They certainly will. Robots work efficiently, do not complain about work conditions, and save money. Robots ease the burden of physical labour on humans, but they also remove opportunities for humans to earn a living. If the economy creates new jobs for those who have lost their jobs to automation, then automation is suitable for both the economy and the people. The problem is that politicians in capitalist societies often talk a great deal about eliminating unemployment, but their actions do not match their words. Unemployed people struggle to make ends meet, and that means robots might not be the perfect choice for them, nor for society as a whole.
This raised an idea: if robots take people’s jobs, then the government will have to pay for people’s wages. An escape from social and economic problems could be achieved through the Universal Basic Income (UBI). This is a form of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country receive a regular, unconditional sum of money from the government. This would undoubtedly help deprived people live better and promote economic growth.
Basic Income (BI) is an old, noble idea promoted by many social thinkers and philosophers throughout human history. The realization of the concept started recently in small, disadvantaged communities around the world. In the US, Milton Friedman proposed a “negative income tax” in 1960-is, which was supposed to simplify the welfare system and bring benefits to society. According to the reports, it did not bring noticeable improvements to the overall well-being of the people.
The experiments were more successful in developing countries, such as Namibia, Uganda, Kenya, and India, where basic income improved the lives of selected poor individuals. Such experiments were not necessary because the results could be well anticipated before the experiments started. Searching for a permanent source of funding for BI would be a more effective approach. Meanwhile, UBI pilot experiments are scheduled to continue in Ontario, the Netherlands, Italy, Finland, Scotland, and several other countries, where some low-income individuals will receive a basic income.
UBI is intended to benefit all citizens, which presents additional challenges. The first problem is the amount of money each citizen of a country should receive through UBI. Poor people would likely prefer to receive the maximum amount of UBI, while the rich would most likely support the least possible amount. If people receive the maximum amount of money, they might be less inclined to work, and wealthy individuals might leave the country with their capital. On the other side, if rich people enforce the minimum amount of money for UBI, which they are perfectly capable of by getting along with politicians, nothing would change. No discussion established a decision on how much money UBI should give to people. I believe it should be flexible. If people are not sufficiently interested in working and capital leaves the country, the UBI must decrease; conversely, if people are overinterested in working, the UBI must increase.
The former U.S. Treasury Secretary, Lawrence H. Summers, predicted in 2016 that paying a $5,000 universal basic income yearly per adult (which is the minimum necessary for living in the US) would cost approximately $1.25 trillion per year. The Roosevelt Institute study predicted this year that $1,000 UBI per adult per month would cost the US government $ 2.5 trillion. The Roosevelt Institute believes UBI would be helpful because it would increase the US GDP by $2.5 trillion. They think that a bigger UBI would be more beneficial for the US.
But from where would the US government find the money for UBI? Who would pay for it? The Roosevelt Institute proposes that the US government fund the UBI by increasing the federal deficit. Then, the increased federal deficit should be offset by raising taxes. As of today, the U.S. gross national debt is about $20.5 trillion, or $62,000 per citizen. This debt already constitutes a significant tax burden for the US people. Increasing the federal deficit by $2.5 trillion to cover UBI in today’s political environment is not realistic.
It might look impossible to find the money for UBI in the US, but actually, it is not. The US GDP for 2016 was $ 17.4 trillion, which means the average gross income per inhabitant was approximately $53,000. From this point of view, $5,000 - $12,000 UBI per person should not be a problem for the US economy at all. Still, the basic income would be almost five to ten times lower than the average one. That sounds reasonable to me.
The US policy has created an extreme range in earnings, which has led to social problems. For example, Michael Eisner, the CEO of Walt Disney Corporation, earned $565 million in 1996, while Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle, earned $706 million in 2001, at a time when the minimum worker's salary was barely $10,000. It means they earned the same amount of money as 56,500 and 70,600 workers.
If the USA wants to escape social problems, it must establish a more equitable income distribution; in short, it must tax those who have too much and redistribute the wealth to those who do not have enough. The rich people are not willing to support it, and they influence the US government. Even though the idea of UBI is being studied, discussed, and promoted among the technical elite, increasing the taxes for the rich enough to establish UBI, which would help the poor enough, would hardly be a starter in today’s US policy.
So, why is UBI being discussed so much recently by scientists, politicians, and the media? My experience in fighting for justice suggests that such actions in the Western world are unlikely to gain traction unless wealthy individuals provide sufficient support. What interest could rich people possibly have in supporting UBI? None, their only benefit may be in presenting to people that UBI would not work. So, rich people want an endless discussion about UBI and the conclusion: “UBI would not work.” They can do it. Then the whole story about UBI becomes a big scam with only one intention to deceive people. Wealthy people often scam others, not hesitating to engage in criminal activities. Most of the things presented in the news and on TV in the Western world have the primary objective of misleading people, making them ignorant, insecure, and increasingly dependent on the wealthy. That is the essential step, along with considerable wealth, which empowers the rich to rule over people.
***
There is an escape from an immoral socio-economic policy that the rich people do not want you to know. It does not require UBI or the government to collect money for it. The idea is straightforward and will bring economic justice to all people unconditionally and unavoidably. The idea is to shorten work hours for all working people proportionally to the unemployment rate. That is the simplest way to create jobs for everyone and generate income for all. It is not easy to do, but it is a policy well worth fighting.
The income inequality in capitalism has mainly come from unemployment. Unemployment has always compelled workers to accept any job to support their families. The higher the unemployment rate, the lower workers’ wages are, and the greater the exploitation of workers. The exploitation of workers would not exist without unemployment. Once unemployment is eliminated by shortening work hours, the opposite process will begin. Employers will face challenges in finding new workers due to a shortage of available workers. To attract more workers, employers must compete with other employers for them. They would have to increase workers’ wages to attract workers from other companies. This will cause a chain reaction in the labour market, where workers’ wages will rise. As a result, workers will work fewer hours than they do today and earn more. This is explained in more detail in my article, Let's Remove Unemployment.
Larger salaries will increase workers’ purchasing power, which, in turn, will help the economy. Employers would also benefit from it. They would still not be impressed by it, because they will have to pay the price of increasing workers’ salaries first, and profit would depend on their efficiency. They will try to manipulate people as they are used to, but the simplicity of the new economic policy will not give them a chance.
If people accept the new regulation of work hours, the rich would have only one way to resist it: by taking their capital out of the country. That is something that already happens, and it is not convenient for the state economy. However, the owners of capital might have difficulties finding new markets, so I believe most of them will stay. In this analysis, I will anticipate the worst-case scenario: if the capital leaves, it would lead to the closure of the companies and an increase in the number of unemployed people. Then the new employment policy will further reduce work hours to get all the people employed again and receive salaries. The work hours may be shortened to 6 or even to 4 hours per day. Then people would start receiving lower incomes than they have today, and that they would not like.
Then democracy will decide as it usually does in democratic societies. People will choose between political parties, which offer either higher earnings or greater stability.
The capitalist system has been teaching people that money is the ultimate value in society. It has typically been supported by our parents, schools, work, and media, practically all our lives. We accepted it. But that was false propaganda. People today already have a higher standard of living than kings had in the Middle Ages. We live in a saturated society where producers struggle to sell their goods. Those who already have money have more than they objectively need, while others do not. People who have money often seek recognition of their social status. Mercedes will do the job just like any other car. However, Mercedes is expensive, and owning one is usually seen as a symbol of the owner's success. This is what for money today is most needed. We can find a much better way to promote people’s progress through work, which would bring benefits to society.
I will go further and teach a bit of wisdom here. People compare their lives with those of others, and that is how they become aware of the “quality” of their own lives. If they find that they are more successful than others, then they usually feel happy. This is an illusion, and people always pay the price for living in delusions by suffering from pain later in the future. That is what happens all the time, but people fail to understand it. Those who are not fortunate may be upset due to their less successful outcomes. They are both victims of a completely unnecessary illusion. The best way to live comes from avoiding self-comparison with others when people learn to live their lives to the best of their ability independently. I call it freedom. Nothing is better than that. I wrote more about it in my article Wisdom. Finding wisdom is the most crucial condition for leading a fulfilling life.
As people become wiser and start to see the benefits of full employment, they will undoubtedly accept regulating work hours according to the employment rate. Then, if one day robots steal, let's say, 80% of today’s jobs, we would all still have jobs. We might work 80% fewer hours than we do today and receive higher incomes than we do today. We would live much better than today. When people understand it, they will stand firmly behind it, and a much better future for humankind will start.
No other regulation of employment would be required, except for tracking the employment rate and fine-tuning work hours for all. It would not regulate just basic income, but all salaries in the best possible way through the fair market. Those who perform better may be more compensated than they are today. I think UBI and any other socially created function in this field may not bring the same level of simplicity, efficiency, benefits, and harmony to society's economic policy as regulating work hours according to the employment rate.
This will reduce the privileges of employers and increase workers' rights. It will also reduce the difference between the earnings of employers and workers. In such an environment, capital will lose its significance. A fair labour market will spontaneously initialize a new social and economic system that will replace capitalism and significantly meet the needs of society as a whole. I have presented this system in detail in my book, Humanism, which is available for free on my website at www.sarovic.com. Humanism will be equally acceptable to all people and will further develop society.