| The work I'm describing is all minimally skilled labor. Automation already provides a much higher level of services than human workers in many areas. Do we really want to wait to the very end of this process to begin the transition? Right now our problem is too little labor, not too much. Maybe we should wait until we at least have enough labor before we take steps that will reduce the labor supply? Note that according to the experiments which BI proponents cite as "successes", BI reduces labor supply by 10% or so (e.g. mincome reduced labor by 13%). https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money... http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf For comparison, the great recession reduced labor supplied by 5%. Under circumstances of labor scarcity, BI would be wildly counterproductive. Implementing a BI now is like a fat person eating 5 cheeseburgers on the theory that they might starve in some distant apocalyptic future. |
At what point would you know there is enough labor and how would you measure that? It would have to be once a certain goal is achieved, correct? What is that goal?
I'm curious because in a time where there are 7 billion people I have rarely, if ever, seen someone say on the whole there are too many jobs and not enough laborers. Rather it's more often said that there are too many laborers and not enough jobs. Which is precisely the type of sentiment that drives anti-immigration xenophobia.