People like Elon Musk and Mark Zukerberg, giants in the tech world, are speaking out about universal basic income— the scheme to financially support millions of people who are or will be displaced by artificial intelligence. Musk and Zukerberg do not need a crystal ball —they can see the future, because they helped created it. They know that smart machines are about to replace human labor in every area—from manual to highly skilled jobs such as medicine, law and teaching. Over the next quarter of a century—yes that’s only twenty-five years—they will make many workers, perhaps most workers, redundant.
Now that the Pandora’s box of AI has been opened, nothing can stop it. It’s a double-edged sword, with enough enticement to keep humanity under its spell and immune to its dangers. As you read this, somewhere in the world a focused team, or a lone creative mind is working at break-neck speed to invent the next app, the next set of algorithms that will solve an intriguing puzzle, or master tasks like building websites, creating advertisements, or maintaining blogs, putting even highly skilled people out of a job.
It’s human nature to resist change
Of course, we will ignore this. We will wait to respond until the very last moment when, as happened in the past, steamships replaced sail, and sewing machines replaced the needle and thread, leaving humans who wouldn’t adapt behind. We will wait until these drastic changes affect not only the person next door, but you, your husband or wife, or your own children. It’s human nature to look the other way in the face of profound change.
Once it happens, people will feel victimized, angry and fearful. But, while they are figuring out what to do next, at least they needn’t starve, advocates of basic income say. Research groups, economists and governments are exploring the idea of a basic income — an unconditional regular payment to all adults — which has been gaining acceptability recently.
Some economists argue that providing people with this basic type of financial support will offset the massive loss of jobs to machines, and prevent a collapse of economic and social systems. Wisely, they have advocated experimental initiatives, an approach which even some conservatives have supported.
What are some of the worries about Basic Income?
There is much to think about when considering UBI. Here are some of the concerns:
- Who will get it?
- How much should it be?
- What will happen to existing social programs? Should it be an added benefit?
- Should people be able to work if they can, and still get the UBI?
- How will we pay for it?
- Will it (as some say) reduce the size of government?
- What psychological impact will it have? Will people lose the incentive to work? How will people find meaning in life?
Countries like Finland, Canada and India have moved beyond the question of whether or not the threat of AI is real, and whether or not such a program is needed. They have designed experimental systems, sometimes incorporating entire towns, where people agree to test it out. They are examining how to apply it, what impact it will have on the desire to work, and how to pay for it.
Here’s what happened in Canada
My country, Canada, has experimented with such programs in the past— the most recent attempt was a pilot, launched by the now defeated Liberal government in Ontario.
Ontario’s project is not a true universal basic income because it only includes people below a certain income level. Theoretically, a universal basic income would go to every resident, regardless of how much they earn.
But that is all academic now, since the pilot was abruptly ended by the new Ford (Conservative) government, after only one year into its three-year mandate. This has caused hardship for the 4000 participants of the project. and raised the ire of political opponents, and some members of the public.
A July 31, 2018 article in the Star, (by Rob Ferguson and Laurie Monsebraaten) reported that some people had made major life changes, like starting a new business, or going back to school, when they joined the program. Now they have to reverse these changes, as they attempt to regain their previous lives.
The article reported that Tom Cooper, of the Hamilton Roundtable on Poverty Reduction, who helped recruit the participants, was “deeply disappointed” by the announcement, saying:
“The decision today by the Ford government is shameful, short-sighted and it’s a betrayal of those people they promised would be able to continue on the pilot.”
What happened to this bold and promising program demonstrates the fragility of such ventures. Dissenters tend to look only at the cost, which is frankly simplistic.We know that poverty is a perfect predictor of poor health and early hospitalization, bad educational outcomes, substance abuse and problems with the police – all of which cost Ontario billions. Instead of looking at the whole picture, taking in consideration the possibility of reducing existing expenses in health, education, and social services, this project was rejected out of hand, on an argument based solely on the costs to the taxpayer.
New, inventive and progressive approaches are extremely vulnerable. For this reason, a slow, cautious approach is necessary. I hope many more pilot programs emerge, until governments and their public can see a clear path to implementing complete universal basic income.
The trajectory of human progress has always been a slow and tortuous one. What makes this issue so different is the fact that artificial intelligence is progressing at a much faster rate—warp speed in fact, and is not likely to wait for humans to catch up.
I first heard of this concept way back in the early 1970s when I was studying for a social work degree. Our lecturer referred to it as the ‘Guaranteed Minimum Income’ concept. It seemed to me such an eminently sensible idea that I couldn’t understand why it hadn’t been adopted universally. And now, nearly half a century later, it is still just that – an idea. Meanwhile, more and more people are falling into the poverty trap. We kid ourselves that we are the smartest species on the planet when in fact,we are the dumbest by a mile!
There is great resistance to this idea. I think it stems from the belief that everyone should ‘stand on their own two feet’, and that a basic income would be a ‘handout’. Maybe it goes back to depression times, when people had to be destitute before any help was given. I don’t know—it mystifies me. Thanks, Marian.
Thank you for another very thoughtful and provocative post. The discontinuation of Ontario ‘s Basic Income Pilot Project mystifies me as well. I’m glad that I found your blog (as we are both Vancouver Islanders). I look forward to reading more!
Yes, Donna, I gathered from your writing that you are also from Vancouver Island. It’s a great place, isn’t it? I have strong feelings about the withdrawal of the program, but I must move on!
the current politicians in America still consider Social Security a “hand out.” at least they do in the way they talk about it of late.
if it’s a hand out I’d like to know where all the money went that I paid into it for all the years I worked. I wasn’t even given a choice. it was deducted from my paycheck every month. it makes me so irritated for them to say I’m getting a hand out when I PAID for it each month! as to supporting the upcoming generation(s) I do not know. but it’s demeaning when you worked daily (and were raised with a good work ethic) to feel now that one is getting a hand out when you know good and well you paid into the supposed “hand out”fund that congress keeps ‘dipping into’ for their own needs!
Ditto, tammy j! We pay into social services through our taxes and by deductions from our pay, and yet, at times, we are made to feel that the money given to us through social supports is not earned. I don’t feel one bit badly about the CPP and OAP I receive each month. Thanks for your thoughts!
Old Age Security Pension in Canada is not considered ‘a handout’ and it’s not determined by an income test. OAS is determined by the number of years lived in Canada above the age of 18 to a maximum of 40 years (full OAS Pension) to receive a calculated OAS pension. It would be interesting to find out some of the results that the 4,000 members got in the income tested Basic Income for the one year of the three year program. I still think that a Universal Basic Income is a waste of taxpayer resources and is considered a handout. I also like what the previous Ontario Liberal government program started to do, and I think that the full program should be restored and not responsibly aborted by the new PC Government. I know that there is an urgent need to top up the net incomes of all Canadians living below the poverty line including the Seniors. However, what must be done is getting an updated 21st. century definition of what the poverty line net income should be today. The old stats are ridiculous. Today’s governments seem to think that if they increase the low income groups by a couple of dollars per month then everybody should be happy. And, we should not forget that most of the politicians and public service employees still get a defined benefit pension PLUS bonuses combined with earlier retirements. As a result, they cannot figure out why people with net incomes under the poverty line are still complaining and want change.
Hi Joe. The inability of financially secure (and rich) people to grasp the struggles of those who live below the poverty line is as old as history. Politicians seem to have a defeatist attitude towards poverty, and I’ve often heard the maxim, “the poor will always be with us”. I disagree. Humans have accomplished all manner of very difficult challenges. The difference is political will—the lack of it, rather. We live in a fairly comfortable society in Canada, and the percentage of those who live in poverty is not always accurate, but I’m convinced that few are acquainted with very poor people. Also, sadly, there is no guarantee that those who experienced poverty maintain a degree of empathy for those who have less. Quite often they gravitate towards an attitude of “I pulled myself up by the bootstraps, why can’t you?” I am also saddened that many of our poor here in Canada (and elsewhere) are children. Their lives will be forever influenced by that experience.
Some states here are thinking of charging Amazon and other big companies what the states pay in food stamps, Medicaid, and other benefits for the companies’ employees. The argument is why should taxpayers pay when the companies are making huge profits and don’t pay their employees enough to live on. If Musk and Zuckerberg believe in guaranteed basic income, why don’t they perform the experiments and show how the idea works? There are bound to be problems with it and it’s best to see what they are and make improvements before going to a massive bureaucratic scheme that is so big it can’t be changed for political reasons.
I’m hoping that the AI community is poised to do more research, and perform a variety of experiments to test out the idea basic income. Makes sense. Creating programs and then dumping them for political reasons is such a waste of time, energy and goodwill, as was the case in Ontario. Good ideas, CM!
I have to say that I don’t like this idea. If everyone is guaranteed a basic income regardless of whether they work or not, where is the incentive (for some) to work? I do like the idea of a “Guaranteed Minimum Income” mentioned in the reply by Marian. Determine the minimum net dollar amount needed to live a basic lifestyle in Canada and if a person cannot meet that “minimum income”, then the difference is made up through the tax system. The key term is “minimum income”. They have to be earning an “income” meaning that they have to have a job (any job, and there are lots of “any” jobs out there) to get this top up. Then they would be assessed every year when they do their taxes.
Hi Babs! Workers and small business owners in Canada already have a system involving the key term ‘minimum income’. Check out the T1 General 2017 Income Tax and Benefit Return. Then specifically see Line Item- 453 (Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB) (attach Schedule 6). You get an opportunity to top up your single or family adjusted income every year at tax time. This is specifically geared to workers or small business owners who make a net income within a very low range and who decided to work instead of going on Welfare. Also, seniors get an annual ‘Guaranteed Income Supplement'(GIS) based on their annual net income. The current Liberals in Canada did top up some low income seniors last year however; even though the extra amount is appreciated by most low income seniors it’s no where close to the amount needed to live in a high priced economy.
The whole purpose, Joe, of universal basic income is to address the massive unemployment that is predicted as artificial intelligence infringes on the jobs that people do. Your points are well taken, but they refer to people who have jobs, and businesses that provide services in current demand. If we are to take the existence of AI seriously, I think we need to appreciate how it will affect employment. Of course, no one knows what will happen in the future, or if AI will be a threat at all. What I am advocating is that we acquaint ourselves with the growing use of artificial intelligence so that we can understand how it will affect our future, and future generations.
I think that the kinds of jobs will change in the future much the same way they have throughout history as technology has grown. Agreed that no one knows what will happen and we need to look at it but the first solution shouldn’t be to just give money to people.
There’s no doubt that jobs will change—and some may come about as part of the shift to technology. Thanks, Babs.
Hi Joe,
I’ve heard about the WITB but didn’t really know what it was (I like the sound of it) and I am aware of the GIS for seniors. I’m in favour of both of these as well as any supplement for those with disabilities that prevent them from working. But I am not in favour of supplements to people who are capable of working. They may not all be “dream” jobs but there are jobs out there.
I think a key intent of the universal basic income is to do away with the need to administer the money that people receive. What you are suggesting sounds like a system which would involve even more bureaucracy than we now have. Seems that each recipient will have to have his or her income evaluated, and then ‘topped up’ to a certain standard. All that requires assessment and administration—which only takes away from the amount that each person can receive. Automation, as it unfolds in the next few years, will have the biggest impact on those very jobs that you say are ‘out there’. Those jobs will be the first to be performed by machines. Thanks for your thoughtful ideas Babs—it’s only through discussion and airing of ideas that solutions will appear.
We in India have a long way to go before we need to start to worry about AI and the impact it will have on our populace. I doubt however that we will ever go the universal basic income route.
We have a long way to go too! This discussion is hopefully many years ahead of the time of crisis, but since this is such a complex issue, it’s the best time to start a discussion. India is changing in leaps and bounds—you have a very progressive tech force. But you would know much better than we, here in the Western world, what India needs.
I believe we really can’t create a system that relies on calculations to determine a basic income in a world where costs have become so fluid. ‘How much do I need to retire?’; ‘How much do we need to save for college?’ are only a few questions that seem never to have adequate answers. Instead, I would look removing or greatly reducing costs associated with milk; clean water; flour; in season fruits; seeds; education; sustainable proteins; electricity; mass transportation; and basic health care. In other words help people, all people, to be able to live. How do we pay everyone asks? In our country we pay farmers not to farm, we throw away food, we allow congress to decide what they make and give people power over money they cannot responsibly maintain. We spend on so much crap!! We don’t tax places of worship even ones that are clearly political engines. There is so little accountability for public funds. People worry others will stop working. I very much doubt it. People want more than the basics. When they are adequately fed and educated they will want to be more creative. Anyway, I’d rather err on the side of feeding someone lazy than fail to feed someone powerless. I also don’t worry about finding the money. When there is a war, people always find the money.
Alexandra, so many wise observations in your comment! I grew up on a farm, but I remember my father receiving money not to plant, some years. Even then, as a little kid, I could see the folly in that! We have a terrible system of handling our overflow of food, allowing some people to go without, just to keep prices high. It’s pretty diabolical. And, as you say, our tax system if flawed. But I love your final point—we always find money for wars!
Given predictions for our AI tech future we need to be discussing and planning for future alternatives, also in keeping with extending life expectancies. Theoretically, I could still be around in 25 years, but with increasingly limited contributory capabilities. I could conceivably have greater needs than those for which I’ve planned. The point is, whatever our age, as along as we’re still kickin’ we’re very much affected by how this future evolves. I think we’d be wise to be involved as part of the solution and not part of the problem.
I don’t yet know if I can fully support this idea of a guaranteed personal income, but I’m certainly interested in having the idea explored. Hopefully, there will be new ideas emerging for consideration, too. Appreciate a site like this where they’re discussed.
We should never abdicate our interest in the future—no matter what our age! The world needs our interest and involvement. I like the idea, as you say, to be part of the solution, Joared. I’m not sure I fully endorse it either, but I sure do want to stay in the discussion! Thanks for your ideas.
Meant to add — even in the forties I recall a real estate investor family friend who periodically borrowed small cash down payment sums from my Pop when he had a sudden opportunity acquire area farm land. He then obtained government monies to not plant various crops on these farms — which he never planned to plant in the first place. His wealth grew through the years. Exploitation of government programs can be a concern even as it has been in recent years for in our Medicare health services provisions.
I’m aware that some people are very adept at securing income from government sources. For example, I went to University with a couple of young people who were always on this or that scholarship, regardless of their grades. Not me, though—I just never knew how to go about it!
I heard about this idea on NPR, and it definitely interests me. Employers would definitely have to treat workers better, since being fired would not mean possibly starving or becoming homeless. I think it could work, but I wonder if every job that needs doing would get done.
Taking the threat out of leaving an unsuitable job would encourage workers to do better for themselves, and it would also encourage employers to treat their employees with respect and more kindness. Thanks, Bethany.
Oh my! Another contentious topic.
My immediate thought is where will the money come from? I have not read anywhere that Musk and Zuckerberg have presented any solutions. Just the problem, which they see as progress.
There have been a number of technical revolutions over the centuries but they were widely spaced. This one seems poised to sweep over us very soon.
Only governments in very progressive and forward looking countries who apply themselves to good financial management will manage the changes.
Totalitarian goverents will have no such problems, it will be business as usual with them.
Add to this the nature of people and their unwillingness to allow any benefit to people they see as less deserving and the obstacles seem insurmountable.
Nothing positive in this comment. As I see it theory and practice can sometimes be likened to chalk and cheese. It will take an enlightened and committed person/group to drive this new way forward.
Ignoring it doesn’t bear thinking about.
Alphie
Hi Alphie! I feel, as you do, that we will be confronted by this revolution sooner, rather than later. It’s in our face right now, if we would just look! And when it comes to basic income, you hit the nail on the head with this statement: “(Our) unwillingness to allow any benefit to people they (we) see as less deserving”—therein lies the crux, and it has doomed poor people for centuries. I think there are many “enlightened and committed” people out there, ready to at least discuss this issue, and they are beginning to emerge, finally!
Comments are closed.