{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/13/2016 5:25:15 AM
30
Minimum wage: a method for incentivizing advances in automation technology.
English
-
Edited by BenjyX55: 5/13/2016 2:36:49 PMWhat happens when all jobs are automated?
-
At that point, I'd like to think that Humanity's spread across the galaxy far enough that resources aren't a problem, and we don't necessarily need to throw our money out the window on every little thing we (and the government, for that matter) buy.
-
At that point we'd have to have strong AI. The job market wouldn't be at the top of the list for concerns.
-
But along the way everyone is just supposed to die from deprivation because they don't have jobs?
-
But what's going to happen when there are no jobs available? How will people live.
-
Self sustaining households or voluntary self sustaining networks of households is the best solution off the top of my head. Minimum wage sure as hell isn't a solution, and UBI is a recipe for disaster.
-
The point is that, as technology advances, the ways the economy and job market work change. One day there may be enough mechanized labor to support a population in which less than one percent is employed. Today a system in which a government provides everything is horribly impractical, but on that day, it could be the most effective option available. Technology doesn't stagnate. Markets don't stagnate. Thus, it is illogical to expect good things if economic policy stagnates.
-
A system where the government provides everything is inherently bad. When a central distributor controls your means of living, you are always an inch away from being totally screwed. Governments never go bad(worse), right? Economic policy in general kills our ability to react to changes in the market. Legislators are slow, and often make terrible decisions. Markets are dynamic.
-
I agree that it's not an ideal system, nor could it ever be. However, as technology and population growth continue to reduce the value of the working class, somebody needs to look out for the interests of the masses. If everyone is to have even the chance to make a living, there must be rules in place. A government is inherently a good thing just like a free market is inherently a good thing. The problems arise when the people lose the power to affect these things, when the people's votes cease to matter, when a company grows so large that there can be no competition. Right now, people are all afraid of one or the other, but they fail to realize that both must be kept in check. You can't make short blanket statements and expect them to completely apply to the present, let alone the unpredictable future. There is no perfect system, but as the world changes, we must continue to adapt and make the best system we can. If you only answer one thing, answer this: When the machines eliminate the need for human workers, what's to stop the people that don't own machines from starving?
-
Governments are inherently coercive, which is inherently a bad thing. Large corporations exploit the government to create monopolies. Less government, less unjust power. When automation eliminates the need for human workers, the price of goods drops to virtually zero. That means that if there's any capital owned by anyone at all who gives a shit, there'll be no problem providing for people's needs, even better, give them the ability to provide for themselves via the other solution I proposed.
-
Bullshit, the people that own the machines, own the real estate, own the means of manufacturing and producing, and own/create the government policies, they are just going to drop their price and give everything away?
-
Do you understand the implications of total automation? Production costs drop to zero. Consumers have no way of buying anything. The material market is over. As long as there is at least a tiny amount of people who own a means of production who have a sliver of empathy, you're golden.
-
The people who maintain the means of production will continue to get a wage, besides that the only trade will be from those that own the means of production. Those without anything to offer will not be taken care of through benevolence/altruism, at least not if reality today is any indicator. Charity makes up just 8% of the funds redistributed to the bottom.
-
I don't think you understand the implications of [u]zero[/u] production cost. The resource market becomes completely irrelevant. The only constraint becomes time. Things like personal fabrication technology becomes cheaper than dirt. The economy shifts almost exclusively to a market of ideas, and you don't need to be rich to produce those.
-
Edited by Bloom Unknown : 5/15/2016 2:44:42 AMBecause zero production cost is impossible, so perhaps we are talking about different hypotheticals. But my concern is still relevant as society ramps up to your hypothetical; What do people do economically as less and less people are needed to work because of automation? My guess is that greed would still be present, and instead of giving people things for free, most people would simply go without because no jobs = no money to buy things.
-
Total automation = zero production cost. It's the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion generator, except actually possible. There's not really any motive for greed, as you would already have access to everything you could possibly want. And like I said, you only need a tiny handful of people involved in charity to be in the clear. We definitely see those people in reality, and that's in a situation involving risk, whereas under total automation there would be no such risk.
-
Let me rephrase by giving a hypothetical: Each year automation increases by 5%. Year one, everyone works, year two only 95% work, and so on. When only 30% of people are working, what does that economy look like? I'm assuming "total automation" doesn't happen overnight. I'm asking what that transition looks like.
-
Plummeting cost of living, for one. It's a pretty smooth gradient. Either way, what alternative solution would you propose?
-
Edited by Bloom Unknown : 5/15/2016 3:14:00 PMSo cost of living also decreased by 5% every year let's suppose. Still, the people with no jobs can't afford cheaper goods because they have absolutely zero money. I don't know about a solution, but the way our economy is set up, I don't think automation would benefit everybody bar none, at least not until it is total automation. Automation hasn't helped everyone across the board so far. I see the transition as bloody with a ton of uprisings and suffering from the consequences of job loss, pollution, scarcity, etc. on the way to full automation. This is a topic that honestly worries me because there is no guarantee that the jobs lost to automation will be replaced in equal number by new jobs. In my experience, mAny people who works factory/unskilled jobs aren't exactly capable of working a skilled job. The real number of able-bodied people not working today is somewhere between 10%-20%. I don't know about a solution but if that number keeps growing it becomes dangerous IMO. Social safety nets may help but we already see how reluctant workers are to pay taxes they know are going to people who don't work.
-
So what, you would advocate for going Luddite?
-
I'm not advocating any solution, I'm hypothesizing what would happen if automation dispossesses a large amount of the working population and slowly they became destitute if not for the charity of others. Charity is proven to be insufficient,, so then we are talking about forced wealth redistribution via the government. When that fails, we are looking at revolt. My hypothesis is that it would take a revolution, violent or otherwise, to demand that automation be used in an egalitarian manner.
-
Charity isn't so insufficient when the cost of living drops (very quickly, I might add). It works even better when you aren't stealing people's money to put into some inefficient program or another.
-
Look at all of the automation in the past 100 years. Cost of living hasn't gone down, it's gone up! The CPI proves that people make less in real wages today than they did 50 years go, and so have gone a lot of jobs to automation. Things are cheaper for the shrinking middle and upper class, for the jobless they are just as unaffordable as ever. But I get what you are saying. If bread was $1 instead of $2.50, charity would go farther. But you could not avoid systematically doing it with some sort of "program" because of the scale of people you are giving stuff to. What if people just don't feel like giving that day? It would have to become automated or the people would go without and likely eventually revolt in order to automate the distribution of goods. I am skeptical that the people who own the means of production would give without expecting anything in return. It seems common ownership would be the goal, no? I question whether the people holding the power would be willing to give it up.
-
Firstly, never underestimate the power of exponential technological growth. These numbers will change dramatically, and crazy fast. We're on the curve of critical acceleration. Secondly, the cost of living hasn't gone up. The standards of living have skyrocketed. There's a difference. (Though inflation and the like have also played a role.) Regulation and taxation speeds up the rate of unemployment, while doing nothing to actually decrease the cost of living. Regarding charity, one time giving is far from the only model. Organizations could run subscription models or anything they want. Givers would also be able to provide a lot more with a lot less loss. Plenty of people give to charity now, and doing this would make it way easier and way more effective. I'd advocate for a charity designed around working towards self sustainable households for people, creating a cure rather than a treatment to poverty.
-
Again, the issue only arises when the people lose the ability to influence government.
