[ooqr]

Be realistic about point a).

And for point b), it's always truck drivers brought up in these instances. Yes, think of the poor truck drivers. I'm sure they love doing a dull job.

If a job is replaceable by machines, it's not worth doing.

I get the worry that people will be without livelihood, but it's not as if this world has a shortage of work to be done. If we had no more work to do, sure, bring on the UBI. But we do. Clean litter out of forests, plant new forests, visit the sick. Whatever it is, there will absolutely be more work for humans in the future. People not being forced to drive trucks means they could be doing something else more useful.

And if people lament losing a particular job and having to pick up a new one, well, sorry but that's reality. I could just as soon lament not getting paid to doodle cartoons.

[bbctol]

Clean litter out of forests... for free? Visit the sick... for free? People don't like being truck drivers because they like driving trucks, they like being truck drivers because they like eating, sleeping, and raising their families. The unemployment rate is currently above 0, despite their being no "shortage of work to be done," because plenty of work that could be done doesn't have anyone paying in exchange for that work.

Who's going to pay people to do the things that are more useful, but don't fit in to the standard capitalist system? You? Some benevolent billionaire? The government, if we raise taxes and increase social spending to an extent that makes plenty of Americans recoil in instinctive horror? Yeah, I do think of the poor truck drivers, because I don't want them to starve.

[ooqr]

You're missing the point. There's room for social programs to get these things done, but UBI for nothing isn't a good idea.

[gnaritas]

No, he's not, you are. The social programs required to get those things done aren't going to come soon enough due to the cultural rejection of this kind of socialism in America. You're glossing over the hard part, as if "just pass a social program" was an easy thing to do.

UBI has to be worked out "before" these become big problems, not after; now is the time.

[ooqr]

More money for UBI is necessarily less potentially available money for the forest service.

[mLuby]

Don't assume you know why truck drivers do what they do…

[gaius]

Indeed. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/28/opinion/truck-driving-is-...

[oconnore]

All of those jobs you mentioned are not economic, they are public works -- and there is no funding for them, so at best those are volunteer efforts, not something to put food on the table.

You're right, in theory we could have a system where we put truck drivers to work doing great stuff. Losing lots of jobs could be amazing if we had the services and programs that made our society compatible with that. But we don't, they will take a long time to establish, and the political climate appears to be reluctant to even start building them. Thus: a disaster.

[ooqr]

That's exactly what I'd like to see. The problem with UBI is it's not that.

There's room for more than one social program in dire circumstances, but ideally we should have a social structure which incentivizes doing good. Help those who can't help others, and encourage those who can to do so.

[oconnore]

I'd like that too, but I think at this point, tactically, we need to come together on "we need some social programs, period", and not bicker so much about what that looks like on the first iteration -- there is always a second iteration to be had.

[ooqr]

Finally someone who sways me. I agree.

I do advocate at least modicum of empiricism and caution, an approach of testing ideas on city level before country.

[juhanima]

Making the society compatible with that actually sounds like an excellent idea. Why not?

[WalterSear]

> the political climate appears to be reluctant to even start building them.

[mcherm]

> Yes, think of the poor truck drivers. I'm sure they love doing a dull job.

I have met some truck drivers who DO love their job. They have spoken about the opportunity to travel (that from a husband-and-wife driver team who claimed to enjoy living on the road). They speak of the opportunity to own their own business (although, to be fair, independent truckers are becoming less common).

[ooqr]

See: "And if people lament losing a particular job and having to pick up a new one, well, sorry but that's reality. I could just as soon lament not getting paid to doodle cartoons."

[gnaritas]

You're rather missing the point; AI will create a shortage of work to do. The alternatives you mention aren't things that pay a living wage so yes, people will be without livelihoods and something akin to UBI will be necessary.

[ooqr]

I'm just saying they should still have something to do. There's plenty that needs to be done.

[gnaritas]

It's not about having something to do, hobbies don't put food on the table, or provide a table, or a roof to go over it. Our current economic system has no answers for a world where labor isn't valued because it's all based on capital and wage labor. You think we're talking about people being bored or something?

Real AI would create mass unemployment, 50% or more of the population unable to find someone to pay them enough to live on because robots will be doing all the jobs they're capable of. How are these people going to survive? That's the issue being discussed.

[asdf8565]

The problem to me isn't concern over keeping truck drivers stuck in a job that's mind numbingly boring.

It's that there is a huge population that relies on that work, and if you haven't noticed, our culture is pretty terrible about offering alternatives.

So should this large swath of people suddenly be on their ass, or even not so suddenly but over time, with no alternative, shit will get real.

Your hard cold facts approach forgets humans are emotionally volatile, and as we're seeing, our social structures not as stable as we tend to believe.

You seem to believe that should the bottom fall out, your cold hard facts about reality will spare you the wrath of a hungry populace.

[mahyarm]

People bring up truck drivers because its a job we can feasibly being replaced soon, doesnt require an expensive education and unlike coal mining, employs a huge amount of people.

[pikzen]

>Yes, think of the poor truck drivers. I'm sure they love doing a dull job.

Yes, they're clearly doing that for the personal achievement that it brings them and not for, maybe, money. That tiny thing we all kind of need.

Jesus Christ, the arrogance of HN sometimes.

[ooqr]

You're very much missing the point. There are lots of jobs that used to exist that are no longer viable. This happens. The fact that people are unemployed is a separate issue from any given job no longer being viable. And yet there's plenty of work that needs doing.

[Animats]

If a job is replaceable by machines, it's not worth doing.

It's not about truck drivers. If your job consists entirely of stuff that goes in and out over a wire, expect to be replaced by computers.

[cr0sh]

> If your job consists entirely of stuff that goes in and out over a wire, expect to be replaced by computers.

If you are a software engineer, and don't understand this - then you don't understand software engineering.

The whole point of software engineering is to automate everything - including software engineering.

What happens afterward...? Who knows...

[ori_b]

> I'm sure they love doing a dull job.

Beats not doing any job at all. Especially given the shape of society that we're going to have for the foreseeable future.

[seanmcdirmid]

a) will happen, it is just a matter of "when" not "if." Of course, "when" could mean tomorrow or a hundred years from now, no one is really sure and there are both optimistic (it will happen in 1975!) and pessimistic (it will happen in the year 2500!) predictions.