How Universal Basic Income Could Change Real Estate Investing

How Universal Basic Income Could Change Real Estate Investing

Real Estate Agent · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 738 posts · 1k+ votes

The other day I was having a discussion with some associates about the upcoming Presidential Election, and one of them brought up the Democratic Candidate Andrew Young and his Universal Basic Income Plan called "The Freedom Dividend."

From his site: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

"Andrew would implement a Universal Basic Income, ‘the Freedom Dividend,’ of $1,000/month, $12,000 a year for every American adult over the age of 18. This is independent of one’s work status or any other factor. This would enable all Americans to pay their bills, educate themselves, start businesses, be more creative, stay healthy, relocate for work, spend time with their children, take care of loved ones, and have a real stake in the future."

While I must admit that this seems like a ploy to literally buy votes, I do think that Universal Basic Income (UBI) is an important thing to consider with automation on the horizon in the years to come. 

As a Realtor and real estate investor, I couldn't help but think how this extra $1,000/mo might affect the housing market.

INCREASED HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

The first implication of this extra $1,000/mo is that it would make housing much more affordable in most markets, potentially reducing the monthly costs by 33% or greater for most bread and butter housing markets.

A $250k home with only 5% down and a 4.5% interest rate has a PITI of roughly $1,700/mo. With the full $1,000 going towards the mortgage, this payment would basically be reduced to $700/mo, about the same if they had purchased a home for $100k at the same terms.

This is obviously a complete game changer for the housing market, allowing many people to afford homes that couldn't afford one without this plan, increasing the housing demand particularly at the lower end of the housing market.

INCREASED HOUSING DEMAND, WITHOUT INCREASED SUPPLY

At the bottom end of the market, this UBI of $1,000/month would suddenly allow many people who could not afford a home without it to suddenly purchase one. 

Using a DTI Ratio of 45%, a married couple would have an extra $900/mo (45% of $2,000/mo) to allocated to their housing expenses, allowing them to more than double their pre-approval amount in some cases.

Without UBI: Max Purchase Price = $117k at $800/mo

With UBI: Max Purchase Price = $250k at $1,710/mo (+$900/mo to take new DTI to 45%)

(Note: I'm not a lender, and surely there is more to this calculation than I am sharing here, this is merely just meant for illustrative purposes)

Further, the extra money would allow many people who already have the income and credit but no down payment to suddenly be able to save up for the down payment, creating additional buyers at the lower price ranges.

But without increasing the supply of available homes, the base floor price for housing would certainly be raised. Simple supply and demand.

MORE POTENTIAL MOVE-UP BUYERS

With more income available for housing, some buyers will be tempted to "trade up" and purchase more housing than they could normally afford. 

Suddenly you'd be able to move into that better school district or nicer neighborhood instead of settling for what you could previously afford. Thereby creating more demand in the mid-range markets as well (Under $500k in most areas).

But still, the increased demand would be felt at the bottom end of the price range where it already exists. I recently received 9 offers in the first weekend for a $150,000 home in Phoenix, and could easily see that number doubling to 20+ offers with a UBI plan for an extra $1,000/mo.

EFFECTS ON THE RENTAL MARKET

You'd likely see a similar trend in the rental market, with people moving out of their relative's house and into their own rental who couldn't afford to do so before. 

Also, you'd see renters at the lower end in not-so-nice neighborhoods suddenly move out into nicer neighborhoods that are safer with better schools.

The big question is how many landlords are going to jump ahead of this demand and automatically bump the rents a superficial amount now that everyone has an extra $1,000 every month.

QUESTION: If you were a landlord and had a 10-unit apartment building, and suddenly all your tenants are now receiving an extra $1,000/mo, how tempted would you be to raise the rent sharply for no other reason?

If that happens, you might see an even greater increase in demand for purchasing lower level housing, with tenants perceiving they're getting a bad deal in their current rental, motivating them to finally buy a home instead.

EFFECTS ON SHORT TERM RENTALS (STR)

Since short term rentals are associated with travel, which itself is somewhat of a luxury, I don't think UBI would have as much impact on the STR market.

Surely, more people that couldn't afford to travel in the past would suddenly be able to, but they may choose to spend that money elsewhere instead.

And that's the whole rub with UBI. When everyone has a larger supply of money, the demand for ALL things naturally increases. People will spend money they didn't have in the past on new non-essential items (things they only wished they could afford in the past, but suddenly now can).

LOW PRICED MARKETS BUBBLE FROM INVESTORS

With extra income every month, and a resulting increase in local housing costs, real estate investors would swamp lower priced housing market like Ohio where homes are under $100k. 

Investors who may not be able to invest locally because of the increased demand and raising of the lower home prices would look to other states where homes are already more affordable.

This could have a devastating effect on those markets who are already experiencing fierce demand in the lower price ranges from owner occupants, with an additional demand coming from out of state investors, making the housing situation worse than it was previously.

INCREASED PURCHASING POWER FOR MULTI-GENERATIONAL & EXTENDED FAMILIES

Probably the biggest opportunity for aspiring investors would be pooling the UBI funds with fellow family members to drastically increase their purchasing power.

Imagine a family of four adults: A married couple, one of their retired parents, and one child who is an adult teenager getting ready for college. Together, they would have $4,000/mo in UBI to spend every month, or $48k/year.

Which just so happens to be roughly the amount needed to put a 20% down payment on a $250k property, and be able to do this every single year.

Together they could purchase their first $250k home and owner occupy, paying the $1,350/mo PITI with the retiree's social security. The working income from the two parents could pay all other living expenses, and they could still save $4,000/mo from the UBI.

They could easily repeat this process every year, or even buy cheaper homes in other states as investments (see above). Sure, they'll run into a little trouble once they get enough loans, but if they took a break in buying from years 5-10 and focused on increasing the current properties value or accelerated loan pay-down, they could pick this strategy back up and continue to purchase property.

By the time the 18 year old teenager is 40, he'd be absolutely loaded. And this is just with a family of four. Imagine if an extended family of 10-20 people pooled their money together. They'd have $120-240k per year to invest in real estate, stocks, and other businesses.

UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME CAN'T BE UNDONE

Probably the biggest consideration with enacting a UBI program is that it can't be undone. NO ONE will vote to give themselves less money and handouts, even if it's shown that maintaining the program is unfeasible.

For example, just look at social security. Since 2010, Social Security's Cash Expenses have exceeded it's income, with the combined reserves likely to be fully depleted by 2034.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-about-social-security/

We've known this for quite some time, yet we all are still complicit in keeping the system up and running. Millennials pay into a system they'll likely never receive the benefits from, and Boomers would start a revolution if the benefits are suddenly taken away after paying in for their entire lives. Same thing with the coming Gen X getting ready to retire.

More likely, the system will be altered to keep it afloat and kick the can down the road to future generations, by changing the benefit formulas, raising the payroll tax, or makes other changes such as raising the cap on taxable wage income.

BIGGER PROBLEMS AHEAD

But combine this with Artificial Intelligence Experts predicting as much as 45% of all jobs could be replaced by automation by 2035, and we've got a serious problem on our hands.

Serious changes are ahead, and the government only has so much "bread and circuses" (UBI being the bread) before seriously addressing the issues at hand.

For now, UBI is presented as Social Security 2.0, but instead of just the retired population too old for most work it's going to affect everyone because soon there will be very little work at all.

And with humans projected to live 3-8 years longer than previously expected by 2050, and even with just the current US adult population of 250 million over 18 (UBI recipients under Andrew's plan), that's an additional $3 trillion per year UBI would cost us BEYOND the additional $3.2 to $8.3 trillion we hadn't planned to spend with our erroneous calculations.

Further, with an annual inflation of 3%, the buying power of a dollar today will equivalent to $2.50 in 2050, begging the question if $1,000/mo will even be enough by then?

And if Andrew does win the next election and successfully implements the Freedom Dividend of $1,000/mo, what's to stop a later presidential candidate like Elizabeth Warren from running on a platform where the freedom dividend is expanded to $2,000/mo or more?

Interesting times for sure... much to consider with the big changes ahead.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. If you received $1,000/mo in UBI, how would your family use this money to better your lives?

2. What market are you in? How do you think $1,000/mo in UBI would affect your local housing market?

3. Would you automatically increase the rent on your investment properties because your tenants are now receiving an extra $1,000/mo?

12Reply
1,334 views

Most Popular Reply

Greg ScottPro Member
Rental Property Investor · SE Michigan · Member since 2014 · 4k+ posts · 6k+ votes
7y

Hugo Chavez did something like this in Venezuela.  That worked out well, didn't it?

If this sort of thing ever passes in this country, it's time to leave.

See this reply in the discussion

197 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Realtor · Lees Summit, MO · Member since 2017 · 20 posts · 11 votes
    7y

    We cannot truly evolve as a society and have consistent societal advances as long as the scarcity mindset is prevalent.  This applies to the wealthy and the poor.  The Dems, Reps, Independent, or Undecided.  People who have extra income will start to spend more because of this mindset.  People who also have extra income, but feel as though they have worked harder for what they have than the others, will feel slighted for their hard work maybe even under-compensated for their hard work and want some sort of balance put in place. 

    I believe people who work hard will always work hard or find something to do that challenges them, and people who are less likely to work hard,  who tend to go with the flow,  even those who are plain lazy, will always make the decision to do so.  

    I don't think money will fix societal problems.  If any money is given away to anyone it should be for food, education, healthcare, and basic housing.  I believe these things are human rights no matter who you are.  However, it should not be assumed that extra income will automatically be used to acquire better housing or even housing at all.  

    Although, I can see something like this creating a lot of social uproar and dissension which is the last thing this country needs.

  • Rental Property Investor · Union, ME · Member since 2018 · 161 posts · 104 votes
    7y

    With apologies to those on this site who have a differing political viewpoint than I, I will say one thing: We basically have this already. In Maine where I live you can be better off living off the state with welfare/unemployment than you are actually working a job, if you make $30,000 a year or less (which goes quite a long ways in Maine, I might add. I should know, I make less than that at my W-2.) All this without even needing to pass a drug test. The problem with UBI is not that it wouldn't help many people with startups/being happier/being healthier, the problem is that more people would take advantage of it than the people who would actually use it for what it's meant for. In addition, how many would get complacent, and say, well since I have this $12,000 coming in every year, why do I need to start a business? And I do understand, people need help sometimes! I've got several good friends who have needed state assistance to feed their kids when they start out. But any type of long-term program will by default bring on problems with overuse of the system. It's the proverbial argument of giving people fish verses teaching them to fish. If everyone is given fish, eventually there will be no one wanting to catch them. My two cents. 

  • Real Estate Agent · Goleta, CA · Member since 2017 · 73 posts · 92 votes
    7y

    This sounds like Americans will likely have $1000/ month more of new shoes, clothes, and gadgets to me.

  • Rental Property Investor · New York City · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 271 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Chris Szepessy:

    That's a long post so I didn't read all of it, so I apologize because it appears you put a lot of thought/effort into it. First, I don't think such a bill would ever pass. Second, 90% of the population would just blow that money on stupid stuff anyway. They aren't going to buy houses or invest it. They'd be no better off financially than they are now. I heard someone say one time "You can give everyone in America one million dollars. In a year, the people who were already rich will be richer and the people who were poor will be poor again." There are some exceptions obviously, but the point is is that giving money to someone isn't going to help them if they don't have the knowledge/ambition to want to do better. That $3.6T would be better spent on educating people on financial literacy. 

  • Rental Property Investor · New York City · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 271 votes
    7y

    You are so correct, and I'll add that our leaders don't want us to be financially literate, so better education isn't going to happen either.  

  • Real Estate Broker · Santa Ana CA [South Coast Metro] · Member since 2016 · 459 posts · 202 votes
    7y

    They already have universal income for people on SSDI, SSi or Social Security. These programs pay so little its a momentous struggle for those to have enough to pay for basic items. If you make over $850 on SSDI they take away your income and Medicare, and these are for people that were working and became disabled. Its so restrictive and punitive that its really unfair.

    Adding $1000 that is not incentivised or earned is just going to make people get larger iphones or play more video games.

    If you helicopter ben those funds to millions of people the cost of everything will increase, so its a push.

    I agree that there is such an divide and inequality maybe stop with the FED and artificial rates and pumped up prices of everything that noone can afford anything, this is just a band aid on a hidden wound.

    But if they are handing out $1000 I do think short term it would give people some basic improvements.

  • Member since 2017 · 11 posts · 12 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Rob Duke:
    Originally posted by @Sunshine V.:

    If you are one of the many asking where the $1000 would come from, listen to the  podcast about Andrew Young and interview with him on The Freakanomocs podcast #362.  He explains that he would get the money from companies like Amazon and Apple because they will be the major benefactors of all this automation and effectively kill much of the American job market.  I believe he said it would be something like a tax on every transaction but it would only be like a penny or a fraction of a penny because of their immense volume.  

    I think they simply lie when they tell you this. Say there are 350,000,000 people in the US. Now say only 200 million of them get $1,000 per month "Basic Income". That would cost $200 Billion per month. Divide that by $.01 and you get a required 20 Trillion transactions per month. Yea... Amazon North America does how many? I'd be surprised if it is over 10 billion for Amazon & Apple combined.   

    These are not Economists, they are salesmen for a product which is UBI so question their every word.  What they do is slip in bad assumptions to build their otherwise seemingly logical argument upon. And let us not forget all these 'scientific' studies performed using a multitude of false assumptions.      

     Check out some of the Amazon statistics yourself if you don’t believe me.  And before you write this guy off as a politician- listen to the story- I think you may be surprised.  Amazon is just one example, you can also parse transactions made on the stock exchanges (digital trading), ebay, any company that uses self-driving cars instead of people to drive (uber, lyft), google (think Pay-per-click), etc.  Amazon was just one example.  All the industries that have the money to invest in these kinds of technologies that actually destroy entire career paths- they have to realize that by killing jobs they are also eliminating customers’ income.  They have a vested interest in people having money to spend.  This is just not the kind of thing the little guy (and by that I mean 85% of America) can compete with.  Government will have to do something to equalize - because private’s industry won’t  have the scale to do it.  And this isn’t the first time this kind of thing had been discussed.  It’s been studied!  In fact, ask the residents of Alaska if they want to give their oil subsidies back to the state, that’s a version of the same thing.  

  • Catskill, NY · Member since 2018 · 636 posts · 668 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Alvin Sylvain:
    Originally posted by @Andrew Brewer:

    One thing I do like about Andrew Yang's take on UBI is that it would take the place of all current forms of government assistance and be available to all citizens.

     That's been tried before. The famous economist Milton Friedman was in favor of a negative income tax and I think he drafted up a bill for it. It was actually bandied about in Congress a bit, until he found out that Congress made amendments such that no other federal aid program would be removed. That was when he removed his support and became against it and eventually got it killed, even though the original thing was his idea.

    The problem with government programs is that they are relatively easy to get started and almost impossible to get rid of. Once they start, they build up their own constituents and beneficiaries (and employees) who will fight tooth and nail for continuance, and there has never been a politician with the strength of character to say "No".

    And who can really blame the politicians? They'll haul out all the wheelchairs and one-legged war veterans and the crying mothers with babies sobbing about losing some benefit, and the moron media will cover it with relish. The politician will be made to look like the worst villain since Attila the Hun, and he'll cave like a week-old souffle.

    If UBI ever becomes the Law of the Land, you can bet your bottom dollar that each and every other form of government assistance will remain in full force.

    That's just the way it works in modern politics.

    I totally agree that UBI won't end any other social program for the same reason you mentioned. And IF it did, all the people who get the free healthcare, Sec. 8, food stamps, etc. currently will be in an uproar since they already make more than $12k/year when you combine all the programs they are on...and then they'd re-implement the programs again anyway. 

  • Harrisburg, SD · Member since 2017 · 8 posts · 8 votes
    7y

    Why is there such a concern with AI? Maybe I am in a minority, but I believe that this capability is greatly overstated. If you watch Back to The Future, we should have hover boards and flying cars, but that movie only had it right when the Cubs win a World Series. AI, as we know it, is just highly efficient processing of large sets of data. So can we make a computer win a video game, chess, jeopardy, recognize a face, and drive a car? yes. Can that same computer that wins the game or drive a car, then go and cook a meal, read a book, or Walk? seeing things and perceiving things and develop balance and shaking someone's hand is one heck of a  hard task. Our minds our wildly fascinating and we still don't understand them, so how can we make a computer that does that? I had a computer teacher say, this machine is only as smart as the operator running it, and I still think it applies. Do computers speed up our rate of progress, yes, but them replacing us? I highly doubt it. The prognostications of developers and AI people  are so tightly constrained by their beliefs that an algorithm will solve everything. You can't detect Russian hackers on FaceBook, so perceiving real vs fake, is really hard. Teaching a computer to spot a lie, how do you do that?  These algorithms will have to be as powerful as a line written a group of people in the 1700s, (all men are endowed by their creator the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) That line took 1000s of years of human history to come up with and humans had been organizing themselves since we were evolved. So in the time when the 80s and 90s gave us personal computers, early 2000s really exploded the internet, and now we have evolving media, it has been 40 years...... Sorry AI guy, I don't think you have written a code that will last 400 years or make humans useless. Here is a task AI guy, how do I contact a person at Facebook, Gmail, Google or YouTube?

  • Member since 2018 · 16 posts · 6 votes
    7y

    @Jeff Small

    I thought 2016 was the most important election cycle of our lifetime? Then again, I was also told that 2018 was the most important election cycle of our lifetime.

    I guess each election is more important than the last.

  • Rental Property Investor · Brookfield, IL · Member since 2017 · 89 posts · 17 votes
    7y

    @Nick B. Mexico will pay!

    I hear they want to buy us a wall. I'm sure they would love to give us a few dollars to help with this too.

  • Member since 2018 · 2 posts · 2 votes
    7y

    @Greg Scott

    Totally agree Greg. Gish too scarey. If you want socialism try Venezuela for a year or China or n Korea maybe. Nothing is free.

    Capitalism is why this country is great. Let’s keep it great.

  • Member since 2018 · 2 posts · 2 votes
    7y

    @Bjorn Ahlblad

    True

  • Ashland City, TN · Member since 2018 · 12 posts · 2 votes
    7y

    Seriously - haven't we seen enough inflation through government regulations.  Just like in nature, there is a reason why natural fires happen, it clears the underbrush and allows for more growth.  We need less government - not more.  If there is a UBI, the average Cost of Living Index will jump everywhere by the same points.  No savings, just more money into the hands of those who have...

    My .02 cents... or my UBI inflated $1000.02

  • Joe SplitrockPro Member
    Moderator
    Rental Property Investor · Sioux Falls, SD · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 18k+ votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Wes Blackwell:

    @Erik W.

    Yes, humans are more intelligent and useful than horses, even those of us who aren't that smart. It was a simple real world example of a living entity being put out of work by technology. There are none better that I know of. We shouldn't think that given enough time the same thing can't happen to happen to a more intelligent species like us. There will be some examples at the end of this post.

    Using my Legal AI example, a computer analyzed a document 212 times faster than a lawyer with decades of experience in law and was more accurate. That's a lot more complex work than a combustion engine, and shows that even the smartest of us can replaced on a smaller scale.

    You have two opposing forces at work here: 

    Natural population growth = need for more jobs

    Increased Automation = less jobs available

    So even when there are jobs still available, you will create a situation where more and more people are competing for them long before they are eliminated. And with an ever-increasing number of workers competing for fewer and fewer jobs wages will drop.

    Just take self-driving cars for example. Millions of jobs lost when that happens. Yet will millions of equal-paying jobs be created as a direct result from driver-less cars? I don't think so.

    Australia has a 12.5 million people aged 25-64, most likely to be working as younger people are likely to be still enrolled in school & study programs and 65 and older are likely to be retired.

    Yet, more than 400,000 jobs are at risk from self-driving cars, which is 3% of the population. That's not a number to brush off lightly. 

    Seeing as Truck Driving & Transportation is the #1 job is most states and the biggest job sector to be impacted by automation on the horizon, we should consider the potential impact it could have on your local area of Springfield, Missouri.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-most-common-job-in-every-state

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 193,920 moving and transportation jobs in the state of Missouri. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_mo.htm#53-0000

    The state's population is only 6.126 million, meaning that same 3% figure applies to Missouri as well. But even more so because that's ALL the population, not just the "working age" adult population like in the Australia example.

    Springfield is the 3rd largest city in Missouri, so certainly they have a fair share of the transportation industry jobs in the state. 

    When all those truckers and Uber drivers lose their jobs to automation, now they will have to go compete for other jobs and increase the supply of labor in those industries. Without other equal paying jobs to replace them it could potentially impact other industries.

    If just 25 of those 193,000 truckers decide to become a handyman in Springfield Missouri, your handyman may find himself having to bid lower to win jobs due to all the increased competition. And the same goes for almost every other industry as well.

    Yes, this hypothetical scenario makes a lot of assumptions, but in theory it makes sense and we can't deny that it will have SOME impact on the local economy in every state.

    New technology will create some new jobs, that is true. But I believe it is wishful thinking to assume that it will create an equal amount of jobs to those that are automated, and that the replaced workers will be qualified to do those new jobs, and that the new jobs will have the same pay.

    As robotics and AI continue to outperform humans in more and more fields (see lawyer example early), without replacing jobs at the same skill and pay level we're eventually going to hit a wall. 

    From a recent AI study: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.08807v1.pdf

    "Researchers predict AI will outperform humans in many activities in the next ten years, such as translating languages (by 2024), writing high-school essays (by 2026), driving a truck (by 2027), working in retail (by 2031), writing a bestselling book (by 2049), and working as a surgeon (by 2053). Researchers believe there is a 50% chance of AI outperforming humans in all tasks in 45 years and of automating all human jobs in 120 years, with Asian respondents expecting these dates much sooner than North Americans."

    Granted it's a long ways away, but when AI performs better in legal, surgery, transportation and retail than humans, what would it NOT be able to do? And when the retail worker has to compete with the surgeon for a job that a robot can't do, who do you think is going to get it?

    LOL looking back at this post I realized we've gone a little off topic here hahaha, but good discussion for sure. I think we can manage it and adapt in the short term, but longer term I have no idea how we're going to adjust. And in the grand scope of things 40 years really isn't that far away.

    We are a long ways off from technology completely replacing attorneys or surgeons. There is a higher chance of realtors to be replaced sooner. That is something for you to mull over!

    In the 1970's and 1980's as robotics and computers worked their way into the work place, researchers predicted the demise of assembly and office workers. What really happened? It increased productivity and launched entirely new industries that propelled Americans to new levels of wealth. In fact what actually happened was far beyond what any researcher could have imagined. 

    If you really want to get into negative repercussions of AI, the worst one is a future where AI decides the world is better off without humans.

  • Rental Property Investor · GA · Member since 2019 · 19 posts · 11 votes
    7y

    @Eamonn McElroy

    Hahaha cheers, looking forward to that beer. Encourage you to not give up digging into the data next time if you want to still be employed in 30!

  • Real Estate Investor · Springfield, MO · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    7y

    @Joe Splitrock, I was thinking the same think. REALTORs like to pride themselves on the value they offer, and I agree that an EXCELLENT agent can bring some value to the table. But as most of us REI's know, one of the main sources of value is they are gatekeepers to the information held by a proprietary MLS.

    Back in 1999-2000, I held a license for a brief period. The MLS was transitioning from the traditional book published once a month by the local BOR to a desktop based system. I'd dial into the BOR each night and download the file. Mom and Pop still had to go see a REALTOR to access that data.

    Today, the only thing keeping the data out of people's hand is the password to the MLS site. But there are already "soft" hits on that via online sites like Zillow when the true sale price is released as public info (vs. their crummy Zestimate). I can also see price history for any piece of property, neighborhood trends, crime stats, school info, etc. Agents today have to do so much more than simply be information gatekeepers.

    I doubt AI will totally replace agents, but it makes the really good agents have to continue to find more ways of providing value and it flushes out poor and mediocre agents.  That will do the same in other fields as well.  None of us want a sleepy trucker with 9 hours behind the wheel driving a 20 ton semi next to us.  We want the latest high tech computer that never gets tired.  I'd also prefer an AI that gets the diagnosis right 98+% of the time vs. the Doc who got a B- in med school.

    Most all of us want the AI to take over these dangerous or high risk jobs.  The fact that jobs will go away will not stop progress.  It never has in the past, and I doubt it will in the future.  And it's not just about money.  Money is a motivator, true, but there's also the satisfaction of contributing something with one's life.  UBI won't solve that unfortunately, even if it does keep a person from getting kicked out into the street.  Paying people to sit around doing nothing won't fix the lack of purpose in life that has been linked to increased rates of suicide, violence, drug abuse, and depression.  

    I think what scares many people is that once-upon-a-time our lives were made somewhat predicable, secure, and meaningful by the Industrial Age's voracious appetite for semi-skilled labor, but that age is passing away.   It's not just the truck drivers and warehouse workers being impacted either.   The Information Age has transformed the future for so-called "smart" people.  People who used to be repositories of facts and formulas are no longer in high demand because the knowledge of the world is at everyone's finger tips.  I can look up a differential equation online and also find a calculator to solve it in a few second.  No need to hire a mathematician or engineer just to regurgitate answers.

    People are having to take more responsibility for creating meaning out of our lives than ever before, and that can be a terrifying prospect if one isn't willing to invest the effort.  Creative application of knowledge is the new driving force.  This raises the question: are we educating our children properly to take advantage of the world that is being transformed by AI and automation?  That's another post for another day.

  • Long Beach, CA · Member since 2017 · 14 posts · 3 votes
    7y

    I worked in the electric utility industry doing marketing and PR about electric vehicles (EVs). In 1997 the industry was touting hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Going back further Thomas Edison developed the first EV in 1912. It competed against the steam engine car but Henry Ford came along with affordable gas powered transportation and blew them both away.

    In the 1970’s I worked at a grocery store and employees feared (and unions) the “scanner” and barcodes.

    New technologies take time to develop and be embraced by markets they serve. For example, the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is still not a mass market product even though it has been touted since the 60’s. Hybrid vehicle technology has been around since the late 1800’s. It’s success has only been recent. Even the EV is has experienced relatively new mass market success due to Tesla and it’s heavily subsidized the state agencies and the federal government.

    Robotic technology and other advances will take time. Former President Obama had aggressive goals for alternative fuels to be a large percentage of generation but it has not happened, in fact utilities were ahead of his goals in 1995 under deregulation in California.

    I think automation to replace jobs is coming but by 2050? History has shown us it doesn’t necessarily happen over 40 years of nights. The idea to give people $1000 a month sounds like more taxes and a socialist way of thinking. Not a good idea. Sounds like this guy is young and doesn’t understand the process for market ready technology or the history for mass market adaptation.

  • Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2017 · 325 posts · 701 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Matt OConnor:

    @Eamonn McElroy

    "This side believes we must do something now even though we are at historic unemployment lows and mass employment is not a problem -- we have plenty of problems but mass unemployment is not one. That's a fact Jack."

    You might want to check your facts - it's easy to draw misleading conclusions (too often done purposefully) looking at surface level data. In reality, U6 unemployment is still above early 2000 levels and our labor participation rate has been steadily declining for over two decades and is now at lows not seen since the late 1970s!

    Beyond the surface level "news byte economist" figures, the fact is that deflationary pressures are the new normal (hence endless quantitative easing), people are working less, underemployed more, and earning less with stagnating wage growth. Simply glancing at one headline number to conclude everything is fine is perhaps better than the intuition based approach your correctly lambaste, but it is a tell tale sign of amateur analysis. I encourage you to avoid the trap you mention of half considered data and examine the full macroeconomic environment, though falling prey to sound bytes is something we've all done before and even the best economists are often wrong.

    That said, I also think it's inaccurate to rush to the conclusion that "this has happened before" based on surface level similarities. Were the cotton gin and AI both cases of technology? Sure. But that's a bit too simplified no?

    I'm a data scientist who previously founded and ran a profitable AI/ML development agency. I've built systems that replace human man hours of work. In my informed opinion, never before in history has technology replaced so much thought work, only manual work.

    For the first time in history, we are on the precipice of aspects of every type of job - not just labor based jobs - being replaced by machines. Does this mean everyone will lose their jobs? Absolutely not. Does this mean new jobs and new industries will be created? Absolutely.

    But does this mean fewer humans will need to be employed to achieve the same or greater levels of production? Yes, 100% without question.

    Never before have our society's most skilled and revered jobs been at risk (doctors, lawyers, etc). It is naivete to equate the invention of the cotton gin or factory line assembly (one invention affecting one task in one industry) to the invention of intelligence itself (every task in every industry).

    The data shows it already playing out, if you look past the sound byte figures.

    First, lets take your argument at face value.   That "this time is different" and technology is now replacing "thought" work not manual labor.   But you ignore that manual labor (or unskilled labor) is the larger part of the pie.   So if technology has been systematically destroying manual labor jobs for decades (actually centuries) why is total employment higher.  Up 30% since 1990.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/192356/number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-usa-since-1990/

    Does a job know it is being replaced by AI or a machine? No it does not. So why then, has the constant advancement of technology not resulted in a reduction in employment. Where did all those farmers from 100 years ago...representing 40% of total employment go? They went to new jobs...jobs that technology has probably erased again already. 

    Since 1990 technology has completely transformed almost every aspect of the US economy...but total full time employment is 30% higher.  Is technology causing people to be unemployed and discouraged (U6)...why yes it is.    Has labor force participation fallen, you betcha.   People who lost their jobs in the last recession, the worst since the great depression, will never be employed again.   The older workers, the unskilled workers unwilling to learn new skills...they wont recover.    But total employment is up, that is a fact.   And a lot of those jobs didnt exist in 1990.   There were not Wi-Fi network engineer jobs in 1990....because that technology didnt exist.   No Uber drivers, no social media influencers, etc. etc. 

    Also, lots of skilled jobs has been eliminated by technology.   Example: Given computers, spreadsheets, and automated reporting do you think that more or less accountants are needed?  3 axis mills and machinists.   Travel agents.   Librarians.  etc.  

    Technology causes winner and loser, individuals will be impacted.   But your argument that total employment will decline has be repeatable proven wrong.  You think your company built machines that replaced human labor?   The cotton gin has you beat by billions of man hours.   ATMs replace more in an hour than your company probably did for its entire existence.   This is not new.  And it remains wrong

  • Flipper · Detroit, MI · Member since 2017 · 2 posts · 0 votes
    7y

    Current Labor Force in the US is 160 millions people per Wikipedia. If the workforce gets reduced by 45% that will leave us with a workforce of 88 million people, both employed and unemployed. To cover the $1,000, each employed person will have to pay about $30 in taxes. It doesn't sound so bad, but it has never worked in the past. Why?

    Because people on the lower salary range will have it better to quit working, get the $1,000 UBI, Plan 8 for residence, food stamps, etc and they get more income than working at minimum wage. That will cause the workforce to be drastically reduced, bumping the tax for the UBI. Then, the tax is not only to cover the $1,000 per person. You have to pay salary to the UBI workers, admin fees, government buildings, etc. so the UBI administration is going to require ever growing budget, as it happens with every single government agency.

  • Member since 2019 · 4 posts · 1 vote
    7y

    California tried to implement universal healthcare and then ran numbers and figured out it would bankrupt the state. If you study property values and real estate, you know that as demand for housing INCREASES, so does the cost. By giving everyone an extra thousand, all you will do is make things cost more. In my town there are places that accept housing vouchers, and those vouchers will pay 50% of the rent. The apartment was $600 a month, and started accepting housing vouchers it becomes $1200 a month. It is still $600 out of pocket for the person.

    1. If you received $1,000/mo in UBI, how would your family use this money to better your lives? I wouldn't use it on rent, but I also don't have credit cards or a car payment.

    2. What market are you in? How do you think $1,000/mo in UBI would affect your local housing market? I am in healthcare. I think that people who are bad with money will continue to be bad with money and will still try to get out of paying their bills.

    3. Would you automatically increase the rent on your investment properties because your tenants are now receiving an extra $1,000/mo? Yes you would, IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN YOUR PROPERTY VALUE. If people make more, they will be more likely to upgrade. If you don't raise rent, you will attract a lower income class than you already have.

  • Member since 2018 · 563 posts · 562 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Alvin Sylvain:
    Originally posted by @Isaac S.:

    What will we do when AI/robotics can do everything for us?

     I guess if the danged machines get to be so danged smart, we can just ask them!

    Dude!...that's just it....according to Matrix or Terminator Theory....we won't like the answer!

  • Investor · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2017 · 310 posts · 271 votes
    7y

    DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

    1. If you received $1,000/mo in UBI, how would your family use this money to better your lives?

    I would just make more investments, buy gold, short US govt bonds, invest abroad.

    2. What market are you in? How do you think $1,000/mo in UBI would affect your local housing market?

    Western Washington - It would dump even more gas on the inflation fire.  Demand far out paces supply especially when one considers where people would prefer to live vs where they settle on living.  Most people can't afford to live near their job so they have to spend 45-150 minutes each way to commute.  The bigger issues are zoning, building restrictions and people refusing to downsize and move.  There are thousands of single people and couples living in 3 - 6 bedroom houses all over Seattle who also don't pay full property taxes.  This forces those looking for properties to where they're for sale, mostly many miles from the jobs.

    3. Would you automatically increase the rent on your investment properties because your tenants are now receiving an extra $1,000/mo?

    I would increase rents along with the market, not specifically because of this.  This would cause massive inflation.

  • Rental Property Investor · GA · Member since 2019 · 19 posts · 11 votes
    7y

    @John Nachtigall

    Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. All of your data and previous examples relate to technology that augmented humans and changed non-thought work and middle men (amusing to think of a travel agent as a skilled job). The future, for the first time ever, is changing thought work, skilled work, and in certain cases *replacing* not augmenting humans. Again, never before in history has *intelligence* been invented.

    It's difficult to extrapolate exponential technological change, I get that. Either or both of us are certainly wrong in some key ways. But merely relying on the past (linear understanding) does not model our reality well when it is evolving exponentially as it is.

    You said it yourself. Participation rates, the "gig economy", etc. all great examples of fundamental shifts to *how* people work, not *what* work they do.

    You are talking about what/linear/velocity - this is how the human mind is geared.

    I am talking about how/exponential/acceleration - this is how technology evolves.

    Informed opinions and the smartest minds of our time almost universally see AI as a fundamental disruption (or threat as you prefer) to *how* we live and work. The macroeconomic trends and data confirm this starting to play out. You make your bet on things always staying the same, I'll make mine.

  • Real Estate Agent · Pacific Palisades, CA · Member since 2018 · 43 posts · 14 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Sunshine V.:
    Originally posted by @Rob Duke:
    Originally posted by @Sunshine V.:

    If you are one of the many asking where the $1000 would come from, listen to the  podcast about Andrew Young and interview with him on The Freakanomocs podcast #362.  He explains that he would get the money from companies like Amazon and Apple because they will be the major benefactors of all this automation and effectively kill much of the American job market.  I believe he said it would be something like a tax on every transaction but it would only be like a penny or a fraction of a penny because of their immense volume.  

    I think they simply lie when they tell you this. Say there are 350,000,000 people in the US. Now say only 200 million of them get $1,000 per month "Basic Income". That would cost $200 Billion per month. Divide that by $.01 and you get a required 20 Trillion transactions per month. Yea... Amazon North America does how many? I'd be surprised if it is over 10 billion for Amazon & Apple combined.   

    These are not Economists, they are salesmen for a product which is UBI so question their every word.  What they do is slip in bad assumptions to build their otherwise seemingly logical argument upon. And let us not forget all these 'scientific' studies performed using a multitude of false assumptions.      

     Check out some of the Amazon statistics yourself if you don’t believe me.  And before you write this guy off as a politician- listen to the story- I think you may be surprised.  Amazon is just one example, you can also parse transactions made on the stock exchanges (digital trading), ebay, any company that uses self-driving cars instead of people to drive (uber, lyft), google (think Pay-per-click), etc.  Amazon was just one example.  All the industries that have the money to invest in these kinds of technologies that actually destroy entire career paths- they have to realize that by killing jobs they are also eliminating customers’ income.  They have a vested interest in people having money to spend.  This is just not the kind of thing the little guy (and by that I mean 85% of America) can compete with.  Government will have to do something to equalize - because private’s industry won’t  have the scale to do it.  And this isn’t the first time this kind of thing had been discussed.  It’s been studied!  In fact, ask the residents of Alaska if they want to give their oil subsidies back to the state, that’s a version of the same thing.  

    I looked at Amazon statistics, they seem to hide the transaction data pretty well although you can find a lot of other data that they must disclose quarterly. If you have the link for annual transactions I'm sure everyone would like to see it. 

    I'd much rather see ANY and ALL taxes the government proposes be locked in a box they cannot borrow against or otherwise divert because that is what they do here in California. They propose a tax and then promise the unions huge, unrealistic pensions in a bid to win re-election which has all but bankrupted our state. So anyone in their right mind should be 100% against any taxes of this sort without provisions preventing politicians from getting their thieving hands on them.

    I've seen Nobel Prize winning Economists make bold predictions and flat out wrong predictions in the last 5 years. Because there have been studies does not mean anything. People who make studies or more often than not, wrong in the end. To get studies funded, they often have to predict the outcome and work hard to achieving that goal if they want more funding. This is why everyone should question every piece of 'science' that comes out. 

    Government's role should not be to 'equalize' but to build infrastructure so startups can compete with the big guys. Why did the US Postal Service acquiesce its role in being a shipping hub? These Amazon warehouses should be a model to which our government builds its distribution centers, thus allowing the smaller guys to compete. The problem isn't the mom & pop shops going by the wayside, the problem is the mom & pop shops have no way to compete because of the economies of scale combined with a fast-changing way of doing things.

    Listening to Andrew Yang Freakonomics podcast today. 

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.