
Universal Basic Income + Automation + Plutocracy = Dystopia - ed-209
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/09/08/universal-basic-income-automation-plutocracy-dystopia/
======
aazaa
The thesis seems to go something like this:

UBI eliminates the last bargaining chip the masses have - labor. Without
workers, there can be no strikes. With everyone dependent on the UBI for
livelihood, nobody could afford to oppose the system.

This is what the "plutocrats" are after. Masses without a lever to organize.

I don't necessarily agree with the thesis, it's just that the article really
doesn't get to the point.

~~~
esotericn
Surely it's automation that eliminates the bargaining chip, not UBI?

~~~
sabujp
automation can't eliminate the bargaining chip if the populace have no means
to purchase goods produced by automation. That's why it's actually UBI that
makes a huge chunk of people a slave to the system

~~~
baddox
But if the rich people need people to have money to buy their goods, and
you’re saying UBI would be this money, where is the UBI money coming from? Why
couldn’t the rich people just get that money directly?

~~~
AstralStorm
Why would the rich need the proles to buy anything, when their automated
factories would make anything they want for them?

The thing is, the rich only have the threat of violence then to keep poorer
masses in check. Though there are many kinds of violence, disease, starvation,
homelessness.

The thing is, without the dictates of the rich, there will be places they
would be unable or unwilling to reach. There, a socialism of even purer kind
could start given enough automation. The problem would be hydraulic despotism.
Resources like water, oil, metals would be hard to get.

------
apocalypstyx
I've always wondered (at the furthest end of full-automation) what's to stop a
collection of billionaires, equipped with their self-perpetuating, self-
assembling, hermetic technological sphere, from deciding to turn the planet
into their own personal Eden again by eliminating the 99.9% of humans that are
no longer needed to keep civilization as was known before going? Offer a voice
command and this self-functional tech (a dream at this point, admittedly, but
a dream that many are actively pursuing) builds a fleet of drones and expert
systems / AI work out the best strategy to achieve the end. People will say,
oh the masses will rise up and eat the rich, but when the rich are in the
their world war II-proof self-contained underground habitats with banks of
genetic samples from every plant and animal formerly on Earth, there isn't
going to be much worry about collateral damage; so chemical, genetic, germ
warfare, all of it can be on the table. It might even be a video game, they
could let their kids fly killer drones before dinner.

Not possible? Not technologically yet. But how many 'normal' people complain
about there being 'too many people'? And if someone just has to talk to fancy
Alexa on steroids to get whatever they want, why should they keep me around?
Adulation? Holographics, gynoids, and there's and app for that.

~~~
vincnetas
Rich people (most which are smart) are smart enough to understand that this
not how you would be able to create progress.

~~~
AstralStorm
But would they understand why they need any progress?

And furthermore, rich are perfectly capable of science, I bequeathe to you a
gentleman scientist archetype.

~~~
vincnetas
Yes, but you need a lot of people "doing science". You need a lot of people
just to not forget what we already know.

------
Mediterraneo10
Getting the legislative votes to enact UBI is one thing. But my fear is that
politicians would just think that after that, their task is done. In fact, it
has hardly begun. The state would need to offer the masses of perpetually un-
or underemployed people activities, things to do with their lives. This would
be a hard sell in the USA especially, where historically there has been
relatively little state support of community infrastructure, but the private
institutions like churches and clubs that used to provide that infrastructure
have now collapsed.

The Nordic countries have experienced this problem firsthand, where in spite
of a safety net and generous funding of arts, culture, and leisure in areas
suffering from high unemployment, a substantial number of people still prefer
to drink their lives away or hang out on internet fora to complain about how
they feel no purpose in their lives.

~~~
mikhuang
I don’t know what things are like in Nordic countries but I feel there’s tons
of things that need to be done in the USA. Perhaps things like time banking
for giving credit for all the tasks a community needs would be nice?
[https://www.yang2020.com/policies/modern-time-
banking/](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/modern-time-banking/)

~~~
mistermann
Not only is that an enlightened policy, I love the way it's presented. If all
candidates were forced to clearly define their policies in that form, in
writing, instead of the current spoken debate theatre we use, perhaps we could
get out of this negative feedback loop we're in.

------
ambicapter
The alternative to UBI + all jobs automated away is just all jobs automated
away. I don't see how UBI is the problem here.

~~~
notus
It's how people will morally justify the situation saying it's "good enough".
Even though their quality of life could be much better. The alternative is no
UBI which creates more glaring problems if people can't meed their physical
needs and a less complacent population.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
> It's how people will morally justify the situation saying it's "good enough"

This is a logical fallacy. It can be claimed that any human right can make the
population complacent: 5 days work week, public healthcare and so on and there
is no evidence to prove it's true.

On the contrary, it's well known that people with free time can become
socially and politically engaged, while people working 2 jobs have no time for
it.

------
unoti
Article says:

> They can’t organize labor strikes if they have no labor.

The idea of UBI isn’t to make it so that the masses never work again. The idea
is so they don’t starve and die when between jobs. It’s to give people a real
chance to live their lives while training or retooling. Money gives people
choices and options. Today’s lack of choices for people at the lowest levels
of income amounts to slavery.

Low income people can and will still work under a UBI system. So I’m not sure
the article’s central thesis makes sense.

~~~
leshow
Yeah, it's not like 12k a year is enough to live on. People on UBI will still
need jobs.

~~~
maxerickson
A lot of time people talking about 'basic income' intend the 'basic' to
indicate it would be sufficient to cover needs.

12k in the US is not so bad for costs other than healthcare (lots of families
of 3 are living on $35,000).

~~~
dragonwriter
> 12k in the US is not so bad for costs other than healthcare (lots of
> families of 3 are living on $35,000).

Expenses do not scale down linearly with household size.

~~~
maxerickson
Yes, people depending solely on a $12k basic income might have to, uh, do
something like live with other people.

Turns out that has a real impact on expenses even when they aren't family.

~~~
dragonwriter
Yes, living with other low-income, unable-to-afford-to-survive-independently
can drive up your expenses considerably.

------
godtoldmetodoit
I don't really understand the argument here, and the writer didn't look into
the rest of Yang's platform that addresses the plutocracy part of this
equation.

Is our current system captured by the wealthy and special interests?
Absolutely, and his Democracy Dollars and Ranked Choice Voting policies
directly address those, and as a supporter I'm more excited about those two
positions then the UBI as I think it is even more of a structural change.

I highly recommend his talk with Lawrence Lessig, who has been fighting the
good fight against corruption for years.

[https://youtu.be/kjiHwx6bpkg](https://youtu.be/kjiHwx6bpkg)

~~~
zhoujianfu
Also check out represent.us!

~~~
godtoldmetodoit
Yes! I'm a volunteer with them as well, great non partisan organization trying
to get some simple but absolutely transformative changes done in how our
Democracy functions.

------
mikhuang
I’m not sure I understand the argument. A mass of angry people who have their
basic needs met seems a good force for confronting exploitation. The Yang
campaign specifically is the one very vocally calling out for capturing the
fruits of automation to share.

------
leshow
The argument here is terrible. Basically, billionaires want UBI, therefore it
must be bad for us. Sorry, but you have to do better than that.

You need to actually argue against the principles not just assume bad faith of
those supporting it.

~~~
_bxg1
The author does argue the principles. Power balance between the elites and
everyone else has always kept things from getting _too_ bad. Historically
there has been violent revolution; more recently developed societies have
empowered people through capitalism (despite its many flaws, it serves this
crucial purpose). So labor movements have replaced violence in many cases. As
the author says, economic contribution is the only real leverage regular
people have. Without that we'd be reliant on the continued goodwill of the
ultra-powerful. How has that played out historically?

------
agentultra
This article reads more like a paranoid manifesto. Immortal billionaires
controlling a society that cannot revolt? Like vampires or something?

A UBI seems like it should be more like a social assistance program where the
people receiving it get to decide how to allocate the funds instead of a
bureaucratic institution.

------
zhoujianfu
Sites down for me, but I’m more of the feeling UBI + automation = utopia.

I guess maybe utopia + plutocracy = dystopia?

~~~
BubRoss
Centralization of power and lack of independence is never going to be a utopia
for long.

~~~
godtoldmetodoit
Yes centralization of power is an issue, and our current system rewards
corruption and listening to special interests.

Democracy Dollars and some of Yangs other policies directly address this.

His whole platform is about giving people more individual freedom and power.

------
petermcneeley
When automation is something feared by such a large fraction population you
are already living in the dystopia.

------
joelx
An alternative idea to UBI that achieves many of the same ends is to remove
all taxes other than a wealth tax. A wealth tax actually would greatly augment
UBI.

~~~
eximius
How do those two accomplish the same ends? UBI gives money, a tax takes money.

Even if the wealth tax could go negative at low income levels, it doesn't seem
obvious that this would _augment_ UBI.

------
pdkl95
Vi Hart[1] wrote a very detailed essay about UBI + AI (automation) leading to
"dystopia".

"Changing my Mind about AI, Universal Basic Income, and the Value of Data"

[https://theartofresearch.org/ai-ubi-and-
data/](https://theartofresearch.org/ai-ubi-and-data/)

[1] creator of "Doodling in math class", "Pi Is (still) Wrong", and other fun
math videos

------
RubenSandwich
Mirror:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20190908093705/https://caitlinjo...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190908093705/https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/09/08/universal-
basic-income-automation-plutocracy-dystopia/)

------
gmuslera
Stopping UBI won't stop automation, and you will still have to deal with the
potentially massive rise of unemployment that could be caused by automation.
You still will have dystopia with just automation and plutocracy, but somehow
you will need to solve the implied unemployment, or the dystopia will be far
worse.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
I think really plutocracy + anything is dystopia. There’s just no way a small
group of wealthy elites can organize society to pursue their (the plutocrats’)
interests without devolving to dystopia.

Some of the best things about society are that plutocrats can be brought to
justice and market forces can bring financial empires down. These are
extremely critical sorts of checks & balances on plutocracy, and we need to
entrench them more and more, to make it harder and harder for plutocrats to
hide from legal or financial consequences.

------
patientplatypus
_We’re going to have to stop using up energy driving to jobs the world doesn’t
need to produce crap you have to propagandize people into believing they want
so they’ll spend money on it and then throw it in the landfill. That’s
obviously an insane way for an increasingly technologically advanced species
to continue to function, and one way or another we are going to have to start
doing a lot more nothing quite soon._

And we won't stop, because people would rather kill each other over their
creature comforts than come to the realization that all people are inherently
equal and we need to share a limited pool of resources.

There is no solution and this will all end in tears.

------
missosoup
UBI is a good idea in principle but a gateway to dystopia in practice. UBI and
similar systems are an easily abused vector to create a new slave class.

Relevant reading: Manna: Two Visions of Humanity's Future

~~~
petermcneeley
Can you detail how giving stipend resources to everyone leads to a new slave
class? Slavery is forced labor.

~~~
eximius
I can see what their though process is.

1\. All resources are distributed for labor in an open market. 2\. All
resources are held, some are distributed for labor in an open market, some are
distributed for UBI. 3\. All resources are held, there is little to no open
market left, the rest is distributed via UBI. 4\. UBI now require certain
conditions to be claimed, such as participation in various labor programs, or,
perhaps, whatever program you are assigned to. The open market has collapsed
or is too small to offer a meaningful alternative to, effectively,
economically enforced labor.

Think of an economy like in Player Piano: only the engineers have jobs. The
rest 'work' for their pay, but have no agency.

~~~
vincnetas
"UBI now require certain conditions to be claimed"

No it does not. That the idea of universal basic income. Everyone gets it.

~~~
eximius
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Each stage is an evolution of policy. Once people rely
on UBI and don't have easily accessible alternative options, those who control
UBI can corrupt it to control those who depend on it.

We have seen this happen, generally with good intentions, in Federal funding
for roads and such.

I'm not saying this course of events is inevitable, only that it is very
possible to imagine. Particularly now, as many of our enshrined institutions
are being corroded.

------
marknadal
UBS is a better alternative to UBI.

I wrote a pretty lengthy article about this & the evolution of wealth:
[http://free.eco](http://free.eco) .

~~~
onemoresoop
What is UBS?

~~~
klyrs
Universal basic services

------
aklemm
The plutocracy, though...that’s the actual problem.

------
whytaka
The one thing that's necessary above all else is a strong Estate Tax regime
that battles all the sneaky ways to avoid the taxman.

Dynastic wealth is what creates civilizational rot. A mobile populace with
fluctuating power centers spells dynamism.

Let us think of all the poor children born to rich families who would not get
the chance to tell the story of their self-made wealth.

------
dragonwriter
Plutocracy = Dystopia; the rest of the equation is noise.

------
Geee
We don't need UBI, because automation will naturally decrease prices,
eventually to the negative. That means there will be more stuff than anyone
can consume, thus it's less expensive to give it away than to store or
demolish it.

I think this will lead to the end of the human race. We are becoming useless,
and have already stopped reproducing. Only a few will survive, supported by
technology that they no longer understand. When it fails, the remaining people
will die, or start everything again without any technology.

~~~
nathan_f77
A species doesn't really need to be "useful" in order to survive. It just
needs to reproduce or continue living. We haven't stopped reproducing as a
species. I can't imagine a future where humans decide to let ourselves die out
just because we've built lots of amazing machines that take care of all of our
needs.

> Only a few will survive, supported by technology that they no longer
> understand.

I think the human population might shrink to somewhere around 10-100 million
over the next 10,000 years. It's hard to conceptualize, but humans were around
10,000 years ago, and we'll be around 10,000 years from now.

I personally believe that we're heading towards a utopian future, although
there will be a lot of serious bumps along the way. Maybe we'll agree to
maintain a population of 10 million humans on earth, and there will be many
more living on interstellar arks that are slowly heading towards distant
planets. We will have achieved immortality, so the birth rate will be very
close to zero.

~~~
Geee
The problem might be that 10-100 million people isn't enough to maintain the
level of technology or keep it in control. Now we have 7.7 billion people and
we can barely keep important software secure. I think we are still way too
dependent on a very few exceptional people.

Everything depends on whether the machines can fix and improve themselves, and
do we want to give them that level of independence. If they're independent,
I'm not sure if they would want to keep us alive.

I think we should aim for as many people as possible, but currently it seems a
lost cause.

