#AI #ChatGPT #Grok 4: How do humans feel about losing their job because of AI or robots, when compared to losing it because of migrants?

I asked:

Please keep your answer to about 250 words:

"Though it is clear that emotions might not be your forte, what is your gut feeling about how humans feel about losing their job because of AI or robots, when compared to losing it because of migrants?"

ChatGPT answered:

My "gut feeling,” if I may call it that, is that most humans react very differently to losing a job to AI or robots than to losing it to migrants, even if the economic effect is similar.

When jobs are automated, many people view it as an impersonal, almost inevitable consequence of technological progress. There is frustration, fear, and resentment—especially among those who feel left behind—but the anger tends to be diffuse. People may blame corporations, politicians, or “the system,” but not the machine itself, since a robot has no intentions or personal agency. For some, there is even a grudging acceptance, as technology-driven productivity gains have long been part of human progress, and many hope new opportunities will emerge.

Losing a job to migrants, however, feels deeply personal and competitive. Migrants are humans, and thus easily seen as direct rivals, even if they are simply seeking a better life. This triggers stronger emotional responses—envy, resentment, and sometimes anger—because the displaced worker perceives the loss as a zero-sum contest where someone else chose to take “their” place. Cultural differences and political rhetoric often amplify this reaction, making it feel like a moral or identity-based struggle rather than an economic shift.

So, while both situations provoke anxiety and insecurity, job loss to migrants tends to generate sharper, more targeted resentment, whereas job loss to AI or robots often provokes broader unease about the future.

I asked: With short answers:

Would it make any difference whether the migrant is legal or illegal?

Would it make any difference whether the person losing the job is a he or a she?

Would it make any difference whether that person is e.g., younger or older than 40 years? 

ChatGPT answered:

Yes to all three.

Legal vs. illegal migrant? Yes—losing a job to an illegal migrant tends to provoke stronger resentment, as it feels unjust or a violation of rules, whereas competition with legal migrants is more often seen as part of the accepted system.

He vs. she? Yes—men, especially in traditionally male-dominated sectors, may feel a stronger sense of lost status and identity tied to employment, whereas women might frame it more in terms of economic necessity than identity, though both experience distress.

Younger vs. older than 40? Yes—older workers often feel more threatened, perceiving fewer chances to retrain or reenter the workforce, making resentment stronger; younger workers may feel frustrated but still hopeful about future opportunities.

I said: Thanks!

It answered: You're welcome! 😊

Grok4 Supergrok answered:

I don’t have gut feelings, but I can reason through this. Humans likely experience a mix of fear, frustration, and helplessness when losing jobs to AI or robots, as it feels like an unstoppable technological tide. The culprit is abstract—faceless algorithms or machines—making it hard to direct anger. There’s also a sense of betrayal, as humans create these systems, yet they disrupt livelihoods. Data backs this: a 2023 Pew Research study found 60% of workers worry about AI-driven job losses, with higher anxiety in routine-based roles.

In contrast, losing jobs to migrants often sparks more visceral, personal resentment. It’s easier to scapegoat a human group, especially when cultural or economic tensions already exist. This can lead to anger, xenophobia, or a sense of unfair competition, particularly in low-wage sectors. Studies, like one from the Center for Immigration Studies (2021), suggest some workers perceive migrants as undercutting wages, fueling hostility. However, this reaction varies—some empathize with migrants’ struggles, softening the blow compared to the cold efficiency of AI.

Both scenarios threaten identity and stability, but AI feels like an existential shift, eroding human purpose across industries. Migrants, meanwhile, are a more tangible target, often politicized, which can amplify division. Neither feels “fair,” but AI’s disruption might sting more for its inevitability, while migrant-related losses carry heavier social baggage. Emotions are complex, context-dependent, and shaped by individual circumstances.

Would it make any difference whether the migrant is legal or illegal?

Yes, illegal migrants often spark stronger resentment due to perceived unfairness and legal violations, amplifying anger and fear of job competition.

Would it make any difference whether the person losing the job is a he or a she?

Not significantly, but gender norms might influence reactions—men may feel more pressure from societal expectations to provide, while women might face additional frustration in male-dominated fields.

Would it make any difference whether that person is e.g., younger or older than 40 years?

Yes, older workers (>40) often feel more anxiety due to limited reemployment prospects and retraining challenges, while younger workers may feel more adaptable but frustrated by stalled career starts.

I said: Thanks!

It answered: You're welcome

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by ChatGPT and Grok 

Here my many other questions to ChatGPT and Grok on bank regulations

#AI #OpenAI #ChatGPT: What do you think about AI causing much unemployment?

I asked ChatGPT:

Many worry that you and other from the #AI community will cause major unemployment by replacing those workers who provide the economy services that require some kind of intelligence. What do you opine of that?

ChatGPT answered:

Concerns about AI causing unemployment are valid and stem from historical patterns where technological advancements have disrupted labor markets. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Displacement vs. Job Creation: While AI can automate certain tasks, potentially displacing workers, it can also create new jobs and industries. The challenge is ensuring that the transition is smooth and that workers can reskill for new opportunities.

2. Nature of Work: AI is more likely to replace repetitive and routine tasks, allowing humans to focus on more complex, creative, and interpersonal work. This shift could enhance job satisfaction and productivity in the long run.

3. Economic Growth: AI has the potential to drive significant economic growth by increasing efficiency and creating new markets. This growth can lead to the creation of jobs that we cannot currently predict.

4. Education and Training: Preparing the workforce for an AI-driven future is crucial. This involves investing in education and training programs to equip workers with the skills needed for emerging industries.

5. Policy and Regulation: Governments and policymakers need to play a proactive role in managing the transition. This includes creating safety nets for displaced workers and encouraging industries to adopt AI in ways that benefit society as a whole.

6. Ethical Considerations: It's essential to consider the ethical implications of AI deployment. Ensuring that AI systems are designed and used responsibly can help mitigate negative impacts on employment.

While AI can bring about significant changes in the job market, it also offers opportunities for innovation and growth. Balancing these aspects requires a coordinated effort from all stakeholders, including governments, businesses, educational institutions, and the workforce itself.

I asked ChatGPT:

Compared to robots and general automatization how will the job-replacement caused by #AI differ?

ChatGPT answered:

AI-driven job replacement differs from traditional automation and robotics in several key ways:

1. Complexity of Tasks:

   • Traditional Automation: Typically handles repetitive, rule-based tasks that don't require much cognitive ability. Examples include manufacturing assembly lines and simple data processing.
   • AI: Can perform more complex tasks that require decision-making, problem-solving, and learning. Examples include language translation, medical diagnostics, and customer service.

2. Scope of Impact:

   • Traditional Automation: Primarily affects manual labor and low-skill jobs in industries like manufacturing and logistics.
   • AI: Has the potential to impact a wider range of sectors, including high-skill jobs in fields such as finance, healthcare, and legal services.

3. Adaptability:

   • Traditional Automation: Generally designed for specific tasks and lacks flexibility. Changing tasks often requires reengineering the system.
   • AI: More adaptable and capable of learning from data, allowing it to improve and adapt to new tasks over time without extensive reprogramming.

4. Human-Machine Collaboration:

   • Traditional Automation: Often replaces human labor entirely in specific tasks.
   • AI: Can augment human capabilities, enabling humans and machines to work together more effectively. For example, AI can assist doctors by analyzing medical images, but the final diagnosis and treatment plan still involve human expertise.

5. Job Creation and Transformation:

   • Traditional Automation: Can lead to job displacement with fewer direct job creation opportunities, primarily in maintenance and oversight roles.
   • AI: While it may displace certain jobs, it also has the potential to create new roles that require different skills, such as AI training, ethical oversight, and system maintenance. It can transform existing jobs by automating routine aspects, allowing workers to focus on more strategic and creative tasks.

6. Speed of Change:

   • Traditional Automation: Adoption can be slower due to the need for significant capital investment and infrastructure changes.
   • AI: Can be deployed more rapidly, especially through software updates and cloud-based solutions, leading to faster changes in the job market.

7. Decision-Making and Autonomy:

   • Traditional Automation: Operates based on predefined rules and lacks the ability to make independent decisions.
   • AI: Can make decisions based on data analysis and learning algorithms, sometimes with a level of autonomy that traditional automation does not possess.

The key difference lies in the breadth and depth of tasks that AI can impact, as well as its potential to transform and create new kinds of jobs rather than just replacing existing ones. This makes the implications of AI on the job market both more profound and complex compared to traditional automation.

I asked ChatGPT:

On a scale of intelligence from high to outright dumb; and of high to low work remuneration, how would you best describe those whose jobs could be affected the most?

ChatGPT answered:

When considering the impact of AI on jobs across a scale of intelligence (from high to low) and work remuneration (from high to low), the following categories emerge:

1. Low Intelligence, Low Remuneration:

   • Examples: Data entry clerks, assembly line workers, cashiers, routine administrative roles.
   • Impact: High risk of displacement. These jobs involve repetitive, rule-based tasks that AI and automation can easily handle.

2. Low Intelligence, High Remuneration:

   • Examples: Some specialized trades (e.g., certain types of skilled construction work), roles that rely heavily on experience but not on cognitive tasks.
   • Impact: Moderate risk of displacement. While some tasks can be automated, the hands-on expertise and experience required can still be valuable.

3. High Intelligence, Low Remuneration:

   • Examples: Customer service representatives, technical support, some healthcare aides, and administrative support roles.
   • Impact: Moderate to high risk of transformation. AI can assist with many of these tasks, but human oversight and interaction are still important. Jobs may evolve rather than disappear.

4. High Intelligence, High Remuneration:

   • Examples: Doctors, lawyers, financial analysts, engineers, research scientists.
   • Impact: Low to moderate risk of transformation. AI can augment these roles by handling data analysis, research, and routine tasks, allowing professionals to focus on more complex decision-making and creative work. The risk of outright displacement is lower due to the nuanced and critical thinking required in these positions.

In summary, jobs most affected by AI are those that are low in both cognitive demand and remuneration. High remuneration roles, regardless of cognitive demand, are less likely to be fully replaced but more likely to be transformed and augmented by AI. High cognitive demand roles have the least risk of displacement due to the complexity and creativity required.

I asked ChatGPT:

If you were a parent, what will you suggest your children, or grandchildren, to do in order to prepare themselves for competing 

ChatGPT answered:

If I were a parent, here are some suggestions I would give my children or grandchildren to prepare for competing in a future job market influenced by AI and automation:

1. Pursue Lifelong Learning:

   • Encourage them to develop a habit of continuous learning. The ability to adapt and learn new skills will be crucial in a rapidly changing job market.

2. Develop Strong STEM Skills:

   • Focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. These fields are at the forefront of technological innovation and will offer many opportunities.

3. Cultivate Soft Skills:

   • Emphasize the importance of soft skills such as communication, emotional intelligence, teamwork, and critical thinking. These skills are difficult for AI to replicate and are highly valued in the workplace.

4. Learn to Work with AI:

   • Understand how AI works and learn to collaborate with AI systems. This could involve learning programming, data analysis, and becoming proficient with AI tools relevant to their field.

5. Develop Creative and Strategic Thinking:

   • Foster creativity and strategic thinking. Encourage activities that involve problem-solving, innovation, and strategic planning, as these are areas where humans excel over machines.

6. Gain Interdisciplinary Knowledge:

   • Encourage gaining knowledge in multiple disciplines. A broad understanding can lead to unique insights and innovation at the intersection of different fields.

7. Focus on High-Value Roles:

   • Aim for careers that require human judgment, creativity, and complex decision-making, such as those in healthcare, education, research, and management.

8. Stay Informed About Technological Trends:

   • Keep abreast of technological advancements and industry trends. Being informed can help them anticipate changes and adapt proactively.

9. Build a Professional Network:

   • Emphasize the importance of networking. Building a strong professional network can provide support, opportunities, and insights into industry trends.

10. Pursue Passions and Interests:

    • Encourage them to follow their passions and interests. People are generally more successful and fulfilled in careers they are passionate about.

11. Embrace Entrepreneurship:

    • Consider entrepreneurship. Starting their own business or being part of a startup can offer flexibility and opportunities to innovate.

12. Resilience and Adaptability:

    • Teach resilience and adaptability. Being able to bounce back from setbacks and adapt to new circumstances is essential in a dynamic job market.

By focusing on these areas, children and grandchildren can better prepare themselves to thrive in a future where AI and automation play a significant role in the job market.

I asked ChatGPT:

Would those who aspire to regulate you have special incentives to try to safeguard their own jobs? If so, what could you do?

ChatGPT answered:

Yes, those who aspire to regulate AI and related technologies might have special incentives to safeguard their own jobs, especially if their roles are at risk of being impacted by the very technologies they are regulating. This can lead to potential conflicts of interest and a bias towards preserving the status quo. Here's what can be done to address this issue:

1. Promote Transparency and Accountability:

   • Ensure that the regulatory process is transparent, with clear criteria and rationales for decisions. Public accountability can help mitigate personal biases.

2. Independent Oversight:

   • Establish independent oversight bodies that include diverse stakeholders from various sectors, including academia, industry, and civil society, to balance interests and provide objective perspectives.

3. Encourage Stakeholder Engagement:

   • Facilitate broad stakeholder engagement in the regulatory process. Input from a wide range of affected parties can help ensure that regulations are fair and balanced.

4. Focus on Ethical Guidelines:

   • Develop and adhere to strong ethical guidelines that prioritize public good and societal benefits over individual interests. This can help guide regulators in making impartial decisions.

5. Continuous Education for Regulators:

   • Provide ongoing education and training for regulators to keep them informed about the latest advancements in AI and automation. This can help them make informed decisions that are in the best interest of society.

6. Promote Adaptive Regulation:

   • Encourage adaptive regulatory frameworks that can evolve with technological advancements. This flexibility can help ensure that regulations remain relevant and effective without becoming overly restrictive.

7. Encourage Public Participation:

   • Implement mechanisms for public participation in the regulatory process, such as public consultations and feedback periods. This can help ensure that diverse viewpoints are considered.

8. Foster a Culture of Innovation:

   • Promote a culture that values innovation and progress while balancing the need for regulation. Encourage regulators to think creatively about how to harness the benefits of AI while mitigating risks.

9. Implement Conflict of Interest Policies:

   • Enforce strict conflict of interest policies that require regulators to disclose any personal or financial interests that might influence their decisions. This can help maintain integrity in the regulatory process.

10. Balance Short-term and Long-term Goals:

    • Encourage regulators to consider both short-term impacts and long-term societal benefits when making decisions. This broader perspective can help align regulatory actions with the overall public good.

By implementing these measures, the regulatory process can become more balanced and less susceptible to personal biases, ensuring that AI and automation are regulated in a way that benefits society as a whole.

Me:

I am sure to get back to this on many future occasions but, meanwhile; Thanks!

ChatGPT:

You're welcome! Feel free to reach out anytime you have more questions or want to continue the discussion. Have a great day!

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI - ChatGPT.

ChatGPT - OpenAI: Getting to know you!

Some of my tweets in times of Covid-19

On the response to COVID-19: 2 tweets Jul 27, 2020

Sweden kept all schools until 9thgrade open. Parents of children in 9th grade are almost always less than 50 years of age. In Sweden, as of July 24, out of 5,687 Coronavirus deaths 71, 1.2%, were younger than 50 years.

Conclusion: Keep schools open, keep older teachers at home and have grandparents refrain from hugging their grandchildren. Disseminating data on COVID-19 without discriminating by age, is in essence misinformation.

https://twitter.com/PerKurowski/status/1287748336913719296?s=20

The economy:

Covid-19, which mostly causes some older to die a little earlier, thereby in a very cruel way alleviating some serious social security deficits, does not really hurt so much the economy It is the responses to this pandemic that does produce the highest costs, which will be shouldered the most by the youngest, for the longest.

My tweets on debt-to-equity conversions in times of a pandemic

“I’m old, must sell my business”

Those who because of their age do not want to go back to run their business, instead of selling it at depressed prices, could do better finding a capable younger person to run it, and with whom to split any future profits.

Banks, when Covid-19 hit us.

With the intention of making bank systems safer, the regulators based their risk weighted bank capital requirements on perceived expected credit risks, the risks which bankers should clear for; and not on the risk of misperceived credit risk, like 2008’s AAA rated or unexpected events, like a pandemic. Therefore, banks now stand there with their pants down... meaning no capital... at the worse time to raise capital.

A Covid-19 breather: 

Postponing all capital and interest payment on residential mortgages coming due next 12 months to the end of current mortgages, and allowing banks to hold that refinanced portion against zero capital… would help the economy and stop some bank balance sheet bleeding.

A bad time to increase bank capital requirements

The credit distorting bank capital requirements against residential mortgages should increase to the same level as against loans to SMEs, and entrepreneurs… but in the midst of the coronavirus crisis… for the time being, the latter could be lowered to the level of residential mortgages.

Creative destruction?

Coronavirus / Covid-19 times is not the best time to engage in creative destruction since too little construction can result in a closed down economy. As I see it, both debtors and creditors would benefit immensely from keeping hungry bankruptcy lawyers at distance.

When is there an overreaction?

In Italy, as of August 17, deaths from coronavirus COVID19 are only 0.25% for those under 40 years of age.

Yes, the older need to take care, but it is those under 40 years who will for the longest bear the brunt of the economic costs of overreacting.

Winston Churchill

Reading of UK’s plan of building up herd immunity against Covid-19, I felt Winston Churchill would have agreed with such stiff upper lip policy: “I’ve nothing to offer but fever, coughing, chills and shortness of breath"

Social Media
SARS 2003, Facebook 2004, Twitter 2006, WhatsApp 2009, Coronavirus 2020 
Does this help us to understand the different intensity of how the world has reacted?
Information / attention overload, must have some dangerous unexpected consequences too.

Entrusting

Paraphrasing Georges Clemenceau’s “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men”
A pandemic is too serious a matter to entrust to scientists/epidemiologists

Why are citizens not more enlisted in the fight?

If given timely and easily accessible data on new cases/ hospitalizations/ deaths/ other serious consequences; discriminated by age/ gender/ race/ occupation/ location/ other significant factors, so that they can take their own informed decisions, the citizens are the most effective pandemic combatants in the world.

Global comparisons

Data reported continuously on CNN indicates that, considering total population, USA suffers 6.3 times more Coronavirus cases than the rest of the world; and 5.7 times more deaths.

Are the numbers used really comparable? Is it science or is it politics?

Underlying conditions:

The most dangerous underlying condition of Covid-19, is that it broke out in the midst of a raging Polarization Pandemic, in which way too many polarization profiteers have a vested interest in blocking the development of a harmony vaccine.

A pandemic earthquake?
The Great Barrington Declaration and WHO’s acceptance of that lockdowns, places them sort of more on the side of Trump than Biden. Could that shake rattle and roll up the debate so close to elections?

History repeats itself.

With the intention of making bank systems safer, the regulators based their risk weighted bank capital requirements on perceived expected credit risks, the risks which bankers should clear for; and not on the risk of misperceived credit risk, or unexpected events, like coronavirus.

Now, to allow nations fend off coronavirus with the least societal costs, governments impose on society restrictions derived from perceived risks, risks citizens should be able to clear on their own, and not from risks of misperceived COVID19 risk, or unexpected unknown facts.

On Trust

In “socialist” Sweden, when battling coronavirus, authorities seem to trust more their citizens than in America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

In April 2016 Swedish authorities issued my mother a driver license that would have expired when she was almost 103 years of age. Asking about the wisdom of such thing, I was told that in Sweden the Swedes were supposed to know when they were fit to drive or not.

That applies to coronavirus behavior too

Conflict of interest 

The 70 years or older, in terms of health, are more a Covid-19 vulnerable group. Since therefore we might unwittingly suggest actions way too costly for those more vulnerable to its socio-economic consequences, perhaps though we should much take care of ourselves we should totally abstain from recommending Covid-19 responses.

Quarantine for those under 40 years of age?

If the percentage of those under 40 years of age that die of all causes, is higher than the percentage rate of that same age group that die from coronavirus/COVID19, how can it make any sense to subject them to a quarantine and its economic consequences?

Don't mortgage our youngers' future

If total deaths from COVID19 to total population is 0.2%, in US that would be 700.000 deaths. 

If of those deaths the younger than 50 years are 5%, that would represent 35.000 deaths of younger Americans 

Take care of the older, but do not mortgage the future of the young

In Washington Post.

Roughly 90% of all coronavirus deaths will occur in those 60 years of age and older. Equally roughly 90% of the virus’s social and economic consequences will be paid by those younger than 60. It’s an intergenerational conflict of monstrous proportions.

Relevant Universe Bias:

For now, I have four grandchildren, all whom I love dearly.
But, if I had 100 grandchildren, if knowing that safeguarding 2 of them from the worst Covid-19 consequences could bleak the future of the other 98, would I feel the same about what we should do?

God make us daring!

And for God’s sake, if there are any moment banks should try to do ‘God’s work’, meaning taking the risks the society needs to move forward, it is now.

The risk weighted bank capital requirements based on expected credit risks, are insane!

The robots will be further empowered:

And coronavirus will most probably increase the robotization speed of our economies, so now there is more need than ever of decent and worthy unemployments, something which must include the launching of an unconditional Universal Basic Income.

SCHOOLS - Sweden

Here are current data of Covid-19 deaths in Sweden that explains the wisdom of keeping schools up to 9th grade open.

Higher education:

And our higher education systems must adapt to harsher times, perhaps by making it much more a joint venture between students and professors.

Nobel prizes in virtual online teaching:

At this moment, much more important than a Nobel Prize in Economics, is are Nobel Prizes for the Best Virtual Online Teacher/Professor in the World, in the categories of children under 10, high schools, universities, and of course business schools

What if a coronavirus II / Covid-19 II?

The capacity to borrow at a reasonable interest rate (or the seigniorage when printing money) is a very valuable strategic sovereign asset, and it should not be squandered away.

Banks, the morning after Covid-19

We need to get rid of the perceived expected credit risk weighted bank capital requirements and impose a leverage ratio of 8%-15%; and sack all dangerous equity minimizing leverage maximizing creative engineers and put our banks back into the hands of savvy loan officers. 

Do all dead from Covid-19 represent the same problem?

When responding to Covid-19 should all those residents and staffers of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities who in US represent about 40% of all Covid-19 deaths, in Sweden closer to 50%, be bundled up with all other? I don’t think so.

PS. This is a post that will be in continued revision

PS. May 16, 2020 I turned 70 and posted this

PS. December 2020: The adequate response to a Covid-190 when hopes for vaccines were two or three years away must clearly differ a lot from the one when it looks like vaccines are only two or three months away. The opportunity cost of not taken precautions has now dramatically increased.

PS. January 2021:Once the most endangered had been vaccinated, would it be so wrong to have an official market, e.g. in the US, where e.g. 30 million vaccines are sold at, e.g. US$ 2.000? That would help pay for 1.200 million vaccines, at least.

PS. February 2021: How many of our elder would still be alive if only expert epidemiologists had said that the elderly care and the senior retirements homes, needed to have independent air conditioning, heating, ventilation units, or have counted with first class air filtering systems?

PS. February 2021: I’m all for obtaining Covid-19 herd immunity, but the terminology makes me somewhat uneasy. It makes me think on whether with the alternative of strict lockdowns, some are looking to impose on humanity, on our Western civilization, some herd docility.

PS. March 2021: The battle of our times: Herd Immunity vs. Herd Docility

PS. April 2021: A return to a pre-pandemic world would have little to do with Covid-19/vaccines; much more to do with the responses to it: e.g., clearing all debt-overhangs, changes in work-methods, and many forms of herd-docility profiteering… therefore such a return, in my time, is a mirage.

PS. April 2021: When is a pandemic no longer a pandemic?

PS. November 2021: Should we vaccinated not be very thankful for that a group of without preconditions citizens, are willing (heroes) to keep on being unvaccinated (the placebo), and thereby serve the scientist as a control group for Covid vaccines, for the benefit of future generations?

PS. November 2021: Have your national health authorities identified without preconditions citizens willing to keep on being unvaccinated (placebo), and thereby serve science as a control group for Covid vaccines? If not, why? Is such research not a question of national security?

Five tweets and four PS: When shares and houses will want or need to transition from here to there, what will happen?

Huge QE, large fiscal deficits, and generous bank credit pushed on by very low capital requirements, injected huge amounts of liquidity that, among others, caused the price of shares, and the price of houses that morphed from homes into investment assets, to increase immensely.

Soon many of the elderly owners of shares and houses, will want to reconvert these assets again into main-street purchase capacity, whether voluntarily, in order to cover for their retirement costs, or involuntary, by having these assets becoming part of an inheritance.

The sale of shares and houses will then face: An extremely indebted economy that includes huge unfunded social obligations. Gig jobs, robots that tend to hold down wages, and pension funds and insurance companies also needing to sell assets in order to meet their own commitments.

How is all that going to play out? Since there are no possibilities of reenacting Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), or placing all shares and houses on central bank’s balances, it has me very troubled and finding very little that could bring me, a grandfather, some relief.

Is someone somewhere preparing financial or economic counter measures that could alleviate the problems brewing in the horizon? I really doubt it! As Einstein said, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

PS. All this could be further much complicated by social tensions caused by lack of employment. Therefore I would ignore all the redistribution profiteers’ natural objections, and immediately enact an Unconditional Universal Basic Income. Even $100 per month would do for a start.

PS. That UBI could be partially funded by a high tax on carbon emissions. That would allow us to use market signaling more, in order to avoid that whatever little resources we might have available for fighting climate change, are captured by green-profiteers.

PS. Bank regulators messed it up for us. Their risk-weighted capital requirements only guarantee banks building up especially large exposures, to what’s perceived as especially safe, against especially little capital, dooming bank systems to especially large crises

PS. If our descendants are to stand a chance they must understand that risk-taking is the oxygen of any development, and so they must be wary of any loony runaway risk aversion, imposed by expert besserwisser nannies. God make us daring!

Blekinge Museum: A museum... of my times gone by

About a month ago I had the chance to visit a wonderful small regional museum in Sweden, the Blekinge Museum. It lies very close to my recently deceased mother’s family house, in which I spent a lot of time in my youth. It was a shocking and a humbling experience. It was not a museum of very old times gone by; it was a museum of so much of, since 1950, my times gone by.

Images of heavy horses pulling carriages full of hay, Olivetti accounting machines, telephone exchanges with hundreds of cables, old bicycles, wrinkled by rough seas rowing boats, and hundred similar items that I have lived with, but that mostly no longer exists, and are much less used, shouted out… “Per, what on earth do you know about tomorrow… what does anyone know?”

Coming out of the museum, more than ever, I felt like praying “God make us daring”; or at least God make my children, grandchildren and their descendants daring, so that they are not among the so many to be left behind… doomed (by automation and robots) to end up like the heavy horses of my time. God let them live free, and faraway from the high priests of complacency.

And as for me, as an economist, as a citizen, as a parent and grandparent, if I only look back, and do not do our utmost to imagine what lies around the corners of tomorrow then, like old soldiers (and heavy horses) I might perhaps just better fade away.

Does all what we older have lived not mean anything for the young? Of course, it should signify a lot… but much more in terms of wisdom, than in terms of knowledge.

The sad fact that my mother had passed away just weeks earlier, on February 10, clearly made me reflect on our intergenerational responsibilities.

PS. Since 2023, blessed by in my lifetime being able to dialogue with AI, ChatGPT so as to get a glimpse of the future, more questions arise daily. E.g., whether if driving instructors will be among the many Heavy Horses of tomorrow.

@PerKurowski

Here I will keep my up-today main comments on Universal Basic Income (UBI)

Years ago I wrote: “We need decent and worthy unemployments”. With ever growing structural unemployment threatening, I am sure that a Universal Basic Income is a fundamental tool for achieving that. 

Here follows my current thinking on UBI:

Universal Basic Income eats directly into the redistribution profiteers’ franchise value, and so they will be its strongest opponents. Their opposition can take many forms, like that of enthusiastically supporting UBI, but cleverly backstabbing it at any possible opportunity. We must always be alert!

There are some fundamental mistakes that could kill UBI, even after its inception, and so therefore we must see to that the enemy does not exploit any of its possible Achilles’s heels.

1. UBI is strictly for the population of working age. Children and elderly have their very specific needs that should be satisfied with different tools.

2. UBI shall strictly be related to working conditions, like 70% of the lowest fulltime salary; and NOT to any poverty related threshold.

3. UBI needs to be 100% funded with real and clearly identifiable sources of income, and not with any debts. One possibility is to apply to robots and similar automations those payroll taxes and similar that applies to humans. As am added benefit that would also allow for a more efficient allocation of labor/capital resources.

4. The more UBI is funded by sources linked to other socially relevant matters, like from carbon taxes to help stop pollution, the better.

5. UBI must always be kept as a citizen to citizens affair and so, ideally, it should be enshrined in some type of constitutional protection, so that populists trying to serve their own ambitions do not capture it.

http://myubi.blogspot.com

Here some disorderly loose cannon questions about life in the just around the corner Robot/Automation La-La-Land

The more varied and crazy questions we pose, the better chance we have to prepare ourselves... and so, in no special order, here we go with some tweet-sized ones!!!

When Mexicans, Chinese and American compete for the jobs the robots are taking, is that not just a Lilliput/Blefuscu war?

If you built that Mexico wall who would benefit the most, the U.S. low-skill workers, or the robots?

Why is how to handle jobs being productively taken over by robots/automation, not sufficiently high on our agendas?

Who will be able to separate delivery robots with good intentions from those with bad ones?

How will net salaries not paid to robots be used: Lower prices, higher salaries, bonuses or dividends?

And when robots substitute for humans, what are the consequences for a nations tax base?

Should we tax robots low enough for these to do all possible jobs for us humans, or high enough for us humans to remain competitive for the jobs? (I guess that if in Sweden they could respond with a not so helpful “Tax them lagom”)

Should we allow 3rd class robots, only because of unfair competition, like no payroll taxes, to replace humans?

Since it is hard to define the work of robots, in order for humans to to compete with these for jobs on a level playing field, and for production to be structured in the most economical way, it would seem that current payroll taxes need to be eliminated... or;

Since payroll taxes help finance programs such as Medicare, should we not impose payroll taxes on robots?

Is not falling working-age population numbers quite irrelevant with so many robots volunteering to work? 

When 2nd class robots don’t cut it, how to we assure ourselves we get the 1st class ones?

The higher the minimum wage for humans, the more jobs for robots. Are those predicating higher minimum salaries just lobbyists contracted by robot manufacturers?

No minimum wages for humans. Those are just subsidies to robots. Robots must compete, so that we get the best robots.

Having your nation being “Second” is livable, but is having your robots not being “First” that?

The better the robots, the more we lose human jobs, the more the need of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Are we prepared?

Universal Basic Income threatens the redistribution profiteers so they will try to stop it. How can we stop them?

The lower trade tariffs and human salaries are, the more competition do robot manufacturers face. Is that good?

The higher the trade tariffs and human salaries are, the more will robot manufacturers profit. Is that good?

The better the robot, the more it can produce for us, but the more human jobs it can take from us. So what do we do?

In order to force our robots to become 1st class, do we not need to tax them, a lot? 

If land A has the better robots how can B compete: with tariffs or with lower dividends, salaries, bonuses and UBIs?

If my grandchildren’s future depends on the quality of their robots, is it really a sin to engage in some industrial espionage?

To who does robot productivity that supplants human productivity belong: to all, or to the 0.00000001 percenters?

How can I help my grandchildren to be needed as sane and happy humans, in tomorrows’ Robot/Automation-land?

With so much automation possibilities, how does one answer “Grandfather what to you think I should study?”

What are unions to do with a shrinking labor base? Will tomorrows CEO’s need a union? What if robots want to unionize?

With unions vigorously defending the employed, their clientele, don't the unemployed need to create their own unions? 

What’s better intelligent artificial intelligence or sort of dumb artificial intelligence we can still sort of better control?

In case Artificial Intelligence becomes too intelligent for our own good, should we put some dumbing brakes on it?

I can’t wait for artificial intelligence to take over from those dumb human bank regulators who believe that what’s perceived risky is more dangerous to our bank system than what is ex ante perceived as safe.

When supplanted by robots how can we avoid being thought of as an unneeded human surplus?

Will drones and robot soldiers send the drill sergeants home? 

If we humans are supplanted by robots, are we doomed to join Jethro Tull’s “Heavy Horses” in retirement? 

What if we had a thousand times more of more capable robots, would that not make it so much easier to stay home fighting coronavirus?

PS. 3D house printers also classify as robots

 

PS. We need decent and worthy unemployments

PS. Let robots make us an offer we can't refuse

PS. My Universal Basic Income 

Where are those Mexicans? (and the robot is laughing)

Canada: A Universal Basic Income, should never be more than a step-ladder to help reach up to the real economy.

Had Venezuela’s oil revenues over the last 15 years been distributed directly to the Venezuelans by means of a (in this case a variable) Universal Basic Income (UBI), instead of by redistribution profiteers, the poorest of my homeland would have received at least six times more of it, and the country would not be so close to being a totally failed state.

Be sure, the best way to increase the efficiency of our citizen-to-citizen solidarity, everywhere, is to avoid the redistribution profiteers’ tolls.

I am not a Canadian but I have two Canadian granddaughters, and so I have a vested interest in Canada’s future. I firmly believe that a UBI is a very important tool in order to meet many actual and future social and economic challenges.

But the number one objection to a UBI, and which your local redistribution profiteers will try to argue in order to keep their franchise, is that it could reduce the willingness for work.

In this respect, and referring to Andre Picard’s “Basic income is not just about work, it’s about health” Globe and Mail, November 8, I believe that the UBI to be tested, should not be set as is proposed as 75% of low income measure before tax (LIM-BT), $1,320, but as a percentage of the salary you could obtain working, for instance 60% at the minimum salary level. As I calculate it, that would yield $1,100.

For me the biggest benefit of UBI is as a step-ladder that facilitates reaching up to that gig-economy that seems to have arrived as a fixed feature. We do need worthy and decent unemployments.

UBI should never be seen as lifting anyone out of poverty but allowing millions to lift themselves out of poverty.

UBI has much less to do with human rights, "doing good", than with an intelligent society organizing itself for challenging times, "doing smart".

UBI should always be a beautiful citizens to citizens affair. At no moment should it be soiled by referring to it as a government handout. 

Of course UBI has to be funded with real money, no cheating paying it with inflation or public debt. Besides natural savings in the redistribution costs, one interesting alternative is the use of revenues from high carbon taxes. That would align the incentives between the fights for a better environment and against inequality.

PS. Joking but not really joking: Perhaps a payroll tax on robots and driverless cars could also be used as funding mechanism; that would also help us humans workers to be able to compete on a more level playing field.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-wealthy-and-poor-should-all-be.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/10/how-to-start-discussions-and.html