Daily Archives: June 5, 2017

Globe editorial: On pipelines, Ottawa must have the final say – The Globe and Mail

Posted: June 5, 2017 at 7:21 am

Theres a battle brewing between British Columbia and the federal government that could have an indelible impact on the future of Canada. It comes down to one question: Can Ottawa effectively exercise its responsibilities if the provinces refuse to recognize its authority on controversial issues?

The issue at hand is pipelines. Last fall, the Trudeau government approved Kinder Morgans Trans Mountain expansion project, which will twin an existing pipeline along a route from Alberta to Burnaby, in Metro Vancouver. The decision came after a full review of the project by the National Energy Board.

In other words, Ottawa played by the rules and approved a project of the type that the Constitution places squarely in its jurisdiction: railways, canals, hydro lines, pipelines and other infrastrcture that cross provincial boundaries.

Ottawa also has clear jurisdiction over seacoasts, navigation and shipping, which ties into issues that arise from the fact that the pipeline expansion will increase tanker traffic in Vancouver harbour and along the coast of B.C.

And Ottawa has sole jurisdiction over trade and commerce, which is what this is mostly about. Getting the crude from Albertas oil sands or any other Canadian product from any other landlocked part of the country to coastal waters where it can be loaded onto boats and shipped to foreign markets goes to the heart of Canadas ability to be a successful trader.

On top of all that, there is a clause in the Constitution that gives Ottawa jurisdiction over projects that are declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada.

So its clear. Ottawa has authority over the Trans Mountain expansion project. That pipeline is critical to Canadas resource-based economy. And it appears to have the support of Canadians and British Columbians, who in polls last fall consistently backed Ottawas decision to greenlight the project.

And yet its not clear at all. British Columbia is poised to be governed by the New Democrats with the support of the Green Party; the two party leaders have promised to use every tool available to prevent the Trans Mountain expansion.

Those tools are considerable. If the NDP and Greens form government, they will be able to undertake a bureaucratic guerrilla war against the project.

The B.C. provincial government could collude with municipal governments to deny needed construction permits, which would cause delays and raise costs for Kinder Morgan.

They can also rescind the previous Liberal governments approval of the project and set new conditions on it. And they could side with the plaintiffs in the many court challenges, 19 and counting, brought by environmental groups, municipalities and First Nations, that claim that the federal approval process was flawed.

The NDP-Greens are also armed with political clout. They are positioning themselves as the defenders of B.C.s coastal waters. And, by trying to block the export of crude oil, they claim to be on the side of the angels in the fight against climate change.

Thats a tough combo for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to punch against. He has promised that the coastline will be protected by strict rules that minimize the chances of a tanker going aground, but the possiblity of a spill can never be reduced to zero.

And while there is a solid three-fold argument for building the pipeline Canada has to continue to exist as a resource-based economy while it and the rest of the world transition away from carbon; oil sands crude will continue to be shipped even without a pipe, by rail; and pipelines are safer than rail there is no question that the product it transports will ultimately contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

There are a lot of green votes at stake for the Trudeau government in the Vancouver area. The NDP and Green members know it, and they will use it to their advantage. In the end, they could kill the project by forcing delay after delay, while Ottawa, paralyzed by a fear of alienating voters, stands by.

That must not happen. Mr. Trudeau should stick to his guns and see the project through. There is a principle at play. Simply put, one provincial government should not have a veto over Canadian trade because of its geography. This has to be a national decision and that means the federal government and federal institutions.

As Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said last week, We can't be a country that says one of its two functional coastlines is only going to do what the people who live right beside it want to do.

We would go further than that. Provincial parties should not espouse the use of clever delay tactics for the sole purpose of usurping the duly exercised authority of the federal government. Trans Mountain has the law and Parliament behind it. That may not please its opponents, but their displeasure doesnt give them the power to undermine a valid federal decision.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

Read more:

Globe editorial: On pipelines, Ottawa must have the final say - The Globe and Mail

Posted in Resource Based Economy | Comments Off on Globe editorial: On pipelines, Ottawa must have the final say – The Globe and Mail

Basic income plan doable: Northern study – The Sudbury Star

Posted: at 7:21 am

It would cost an extra $15 billion a year to introduce a well-designed basic income guarantee in Canada, a new Northern Policy Institute report suggests.

It's money that would be well spent, Prof. Evelyn Forget said in her report, "Do We Still Need a Basic Income Guarantee in Canada?", published by the Northern Ontario think tank.

"The key is to find the right way to integrate the B.I.G (basic income guarantee) into all of the existing social programs that exist in the country," Forget said in a release. "Now is the time to address, head-on, the challenges and trade-offs that are necessary to create a universal B.I.G. that can meet the needs of Canadians in the 21st century.

"The challenges are real, but so too are the costs of doing nothing."

Forget said the calculating the costs of a basic income guarantee program can be tricky, especially if -- as critics argue -- people are less inclined to work. However, she said the evidence suggests basic income guarantee programs do little to change people's approach to work.

"If a B.I.G. reduces the incentive to work and, consequently, many more people rely on the program than anticipated, the costs will be much higher than calculated," she said. "If, as is more likely, there is little behavioural response for most people, then costs will be much more modest. The behavioural response is something we do not yet know without the results of the proposed experiment."

As the same time, Forget concedes a basic income guarantee program won't solve every social problem, but it can help ease the burden for Canadians struggling with poverty.

"We conclude that B.I.G., like any other social program, can address a variety of issues but cannot independently solve all social problems. If well designed, a B.I.G. can not only deliver a range of benefits, but can do so at a feasible cost."

In "Do We Still Need a Basic Income Guarantee in Canada?", Forget cites shifts in the economy leading to income insecurity and outdated social policies, as reasons why basic income is a much needed policy in Canada for people finding themselves falling between the gaps.

In calculating the costs of basic income guarantee, Forget uses payouts based on the plan the Ontario government will experiment with in three cities, including Thunder Bay. Eligible individuals will receive up to $16,989 per year, less 50 per cent of any income they earn. Couples will receive up to $24,027 per year, less half of any income earned. Ontario residents with disabilities will receive up to an additional $6,000 per year.

As a result, a basic income guarantee program using Ontario's numbers, and "targeted to those between 18 and 64, will cost Canadians approximately $30 billion a year, less the $15 billion we currently pay for income assistance. A net cost of $15 billion annually is not only feasible, it is about 5 percent of federal government expenditure and much less than we currently spend on seniors' benefits.

"We can afford it if we choose to afford it."

For her report, Forget, a University of Manitoba professor, examines Mincome. In the 1970s, Canada tested basic income guarantee in a field experiment in Manitoba called Mincome.

Almost 40 years later, Ontario is preparing for a three-year basic income guarantee pilot based on the model proposed in Hugh Segal's recent discussion paper for the Ontario government. It is through both of these lenses that Forget explores both key design principles for consideration, and estimated costs associated with such a policy at the federal level.

According to her report, key considerations should include:

- Basic income guarantee, or B.I.G., should be targeted and support should be gradually withdrawn as income increases.

- B.I.G should be targeted to adults (18-64 years of age).

- B.I.G should make no one who depends on existing income support programs worse off.

- Costs of a B.I.G should be allocated to those with the greatest capacity to bear the burden

- B.I.G should not be seen as a replacement for all other social programs.

Forget said while experiments with other basic guarantee income programs have been dropped without becoming policy, the changing workplace should compel governments to take a fresh look at the idea.

"Since the 2008 financial crisis, it has become increasingly impossible to ignore the growing numbers of workers who spend many years or their entire careers working on insecure, short-term contracts. Young people just entering the workforce struggle to find secure employment that makes use of their training and offers them anything like the salary, security and range of benefits previous generations took for granted.

"Older workers, displaced by technology, often lack the skills to compete for the jobs that exist. The workplace has never been welcoming to people with invisible disabilities, and support programs offered by the state are under pressure, as struggling workplaces faced with global competition offer even less room for the supports required by these workers. People who leave the workplace because of their own poor health, or to support family members, often do not qualify for any support until a lifetime worth of savings, intended to finance a reasonable retirement, is exhausted.

"B.I.G. offers ways to address some of these policy gaps, but we need to understand the choices involved in turning the idea of basic income guarantee into a specific policy that can be applied in the real world, and integrated with a range of existing and not entirely consistent taxation and social policies. Turning an idea into a policy requires careful choices and some compromise."

The paper is the second of a series that explores the various topics presented at NPI's Basic Income Guarantee conference held in Sudbury last October. Report topics include food security issues, potential models for a B.I.G. pilot, tax implications, and the potential impact on social innovators and First Nations communities.

To view reports, presentations from the NPI's BIG conference and explore comments and feedback from participants, visit http://www.northernpolicy.ca/big.

sud.editorial@sunmedia.ca

. . . .

More info

-- Northern Policy Institute is Northern Ontario's independent think tank. It performs research, collects and disseminates evidence, and identifies policy opportunities to support the growth of sustainable Northern communities. Operations are located in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury.

-- Evelyn L. Forget is a professor in Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba and adjunct professor of Economics at McMaster University and the University of Manitoba. She is director of the Manitoba Research Data Centre and adjunct scientist at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy. Her most recent work examines the relationships between poverty, inequality, health and social outcomes.

. . . .

What do you think? sud.letters@sunmedia.ca

Continued here:

Basic income plan doable: Northern study - The Sudbury Star

Posted in Basic Income Guarantee | Comments Off on Basic income plan doable: Northern study – The Sudbury Star

Universal basic income: guarantee pay as way to improve quality of life – WatertownDailyTimes.com

Posted: at 7:21 am

'); //-->

With an impending robot revolution expected to leave a trail of unemployment, some Silicon Valley tech leaders think they have a remedy to a future with fewer jobs: free money for all.

Its called universal basic income, a radical concept that would provide all Americans with a minimum level of economic security. The idea is expensive and controversial it guarantees cash for everyone, regardless of income level or employment status. But prominent tech leaders including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Sam Altman, president of startup accelerator Y Combinator, support it.

We should make it so no one is worried about how theyre going to pay for a place to live, no one has to worry about how theyre going to have enough to eat, Altman said in a recent speech in San Francisco. Just give people enough money to have a reasonable quality of life.

Altman is funding a basic income experiment in Oakland, Calif., as the concept gains momentum in the San Francisco Bay Area. Policy experts, economists, tech leaders and others convened in San Francisco last month for a workshop on the topic organized by the Economic Security Project, of which Altman is a founding signatory. The project is investing $10 million in basic income projects over the next two years.

Stanford University has created a Basic Income Lab to study the idea, and the San Francisco city treasurers office has said its designing tests though the department said it has no updates on the status of that project.

Proponents say the utopian approach could offer relief to workers in Silicon Valley and beyond who may soon find their jobs threatened by robots as they get smarter. Even before the robots take over, some economists say, basic income should be used as a tool to fight poverty. In the Bay Area where the rapid expansion of high-paying tech companies has made the region too expensive for many to afford it could help lift those the boom has left behind.

Unlike traditional aid programs, recipients of a universal basic income wouldnt need to prove anything not their income level, employment status, disability or family obligations before collecting their cash payments.

Its a right of citizenship, said Karl Widerquist, a basic income expert and associate professor at Georgetown Universitys School of Foreign Service in Qatar, so were not judging people and were not putting them in this other category or (saying) youre the poor. And I think this is exciting people right now because the other model hasnt worked.

That means a mother living at the poverty line would get the same amount of free cash as Mark Zuckerberg, Widerquist said. But Zuckerbergs taxes would go up, canceling out his basic income payment.

The problem is that giving all Americans a $10,000 annual income would cost upwards of $3 trillion a year more than three-fourths of the federal budget, said Bob Greenstein, president of the Washington-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Some proponents advocate paying for it by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid. But that approach would take money set aside for low-income families and redistribute it upward, exacerbating poverty and inequality, Greenstein said.

Still, some researchers are testing the idea with small basic income experiments targeting certain neighborhoods and socio-economic groups.

Y Combinator the accelerator known for launching Airbnb and Instacart is giving 100 randomly selected Oakland families unconditional cash payments of about $1,500 a month. Altman, who is footing most of the bill himself, says society needs to consider basic income to support Americans who lose their jobs to robots and artificial intelligence. The idea, he said in his San Francisco speech, addresses the question not enough people are asking: What do we as the tech industry do to solve the problem that were helping to create?

Increased use of robots and AI will lead to a net loss of 9.8 million jobs by 2027 7 percent of U.S. positions, according to a study that the Forrester research firm released last month. Already, the signs are everywhere. Autonomous cars and trucks threaten driving jobs, automated factories require fewer human workers, and artificial intelligence is taking over aspects of legal work and other white-collar jobs.

Proponents of universal basic income have varying ideas of how much money people should get to give them a decent quality of life. Clearly $1,500 a month isnt enough in the Bay Area, but Altman says in a world of robots the cost of living would go down some experts predict that automation would lower production costs. In the meantime, an extra $1,500 still could have a big effect on Oakland residents like Shoshanna Howard, who said the salary she makes working at a nonprofit barely covers her cost of living.

I would pay off my student loans, she said. And I would put whatever I could toward savings, because Im currently not able to save for my future.

Interest in basic income rose in the 1960s and 1970s, when small pilot studies were conducted in states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa and Indiana, and in Canada. Some studies showed improvements in participants physical and mental health, and found children performed better in school or stayed in school longer. But some also showed that people receiving a basic income were inclined to spend fewer hours working. Other data suggested that married participants were more likely to get divorced. Some experts say the cash payments reduced womens financial dependence on their husbands.

Y Combinator plans to expand its experiment to 1,000 families. YC researchers are using the small Oakland pilot to answer logistical questions such as how to select participants, and how to pay them. The researchers have said theyre focusing on residents ages 21 through 40 whose household income doesnt exceed the area median about $55,000 in Oakland, according to the latest Census data. They expect to release plans for a larger study this summer.

Y Combinator announced its Oakland project last spring, but since then has kept many details under wraps. That tight-lipped approach concerns some community members who question whether the group did enough to involve Oakland residents and nonprofits.

Jennifer Lin, deputy director of the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, said her organization reached out to YC about a year ago, but never heard back. It makes me question what Y Combinator has to hide, she said.

Elizabeth Rhodes, YCs basic income research director, said the group is working with city, county and state officials, and has met with local nonprofits and social service providers.

We want to be as transparent as we can, but protecting the privacy and well-being of study participants is our first priority, she wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., is pushing for a plan that has been described as a first step toward universal basic income. Khanna this summer plans to propose long shot $1 trillion expansion to the earned income tax credit that is already available to low-income families. But unlike a basic income, that money would go only to people who work.

Theres a dignity to work, Khanna said. People, they dont want a handout. They want to contribute to the economy.

Original post:

Universal basic income: guarantee pay as way to improve quality of life - WatertownDailyTimes.com

Posted in Basic Income Guarantee | Comments Off on Universal basic income: guarantee pay as way to improve quality of life – WatertownDailyTimes.com

Letters: Guaranteed income guarantees sloth. | The Province – The Province

Posted: at 7:21 am

Protesters gather outside the Balmoral Hotel on East Hastings Street in Vancouver on May 30 to vent against the living conditions of the tenants. Jason Payne / PNG

Re: BIG idea: How basic income could improve health, Opinion, June 2.

The Basic Income Guarantee is a great way to foster dropping out of school and quitting your job. Or better yet, working under the table and supplementing your cash income with a BIG allowance.

Nowhere does Rosana Salvaterra suggest that this free cash would have a time limit, so why would anyone want to work for anything near minimum wage, even at $15 per hour when they can stay home and get paid, no questions asked?

What these so-called experts who promote the benefits like improved health care under this plan never provide is the answer to who will pay for this when we have several million Canadians sitting at home waiting for their cheque?

I know my health will improve when I can sleep in and then stroll down to the pub and buy a pint with all of that free money rather than putting in a hard-days work. After all, it has been proven that lots of sleep benefits your health.

Perry Coleman,Delta

Action, not crocodile tears, needed to deal with slumlords

Re: Frustrated tenants storm city hall. Disgusting: Residents claim Balmoral Hotel has been declared unsafe, but owners have done nothing to fix it, June 2.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson needs to know people want action, not his crocodile tears pretending he cares. The Sahotas have been allowed to continue running their Downtown Eastside hotels into the ground and treating the people who live there like garbage.

Last time there were stories regarding this family and its pathetic treatment of people, I can remember Robertson saying he would have repairs done and bill them to the Sahota family. So much for that idea.

Robertson is allowing them to run buildings into the ground, so they can be declared unfit, then everyone will he evicted and theyll tear them down and put in more pricey shoeboxes, making that family extremely rich.

Shawn Storey, Surrey

Losers want to change the rules

Here we go again. It seems it doesnt matter if its ping-pong, football or politics, once the competition is over the losers want to change the rules.

Our forefathers left us living in the best province in the best country under our present electoral system. Now, these perennial losers want to change the rules. We cant allow this to happen.

Alvin Towriss, Hope

Prince Rupert a better place for pipeline terminus

The big news of the day now seems to be stopping the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to Burnaby. Everyone Ive talked to agrees that the pipeline is important for Canada, but not to a final destination in Burnaby.

Prince Rupert is the logical place that we all agree on. Cant these government people realize that we already have cargo ships from around the world, cruise ships, local ferries, seaplanes, company and private yachts, tugs with log booms, etc., plying Vancouver Harbour, to say nothing about even more traffic in the Juan de Fuca Strait heading to Seattle as well as Vancouver and up the Inside Passage.

Prince Rupert has a straight outward passage to the open Pacific Ocean.

John Hyndman, Langley

Eviction washeartless

Re: Orphaned Abbotsford siblings given eviction notice, June 1.

The landlords eviction of this family after the year they have endured is despicable and heartless. The rent is being paid, so its hard not to think that their ruthless decision is based on renting it out for more money than concern for their coming family.

Hopefully, with The Provinces coverage of this familys plight, a landlord with heart and soul will come forward with a new place for them to live.

Tom Gray, North Delta

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? Wed like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.

Read the original post:

Letters: Guaranteed income guarantees sloth. | The Province - The Province

Posted in Basic Income Guarantee | Comments Off on Letters: Guaranteed income guarantees sloth. | The Province – The Province

Why Japan is encouraging automation – Axios

Posted: at 7:20 am

"Adaptation has to become a more active part of the discussion," said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a centrist Washington think tank. "One thing is to recognize adaptation is not a question of defeat. Adaptation is the reality that is already taking place."

To be clear, in many areas of the U.S. and around the world, government and business leaders are considering or already pursuing policies to prepare for a warmer planet, particularly higher sea levels and more extreme storms. Many examples exist, and here are three:

These efforts are taking a backseat to America's obsession with the binary fight over whether or not to curb greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuels. Judging by the reaction to Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris deal, one would think it was the only answer to solving climate change. But actually, nothing and nobody can solve climate change. Even if the world stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, "many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries," according to the United Nations.

This isn't to suggest abandoning efforts to slow the worst impacts of climate change. It should be an "and" proposition, not "either/or." Countries, companies and others should keep developing technologies and policies to use more renewable energy, nuclear power and cleaner burning fossil-fuel resources. The debate between whether to focus on stopping climate change versus adapting to it has persisted for years within the wonky climate policy world. It's suddenly relevant to more people now with Trump cutting the U.S. out of the Paris deal and deflating hopes of comprehensive global action to curb emissions.

Talking about adapting to climate change is easier said than done (and it's not even easy to talk about). That's for a few reasons:

Grumet and Coequyt both say talking more about adapting to climate change will help provide people with more information about an issue that's otherwise hard to grasp on an individual level. "Talking about adaptation helps people understand in a more tangible manner why we need to address this problem," Coequyt said.

One last ironic thing: A golf course in Ireland owned by one of Trump's companies applied for a sea wall application and specifically cited the consequences of global warming, Politico reported last year in a highly cited article. Proof, at least, that the president's willing to engage in activities to address climate change even if he isn't willing to admit it's a problem.

Go here to read the rest:

Why Japan is encouraging automation - Axios

Posted in Automation | Comments Off on Why Japan is encouraging automation – Axios

In the hands of industrial automation – Engineer Live

Posted: at 7:20 am

Jonathan Wilkins explains the new job roles automation is creating within engineering and manufacturing

Before we even knew the extent to which technology could change our lives, Albert Einstein said: "I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots."

Despite Einstein's worries, technology has improved quality of life for most people and has created new and more skilled jobs for those working in the engineering trade.

Since 2008 in the UK alone, 800,000 jobs have been lost to automation since 2001, largely within the administrative, retail and low-skilled manufacturing sectors.

Despite these losses, automation has created 3.5 million jobs in the same time period, allowing many workers to move into higher skilled positions.

As new technologies are used, job roles and skill sets evolve. Considering this, which job roles can we expect to emerge in the coming years?

Chief cybercrime officer

Sage, Three Mobile and Seagate were among the most well-documented cyber breaches in 2016. These incidents, along with hundreds more, prompted UK Parliament to recommend that companies appoint an officer responsible for protecting online systems from attack.

Necessary technologies such as supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems and programmable logic controllers (PLCs) can increase the chance of a cyber-attack, resulting in plant downtime.

Within manufacturing, it is not just IT systems that are at risk of a cyber breach. Industry 4.0 has resulted in increased connectivity between plant systems, meaning every piece of machinery connects to a central IT system. If this system is attacked, hackers have access to the entire production line.

Industrial software engineer

35% of engineering job listings across industries now require applicants familiar with 3D printing and additive manufacturing processes.

Software developers are in high demand, due to the increase in 3D printing technologies.

There is not yet a standard user interface for 3D printing devices, meaning that adoption of the technology is currently limited to those with a technical background.

Manufacturers rely on in-house software developers to create a suitable interface. The job role is the perfect example of what happens when a skilled person embraces the coalescence of engineering and IT.

Obsolescence manager

In the manufacturing, automotive and aerospace sectors in particular, we can expect to see a greater reliance on the role of the obsolescence manager.

Obsolescence managers are tasked with monitoring product obsolescence and the state of automated systems. This involves regular audits, analysing the components of critical systems and using predictive analytics to estimate the likelihood of equipment breakdown.

Effective obsolescence management is a full-time job, especially in the world of Industry 4.0 and smart factories, where obsolescence cycles are becoming shorter and new technology is being adopted quickly.

In the case of old and obsolete parts, obsolescence managers might find it difficult to identify and source a replacement quickly. At EU Automation, we source hundreds of thousands of industrial automation parts every year for clients around the world, ensuring production lines stay operating.

Another of Einstein's famous quotes is, "we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Thanks to industrial automation, the manufacturing industry is growing and thriving. As with everything new, automation brings fresh challenges for companies but, not accepting the need for change will be detrimental, while embracing industrial automation will allow businesses to flourish.

Jonathan Wilkins is marketing director of obsolete industrial parts supplier, EU Automation.

More:

In the hands of industrial automation - Engineer Live

Posted in Automation | Comments Off on In the hands of industrial automation – Engineer Live

View: Why universal basic income isn’t universal or basic – Economic Times

Posted: at 7:20 am

As machine learning and robotics improve in the coming decades, hundreds of millions of jobs are likely to disappear, disrupting the economies and trade networks of the entire world. The Industrial Revolution created the urban working class, and much of the social and political history of the 20th century revolved around its problems.

Similarly, the artificial intelligence revolution might create a new "unworking class," whose hopes and fears will shape the history of the 21st century.

Universal Basic Income

The social and economic models we have inherited from the previous century are inadequate for dealing with this new era. For example, socialism assumed that the working class was vital for the economy, and socialist thinkers tried to teach the proletariat how to translate its immense economic power into political clout. These teachings might become utterly irrelevant in coming decades, as the masses lose their economic value.

Indeed, some might argue that already, Brexit and Donald Trump's presidential victory demonstrate an opposite trajectory. In 2016, many Brits and Americans who had lost their economic usefulness but retained some political power used the ballot box to revolt before it is too late. They revolt not against an economic elite that exploits them, but against an economic elite that doesn't need them anymore. It is far more frightening to be useless than to be exploited.

In order to cope with such unprecedented technological and economic disruptions, we probably need completely new models. One that is gaining increasing attention and popularity is universal basic income. UBI suggests that some institution -- most likely a government -- will tax the billionaires and corporations controlling the algorithms and robots, and use the money to provide every person with a stipend covering basic needs. The hope is that this will cushion the poor against job loss and economic dislocation, while protecting the rich from populist rage.

Not everybody agrees that UBI will be necessary. Fears that automation will create massive unemployment go back to the 19th century, and so far they have never materialized. In the 20th century, for every job lost to a tractor or a computer at least one new job was created, and in the 21st century automation has so far caused only moderate job losses.

But there are good reasons to think that this time it is different, and that machine learning is a real game-changer. The experts who cry "job loss!" are a bit like the boy who cried wolf. In the end, the wolf really came.

Humans have basically two types of skills -- physical and cognitive. In the past, machines competed with humans mainly in raw physical abilities. Humans always had an immense cognitive edge over machines. Hence, as manual jobs in agriculture and industry were automated, new service jobs emerged that required the kind of brainpower only humans possessed.

Now AI is beginning to outperform humans in more and more cognitive skills, and we don't know of any third field of activity where humans retain a secure edge.

Of course, some new human jobs will develop in the 21st century, be it in engineering software or teaching yoga. Yet these will demand high levels of expertise and creativity, and will therefore not solve the problems of unemployed, unskilled laborers.

During previous waves of automation, people could usually switch from one low-skill job to another. In 1920, a farm worker laid off because of the mechanization of agriculture could find a new job in a factory producing tractors. In 1980, an unemployed factory worker could start working as a cashier in a supermarket. Such occupational changes were feasible, because the move from the farm to the factory and from the factory to the supermarket required only limited retraining.

But in 2040, a cashier or textile worker losing a job to an AI machine will hardly be able to start working as a software engineer or a yoga teacher. They will not have the necessary skills.

Proponents of UBI hope to solve that problem. Freed of economic worries, the unemployed could just forget about work, and devote themselves to their families, hobbies and community activities, and find meaning in sports, arts, religion or meditation.

Yet the formula of universal basic income suffers from several problems. In particular, it is unclear what "universal" and "basic" mean.

When people speak about universal basic income they usually mean national basic income. For example, both Elon Musk and former President Barack Obama have spoken about the need to consider some kinds of UBI schemes. But when Musk said that "There's a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income ... due to automation," and when Obama said that "whether a universal income is the right model ... that's a debate that we'll be having over the next 10 or 20 years," it is unclear who "we" are. The American people? The human race?

Hitherto, all UBI initiatives were strictly national or municipal. In January, Finland began a two-year experiment, providing 2,000 unemployed Finns with $630 a month, irrespective of whether they find work or not. Similar projects are underway in Ontario, Holland and Livorno, Italy. Last year, Switzerland held a referendum on instituting a national basic income scheme, but voters rejected the idea.

In the U.S., Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, proposes to greatly expand the Earned Income Tax Credit program, boosting the income of poor Americans by about $1 trillion. Though the plan does not promise any stipends to the unemployed, it is seen as a first step towards instituting national basic income.

The problem with such national and municipal schemes, however, is that the main victims of automation may not live in Finland, Amsterdam or the U.S. Globalization has made people in one country dependent on markets in other countries, but automatization might unravel large parts of this global trade network with disastrous consequences for the weakest links.

In the 20th century, developing countries made economic progress mainly by exporting raw materials or by selling the cheap labor of their workers and service personnel. Today, millions of Bangladeshis make a living by producing shirts that are sold to customers in the U.S., while people in Bangalore, India, earn their keep answering the complaints of American customers.

Yet with the rise of AI, robots and 3-D printers, cheap labor will become far less important, and demand for raw materials might also drop. Instead of manufacturing a shirt in Dhaka and shipping it all the way to New York, you could buy the shirt's code online from Amazon and print it in Manhattan. Zara and Prada stores could be replaced by 3-D printing centers, and some people might even have such printers at home.

Simultaneously, instead of calling customer services in Bangalore to complain about your printer, you could talk with an AI representative in the Google Cloud. The newly unemployed workers and call center operators in Dhaka and Bangalore don't have the education necessary to switch to designing fashionable shirts or writing computer code -- so how will they survive?

Under this scenario, the revenue that previously flowed to South Asia will now fill the coffers of a few tech giants in California, leading to huge strain on developing economies. American voters might conceivably agree that taxes paid by Amazon.com Inc. and Alphabet Inc. be used to give stipends to unemployed coal miners in Pennsylvania and jobless taxi-drivers in New York.

However, does anyone think American voters would also agree that part of these taxes should be sent to Bangladesh to cover the basic needs of the unemployed masses there?

Another major difficulty is that there is no accepted definition for "basic" needs. From a purely biological perspective, the only thing a Homo sapiens needs for survival is about 2,500 calories of food per day. Over and above this biological poverty line, every culture in history defined additional basic needs, which change over time.

In Medieval Europe, access to church services was seen as even more important than food, because it took care of your eternal soul rather than of your ephemeral body. In today's Europe, decent education and health care services are considered basic human needs, and some argue that even access to the internet is now essential for every man, woman and child.

So if in 2050 the United World Government agrees to tax Google, Amazon, Baidu Inc. and Tencent Holdings Ltd. in order to provide a basic income for every human being on earth, from Dhaka to Detroit, how will it define "basic"?

For example, will universal basic income cover education? And if so, what would these services include: just reading and writing, or also composing computer code? Just six years of elementary school, or everything up to Ph.D.?

And what about health care? If by 2050 medical advances make it possible to slow down aging processes and significantly extend human lifespans, will the new treatments be available to all 10 billion humans on the planet, or just to a few billionaires? If biotechnology enables parents to "upgrade" their children, would this be considered a basic human need, or would we see humankind splitting into different biological castes, with rich super-humans enjoying abilities that far surpass those of poor Homo sapiens?

Whichever way you choose to define basic human needs, once you provide them to everyone free of charge, they will be taken for granted, and then fierce social competitions and political struggles will focus on non-basic luxuries -- be they fancy self-driving cars, access to virtual-reality parks, or enhanced bioengineered bodies. Yet if the unemployed masses command no economic assets, it is hard to see how they could ever hope to obtain such luxuries. Consequently, the gap between the rich (Tencent managers and Google shareholders) and the poor (those dependent on universal basic income) might become bigger and more rigid than ever.

Hence, even if universal basic income means that poor people in 2050 will enjoy much better medical care and education than today, they might still feel that the system is rigged against them, that the government serves only the super-rich, and that the future will be even worse for them and their children.

People usually compare themselves to their more fortunate contemporaries rather than to their ill-fated ancestors. If in 2017 you tell a poor American in an impoverished Detroit neighborhood that she has access to much better health care than her great-grandparents did in the age before antibiotics, it is unlikely to cheer her up. Indeed, such talk will sound terribly smug and condescending. "Why should I compare myself to nineteenth-century peasants?" she might retort. "I want to live like the rich people on television, or at least like the folks in the affluent suburbs."

Similarly, if in 2050 you tell the useless class that they enjoy better health care than in 2017, it might be very cold comfort to them, because they would be comparing themselves to the upgraded super-humans who dominate the world.

Modern communication systems make such comparisons almost inevitable. A man living in a small village 5,000 years ago measured himself against the other 50 men in the settlement. Compared to them, he probably looked pretty hot. Today, a man living in a small village compares himself to the 50 most gorgeous hunks on the planet, whom he sees everyday on TV screens and giant billboards. Our modern villager is likely to be far less happy with the way he looks. Will universal basic income include plastic surgery for everyone?

Homo sapiens is just not built for satisfaction. Human happiness depends less on objective conditions and more on our own expectations. Expectations, however, tend to adapt to conditions, including to the condition of other people. When things improve, expectations balloon, and consequently, even dramatic improvements in conditions might leave us as dissatisfied as before.

If universal basic income is aimed to improve the objective conditions of the average person in 2050, it has a fair chance of succeeding. But if it is aimed to make people subjectively more satisfied with their lot in order to prevent social discontent, it is likely to fail.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Originally posted here:

View: Why universal basic income isn't universal or basic - Economic Times

Posted in Automation | Comments Off on View: Why universal basic income isn’t universal or basic – Economic Times

This trucker is torn on automationeven if it costs him his job – New York Post

Posted: at 7:20 am

Meet a dead man walking.

Im a long-haul trucker, and Im going to be replaced by a computer. It will happen soon. Im figuring five years or less for trucks. Cars will take a little longer. This big push for driverless vehicles is more about getting rid of truck drivers than Uber drivers. The only humans left in the modern supply chain are truckers. Trucks are loaded and unloaded into and out of warehouses by barcode machines. Eliminating drivers completes the loop.

Driverless trucks wont need health insurance, vacations or pay. They also wont need dispatchers, compliance departments or human-resource managers.

Im resistant to automation because its not what Im used to, its not what I want and the future looks blurry.

Some of the press Ive read about automating trucks has to do with moral choice, like what does the machine do when faced with damaging property versus a person? There are still technological issues what happens when the machine gets hacked? but those will be solved.

I have to admit, the machine will probably be safer when put against the 35,000 annual traffic fatalities weve grown so accustomed to with human drivers. But also, thats 2 million low-skill jobs lost.

Im resistant to automation because its not what Im used to, its not what I want and the future looks blurry.

Driving our own vehicle is lodged in American cultural bedrock. To paraphrase author Cotton Seiler from the book Republic of Drivers: The belief in self-directed motion as an agent of liberation is powerful and venerable in American culture. That says it all. Besides, Im not really ready for another reshaping of our entire cultural fabric. Computers and smartphones were enough upheaval for one lifetime.

Im trying to work through this intellectually, not emotionally, so Im taking a step back to calmly think about other cultural norms that were typical in the past but unthinkable today.

Here are two examples. The first is from the 19th century. From our current perch, we find it inconceivable that an educated Southern planter endorsed slavery. If we conjured up one of these people, hed likely say that it was what he grew up with and it was supported by church, family and the entire social fabric. It would have taken a person of very advanced imagination to break free of the status quo and visualize a different future back then.

My second point is from my own direct experience. In my high school in the 1970s, seniors who had a certain grade point average were allowed to smoke cigarettes on school premises. This was considered a privilege. When I tell millennials that smoking in school was a reward, they are incredulous. In both cases, contemporary folks simply cannot believe that society viewed these practices as civilized.

I believe that it wont be long before people will look at human drivers in the same way. Your generation was completely comfortable with 35,000 road deaths each year? It was a bloodbath out there and you let it happen. You folks were barbarians! Now we have only 300 deaths a year because of automated vehicles. What were you all thinking?

Independent driving will be viewed as errant irresponsibility, like a pregnant woman smoking. There will be fewer deaths and no truck drivers. How are the supplanted truckers going to make a living?

America has fallen short in providing alternatives for displaced workers.

Im no Luddite. I dont think we should slow down technology to keep jobs. On the other hand, there are millions of working people caught in this spiral of job elimination leading to ever lower paying work. We cant all work at Walmart.

I live in Colorado, and the hills are strewn with abandoned mines that spew toxic chemicals into the rivers and streams. I used to live in Bridgeport, Conn., where the rotting carcasses of abandoned factories lie everywhere. When truckers go the way of these ghosts, once again, downsized workers will be tossed to the government to deal with (and while transportation companies reap enormous benefits). Have the companies embracing technological change no responsibility for the human and physical mess they leave behind? Apparently not.

Even The Economist, no foe of innovation, admits that America has fallen short in providing alternatives for displaced workers. Ive been a trucker since 1980. What am I supposed to do? Get retrained in computer programming? Im almost 60 years old. Not likely.

Something needs to change. Im a solid American, and I believe in work. I also believe in cleaning up after myself. That makes me a responsible citizen. Its long past time for the private sector to become one, too.

Here is the original post:

This trucker is torn on automationeven if it costs him his job - New York Post

Posted in Automation | Comments Off on This trucker is torn on automationeven if it costs him his job – New York Post

Nearly 1 in 5 Singapore employees fears losing jobs to automation – The Straits Times

Posted: at 7:20 am

SINGAPORE - Nearly one in five employees in Singapore fears that automation will take away their jobs, a survey by recruitment firm Randstad found.

The poll also showed that workers in Singapore (19 per cent) and Hong Kong (20 per cent) held the highest fears of losing their jobs to automation. Malaysian employees, on the other hand, were more relaxed with only 13 per cent fearing automation will hurt their job security.

About three in four, or 72 per cent, of Singapore employees were open to retraining for a new role - provided that their salaries would remain the same or higher than before. The remaining 8 per cent would rather move to another company than retrain.

Only 52 per cent of Hong Kongers were open to retraining in contrast to Singapore and Malaysian workers (70 per cent).

Despite fears of automation taking jobs away, a large group of employees feel that automation will in fact make their jobs better.

Nearly half, or 45 per cent, of employees in Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia felt this way,with Malaysian employees being the most optimistic (51 per cent) and Hong Kong employees the most pessimistic (39 per cent).

One third of all employees in each market felt indifference towards automation and stated that they felt it would have no effect on their jobs.

A further one in five stated that they could not imagine technology taking away their jobs.

Read more:

Nearly 1 in 5 Singapore employees fears losing jobs to automation - The Straits Times

Posted in Automation | Comments Off on Nearly 1 in 5 Singapore employees fears losing jobs to automation – The Straits Times

Big business backs Labor call for new anti-slavery legislation – The Sydney Morning Herald

Posted: at 7:20 am

Big businesshas backed aLabor Party push for new laws toforce major Australian companies to report on modern slavery in their supply chains.

Federal Laborwill on Monday announce the newpolicy and call for the introduction of a Modern Slavery Act toimpose newrequirements onbig businessto report onslavery and human trafficking in their supply chains. The policy includesthe introduction of a publicly available list of companies that wouldbe required to develop policies on and monitor any signs of the problem.

Labor also wants an independent anti-slavery commissioner like in Britain toaddress alack of enforcement of laws against slavery and to help businessesprotect supply chains.

The Business Council of Australia, which represents the chiefs of Australia's top companies, said it welcomed Labor's commitment to the introduction of a Modern Slavery Act.

"Greater global trade has boosted Australians' living standards, but it has also increased the risk that products and services are tainted by the use of forced labour," a Business Council spokesman said.

"Increased transparency will help customers, investors and business partners more easily distinguish whether companies are acting morally and working to maintain clean supply chains. Transparency also makes competition between businesses fairer.

"Large businesses are rightly taking a leadership role in promoting and supporting clean supply chains, and we look forward to consulting with Labor on the detail of its proposal."

Mining magnate Andrew Forrest late last year challenged Australian business leaders to wipe slavery out of their supply chains and has backed calls for tougher rules in this country.

Hewas shocked to find evidence of slavery within the supply chain of his Fortescue Metals Group in 2012.

Federal Labor's spokeswoman for Justice, ClareO'Neiland Opposition Leader Bill Shorten will on Monday announce itsnew policymodelled on Britain's Modern Slavery Act.

"For the first time, we are making it crystal clear that big businesses need to know what's happening in their supply chains," Ms O'Neil said.

"Every day, we probably pick up a product, wear a piece of clothing, use a resource or consume something which has been touched by a slave.

"We have a clear moral responsibility to tackle this problem.

"This policy represents a major shift in thinking about our responsibility as businesses and consumers for modern slavery."

Labor's callfor a Modern Slavery Act goes further than theexisting British law by mandatingand not simply suggesting that companiesreport on their supply chains and any areas of risk involvingslavery and human trafficking. Companies would also face penalties for non-compliance.

Ms O'Neil said two-thirds of people trapped in slavery worldwideare reported to be in the Asia-Pacific region and itwas estimated4300weretrapped in slavery in Australia.

In February, federal Attorney-GeneralGeorge Brandislaunchedaninquiry into whether amodern slavery act should be introduced in Australia.

The inquiry has been asked to look into the extent of modern day slavery includingforced labour and wage exploitation, involuntary servitude, debt bondage, human trafficking, forced marriage and other slavery-like exploitationin Australia and globally withreference to Britain's 2015 Modern Slavery Act.

The Senate committee has been asked to identifyinternational best practice used by governments, companies, businesses and organisations to prevent modern slavery in domestic and global supply chains, with a view to strengthening Australian legislation.

See more here:

Big business backs Labor call for new anti-slavery legislation - The Sydney Morning Herald

Posted in Wage Slavery | Comments Off on Big business backs Labor call for new anti-slavery legislation – The Sydney Morning Herald