  If I don't like something I check a box and send it back.  The credit is on my account the next day.  I am sure that some technology is being used to repackage items that are returned because of size and preference vs. being dealt with for non working.  I think Amazon's customer service is amazing, because there is no incompetent people to deal with.  As far as I can tell it is all automated.  Regarding buying decisions.  I would be surprised if humans are involved at all.  Data is driving the purchases.  The systems are in place to carry enough inventory to cover the demand based on the computer models. I would think a person would just mess it up.  If not now, I would think that this would be fully automated in 10 years.

You then mention plumbers.  I would be shocked if we are using centralized plumbing for water and waste in 50 years.  I also think we will be off the grid for electricity and energy. Why would we move water and waste from or to our houses when we can recycle the water that we currently have into clean water and consume the waste as fuel?  We currently have 3d printers that can make amazing things.  Just think about what they will be able to do in 50 years or 20 years.

Regarding your estimates that technology will eliminate 30% to 50% of jobs and create 20%-30% of new technology jobs.  What do you think that humans will be able to do better than technology in 50 years to create those 20 - 30% of new jobs?  World wide and in parts of the US we have high unemployment.  If technology is going to eliminate 10 to 20 percent of the net jobs per your estimates, what will we do with those who do not or can not find gainful employment?  That is why in my mind politics is important.  The changes that are going to occur will occur faster than any other technological change in the past.  The social benefits and backlash needs to be determined now vs. when huge swaths of jobs are eliminated in a 5 to 10 year period of time.  IE Driverless vehicles are currently proving to be significantly safer than vehicles operated by humans.  At what point do we create a law mandating that all vehicles need to be operating autonomously?  Deaths would drop overnight but this would cause all drivers of commercial vehicles to be eliminated due to technology being so much safer for driving effective in x years.  We would have x years to find 10 million US workers another job that hasn't been eliminated by technology.  Do you make the law to save lives and improve the bottom line of corporations or do you protect the 10 million US workers involved in driving?  These drivers would not add value as the work could be done cheaper, safer, and better than using humans.  How much time do we give them to retrain or find other employment?  How do you phase in the process?  It will happen, the question is does it happen in 10,  20 or 30 years.

Technology will be a huge improvement overtime.  The question is who gets to take advantage of the technology windfall.  How do you create a fair system that improves the lives to all even if they don't have the skills or intellect to contribute?  Politics is incredibly important.  Companies have a huge vested interest to make sure that the technological windfall goes to them and their shareholders.  Not a bad thing if you are in the top 1%, but a bit rough if you are non useful and poor.

Amazing stuff coming!       

Using my computer instead of my phone so quotes will work, woo hoo!!!

If you truly believe the problem is as dire as you say it is, and the only solution is political, then I encourage you even more to abandon the partisan diatribes and explore other points of view.  You are able to make a very compelling case for technology making humans obsolete, yet you haven't addressed any of your political claims that the GOP is thrilled that the 1% is screwing over the 99%.  If you truly believe certain policies will accelerate the problems created by technology then feel free to make your point, but a blanket claim that republicans are greedy and evil doesn't add anything to any discussion.

A sarcastic soul indeed. As you seem to have lost the technology argument and reverted to the political argument  can you breakdown in bullet points any GOP policies in the last say 20-30 years that have/had the interest of the less fortunate or the general populace at large at its core. And also as you are a champion of conservatism a quick rundown of current conservative policies that you feel will contribute  to making the future world a better and more inclusive place to live for everyone.

[2lazy2retire]

Is that not the same as asking what are all the MMM'rs going to do when they retire. Is it not the objective of most  on this site to save enough to give themselves a universal income which allows them to do as the please. Not sure about the drink drugs and fighting, but if a bit of extra sex is a side benefit of FIRE or Universal Income I would not be opposed to either:)

Yes, but:

1) People from this board will get there after studying and working on something for a decade or more. That's a big difference from getting it all on a silver platter at age 18. Better comparison would be trust fund kids.
2) Many here will retire or have retired already as wealthy men and women. This general income is likely to only be what some government decides is enough
3) People from here are in minority
4) Even many MMM'rs are mistaken into thinking that they'll be happy doing nothing much for the rest of their lives. Hard to judge before you actually try...

Some valid points, but I suspect many of us are suffering from recency bias at least in the context of human existence. The current obsession with working endlessly some times only to accumulate stuff really only kicked into gear in the last 150 years or so alongside the notion of a good work ethic been beneficial. I think a future world where automation takes care of most tasks will allow us to revert to a more natural state, able to explore in all sorts of ways. The biggest challenge is that technology is likely to evolve at a much quicker pace than we will be able to adopt and at least in the medium term result in quite a bit of social turmoil.
To be honest most people tend to project their current environment as their vision of a future world, when in reality we have no idea what the world will look like. If you asked someone in the 50's what they might expect to see in a future world they might have said flying cars , of course now we know this was a stupid idea and having a car that can drive itself is much more practical.
I fear a lot of what is ingrained today is part of our conditioning, in no small part has that conditioning been a means to control us as individuals such things as  religion, nationalism, patriotism - for the most part benefiting the few at the expense of the masses,I look forward to a world where all that BS goes away. Some posters have sneered at those who raise concerns over who will control information going forward and the huge risks involved if a very few are allowed to control our world, there are not many examples of how absolute power has been put to good use that I can recall just now.

Anyway, going back to your points, I would disagree with the trust fund kids comparison as that usually involves large amounts of money which can corrupt anyone. I envision a guaranteed income that would cover basic living expenses only - this would still leave the door open for entrepreneurship if one chooses to direct their energies in that fashion - I still think this community is a fine example of how ones time can be used productively in all sorts of ways. I do not have the numbers to hand but some countries deploy a fairly generous social security system which could be likened to guaranteed income and there has been no overwhelming evidence that it greatly increases the number of the people likely to layabout all day doing drugs.
I notice that your location is Switzerland which I believe recently has been exploring they idea of a basic income, would be interested in the general view from the populace there.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

A timely podcast this week on EconTalk.org, Tim O'Reilly on Technology and Work:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/10/tim_oreilly_on.html

The relevant bit starts at 25:22

(Russ, the host): I want to shift gears. I want to talk about your upcoming conference; about what's happening to work. And I want to look at some issues you wrote about in an essay at 'Medium', the interaction between technology and labor, particularly in the sharing economy. You wrote the following:
There are two different approaches to using technology to manage labor. One provides data and control solely to managers, disempowering workers and minimizing their costs to improve company profits; the other offers data to both managers and workers, giving workers agency, the freedom to work when and how much they want.

(Basically, if you are a 'commodity employee' - is it better to work for a 'W-2' employer with no control over your schedule and a competing interest to limit your hours to part-time, or an on-demand (e.g. Uber) employee with no benefits or minimum wage guarantees?)

Lots of interesting links also:

Articles:
"Workers in a World of Continuous Partial Employment," by Tim O'Reilly on Medium. (https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/workers-in-a-world-of-continuous-partial-employment-4d7b53f18f96)
"Networks and The Nature of The Firm," by Tim O'Reilly on Medium. August, 2015. (https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/networks-and-the-nature-of-the-firm-28790b6afdcc)
"#IoTH: The Internet of Things and Humans," by Tim O'Reilly in Radar. April, 2014. (http://radar.oreilly.com/2014/04/ioth-the-internet-of-things-and-humans.html)
"Work is More Than a Source of Income," by Tim O'Reilly on Medium. September, 2015. (https://medium.com/@timoreilly/work-is-more-than-a-source-of-income-29cb871bec95)

Web Pages and Resources:
Next: Economy. What's the Future of Work?. O'Reilly Conference, Nov. 12-13, 2015. (http://conferences.oreilly.com/next-economy)

[Albert]

Some valid points, but I suspect many of us are suffering from recency bias at least in the context of human existence. The current obsession with working endlessly some times only to accumulate stuff really only kicked into gear in the last 150 years or so alongside the notion of a good work ethic been beneficial. I think a future world where automation takes care of most tasks will allow us to revert to a more natural state, able to explore in all sorts of ways.

We can't know the future, but we can know the past. In that mythical past most people worked endlessly for very little money or none at all. On farms mostly, but also in cities which were usually small. Sure there were aristocrats, high clergy, wealthy merchants etc. who had it easier but those were a tiny minority (in medieval England aristocracy was ca 5% of the population).

Anyway, going back to your points, I would disagree with the trust fund kids comparison as that usually involves large amounts of money which can corrupt anyone. I envision a guaranteed income that would cover basic living expenses only - this would still leave the door open for entrepreneurship if one chooses to direct their energies in that fashion - I still think this community is a fine example of how ones time can be used productively in all sorts of ways.

Ok, my comparison wasn't perhaps the greatest but what you are saying about the basic guaranteed income is exactly the same I was. It will be small, smaller than what most here are willing to retire with and it will be very difficult to get something more for those born in communities living just on that.

I do not have the numbers to hand but some countries deploy a fairly generous social security system which could be likened to guaranteed income and there has been no overwhelming evidence that it greatly increases the number of the people likely to layabout all day doing drugs.

First those social security systems are designed in such a way that they encourage you to get out of living from just that. In some countries it works better and in some not so well. There are in fact some not so small segments of population which subsist just on that and seemingly desire no more (UK struggles with this, for example). Not that they necessarily do drugs all day, but they are definitely a drain on the rest of the economy.

I notice that your location is Switzerland which I believe recently has been exploring they idea of a basic income, would be interested in the general view from the populace there.

That idea was soundly rejected, in fact it never had a support of more than 20% of the population and even there I'm not sure how seriously they meant it. Swiss are actually quite conservative on things of this sort. There is a strong safety net here, but abusing it is not that easy.

[nobodyspecial]

Some valid points, but I suspect many of us are suffering from recency bias at least in the context of human existence.

Story of dons at an Oxford college discussing where to invest a donation.
"Well land has been a profitable investment for the history of the college" says an economist. Then a historian pipes up, "Yes but the last 1000 years have been atypical"

[cerebus]

Then a historian pipes up, "Yes but the last 1000 years have been atypical"

Well, they have been. At least, the last 500 or so have been completely unprecedented in human history, and the last 100-150 have been extraordinary. Kind of hard to create an investment portfolio if you're using multi-millenial historical trends though.

[2lazy2retire]

Some valid points, but I suspect many of us are suffering from recency bias at least in the context of human existence. The current obsession with working endlessly some times only to accumulate stuff really only kicked into gear in the last 150 years or so alongside the notion of a good work ethic been beneficial. I think a future world where automation takes care of most tasks will allow us to revert to a more natural state, able to explore in all sorts of ways.

We can't know the future, but we can know the past. In that mythical past most people worked endlessly for very little money or none at all. On farms mostly, but also in cities which were usually small. Sure there were aristocrats, high clergy, wealthy merchants etc. who had it easier but those were a tiny minority (in medieval England aristocracy was ca 5% of the population).

Anyway, going back to your points, I would disagree with the trust fund kids comparison as that usually involves large amounts of money which can corrupt anyone. I envision a guaranteed income that would cover basic living expenses only - this would still leave the door open for entrepreneurship if one chooses to direct their energies in that fashion - I still think this community is a fine example of how ones time can be used productively in all sorts of ways.

Ok, my comparison wasn't perhaps the greatest but what you are saying about the basic guaranteed income is exactly the same I was. It will be small, smaller than what most here are willing to retire with and it will be very difficult to get something more for those born in communities living just on that.

I do not have the numbers to hand but some countries deploy a fairly generous social security system which could be likened to guaranteed income and there has been no overwhelming evidence that it greatly increases the number of the people likely to layabout all day doing drugs.

First those social security systems are designed in such a way that they encourage you to get out of living from just that. In some countries it works better and in some not so well. There are in fact some not so small segments of population which subsist just on that and seemingly desire no more (UK struggles with this, for example). Not that they necessarily do drugs all day, but they are definitely a drain on the rest of the economy.

I notice that your location is Switzerland which I believe recently has been exploring they idea of a basic income, would be interested in the general view from the populace there.

That idea was soundly rejected, in fact it never had a support of more than 20% of the population and even there I'm not sure how seriously they meant it. Swiss are actually quite conservative on things of this sort. There is a strong safety net here, but abusing it is not that easy.

In reverse order - "Swiss have a strong safety net" - exactly what's needed in a future as jobs disappear.

"systems are designed in such a way that they encourage you to get out of living from just that" - "m not arguing about the current setup in relation to welfare and encouraging people to work - I'm talking about a future where there is no or very limited work available - how do you to propose to deal with that?

"people worked endlessly for very little money or none at all" - I was not referring to people in servitude paid or otherwise but to those fortunate enough whose work was purely to sustain himself and his family. Also farm labour was very seasonal with long hours during planting and harvest and a lot of "idle" time in between - its fairly accepted that the industrial revolution brought a greatly increased year round workload on most

"The labouring man will take his rest long in the morning; a good piece of the day is spent afore he come at his work; then he must have his breakfast, though he have not earned it at his accustomed hour, or else there is grudging and murmuring; when the clock smiteth, he will cast down his burden in the midway, and whatsoever he is in hand with, he will leave it as it is, though many times it is marred afore he come again; he may not lose his meat, what danger soever the work is in. At noon he must have his sleeping time, then his bever in the afternoon, which spendeth a great part of the day; and when his hour cometh at night, at the first stroke of the clock he casteth down his tools, leaveth his work, in what need or case soever the work standeth.
        -James Pilkington, Bishop of Durham, ca. 1570"

[Pooplips]

Not suggesting that realtors are doing anything illegal, but around here where a family home averages 6-700k  ( Phily suburbs) having to pay 6% to sell might not be illegal but not completely honest either. Try to sell on your own and see how quickly those realtors will talk down your property.

There are greedy dicks for sure. I'd never deny it. But honesty and commission level are 100% completely separate subjects.
Commission is negotiable on every transaction, FTR. It doesn't matter what the house is worth.

h
" FTR. It doesn't matter what the house is worth"

- have to disagree strongly here, how much extra work does it take to sell a house for 700k V a house for 100k - payday for realtors 42k v 6k for similar if not identical workload, fair flat fee I have no problem with.

The same could be said for waitresses. $100 steak vs $10 cheese burger. Same amount of work for each but vastly different tips.

[2lazy2retire]

Not suggesting that realtors are doing anything illegal, but around here where a family home averages 6-700k  ( Phily suburbs) having to pay 6% to sell might not be illegal but not completely honest either. Try to sell on your own and see how quickly those realtors will talk down your property.

There are greedy dicks for sure. I'd never deny it. But honesty and commission level are 100% completely separate subjects.
Commission is negotiable on every transaction, FTR. It doesn't matter what the house is worth.

h
" FTR. It doesn't matter what the house is worth"

- have to disagree strongly here, how much extra work does it take to sell a house for 700k V a house for 100k - payday for realtors 42k v 6k for similar if not identical workload, fair flat fee I have no problem with.

The same could be said for waitresses. $100 steak vs $10 cheese burger. Same amount of work for each but vastly different tips.

LOL, I wish all realtors got minimum wage then I could choose to tip them or not .

[Pooplips]

Not suggesting that realtors are doing anything illegal, but around here where a family home averages 6-700k  ( Phily suburbs) having to pay 6% to sell might not be illegal but not completely honest either. Try to sell on your own and see how quickly those realtors will talk down your property.

There are greedy dicks for sure. I'd never deny it. But honesty and commission level are 100% completely separate subjects.
Commission is negotiable on every transaction, FTR. It doesn't matter what the house is worth.

h
" FTR. It doesn't matter what the house is worth"

- have to disagree strongly here, how much extra work does it take to sell a house for 700k V a house for 100k - payday for realtors 42k v 6k for similar if not identical workload, fair flat fee I have no problem with.

The same could be said for waitresses. $100 steak vs $10 cheese burger. Same amount of work for each but vastly different tips.

LOL, I wish all realtors got minimum wage then I could choose to tip them or not .

Good point. I guess I didnt think that through all the way. haha