Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • - [Sam] This is an event

  • of the Center for Labor Employment Law.

  • - Excuse me.

  • - [Sam] And our moderator this morning is Ron Checkman.

  • Who's a long standing friend.

  • He's a most distinguished graduate of this school.

  • And, has for many, many years,

  • carved out a very interesting career,

  • representing labor unions talent,

  • public and private sector.

  • He most recently, negotiated,

  • it must be a first time only,

  • profit participation agreement

  • for the original cast members of Hamilton.

  • Which is quite interesting.

  • And Ron and I, in the old days,

  • I don't know if you remember this,

  • we were on the Free Speech Committee of the ACLU.

  • - [Ron] I do remember well.

  • - [Sam] We were trying to come up with

  • a constitutional theory

  • for union political and speech rights,

  • a long, long time ago.

  • So we're very proud of Ron on many different scores,

  • least of which is that he's a member of our

  • Board of the Center for Labor Employment Law

  • and I'm gonna turn it over to Ron.

  • - [Ron] Thanks, Sam.

  • And it's my pleasure as we go along with introductions

  • to introduce the star of this morning's production,

  • who wants proper participation

  • as well. (laughing)

  • - I have rights in the video, so.

  • Everybody understands. (laughing)

  • - [Man] Multiplying a zero,

  • doesn't (mumbles). (laughing)

  • - [Ron] So it's my pleasure to introduce you to Andy Stern,

  • who is the President Emeritus, of the 2.2 million member

  • Service Employees International Unit, SEIU.

  • Representing janitors, childcare, home care,

  • healthcare workers, which grew by more than

  • 1.2 million while he was President.

  • I had the pleasure of meeting him then,

  • when along with the janitors, childcare, home care workers,

  • he organized the and amalgamated

  • the largest union of attending physicians, into the SEIU.

  • He has been called the,

  • and I quote a courageous visionary leader,

  • who chartered a bold new course,

  • for American unionists.

  • He has been featured on 60 Minutes, CNN,

  • on the covers of New York Times magazine,

  • Fortune and Business Week.

  • He's on the boards of the Open Society Foundation,

  • the Hillman Foundation and the Broad Center.

  • He was a presidential appointee,

  • on the Simpson-Bowles Commission,

  • the most frequent visitor

  • to the White House in 2009 and '10.

  • You'll have to tell us what the hell you were doing there.

  • And a key organizer for Obamacare.

  • Is now the Ronald O. Perelman Senior Fellow

  • of the university.

  • His first book, "A Country That Works",

  • was published in 2005

  • and his new book, we're talking about today,

  • "Raising the Floor: How a Universal, Basic Income

  • "Can Renew our Economy and Restore the American Dream."

  • It calls for America to take it to (mumbles)

  • and take bold action in the face of massive potential,

  • the massive potential job disruption.

  • When he was interviewed this spring,

  • he talked about the effects of technology

  • and the structural changes to our economy

  • and how they have affected employment opportunities,

  • for the American worker.

  • He said in that interview,

  • talking about his book,

  • I quote him now and this will ring I'm sure,

  • poignantly to all, "As I like to say,

  • "this is the United States of Anxiety now,

  • "and it's only going to get worse."

  • So clearly, Andy was prescient, talking about this in June.

  • We wish maybe some of his advice

  • to a female politician, who I think just has retired.

  • It would've been more than helpful.

  • It's advice about concerns

  • that were clearly central

  • to the electorate and the presidential election

  • and that has clearly established

  • the United States of Anxiety, for yet many other reasons.

  • Our anxiety won't be relieved until we talk about the issues

  • and the proposals that Andy has thought so much about.

  • So, we have the pleasure this morning,

  • and the opportunity to hear about some of his thinking

  • and to see if he can help us,

  • relieve some of our anxiety.

  • - Thank you very much.

  • It does seem irresponsible to

  • speak anywhere at the moment,

  • and not talk about the election.

  • Unfortunately, Ron gave my cross over remarks.

  • (laughing) that this is actually

  • in some ways, more about the election

  • than we appreciate now and probably even more important,

  • as we think about the world going forward,

  • not just in and around the United States,

  • but around the world,

  • because we can all see with Brexit

  • and many other tensions that are existing around the world,

  • that some combination of you know,

  • race, immigration and economics are fueling

  • a lot of uneasiness and reactions all around the world.

  • So you may wonder why you got up early in the morning

  • to listen to someone who is Exhibit A,

  • of the one job in a lifetime,

  • 20th century economy.

  • Who comes from an institution the American Labor Movement.

  • Not very well known for thinking about the future

  • and is gonna talk to you about an idea

  • called a universal basic income,

  • which I didn't know what it was, three years ago.

  • So thank you for coming,

  • because you may find that this was an early morning that

  • may not have solved all your needs,

  • but I wanna explain how I got here in front of you

  • to talk about this.

  • As was said, I spent my entire life

  • in the most wonderful institution,

  • that I can possibly imagine.

  • I was supposed to go to law school.

  • My father is a lawyer, my brother and sisters are lawyers.

  • I decided at some point, along the whirl,

  • there was a better way for me,

  • in terms of someone who has ADHD

  • and a little bit of a juvenile delinquent,

  • to live his life and that was

  • trying to change other people's lives.

  • I was very fortunate.

  • I knew nothing about unions,

  • when I went, was growing up

  • across the river in New Jersey.

  • I got my first job as a welfare worker,

  • of all things, which will be very relevant

  • as we talk about the book.

  • Went to my first union meeting,

  • 'cause they were serving pizza.

  • (laughing) That was a very principled

  • and profound reason.

  • Then spent the rest of my life,

  • 38 years, doing the most wonderful thing

  • with janitors, and security officers,

  • and nursing home home care, childcare workers,

  • which is working together to make people who are

  • basically powerless, you know, through our union,

  • become powerful.

  • I said and I still believe that,

  • the union movement was the best anti-poverty program,

  • the best welfare program, the best job creation program,

  • the best benefit program, retirement program,

  • America ever created for the 20th century.

  • It didn't cost the government a dime.

  • In the absence of unions,

  • the world has changed and for me,

  • you know, I was very lucky to eventually become

  • for 14 years, President of what became

  • the largest union in the United States,

  • the fastest growing union in the world.

  • We ended up having offices and running campaigns

  • in 12 different countries.

  • I spent a lot of my life,

  • trying to hold private equity in Wal-mart

  • and banks and large multi-national employers,

  • accountable to the workers that they represent.

  • I had a lot of wonderful experiences with all the people

  • I worked with and becoming a large union,

  • the largest political action committee in the country.

  • Spending five years trying to win Obamacare,

  • to not our members, who already health insurance,

  • but so that every American had an opportunity

  • to have the kind of security they wanted to do.

  • I was the most frequent visitor to the White House.

  • The dirty little secret is,

  • every time you go on the White House tour, it counts,

  • so take the tour! (laughing)

  • A lot of you too can be a very important person,

  • just never tell that story, out loud.

  • I was on the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

  • I did something that people never do in Washington,

  • is I quit.

  • I retired.

  • I didn't retire, 'cause I didn't know,

  • you know, that it wasn't a good job,

  • or I was gonna lose my election.

  • I retired because I joined the labor movement,

  • 'cause I wanted to change people's lives

  • and I had lost an ability to understand

  • in the economy, and this was 2010,

  • where inequality was rising,

  • unions were shrinking,

  • jobs were getting worse.

  • Like how to lead an organization of 2.2 million people,

  • when you didn't know where to take it?

  • I felt that was not the right job for me to be in

  • and there were lots of younger and more diverse

  • group of people who were ready to lead

  • and I left it, I began this journey

  • and I'm gonna just tell you what I found,

  • 'cause I only learned three things.

  • Took a lot of time, I'm a slow learner,

  • but I did learn three things.

  • First thing I learned, is this.

  • This is the 20th century American economy,

  • I'll just explain it to you,

  • 'cause you probably can't see it,

  • but in the 20th century,

  • everybody just talked about economic growth.

  • All you had to say if you were a politician is,

  • "The economy is growing."

  • What it really meant, was the economy was growing,

  • productivity growing, jobs were growing

  • and wages were growing.

  • It worked pretty well in the 20th century.

  • The market and unions and the government,

  • sort of combined for large numbers of people

  • to create what we bragged about,

  • which was the largest middle class in the world.

  • You know, there were lots of problems with capitalism.

  • There were lots of problems, but.

  • People were trying to round off the rough edges

  • and as you can see, these four lines grew together.

  • That's the 20th century economy.

  • For the main part.

  • Now the end of the 20th century,

  • something began to happen and that is,

  • this green line, which we now know,

  • looking backwards, which is income.

  • We had growth in productivity.

  • We had growth in GDP.

  • We had growth in jobs

  • and we didn't have growth in income.

  • For 20 and now almost 30 years,

  • American workers didn't get a raise,

  • at least the median, the most of them.

  • Very much is fueling the Trump anxiety,

  • which we'll talk about.

  • That we now know.

  • You know, the union movement then other progressives

  • and economists would say,

  • "You know, wages aren't growing.

  • "Let me say, yeah they're not growing now,

  • "because that's because of globalization,

  • "but as soon as it settles down,

  • "wages will grow again."

  • Or there's a recession.

  • Or some other factor and now we know

  • that this is a structural problem in our economy,

  • that you can have economic growth, productivity growth,

  • job growth and no wage growth.

  • What we don't wanna talk about is this.

  • The red line.

  • That's jobs.

  • So now, the 21st century economy,

  • is you can have wage, you can have GDP growth

  • and productivity growth,

  • and no job growth.

  • In fact, we have not created one new net kind of

  • 40 hour, middle class job, since 2007.

  • So all the jobs we've grown now,

  • have been low wage, part-time, contingent, net.

  • In the economy.

  • So this is the economy that Donald Trump ran on.

  • This is the economy that President Obama,

  • for very good reasons, didn't wanna talk about.

  • He wanted to talk about 4.9% unemployment.

  • You know, 26 quarters in a row,

  • where we gained over 100,000 jobs.

  • But there's an America out here,

  • which Ron talked about

  • and that was the first conclusion I made in my book,

  • that this is the United States of Anxiety.

  • For only 21% of people in America

  • think the economy is very good or good.

  • 52% don't think the American dream,

  • which has been the enduring kind of value proposition.

  • If you work hard, you play by the rules,

  • your kids will do better than you do.

  • 57% actually don't believe that's true anymore

  • and those 57% are right, statistically.

  • Kids are not doing better than their parents.

  • I say the new American nightmare

  • is that more kids now live,

  • go back to live with their parents,

  • than anytime in American history.

  • So the American dream for parents

  • that your kids were gonna leave,

  • (laughing) and go out of your house,

  • is now the American nightmare,

  • 'cause the only way they can sort of get by

  • is when they use your housing to lead their life.

  • But the most devastating statistic

  • and it's been said a number of times,

  • is that, 47% of Americans could not find $400,

  • $400 in case of an emergency.

  • That's half of America cannot find $400,

  • in case of emergency.

  • You don't see it in New York,

  • or you don't live it in your art bubbles,

  • but that is the life that so many people are leading

  • and that is what is fueling the United States of Anxiety

  • around the world.

  • So when you hear a politician say,

  • "We're gonna get growth, growth, growth."

  • All good, we need growth.

  • It's important.

  • There's no pot to distribute without growth.

  • You need to understand that has nothing to do anymore

  • with the wages and jobs.

  • It's better for them, yes.

  • But it's not what it once was in the 20th century.

  • This is what the economy is now producing.

  • This is what happened before the recession.

  • These are middle wage jobs,

  • that got lost in 2009.

  • These are the jobs that have grown after 2009

  • and as you can see, it's all in the lower wage occupations.

  • So we're getting rid of middle class jobs,

  • for lots of different reasons

  • and we're gaining more and more lower wage jobs

  • and anybody who's had friends who've left the job market,

  • sort of know the problem.

  • When I graduated college,

  • you got a college degree, or a union job, you were fine.

  • You became a middle class person,

  • as a general principle.

  • Totally untrue, right now.

  • Second thing I learned, which we all now know,

  • it wasn't learning, it was just understanding

  • how profound it is,

  • that we are moving from what I used to call

  • an employer managed work life,

  • like you do at NYU, the employer,

  • yeah you're a professor, you're a worker,

  • the employer manages your pension,

  • your retirement, your wage, your career

  • and then you retire.

  • Now we have a self managed work life.

  • Which is, you manage your retirement.

  • You manage your healthcare, you manage your pension.

  • I had one job in 38 years.

  • My son is expected to have

  • and he's totally on track to have nine to 12

  • by the time he's 35.

  • So, that's the average.

  • Nine to 12, by the time you're 35.

  • We now-- - For what?

  • - Jobs.

  • By the time you're 35.

  • So, what we now know and McKinsey says,

  • "30% of Americans are free agent,

  • "who actively choose independent work

  • "and derive their primary income from it."

  • That doesn't include all the people

  • that are contingent, part-time, Uber drivers,

  • who like the independence, but don't like the other parts

  • of the job, like you don't get social security,

  • you don't get unemployment, disability, retirement,

  • or many other things that go with it.

  • So we now have a very different economy

  • than you know, what the white, elite, industrial workers

  • of the Midwest, we may just have noticed

  • they had a change of heart about the election.

  • But the auto workers and the steel workers

  • and the construction workers

  • were the elite, working class of the world.

  • They had full pensions.

  • Full benefits.

  • Good salaries.

  • Homes in Upper Peninsula Michigan.

  • Hunting camps.

  • You know, they were great jobs.

  • They were not anywhere near minimum wage jobs

  • and because of globalization and trade

  • and many other factors, those jobs,

  • of the elite, white working class,

  • don't really exist anywhere near the extent they once did.

  • So we now have an economy of the 21st century,

  • where growth doesn't produce jobs or wages

  • and we also have people really trying to figure out

  • how to live in a world where the employer isn't

  • managing your work life.

  • Even if you want to have your employer

  • manage your work life,

  • only 20% of the companies that exist today,

  • will be economically relevant in 20 years.

  • So even if you wanna stick with your employer,

  • your employer's not gonna be around, necessarily,

  • to stick with you.

  • Because that's of all the creative destruction

  • that's going on, in the economy.

  • So what's happening?

  • So this was this guy I met on my little walk through

  • my self learning experience, called Andy Grove.

  • Andy Grove happened to do something very important,

  • that he and Gordon Moore invented, or created Intel,

  • as a major company that it is today

  • and everywhere you see powered by Intel,

  • that little chip.

  • So Andy Grove said to me,

  • "Here's what I learned."

  • He wrote this in a book called, "Only the Paranoid Survive."

  • "There are moments that are turning points."

  • It's a confluence of events.

  • It's not like one thing, climate change.

  • Or it's not one thing globalization.

  • It's a confluence of that.

  • It doesn't even matter how you pull them apart.

  • But it gets you to the point,

  • where, there's a moment of dramatic change.

  • It appears slowly.

  • They're often not clear until events like wage stagnation

  • are viewed in retrospect and denial,

  • is often present in the early stages.

  • It happens for companies,

  • but it also happens for countries.

  • We are at that strategic inflection point.

  • This country has gotten to a point,

  • where because of the way the economy works,

  • the way the economy is organized,

  • and the final point, which I learned in my book is this.

  • If all this was the problem,

  • it'd be a problem, but we could solve it.

  • It really, there are lots of things you can do,

  • to sort of compensate for this.

  • Here's the third problem.

  • McKinsey.

  • Now this is reputable research.

  • This is not my research.

  • (laughing) If it was my research,

  • I'd wonder about it myself.

  • This is reputable research.

  • McKinsey.

  • "45% of all the activities individuals

  • "are paid to perform, can be automated today."

  • Oxford University.

  • "47% of the total U.S. employment is at risk."

  • President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors.

  • "83% of the jobs that make less than $20 an hour

  • "will be impacted."

  • One of the leading tech research firm, Gardner,

  • "One third of the U.S. jobs, will be affected."

  • The Boston Consulting Group.

  • They had the low estimate.

  • "Next 10 years, less than, there'll be 16% less need

  • "for labor in the OECD."

  • If you really wanna freak out,

  • the World Bank, "Automation may eliminate 77% of the jobs

  • "in China, 69% in India."

  • ILO has a report that says 77% of the jobs

  • in Cambodia and another huge amount in Vietnam.

  • Like we're on the verge of a catastrophe

  • and no one is talking about it.

  • It's like, impolite I guess, to talk about

  • economically what's happening in our country

  • and then more importantly,

  • you know and Gavin Newsom, who's running to be

  • Mayor of California, fortunately, for the first time,

  • said, "You know, this is a dirty little secret,

  • "no one wants to talk about."

  • Which is technology is about to really disrupt

  • the labor market at a level that we don't appreciate.

  • Interestingly, President Obama

  • who said very little during his term

  • and as you should know, I was the largest contributor

  • to President Obama's campaign,

  • which allows me to say almost anything I want about him,

  • without him saying, you know, but that's not fair.

  • Which he would say.

  • But, he said, "It's about time we have a discussion.

  • "The social safety net that

  • "as it's currently organized won't work."

  • I'll tell you a little bit later what he said

  • about a universal basic income.

  • This is Pew.

  • This is huge.

  • This is like, 1900 experts, right, that they ask.

  • Half of them, again, not everybody.

  • Half of them say, "We are at a point where robots

  • "and the Digital Age will displace significant numbers

  • "of both blue and white collar workers.

  • "And masses of people who are effectively unemployed,

  • "we will have a break downs in the social order."

  • I don't know, I read that, I kind of get nervous

  • and then I watch the election

  • and I even get more nervous.

  • I watch Marine Le Pen and I get even more nervous,

  • because, this is coming our way,

  • and the history of the world is not good,

  • when there's economic dystopia, amongst people.

  • But it's coming our way.

  • Or at least a lot of people,

  • think it's coming our way.

  • By the way, just if you're really interested

  • in this trade question,

  • you know this is, everybody wants to kill trade

  • and you can debate trade.

  • But 88% of lost factory jobs are the result of automation.

  • - [Man] Wow.

  • - Not trade.

  • So, but no one wants to talk about automation.

  • Everybody wants to talk. - Who's (mumbles)?

  • - Allstate just did a study on this.

  • "President Obama, do you think we may be

  • "in a slightly different period now,

  • "simply because of the pervasive applicability

  • "of AI and other technologies?"

  • So we now know, that this is massive tsunami coming our way.

  • I'll just explain it,

  • because Andy McAfee, from MIT, did this little story.

  • Anybody know the story of the Indian king

  • and the chess master?

  • So the Indian king wants to learn to play chess.

  • He finds a chess master

  • and he says, "Teach me how to play chess."

  • He does, he's so grateful he says to the chess master,

  • "What can I do?

  • "I'm the king of India.

  • "That would reward you for this work."

  • He's like, "Your Excellency, I'm a simple man.

  • "All I want is rice."

  • The king's thinking, "This is a good deal.

  • "You know, all I gotta give him is rice."

  • He says, "How much rice?"

  • He said, "Put one grain of rice on the first square

  • "of the chessboard.

  • "And two on the second.

  • "And four and keep doubling it."

  • The story goes, that halfway through the chess board,

  • the king kills

  • (laughing) the chess master,

  • 'cause he knows he's been had.

  • Because about half way through,

  • all he has,

  • is enough rice that's probably like

  • some number of a farm's worth.

  • That seems reasonable.

  • But by the time it's done,

  • there's more rice than is higher than Mount Everest.

  • That's the power of doubling.

  • And Andy McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson from MIT say this.

  • "We're about a little past half way through

  • "the chess board."

  • People are starting to realize,

  • "Holy crap, something is about to happen here."

  • I feel it, I don't quite understand it.

  • I thought those things called driverless cars

  • were like 25 years away.

  • I didn't realize I can call one right now,

  • in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, get an Uber.

  • You know, on your app that's driverless.

  • That a beer truck just drove with Auto,

  • which is a subsidiary of Uber,

  • just drove from 100 miles, delivering beer,

  • without a driver.

  • The driver went in the sleep part of this.

  • Technology, the doubling, is why things that once were

  • science fiction seem like, "Oh my God,

  • "they're like happening now."

  • And all these discussions about Steven Hawking

  • saying he's more worried about AI, artificial intelligence,

  • than he is about a nuclear attack or climate change.

  • You know, we can all debate whether that's true or not.

  • It's just we don't get how fast this change

  • is about to occur and how big the numbers are.

  • So, then I'll say this.

  • What do we do?

  • So the one thing we don't do,

  • which I shouldn't say at an academic institution,

  • is we don't debate whether this is true or not.

  • It is totally true, this has never happened before.

  • Every time we've had industrial revolutions,

  • we've had more jobs than the last.

  • When I went to school, I think Neptune or Pluto

  • was a planet, I'm not sure it is anymore

  • and the world was flat until someone realized it was round.

  • Things change.

  • It doesn't matter whether it's true or not,

  • there is enough substantial and reputable research

  • that any responsible adult that heard

  • that a tsunami was coming to the shore,

  • wouldn't sit around and say,

  • "You know, they said that last time

  • "and it didn't hit.

  • "So I don't think it's gonna hit us."

  • This time, you would prepare.

  • That's what our government does,

  • when it works well and in military.

  • That's what business does well.

  • You do risk assessment.

  • You do risk management.

  • You do scenario planning.

  • There is enough here to need to plan for.

  • Even if you think in the end,

  • it'll all, after some disruption,

  • it will come about that there are more jobs

  • and it may be true.

  • I don't believe it, but it may be true.

  • You know, it was a horrible time

  • during the Industrial Revolution.

  • The transition was terrible.

  • You know, read Charles Dickens.

  • Look at the factories where people were locked in.

  • Read about the Triangle Waistshirt Fire.

  • Talk about New York.

  • It was not a great time,

  • til we got to the other side.

  • So even if we're gonna get to the other side,

  • can we like not have everybody suffer, along the way?

  • So what do we do?

  • Last point.

  • So, I came across this idea

  • and it's so old, that I'm embarrassed

  • that I'm like acting as if,

  • I found this great idea.

  • 'Cause actually, Thomas Paine found this idea.

  • He founded this idea,

  • when the U.S. was trying to figure out,

  • having won the Revolutionary War

  • and having captured and taken back

  • expropriated all the British land

  • that had been in the country, which,

  • they took from the Brits.

  • Now that we won the war.

  • Like what are we gonna do with the war

  • and Thomas Paine said,

  • "You know, we're gonna sell the land

  • "to private land holders.

  • "But, we should compensate people.

  • "'Cause we all fought the war.

  • "We all own the common land and we should give

  • "everybody 15 pounds sterling."

  • Everybody probably meant white men who owned land.

  • "But we should give everybody 15 pounds sterling."

  • That was a universal basic income.

  • From the commonwealth, we compensate people.

  • It then went on, the country that came closest

  • to having a universal basic income, the United States.

  • Richard Nixon, of all people.

  • Proposed giving every American $10,000 a year

  • in today's dollars.

  • Milton Friedman, an icon of the conservative movement,

  • was his architect of the plan.

  • It was supported by 1,000 American economists,

  • from John Kenneth Galbraith,

  • to left and right and everywhere in between.

  • It passed the House of Representatives

  • and of course, the thoughtful forward thinking Democrats

  • in the Senate of the United States decided,

  • it wasn't enough money, "So we're not gonna pass it

  • "and we'll get it, more money next time."

  • It disappeared, really, from the United States discussion.

  • Europe has had a discussion about it for a period of time.

  • It disappeared from the United States.

  • Now it's back.

  • When I started to write this book,

  • the Columbia University Business Press

  • would not publish this book for two reasons.

  • One is because,

  • I'm talking non-conventional economic theories

  • and I'm not an economist.

  • I plead guilty and therefore,

  • the rest of the academic divisions

  • didn't want me to write about a book about something where,

  • I don't have standing and the second thing was,

  • the answer to this problem of universal basic income

  • was so crazy,

  • and they wouldn't publish it.

  • Now I got Elon Musk the man, on my side,

  • who came out the other day saying,

  • "The only thing we've got a pretty good chance

  • "we'll end up with the universal basic income."

  • I have President Obama now saying,

  • "That's a debate we'll be having over the next

  • "10 to 20 years."

  • I have Bob Rice, Joe Stiglitz,

  • current Nobel Prize winner

  • and conservative Angus Deaton,

  • Charles Murry, a conservative icon and Libertarian

  • and the list will go on and on.

  • Eric Schmidt from Silicon Valley.

  • Everybody's beginning to say,

  • "This has to be an option, to be considered."

  • So what is it?

  • Universal basic income is one of those rare things

  • where the name actually means everything.

  • It's universal, meaning you give it to rich and poor.

  • Bill Gates and the poorest person in the country.

  • It's basic.

  • It's not gonna substitute for working.

  • I'm saying it's $1,000 a person, 18-64,

  • a citizen, 18-64 a year.

  • That's $12,000 a year.

  • Ironically, interestingly, disgustingly,

  • that will take every person in the United States

  • above the poverty level.

  • - [Man] Take them what?

  • - Take every person in the United States

  • above the poverty level.

  • The poverty level is $11,997, for a single individual.

  • So we will end poverty, statistically

  • and create a floor for people, at the same time.

  • Interestingly, if we trace the history

  • of the current welfare program,

  • which is, we'll talk about how to pay for it,

  • the current welfare program,

  • if Martin Luther King had lived, would not exist.

  • Martin Luther King in his last book,

  • "From Chaos to Community",

  • completely condemned the welfare program.

  • He said, "The civil rights movement asked people

  • "to end poverty.

  • "We didn't ask for a food stamp program

  • "and a EITC program."

  • In fact, there's 122 cash transfer programs

  • in the Federal government.

  • "We asked you to end poverty."

  • Martin Luther King said,

  • "If you wanna end poverty, give people money."

  • That's what a universal basic income

  • is saying the same thing now,

  • 60 years later, 50 years later.

  • If you wanna end poverty, give people money.

  • The idea is you would create a floor.

  • You would not replace work,

  • because there will still be some amount of work,

  • where we're watching lots of us,

  • piece together work as independent contractors.

  • Your kid's in different jobs.

  • You know, it will not be a replacement,

  • although I guess it could be

  • for people that think that that's

  • they wanna be a poet, or a writer, an artist,

  • and they pool their money with a group of other people

  • and find a place to live.

  • That would be lovely too.

  • But it's based on the recognition

  • there's not gonna be enough work to do.

  • It's based on the fact that I know it works,

  • for one reason.

  • Because I am and my friends are proponents of

  • and experienced with parental basic income.

  • Parental basic income is parents,

  • who provide stability for their kids,

  • by helping them, by taking them on vacation,

  • and paying for it.

  • By helping them if they have a bad bill.

  • By helping them go to school.

  • Those are things that parents who have means

  • do to stabilize their kid's life.

  • This is a discussion about

  • having a country do something to stabilize

  • everybody's life, so people are not living

  • with $400 of fear, the moment they see a bill,

  • that they can't really afford.

  • So it is a way either to help make a transition,

  • to stabilize the country

  • and you pay for it by getting rid of some of

  • the existing welfare program.

  • There's a big debate between Libertarians and others,

  • about which programs you get rid of.

  • You pay for it by doing something about

  • what are called corporate tax expenditures,

  • which are deductions that are given to companies

  • and high wage individuals, in our tax system.

  • It's a different way of giving welfare,

  • it's just a prettier, nicer way that no one knows about

  • of giving welfare to people who don't need it

  • and there are other kinds of ways,

  • which we can talk about,

  • that you pay for it.

  • I'll just end by saying this.

  • It's a terrible idea.

  • It's like democracy.

  • It's a terrible idea, until you try everything else.

  • So my point of my book, is not this is the best idea

  • I've ever seen in the world.

  • It's an idea that actually works

  • and I say to people, "What's your idea?"

  • Now the obvious counter to this,

  • is guaranteed jobs, right?

  • So when you say to people,

  • "Okay guaranteed jobs."

  • They say, "What do you mean?"

  • They say, "Oh the WPA!"

  • I say, "Oh let's see the WPA.

  • "That's as far today from the New Deal

  • "as the New Deal was from the Civil War

  • "and I'm not sure as much as Franklin Roosevelt

  • "admired Abraham Lincoln,

  • "he built economy in 1935 around the facts of 1865."

  • You know WPA had a lot of incredible attributes to it,

  • but it also meant we were sending people away,

  • many times away from their homes,

  • to build roads, clear forests,

  • build camping places at national parks,

  • for a short period of time.

  • We're talking about a permanent problem,

  • or at least a really long term problem,

  • so are all of you ready to send your kids,

  • you know, away to clear brush is the what they're gonna do,

  • or any of you with your law school degrees,

  • think that's a really good idea,

  • if you can't find work,

  • that you're gonna be out clearing brush

  • for the rest of your life.

  • Or do you wanna make choices about your own life,

  • which is what universal basic income does.

  • Universal basic income does three other things

  • and then I'm done.

  • One, it compensates mostly women,

  • who've never been compensated before,

  • who wanna raise children.

  • We've never done that before, in our life.

  • It allows people who are in abusive relationships,

  • to walk away, because they have resources,

  • which is very unusual for people in many bad relationships.

  • It allows workers to strike,

  • and have their own built in strike fund.

  • It allows employees to say to employers,

  • who wanna mess with their hours

  • and screw around with them.

  • "I'm outta here.

  • "I'm outta here.

  • "You can't starve me to death,

  • "'cause I have a basic income, coming in."

  • It's sort of permanent stimulus,

  • you know an economy that's bereft of demand.

  • Plenty of supply and not enough demand,

  • giving everybody $1,000.

  • Helicopter money, some people would call it,

  • actually has demand.

  • So, I just think you have to juxtapose this.

  • If you believe that we need a scenario,

  • for the future, then because technology

  • is gonna roll over very different economy

  • than we once had and if you believe that we have

  • a responsibility for economic security

  • for everyone who works and lives in this country,

  • than we need a plan.

  • This is my plan.

  • I always say to people, "So what's yours?"

  • Because change, (laughs),

  • change is inevitable.

  • It's progress, that's optional.

  • It's leadership that makes the difference.

  • It's time we all have this discussion,

  • or we're gonna have for those of us

  • who thought election night was a sad night,

  • we're just warming up, baby.

  • Thanks very much.

  • (clapping)

  • So push back time.

  • - [Man] Could you identify yourselves and,

  • - [Woman] Questions (mumbles).

  • - [Andy] Sure.

  • - [Woman] I understand there are a couple of pilots

  • going on right now, with (mumbles) content in Switzerland

  • and maybe in Scandinavia or Finland.

  • I'm not sure.

  • I was wondering if you knew anything about

  • how they're panning out and I also was wondering

  • if you could speak to the means testing,

  • whether giving people who don't need the money,

  • the money is problematic (mumbles), from your perspective.

  • - Sure, so the first question is just about

  • experiments, so the biggest experiments that were ever run

  • on universal basic income,

  • were run in the United States.

  • We ran five different experiments in the 1960s.

  • All the fears that everybody was gonna get drunk,

  • go to the bars, do drugs, put their feet up,

  • they didn't have video games to play back then.

  • Didn't prove out to be true.

  • Switzerland actually didn't have an experiment.

  • They had a referendum.

  • It got badly beaten.

  • Like 73 to 27.

  • Which probably in a country that has a median income

  • of $74,000 a year, universal healthcare and retirement

  • and a 3% unemployment rate, wasn't the best place

  • to try this out.

  • But, interestingly enough, 40% of millennials voted yes.

  • 65% of people said, "We're gonna need it in 20 years."

  • So even though you can,

  • the headlines are clear.

  • You know, underneath it, there's a sense of insecurity.

  • So now we have in Utrecht which is in the Netherlands,

  • experimenting, replacing basic income with welfare.

  • We have Finland talking about a very large experiment

  • and Canada just announced an experiment in Ontario.

  • Which would guarantee every citizen up to,

  • that it's more of a negative income tax,

  • so they beef up your income, up to a certain level,

  • so everybody would be guaranteed $20,000 a year.

  • It was done by Justin Trudeau.

  • Justin Trudeau's party ran on

  • a universal basic income experiment,

  • which only mirrors what his father did,

  • who did a universal basic income experiment in Canada

  • when he was there, that was also very successful.

  • GiveDirectly, which is a charity,

  • is doing this in Kenya,

  • where they're giving 50,000 people grants,

  • because we need to experiment.

  • Because there's everybody wonders

  • what are the consequences

  • and the unattended consequences?

  • Will there be inflation?

  • Will rents go up?

  • You know, will people get drunk?

  • What will happen?

  • Good questions.

  • We don't have to do it for the whole country tomorrow

  • and I think that's a question the U.S.

  • Is gonna have to answer

  • and so the last thing I'd say is,

  • I think where you will see action in the U.S.,

  • is not about universal basic income,

  • although Donald Trump and block grants

  • have potential to be played around with

  • and look different.

  • But, there's a lot of discussion now.

  • This is my promotion, I'm promoting by predicting

  • this will happen.

  • So this is a self fulfilling prophesy, I hope.

  • So there's all this brain research now

  • about children 0-3.

  • That most of your brain development happens

  • at a very young age.

  • We have no academic programs,

  • no schools, no anything for kids 0-3.

  • So teachers appropriately say,

  • "One of the biggest problems I have,

  • "is kids start off so far behind."

  • Not just economically, damaged or in trauma now,

  • is the word people are using.

  • But there's brain development issues

  • that you can't recapture, right?

  • Well you can have a universal basic child

  • grant to all parents, right,

  • and there are a lot of people

  • who are beginning to talk about that.

  • Canada actually just did this.

  • So that's one area I think you'll see

  • and there's a group

  • that will announce their existence very shortly.

  • That's very multi-ideological

  • from Libertarian to progressives,

  • called the Basic Income Collaborative,

  • that's gonna begin to sort of center

  • a lot of work in the United States,

  • about all this work.

  • The second question was about,

  • - [Woman] The means testing.

  • - The means testing.

  • So, means testing means are we gonna give

  • Bill Gates universal basic income

  • and there was a very famous British sociologist who said,

  • "Any policy for the poor only, is poor policy."

  • So we should not let people like Bill Gates,

  • or Warren Buffet, pay less money than their secretaries

  • in taxes, but like why do we have to worry about

  • universal basic income as the,

  • like there is so much more money they're making

  • than the $12,000 a year.

  • We need to take back from them.

  • You know, carried interest, you can go assets.

  • So I just say, "Yes, we need a tax system

  • "that helps fund this."

  • But like why are we gonna put all the burden

  • on universal basic income and make that really hard

  • to do because we're mad that Bill Gates

  • is gonna get it, but we're not mad

  • that people are paying lower taxes than their secretary.

  • So there is a funding issue.

  • I just don't wanna put this all on the backs of

  • universal basic income to solve that problem.

  • - [Man] I have a question just about (mumbles).

  • - [Man] Would you identify yourselves, please?

  • - [Alex] My name is Alex (mumbles) and I work with

  • the technology sector.

  • I have a question about both sort of how

  • your plans pay for this and also your work,

  • with sort of conservative and carrying groups,

  • because I think if you were to replace a lot of

  • welfare programs with this,

  • I think a lot of conservatives would appreciate this program

  • so how are you working with them?

  • - So I'm actually doing,

  • well there's a debate on something called,

  • I guess Intelligence Squared used to be down here,

  • for the debates.

  • So, I'm of all things,

  • debating on the same side as Charles Murry,

  • who is a notorious person

  • in the progressive intellectual community

  • for a book he wrote called, "The Bell Curve."

  • But on universal basic income,

  • he is a believer, except he is an extremist.

  • He would get rid of social security

  • and you know, if you gave him his perfect intellectual way,

  • he would wipe out the 1.2 trillion dollars

  • that we now spend on every social safety net program

  • and replace it, right?

  • I don't do anything with social security,

  • at least for people that have paid in

  • and I think healthcare's way too complicated

  • to turn into a self,

  • people are managing their own healthcare,

  • doesn't seem to work anywhere around the world.

  • I don't think it's gonna work any better here,

  • in terms of holding down costs, so.

  • But then we do get into,

  • "I don't have any problem with cashing out EITC,

  • "I don't have any problem with cashing out

  • "unemployment insurance and food stamps,

  • "'cause we're giving people back more."

  • My basic premise is, if people are being hurt,

  • we shouldn't do it.

  • If it's revenue neutral, it's interesting.

  • If it's a positive, let's really take a good look at it

  • and I think there's a chance to make this revenue positive

  • and I think you look at programs like disability

  • and other things, you know,

  • where people have unique circumstances

  • and we, you know, we make adjustments for it.

  • But, it's kind of like the debate

  • that started in healthcare.

  • The first question is, do you wanna do it?

  • Then the second question you're asking is,

  • can you find a way forward that's fair to people,

  • that meets physical needs of other people.

  • We did in healthcare find a crazy compromise.

  • But it was a compromise that everybody

  • sort of eventually you know, supported,

  • at least in the advocate community

  • and the pharmaceutical community

  • and the medical community,

  • for at least a period of time.

  • I think we're sort of there.

  • Here, do we really think this is the right answer?

  • I wish someone would do a lot more work on jobs.

  • It's like almost disgraceful

  • that in a country like ours,

  • with all the money in the think tanks,

  • and other people get, no one's figured out

  • a jobs program that might be able to do this,

  • or some hybrid program.

  • Take two years out for national service.

  • Do other kinds of things that give,

  • you know sabbaticals for adults at a certain age,

  • paid for by the government.

  • Job sharing.

  • Other, lower work week.

  • You know, some combination that says

  • if this happens, we can do the same,

  • get the same results by some other combination

  • that people might find more acceptable,

  • because the biggest problem we have

  • with universal basic income,

  • is people think that everyone should work,

  • particularly old people like me,

  • think everyone should work,

  • 'cause we love working

  • and we worked our whole life in jobs

  • for a lot of us, we were fulfilling or paid well.

  • So, that is not what the profile is

  • of doing the polling on millennials.

  • How do you pay for it?

  • You take, I would say, you take 500 billion

  • of the 1.2 trillion,

  • of welfare programs, which is sort of

  • in my book, I add them up like food stamps, EITC,

  • et cetera.

  • You take another 500 billion dollars,

  • which Simpson-Bowles took almost all of it,

  • for corporate tax expenditures,

  • which is just, welfare spent differently.

  • Then the country had a financial transaction tax,

  • until the 1950s.

  • For some reason we got rid of it.

  • You know, some people say that,

  • and then Europe is now bringing it back,

  • it's called a tobin tax.

  • We're the only OECD country that has no VAT tax.

  • We don't have a carbon tax.

  • There's all kinds of other,

  • natural resources, you could tax.

  • You know, as Thomas Piketty said,

  • we could actually tax assets,

  • which is all the where the money is,

  • 'cause like don't waste your time

  • going after income.

  • Income's like small,

  • compared to assets.

  • Most people don't have their money in their wallets

  • or their checking account.

  • They have it in art, and homes and investments.

  • So we need to go after assets, not income.

  • There and here.

  • - [Man] Yeah, if you're,

  • - If you don't mind,

  • just-- - you're using the gross

  • that people get with the quantity of money that people get.

  • For example, on the basic thing like rent.

  • So why won't you just be

  • sky rocketing the price of everything?

  • - Well I always had an academic institution

  • ask the question, every time we raise Pell grants

  • to raise tuition and I think the proof is,

  • they raise tuition whether we do or don't,

  • raise Pell grants and they raise

  • rent, - Rent and quantity.

  • - So we don't know.

  • The experiment so far have not shown that,

  • like Alaska, I should've said,

  • has a universal basic income.

  • If you're a citizen of Alaska,

  • you get a dividend, once a year.

  • That comes from all the money that was collected in taxes

  • from North Shore Oil, right?

  • So you can look at what happens

  • when people get that money,

  • both in terms of pricing and so far,

  • it's not that much money,

  • it's like 1,500 to $2,500.

  • It hasn't had an effect.

  • I think those are questions we don't know

  • the answer to, which is why you want to experiment

  • before you do all this.

  • 'Cause then if you have to then put price controls

  • on top of, you sort of defeat the purpose

  • of the simplicity of the universal basic income,

  • as you give everybody cash and they choose

  • what they do with their life.

  • - [Mara] My name is Mara Tobias.

  • How does this scenario compare,

  • like in Europe and Scandinavia, for instance.

  • You know, are they facing,

  • or do you anticipate that they'll be facing

  • similar situations, and if not, why not?

  • And like you know, are there,

  • are they educating their people better?

  • Or are their people getting all higher level jobs

  • for some reason?

  • Or I would just like to hear a little comparison.

  • - So Finland, which is probably one of the best educated

  • and best social welfare states in the world.

  • You know, is conducting the experiment

  • to substitute, universal basic income,

  • for some of their unemployment

  • and job re-training and other,

  • to see if that will actually get people

  • back in the work force quicker.

  • Utrecht is doing the same thing

  • in the Netherlands about that.

  • And so,

  • you know, it's interesting that it's being done

  • in very wealthy countries first.

  • India has now gotten extremely interested

  • in the last three months.

  • They actually have some kind of

  • economic study they do every year

  • and they're looking at this.

  • 'Cause it probably works better in a third world country,

  • 'cause the amount of money people have and need,

  • is lower than what you have in a first world country,

  • like Finland, although they have a lot of infrastructure.

  • So yes, they're facing the same problems

  • and more production of low wage jobs.

  • I mean we always should appreciate

  • there will always be 20 to 30% of the people

  • that have good jobs, right?

  • But you take lawyers, I mean, last year,

  • law school applications went down 30%.

  • I don't wanna say this dirty little secret out loud,

  • the last year, was the lowest year ever

  • that lawyers with degrees

  • got placed in law jobs, in history.

  • Anybody ever has done any been kind of legal work.

  • I've only been on the receiving end

  • of being sued and deposed.

  • But, (laughing)

  • there's all these things called key word searches

  • and that used to be done by people.

  • You know the FBI can go through all those emails

  • you know, in 10 days.

  • That would've taken 10 years, at one point in history,

  • because technology is taking out,

  • a lot of the lower skill functions

  • and software and robots don't necessarily

  • replace everybody, they make people much more effective.

  • So in my book I talk about Dave Cote,

  • who's the CEO of Honeywell,

  • who had a 1,000 people when he started his job in HR.

  • Now he's down to 300 and he thinks he'll go down to 100.

  • Not that they,

  • you know because people do FAQs and he's going to AI

  • to ask your questions and computers

  • compute your retirement programs online instantaneously.

  • You don't need the HR person to go and say,

  • "Let me get your numbers."

  • It's like, "I can get my numbers,

  • "I don't have to talk to you."

  • So just lots of things are becoming way more efficient.

  • - [Rose] Hi my name's Rose (mumbles).

  • I'm a reporter at (mumbles) New York Business.

  • - [Andy] Uh-oh, now I'm in trouble.

  • (laughing)

  • - [Rose] I wondered why his number you picked is so low.

  • I mean this isn't really an income,

  • it's a stipend more, right?

  • - Well, you know, this is a good question.

  • So I picked it because,

  • I wanted to do two things at the same time.

  • End poverty.

  • And provide stability.

  • A stipend, a floor, you know shock absorbers,

  • in a very unstable economy

  • and you know, when I looked at

  • and I say to people who are defending

  • the current welfare system and I totally admire

  • all of them that have.

  • You know, there's 50 million people in poverty.

  • So if you have an anti-poverty program

  • with 50 million people in poverty,

  • you should probably look to see if it's really working.

  • Sadly, what the Federal poverty level is,

  • you know, as a general rule,

  • in New York in places, because of housing,

  • have a different number,

  • is $11,997 or $94 a person.

  • So, I just decided, the important issue for me,

  • is two things.

  • One is, we realize we need a scenario to deal with this,

  • if it happens to be true and not debate

  • for the rest of our lives, "Well it's not gonna happen,

  • "it never happened before."

  • I hope it doesn't.

  • I'd like to be proven the biggest fool that ever lived,

  • but, I'm getting some really good company now with Elon Musk

  • and the President and other,

  • the Council of Economic Advisors, the ILO,

  • the World Bank and you know, Bob Rice and Angus Deaton

  • the Nobel Prize winners, like Joe Stiglitz.

  • So, I just picked a number to both,

  • end poverty and start the debate

  • and to me, it's kind of like healthcare.

  • It's we're gonna end up somewhere,

  • but the first question is,

  • is this scenario worth doing

  • and is this the right solution?

  • Hey, if it was up to me,

  • $12,000 would not be the number I would choose.

  • I also do 18-64.

  • Some people do kids.

  • I don't do undocumented workers.

  • Some people do.

  • You know, there are just a million fights

  • that will break out.

  • I just don't want them to break out

  • that people decide is it even worth fighting about,

  • because there may be better solutions than this?

  • - [Man] Hi, my name is (mumbles).

  • I'm an attorney.

  • So it was great to see that President Obama

  • and others have thought about this issue.

  • But do you have any optimism about our next President

  • having similar thoughts about these issues?

  • - I don't have much,

  • I don't have much belief that

  • almost any of our political people

  • who've thought about the issue,

  • because they've all thought about it,

  • have the guts to say anything about it.

  • They just wanna blame someone for it, you know?

  • So, it's jut like the number about trade.

  • You know, 88% is by automation.

  • 12% is by trade.

  • I mean factory jobs.

  • You know, who's, can someone say that?

  • Right?

  • It's like I'm not against re-doing it.

  • I was on the Council of Foreign Relations Trade Taskforce,

  • it's a really interesting thing for someone to read,

  • because they wrote 10 years ago,

  • no, it was 2011.

  • They wrote, five years ago,

  • that we needed a pro-American trade policy.

  • These were the most distinguished free traders in the world,

  • saying that, "Unless we did something about factory worker

  • "and other people's jobs."

  • Which is why they call it a pro-American trade policy,

  • "We are gonna have a big problem, right,

  • "about people supporting trade."

  • So, you know, I just think we haven't,

  • that's why when I said I saw Lieutenant Governor

  • Gavin Newsom, talk about this out loud

  • at a code interview he did, it was like,

  • "Oh my God.

  • "It's like amazing that he's the first person

  • "I've ever heard say in public,

  • "We have to really think about the future of technology."

  • So I don't think this is a you know,

  • listen, you can tell I'm not a Donald Trump fan,

  • but I don't think this a Donald Trump problem.

  • I didn't hear Hilary Clinton talk about it

  • and I didn't President Obama talk about it,

  • when he was talking about 4.9% unemployment

  • and 32 consecutive months of job growth.

  • Because it's not a very easy thing to talk about,

  • 'cause there is no good answer that people like.

  • Like my answer, everybody says,

  • "Oh, this is welfare without work,

  • "writ large."

  • Most people, you know, like to think,

  • I like to think they have work, right?

  • So it's hard to imagine a world

  • and the one job I keep saying to people,

  • the one job that everybody,

  • the country needs more of, is philosophers.

  • Because this is gonna happen,

  • whether we do universal basic income or not.

  • People don't have enough to do.

  • Right now, opioids and anger,

  • and racism and other things,

  • fill the time for people who aren't finding

  • work that matters or work at all.

  • I mean 22% of men.

  • I think it's 20 prime age men,

  • haven't worked in the last 12 months.

  • Larry Summer says a quarter of all men

  • in the next generation, will not be working

  • at any one time.

  • I mean, so there's like real choices

  • of what we're gonna do here,

  • 'cause we know that that kind of problem

  • fuels instability and work has become central to America

  • and no one has a jobs program,

  • so why talk about something,

  • if you can't either blame somebody or solve it.

  • So Donald Trump blamed somebody

  • and the Democrats didn't wanna talk about it,

  • 'cause they couldn't solve it.

  • - [Daniel] Daniel (mumbles), I'm a JD student.

  • I'm wondering, in addition to exploring AI,

  • whether we should also be trying to head off

  • the problem underlying it,

  • which is in the name of efficiency,

  • we are arguably making things worse for people.

  • Efficiency's supposed to (mumbles).

  • With respect to like jobs that are sensitive to

  • added pressures from foreign countries, foreign labor.

  • We have control over (mumbles),

  • whether automatic cars are gonna be competing

  • and displace drivers.

  • That's something we can regulate

  • in order to conserve those jobs.

  • Shouldn't we also be thinking about

  • rather than just surrender to efficiency,

  • why don't we have a pro union, labor policy?

  • - So, I think that is totally possible

  • and my life experience has been, it doesn't happen.

  • That no one's yet stopped technology.

  • Everybody creates friction and slows it down.

  • No one's yet, stopped it and then technologists will say,

  • "We're gonna lower the price of goods.

  • "So they'll save an amount of money

  • "and we'll buy more things."

  • Which is true, you know,

  • what phones and televisions and things once cost,

  • they're lower.

  • I think there's another argument,

  • which goes to the Hamilton question,

  • of should you have shared ownership?

  • And should everyone benefit somehow,

  • more cooperatively from the success of technology,

  • if we can't stop it, can we share in it,

  • as opposed to just you know,

  • sometimes people call universal basic income a payoff,

  • to allow people to make a lot of money.

  • You know, they have to payoff some other group of people

  • to keep them quiet, or keep them happy.

  • So I just think,

  • this is the right discussion,

  • like what,

  • and I'm not a believer.

  • I'm not against it.

  • I just don't believe you can stop technology.

  • I think it's just, you know, you can raise wages

  • in service workers, without worrying that,

  • you know, it's not like a hospital's gonna move overseas,

  • you know, or your local restaurants gonna move over seas?

  • There are economic questions involved.

  • So I think now we're just having the right discussion about,

  • is it Hamilton, is it friction?

  • You know, some Jason Jaron Lanier,

  • who invented the Internet.

  • (mumbles) Al Gore, apparently.

  • Said that, "We could charge people."

  • Like every time Facebook sells your data,

  • or uses your data,

  • why aren't you paid a royalty, like a singer is paid

  • for a song and then he calculates how much money

  • everybody would get, by the fact that people

  • are profiting off your data, you know,

  • that you never gave them permission to sell

  • and if we had a law that said that you could do that,

  • we would actually find a new revenue source for people

  • and take it from the people that are making,

  • well, - Andy, could we

  • talk a little bit about jobs.

  • I mean, there's a political science problem,

  • whatever they call it, about political,

  • economy problem, getting people to back a program,

  • and getting money for not working.

  • My understanding that Charles Murry,

  • is that and that people on the conservative side,

  • is they wanna exchange all welfare programs,

  • and maybe that works, but you still have a problem

  • of maybe people need support,

  • 'cause they're dysfunctional families

  • and all sorts of things that gave rise to these

  • in kind grants.

  • It's a political problem.

  • Why not jobs?

  • I mean there's a kind of bi-partisan belief right now,

  • I'm hearing it anyway, there is a need to

  • improve the infrastructure of the country.

  • Some of these jobs may be highly skilled,

  • but others may not be.

  • - Well, it's just-- - It doesn't have to be

  • the same thing as cutting brush.

  • It can be doing useful stuff.

  • And helping people out

  • (mumbles). - So the question is

  • why not jobs?

  • - Yes. - So, good question?

  • So, infrastructure, best number,

  • best number - In terms of government

  • - Of infrastructure. - Government paid.

  • - Yeah, best number for infrastructure

  • is two and a half million jobs.

  • The largest job in 29 states, is truck driving.

  • Truck drivers are three and a half million truck drivers,

  • five million people support truck drivers,

  • insurance, rest stops, repairs.

  • So let's assume we lose half of those in 10 years,

  • which is a fair estimate,

  • because, driverless cars may be more of a personal choice.

  • Driverless trucks are a capitalist business choice

  • and they're gonna deploy as soon as they

  • get the regulatory relief and I think this administration

  • would be happy to give them the regulatory relief,

  • as opposed to create the regulatory barriers, to do this.

  • So, let's assume we get two and a half million

  • infrastructure jobs and lose

  • two and a half million trucking jobs.

  • So then people say, "Well what else could people do,

  • "if the government wanted to pay?"

  • So, people always go appropriately to childcare,

  • elder care, kind of human services.

  • I say, "That's perfectly fine too."

  • As long as college graduates who can't find jobs,

  • are gonna change my feeding tube,

  • you know, I'm fine.

  • But I think everybody thinks that white guys

  • are gonna do infrastructure

  • and women of color are gonna do caregiver jobs, right?

  • We're like gonna sort people differently,

  • in our own traditional ways.

  • But someone should do the work on this, right?

  • I don't think it's, there's lots of this

  • that works in the next five years.

  • You know?

  • I'm the 10 year guy, right?

  • I'm like, "You could do national service."

  • Two years national service.

  • Takes two years out of the labor market, right?

  • If every kid who was a freshman now,

  • a freshman and sophomore in college,

  • was expected to do national service,

  • to get a universal basic income, or a Pell grant,

  • or social security or anything else,

  • you'd take two years out of the job market.

  • So I think there's lots of important

  • and should be done, you know, you can raise the EITC,

  • you can do job sharing, you can lower hours.

  • But we should understand,

  • there's a cliff coming, right,

  • and we should not do one

  • without being prepared for the other

  • and I think a country should be able to

  • do both, personally.

  • - [Cindy] Cindy Aslan, a teacher.

  • So Andy, you mentioned the issue of immigration

  • and I know you,

  • I fear your answer, but my question is gonna be,

  • that's one of those things we have to work out.

  • But I know you've also thought about it more.

  • There's a big issue obviously,

  • whether this money,

  • at what point would this become available

  • to new immigrants to the country.

  • If you don't solve that problem right up front,

  • people aren't gonna be willing to talk about this.

  • It's like you know, the Obamacare had to assure people,

  • "Undocumented workers won't be able to get this.

  • "Let's stop that.

  • "Now let's talk about why we should do it."

  • So I suspect you've given more thought than

  • this is a detail to be worked out later,

  • I just would like to hear more about that.

  • - So I'd say there's one really controversial thing

  • I'll say and one easy thing.

  • If people have documents they're not undocumented.

  • So everybody who's here.

  • If we're having this debate and by the time we're doing this

  • we still have 11 million undocumented workers,

  • we will have a different set of problems in this country.

  • Having said that, I don't want this debate to be

  • about undocumented workers, as hard as that seems.

  • That's not my controversy.

  • - [Cindy] Or new immigrants.

  • Whatever-- - But here's my

  • controversial statement.

  • If this is even remotely true

  • and if a humanitarian questions,

  • why would we have new immigrants if the reason

  • we've brought people into this country

  • is to do the jobs that no one else wants to do,

  • I wonder, I think we are very,

  • running a big danger if we don't think about

  • what's the purpose of immigration differently,

  • going forward, not walls, not anything else,

  • but, how much is humanitarian.

  • How much is ideological.

  • How much is refugees.

  • How much, but the job question.

  • Is gonna really get turned on its head

  • and Donald Trump turned it on its head already,

  • before, those truck drivers lost their jobs,

  • or before the lawyers lose their jobs,

  • or the adjunct professors can't find jobs.

  • So I just think we have a temporary question,

  • which we can calculate how much is giving 10 million people

  • and then we have a longer term question,

  • which has nothing to do with universal basic income is,

  • where does immigration fit in a world,

  • which Europe is doing with this, as well.

  • Where people don't have the kind of work

  • that they wanna do and there aren't as like farm workers.

  • Like that's gonna be automated.

  • Like people don't get it.

  • Machines are gonna pick.

  • Momentum, go look at underlying momentum

  • is a hamburger maker.

  • It can make hamburgers, really good hamburgers,

  • not McDonalds hamburgers.

  • Really good hamburgers, without people.

  • Eatsa, is opening up in New York City.

  • It's a quinoa bar.

  • No people.

  • One person, one to two people in the kitchen,

  • just supervising it.

  • No cooks, no anybody else.

  • I mean we don't get sometimes,

  • you know, where the world is going

  • and I think we need to re-discuss the immigration question

  • in light of this and we should obviously cover

  • the 12 million people that are here.

  • - [Man] Yeah, I think you already got part of it.

  • - Well I called on you twice, didn't I?

  • - [Man] Yes he did.

  • - These white men are jut taking over.

  • (laughing)

  • - [Man] (mumbles) question.

  • (laughing)

  • - [Man] Very good.

  • - [Man] Okay, you've only got part of the equation.

  • If you don't fix costs or prices,

  • you'll be playing with yourselves.

  • - Well the market is supposed to fix prices,

  • 'cause the people don't buy things.

  • But technology has fixed things so far,

  • not housing, but it's fixed goods, consumer goods,

  • food, other things.

  • Prices are not, our inflation rate is not that high

  • in the United States, other than housing.

  • So, I'm not an economist.

  • My sense is, I do agree that universal basic income

  • needs to be tested against,

  • does everybody just raise all their prices

  • to compensate for the additional money?

  • But I don't really get the macro economic,

  • I don't know enough to get the macro economic (mumbles).

  • Right?

  • - [Michael] Michael, Micheal Sofsky (mumbles).

  • My question is basically, kind of speaking to sort of

  • political autonomy in the marketing of this,

  • your main framing of this at least in this room

  • has been about kind of prices and how we need to prepare

  • because that in your words fall (mumbles).

  • I'm not exactly sure that that's the best way to frame this,

  • because we've been going towards another (mumbles)

  • with global climate change and nobody's done anything

  • despite the science being in on this

  • for about two decades.

  • Why not try and phrase it more positively,

  • as you put it, with people in that message situations,

  • people with situations where right now they're trapped

  • in terms of emergencies and can't even afford to move,

  • to get out of bad like economically disadvantaged area.

  • Wouldn't it be a positive selling point of,

  • hey, everybody who's stuck in a job

  • that a robot could do,

  • and you're basically dying slowly everyday

  • and not making enough money to do anything.

  • This will free you.

  • Like I think that is like,

  • how this gets a political traction.

  • I don't see like we have to do this or else

  • the riots come 'cause of the political class

  • is entirely content to sit on its hand,

  • as long as the status quo is remotely sustainable.

  • - So there's a lot of,

  • I could give a lot of different answers.

  • So one is, I'd say,

  • and I write this in my book.

  • Difference between climate change.

  • Difference between now

  • and what happened with blue collar workers,

  • is that white collar workers are affected.

  • And, this is the Vietnam War versus the Iraq War.

  • Vietnam War, people like me,

  • number nine in the draft.

  • My mom was crazy.

  • You know?

  • Anti-war, 'cause her son was gonna go.

  • And we had an all volunteer army

  • and the Iraq War came.

  • My son was at draft age.

  • I was against the war,

  • but I wasn't personally against the war,

  • to the same extent, 'cause my son was not at risk.

  • Accountants, lawyers, doctors.

  • White collar workers are taking the stock brokers,

  • the biggest job that MBAs did in Columbia

  • when they left school.

  • Stock traders, stock analysts.

  • Like that was your entry level job

  • just like you got a job in a firm or something else.

  • There are no stock traders.

  • Algorithms are stock traders.

  • Stock analysts, basic analysts.

  • You know, Google is the basic analyst.

  • I mean you had the high end,

  • the mathematicians, do lots of things.

  • So A, I think we have a totally different situation

  • where the people,

  • I'm not saying, you know Bill Gates' kids.

  • But lots of kids of very successful

  • middle and upper middle class

  • are watching their kids do everything that they did

  • and not succeed and I think that's

  • a different organizing environment.

  • Two is, I suck at marketing, okay?

  • (laughing) Like do not

  • let me, like give me something to say,

  • but don't ask me to think about how best to say it.

  • But there are people starting to work on this,

  • who are very good at marketing.

  • One of the people that's very much involved

  • in the basic income collaborative,

  • if it gets going, is Chris (mumbles),

  • used to work for Facebook.

  • This is an issue for younger people, also.

  • Because the other dichotomy here,

  • is between people who have had a life that's been

  • work centric and satisfying,

  • or at least paid off.

  • And people who are millennials and younger,

  • who are entering a very different job market

  • and I think there's a second marketing question

  • of who are we marketing to,

  • trying to convince me and Donald Trump,

  • that work isn't as important.

  • Or trying to have millennials think about

  • what kind of world do we wanna live in,

  • given climate and jobs and whatever,

  • which is a big philosophical and political discussion.

  • Back there and then here.

  • - [Woman] I was gonna ask about the social component.

  • Like how this plays out.

  • I mean so work isn't just income.

  • Work provides-- - Could you identify

  • yourself please?

  • - [Woman] Oh sorry.

  • I'm a (mumbles) JD.

  • So I was asking about the social aspect.

  • Work isn't just income.

  • It's a place to go, it's a purpose.

  • It's dignity, it's engagement.

  • How will universal basic income respond to that aspect?

  • I mean I just don't,

  • it doesn't seem that a lot of communities

  • where people are taking welfare and not working.

  • It doesn't seem like that produces a lot of happiness.

  • - Well I think that's why I said that

  • philosophers are our most necessary missing component

  • in the world today,

  • 'cause, that is like the right question.

  • The other thing we now know,

  • is that people working in shitty jobs,

  • is not really providing happiness or satisfaction.

  • And you know, I'm not Maslow.

  • But I don't believe when he built the hierarchy

  • and said self satisfaction or self actualization

  • is the highest thing.

  • He meant you were gonna get a great job.

  • I don't think that is the purpose of life either.

  • I think we're getting to the point,

  • where survival, people having to work,

  • collectively, a society,

  • having to work to survive

  • is becoming more of an opportunity,

  • and this is where hope could come in

  • to allow people to make all kinds of different choices

  • and it is completely a-cultural, right now

  • and you know, if self satisfaction, self actualization

  • is the highest thing that man or women

  • should strive for, then we better think about this,

  • because so far the two models we have,

  • shitty jobs and no work,

  • you know, don't seem to meet either need

  • and we are in need of a country with

  • we are for the first time in the country,

  • we have a country that has no dominant culture,

  • 'cause the white Christian culture was the dominant culture

  • now it's only 48%,

  • at least the voting population is white Christian.

  • So we have a country that's trying to find

  • a new culture.

  • And we have a country

  • that's finding the white Protestant work ethic,

  • is being challenged at the same time

  • and people, that's why there's a lot of

  • unsteadiness and insecurity,

  • 'cause it's a very different world.

  • We all don't know what our roles should be,

  • or where the world is going.

  • - [Man] (mumbles) work for (mumbles).

  • - I know that place.

  • (laughing)

  • - [Man] (mumbles) so this point about arguing

  • his point about Trump.

  • It's the red state voter that I think

  • needs to hear this message through a positive marketing

  • (mumbles), blue state voters,

  • aren't going to be the (mumbles) politicians

  • who we'll point to as a reason why

  • we can't do this real point (mumbles),

  • where I think the red state voters

  • are actually the ones who would be most enthusiastic

  • in a lot of ways.

  • If you marketed in the right way.

  • So people are unhappy with work

  • and work just doesn't do what they feel the tribute,

  • and the idea that might not ever do for them

  • what they hoped should do.

  • If you can market that kind of loss of hope

  • as kind of flip it in a positive direction somehow you know?

  • You can take care of that problem,

  • of using the red state voter as a reason to not do this.

  • - I'd only say,

  • yes, last elections, red state voter was a blue state voter.

  • So we just have to be thoughtful of not

  • taking situational moments.

  • 'Cause candidates matter to,

  • besides other things and,

  • you know, Barack Obama won those same states, so.

  • I just think we need to appreciate

  • there is a reason why

  • the largest number of college graduates in history

  • are moving back with their parents.

  • It's not family values, I guarantee you.

  • (laughing) Right?

  • It's because people cannot live the life

  • that their parents once lived

  • and pay for housing and everything else.

  • More or less all the people

  • who not like me,

  • who didn't have a defined (mumbles) pension plan,

  • you know are getting to the end of their work life

  • like screwed, right?

  • They can't figure out how to manage the money they have,

  • if they happen to have any

  • and most people don't have any.

  • So, like there's all these things coming to

  • a new moment, and I'm not sure basic income

  • is actually the,

  • I'm more in view of the next five or seven years,

  • there's lots of-- - I'm thinking of

  • my age, 10 years is

  • a long time. - But uh,

  • (laughing) I do think we

  • need to plan for both.

  • One's easier than the other,

  • 'cause the other deals with philosophical

  • and other kinds of cultural questions

  • that old people are really bad

  • at imagining a world where they don't work.

  • That's why they work so long.

  • - [Man] We have time for one or two more questions.

  • Could you identify yourself, in the rear?

  • - [Ben] Ben (mumbles) in media.

  • It's a great book, first of all.

  • It's a great-- - Oh there,

  • I put you, thank you very,

  • I was wondering when you were gonna give my applaud

  • that I asked you to do. (laughing)

  • - [Ben] No really, it's a great narrative style.

  • - Thanks.

  • It's a story, it's not a policy.

  • - [Ben] But two questions.

  • One, taxes.

  • People who would only be decided only between the

  • amount that each one.

  • Is that, the tax rich,

  • is that the thinking around taxes?

  • The second question,

  • - [Man] Will it be taxable,

  • is that what you're asking?

  • - [Ben] Yeah, would it be,

  • what's your thinking around that?

  • Then the second is, you know,

  • in our Federalist system path forward,

  • our Federal system states often experiment (mumbles).

  • But this seems especially challenging because,

  • we're talking about Federal welfare programs on one side,

  • and Federal tax loopholes on the other side.

  • Do you see a path forward for some state

  • to experiment with this?

  • - So I mean, two things.

  • One is, the presumption,

  • I probably didn't write this clearly

  • is the first $12,000 of income is exempt from taxation.

  • You know, just so we don't,

  • and then you can decide how much more

  • of the current exemptions are built on top of that,

  • but the idea is, not to throw this

  • 12,000 into the tax system, necessarily.

  • You know experimentation is hard,

  • because we have a,

  • but if you think about and I wrote this,

  • there's an article out there about labor law reform,

  • through Medicaid waivers.

  • Process 'cause in this country now,

  • states can get waivers for Medicaid.

  • New York has a huge waiver, right,

  • to get rid of hospital beds and it changes

  • the basic law by getting

  • an approval to do something different.

  • So you know, I look for instance,

  • again, promoting my own idea,

  • at 0-3 or 0-5, and I say,

  • "How much money now goes into programs, 0-3 or 0-5?"

  • Right?

  • Could we find a place where work is not a debate,

  • like kids 0-5 aren't working, I hope yet.

  • You never know in the future, with this administration.

  • But, so far, the child labor laws are holding up,

  • at least from five down.

  • So, you know, could we take the money, or other money,

  • right, that could be raised and do something for kids,

  • just to sort of begin a process of saying

  • there are certain places where just giving people money.

  • We'll get into a big debate,

  • are people gonna have more kids,

  • if we give people money, but I think there's that.

  • Then there are people looking at,

  • there's another group of people who believe,

  • "Let's start by giving everybody $200, or $400."

  • Which we talked about in the stimulus program anyway,

  • of like giving everybody sort of a tax cut,

  • or you raise the EITC.

  • So there is discussion about,

  • could we get a waiver, and Paul Ryan's new block grants,

  • right, to carve out some amount of money,

  • for programs like re-training and things

  • that people have not found as successful

  • and just give people money,

  • as a starting place to see what happens,

  • like some people talk like, $250 a month

  • and let people have in theory,

  • some money to re-train themselves,

  • or get further education.

  • You would re-name it, but it would just be basic income.

  • So I think people.

  • Not me, I'm moving on to things like

  • this is something that people who have 10 years to work on

  • and have a passion you know, to do it.

  • And the good news is,

  • there are lots of them,

  • who are getting very interested in doing this, should do

  • and I think those are debates they're having right now.

  • - [Man] I think we're approaching the end of our time.

  • Please join me in thanking our moderator.

  • (clapping)

- [Sam] This is an event

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

A2 初級 美國腔

工作的終結與全民基本收入的理由 (The End of Work and the Case for Universal Basic Income)

  • 6 0
    王惟惟 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字