Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on February 28, 2017, 02:44:08 AM
-
Trump supporters, who they gonna blame now?
-
Trump supporters live in an alternate reality.
Amazon has already gone further, planning of getting rid of shop workers:
Now have the stores stocked and manned by robots.
-
The universal basic income idea maybe the only solution to counter automation. That would mean Amazons and Walmart having to pay way more taxes to gov that would then disburse basic universal income to every citizen.
-
Universal basic income is already under test in Finland. It may actually stir more entrepreneurship by folks freed from daily survival headaches. Automation leads to more growth and opportunities not less.
-
I like that idea of basic income enough to buy basic human needs. It sound socialist but as long as we keep the balance so we don't demotivate capitalist spirit need to spur more innovation, growth and opportunities it probably will work. I am thinking we might see opportunities & growth outside areas where automation can do the job - I am thinking people who were pushing carts in super markets and factories - can find jobs doing what machines cannot do - like arts, like in hotels, hospitals, schools - name it.
Universal basic income is already under test in Finland. It may actually stir more entrepreneurship by folks freed from daily survival headaches. Automation leads to more growth and opportunities not less.
-
The universal basic income idea maybe the only solution to counter automation. That would mean Amazons and Walmart having to pay way more taxes to gov that would then disburse basic universal income to every citizen.
Amen!
When it was first proposed, I distinctly heard the word "communism". Here we are. There is no chance of bringing back those "manufacturing jobs. High School graduates are basically useless unless they advance and focus on high tech professions. Even those will disappear.
It is higher taxes of we will get some very rich individuals or corporations in a sea of unheard of poverty.
Universal should be the goal. Some countries like Kenya could start by offering steady guaranteed income to all the unemployed including pensioners / elderly.
-
Can you say who will foot that bill? Kenya cannot afford such a scheme as it will be marred with corruption. People will be collecting the dues of dead relatives and some will register in several counties at the same time. The authorities will close an eye as long as they get their cut.
When it was first proposed, I distinctly heard the word "communism". Here we are. There is no chance of bringing back those "manufacturing jobs. High School graduates are basically useless unless they advance and focus on high tech professions. Even those will disappear.
It is higher taxes of we will get some very rich individuals or corporations in a sea of unheard of poverty.
Universal should be the goal. Some countries like Kenya could start by offering steady guaranteed income to all the unemployed including pensioners / elderly.
-
It already been done in Kenya..in small scale..elderly, orphaned and disabled receive monthly stipend. With m-pesa this can be changed to daily stipend of say 2 usd dollars per day - 200shs or 6,000 per month - enough to lift many from poverty. If we determine that about 10M people are gainfully employed and supports another 3 - that is already 40M people we don't have to worry about now. We'd have to worry about 10m people. If you send them 2usd per day in 365 days that comes to 10,000,000*2*365 =7,300,000,000 - that about 7.3B USD - which is a lot for kenya now - so we may have to start with half of that 3.5B is doable - we would be giving universal income to 10m people - enough to make them live above the poverty line. This will be good start...but eventually we might just want to give everyone 200shs per day...whether they are poor or not....for kenya's 45-50m people (assume) - that is not a lot of money..about 35BUSD....and our budget is now nearly close to that.
If every country does that same - then poverty (at least absolute basic poverty) will be history.
Every human alive will be assured of kshs 200 (2 usd) per day - international poverty line is around 2USd per day . In a global economy of more than 70 trillion USD...all 7B human beings...will just need 7B*2*365 =51 trillion usd per annum - which less than global economy now. If we got the robots working to improve global economy to says 200 trillion - we could easily afford 51 trillion needed to daily send 2 usd to every human being.
And this is where m-pesa or mobile money kicks in - it make such ideas possible.
Human beings would have made poverty history. It would have ended poverty.
-
There is enough to pay for it without having to beg donors.
Most of that money will be pumped back in to the economy and recovered through taxes. I am told the poor are good at spending.
Pundit: I know about the Pesa ya Wazee. It is a good start. However we need something for the unemployed youth. I would go by age from up downwards.
The key to its proper implementation is to overhaul the Population Register, Enhance the ZIP Code / Physical address for the whole country. The mobilephone would dispense with the need for banks but would not prevent corruption.
I also think such a scheme should be devolved.
Can you say who will foot that bill? Kenya cannot afford such a scheme as it will be marred with corruption. People will be collecting the dues of dead relatives and some will register in several counties at the same time. The authorities will close an eye as long as they get their cut.
When it was first proposed, I distinctly heard the word "communism". Here we are. There is no chance of bringing back those "manufacturing jobs. High School graduates are basically useless unless they advance and focus on high tech professions. Even those will disappear.
It is higher taxes of we will get some very rich individuals or corporations in a sea of unheard of poverty.
Universal should be the goal. Some countries like Kenya could start by offering steady guaranteed income to all the unemployed including pensioners / elderly.
-
The universal basic income idea maybe the only solution to counter automation. That would mean Amazons and Walmart having to pay way more taxes to gov that would then disburse basic universal income to every citizen.
I agree with you. Even Bill Gates suggested a tax on robots.
Kenya should have been offering the elderly (aged 70 and above a pension). Health should be free for these generation.
You said Kenya offers money to these generation but my neighbors never get a thing!
-
When it was first proposed, I distinctly heard the word "communism". Here we are. There is no chance of bringing back those "manufacturing jobs. High School graduates are basically useless unless they advance and focus on high tech professions. Even those will disappear.
It is higher taxes of we will get some very rich individuals or corporations in a sea of unheard of poverty.
Universal should be the goal. Some countries like Kenya could start by offering steady guaranteed income to all the unemployed including pensioners / elderly.
Worries about the possible loss of existing manufacturing jobs and the failure to return of lost manufacturing jobs are for those who have or have had such jobs---in serious numbers, that is. So places like Kenya may relax on that front.
Over the next 20-30 years, the countries that will make the most impact on the financial status of their citizens are those who are grabbing the manufacturing jobs that are being lost by others. Those are primarily South-East Asian countries: Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc.
What countries like Kenya ought to do is their share of the grabbing. They will then be in a better position to give "guaranteed income to all the unemployed including pensioners/elderly". As it is, even the small scheme that is currently in place is not fully funded by the government.
-
The universal basic income idea maybe the only solution to counter automation. That would mean Amazons and Walmart having to pay way more taxes to gov that would then disburse basic universal income to every citizen.
I think it goes back to the singularity discussion we once had on this forum. I think Robina's is closer to the truth in that sense. When something that was once difficult to do becomes a walk in the park, there will be demand for something else more difficult to achieve.
-
Can you say who will foot that bill? Kenya cannot afford such a scheme as it will be marred with corruption. People will be collecting the dues of dead relatives and some will register in several counties at the same time. The authorities will close an eye as long as they get their cut.
Take a look at the Auditor-General's 2016 report on the current small scheme. The AG has been able to determine that the money to be dished out was transferred to KCB. How much was dished out, how many people benefited, how much each person got ... the AG is unable to say because he has been unable to obtain the relevant records. Might there be some eating? You tell me; after all, this is Kenya.
-
Can you say who will foot that bill? Kenya cannot afford such a scheme as it will be marred with corruption. People will be collecting the dues of dead relatives and some will register in several counties at the same time. The authorities will close an eye as long as they get their cut.
Take a look at the Auditor-General's 2016 report on the current small scheme. The AG has been able to determine that the money to be dished out was transferred to KCB. How much was dished out, how many people benefited, how much each person got ... the AG is unable to say because he has been unable to obtain the relevant records. Might there be some eating? You tell me; after all, this is Kenya.
Private individuals already know that. They've been running UBI directly:
https://www.givedirectly.org/
Had seen this a few days ago:
GiveDirectly, a charity running a 12-year-long experiment in basic income later this year, has received a sizable investment from eBay's founder.
Omidyar Network, the philanthropic investment arm started by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, has invested $493,000 into an experiment giving people in Kenya free money.
The experiment, put on by the charity GiveDirectly, tests an up-and-coming solution to poverty known as basic income. People under basic income receive a set amount of money on a regular basis to cover expenses like rent, food, and clothing.
GiveDirectly is running a small pilot in just a few Kenyan villages at present, but once the full experiment launches in a few months it will be the largest basic income experiment in history. More than 26,000 people will receive free money in some form, whether it's for a period of 12 years, just a couple, or in a lump sum or spread out.
Not much long-term research on basic income exists, but the studies that have been performed suggest only good comes from helping poor people meet their financial needs.
People's stress goes down, while self-sufficiency goes up. People have started businesses, sent kids to school, and made vital home repairs on basic income. Some research even says drug and alcohol use declines as people have fewer reasons to be stressed.
"Omidyar Network's foundational belief that empowering people frees them to better themselves, their families, and their communities has great evidence in the growing literature around the benefits of cash transfers," manager Tracy Williams and partner Mike Kubzansky wrote in the blog post announcing Omidyar's investment.
GiveDirectly has raised $23.7 million of its targeted $30 million. A spokesperson from the charity says the new investment does not change the timeline of the overall experiment.
Omidyar, for its part, has expressed optimism that once it begins it'll produce many fruitful insights "unlike those of any past study and provide evidence-based arguments to shed light on the discussions around the future of work and poverty alleviation policies."
http://www.plive.co.ke/bi/tech/in-us-ebays-founder-just-invested-500-000-into-an-experiment-giving-away-free-money-id6192560.html
-
I think it goes back to the singularity discussion we once had on this forum. I think Robina's is closer to the truth in that sense. When something that was once difficult to do becomes a walk in the park, there will be demand for something else more difficult to achieve.
That is true only if one considers homo sapiens as a whole. Otherwise, many people will happily do zilch if they can get away with it, or even just think they can get away with it, and contribute nothing to the world.
-
I think the idea is to guarantee the third generation rights - those are basic rights to food, shelter, health,education and clothing. Under the current model - many countries have - guaranteed health and education - but despite the enormous wealth - we still have people starving to death or skipping meals or folks who don't have roof or clothing - about 2 billions living in abject poverty like wild animals.
We've determined that with 2usd per day per person we can lift people out of poverty. We've tried to get people out of poverty through many complicated ways that we think would be sustainable. Evidence has shown how incredibly difficult these many complicated ways can move them from poverty. We have never thought what would happen - if we m-pesad people the 2 usd per day - that would automatically move everyone beyond the poverty line. You wake up and you've enough to buy food, clothes and housing for that day.
My calculation shows we need just 51 trillion usd to gurantee everyone 2ud per day in the whole planet earth and make poverty history. This is the base salary for everyone. Whatever extra you'll make we'd know you aint dying from hunger without it.
We as human being would then have transcended other animals.We'd say if you're human -we guarantee your basic needs as well as your basic rights. The same way we think about universal education or health care - we should think about universal food, housing and shelter.
-
I think the idea is to guarantee the third generation rights - those are basic rights to food, shelter, health,education and clothing. Under the current model - many countries have - guaranteed health and education - but despite the enormous wealth - we still have people starving to death or skipping meals or folks who don't have roof or clothing - about 2 billions living in abject poverty like wild animals.
Very noble sentiments, indeed. And we already have these rights enshrined in the UN Human Charter on Human rights, which most countries have agreed to. But it is wishful thinking to believe that rich countries are (or would be) agreeable to spreading wealth around, no matter how many billions live "in abject poverty like wild animals". In fact, the title of this thread is about people in rich countries who think (partly wrongly) that their jobs and money have (supposedly unfairly) gone to poorer countries. They want them back, and they want to stop further movement. You won't here anyone saying, "Look those people need them more than we do, because they are poorer and we must work towards eradicating or reducing global poverty. Let's spread the wealth around.".
We've determined that with 2usd per day per person we can lift people out of poverty. We've tried to get people out of poverty through many complicated ways that we think would be sustainable. Evidence has shown how incredibly difficult these many complicated ways can move them from poverty. We have never thought what would happen - if we m-pesad people the 2 usd per day - that would automatically move everyone beyond the poverty line. You wake up and you've enough to buy food, clothes and housing for that day.
What are the many complicated ways and how are extremely difficult? We know a sure-fire way to move masses out of poverty: make sure they have decent-paying jobs. How many people has China moved out of poverty in the last 25 years? How has it been done?
And take our country as an example. What exactly has been tried to lift the masses out of poverty? What appropriate government policies do we currently have in place for that and how are they being implemented to do what is required? It's not about complicated and incredibly difficult ways.
Except for those who are infirm---because of old age etc.---anyone who wants to be in a position where "you wake up and you've enough to buy food, clothes and housing for that day", should do one thing: go out there, put in a good slog, and make sure you get paid enough---before going to bed. An old and well-known method, with a very high success rate.
My calculation shows we need just 51 trillion usd to gurantee everyone 2ud per day in the whole planet earth and make poverty history. This is the base salary for everyone. Whatever extra you'll make we'd know you aint dying from hunger without it.
That amount already exists. But, as I have noted above, those who hold it won't be parting with it any time soon. They might occasionally dole out little bits---such as now when we have declared a hunger emergency and set out pleas to the "international community"---but that's about it.
In any case, what kind of of life does one really get for US$2 per day (Sh. 6000 per month), even in a place like Kenya?
We as human being would then have transcended other animals.
That is highly debatable.
First, we are still greatly driven by the same primitive needs: sex, food, etc. All that our "advances" mean is that we have the leisure time to devise kinkier and more varied forms of sex, we get to eat food prepared in fancier ways, etc.; but that's all, and we still devote a great deal of energy in the pursuit of those things in their "new-and-improved" forms.
Second, from the point of view of other animals, we have completely gone down; these days, humans will even kill other animals just for fun! Our "advances" have made life hell for other species on Planet Earth, and there is the real danger that we'll completely destroy the place. (We are already doing "well" with things like global warming.) Perhaps robots should be promoted on the grounds that they might be able to run the place a bit better than we have done so far.
-
Moonki,
I am surprised you're not aware of the gazillions of ideas that have been tried by gov and ngos for last many years to fight poverty with limited success. I think you're mistaken to imagine China or the new industrial powers are immune from technology revolution going on now. Robots, Artificial intelligence & info technology are going to drive many jobs - service (see banking for example, retail -walmart), manufacturing, name any sector (self-driven cars?) - public sector jobs will disappear too with Information Tech Revolution going full steam.Jobs will disappear but economy will grow even bigger. US jobs have disappeared but US economy has grown bigger - not shrunk.
We are going into a stage of jobless growth - and this universal (country) basic minimum income - seem the only way to shares that growth - otherwise the few who have the capital to buy robots will dominate the world while leaving everyone starving. Rather than employ 10,000 people - companies will be employing 100,000 robots - making way more money.
2usd per day is per person...so for typical kenyan family of 5...that would mean 30,000 kshs per month or 6,000 per person. Definitely from the AID bugdet alone...we could possibly afford to send 2usd per day per person for those 2b or about folks living in poverty. China,India and Indonesia if they did this - would have lifted nearly half of the poor people.
-
Moonki,
I am surprised you're not aware of the gazillions of ideas that have been tried by gov and ngos for last many years to fight poverty with limited success.
Yes, I am not. Once you get over your surprise, please tell me, and we can discuss them. Doesn't have to be gazillions; just three or four will do.
US jobs have disappeared but US economy has grown bigger - not shrunk
Huh? You are mixing up different things and assuming that certain types of manufacturing jobs constitute all the jobs there are. The number of jobs in the US is actually at an all-time high and has been growing rapidly during Obama's time. Look here:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
(https://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_CES0000000001_2007_2017_all_period_M01_data.gif)
And those are the numbers for jobs filled. Right now (Feb 2017), there's another 5.5 million jobs that require people.
I think you're mistaken to imagine China or the new industrial powers are immune from technology revolution going on now.
Huh ?!? What gave you the idea that I believe that. Given your claims of "many complicated ways that we think would be sustainable. Evidence has shown how incredibly difficult", I simply asked a question:
How many people has China moved out of poverty in the last 25 years? How has it been done?
That's the question I wanted answered, and I don't where that tangent of yours comes from. If other examples help to see what I am getting at, take South Korea and Kenya in 1963 and South Korea and Kenya in 2017. What made the difference. Right now, you can look at what's happening in places like Vietnam and compare with what's happening in Kenya. And so on, and so forth.
I also asked about GoK's policies and plans to lift Kenyan masses out of poverty and how those are being implemented.
We are going into a stage of jobless growth - and this universal (country) basic minimum income - seem the only way to shares that growth - otherwise the few who have the capital to buy robots will dominate the world while leaving everyone starving.
Tell that to the desperate unemployed. What makes you think that people are interested in sharing the growth? Now you are with me. If you look at the world right now, the rich are where they are, enjoying being rich; and we know where the world's starving are to be found. What the latter need to do is take care of themselves. Waiting for robots from the former to deliver $2 handouts will not do much.
2usd per day is per person...so for typical kenyan family of 5...that would mean 30,000 kshs per month or 6,000 per person. Definitely from the AID bugdet alone...we could possibly afford to send 2usd per day per person
That's the problem with places like Kenya. Always "AID!", "international community please help!", ... And now we are planning for a nation of layabouts, receiving handouts from those who have worked for their money?
we could possibly afford to send 2usd per day per person for those 2b or about folks living in poverty. China,India and Indonesia if they did this - would have lifted nearly half of the poor people.
See my question above on China. India has learned something from such which is why the government launched "Make In India": http://www.makeinindia.com/home
From the "About":
The Make in India initiative was launched by Prime Minister in September 2014 as part of a wider set of nation-building initiatives. Devised to transform India into a global design and manufacturing hub.
No funny ideas about $2 handouts.
Indonesia: Have you looked at the number of manufacturing jobs it is grabbing from elsewhere?
-
Moonki as obtuse as always. I am going to ignore the little details and focus on the big picture. We are talking about a future where jobs as we know of will not exist. Self-driven cars doing taxis and driving trucks, robots working in factories & super-markets, drones diriving commercial jets, branchless banks ran entirely from some algorithm like m-shwari or mobile-money loans that in kenya annually disperse billions with little human intervention - what computer chips loaded with software (including artificial intelligence) will be able to do is only limited by your imagination.
That future will take away jobs (including manufacturing) that have driven most humans out of poverty. That future is now - it already happening. The jobs that we know of will mostly disappear everywhere - china, india or US.
There will probably be new jobs - but will those newly created jobs - replace the old stable jobs that allowed folks to raise families & live middle class life? most likely not.
The guys who own capital (rich men) will make more money from robots -than pesky factory workers for example - and gov will also make more money taxing them - but rest of people will have nothing much to do - and will be in need of some source of assured income - and this universal income seems one of the good ideas.
I am little surprised that you're not aware of the many ideas that have been tried before to fight poverty.Not really - your obtuseness is legendary.Of course you're now obsessed with manufacturing as only way to pull folks out of poverty.
-
Moonki as obtuse as always. I am going to ignore the little details and focus on the big picture.
You forgot "nitpicking". :D
There will probably be new jobs - but will those newly created jobs -
So jobs will still be there. Just different. Isn't that just the history of labour--that the nature of jobs change over time?
but rest of people will have nothing much to do
And who will do the "newly created jobs"? Here's a question for you: Take a look at the countries that are leading in the adoption of automation---robotics and whatever. To what extent are the total numbers of jobs in those places declining in correspondence?
I am little surprised that you're not aware of the many ideas that have been tried before to fight poverty.
One more time: Once you get over your surprise, please tell me, and we can discuss them. Doesn't have to be gazillions; just three or four will do.
Of course you're now obsessed with manufacturing as only way to pull folks out of poverty.
I haven't quite said "only", but never mind. If you have better ideas, let's have them. And, please, not $2 handouts from Aid.
-
Yeah nearly forget the nit-picking. I doubt the new jobs that will come up will be enough to replace the billions of jobs that low & middle class will lose thanks to automation. most of poor/low & middle class workers in the world are farmers, factory workers,cleaners, truck drivers, truck loaders,tailors, clerks, - name any mundane job - these jobs are facing mortal danger from information revolution that has just started - these brain dead jobs computers will do for nearly nothing - sending mass number of people back into poverty. The new jobs in robotics or software development will not be enough to replace all the walmart or china factory jobs that will disappear.We know who will be smilling - all the rich folks who have the capital to deploy - and gov - and we shall see even more acute wealth gap - the rich will become richer - and poor this time round maybe poorer.
This is already happening in the developed world - but China is now the bogey man taking all the blame - while in reality some jobs just disappeared into computer chips - and didn't relocate to cheap labour destination. Whilst automation has fueled growth in world for last 50 yrs - improving economic efficiency and productivity to levels unimaginable 50 years ago - and growing incredible wealth for companies - it side effect will be mass unemployment as robots armed with intelligence replace humans nearly everywhere.
And hence this idea of universal income seem the only way to counter it.
Moonki as obtuse as always. I am going to ignore the little details and focus on the big picture.
You forgot "nitpicking". :D
We are talking about a future where jobs as we know of will not exist. Self-driven cars doing taxis and driving trucks,
That future is now - it already happening. The jobs that we know of will mostly disappear everywhere - china, india or US.
There will probably be new jobs - but will those newly created jobs -
So jobs will still be there. Just different. Isn't that just the history of labour--that the nature of jobs change over time?
but rest of people will have nothing much to do
And who will do the "newly created jobs"? Here's a question for you: Take a look at the countries that are leading in the adoption of automation---robotics and whatever. To what extent are the total numbers of jobs in those places declinig in correspondence?
I am little surprised that you're not aware of the many ideas that have been tried before to fight poverty.
One more time: Once you get over your surprise, please tell me, and we can discuss them. Doesn't have to be gazillions; just three or four will do.
Of course you're now obsessed with manufacturing as only way to pull folks out of poverty.
I haven't quite said "only", but never mind. If you have better ideas, let's have them. And, please, not $2 handouts from Aid.
-
Moonki as obtuse as always. I am going to ignore the little details and focus on the big picture. We are talking about a future where jobs as we know of will not exist. Self-driven cars doing taxis and driving trucks, robots working in factories & super-markets, drones diriving commercial jets, branchless banks ran entirely from some algorithm like m-shwari or mobile-money loans that in kenya annually disperse billions with little human intervention - what computer chips loaded with software (including artificial intelligence) will be able to do is only limited by your imagination.
That future will take away jobs (including manufacturing) that have driven most humans out of poverty. That future is now - it already happening. The jobs that we know of will mostly disappear everywhere - china, india or US.
There will probably be new jobs - but will those newly created jobs - replace the old stable jobs that allowed folks to raise families & live middle class life? most likely not.
The guys who own capital (rich men) will make more money from robots -than pesky factory workers for example - and gov will also make more money taxing them - but rest of people will have nothing much to do - and will be in need of some source of assured income - and this universal income seems one of the good ideas.
I am little surprised that you're not aware of the many ideas that have been tried before to fight poverty.Not really - your obtuseness is legendary.Of course you're now obsessed with manufacturing as only way to pull folks out of poverty.
I just feel we can rely on human nature to ensure there is work to be done. Something similar happened when people stopped eating wild fruits after they discovered farming. The consensus then must have been that there is nothing more left to do. Then population explosion and famines followed.
-
That may true but human has to really do it fast. In the next few decades to be precise I have seen estimate of half the jobs disappearing. So new sexier jobs need to appear soonest. I think information tech revolution is unlike any we've seen before - nothing is immune from it. It like man finally acquiring GOD like ability to create things on the fly. The disruption will be massive.
I just feel we can rely on human nature to ensure there is work to be done. Something similar happened when people stopped eating wild fruits after they discovered farming. The consensus then must have been that there is nothing more left to do. Then population explosion and famines followed.
-
That may true but human has to really do it fast. In the next few decades to be precise I have seen estimate of half the jobs disappearing. So new sexier jobs need to appear soonest. I think information tech revolution is unlike any we've seen before - nothing is immune from it. It like man finally acquiring GOD like ability to create things on the fly. The disruption will be massive.
I just feel we can rely on human nature to ensure there is work to be done. Something similar happened when people stopped eating wild fruits after they discovered farming. The consensus then must have been that there is nothing more left to do. Then population explosion and famines followed.
US manufacturing is at its highest level ever and with the lowest number of people involved. The Trump supporter is an example of someone who has failed to adapt, still waiting to work in a coal mine and die of black lung. But companies are unable to fill millions of actual jobs in areas that require a different skill set than holding a drill bit.
-
The new jobs in robotics or software development will not be enough to replace all the walmart or china factory jobs that will disappear.
The fact that there will be more robots and computers does not mean that the new jobs have to be in those areas. As it is, it is probably the case that more people spend more hours using computers in their work than people spend developing computer hardware and software. It's like a jembe: one guy spends a couple of hours to make one, another guy spends hours and hours using it to farm.
There's also another way to look at robots, an argument that has been put forth by some pro-robotics types. Consider for example a factory that uses manual labour to produce bricks. Say it produces 10,000 bricks per day. That means a certain number of houses can be built per day and only so many people can be employed building houses . Now replace the manual labour with industrial robots that 1,000,000 bricks per day; more people can now get to building houses. Take the retail industry as another example. How many jobs there rely on the fact that industrial robots are busy producing tons of a large variety of stuff to be peddled? Or, at a "higher level": how many jobs are based on the availability of cheap electronics, produced by robots?
Self-driven cars doing taxis and driving trucks ... drones diriving commercial jets.
I think it's going to take a while---and very long while---before those do away with humans. Right now, the pilot of a commercial plane does almost nothing, except during take-off and landing, and drone technology has shown that those don't strictly require a human being. But how many people are prepared to board a flight without a pilot? Similarly, I expect that "driverless" cars will actually have drivers in them; they just won't be doing much.
I just feel we can rely on human nature to ensure there is work to be done. Something similar happened when people stopped eating wild fruits after they discovered farming. The consensus then must have been that there is nothing more left to do. Then population explosion and famines followed.
We already have thriving industries whose business consists primarily of catering for people with nothing to do---hospitality, entertainment, etc.---whether the "idle time" is long or short. Historically, industrialization and the endless introduction of machines have not done much to end work ... people buy labour-saving devices (robots next) and then go to work to pay for them. In fact many people in places with the least automation wouldn't mind being in the places with the most automation---because that's where the jobs are.
Another thing is that ideas like universal basic income are luxuries that only the rich places can afford to imagine. In places like Africa, the poverty-stricken masses are:
* not enjoying "unimaginable levels of economic efficiency and productivity",
* hardly in a position to afford the robots, and
* mostly have no jobs to lose.
They should be "safe" for at least another 50 years ... perhaps 100, the way things are going. In the meantime, they should work to get to where others are right now.
If Pundit's idea is to extrapolate to, say, 200 years from now, then, to my mind, a first question is whether people will still need "income" as we now think of it. Maybe robots will do everything that needs to be done and supply everything that needs to be supplied. The question might then be one of the supply of robots. Not a problem: robots will make robots, just as we procreate and therefore don't have to worry about a supply of humans. A truly brave new world.
-
US manufacturing is at its highest level ever and with the lowest number of people involved. The Trump supporter is an example of someone who has failed to adapt, still waiting to work in a coal mine and die of black lung. But companies are unable to fill millions of actual jobs in areas that require a different skill set than holding a drill bit.
Indeed. Right now the US Department of Labour says that there are about 5.5 million jobs that need filling in the USA, which is about the same number as 2 years ago: https://www.bls.gov/jlt/news.htm
Of manufacturing, the estimate is 3 million new jobs available over the next decade, with only 1 million of those filled with current trends.
And a place like Japan had actually better get on with robots: a low birth-rate and an aging population means that the working age population is declining signficantly---peaked around 1990---and there are now more jobs open than there are people looking for jobs.
Not exactly end-of-jobs pictures.
-
There is need to tax heavily the tech firms to fund social services for the poor. Kenya needs to come with ways to tax more Safaricom, MPesa, Mshwari, Google, Uber, Facebook, Twitter & Whatsapp.
The case of betting companies is a good starting point.
Eight betting companies have paid a total Sh4.7 billion in taxes over the last three years
Given the morality questions, likes of Sportpesa are doing so much in sport. They have replaced Tuskers in sponsoring nearly all sports events.
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Betting-companies-tax-3-years-KRA/1056-3821878-973323/
This quote was meant for this thread. There is a way when I log in when in a certain thread, it jumps to another thread.
$600 or Kshs. 6,000 is half of our minimum wage. Per annun this is Kshs. 72,000.
For the ‘well off’ urban poor it takes care of rent (a spacious double room @ Kshs. 4,000 p.m on the higher end in likes of Githurai, Pipeline, Kariobangi) and takes care of school fees for two kids.
For vulnerable urban poor in slums like Kibera, Korogocho, Majengo and the uncaptured peasants in the rural areas this amount means living large. It is enough for school fees, clothing and medicine for a family of up to six.
Quote from: gout on March 01, 2017, 03:25:50 PM
For vulnerable urban poor in slums like Kibera, Korogocho, Majengo and the uncaptured peasants in the rural areas this amount means living large. It is enough for school fees, clothing and medicine for a family of up to six.
Quote from: RV Pundit on March 01, 2017, 03:39:03 PM
Typical kenyan family with 5 members requires kshs 30,000 to barely survive
Living large in the slums doesn't seem to be an especially convincing sales line for an economic plan. Nor does bare survival. What is needed is a plan that will deliver much more.
Quote
$600 or Kshs. 6,000 is half of our minimum wage. Per annun this is Kshs. 72,000.
For the ‘well off’ urban poor it takes care of rent (a spacious double room @ Kshs. 4,000 p.m on the higher end in likes of Githurai, Pipeline, Kariobangi) and takes care of school fees for two kids.
Interesting figures. I'll skip questions about the quality of the accommodation, and, for simplicity, I'll assume a single person. After rent for his spacious apartment, he has Sh. 2000 left for the month. What are his costs for transportation, utilities, etc.? What can he afford to spend leisure? Etc.
In an ideal situation, the universal basic income means the vulnerable population can be more entrepreneurial, take more risks given the assurance of having the basics covered and unlock the massive potential locked among these billion of masses.
If a couple gets this comes to Kshs. 144,000 p.a.; a sum equalling the minimum wage per household.
This is income per person. The international poverty line is 2usd per day per person. That comes to 60 dollars a month. So one man family can meet his basic needs with 200shs per day. Typical kenyan family with 5 members requires kshs 30,000 to barely survive.
Quote from: gout on March 01, 2017, 03:25:50 PM
$600 or Kshs. 6,000 is half of our minimum wage. Per annun this is Kshs. 72,000.
For the ‘well off’ urban poor it takes care of rent (a spacious double room @ Kshs. 4,000 p.m on the higher end in likes of Githurai, Pipeline, Kariobangi) and takes care of school fees for two kids.
For vulnerable urban poor in slums like Kibera, Korogocho, Majengo and the uncaptured peasants in the rural areas this amount means living large. It is enough for school fees, clothing and medicine for a family of up to six.
In an ideal situation, the universal basic income means the vulnerable population can be more entrepreneurial, take more risks given the assurance of having the basics covered and unlock the massive potential locked among these billion of masses.
If a couple gets this comes to Kshs. 144,000 p.a.; a sum equalling the minimum wage per household.