Basic income would be just a step up to the ultimate goal of Star Trek style economy. I guess that having basic income would help cut on those 'bullshit jobs' that don't actually benefit anyone and are just a net negative for the society.
I see you've never worked in a large organization... ;-)
Bullshit jobs are largely jobs that managers create and defend in order to expand their managerial fiefdoms. A manager's influence in an organization comes partially from how many people report to him or her. That's the incentive structure that creates many of the bullshit jobs.
There are also interpersonal issues in play. For instance, you or I might walk into a particular company and observe a dozen different processes that could be easily automated with off-the-shelf software but are currently being done by humans. We might say to the manager "Why don't you automate, you're wasting money?!". In some cases, the manager would reply that the people doing those jobs are valued employees, possibly even friends, and automating those processes would put them out of work and thus, the processes are not automated.
It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Businesses are complex organizations made up of people, with all their failings and weaknesses (if you want to call them that). It is not necessary for a business to be perfectly efficient to survive, it is only necessary that its competitors be equally inefficient.
It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive. Businesses are complex organizations made up of people, with all their failings and weaknesses (if you want to call them that). It is not necessary for a business to be perfectly efficient to survive, it is only necessary that its competitors be equally inefficient.
I like to point this out to anyone who says "well, a business wouldn't do it if it made them less efficient", eg the case of open floor plans for programmers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7507280
Like it or not, money is the best way to determine whether such a job is "bullshit" or not. Limited resources are allocated, on the whole, where those controlling those financial resources see the best productivity as measured by profitability. You may not grasp why a job is worth paying for, but you're not the one putting the money up for it. If a manager grows his fiefdom but his managers don't see fitting payoff, he'll find himself no longer a manager and his fiefdom dismantled.
It's not perfect, but it's way better than any other system.
Even net negative jobs can bring enough money to someone to be worth keeping alive, so no, money payed for the job is not a measure if the job is bullshit or not, it's just a measure that someone finds it profitable.
>It is a fallacy to believe that businesses operate efficiently simply because there is a profit motive.
Operating more efficiently is exactly what is destroying jobs. Middle managers are an easy target but I fail to see how there are enough of them to move the needles.
Telemarketers. Door-to-door cable TV sales. Most of the paper-pushers in the USA's medical care system (assuming we go to single payer system as well). A large percentage of retail workers (in the USA we have way more retail space than is really necessary). Most of the mid-level managers in most of the large corporations. Any place that has strict union work-rules is usually overstaffed to my eye.
Much of the administration of social services (Social Security, Food Stamps, etc.) in the USA (to all be replaced by that basic living stipend).
It's worse than that -- I've heard stories from friends in government agencies of people who do net-negative work (i.e. they create work for others) and keep their jobs for political/societal/social reasons.
I recall the following: "The factory at the edge of town has two employees -- a Human, and a dog. The Human's job is to feed the dog. The dog's job is to keep the Human away from the machines."
From the article, those are jobs that "have no benefit for person working", and "have no benefit for the rest of the society". Why we do work them? Because they benefit the small group that is powerful enough to force society to do net negative thing.
Not the author, but there are undoubtedly plenty of stimulus jobs created by the government that could be cut.
Smart parking meters (that accept credit cards, and that let you reup time with your phone) for example, could dramatically adjust the number of positions available for meter maids / parking enforcement officers.
USPS is probably going to have to shift at some point to... something different.
The federal government spends $25 billion maintaining vacant properties, and owns more than 50,000 vacant homes. That probably doesn't equate to job elimination, but there's got to be some kind of opportunity there.
Toll booths for toll roads have got to be on the way out, right? I mean, not saying EZ Pass is the best, or most ubiquitous, but we've got speed cameras that map to DMV databases such that if I run a toll, I already get a bill in the mail -- add a new question at the DMV for 'email address' and stop sending paper bills and you've got a business model.
