What if everyone ERE'd, forcibly?

[C40]

What if everyone ERE’d (By force) ?

Ok, we’re all familiar with the progress of technology and some of it's likely results. For the sake of conversation, let's all assume that the following will definitely happen:

- More and more work will be automated - done by “robots” - machinery and AI
- Then both the businesses and the ‘workers’ will be owned by the few with capital
- The majority of jobs for humans will disappear, leaving masses unemployed
- Basic minimum income will be established to support the unemployed masses, preventing starvation and rioting.

This could all happen in the next 50-100 years.

For a short primer on the conversation, (optionally) listen to this episode of The Thomas Jefferson Hour podcast as a short primer. Skip to 49 minutes in the episode itself is unrelated to this subject, the related part starts at 49 minutes. Hearing that is what triggered me to make this post.


Then… what happens?

What type of cultural shifts would occur? What would people do?

Would we see huge cultural improvements? An explosion of art, inventions, love, and philanthropy? Would everyone who always says they don’t have time to do X suddenly start doing it? (exercising, spending time with children, writing a book, cleaning the leaves out of their gutter, being nice to their grandma). Will people form new clubs for friendships, games, socializing, helping eachother? Will our parks suddenly be full of more active and more attractive people?

or… Would people become violently bored? Would we see mass devolving of culture - down the route of Jerry Springer, Jersey Shore, and shitty Youtube and Snapchat personalities? An increase in crime? More obesity? More mental illness?


We’ve had discussions here about some of the challenges of taking full control of one’s own time. The possibilities of boredom, of lacking a cause or purpose, of finding some of the things we fantasized about doing only enjoyable for a short period. These are challenges that happen for people who really really wanted to ERE. Now, all those people who need work - the structure, being told what to do, the automatic socializing - will have it taken away from them. Will they fill the gaps in healthy ways?

[ThisDinosaur]

I think this is a recurring story in history: new technology promises more free time for everyone. Then it doesn't work out that way.
It happened with the industrial revolution and the assembly line. So, my guess is automation will kill some jobs and open up others. And I don't believe a UBI is really workable.

On the other hand, our hunter gatherer ancestors only had to work 3 hours a day on average. Eight daily hours of back breaking labor only came along with agriculture. So maybe its true that everyone could work less if everyone consumed less.

[IlliniDave]

Eight daily hours of back breaking labor only came along with agriculture. So maybe its true that everyone could work less if everyone consumed less.

Really, it came when people discovered they could get wealthy (i.e., have "more than enough" to get through the next few days). I don't think it will ever go away en masse because people like being wealthy, even if some are far wealthier.

[George the original one]

Look to 3rd world countries for what the future will look like... lots of underemployed people scraping for money to live because the rich own the land and want money for its use (housing, farming, etc.). The rich will hold power until it is taken from them by force (and those that take power will not be eager to share it). Upward mobility will be infrequent because the poor will not have the education, contacts, and access to capital to make it happen.

[BRUTE]

I think this is a recurring story in history: new technology promises more free time for everyone. Then it doesn't work out that way.
It happened with the industrial revolution and the assembly line.

there was massively more free time through the industrial revolution. no more 6 day workweeks and 10 hour days for the majority of workers in the west. almost no child labor and few humans labor after 65, especially in hard, manual labor.

[C40]

ok, for the sake of this theoretical discussion, can we assume that this is all going to happen? (Say, 50% or more unemployment, supported by about $15k UBI per person). My curiosity here is, if it did happen, how would it go?

(while trying to avoid the tangent, it has actually been happening, though of course not to the extent possible. The average workweek in the U.S. in the 1800s appears to have been like 70 hours... Average workweek for those in manufacturing has reduced gradually from 66 hours/week in 1850 to 39 hours/week in 1950)

Again, my curiosity of the subject is, if it were to happen quickly and on a large scale, what would be the cultural impact. Of course some people would use the time 'well' and some would degrade, but overall, what major trends/changes would we see?

Look to 3rd world countries for what the future will look like... lots of underemployed people scraping for money to live because the rich own the land and want money for its use (housing, farming, etc.). The rich will hold power until it is taken from them by force (and those that take power will not be eager to share it). Upward mobility will be infrequent because the poor will not have the education, contacts, and access to capital to make it happen.

Some scary examples in those countries. I've seen examples that may be similar in inner cities in the U.S. while living in Saint Louis, and things are quite grim there. But that's a population with problems and causes a bit different than what I'm talking about.

How do you think this would go in countries that, at the moment, have very well-developed educational systems (and other various types of government support systems) - like the countries in northern Europe? (Norway, Sweden, Finland... some of which are already considering and testing versions of UBI and thus would likely be early adaptors.)

[BRUTE]

brute hates to shit on C40's parade (not really), but $15,000 * 325,000,000 humans adds up to $4.8 trillion, or about $1 trillion more than the entire federal budget. that's including the deficit. police, fire fighters, and military haven't been paid. so it might take closer to 100 years than 50 to even marginally be able to afford this.

on the effects, brute is thinking Idiocracy with the current society - but then again, culture changes a lot in 50-100 years, so anyone's guess.

[ducknalddon]

On the other hand, our hunter gatherer ancestors only had to work 3 hours a day on average. Eight daily hours of back breaking labor only came along with agriculture. So maybe its true that everyone could work less if everyone consumed less.

If you take out the hours lost to extended education, unemployment, under employment, holidays, disability and early retirement we aren't far off that in the West.

Jeffrey Sachs has an interesting but rather long talk about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1AAdZnF7xQ&t=1430s

[vexed87]

@C40, Charles Hugh Smith has done some good work on the implications of automation and UBI.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0178 ... GVST4OBTXU

While I don't agree his solution to these converging crises (or that the crises themselves will even come about before we fall off an energy cliff), the book does a good job of explaining what people can achieve in the absence of a job that pays a salary, that is, if they're organised and don't sit around waiting for someone to fix the problem and return us to the good ole' days.

As for the discussion around technology can give us more leisure time, it can, and does for some. Others choose to use technology simply to consume more, or fit more work in the same space of time. I don't think humans can ever escape 'work' though. It's just what we do. Whether we consider it labour, a hobby, maintenance, growing food, gaming, sports, human's can't stay idle for long, it plays havoc with our mental wellbeing. I for one will always need projects to work towards, whether they pay me back in monetary capital, or some other form of capital makes no ends to me.

Human labour is cheap when population is booming and humans can't find work, and AI and robots are expensive and don't run on biofuel as efficiently as humans who, in theory can be treated just as badly, see productions lines in the far east for example. As more work is automated, the cheaper human labour gets, it acts as a counter balance. Economically speaking, humans are a resource that are too good to waste. So they won't be, in so far the society isn't completely corrupted by greed and and an agenda to replace all humans with robots. Even if we went there, people would pursue work that interests them, even if it didn't pay, just like ERE folks do. From the perspective of the developed world, those third world countries look like horrendous conditions, but zoom down the human level, and put corruption and crime that goes hand in hand with poverty aside, you will find plenty of people who are content with their lot in life.

[Fish]

@brute - I think US GDP (1.86e13 USD), not the federal budget (3.8e12 USD), is the more relevant parameter. Very roughly speaking, this suggests that we could support a standard of living equal to (1.86e13/3.25e8) = $57,230/person, if work output remains unchanged. A forced consumption target of 1 Jacob seems to imply that working hours could decrease by 88%, presuming productivity scales linearly with labor input. But you said something about paying the police, firefighters, and military?

Arguably, government does provide some value so to preserve basic services, the entire (federal + state + local) government budget of 7.2e12 USD(*) should be accounted for, which on a per-capita basis is $22,150/person. So if we add 1 Jacob on top of that, it tells us that work input need be (22,150 + 7,000)/57,230 = 51% of its current value, i.e. we can all work 1/2 as much on a forced ERE program(**). Just hope your house doesn't catch fire during the half of the day when the fire department is taking a break.

(*) Here's a link to a breakdown of govt spending. Because we're already doing one big redistribution of income, it makes sense to eliminate the transfer payments (pension + welfare = 1.8e12 USD) but also add back in private healthcare spending (1.7e12). I decided to call it a wash.

(**) Part of the reason ERE is "retire in 5-10 years" and not "retire after half the duration of a normal working career" is because of the progressive tax system, i.e. the ERE-retiree is paying less than an equal share in taxes.

[daylen]

+1 Vexed

Generally resource distribution will become more localized and people will start to connect more. Automation will not last long unless it is controlled by a general artificial intelligence, and humans will just gravitate towards art for individual expression. The real question is how we can facilitate a peaceful transition and prevent cultural polarization.

[henrik]

people who need work - the structure, being told what to do, the automatic socializing

This is no scientific observation, but it seems to me that most of this need is instilled in people through the education system. If all of what you described above were to happen, the training camps we call schools and universities would/could/should adjust and offer something different.

[daylen]

Perhaps the best thing we can do is to target the younger generations and embed these ideas in them now. I am already trying to do this with others and they are listening to me because I can relate to them. It is essentially a problem of understanding.

I think we need to decouple from the idea that people do not change.

[phil]

Part of the reason ERE is "retire in 5-10 years" and not "retire after half the duration of a normal working career" is because of the progressive tax system, i.e. the ERE-retiree is paying less than an equal share in taxes.

I am a bit puzzled by this. One of the advantages of working part time is that net hourly pay is higher due to progressive taxation (you pay less taxes working 32 hours for 10 years than working 40 hours for 8 years). Working full time, on the other hand, results in more cumulative interest. So depending on the specific tax system and your savings rate, one or the other may be more beneficial.

[Fish]

@phil - What I'm saying is that US government spending (at all levels combined) results in a transfer from taxpayers to recipients (who may or may not pay tax) and this transfer averages out to $22,150 per capita, per year. Suppose a person earns $50k/year, pays 30% in taxes, and retires after just 10 years in the workforce while living to the age of 85. This hypothetical person pays $150k into the tax system, while government spending on this person is many multiples of what this person paid in. Ignoring the time value of money and some other factors, we can roughly calculate this as $22,150 * 85 = $1,883k.

The tax rules create winners and losers, and ERE is about using these rules to your advantage. It's not (just) that ERE is being exploitative; note that the person in the example isn't even paying an equal share of taxes even during the working years. Since taxation, government spending, and income/wealth inequality are their own eternal disagreements, I wanted to sidestep that aspect and simplify it to "time worked." Assuming GDP is proportional to labor, and all labor is equally productive, 39% of all labor (7.2T/18.6T) goes toward maintaining current levels of government spending (net of cash and cash-like transfers) and healthcare. If a typical working career is 40 years, that means the average person needs to work 16 years on behalf of government/healthcare, and the rest is for their own consumption. A person that is ERE in 5-10 years doesn't pay an equal share into the system under this reasoning. And if it wasn't clear, I'm only making a mathematical statement, not a political one.

[Kriegsspiel]

The key word here is forcibly.

Without the right mindset and skills and motivations to downsize, then things would get ugly fast. Go to any neighborhood or town with heavy unemployment and witness for yourself the quality of life. It's not geo-arbitrage for them.

I would also say that most people don't want more free time, they want more money, and more importantly a purpose for getting out of bed. A job fulfills that role nicely. While a nice thought, I think it's a bit over-optimistic to think that people will utilize all of that free time dedicated to better living on a large scale. Most people aren't motivated or creative enough.

Nailed it.

I think it might look something like this: the vast majority of people will spend their time watching mediocre TV and playing video games*. A much smaller segment will be the ones starting that artisanal blacksmith they've always wanted or reading Plato. A vanishingly small group would continue doing amazing things like inventing starships and whatever.

*Spending all their time in a really good virtual reality, a la Ready Player One, seems plausible too.

[daylen]

Then the system would collapse and people would be motivated to build it bigger.. and the cycle continues until either we destroy ourselves or spread to other planets where the same thing would happen.

[BRUTE]

I think US GDP (1.86e13 USD), not the federal budget (3.8e12 USD), is the more relevant parameter.

brute somewhat disagrees. using only government budget doesn't necessarily change the economic and political structure. using the entire GDP basically entails implementing 100% socialism, which will destroy the economic and political structures that enabled wealth creation and a growing economy, probably leading to famines and eventual breakdown like the soviet union or any other socialist economy.

brute was assuming from the original question that humans were only forced to ERE, but the rest of the system would still roughly be the same.

[Campitor]

The utopia that is a 3 hour work day or 5 hour work day that is sustainable via UBI or robotics is a pipe dream and will never ever work. The simple reason is freedom. People don't like being forced to do anything even if they enjoy it. There will always be someone who will want to work longer and harder even if its unpaid. These folks will use their extra labor, even if its unpaid, to raise their standard of living beyond what the UBI provides to the general population.

Mr. UBI=25K will see his neighbor Ms. UBI+XtraLabor=35K and wonder what he's doing wrong. Ms. UBI+XtraLabor spends her free time learning how grow hydroponic vegetables, tailor her own clothes, wire a circuit board, etc. Ms. UBI+XtraLabor=35k will set aside a portion of her 25K universal income to pay for seeds and material. She'll custom tailor her own clothes to achieve a unique and flattering look. She proceeds to build solar equipment to increase her electrical capacity. Her hydroponic gardens reduces her food costs. She uses all the aggregate gains to pay for fun projects, vacations, and home improvement projects; in essence the synergy of her efforts affords her a 75k lifestyle. Mr. UBI=25k is now pissed because supposedly UBI would let him live happily but he's no longer happy because Ms. UBI+XtraLabor=35k is now living a 75k lifestyle and he doesn't understand why. Ms. UBI+XtraLabor=35k explains how she did it but Mr. UBI=25k has zero interest in learning how to tailor, grow vegetables, or increase his electrical capacity since this will interfere with his ayahuasca mind expansion ceremonies to become one with the universe.

Mr. UBI=25k now hates Ms. UBI+XtraLabor=35k because he feels she is cheating the system and living beyond what is "acceptable". Ms. UBI+XtraLabor=35k sensing the resentment seeks out others that share her hobbies and/or her penchant for self-improvement/lifestyle maximization. To avoid the hostility and resentment of their neighbors, the Mr./Ms. UBI+XtraLabor=35k all start migrating to the same part of town because there is safety in numbers, commonality of culture, work ethic, etc. Everyone else is pissed off and the culture wars begin anew. The more affluent part of town now starts to get vandalized, looted, and robbed. The affluent homeowners decide that they will pool their money and pay part-time workers for round the clock police protection. Stable property rights and intellectual synergy makes the affluent even richer compared to the rest and now we're back to square one again - inequality, resentment, the rich-don't-deserve-it attitude, etc.

Freedom is the fly in the ointment in regards to having equal outcomes. But freedom is the solution for gaining access to opportunity. So you're either pro-freedom/pro-choice or anti-freedom/anti-choice. But regardless which one you are, there will never be equality of outcome because someone somewhere will game the system to maximize their lifestyle. You cannot create a system and have it immune to the consequences and choices people will make within its framework.

I award the UBI and equality of outcome frameworks two raspberries apiece.

[ThisDinosaur]

there was massively more free time through the industrial revolution. no more 6 day workweeks and 10 hour days for the majority of workers in the west. almost no child labor and few humans labor after 65, especially in hard, manual labor.

I think that's more from workers unions than from technology. Factory owners would prefer to have laborers laboring 24x7x52. Incidentally, I don't know why labor unions are associated with leftists and Marxism. They help the market determine the correct price of labor.

ok, for the sake of this theoretical discussion, can we assume that this is all going to happen? (Say, 50% or more unemployment, supported by about $15k UBI per person). My curiosity here is, if it did happen, how would it go?

I guess it depends on the why and how. If it was suddenly true that no one had to work to cover basic expenses, I think a lot of personal existential crises would occur. But what if it was a culture change that caused it? Like, what if Jacob or C40 got legit famous, and a substantial portion of the population shamed consumers who buy McMansions, SUVs, and consumer electronics? Well, in that case I think people would ditch materialism and focus more on the stuff humans have always cared most about. Gossip/drama and sex.