[JoeAltmaier]

Automation has put millions out of their jobs, and is growing explosively. They can't all become skilled workers - we don't need another 30 million Engineers even if they could all do that.

So folks work at McD's and the feds pretend its 'employment' but nothing like they used to earn.

Economics isn't solved with platitudes. We're in the middle of a major disruption and it isn't going to be pretty.

[jaworrom]

I realize this, but if mass unemployment ensues, where will the money for UBI come from? It can't be printed from thin air and it simply isn't fair to take from those who sacrificed their time and efforts to build wealth, only to have it taken away.

My hint at the trades (HVAC/Plumbing/whatever) was that the supply will be incredibly low in the next decade or so, when many of these workers retire, but their demand will be higher than ever.

[PeterisP]

Automation that makes 50% of people worthless means that the remaining 50% of required labor can produce the same amount of goods and services.

If you ignore money and look at the flow of stuff, there's nothing impossible - we produced enough to feed, clothe and house all those people back when they worked, and we would still produce enough to feed clothe and house all those people even if half of them have no need to work.

It's a distribution issue. And really, if/when technology causes significant permanent unemployability, there are only two options - either the society chooses to simply redistribute that stuff to people who don't work (despite, as you say "it simply isn't fair to take from those who sacrificed their time and efforts to build wealth"), or the society chooses not to do so, in which case they don't get fed, clothed and housed, and die.

There's no third option - they can't not be a drain on society (that's what being permanently unemployable due to tech changes means) while they're living and need resources. Either society provides basic income also to those who aren't sufficiently productive to earn a living, or they will try to take those resources from society (theft, crime, revolution), or they'll die trying. Thankfully mass technological unemployment isn't that close yet, so we have time to fix the social issues, but it's coming.

[JoeAltmaier]

But it is. The folks who used to be machinists or warehouse workers or assembly line employees, are now working McD's or worse. It looks like employment but in fact the total value of US employment is dropping like a stone. The stats just say "92% employment" and we say "Yay! That's good" but its not good if most of the new employment is a drop in pay and standard of living.

[user5994461]

Actually, money is really printed out of thing air. Well, out of paper to be accurate.

[colemannugent]

But we all know they are talking about wealth, not paper money. You can't create wealth out of thin air. The closest you get is things like stocks, but those are worth what people are willing to pay for them and thus still have real value.

Printing money without adding wealth means each unit of currency is worth less, which tends to ruin the whole "free money" thing.

[JoeAltmaier]

No, it doesn't. The amount private citizens are paid in a UBI would be very small compared to the economy. Inflation would still be a thing, but this is a small part of it.

We print money now; but its loaned out thru the federal reserve. How is that ok, but not directly distributing it to citizens?

Economics is complicated. A UBI can work.

[JoeAltmaier]

Its not a zero-sum game. Automation means folks aren't sacrificing their time; printing money is very feasible; currently various housing/welfare programs add up to approximately what a UBI would cost right now. Its much closer to reality than we imagine.