
Ro Khanna’s Plan to Save Trump Country - dankohn1
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/silicon-valley-lawmakers-1-trillion-plan-save-trump-country/
======
yellowapple
I stopped reading at the implication that truck drivers are suffering from
automation. They might in a few years, maybe, when Otto is mainstream and can
actually handle "last mile" driving, but in the meantime, trucking companies
are hiring rather aggressively right now from what I can tell (Swift, for
example, has been breathing down my neck for weeks just because I put in an
application on a whim - without even a Class A permit, mind you, let alone any
experience behind the wheel of a big rig).

The reality is that driving a full-on tractor-trailer setup is way more
complex than ordinary automobile driving, and carries way more safety
implications. That means a much more complex (read: expensive) autopilot
system is necessary to really replace the meatware behind the wheel. I'm all
for automating away the simple parts, though, thus leaving the hard parts to
the driver; that's doable with today's tech.

------
digitalzombie
It's not going to gain traction. Basic income may have benefits but a better
solution that can be pass is programs to retrain these out of work people for
new jobs. Free education or trade would make us more competitive. A social
safety net for those who lose jobs from automation is a reasonable solution.

Basic income is a pipe dream in term of a new idea and we can't even get
universal healthcare. I rather have universal healthcare first before this
concept.

~~~
giardini
digitalzombie says:"... a better solution that can be pass is programs to
retrain these out of work people for new jobs. Free education or trade would
make us more competitive."

There is no evidence that more education makes countries more competitive. It
certainly elevates the level of social and political discourse(just look at
Egypt!8-)) and makes life more pleasant, which are certainly desirable goals.
But our commonly-held belief that education (and especially, re-education)
will bring about a resurgence in the economy is misguided.

"where has all the education gone?" \- Lance Pritchett
[https://www.google.com/search?q=pritchett+%22where+has+all+t...](https://www.google.com/search?q=pritchett+%22where+has+all+the+education+gone)

There is also little evidence that education will reduce inequality:

"Why More Education Won’t Fix Economic Inequality"

[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/upshot/why-more-
education...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/upshot/why-more-education-
wont-fix-economic-inequality.html#)

the source paper:
[http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/increasing_education_w...](http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/increasing_education_what_it_will_and_will_not_do_for_earnings_inequal/)
/

~~~
foota
The times article states that education doesn't meaningfully affect income
inequality, because rising inequality is mostly driven due to the rise of
super wealthy. It is my opinion that we should be more concerned with the
welfare of the bottom, not how high the ceiling is.

------
devoply
How does basic income square with competitiveness. Imagine that there is a
thing called an automatable job, that is a job that can be done by a robot who
is going to replace a human. Imagine you tax a company based on the number of
robots they have doing automatable jobs. You take this money and you give it
to former workers for free as basic income. Now the question is
competitiveness. Is a company any more competitive for having automated such a
job rather than letting the former worker get paid for free? How does
automation square with competitiveness. I don't really think it does.
Competitiveness increases are only possible in cases where there are cost
savings. If there are none, then how is your company any more competitive. You
might as well as let the worker keep doing the job rather than automate it.
This then I think has far reaching implications about how such an economy
looks like and why anyone would choose to work in such an economy... other
than the fact that you let companies keep more money and give less money to
unemployed workers. But that then cuts into consumption. And only enriches the
small minority who already hold most of the wealth further. Sooner or later
you do get to a point where no one is working and everyone is getting paid and
there is little point in the economy.

Automation also makes productivity into a commodity because all machines are
equally as productive. Legislations such as patents make no sense in such an
arena.

~~~
bitJericho
Sounds wonderful doesn't it? Everyone free to pursue their dreams while robots
feed and clothe us.

------
itchyjunk
"One recent study found that for every one robot introduced to the workforce,
six related human jobs disappear. But those six humans still need to get by. "
[0]

I am not sure I agree with the definitions and impact of robots in the study.
"Automation" helping with efficiency is not the same as "robots competing for
human jobs".

"[...] which would roughly double the amount of money going into low-income
families’ pockets. The main difference between Khanna’s plan and the Silicon
Valley utopianists’ version of basic income is that for now recipients would
still have to have a job to qualify. Think of it more as a basic income warm-
up."

A basic income (also called basic income guarantee, Citizen's Income,
unconditional basic income, universal basic income, or universal demogrant) is
a form of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country
regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or
some other public institution, in addition to any income received from
elsewhere. [1]

Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support
for citizens without current means to support basic needs. In most developed
countries, welfare is largely provided by the government from tax income, and
to a lesser extent by charities, informal social groups, religious groups, and
inter-governmental organizations. [2]

It's a dog. Only, it's not. It's a fish. But it's a warm up for a dog, just
give it a few billion years to evolve. /s

The problem is, next time someone talks about UBI, i'll not be certain what
they mean. When too many different idea is lumped into the same word because
you're trying to milk the market that invested in some concept related to the
word, you just muddy the water. Like "AI" or "blockchain".

I like the idea of UBI[1] but I don't think it will be paid for by a
government thats ~$15+ trillion in debt. Feels more like a publicity stunt but
I am a pessimistic person in general so maybe I am wrong.

\----------- [0]
[http://www.nber.org/papers/w23285](http://www.nber.org/papers/w23285)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare)

Edit: Typos

~~~
notahacker
Indeed whilst it might have many of the posited benefits of a UBI, introducing
new _targeted subsidies aimed specifically at people who fall into the right
salary bracket_ is the precise opposite of the design philosophy of the UBI.

But the UBI waters have always been muddied, not least by its proponents'
fondness for studies of the effect of targeted handouts of money paid for by
outside funds in addition to existing welfare systems, which also isn't
remotely close to simulating a UBI

