Perhaps I’m inferring more than some posters are saying, but it sounds as if some people have the impression that a minimum level of income provided by the government will be a good thing for most people. I would respectfully disagree because it rests on the assumption that most people will use their free time for productive uses.
My job gives me a glimpse into the details of the lives of people from every financial situation: the complete financial disaster cases, all the way up to the top 1%. The closest analog that I can think of to a guaranteed minimum income, as described by the previous posters, is SSI. It provides a set minimum level of income, is provided by the government, has no ongoing eligibility requirements (such as job search, work, or drug testing) and is sufficient to provide for the basics (sometimes a little less), but has little to no wiggle room for luxuries. I would estimate that somewhere in the range of 40-60% of people on this program are living lifestyles that any mustachian would describe as destructive. Very little physical activity, lots of terrible food, lots of bad financial decisions, lots of problems in interpersonal relationships, very little desire to improve their circumstances or themselves. While I won’t bother to argue whether SSI is the cause or an effect of those problems, however I will argue that it certainly doesn’t HELP those problems. Having a job helps people develop their social skills, keeps them marginally active, and can help them learn new financial and life management skills. This is 40-60% of a very small portion of society. Even if my estimate is unreasonably high (maybe the number is closer to 20%, or 30%), do we really want such a large percentage of the general population being in the same situation?
@tomsang-Was it necessary to bring such a harshly worded political diatribe into this discussion? What do the GOP’s policies have to do with robots replacing jobs? You briefly mention the Earned Income Tax Credit, Obamacare and the Citizens United decision as all benefiting the 1%, but offer no argument as to how or how the GOP’s opposition to them hurts the 99%? I would encourage you to dig deeper into conservative policies, not only because I believe in them, but at the very least so that you can have a more nuanced political discussion than “DEMOCRAT GOOD; REPUBLICAN BAD!! OOG!!!” The reality is that the standard of living has drastically increased for EVERY member of Western society, and the reason most people are struggling is because of their own choices. The entire purpose of this site and forum is to identify better choices and help each other be successful. If you don’t believe this is possible because the corporate overlords are so oppressive, why are you here?
BACK ON TOPIC!!! WOO HOO!!! I really can’t see AI taking over any interpersonal jobs at any point in the forseeable future, possibly ever. Not only are these jobs dependent on a near infinite number of tiny, subtle variables, but those variables mean different things for different people. Depending on culture, personality, age, and mood, the same gesture or facial expression can mean lots of different things. How would it even be possible to identify all the variables, let alone all the possible outcomes of all those variables?
Someone brought up the example of buying/selling a house and how computers would make that negotiation so much better. That relies on a bunch of ifs: IF the person is willing to be honest when entering their desired criteria for purchase, IF the person is capable of articulating those criteria, IF the person is even being honest with themselves about what criteria they really want. More likely is you will be feeding a lot of garbage into that system, regardless of how theoretically effective it is.