Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-19-2018, 05:22 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Finland cancels their UBI test program

Business Insider: Finland is killing its experiment with basic income

Quote:
"Two years is too short a timeframe to be able to draw extensive conclusions from such a vast experiment. We ought to have been given additional time and more money to achieve reliable results," professor Olli Kangas, one of the experts behind the basic-income trial, told Finland's public-service broadcaster YLE.
Sounds like they ran out of money, which seems to be the fundamental issue with the UBI concept. I expect that Stockton (which already ran out of money) will follow suit at some point.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-19-2018 at 05:24 PM.
  #2  
Old 04-19-2018, 05:42 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,057
So what is your debate? Could you have linked to an article not behind an Ad wall? Here's one:
http://fortune.com/2018/04/19/finlan...riment-ending/

An experiment is coming to an end. what's the debate? No it isn't/Yes it is?
  #3  
Old 04-19-2018, 05:42 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 9,984
There's nothing about UBI that makes it inherently unfinanceable; that's silly. If you fail to finance it because you haven't set up an appropriate tax structure to fund it, that's a problem with your specific implementation.
  #4  
Old 04-19-2018, 05:54 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
There's nothing about UBI that makes it inherently unfinanceable; that's silly. If you fail to finance it because you haven't set up an appropriate tax structure to fund it, that's a problem with your specific implementation.
Finland doesn't have an appropriate tax structure?

Quote:
While 70% of Finns supported the idea of basic income, surveys show that number drops to 35% when respondents are told that already-high income taxes would have to increase in order to cover the cost of the program.
  #5  
Old 04-19-2018, 05:55 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,391
Well, if your point is that it didn't work in Finland, I'll make the point that a pilot basic income program was started last summer in Ontario. The idea is to evaluate its results in selected communities over a period of three years, and then potentially go province-wide. So far it looks promising.
  #6  
Old 04-19-2018, 05:57 PM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,382
No it is more likely they decided they weren't going to implement it no matter what the results were.

The experiment was 2,000 individuals at $690/month. That is not an expensive program, when you consider the median wage is 3000 Euros=$3700/month
https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/m..._taxes/9844217
  #7  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:11 PM
Yllaria Yllaria is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
. . . Sounds like they ran out of money, which seems to be the fundamental issue with the UBI concept. I expect that Stockton (which already ran out of money) will follow suit at some point.
Hey, the Stockton bankruptcy had nothing to do with UBI. It was partly the housing crash, partly unfunded retiree medical benefit promises, and partly badly timed or optimistic bonds. (Actually, I assume that's a typo.)
  #8  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:11 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post

Sounds like they ran out of money, which seems to be the fundamental issue with the UBI concept. I expect that Stockton (which already ran out of money) will follow suit at some point.
Is there an alternative? We are likely looking at mass unemployment in the next few decades and UBI is the only real solution.

It'll require massive tax hikes, about 25% of GDP will need to be devoted to progressive taxes on the owners of the robots to fund UBI.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #9  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:12 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 9,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Finland doesn't have an appropriate tax structure?
If the program was in fact aborted due to insufficient funding, then that implies there wasn't sufficient funding. I'm not sure why this is complicated.

You appear to be pushing the idea that UBI is unaffordable no matter how much money you have available, which is not, in my opinion, a supportable or rational position.
  #10  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:22 PM
snfaulkner snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 6,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
...

You appear to be pushing the idea that UBI is unaffordable no matter how much money you have available, which is not, in my opinion, a supportable or rational position.
Yep! Liberals b dumb. Why bother trying to make the world a better place for everybody? Let's all just give up.
  #11  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:23 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
... We are likely looking at mass unemployment in the next few decades ...
I know people have said this, but I'm not sure where they got the idea. Where did you get the idea? And how confident are you that we're "looking at mass unemployment in the next few decades"? You said "likely". Does that mean >50% chance?
  #12  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:27 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yllaria View Post
Hey, the Stockton bankruptcy had nothing to do with UBI. ...
Yes, you're right. But can you appreciate the irony of the largest city in US history to ever file bankruptcy now pursuing an experiment where they give out free money? The jokes practically write themselves.
  #13  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:31 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... You appear to be pushing the idea that UBI is unaffordable no matter how much money you have available...
Not quite, but I have yet to see anyone give details of a national program that sounds workable and politically-feasible.
  #14  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:33 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 9,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not quite, but I have yet to see anyone give details of a national program that sounds workable and politically-feasible.
Well, there's a hell of a difference between "workable" and "politically feasable" - particularly depending upon which set of politicians you're talking about.
  #15  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:34 PM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 12,888
It's worked okay for Alaska, with some caveats, hasn't it? Of course the main difference there is that it is not nearly much money (looks like peak with no inflation adjustment was $3269 in 2008) and applies to every resident after some limitations. And that the have that sweet oil revenue. So it might work in Norway better than Finland, although they're sitting on their fund for the time being.

Wow, Stockton. Last place I'd expect.
  #16  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:34 PM
octopus octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Is there an alternative? We are likely looking at mass unemployment in the next few decades and UBI is the only real solution.

It'll require massive tax hikes, about 25% of GDP will need to be devoted to progressive taxes on the owners of the robots to fund UBI.
Owning a robot or not is irrelevant.
  #17  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:37 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 9,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Owning a robot or not is irrelevant.
I think he's postulating that everybody'll be unemployed because robots will have taken all our jobs, and thus the robot owners will have all the income and money. And that this will come to pass in the next few decades.

As a UBI-loving liberal, I'm...not sure this is how things'll play out.
  #18  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:38 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I know people have said this, but I'm not sure where they got the idea. Where did you get the idea? And how confident are you that we're "looking at mass unemployment in the next few decades"? You said "likely". Does that mean >50% chance?
The idea comes from the fact that machines are going to start being able to do most of what a human can do.

Historically advances in technology have created new (and more) jobs. But I do not believe that will happen this time. New jobs are created because there are still things that humans cannot do better than a machine. But that will change soon and there will be fewer and fewer jobs that a human being can do better than a machine.

So even if the new wave of automation this century creates tens of millions of new jobs, most of those jobs will be done far better by cheap robots than by a human being. So there is no incentive to hire humans, hence mass unemployment.

It is only a matter of time since the skillset of humans doesn't really improve while the skillset of machines does.

If you have a bipedal robot that has better cognitive skills than any human who ever lived, better manual flexibility and dexterity, can work 24/7 and only costs $1000, why would you hire a human being to do anything?
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 04-19-2018 at 06:39 PM.
  #19  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:39 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Well, there's a hell of a difference between "workable" and "politically feasable" - particularly depending upon which set of politicians you're talking about.
If it can't get passed into law, it's not really "workable" is it?
  #20  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:43 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 9,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If it can't get passed into law, it's not really "workable" is it?
Sure it is. It's workable if it could work if it was implemented. The mere fact that something doesn't get implemented doesn't mean it's unworkable.

In any case, I think I'm dragging this into definition-driven digression territory, so I'll just step back to the notion that, no, if the Finland experiment was in fact aborted due to fund issues, that is not proof positive of the preconceived notion that UBI is unworkable due to the laws of physics.
  #21  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:44 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
It's worked okay for Alaska, with some caveats, hasn't it? ...
This is an interesting point. I'd never thought of the Alaska Permanent Fund as a UBI, but in a way I suppose it is. As you noted, it doesn't pay enough to be anything close to a "living wage", but it is like a mini-UBI.
  #22  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:48 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If it can't get passed into law, it's not really "workable" is it?
Lots of perfectly workable things "can't" get passed into law because the people running the show at the time they're proposed don't like them.

"Can't get passed", in this context, is exactly equal to "is disliked by several people".
  #23  
Old 04-19-2018, 07:03 PM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,850
It couldn't be a lack of funds. Enrollees were receiving a check in lieu of the unemployment benefits they would otherwise receive. While that almost certainly comes out of a separate pot of funds, the net effect can't be that big.
  #24  
Old 04-19-2018, 07:13 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not quite, but I have yet to see anyone give details of a national program that sounds workable and politically-feasible.
I just gave you an example of one that's operating now, albeit in a pilot phase, and provincial, not national -- but provincial is how single-payer health care started, another program that conservatives like to claim nobody could possibly afford, which has been running nationally for half a century.

More information on the government site here, including links to a discussion paper.
  #25  
Old 04-19-2018, 07:44 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
There's nothing about UBI that makes it inherently unfinanceable; that's silly. If you fail to finance it because you haven't set up an appropriate tax structure to fund it, that's a problem with your specific implementation.
The real problem with UBI is that for it to be anything but an income redistribution program it has to have enough of a goods and services base to provide a consistent revenue stream sufficient to support it, and this essentially requires enough automation that a “tax on robots” is not prohibitive for business profitibilty. Right now that doesn’t exist, and there is little incentive for the wealthy to support an onerous tax on their income and wealth to support it.

However, the United States has had a limited form of basic income for years in FICA and Social Security, and while the system isn’t perfect it hasn’t fallen apart or broken the back of the economy, and despite pronouncements of imminant failure since the ‘Eighties it is still chugging along. The Alaskan Native Regional Corporations also provide what is essentially private basic income subsidy. So the notion that UBI is somehow inherently unworkable is provably untrue.

Stranger
  #26  
Old 04-19-2018, 08:16 PM
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 14,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Well, if your point is that it didn't work in Finland, I'll make the point that a pilot basic income program was started last summer in Ontario. The idea is to evaluate its results in selected communities over a period of three years, and then potentially go province-wide. So far it looks promising.
That's interesting, because the Finnish project wasn't even close to a real basic income program. It's a generous and less ristrictive welfare program. Reading the OP's article, it looks like they were supposed to add working people to the project (and thus be reasonably close to n actual basic income project) before they chickened out.
  #27  
Old 04-19-2018, 08:49 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,047
The Ontario pilot study is a perfect example of how pilot studies can be absolutely worthless when trying to evaluate a policy that will be applied to the entire population.

Ontario is choosing a small number of people who agree to take part in exchange for participating in focus groups and surveys, etc. They will be watched very carefully, and the program is temporary. These people may not be representative of Ontarians as a group, and they certainly aren't going to have the same incentives and behaviors while actively participating in a program where they are being monitored.

This reminds me of educational pilot studies where motivated children and their motivated parents take part in new educational stratgies. Great results are announced, the program roles out nationwide - and utterly fails.

The big risk of a UBI is that it will have a large moral hazard associated with it, in that it will reduce the desire to work among certain members of the population. It will create unemployment and incentivize those at the bottom to stay at the bottom and never develop the skills or work experience to do better. Then we will have yet another permanent underclass.

Canada already has plenty of experience with a UBI - we give one to Native Canadians on reservations. That has not worked out well, and has had the effect of incentivizing them to stay on reservations where they get poor schooling and don't learn how to assimilate and be successful in the Canadian economy. So they become a permanent underclass.

We also gave one to fishermen in the east to compensate them for seasonal work - which had the effect of preventing economic adaptation and the development of an off-season economy like you see in Maine. So they became a permanent underclass.

Here in Alberta, we were the last political jurisdiction I know of anywhere with a Social Credit government. Social Credit is basically a UBI type scheme where people are paid a regular stipend just for living in the province. It was all the rage once, and now it's completely gone. Because it didn't work, other than as a mechanism for driving giant deficits.
  #28  
Old 04-19-2018, 09:07 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Historically advances in technology have created new (and more) jobs. But I do not believe that will happen this time. New jobs are created because there are still things that humans cannot do better than a machine. But that will change soon and there will be fewer and fewer jobs that a human being can do better than a machine.
I'm not so sure. I don't think we can imagine what a post-automation world will look like any more than Ancient Rome can imagine a post-Industrial Revolution Great Britain. That is to say, the concept of "work" or a "job" as some physical location where you drag yourself every morning so you can repeatedly perform some stupid task you care nothing about will fundamentally change.
  #29  
Old 04-19-2018, 10:49 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
I'm not so sure. I don't think we can imagine what a post-automation world will look like any more than Ancient Rome can imagine a post-Industrial Revolution Great Britain. That is to say, the concept of "work" or a "job" as some physical location where you drag yourself every morning so you can repeatedly perform some stupid task you care nothing about will fundamentally change.
Automation of physical labor created more jobs because of the need for people to figure out how to break processes down into manageable steps, and diverted what had previously been subssistiance agricultural workers into intellectual labor and service jobs. The difference now is that machine intelligence threatens to take over intellectual labor tasks and essentially replace human workers in a wide array of industries. We’ll still need intellectual workers for certain jobs and in socially-oriented positions, but it is hard to see how that is going to create enough real work for all the corporate McJobbers and service workers who are no longer needed.

I suspect a lot of work is going to look like whatever the future version of webbloging and Instagramming will be, and will be subsizied in some fashion by the productivity of machine intelligence-based automation rather than generating anything of saleable merit. And even with something like universal basic income, there is going to be increased stratification between the very wealthy and the masses, with the minority of value content creators being somewhere in the middle.

Stranger
  #30  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:08 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 57,767
Kinda depends on how stuck we are on the constipated Calvinism that insists that we are supposed to toil and suffer for our daily bread. I mean, sure, maybe you do have to suffer to sing the blues, but if you don't want to sing the blues? OK, maybe not a pass, but a discount?
  #31  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:14 AM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,047
None of this will be possible until we learn how to build a general intelligence, and we don't know how to make a general intelligence. We don't know if we even can. And until there is general intelligence, you need people all through the economy.

You have no idea how hard it is to automate a single factory, or to even digitize their workflows. You are greatly underestimating how much lateral communication, feedback, creativity, judgement and other qualities are required of workers in the economy.

Then there's all the manual and physical labor that we cannot easily replace with automation. We can't today make a bunch of robots that work together as a construction crew to build a house. We don't even have generalized robots that can clean windows.

You underestimate how much value and knowledge is created when humans in the course of their jobs talk to other humans. People discover market opportunities, they learn about hiring conditions in other regions, gain information about suppliers, you name it. They share best practices, and discover simpler and better ways to do things. They make deals, and they come up with workarounds to problems no one thought of before. Salesmen learn what customers need, and engineers visit customer facilities to determine how to optimize them.

And when you put millions of people together all engaging in manufacturing and commerce, you get emergent systems that are necessary for it to function well. Prices, for example. Supply chains. Distributor networks. Local stores with products optimized for local demand - demand discovered perhaps by a human who started a businesses and who first worked as an employee in the same market and discovered information about local demand that no one else had.

And so it goes. Our entire society and economy is a series of interlinked complex systems functioning as something greater than the sum of its parts. To believe that you can replace that with AI in any sort of reasonably near future is just ludicrous. What's actually going to happen is unknown, but it will almost certain be incremental, fairly slow, and pretty bumpy along the way. And it may never happen at all if we discover that the type of AI we need is fundamentally different and our current techniques do not remotely lead to it.

We have been advancing technologically for hundreds of years, and with each new technology people have claimed that jobs will be lost. Yet here you are with hundreds of millions more citizens, and with massive industries destroyed by change multiple times, and yet there is near record low unemployment. Of course, this time is different. Just like it was different all the other times - until it wasn't.

Universal automation and general intelligence are not on anyone's radar screen right now. There are no engineering companies with a plan for building them. We don't know how. Or even if we can. Until we do, it's all rampant speculation.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 04-20-2018 at 12:17 AM.
  #32  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:45 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
We can't today make a bunch of robots that work together as a construction crew to build a house.
Is that going to matter when we can 3-d print the entire house?
  #33  
Old 04-20-2018, 01:51 AM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
None of this will be possible until we learn how to build a general intelligence, and we don't know how to make a general intelligence. We don't know if we even can. And until there is general intelligence, you need people all through the economy.

You have no idea how hard it is to automate a single factory, or to even digitize their workflows. You are greatly underestimating how much lateral communication, feedback, creativity, judgement and other qualities are required of workers in the economy.
Actually, I do know how hard it is to automate a production line and get it to provide a consistently quality product because I have done exactly that. And you are are correct that it is expensive to do, particularly if you are doing it on a piecemeal basis. However, if you have enough automation technology that the process of developing new automation is essentially stacking blocks together it becomes rapidly more easy. The first CNC milling machines were vast, expensive devices that required regular maintenance and human part handling and someone to sequence them so that they could actually build a part correctly. Modern CNC mills are so well automated and self-diagnostic that a single technician can run a shop floor of them, and modern 3D MCAD software can pretty effectively optimize sequencing with minimal human guidance. The same is true for most other forms of automation, and the hurdle isn’t that it isn’t technically possible but that no one has put in the effort and funding to automate processes.

Although artificial general intellegence would be needed for creative work (and I mean that in the general sense of interpreting complex data, not just writing music or crafting sonnets), there is plenty of intellectual labor that does not require creativity and is essentially process-oriented. We haven’t bothered to automate such work because people are cheap and there is little incentive, but looking at technologically advanced nations with employment shortages like Japan shows that many of the jobs we employ people to do can be readily done by non-intelligent machines, and many other jobs require a fairly narrow set of intellectual skills.

Even in jobs that require high degrees of logical abstraction or interpretation such as science, medicine, and law the use of fairly limited heuristic learning systems can greatly reduce the grunt work involved in literature searches, data analysis, and document reviews, which means there is less need for junior associates to do tedious reviews and rewriting of legal briefs or for medical technicians to do administrative work. An example of that is in medical X-rays; the handling, marking, and filing of X-ray film used to require several people per facility and take up a large storage volume that required a librarian. Now all X-rays are computer images which are automatically marked and stored in HIPPA compliant digital database systems, and a facility that would employ several dozen technicians can now be run with just a handful.

We’re not going to see intelligent computers take over all professional work in the next few decades, but there are a lot of the ‘simple’ office-type jobs that fairly basic machine intelligence or even just flexible non-intelligent automation systems will make obsolete, and there isn’t any clear area where jobs requiring comparable intellectual skills will replace them. Prognostications about the future of employment are nearly always short-sighted and new industries can rise up where virtually no one imagined them, but it is pretty easy to see that there are a lot of lntellectual labor jobs that can be done with only fairly minor advances in and applications of technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Is that going to matter when we can 3-d print the entire house?
Additive manufacturing (3D printing) is one of those technologies that, while providing some amazing capabilities, has been so ludicrously oversold in the public consciousness as to be laughable. No one is going to 3D print a house unless it is a plastic dollhouse. We could, however, redesign how houses and other structures are constructed to make them more amenible to being made as prefabricated components in factories and capable of being constructed by a largely automated ‘workforce’ of purpose designed construction equipment.

We haven’t done so because there is a large pool of labor that will construct a house relatively inexpensively versus the vast capital cost of developing the infrastructure to automate it, but objects like shipping containers are built in largely automated factories now that cut, handle, weld, and assemble the containers with minimal human labor other than finishing and inspection. However, no robot existing or on the visible horizon is going to do fine finish carpentry to install cabinets or make tasteful decisions about flooring and wall colors. And nobody wants to live in a house with the aesthetic qualities of a CONEX. We’ll always need people for social contact, and there are many jobs where the “human touch” is as crucial as any process or service. Even with automation and augmentation there will almost certainly be large growth in areas such as health care and elder care just because of that.

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 04-20-2018 at 01:51 AM.
  #34  
Old 04-20-2018, 04:15 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
No one is going to 3D print a house unless it is a plastic dollhouse.
Errm...they already can.
Quote:
nobody wants to live in a house with the aesthetic qualities of a CONEX
A lot of people do not really care about the "aesthetic qualities" when it gives them a roof they don't currently have.

Last edited by MrDibble; 04-20-2018 at 04:17 AM.
  #35  
Old 04-20-2018, 04:58 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Errm...they already can.
A lot of people do not really care about the "aesthetic qualities" when it gives them a roof they don't currently have.
Also, am I the only one who really doesn't see anything aesthetically wrong with that house?
  #36  
Old 04-20-2018, 05:35 AM
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 11,546
Factory built modular homes have existed for years, maybe decades.

http://www.shoremodular.com

https://www.championhomes.com
  #37  
Old 04-20-2018, 05:49 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Also, am I the only one who really doesn't see anything aesthetically wrong with that house?
It beats a McMansion.
  #38  
Old 04-20-2018, 07:53 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,008
For some reason, given the small size for a standalone house, I'd actually prefer it to a smaller version of a 2-story suburban home. It's by no means a stone-and-thatch cottage, but it's classy.
  #39  
Old 04-20-2018, 08:32 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
That "house" doesn't have a kitchen. And it's not clear how they would have printed the plumbing, electrical and HVAC system. I doubt they did. That house is so sparse, it could be built by a small, skilled construction crew in a few days using prefab parts.

Last edited by John Mace; 04-20-2018 at 08:32 AM.
  #40  
Old 04-20-2018, 09:01 AM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Factory built modular homes have existed for years, maybe decades.
Yes, prefabs have been around but they’re still made with largely human labor, and emplacement and assembly is scarcely automated. Part of this is due to construction codes but it is mostly the result of it being relatively cheap to pay for labor versus developing the complex infrastructure for automated manufacture the way the automobile industry has. Cars are a somewhat ideal candidate for automation because carmakers build hundreds of thousands of identical units out of modular components, whereas houses are somewhat more unique, with certain features varying based on site conditions and with a lot of finish work that requires some judgment and finesse that is not readily automated.

But with prefabrication design intended to support automated assembly with human oversiht and limited direct labor home construction could be predominantly automated, reducing the labor workforce in construction. There is just no real reason to do this right now because there is plenty of labor and thr major costs in home construction are land, materials, and finish labor that requires human judgment and flexibility.

Stranger
  #41  
Old 04-20-2018, 09:12 AM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post

An experiment is coming to an end. what's the debate? No it isn't/Yes it is?
I guess the debate is whether UBI is a good idea or not. I say no.
  #42  
Old 04-20-2018, 09:39 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Canada already has plenty of experience with a UBI - we give one to Native Canadians on reservations. That has not worked out well, and has had the effect of incentivizing them to stay on reservations where they get poor schooling and don't learn how to assimilate and be successful in the Canadian economy. So they become a permanent underclass.

We also gave one to fishermen in the east to compensate them for seasonal work - which had the effect of preventing economic adaptation and the development of an off-season economy like you see in Maine. So they became a permanent underclass.
These don't seem like a UBI to me, especially if the benefits are tied to being physically on the reservation in the first instance. They seem more like the classic "welfare cliff" in that you are not free to find full-time, well-paying employment or your benefits will cease entirely. UBI doesn't have these kind of strings attached, so people are free to pursue any sort of job they want.

Which doesn't prove that it works, just that it is different from your examples in important ways.
  #43  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:17 AM
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 5,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
It's worked okay for Alaska, with some caveats, hasn't it? Of course the main difference there is that it is not nearly much money (looks like peak with no inflation adjustment was $3269 in 2008) and applies to every resident after some limitations. And that the have that sweet oil revenue. So it might work in Norway better than Finland, although they're sitting on their fund for the time being.

Wow, Stockton. Last place I'd expect.
Worked in what sense?It has worked in the sense that it has not run out of money, but the poverty rates in Alaska are not appreciably better than those of the rest of the country.
  #44  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:09 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 36,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Worked in what sense?It has worked in the sense that it has not run out of money, but the poverty rates in Alaska are not appreciably better than those of the rest of the country.
Unemployment rates for Alaska are also higher than the national average, no doubt for a number of reasons. But lower workforce participation is an expected outcome of UBI as well, as seems to have happened in the famous SIME/DIME project.

Regards,
Shodan
  #45  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:23 PM
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Unemployment rates for Alaska are also higher than the national average, no doubt for a number of reasons. But lower workforce participation is an expected outcome of UBI as well, as seems to have happened in the famous SIME/DIME project.

Regards,
Shodan
That seems self-evident. The more you pay people to do nothing, the less they are going to work.
  #46  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:31 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That seems self-evident. The more you pay people to do nothing, the less they are going to work.
This may or may not be true with a UBI, but Alaska does not pay enough to allow people not to work at all. I think the cases where that extra $1200 was enough to allow them to not work must be so small that they wouldn't even show up in the statistical noise. I myself am a full-time employed single guy living in a low cost of living state, with a non-minuscule nest egg, and I would not be able to quit my job if I were given a measly $1200 per year for free.
  #47  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:36 PM
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
This may or may not be true with a UBI, but Alaska does not pay enough to allow people not to work at all. I think the cases where that extra $1200 was enough to allow them to not work must be so small that they wouldn't even show up in the statistical noise. I myself am a full-time employed single guy living in a low cost of living state, with a non-minuscule nest egg, and I would not be able to quit my job if I were given a measly $1200 per year for free.
Sure, I agree. That's why I said "The more you pay someone...." $1200 per year? Probably everyone is going to keep working if they can. $25,000 a year? People are going to stop working.
  #48  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:54 PM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 12,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Worked in what sense?It has worked in the sense that it has not run out of money, but the poverty rates in Alaska are not appreciably better than those of the rest of the country.
Has remained solvent (as far as I know). No it doesn't pay a living wage but I don't think it's intended to do so.
  #49  
Old 04-20-2018, 02:00 PM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
That "house" doesn't have a kitchen. And it's not clear how they would have printed the plumbing, electrical and HVAC system. I doubt they did. That house is so sparse, it could be built by a small, skilled construction crew in a few days using prefab parts.
Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea a broch was the only kind of house possible. Or "house", if you prefer.

You realize billions of people live in houses without "plumbing, electrical and HVAC system", right? But nevertheless they're still houses, not "houses". Also, I never said we're at the be-all and end-all of 3D house printing, just that we can already print something that qualifies as a house, and not just a "dollhouse".

And 12-24 hours tops "in a few days".

Last edited by MrDibble; 04-20-2018 at 02:05 PM.
  #50  
Old 04-20-2018, 04:51 PM
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
I guess the debate is whether UBI is a good idea or not. I say no.
I tend to agree with you, but the op was terribly constructed.

UBI may work if we ever get fully automated and bring population growth under control, but until then it is a pipe dream. Which come to think of it is appropriate for today.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017