UBI and Birth of ‘Silicon Village’
Villages are highly vulnerable to the adverse effects of technological advances. This is because the majority of villages do not yet have qualified human resources to adapt and build their defenses.
.
An independent society which cannot help many poor people, will not be able to save a handful of rich people. – John F Kennedy
Two types of poverty can be defined in terms of their culprits: poverty that is caused by the greed of a few and poverty caused by the neglect of many.
The culprit of the first is clearly a handful of criminal businesspeople. However, the culprit of the second drags in many people (with good intentions) who either miss the point by delving into theory and failing to digest the signs of the times.
The first culprit has been the culprit of all social issues inherited from centuries of colonialism and industrialization. However, it will not take long for future inequality and poverty to be affected by the second culprit.
Automation
The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2018 places the negative consequences of technological advances at the center of the network of global risks. It is closely linked to the economic risks of unemployment and underemployment, and the risk of social instability.
Automation and digitalization are expected to reduce workers and wages, increase productivity and consequently increase the incomes and wealth of those who own the capital and technology. The technological impact of automation on unemployment should be broached as a serious topic of conversation at government tables and even to lecture podiums. McKinsey & Co. predicts that 45 percent of today’s jobs will disappear in the next two decades.
I want to highlight three things. First, the threat of automation and digitalization should not be considered merely as a future danger. Facts show that it is already happening today in front of our very eyes. It is like the first emergence of the train and bicycle that replaced the horse carriage. The closures of a number of large retail outlets last year, which will continue this year, are only the opening scene in the story of a civilization that features intelligent creatures who live together with intelligent robots, artificial intelligence and learning machines.
Private companies are scrambling to invest in technology. Thus far, the target is the automation of routine jobs that require mid-level skills. However, it is just a matter of time and price before the right technology arrives to invade the sphere of more complex as well as more basic jobs. At the level of complex jobs that require high skills, the hardest hit will be smart people with outdated thinking. Among the ranks of basic jobs, tens of millions of people who have no technical advantage today, let alone in the future, will be affected. It will mean catastrophe if the two scenarios come together and explode.
Second, the transformation of the world of work will happen quickly. The world has already undergone a massive transformation as a result of the industrial revolution. However, what is happening today is completely different. Its scope and speed will ensue in a more harmful momentum if it is mismanaged. It took more than 200 years for the United States to evolve from a workforce composed of 84 percent farmers in 1810 to just 2 percent today. However, today\'s expertise will quickly wear out and any and all jobs are vulnerable to replacement by machines. There is not enough time for individuals or governments to adapt and respond accordingly.
Third, our social safety net is still far from adequate to prevent deep wounds. Imagine driving a motorcycle at high speed on a circuit with many bends, steep slopes and sharp downhill curves with only a plastic helmet. This is because the existing welfare scheme is built on the idea, the way of working and the kinds of jobs that are a product of the First Industrial Revolution, with the advent of the steam engine, and the Second Industrial Revolution, with the advent of electricity. Today’s Industrial Revolution 4.0 has emerged as a result of digital technology, supercomputing and biology (neurosciences and synthetic biology).
The question is, how do we prevent deep wounds to the public, between the rich and the poor, between the technology owners in Silicon Valley and those who lose their jobs to technology? The only answer is through the establishment of a universal basic income (UBI).
Universal basic income
The basic idea is that the state provides a minimum income that is sufficient to meet the basic cost of living for each citizen on a regular basis and without any preconditions, even in conditions in which they are unable to work at all.
Even though it is very simple, this concept has echoed strongly throughout history. It drew support from many quarters, whether from the left-center or the center on the political spectrum, from human rights activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Desmond Tutu, to pro-market independent economist Milton Friedman. Not to mention, innovators and members of the technology elite like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk (who are engaged in polemics about the impact of artificial intelligence technology) are at the forefront in supporting the implementation of the UBI scheme.
There are several ongoing experiments on UBI, including in Finland, Kenya, India, the Netherlands, Canada and the USA, at varying scopes and levels of implementation. The initiatives are not only coming from the state, but also the private sector and donor agencies. The objective is to evaluate the UBI scheme according to the mechanism and impacts voiced by its supporters or alleged by its critics.
No detailed descriptions of the various experiments are available. However, the results so far indicate that UBI schemes are capable of bringing positive, substantial and long-term benefits to every person or to a recipient community. For example, a significant increase has been reported in individual skills, assets investment, health and children’s education. Suspicions that the UBI scheme would negatively affect individuals, such as increasing alcohol consumption or laziness, has had no empirical support at all.
In an era when intelligent robots and learning machines will become part of everyday human life, the UBI scheme is a fair way to share a slice of the "prosperity cake" that continues to grow as a result of technological advances. We need to view universal basic income as the individual right of every citizen.
It is a dividend to citizens from the state’s investment in developing technologies that actually narrows its citizens’ access to jobs. It is a royalty derived from the monetization of information volunteered by everyone in digital space. It is compensation for the loss of access to things that should be shared. With these views on UBI, the space for innovating fundraising to finance the implementation of UBI will open wide.
How will the villagers respond? And why “village”?
Silicon villages
Villages are highly vulnerable to the adverse effects of technological advances. This is because the majority of villages do not yet have qualified human resources to adapt and build their defenses. However, this will become a story of the past. Over the last three years, Indonesian villages have started to shape up. Since the government’s village funds program was rolled out, a variety of community-based entrepreneurship models involving BUMDes (village-owned enterprises) and BUMADes (enterprises belonging to groups of villages) have emerged and flourished. Of course, there are still many problems, but the dream of developing villages into centers of new economic growth will be realized in the next 10 years.
Ponggok village in Klaten, Central Java, is one such BUMDes that has achieved success with the injection of village funds. Starting out as a poor village with an annual income of only Rp 14 million in 2006, it has now transformed into a prosperous village with a total 2017 revenue of Rp 15 billion. The Ponggok BUMDes currently accommodates 13 business units, ranging from water-based tourism to grocery stalls. All are professionally managed, modern and utilize information technology.
Its welfare program is diverse, ranging from a “one home, one undergraduate” scholarship to a UBI "salary" given to all elderly residents. Similar programs are being initiated in other villages in Indonesia.
The Law on Villages, armed with the two-pronged weapon of village funds and a UBI scheme, are able to progress alongside technological advancements. If the UBI scheme gives individuals the strength to withstand the onslaught of automation and the changes in the way of working from a defensive position, the village funds will give villagers the capacity to win in the digital economy era from an offensive position. This means that BUMADes could even grow into giant data and information technology companies to become a “silicon village”.
/https%3A%2F%2Fkompas.id%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F03%2FBudiman-Sudjatmiko.jpg){kind=logo}
Budiman Sudjatmiko
These silicon villages combine artificial intelligence and village networking in which the players are not just individuals, but entire communities. Nothing else is more certain today.
As with the Law on Villages, the UBI scheme requires progressive and committed political action. In the early stages, we need to encourage the implementation of UBI pilot experiments in a number of regions. This is necessary to enrich our data and knowledge on the impacts of universal basic income while developing the right scheme.
Through universal basic income, we can hope to completely resolve the poverty issue, especially in kampungs, towns and villages in the mountains and along our coasts, while riding the rolling wave of technological advances that show no signs of breaking.
Budiman Sudjatmiko, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the Indonesian Village Government Apparatuses (Papdesi)
