by Guest Contributor | Mar 28, 2018 | Opinion
Written by Michael Laitman
Michael Laitman
Sadly, 33,000 Toys ‘R’ Us employees are about to be let go. They’ll pack that family vacation picture from their office wall in a brown cardboard box, take a toy or two for keepsakes, and, begrudgingly, go home. They will be joining a growing list of hundreds of thousands of people who are losing their jobs, not because they need to improve their performance or their work ethic, but simply because they are no longer needed.
More and more products are being manufactured using robots, which is more cost-effective for companies, as well as cheaper for consumers, who can order online with a swipe of a finger. Toys ‘R’ Us is only one example of the virtual-technological tsunami that is washing over the business world. It appears in the form giant corporations such as Amazon, Alibaba, Google and their trade partners, trampling every area of commerce possible: retail, banking, clothing, food, advertising and more. This wave doesn’t stop at the private sector; it’s washing away the public sector as well. For instance, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and Jamie Dimon are already on a joint venture to reinvent healthcare.
While it may seem like a silent revolution, these changes promise a socio-economic earthquake the likes of which humanity has never seen before. The virtual-technological future is gradually taking over the very foundations of the global economy and businesses are having to adjust to the change. From small things like providing virtual collaboration training for their employees to implementing more efficient computing operations, technology is changing every industry.
It is becoming normal to talk about robots replacing human labor, but we still have not yet acknowledged the magnitude of this change. Many politicians, economists, and analysts are seeing this as another industrial revolution that comes with labor pains, giving birth to a whole slew of new professions, and are predicting that a newly booming economy will emerge as a result. The use of machinery is always needed in manufacturing circles, that is why universal mills, CNC machines, lathe machines, etc. are constantly evolving to assist in as many areas as possible, hopefully not to entirely take over jobs just yet. Machines play a huge part in this industry, no matter how they are used, so it is important for them to function as a unit and provide what is needed of them. When they have to be moved, fixed, or changed, the use of equipment like Custom Skates as well as other supplies, are needed to keep everything efficiently moving along.
Surely, this is an encouraging view, but it is based on a limited understanding of new technologies being developed at an exponential speed. Even today, we could automate 45% of the activities people are paid to perform in the U.S. with existing technologies.
It’s not about the advanced machinery that replaces our hands and feet at work. It’s about the artificial intelligence being developed to gradually replace human intelligence. AI will think creatively, produce, analyze, develop, program, and work many times more efficiently than the most gifted employee, all the while being many times cheaper and easy to operate.
Artificial intelligence can learn and self-upgrade much faster than a person’s ability to retrain, and will eventually replace human labor everywhere: scientists, doctors, programmers, designers, financial experts, human resource managers. Only a fraction of the workforce will be required to operate and calibrate the various smart machines and advanced software.
Let’s Revolutionize Society – Without the Pitchforks
If you can fathom the future of technology, you can immediately spot the upcoming social crisis. Masses will go into indefinite unemployment, and modern economics will have no answers for them. Current economic models can hardly deal with a 15% unemployment rate. What’s going to happen when we hit 30%, 40% and 50% unemployment? That is unaccounted for in current economics.
If we settle for positive thinking, hoping this upheaval will somehow result in a new booming economy, we run the risk of a mass unemployment crisis. If masses of people have no hope of providing for their basic necessities, they will not sit calmly at home. Without hope, people could default to violence, extremism and support of radical leaders who will offer economic safety in order to come to power, as we have seen in the past.
Alternatively, if we plan in advance, we can revolutionize society – without a revolution. The sooner we acknowledge the inevitable redesign of our socio-economic infrastructure, in a way that jobs will no longer exist in the same sense as before, we will come to grips with the necessity to provide for the basic needs of all members of society.
Whether we do it through some form of Universal Basic Income, or any other technical mechanism, we must understand that a change of social values is the core issue at hand: Every country’s leadership must acknowledge that looking out for the basic needs of every citizen-food, shelter, clothing, education and health-is their top priority.
But what will people give back to society? If only few man-hours will be necessary to maintain the machines, what will human beings do? They will be busy “being human,” which means developing themselves, their families, their societies and all that makes us human rather than robots.
The Real Driver of Technology Is Human Evolution
The so-called “technological revolution” is not accidental, and it’s not actually technological. It’s an evolutionary revolution. Its purpose is the evolution of human society. It will help us step out of the endless rat race, fueled by a material obsession that doesn’t actually make us happy; a chase around the clock that has created a society of little cogs in giant corporations, accumulating stress and rust, while losing touch with one another and ourselves.
Instead of investing our collective energy into working like machines, we could be engaging in the only work that makes humans different from machines. In a society freed from the cyclical chase for material acquisition, we would invest a large portion of our time on a daily basis, investigating, exercising, and developing the sense of the natural human connection that binds us together. One method to realize our potential as human beings at the workplace is to engage in a variety of activities that are not directly related to work. Let’s say you’re at an event hosted by Uniqueworld destination management companies or something similar, and you get a glimpse of how employers function outside of the office. This could give you an outlook on what all you can do as an employer that might benefit your company.
When masses of people are doing this regularly-as their new job-a new society will undoubtedly emerge. Its product will be the positive social energy required to preserve societal balance. It will be a society whose members’ daily work is to maintain the sense of unity and solidarity that prevent violence and extremism, allowing human beings to live together in productive peace.
This work can be done in unlimited creative ways, where people can apply their passion and desire, as long as they contribute to a warm social climate. But it has to start from fundamental training and education on the science of human connection, learning how positive social connections make us healthier, happier and better at everything we do.
Surely, all of the above sounds foreign in a world where we have been trained by advertisers to chase things we don’t need in order to impress people we can’t connect with. But when material needs are taken care of, human nature demands a deeper, more meaningful type of satisfaction. It’s no coincidence that happiness studies show time after time that healthy social relations are the number one predictor of human flourishing.
Our evolutionary social development pushes us to utilize our wiring for human connection, to distill it through constant work on our relationships, and evolve to a new social reality. Rather than competing with robots for an old school job, let’s make our job the only function that no robot will ever replace, and find the kind of happiness that money will never buy.
Michael Laitman is a Professor of Ontology, a PhD in Philosophy and Kabbalah, an MSc in Medical Bio-Cybernetics, and was the prime disciple of Kabbalist, Rav Baruch Shalom Ashlag (the RABASH). He has written over 40 books, which have been translated into dozens of languages.
Featured image from Wikipedia.
Editing by Dawn Howard
by Patrick Hoare | Aug 23, 2017 | News
Lodewijk Asscher and Jetta Klijnsma (composition). Credit to: Wikipedia.
Lodewijk Asscher and Jetta Klijnsma, the Minister and the Secretary, respectively, for the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment in the Netherlands, have dismissed the idea that a Basic Income could form part of a solution to deal with the increasing levels of unemployment amongst older people in the country.
Answering questions on the Radar Extra documentary ‘Chance of Work: 3 percent’, which investigated the high rates of unemployment amongst the over 55s and their difficulty in returning to the world of work, the ministers accepted that the unemployment rate was too high, but rejected the notion that an older unemployed person had only a 3 percent chance of returning to work. They claimed instead that “the chance of finding work is significantly greater… and will increase further with an improving economy and additional government measures”, adding further that, according to a paper published by the UWV (Employee Insurance Agency) in May 2017, 35 percent of those receiving unemployment benefit over the age of 55 return to work within a year.
When it was suggested by the interviewers that a Basic Income might allow the older unemployed to contribute to society in a different way, the ministers stated that “unconditional basic income is not a realistic or economically viable option”, reasoning that “regardless of the cost, as basic income increases so labour supply decreases, supplementing a low wage economy”. They also explained that Basic Income did not fit with the party’s political ambitions, which are built around a focus on “increasing employment” and a “commitment to participation”, the result of which, they believe, will offer people “a social network, self-confidence and opportunities for development”.
The extent to which these comments will be concerning for Basic Income proponents is unclear, however, given the heavy losses the Labour Party suffered in the March 2017 elections, which saw support plummet from 38 to just 9 seats, seventh place in the final standings. Though a government has yet to form, the prospect of the Labour Party participating in a coalition, therefore, seems remote. In addition, Jetta Klijnsma, the likely outgoing Secretary for the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, has recently authorized for 5 municipalities to carry out Basic Income experiments. The Radar Extra petition to experiment with Basic Income in over 55s has also already been signed by over 70,000 people.
A full transcript of the Radar Extra interview with the two ministers can be found here.
More information at:
In Dutch:
Menno de Vries, “WW’ers vaker aan het werk [Unemployed more often at work]”, May 2017
“Petitie basisinkomen 55-plussers [Basic Income petition for people older than 55 years old]”, Radar, 2017
In English:
“VVD wins 33 seats but coalition partner Labour is hammered”, DutchNews.nl, 16th March 2017
Kate McFarland, “THE NETHERLANDS: Government authorizes social assistance experiments in first five municipalities”, Basic Income News, 11th July 2017
Pedro Alves, “Netherlands: Basic Income petition in the Netherlands for people over 55 years old was signed more than 50000 times”, Basic Income News, 6th July 2017
by Kate McFarland | Mar 11, 2017 | Research
Daiga KamerÄde (Senior Lecturer in Quantitative Research Methods at the University of Salford) and Matthew R. Bennett (Lecturer in Social Policy at the University of Birmingham) have written a paper for the journal Work, Employment and Society in which they examine changes in the structure of the labor market and their impact on mental health and well-being. Indeed, it is known that there is a link between these two areas, which is why many will use private label capsules of CBD oils to help manage their own mental health, but a formal study is still important.
KamerÄde and Bennett use data from the European Quality of Life Survey to analyze differences in mental health status between unemployed individuals in different nations, as well as between those who engaged in volunteer work and those who did not. (The dataset consisted of 2,440 individuals, all unemployed, from 29 European countries.) While it is known that unemployment is associated with lower mental health, KamerÄde and Bennett investigate whether receipt of government support and participation in voluntary work can improve mental health and well-being. This can lead to other opportunities if seen as viable, such as gaining an online yoga certification yoga alliance qualification to those who want to contribute to ongoing mental wellness and health systems.
One of their most important findings is that, in countries with less generous unemployment benefits, volunteer work is associated with worse mental health outcomes — even though volunteer work shows beneficial effects on mental health in countries with more generous benefits. Based on this result, the authors conclude that “financial support for the unemployed” – possibly through (as they mention) a guaranteed basic income or citizen’s income scheme – “should occupy a central position in theoretical perspectives focusing on reducing the negative effects of unemployment”:
Unemployment could lead to negative psychological and physiological health effects such as depression, lower self-esteem, eating disorders, cardiovascular diseases, etc. Aged care courses Melbourne, or similar accreditations could, therefore, prove beneficial to the unemployed youths. This would help benefit the people in terms of their mental health, and in turn, they could also be of service to the government and society by their volunteering work. Financial and psychological support in trying times can be of tremendous comfort to the people who are signing up for voluntary services.
The findings indicate that financial support during periods of unemployment remains crucial for well-being and mental health. Although individuals can boost one dimension of their own well-being (feeling that their life is worthwhile) by exercising their agency through engaging in work that is an alternative to paid work, such engagement without any financial support can also damage their mental health. These findings suggest that financial support for the unemployed – through unemployment benefits, guaranteed basic income (Gorz, 1989), citizens income (Standing, 2011), etc. – should occupy a central position in theoretical perspectives focusing on reducing the negative effects of unemployment.
Full article available at the following link:
Daiga Kamerade-Hanta and Matthew R. Bennett (December 2016) “Rewarding work: cross-national differences in benefits, volunteering during unemployment, well-being and mental health,” Work, Employment and Society.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo: CC BY 2.0 Virginia State Parks
by Guest Contributor | Dec 1, 2016 | Opinion
By Alexander de Roo
The discussion about basic income has changed completely.
Thirty years ago, it was a very principled debate. High unemployment. No future. Thus, give us a basic income, because the system cannot give us paid work. The counter argument was you must do paid work to receive an income. A basic income is morally unacceptable.
How different is the discussion now: when we go out and hand leaflets in the streets, 50 to 90 percent of the population takes our leaflets (50 percent in rich area’s and 90 percent in poor neighborhoods). The most common reaction is: basic income is a good idea, but how do you finance it? Who pays for it?
A very pragmatic discussion no longer principles banging against each another.
The confidence in the present social system in The Netherlands is shaken compared to 30 years ago. Previously you got five years’ unemployment money and one could easily look for another job. Now even middle class people lose their well-paid job and after two years of unemployment money must ‘eat up’ (meaning sell) their own house to get social assistant money…. five million people have a steady, normal contract. That is ten percent less than ten years ago. Two million people have flexible contracts for bull-shit jobs, two million people live from social benefits (in different forms), one million people are independent professionals without access to unemployment money (ZZP or freelancers), the pension age keeps going up (now 67 years), while people above 50 years have zero (or realistically around 1 percent) changes on the labor market.
But the Netherlands is still one the five or ten richest countries in the world!
The two biggest newspapers held polls about basic income! About 40 – 44 percent comes out in favor. A reliable national poll measured 40 percent in favor, 45 percent against and 15 percent do not know. The majority of the electorate of the green and left parties are in favor. With the two right wing parties it is the opposite: their electorate is against: “we are working hard and do not want to pay a basic income for these (lazy) people that just want to have a basic income”.
Most interesting is that the voters for the Freedom party of Mister Wilders (our local Trump) are divided: 37 percent in favor and 46 percent against, 17 percent don’t know. Almost the same as the national average! Politically we must use this.
But the leaders of the green and left wing parties do not take up the issue of a basic income. They stick to repairing /amending the old social system. They think (and hope) the economy is recovering, unemployment will fall and then this basic income discussion will go away like it did around the year 2000.
But they are wrong we have now one year economic recovery: the result 12,000 new steady jobs and 78,000 flexible low-value jobs. The flexibility of the labor market keeps growing. We will turn back the clock on these flex jobs; providing more jobs is the answer of the green and left wing leaders.
Our answer is to increase our support for the basic income alternative in the upcoming national elections March 15, 2017. Around 60,000 people signed a petition for a basic income in 2018. Demonstrating that 800 € for every citizen in the Netherlands is easily affordable and that even 1,100 € is easily financed.
After the elections, we will work with respectable institutions to come up with a transition route from the present situation to a full basic income.
Annotation: A basic income of 800 € requires 10 billion € more per year then the present situation, 1,100 € will cost around 30 billion euro more. The present government (Conservatives + Social democrats) have cut the state expenditure with 30 billion € and raised indirect taxes with 16 billion euro’s: in total 56 billion in the last 4 years.
Alexander de Roo is a founder of BIEN in 1986, former BIEN treasurer (1986-2004), and now Chairman of the Dutch branch of BIEN.