There's a caveat to that though. When mechanization became intelligent mechanization (what I call having a Computer whether mechanical or digital control the process) the shifts started happening more frequently, and the replacement jobs became harder to obtain.
I think ultimately this is the key point, as a society we LET mechanization happen, and ultimately it has taken us to a point where not everyone is CAPABLE of having a highly skilled job. There's ways to alleviate it, part of the problem is an outdated education system. Another part of the problem is probably cultural, there might be a lack of high skilled jobs too.
None the less, there WILL be a growing population of people who we've taken away their capability to work for a living. So when we offer a basic income, its not us graciously giving them a gift of our hard work. Its giving them the lives they are owed because of the decisions we have collectively made a hundred years ago.
I'm personally strongly in favour of basic income, but the two biggest arguments people give me are "How will we pay for it" and "why should we give money to people too lazy to work". Your final comment is how I defuse those, though I word it slightly differently.
I say something along the following: "Computers and machines have obsoleted old jobs, and we as a society haven't found new ones for all these people yet. So, I don't know how much you know about history, but when you take a bunch of people, take away their money, and let them be bored all day... bad things happen. Don't think of it as a gift. Think of it as a tax that prevents revolution."
I may have a little bit of a penchant for melodrama
I completely agree. What I need to be able to enjoy food more is not better food, but that nearly 1 billion people aren't undernourished [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation ]. However, I don't see that sentiment shared a lot. The world in large part seems to operate in slightly different principles.
When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started.
Very extreme exploitation started, and many people had to struggle and even risk their lives to change that from utter callousness to calculated and physically healthier exploitation. Now, corporate profits keep soaring, but they are accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, and today 40% of US workers earn less than 1968 minimum wage [ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-e... ].
If capitalism became more humane because people applied pressure, why would it become even more humane when there is nobody left to apply any kind of pressure? Why is basic income a more likely outcome than, say, mass sterilization? Make me believe, I really want to. I could use some optimism but I'm all out.
We're certainly not there now.
1) Benjamin Franklin
2) not advocating - this part violates some of my basic beliefs
At least we'd be making society a better place while guaranteeing an income of some kind.
The possibility of the transition is predicated, on the technical side, on massive advancements in AI and robotics.
