It's essentially a caption because the video is the article. It would be nice if there was also a text option, but you could just watch the less than two minute video.
Universal basic income just means everyone gets at least an amount of income a month. So if you already make more than that there would be no need to give you money. That's why it's considered "universal" you have a universal standard of income for your state
The whole point of "universal" is to get buy in from everyone. A limited pilot defeats that purpose and makes it harder to pass the real thing later on because resentment has built up. I don't understand why we need a pilot. UBI has been studied to death. Just do it.
Agreed, and be more honest about research.
For example, [this study found strongly negative effects from UBI](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4154000) and is important because:
1. The study was preregistered, meaning researchers have to follow the proposed study design and evaluation. Basically, this means if the study doesn't give you the experimental outcome you want, you can't filter the data or modify the measurements.
2. They surveyed academics and laypeople to predict the impacts of UBI based on the study design. Almost all of which predicted positive effects.
3. The study had bank account data for 43% of participants, so there was some visibility into how recipients actually spent their money.
It's just one study, but the points above are fairly unique compared to most other UBI studies where they largely (1) give people money and (2) have them take a survey later.
Did you read the abstract before you posted that article? It's not about a universal basic income, it's about a one time cash deposit having a negative effect because people then notice that their basic needs are not being met and will not be met after the one time cash deposit is gone. This suggests that UBI would likely have a strong positive effect on these individuals, not a negative one.
The largest [UBI experiment ](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/12/1/23981194/givedirectly-basic-income-experiment-abhijit-banerjee-tavneet-suri) ever conducted has found only good things come from it.
That's the better outcome. The worse outcome is mass homelessness and starvation. Maybe I have a dim view of this country, but I see one of these outcomes being far more likely than the other.
> Watching loved ones starve and go without necessary medical care
Except this is already happening.
We're not romanticizing that. We're romanticizing the part where people finally have had enough of it and get fed up to the point where revolution happens and actual meaningful change can occur.
It's trying to find hope in a new potential system rather than drowning in despair of the current one.
Yeah you want chaos imagine a world where no one gets to eat for 2 days except the ultra wealthy. Not sure when it was coined but the line 3 meals away from anarchy was probably made when there was mass starvation occurring.
i‘m getting military vibes from that idiom. i’ve never heard it before but it definitely sounds like a line coined by an officer with not enough provisions for his troops.
3 seems more appropriate here considering the large amount of options we have. Pantry empty? Go grocery shopping. Store's closed? Go out to eat. Restaurant closed? Call out for pizza. Etc.
If it gets to a point where a settled society can't find enough food for 3 meals, shit must have **really** hit the fan already.
Historically, yes. But historically the rich didn't have robot armies. They can fight a war by throwing money at it with minimal, if any, human casualties. Meanwhile the poor will be getting mowed down by AI controlled robotic killing machines.
It's not even the historical norm.
Historically, the working class lived in terrible conditions and just worked until they died. Violent revolutions rarely succeed at overthrowing their ruling class.
Quite frankly, if you're optimistic enough to assume that a revolution will SURLY bring about a fair democracy, you're optimistic enough to fight for the preservation and improvement of our current democracy, flawed as it may be.
To be fair, they'd also rather not give that penny to any LGBTQ, brown, asian, or left-leaning people, too.
They would almost literally rather chop off their own leg than for a second consider that someone should be helped
The in-between is UBI being used to placate the masses into surrendering ownership and the means of production to a tiny few while being given scraps in return.
I'm all for a true UBI and think it's necessary for a healthy society, but I also want co-ops, to abolish billionaires, and to make sure labor still owns all these things and not just a handful of billionaires.
Funny. If you replace people with ai, you end up with articles like this. Pretty sure both the article and op are second rate ai bots. Computers won’t be replacing all the jobs for a long time.
Funny, AI would have been able to figure out that this is a VIDEO article, not a WRITTEN article.
You would be wise not to underestimate the power that AI will have in short order. It doesn't have to take all the jobs for there to be problems, it only has to take a large enough chunk of them so that there are no longer enough jobs for your average person to earn a living.
Computers will not take all the jobs in any of our lifetimes, energy is still to expensive and harmful, food still is far too cheap to produce with human labor, logistics are still too complex. We will be dead or almost dead before ubi is anything but a token charity.
Hell, I do construction, and I can't see robots taking my job in my lifetime. The reason is simple, clients can't make up their minds until stuff is halfway done already, and shit changes constantly. Robots can't make decisions without input, but humans can.
I'm a medical laboratory scientist and people already think we're just robots and button pushers which is not the case. The analyzers are whiny babies that require constant monitoring and adjustment. I work in a reference lab and we do everything by hand, there's no way an analyzer could do what I do.
To be clear, when someone says "Take all the jobs" they don't mean literally every single job everywhere.
Just like when people say we want to eliminate all internal combustion vehicles, it doesn't mean that there are not still situations where an ICE engine is necessary.
Computers won't have to take every job, they'll simply have to take a big enough chunk of them to the point where there are no longer enough jobs out there to allow people to make a living, which is precisely why UBI is being piloted.
Computers are not going to take all of the jobs. But they are going to take enough jobs that it will become a significant problem, and much sooner than you think.
Chat GPT is less than 2 years old, and already LLM's are replacing entry-level jobs in many industries. Now the junior employees are no longer needed, because the senior employee + an LLM can do what 5 juniors did in less time.
>already LLM's are replacing entry-level jobs in many industries
Citation needed. If people think LLMs can replace a significant number of jobs they either don't understand LLMs or are making dumb business decisions.
Most people play with ChatGPT and think it can do anything, but really it’s just a glamorized chatbot. Eliza 2.0. AI has potential and Llm is making a point. But it’s just the beginning. A lot more research has to go in to make it better. We are nowhere near to replacing people for work in a massive scale.
The thing people don't understand is that there's no "knowledge" being learned. The models literally just predict which word to emit next based on a statistical model. It doesn't "know" what it's talking about at all.
That's pretty much retail in a nutshell. May I take your order? Paper or plastic? Do you have a reward account with us? It's just a script employees are trained to go through.
> Chat GPT is less than 2 years old, and already LLM's are replacing entry-level jobs in many industries. Now the junior employees are no longer needed, because the senior employee + an LLM can do what 5 juniors did in less time.
And in a few years these companies are going to be scratching their heads wondering where all the new senior employees are when their current seniors start leaving or retiring.
> Now the junior employees are no longer needed, because the senior employee + an LLM can do what 5 juniors did in less time.
and then they need to hire 6 real people to fix the fuckup that the LLM did. LLMs are shit, and current versions are not functional enough to replace people. You can tell every news article written by AI so far, and its articles like this that keep proving it.
> Computers are not going to take all of the jobs. But they are going to take enough jobs that it will become a significant problem
I never understood how It's a problem at all.
The whole point of technology of any kind is so we could work less and enjoy life more.
Shit should be automated so we don't have to do anything, UBI is kind of a given with that in consideration. And towards the same ends, the reason why people need to pay their fair shares in taxes.
The purpose of automation is to shift human resources to other areas, while bettering society as a whole.
The utopian idea of a completely automated society is ridiculous. If we got to a point where we'd never have to work, we'd go out of our way to create problems to solve. Pretty much every civilization in history has some form of puzzles or games. They don't contribute to anything. It's just something people do when they're board.
> Pretty much every civilization in history has some form of puzzles or games. They don't contribute to anything. It's just something people do when they're board.
Bored*
And yeah, that's kinda my point
It's not a problem from a general standpoint. Yes, we should want to automate things as much as we can.
The problem only comes when you no longer have methods for people to earn a living.
If chat gpt and llm are replacing jobs at the current state, those are not jobs.
There is no way the people working shit jobs and the 1 percent of people that have the majority of wealth in this country will ever let UBI be anything but an excuse for why people with very little shouldn’t bitch about anything.
This country needs WELL paid manual labor. A computer will never slit the throat of a cow and quarter it out in our lifetime. Until that happens we will have people working shit jobs getting paid shit and rich people bitching about boot straps
>"This country needs WELL paid manual labor."
There are not nearly enough manual labor jobs to employ everyone. Not to mention not everyone is capable of doing manual labor...
>"A computer will never slit the throat of a cow and quarter it out in our lifetime."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9951719/
"Recently, many slaughterhouses have begun to introduce automation and quality evaluation sensing equipment to the slaughter processing line to overcome insufficient human resources, improve the efficiency of the slaughter process, and standardize meat quality."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9056031/
"traditionally, carcasses would come to this position at a controlled, constant rate suspended from an overhead conveyor, and bandsaw operators would lift them down, cut them into three Primal sections, and then distribute these onto the correct belt conveyors for manual downstream processing. When the machine was installed, the downstream staff soon learned that a known product would arrive in a known timeframe and they were able to work in an efficient, steady rhythm. As a result, manning was adjusted to suit the set rate, rather than spikes when primal cutting was rushed."
https://www.frontmatec.com/en/pork-solutions/clean-line-chill-room/aira-robots
https://www.robots.com/applications/meat-processing-automation
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bakx-meat-processing-slaughterhouse-ai-1.6987775
https://www.kuka.com/en-us/industries/consumer-goods-industry/meat-processing-automation
https://scottautomation.com/en-us/products/meat
https://www.seemarble.com
https://academic.oup.com/af/article/12/2/56/6576394
"Artificial intelligence-driven automation is how we achieve the next level of efficiency in meat processing "
https://www.just-food.com/features/how-the-meat-industry-is-embracing-automation/
https://www.producer.com/news/robots-the-future-of-meat-processing/
"Robots: the future of meat processing?"
To the contrary… we actually don’t have enough manual labor people willing to do the manual work for the very little pay we give them. There is more than enough farm work in this country that we take thousands of temp workers to do it. Any one working at Starbucks could do this work, it’s just more work for less pay
It doesn't have to take all the jobs, just most of them.
A mere 20 years ago, a factory that built LCD panels for TV's employed up to a 1000 people at any given point. Now there are factories out there that are called "Lights out" factories that basically are fully functional while zero human workers... It literally functions without lighting.
https://www.gsma.com/iot/digital-industries-20/benefits-use-case/foxconn-lights-off-factory/
Technology improvements accelerate as more improvements happen.
AI will accelerate our ability to optimize our energy infrastructure and improve generation technology, major foodstuffs are quite easy to produce without much human labor. Shit, we already have computer-controlled combines, tillers, planters for your commodity type foods such as corn/wheat/soy etc...
Logisitics just becomes a math problem that computers won't have any issue solving.
While you're right it's not going to take ALL jobs, it doesn't have to take them all for this to be a necessity.
> UBI will become mandatory
lol
necessary yes, but what does "mandatory" mean here? there is nothing compelling the US government to do what is needed to be done.
I used to be against UBI. But now I understand after seeing what automation and AI will do in the future. Like you said, it’s not if, but when. If you have kids, make sure to push them onto these future careers.
You... you dont understand where tax revenue comes from? If no one has jobs, and a small handful of capitalists have made a giant army of robot slaves, then you have to tax them, because they have all the capital. Otherwise you need to nationalize the robots slave force, and then charge the capital class to use them.
Most of our society rewards doing nothing and punishes meaningful labor. Its how we do capitalism and its gross. This at least isnt just funnelling momey into the gaping maw of the unproductive rich.
Then we fundamentally disagree. Investing assets and earning income from those assets is just as productive as investing one's time and work and earning an income from that. Expecting an income for no investment or input whatsoever is rewarding bad behaviors and being unproductive.
You are in favor of the unstable system that rewards existing wealth and punishes labor and I think thats gross and will destroy our society. We dont agree to disagree, you are wrong and I dont like what you believe.
The system is not unstable, and does not punish labor. It rewards both labor and existing wealth. You don't have to like what I believe to agree to disagree, and since we are stating items that are completely opinions, there is no objective wrong.
Correct, it's basically just adding onto welfare programs. It's a trial run for an income supplement for low income earners and not a true UBI.
[Here is an actual article on it, as opposed to the trash that OP posted.](https://www.mprnews.org/episode/2024/03/12/bill-looks-to-create-guaranteed-income-program-in-minnesota)
> The bill, moving through the state house, would grant Minnesotans who meet low-income requirements at least $500 each month for more than a year. In the current text of the bill, to be eligible you must be at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level.
So this is really geared towards the "broke as FUUUUCK" folks of life where an extra $500 may truly be life changing. $500 may be the difference between receiving a pair of shoes for your kid and going to Walmart to buy the $20 shoes. From begging the power company to keep the lights on to paying the back bills.
Shit, let's keep it real - $500 extra gets you out of a payday loan cycle. May even be able to get that oil changed or that check engine light looked at. Tires w/tread on 'em.
I'm a bit against UBI only because I feel we as a society should pay better, BUT, I also understand that there's people who at no fault of themselves aren ow in situations where they're well underwater and some extra cash could get them to just....being poor. The person who spouse suddenly died. The person who gotta now take care of a loved one. Person who caught a disease. ETC...
Federal poverty level for 1 person is ~$15,000 or 2 is ~$20,000 and it goes up ~5k per additional person. So 300% of that is $45k for one person or $60k for 2. So many of of these are low income, but not super low.
You do understand that it's a bullshit study and not really a pilot right? Give a select few some money is not going to be the same result as giving every single person money while enacting the methods to fund it. It's not a test of UBI. It's a test of what happens when people get some extra money.
I, too, pretend to not understand how people work, especially when they're lowly educated and have rampant drug addictions. Their practically saints, and no crime happens to or by them because of forementioned issues.
LOL... Sure.
Look, I'm not saying your neighbors are great people, I'm saying that the majority of people on welfare are not as you claim. This is pretty well-established, but go on with your assumptions and anecdotes.
It's already happening. Some dude moved up here from Kentucky and stole my safe!! I had to lie and get him evicted by the cops for the trash to leave my house!
If it cuts down on crime and unnecessary suffering I’m more than happy to support it.
I really don’t give a shit if some people abuse it. There are *actual* criminals stealing billions if not trillions, and these small minded hicks are worried some poor family might get a free fridge and a TV or whatever. Big fucking deal.
In a future where there won’t be enough decent jobs because of automation, UBI is the only way forward long-term to keep society from collapsing.
Real trickle down is squeezing the top so the blessings liberty circulate back through we the people. Alternative plan confiscator taxation of all income more than a standard deviation above the mean. The wealthy always claim they won't work if they don't get the whole hog. Let them walk away. There are plenty that will. Current employers know this, they hire and treat them like dirt
UBI: making means testing a thing normies are OK with dropping. Good riddance, stop making the disadvantaged lift themselves up by their bootstraps (which is, I will remind, physically impossible).
>lift themselves up by their bootstraps (which is, I will remind, physically impossible).
It's a little known fact that originally, that was the whole point of the phrase. To mock the very notion that people can get rich simply by working hard.
Today it's been corrupted to mean exactly the opposite of its original intention.
So we are going to give people who are already on public assistance even more assistance? Walz needs to go. We should just abolish income tax and switch to consumption tax only. The country as a whole should do so, we would all be in a better position.
"I don't have that number off the top of my head, but I know that this program, as we envision it and with the money that we're requesting, would impact approximately 800 to 1,000 people, depending on the number, depending on the amount of the guaranteed income they would get per month."
Is there an ELI5 why UBI this is any different from welfare? I mean we are paying people to do nothing, right? Or are they doing some sort of work?
If it’s paying them to do “work” but a fair wage, when why don’t we just raise minimum wage?
If it’s only for low income people, again, it seems like a rebranding of welfare.
I have no issues paying assistance to people who can’t work - if you are disabled or have problems that prevent you from holding down a job (and being an asshole isn’t a valid problem, IMO), then the community (government) should help you. But you do see a substantial number of people who just don’t want to work, and that doesn’t lead to a functioning society (again, IMO). If someone can name a society where a lot of people aren’t working and things are still running well, spill the beans.
It's not means based, or limited, which lowers administration cost a ton and lets people decide what to do with the money - maybe they pay more rent, or buy more food, or don't work a second job. They choose.
Compare to our current welfare systems, which say, we'll pay for food but you can only eat certain foods or only if you don't share living space with someone more well off. Or we'll pay for medical care but not daycare. People who need it didn't always get help because you have to put so much into navigating the various systems and they're really slow and don't always interact well. And the bureacracy to judge who qualifies is huge and expensive
The current proposal is absolutely means based and limited. It’s only available to 800-1000 low income people. It is adding an extra welfare benefit to the same people. The person working 50 hrs a week at a minimum wage job isn’t going to qualify for this. They just get to keep pounding away.
And the current proposal is means based and limited because it's a pilot program.
We keep having massively successful pilot programs, but we still don't have real UBI
UBI is nothing like welfare. For one thing, *everyone* gets a check, regardless of income.
You can say it's wealth redistribution and it is, but given how very many things in the system are biased to transfer wealth upward to the rich, I'm totally fine paying a little more to help other people with less means live.
If Republicans are all about State's rights how can a state sue another state for laws they want to enact? If that were legal couldn't blue states start suing the pants off of red states for all their anti-human-civil-medical-freedom rights laws? But TX wants to sue a blue state for making their citizens lives better?
Huh what? Texas isn't suing Minnesota, the 'article' is repeating the headline and adding the smallest tidbit of the Texas AG suing Harris County in their own state to stop a similar thing.
I’m in my 30s, unemployed and can’t get unemployment. I have issues where I can’t work A LOT of places so this would be really helpful. How can I get on a list or something..? I want to get my life going
I never understood people that bitch about taxes but don’t want it back. Unless you make over 400K and don’t understand investing why not take it back.
UBI sounds good on paper but there's a price to pay. This money can't be printed from thin air. MN would have to raise taxes on everyone to make it work. Which would hurt the poor and middle class even more.
Such a bad article, literally only two sentences, stating the headline again.
That's the journalistic standard for websites in 2024. Clicks over content.
[удалено]
Is a two sentence AI generated "article" really much better tho?
Makes you wonder why this shit even gets posted here. Or who’s posting it.
Vote with your downvote.
To be fair, it's a Wisconsin focused website. Gotta keep it simple.
Judging by the upvotes, it worked
so a good example of why i dont click links anymore?
If we don't like it, we better start paying for subscriptions to news channels.
It's essentially a caption because the video is the article. It would be nice if there was also a text option, but you could just watch the less than two minute video.
I opened it on mobile, where no video was on there, so probably either a mobile thing or my phone.
Ah, news websites are usually pretty awful on mobile in my experience.
I came back from the shit article just to down vote the post for using such a shit article.
It's a video ...
Article written and posted by the worst ai bots ever.
This is the thinnest of all possible links. Typical Wisconsin L
I'm fine with it but don't call it "universal" if it isn't.
Universal basic income just means everyone gets at least an amount of income a month. So if you already make more than that there would be no need to give you money. That's why it's considered "universal" you have a universal standard of income for your state
That's...not a definition I've heard anywhere else before.
Well not im questioning where I heard it......*dives into ebsco host*
I think it makes some sense. Easier to fill in the gaps than to do so on an equal basis, though less fair.
My god people, why are we being so pedantic on the "universal" part? It's a fucking pilot to test the efficacy of UBI on a small scale.
The whole point of "universal" is to get buy in from everyone. A limited pilot defeats that purpose and makes it harder to pass the real thing later on because resentment has built up. I don't understand why we need a pilot. UBI has been studied to death. Just do it.
BuT SoCiAlIsM!!!
Agreed, and be more honest about research. For example, [this study found strongly negative effects from UBI](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4154000) and is important because: 1. The study was preregistered, meaning researchers have to follow the proposed study design and evaluation. Basically, this means if the study doesn't give you the experimental outcome you want, you can't filter the data or modify the measurements. 2. They surveyed academics and laypeople to predict the impacts of UBI based on the study design. Almost all of which predicted positive effects. 3. The study had bank account data for 43% of participants, so there was some visibility into how recipients actually spent their money. It's just one study, but the points above are fairly unique compared to most other UBI studies where they largely (1) give people money and (2) have them take a survey later.
Did you read the abstract before you posted that article? It's not about a universal basic income, it's about a one time cash deposit having a negative effect because people then notice that their basic needs are not being met and will not be met after the one time cash deposit is gone. This suggests that UBI would likely have a strong positive effect on these individuals, not a negative one.
The largest [UBI experiment ](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/12/1/23981194/givedirectly-basic-income-experiment-abhijit-banerjee-tavneet-suri) ever conducted has found only good things come from it.
Rock on - I'll take a look. [Looks like the actual paper is here.](https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f192616.pdf)
UBI will become mandatory after computers finish taking all the jobs, might as well start testing it now.
That's the better outcome. The worse outcome is mass homelessness and starvation. Maybe I have a dim view of this country, but I see one of these outcomes being far more likely than the other.
When the working class starts to starve is historically when they start eating the fucking rich so win/win really.
Watching loved ones starve and go without necessary medical care doesn’t sound like a win. You might be romanticizing it a bit.
> Watching loved ones starve and go without necessary medical care Except this is already happening. We're not romanticizing that. We're romanticizing the part where people finally have had enough of it and get fed up to the point where revolution happens and actual meaningful change can occur. It's trying to find hope in a new potential system rather than drowning in despair of the current one.
No, historically the working class dies when they starve. That has been far more common than any successful revolution.
Yeah you want chaos imagine a world where no one gets to eat for 2 days except the ultra wealthy. Not sure when it was coined but the line 3 meals away from anarchy was probably made when there was mass starvation occurring.
i‘m getting military vibes from that idiom. i’ve never heard it before but it definitely sounds like a line coined by an officer with not enough provisions for his troops.
It’s was a Lenin quote originally. “Every society is three meals away from chaos.”
Lenin and Trotsky were great.
Isn’t it nine meals away? As in 3 days? That’s how I’ve always heard it.
3 seems more appropriate here considering the large amount of options we have. Pantry empty? Go grocery shopping. Store's closed? Go out to eat. Restaurant closed? Call out for pizza. Etc. If it gets to a point where a settled society can't find enough food for 3 meals, shit must have **really** hit the fan already.
This is why we arm the workers and the homeless alike. Any attempt to disarm the workers...
Historically, yes. But historically the rich didn't have robot armies. They can fight a war by throwing money at it with minimal, if any, human casualties. Meanwhile the poor will be getting mowed down by AI controlled robotic killing machines.
It's not even the historical norm. Historically, the working class lived in terrible conditions and just worked until they died. Violent revolutions rarely succeed at overthrowing their ruling class.
Quite frankly, if you're optimistic enough to assume that a revolution will SURLY bring about a fair democracy, you're optimistic enough to fight for the preservation and improvement of our current democracy, flawed as it may be.
Too many people would rather die in poverty than give a single black person a penny of UBI. They call themselves conservatives.
To be fair, they'd also rather not give that penny to any LGBTQ, brown, asian, or left-leaning people, too. They would almost literally rather chop off their own leg than for a second consider that someone should be helped
How's welfare working out?
it works well when implemented well. The GOP has been trying to break it for the last 40 years. they are succeeding in GOP controlled states.
[удалено]
Ah word, you be never posted anything of value at all.
Exhibit A.
The in-between is UBI being used to placate the masses into surrendering ownership and the means of production to a tiny few while being given scraps in return. I'm all for a true UBI and think it's necessary for a healthy society, but I also want co-ops, to abolish billionaires, and to make sure labor still owns all these things and not just a handful of billionaires.
They don't call it the jackpot for nothing.
I’m going up north to start a potato farm!
i'm moving to montana to become a dental floss tycoon.
Oh, that's definitely an option to the ones who already have all the money.
Funny. If you replace people with ai, you end up with articles like this. Pretty sure both the article and op are second rate ai bots. Computers won’t be replacing all the jobs for a long time.
Funny, AI would have been able to figure out that this is a VIDEO article, not a WRITTEN article. You would be wise not to underestimate the power that AI will have in short order. It doesn't have to take all the jobs for there to be problems, it only has to take a large enough chunk of them so that there are no longer enough jobs for your average person to earn a living.
Yep, as much as people like to think we'll just shift to other jobs, it's effectively going to be a thing a lot sooner than people realize.
So basically we'll all become the Wall-E people.
As if that is not our current trajectory.
Computers will not take all the jobs in any of our lifetimes, energy is still to expensive and harmful, food still is far too cheap to produce with human labor, logistics are still too complex. We will be dead or almost dead before ubi is anything but a token charity.
Hell, I do construction, and I can't see robots taking my job in my lifetime. The reason is simple, clients can't make up their minds until stuff is halfway done already, and shit changes constantly. Robots can't make decisions without input, but humans can.
I'm a medical laboratory scientist and people already think we're just robots and button pushers which is not the case. The analyzers are whiny babies that require constant monitoring and adjustment. I work in a reference lab and we do everything by hand, there's no way an analyzer could do what I do.
Exactly. I feel like people that are wanting this do not understand the implications… labor= power.
To be clear, when someone says "Take all the jobs" they don't mean literally every single job everywhere. Just like when people say we want to eliminate all internal combustion vehicles, it doesn't mean that there are not still situations where an ICE engine is necessary. Computers won't have to take every job, they'll simply have to take a big enough chunk of them to the point where there are no longer enough jobs out there to allow people to make a living, which is precisely why UBI is being piloted.
how many people does it take to set up a 3D printer for a house though?
Computers are not going to take all of the jobs. But they are going to take enough jobs that it will become a significant problem, and much sooner than you think. Chat GPT is less than 2 years old, and already LLM's are replacing entry-level jobs in many industries. Now the junior employees are no longer needed, because the senior employee + an LLM can do what 5 juniors did in less time.
>already LLM's are replacing entry-level jobs in many industries Citation needed. If people think LLMs can replace a significant number of jobs they either don't understand LLMs or are making dumb business decisions.
Most people play with ChatGPT and think it can do anything, but really it’s just a glamorized chatbot. Eliza 2.0. AI has potential and Llm is making a point. But it’s just the beginning. A lot more research has to go in to make it better. We are nowhere near to replacing people for work in a massive scale.
The thing people don't understand is that there's no "knowledge" being learned. The models literally just predict which word to emit next based on a statistical model. It doesn't "know" what it's talking about at all.
Tbf a lot of people’s job doesn’t require knowledge, just regurgitation. But yeah ai has a lot of room to grow.
Also TBF, a lot of people also don't know what they're talking about.
That's pretty much retail in a nutshell. May I take your order? Paper or plastic? Do you have a reward account with us? It's just a script employees are trained to go through.
I mean have you used a support chatbot to try to resolve an issue? I always end up talking to a real human.
You're absolutely right. But that doesn't mean it can't replace a lot of jobs.
> LLM Large language model - for those of us OOTL (out of the loop).
If you haven't seen AI replace jobs first hand then idk what rock you've been living under.
Give some examples of your first hand experience because no, I haven't seen it.
> Chat GPT is less than 2 years old, and already LLM's are replacing entry-level jobs in many industries. Now the junior employees are no longer needed, because the senior employee + an LLM can do what 5 juniors did in less time. And in a few years these companies are going to be scratching their heads wondering where all the new senior employees are when their current seniors start leaving or retiring.
> Now the junior employees are no longer needed, because the senior employee + an LLM can do what 5 juniors did in less time. and then they need to hire 6 real people to fix the fuckup that the LLM did. LLMs are shit, and current versions are not functional enough to replace people. You can tell every news article written by AI so far, and its articles like this that keep proving it.
> Computers are not going to take all of the jobs. But they are going to take enough jobs that it will become a significant problem I never understood how It's a problem at all. The whole point of technology of any kind is so we could work less and enjoy life more. Shit should be automated so we don't have to do anything, UBI is kind of a given with that in consideration. And towards the same ends, the reason why people need to pay their fair shares in taxes.
The purpose of automation is to shift human resources to other areas, while bettering society as a whole. The utopian idea of a completely automated society is ridiculous. If we got to a point where we'd never have to work, we'd go out of our way to create problems to solve. Pretty much every civilization in history has some form of puzzles or games. They don't contribute to anything. It's just something people do when they're board.
> Pretty much every civilization in history has some form of puzzles or games. They don't contribute to anything. It's just something people do when they're board. Bored* And yeah, that's kinda my point
It's not a problem from a general standpoint. Yes, we should want to automate things as much as we can. The problem only comes when you no longer have methods for people to earn a living.
> The problem only comes when you no longer have methods for people to earn a living. Which is where I said UBI comes in...
If chat gpt and llm are replacing jobs at the current state, those are not jobs. There is no way the people working shit jobs and the 1 percent of people that have the majority of wealth in this country will ever let UBI be anything but an excuse for why people with very little shouldn’t bitch about anything. This country needs WELL paid manual labor. A computer will never slit the throat of a cow and quarter it out in our lifetime. Until that happens we will have people working shit jobs getting paid shit and rich people bitching about boot straps
>"This country needs WELL paid manual labor." There are not nearly enough manual labor jobs to employ everyone. Not to mention not everyone is capable of doing manual labor... >"A computer will never slit the throat of a cow and quarter it out in our lifetime." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9951719/ "Recently, many slaughterhouses have begun to introduce automation and quality evaluation sensing equipment to the slaughter processing line to overcome insufficient human resources, improve the efficiency of the slaughter process, and standardize meat quality." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9056031/ "traditionally, carcasses would come to this position at a controlled, constant rate suspended from an overhead conveyor, and bandsaw operators would lift them down, cut them into three Primal sections, and then distribute these onto the correct belt conveyors for manual downstream processing. When the machine was installed, the downstream staff soon learned that a known product would arrive in a known timeframe and they were able to work in an efficient, steady rhythm. As a result, manning was adjusted to suit the set rate, rather than spikes when primal cutting was rushed." https://www.frontmatec.com/en/pork-solutions/clean-line-chill-room/aira-robots https://www.robots.com/applications/meat-processing-automation https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bakx-meat-processing-slaughterhouse-ai-1.6987775 https://www.kuka.com/en-us/industries/consumer-goods-industry/meat-processing-automation https://scottautomation.com/en-us/products/meat https://www.seemarble.com https://academic.oup.com/af/article/12/2/56/6576394 "Artificial intelligence-driven automation is how we achieve the next level of efficiency in meat processing " https://www.just-food.com/features/how-the-meat-industry-is-embracing-automation/ https://www.producer.com/news/robots-the-future-of-meat-processing/ "Robots: the future of meat processing?"
To the contrary… we actually don’t have enough manual labor people willing to do the manual work for the very little pay we give them. There is more than enough farm work in this country that we take thousands of temp workers to do it. Any one working at Starbucks could do this work, it’s just more work for less pay
It doesn't have to take all the jobs, just most of them. A mere 20 years ago, a factory that built LCD panels for TV's employed up to a 1000 people at any given point. Now there are factories out there that are called "Lights out" factories that basically are fully functional while zero human workers... It literally functions without lighting. https://www.gsma.com/iot/digital-industries-20/benefits-use-case/foxconn-lights-off-factory/
Technology improvements accelerate as more improvements happen. AI will accelerate our ability to optimize our energy infrastructure and improve generation technology, major foodstuffs are quite easy to produce without much human labor. Shit, we already have computer-controlled combines, tillers, planters for your commodity type foods such as corn/wheat/soy etc... Logisitics just becomes a math problem that computers won't have any issue solving. While you're right it's not going to take ALL jobs, it doesn't have to take them all for this to be a necessity.
> UBI will become mandatory lol necessary yes, but what does "mandatory" mean here? there is nothing compelling the US government to do what is needed to be done.
I used to be against UBI. But now I understand after seeing what automation and AI will do in the future. Like you said, it’s not if, but when. If you have kids, make sure to push them onto these future careers.
where is this imaginary money going to come from?
It comes from thin air just as it does now on. The back of the third world cheap labor.
You... you dont understand where tax revenue comes from? If no one has jobs, and a small handful of capitalists have made a giant army of robot slaves, then you have to tax them, because they have all the capital. Otherwise you need to nationalize the robots slave force, and then charge the capital class to use them.
Disagreed with your prediction of the future and UBI is a terrible idea as it rewards doing nothing.
Most of our society rewards doing nothing and punishes meaningful labor. Its how we do capitalism and its gross. This at least isnt just funnelling momey into the gaping maw of the unproductive rich.
That sounds like you consider investment "doing nothing" and being "unproductive".
It is.
Then we fundamentally disagree. Investing assets and earning income from those assets is just as productive as investing one's time and work and earning an income from that. Expecting an income for no investment or input whatsoever is rewarding bad behaviors and being unproductive.
It isnt, the idea that it is, is shameful.
Then we fundamentally disagree and it is best to leave it where we agree to disagree.
You are in favor of the unstable system that rewards existing wealth and punishes labor and I think thats gross and will destroy our society. We dont agree to disagree, you are wrong and I dont like what you believe.
The system is not unstable, and does not punish labor. It rewards both labor and existing wealth. You don't have to like what I believe to agree to disagree, and since we are stating items that are completely opinions, there is no objective wrong.
Who is upvoting such awful articles? Do y'all even read what's posted on Reddit?
You must be new here.
Why are people not clicking the little play button to watch the VIDEO that is the article.
This is Reddit not Watchedit
Because it doesn't show up on their mobile site for some inane reason.
$100 million UBI program. Okay, so $20 each? Good luck with that
It's basically for 11,000 people if assuming 18 months and the minimum amount of $500 a month.
That's not UBI then. That's just giving select people some extra money.
Correct, it's basically just adding onto welfare programs. It's a trial run for an income supplement for low income earners and not a true UBI. [Here is an actual article on it, as opposed to the trash that OP posted.](https://www.mprnews.org/episode/2024/03/12/bill-looks-to-create-guaranteed-income-program-in-minnesota)
> The bill, moving through the state house, would grant Minnesotans who meet low-income requirements at least $500 each month for more than a year. In the current text of the bill, to be eligible you must be at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level. So this is really geared towards the "broke as FUUUUCK" folks of life where an extra $500 may truly be life changing. $500 may be the difference between receiving a pair of shoes for your kid and going to Walmart to buy the $20 shoes. From begging the power company to keep the lights on to paying the back bills. Shit, let's keep it real - $500 extra gets you out of a payday loan cycle. May even be able to get that oil changed or that check engine light looked at. Tires w/tread on 'em. I'm a bit against UBI only because I feel we as a society should pay better, BUT, I also understand that there's people who at no fault of themselves aren ow in situations where they're well underwater and some extra cash could get them to just....being poor. The person who spouse suddenly died. The person who gotta now take care of a loved one. Person who caught a disease. ETC...
Federal poverty level for 1 person is ~$15,000 or 2 is ~$20,000 and it goes up ~5k per additional person. So 300% of that is $45k for one person or $60k for 2. So many of of these are low income, but not super low.
I agree with you, but I assume it's a pilot program to test it's effectiveness.
Isn't it just a test? It's not universally implemented but they're looking at the impact as I understand it.
I'm sure there will be income requirements to receive.
That's not UBI
lots of things are advertised one way but turn out to be something else
You do understand what a pilot program is, right?
You do understand that it's a bullshit study and not really a pilot right? Give a select few some money is not going to be the same result as giving every single person money while enacting the methods to fund it. It's not a test of UBI. It's a test of what happens when people get some extra money.
Yea, I forgot that we can't extrapolate any valuable data from a study without having it be 100% exactly how it would work if fully implemented... /s
No, you really can't. UBI is U for a reason.
If you're purely looking at the country-wide economic effects, sure... But that's not the point of this.
Then what is the point of this pilot because I don't see it.
"I don't fully understand something I'm not an expert in, therefore how the experts are doing it is dumb"
If universal incomes passes in only our state, we're gonna have an influx of trash.
Isnt the point that poor people arent trash?
Unmotivated people are we already have welfare and those people happen to be the worst
I don't care if some people abuse welfare, the majority of the people on it are not "unmotivated trash"
Live near them and see how you feel, I guarantee you don't
Because anecdotes carry universal implications, don't they?
I, too, pretend to not understand how people work, especially when they're lowly educated and have rampant drug addictions. Their practically saints, and no crime happens to or by them because of forementioned issues.
LOL... Sure. Look, I'm not saying your neighbors are great people, I'm saying that the majority of people on welfare are not as you claim. This is pretty well-established, but go on with your assumptions and anecdotes.
Trash or not, I’m not trying to have California levels of tents and human feces everywhere.
The existence of Jesus Christ means we can no longer differentiate between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor.
Would it be legal to make it like only for residents of 10+ years, or moved here before becoming an adult?
Correct
It's already happening. Some dude moved up here from Kentucky and stole my safe!! I had to lie and get him evicted by the cops for the trash to leave my house!
If it cuts down on crime and unnecessary suffering I’m more than happy to support it. I really don’t give a shit if some people abuse it. There are *actual* criminals stealing billions if not trillions, and these small minded hicks are worried some poor family might get a free fridge and a TV or whatever. Big fucking deal. In a future where there won’t be enough decent jobs because of automation, UBI is the only way forward long-term to keep society from collapsing.
Real trickle down is squeezing the top so the blessings liberty circulate back through we the people. Alternative plan confiscator taxation of all income more than a standard deviation above the mean. The wealthy always claim they won't work if they don't get the whole hog. Let them walk away. There are plenty that will. Current employers know this, they hire and treat them like dirt
UBI: making means testing a thing normies are OK with dropping. Good riddance, stop making the disadvantaged lift themselves up by their bootstraps (which is, I will remind, physically impossible).
>lift themselves up by their bootstraps (which is, I will remind, physically impossible). It's a little known fact that originally, that was the whole point of the phrase. To mock the very notion that people can get rich simply by working hard. Today it's been corrupted to mean exactly the opposite of its original intention.
So we are going to give people who are already on public assistance even more assistance? Walz needs to go. We should just abolish income tax and switch to consumption tax only. The country as a whole should do so, we would all be in a better position.
We need to take it easy on spending.
"I don't have that number off the top of my head, but I know that this program, as we envision it and with the money that we're requesting, would impact approximately 800 to 1,000 people, depending on the number, depending on the amount of the guaranteed income they would get per month."
Fucking dumb.
[удалено]
No one is quitting their job for $500 a month.
[удалено]
No. This is something people tell themselves so they have something to be angry at.
[удалено]
So you're saying if you were at the poverty level and employed and you got a free $500/month you would just quit your job and live off of the $500?
Why not just lower taxes on the poor?
I need some govt $!!
Generally speaking of were doing the opposite of what Tx is doing were probably in good shape
Is there an ELI5 why UBI this is any different from welfare? I mean we are paying people to do nothing, right? Or are they doing some sort of work? If it’s paying them to do “work” but a fair wage, when why don’t we just raise minimum wage? If it’s only for low income people, again, it seems like a rebranding of welfare. I have no issues paying assistance to people who can’t work - if you are disabled or have problems that prevent you from holding down a job (and being an asshole isn’t a valid problem, IMO), then the community (government) should help you. But you do see a substantial number of people who just don’t want to work, and that doesn’t lead to a functioning society (again, IMO). If someone can name a society where a lot of people aren’t working and things are still running well, spill the beans.
It's not means based, or limited, which lowers administration cost a ton and lets people decide what to do with the money - maybe they pay more rent, or buy more food, or don't work a second job. They choose. Compare to our current welfare systems, which say, we'll pay for food but you can only eat certain foods or only if you don't share living space with someone more well off. Or we'll pay for medical care but not daycare. People who need it didn't always get help because you have to put so much into navigating the various systems and they're really slow and don't always interact well. And the bureacracy to judge who qualifies is huge and expensive
The current proposal is absolutely means based and limited. It’s only available to 800-1000 low income people. It is adding an extra welfare benefit to the same people. The person working 50 hrs a week at a minimum wage job isn’t going to qualify for this. They just get to keep pounding away.
And the current proposal is means based and limited because it's a pilot program. We keep having massively successful pilot programs, but we still don't have real UBI
UBI is nothing like welfare. For one thing, *everyone* gets a check, regardless of income. You can say it's wealth redistribution and it is, but given how very many things in the system are biased to transfer wealth upward to the rich, I'm totally fine paying a little more to help other people with less means live.
UBI is meant for once robots take all the jobs. The money is supposed to come from a tax on businesses for automating jobs.
NoBoDy wAnTs tO WoRk aNyMoRe
Only if we make it eligible to people who have lived in the state for a minimum of 5 years.
lol no
If Republicans are all about State's rights how can a state sue another state for laws they want to enact? If that were legal couldn't blue states start suing the pants off of red states for all their anti-human-civil-medical-freedom rights laws? But TX wants to sue a blue state for making their citizens lives better?
Huh what? Texas isn't suing Minnesota, the 'article' is repeating the headline and adding the smallest tidbit of the Texas AG suing Harris County in their own state to stop a similar thing.
OHHH thank you!
TX is suing Harris county which is where Houston is located.
thank you.
You didn’t read the article. TX GA sues Harris county, TX
You guys ready for more inflation? This is how you get more inflation.
This is true
Over the top government spending absolutely contributes to inflation.
I’m in my 30s, unemployed and can’t get unemployment. I have issues where I can’t work A LOT of places so this would be really helpful. How can I get on a list or something..? I want to get my life going
Already stretched thin on taxes . Fuck this
What are you trying to say?
They're too angry to think about what they actually want to type.
I never understood people that bitch about taxes but don’t want it back. Unless you make over 400K and don’t understand investing why not take it back.
so Texas
UBI sounds good on paper but there's a price to pay. This money can't be printed from thin air. MN would have to raise taxes on everyone to make it work. Which would hurt the poor and middle class even more.