Aff - UBI - Michigan 7 2023 BFHGR

UBI AFFIRMATIVE UPDATE
VAT+UBI
1AC---Inequality Advantage
Advantage one is Inequality.
Inevitable automation of the workplace makes mass unemployment and wage stagnation a certainty---a basic income guarantees a stable transition to automated labor---throw out defense that doesn’t assume the rapid pace of automation.
Annie Lowrey 23, staff writer for the Atlantic, former writer for the Times, Washington Independent, Foreign Policy, and the New Yorker, B.A. from Harvard University, author of Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income would End Poverty, Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World, 5/17/2023, “Before AI Takes Over, Make Plans to Give Everyone Money,” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/05/ai-job-losses-policy-support-universal-basic-income/674071/
Artificial intelligence is coming for all our jobs.
That is a prevalent fear these days, and not one easily dismissed. The specific effects of revolutionary technologies are impossible to predict, and perhaps AI will turn out to be overhyped. But it really is different from past advances: The work it can do really is different; the jobs it threatens really are different; its effects on the labor market really might be different. A pair of economists at Goldman Sachs recently estimated that two-thirds of American occupations are now “exposed” to AI-driven automation. In the coming decade, the technology will wipe out 300 million jobs, they forecast. That’s one in every 11 jobs on the planet.
Here in the United States, an AI jobs revolution need not be anything for average wage-earning families to fear. If AI does not enslave the human race or destroy humanity outright, this generative technology can and should be a very, very good thing. It should lift productivity growth, increase our national wealth, and contribute to our commons of knowledge. Every person in this country can and should benefit from such an awe-inspiring invention.
The problem with AI is not the technology. The problem is not even the technology’s potential effect on the labor market. The problem is that we do not have any policies in place to support workers in the event that AI causes mass job loss. The good news is that we do not need to invent them.
Say hello to the universal basic income, a 500-year-old policy idea whose time has perhaps finally come. It is simple and radical in its design. The government would raise revenue by raising taxes. It would then distribute the money to everyone, in small amounts, in perpetuity, with no strings attached.
To understand why this might be beneficial, imagine our economy as transfigured by AI—not 1,000 years from now, but 20 or 50 years. (This is still a hyper-speculative exercise, I admit, but a useful one nevertheless.) Let’s assume that AI will continue to improve at cognitive tasks. More and more people will use it to kill time. More and more businesses will use it for clerical, administrative, and creative work. This will reduce employment in the “middle tier of white-collar jobs,” David Autor, an economist at MIT and one of the country’s foremost experts on technological change and employment, told me recently.
If that happens slowly, workers will have time to adapt, shifting into new jobs created by AI or into sectors impervious to automation, such as care work. (Autor and his co-authors have estimated that three in five workers today are employed in occupations that did not exist 80 years ago.) But if job obsolescence happens quickly, mass unemployment and wage stagnation are likely, with inequality yawning to previously unseen levels. Employees will get piddling pay raises, shareholders huge dividends. The whole country will become richer while workers become poorer.
But none of that has to happen. The government could capture some of the enormous bounty generated by this new technology and redistribute it to the people who supplied the training data that created it in the first place. A UBI would act as a tax-and-transfer program on steroids, correcting the inequality that AI is likely to gin up. The program would act as a social dividend, ensuring that everybody gets to share in the country’s new growth. It would also act as societal insurance, making certain that technological change does not damage our families and our polity, as has happened before. The China Shock, for instance—the large, persistent job losses in American and European manufacturing communities caused by China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001—worsened workers’ health, shortened their lives, and polarized their political views, all of which could have been mitigated by smart policy making.
What about work? What happens if we just need less human labor, full stop? That’s a cultural question more than an economic one. A shortage of remunerative jobs is not the same thing as a shortage of work; there is always something to do. (The crew of the USS Enterprise was tasked with exploring new worlds and boldly going where no man has gone before, after all.) In a world of abundance, we could all work less and enjoy life more, if we could financially sustain ourselves while doing so.
A basic income prevents automation-driven unrest, checking back against widespread social strife.
Mark Walker 16, Professor and Richard L. Hedden Endowed Chair at New Mexico State University, Ph.D. from the Australian National University, 2016, “Peace, Robots, and Technological Unemployment,” Free Money for All: A Basic Income Guarantee Solution for the Twenty-First Century, Chapter 5, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137471338, BIG = Basic Income Guarantee
What If Chicken Little is Wrong?
Despite the strong case for looming technological unemployment, it is worth considering the possibility that Chicken Little is wrong. Chicken Little’s dire prediction is based on two claims: (1) that a large number of jobs presently done by humans will be performed by computers and robots in the future, and that (2) new sectors of the economy will not generate sufficient jobs for humans (because machines will supply most of the necessary labor in the new sectors of the economy as well). Interestingly, there is near universal agreement among experts about the first point. The residual disagreement between Chicken Little and the economists is about point two.
It will be worth discussing what the economy will look like if the second point is false and the first is true. For such a scenario, there will have to be massive growth in the economy. Specifically, the growth in economic output will have to be greater than worker redundancy. For example, it might seem reasonable to expect that if 10 percent of the workforce is made redundant by robotics, then the economy would have to grow by 10 percent to absorb these workers to maintain full employment. Such a one-to-one relationship is illustrated in the one-to-one graph below ( figure 5.1 )
[Figure 5.1 omitted]
However, such a one-to-one relationship is not plausible, as we discuss here. Suppose in an economy with 100 firms, with ten workers per firm, each worker produces 1 widget per year. “Widget” is to be understood as the product of the company, it could be goods or services. This means that the economy produces 1,000 widgets per year. Now, imagine that robotics and advanced computers replace only 10 percent of the work force. It is easy to suppose that the one-to-one relationship must be correct: the economy must then grow by 10 percent in order to absorb these workers and maintain full employment. However, this is not the case. The economy would have to grow by more than 10 percent to absorb these workers. If each firm now only employs nine workers, the number of unemployed will be 100 workers. If the economy grows by 10 percent, this would translate into 10 new firms. In other words, 110 firms each producing ten widgets equals 1,100 widgets per year. But ten new firms would only employ 90 people, because the average number of workers employed has dropped to nine. So, the economy would have to grow by more than 11 percent to get back to full employment. The difference gets more dramatic as the redundancy percentage is increased. For example, if robots replace three out of ten jobs at each firm, then the economy will have to grow by 43 percent to get back to full employment, not 30 percent. For now there will be 300 people who will need to find jobs. Since the firms now only employ an average of seven people, 43 new firms will have to be created to maintain full employment. If robots are able to replace five out of every ten jobs at present, as suggested by Frey and Osborne’s detailed study, then 500 people will be unemployed in our economic model. 29 100 new firms would have to spring up, that is, finding work for 50 percent of the workforce translates into a 100 percent increase in economic output ( table 5.1 ).
The point, in other words, is that new industries themselves will likely use advanced robotics and computers, and so economic output will have to increase faster than the percentage of unemployed to keep the economy at full employment. Figure 5.2shows the relationship necessary for economic growth and full employment.
[Table 5.1 omitted]
[Figure 5.2 omitted]
We are now in a position to see why BIG is a smart bet, given the uncertainties in employment creation. The future economy, with massive implementation of robotic workers, may not or may generate full employment for humans. If the former, then there is a clear need for BIG. In such a case, we imagine that workers get simply outcompeted by robots in most areas of the economy. Addressing the needs of such displaced workers is morally and prudentially important. Morally, of course, we ought to care about the plight of our fellow humans. Even for those motivated solely by prudential concerns, BIG would be an efficient way to stop social unrest caused by massive unemployment. Those fortunate to be still employed, in other words, should find BIG an attractive means to avoid the threat of having their heads put on the ends of pikes by angry mobs upset by perceived unfairness of the robotic revolution.
On the other hand, if the economy is able to generate full employment, then the economy will have to grow faster than the redundancy rate to maintain full employment. This means that the economists who predict full employment must also predict a massive growing economy of unprecedented proportions as a logical consequence. That is, optimism about full employment logically requires optimism about a massively expanded economy. In this case, paying for BIG will be comparatively easy as it will be a small percentage of total economic output. As noted in chapter 2 , a reasonable BIG for US citizens works out to 11 percent of the economy at present. Using this as our baseline, we can see that if 20 percent of the jobs at present performed by human workers are executed by robots while full employment is maintained, then paying for BIG as a percentage of the economy should fall to 6 percent from 11 percent of the total Gross Domestic Product. If half the jobs are taken over by robotics in an economy with full employment, then the total cost of BIG works out to about 3 percent of this economic future. So, what makes BIG a rational bet is that either it will be urgently needed or easy to pay for (and perhaps both).
Unrest and Unemployment
If there is persistent high unemployment, say over 15 percent, and nothing is done for the displaced workers, then I predict civil unrest. History is only partially supportive of this claim. Certainly, there are historical cases of civil unrest caused by high levels of unemployment and economic desperation. Britain experienced food riots during the 1770s and 1780s. There were general strikes in Britain during 1921 and 1926 due to economic distress, mainly in the working class. The “Swing Riots” in the 1830s in Great Britain were directly attributable to high unemployment, caused in part by the introduction of mechanized farm machinery, which displaced workers.
The strongest countervailing evidence is the Great Depression. Although unemployment in the United States rose to 25 percent, the history of this period was relatively peaceful. The most notable civil unrest was the use of the US military against veterans during the Bonus Expeditionary Force’s protest in Washington. About 17,000 World War I veterans demanded early payment of a bonus promised to them in 1924, which was to be paid in 1945. Their argument was that the Great Depression was sufficient cause to demand that the bonus be paid early by the federal government. The veterans and their families set up camp around Washington. Two protestors were shot by the police, at which point, President Hoover sent in the army to clear out the protestors.
Despite the lack of widespread civil unrest during the Great Depression, there are several major differences to the scenario where robotics replace human labor. One difference is that citizens are less acquiescent today than they were in the 1930s. There is a level of cynicism at present that was not there during the 1930s. People distrust politicians and economic leaders far more today. Modern communication systems, cell phones, Internet sites, text messaging, and so on, make it much easier for the disaffected to communicate with one another and coordinate their activities.
However, perhaps the biggest difference would be people’s longterm outlook. Unemployment during the Great Depression was not perceived to be caused, at least in large part, by workers being made redundant due to advances in technology. Scholars typically mention things like the stock market crash of 1929, a large number of bank failures, reduction in consumer demand, foreign trade policy, and so on. During the Great Depression, it was generally believed that the economy would eventually bounce back and jobs would return. People had faith that it was merely the cyclical nature of capitalistic economies. So at least one big difference during the Great Depression was that there was hope things would get better. Suppose you are one of the more than half million truck drivers laid off when driverless trucks take over. If you see doctors and lawyers being laid off too as a result of advanced computers and robotics, what will you hope for in terms of getting your next job? If it is not a cyclical phenomenon but a permanent feature of the economy, then acquiescence will not be fueled by hope.
Unemployment-driven unrest causes great power war.
Christopher Benek 18, graduate of the world’s first ever Doctor of Ministry program focusing specifically on Theology and Science, advanced degrees in Ministry/Theology (Ethics) from Princeton Theological Seminary and is currently working on a fourth in Technology and Theology at Durham University in England, 2018, “The Technology That Can Destroy the Church and the World As We Know It," https://www.christopherbenek.com/2018/03/the-coming-churchtastrophe-the-technology-that-can-destroy-the-church-and-the-world-as-we-know-it/
Of course, it should be noted that the societal and cultural situations that we face today are quite a bit different than those of the 1930’s. But it is also worth noting that it was mass unemployment in Germany during the Great Depression that undergirded the events that led to the Second World War. Those who remember history will also remember that – once the Great Depression hit the United States – it lasted a decade and the unemployment rate in America didn’t drop below 10% until after the U.S. entered the Second World War and began mass military production which reinvigorated the economy.
Obviously, given the modern advances in warfare, a potential Third World War would devastate humanity. But assuming that global war can be avoided, a loss of jobs of this magnitude would likely still shake the foundations of society creating new levels of unimagined poverty, increased income inequality between the rich and the poor and heightened racial & ethnic divisions. What makes things worse is that global governments are wildly unprepared even if this type of scenario transpires in the mildest of ways.
Great power war causes extinction.
Clare ’21 [Stephen; November 2021; Research Fellow, Forethought Foundation for Global Priorities Research Fellow, Forethought Foundation for Global Priorities Research; “Great Power Conflict,” Founders Pledge, dml]
This report explores issues at the intersection of international relations, conflict studies, and longtermism.l In it, we draw extensively on the mainstream international relations literature but focus specifically on understanding the potential effects of war on the long-term future. Taking a long-term view focuses our attention on the risk a Great Power war poses to humanity's future potential. Extinction, an unrecoverable collapse of civilization, or a permanent end to humanity's growth and progress would all destroy the long-term potential of our species. We call events that could lead to one of these scenarios existential risks .2 Such an event, if it occurred, would be unprecedented in human history. It would cause unimaginable suffering for everyone alive today and extinguish any possibility for trillions of our would-be descendants to live happy lives.
Some of these global catastrophic risks, like an asteroid impact, are direct risks. By contrast, Great Power conflict is a risk factor: it is connected to multiple other risks, and raising or lowering the amount of conflict affects the seriousness of the threats we face in these other areas. In section 4 of this report we consider several concrete pathways through which Great Power conflict poses a global catastrophic risk. We will sort these pathways into three broad categories.
First, we consider ways in which Great Power conflict poses a risk even without a full-blown war breaking out. For example, a new Cold War could hasten the development of dangerous technologies or cause a breakdown in cooperation that precludes international agreements to mitigate other existential risks. Second, a Great Power war could itself be a global catastrophic risk. In an all-out war between Great Power nations, weapons with the potential to kill everyone on earth or irreparably damage civilization could be used. Or, in the aftermath of a major war, the victorious side could emerge as a global hegemon that is able to use advanced technologies to lock in its sub-optimal values. 3 Third, a Great Power war could weaken humanity and leave us more vulnerable to subsequent disasters, like a serious pandemic.
A basic income solves inequality---automation makes it necessary now.
McCarthy ’17 [Ein Beitrag von Joe McCarthy, 2-24-2017, "Can Universal Basic Income End Racial, Gender & Wealth Inequality?," Global Citizen, https://www.globalcitizen.org/de/content/explainer-universal-basic-income/, St. Mark's School of Texas, Ashrit Manduva '24]
**TW domestic violence
UBI is as simple as poverty-reduction gets. Everybody in a specific group — whether a targeted demographic or an entire citizenry — receives a recurring stipend to provide a baseline of financial security.
But its potential is as vast as any social effort ever conceived. In the years ahead, as automation transforms economies, inequality rises, and populations boom, a basic income could solve many of the world’s most pressing problems.
“Nothing gets to the problem of inequality of assets more [than a basic income],” Jason Murphy, a professor at Elms College and a board member of the US Basic Income Guarantee Network Committee, told Global Citizen. “We can deliver independence.”
Others, however, are careful to warn against grand pronouncements.
“Tackling poverty is a really difficult issue with a lot of complicating variables,” said Matt Zwolinksi, founder and director of University of San Diego's Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy.
“Providing people with a sufficient standard of life,” he said. “Tha

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.