Universal Bunk Income

I ran across this article recently (It may or may not be pay-walled.  It wasn't on my phone, but was on my laptop when I started writing this post.  This wonderful gimmick designed to induce people to pay for articles they've already been given access to deserves a post on its own, but for now, just be aware that you may not be able to access the article).

The article revolves around a quote from a former OpenAI researcher claiming that the calls for a universal basic income (UBI) of $1,500 per month aren't sufficient for what's coming.  We'll need payments closer to $10,000 per month in order to compensate for the economic balance we're going to face.

While I think there are arguments to be made for UBI in general and for greater amounts, this is not that argument, because the premise of the scenario is flawed when discussing UBI.  I've touched on UBI a bit in the past, but I think it's time to give it a bit more attention, because every time I see something like "let's just give 'em UBI," I just want to shake my head.

Let's start with what UBI started out as initially.  UBI is a stipend that helps ensure that people at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder receive a payment that allows them meet basic needs.  It's an attempt to correct, in part, the economic inequality in America.  

If you're not aware of the economic disparity in the country, I'd advise you to do some research.  The numbers are fairly mind-boggling: the top 50% owns 96% of all assets in the country, and the top 1% alone, owns 37% (extending this further, the top 0.1% owns half of that 37%!).  

If you're aware of the discrepancy but think the discrepancy is based solely on meritocracy, bless your heart!  I'm assuming you're the type of individual who also believes you didn't make it to the NBA because you didn't work on your shot enough, not because you're 5'2" and slower than your pet turtle.

While there are likely side-effects to a UBI for low income households, they're probably magnified in outsized fashion in the same way that minimum wage bogeymen dredge up the specter of inflation whenever an increase is proposed.  Kids, we've seen what can cause inflation, and it isn't paying the lowest 11% a living wage.  In fact, real wage growth was stalling during the 70s and early 80s when inflation was at its worst.  

Ensuring that people have their basic needs met is good for society in general, because, as a rule (or one may even call it a hierarchy of needs), people tend to be more productive when their living arrangements are stable and they have a foot on the rung to further improve their outcomes based on their own ability influence those outcomes rather than solely expending all of their energy into surviving.

I'm sure there are people that would abuse UBI in the same way that there are people that abuse the welfare system.  But you don't throw out an entire idea because of one made up story about a Cadillac Queen.  Or, maybe you do. Oh, well.  Politics.

But, when the Techno-utopians apply UBI to society at large, they demonstrate that they don't understand basic economic theory at all.  This is all the more laughable (and by that I mean infuriating) because these are so called captains of industry who are quick to complain that the rest of us don't recognize their latent genius, even though it's more hand-waving than the Wizard of Oz and Al Jolson combined.

If we follow their premise that in 6 months/6 years/20 years/never AI will make all human jobs obsolete, then we'll need to find a way to meet basic sustenance and above.  That will not be UBI.  

Income has a value because it's a proxy for our individual expertise.  There are numerous arguments as to which expertise should demand more income, but in all cases, money is still a proxy for your ability to do something, even if it's getting others to believe your bullshit at an outrageous price.

If and when AI solves our job problem then there is no further need to differentiate among areas of expertise, which means all income becomes worthless.  Now, you, techno-utopian, may say, "Todd!  Stop being so hyperbolic!" but you're the one who said we'll face mass unemployment/euphoria/armageddon, so I'm just meeting you at your level and extending the premise from there.

Now, it's possible that we'll immediately create derivative markets that are human only (say human-derived art that lacks the soullesness of AI shit), in which case, problem solved - we now have ways for humans to differentiate themselves to derive the levels of income and comfort that they seek individually.

But nothing that's creative or generative at a societal level moves that fast (and spare me any argument that "this time it's different", since we've been in the AI will solve/kill everything now for 2 years and there's no indication that productivity or GDP is changed, especially for the better), which means there will be a lot of displacement while we figure out what to do after swallowing the blue pill. 

In addition, we'll be at the whim of whomever is distributing this UBI, and it's safe to say that no large entity, be it a government or friendly gigantic corporation, without accountability will act in the public's best interest.  And, since we have no effective purchasing power and no means to inform our politicians that we're unhappy with the economy - because there is no economy, it's solved for us - we have one less lever that can hold power accountable.

The money being distributed to us will be about as useful as Monopoly dollars and far less useful than toilet paper (Have you tried using Monopoly money for toilet paper?  Wait, nevermind, don't answer that).  The argument that the amount should $1500 vs. $10K vs $100K per month is all the same, because there's no differentiating factor (and in fact, if there's mass unemployment, there will be mass deflation as well, so $1500/month may be enough.  Anyone miss 1973, because that's the purchasing power we'd be back to).  We'll have reached an odd state where we're not completely dependent on socialist tendencies controlled by a group that is strongly libertarian leaning.  If you don't think that will lead to class warfare, I'm not sure what you think will.

So, as with most things, UBI works for targeted reasons, but can't be an anodyne for a dystopia we're cheerfully whistling toward.  These so-called thought leaders need to think of better ways to combat the potential societal ills of their "improvements" than the airtight logic, of "I dunno, bro, but things always work out.  Here, have my pocket change."

Until next time, my human and robot friends.