4 ms·

The problem is that we, as a society, aren't ready for the level of efficiency that technology is making possible. We don't have the values or the tools to surv

The problem is that we, as a society, aren't ready for the level of efficiency that technology is making possible. We don't have the values or the tools to survive a society without certain inefficiencies. The worst example of this is the tangle of buttfail known as private health insurance. Lobbyists for those companies are fighting to the death against efficiency and progress (nationalized health coverage) because, for those firms and their employees, this is a matter of "life" (employment) and death (layoffs). In 50 years, only a minority will be able to earn a living on a free labor market. The current economic model (no basic income; minimum wage on which it's impossible to live, but that can't be raised to a liveable level without exacerbating the unemployment problem) cannot survive this change.

lmkg 17y ago
> "In 50 years, only a minority will be able to earn a living on a free labor market." Marxist communism was predicated on this assumption, based on the increasing efficiency of industrialism. It's an interesting idea, but historically the trend has been that increased efficiency leads to increased production and increased consumption, not static production and reduced labor. I see no reason why this would cease to be the case.
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  The "automation" that occurred in the Industrial Revolution was the standardization of process-- especially in regard to the use of capital-intensive machines that required a skilled workforce-- but those processes still required humans as the main actors, since robots and computers hadn't been invented yet. This led to a Jevons Paradox-- increased efficiency in the use of X, where X is human labor, led to the increased use of X. In 1944, full human employment was possible in the United States, for pretty much the last time. We're in the midst of another Jevons "paradox", but in this case, X is abstract computational (and mechanical, in the form of robots) power. So computers are becoming more powerful and prolific, replacing human labor. The result is that only people who are smart enough to understand the new regime can contribute in a sustainably economically valuable way; the rest will see the market value of their labor approach zero.
  - lasthemy1 17y ago
    Mostly in serving there programmer overlords?
    - oz 17y ago
      One can live in hope...
- jules 17y ago
  There will come a time where it's pointless for some humans to work because everything they do machines can do better.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    At which point, they will be connected to the ZyngaBook pleasure orbs and allowed to live the rest of their natural lives in engaging but meaningless bliss?
exit 17y ago
> "In 50 years, only a minority will be able to earn a living on a free labor market." what is the outcome of this? does that mean the majority will be provided for free of cost?
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  Most likely outcome: governments take the following eugenic approach. The smartest get government-provided education and an encouragement to reproduce. Available to all will be basic income and public services. It will be engineered in such a way that those whose children are not likely to succeed economically are somewhat discouraged (e.g. a basic income that declines as they have more kids), but it won't look that way. Essentially, it will look like this: basic income that brings everyone out of poverty (so those who currently reproduce whilst in poverty as they have nothing to lose lifestyle-wise, now have a relatively nice lifestyle and an incentive not to have kids that society can't afford) and social services directed at intelligent children-- educational grants and resources. Thus, having children is an economic negative if your kids are not smart and positive if they are. Eugenics by carrots, not sticks. Which is good IMO. I have no problem with eugenics so long as (1) no one is forcibly sterilized or killed, and (2) no racism is involved. Basic income is necessary. There will be a large set of people who won't be able to compete with automation on the free market-- the work they've traditionally done will be done by robots. What remains is the work that requires intelligence and creativity. Our demand for this kind of work is (as far as I can see) unbounded. However, our process for rewarding this type of work is extremely "noisy", because creative work has a lot of variance in terms both of its success and in its ability to capture the (often intangible and indirect) value it adds. So we'll need a basic/guaranteed income for smart people because the work we'll want them to be doing is work that doesn't always pay off immediately and the problems they'll be solving will not always be soluble.
  - lukev 17y ago
    "a basic income that declines as they have more kids" ? The people who this hurts the most are the kids themselves - the ones who aren't at fault and who, given different circumstances, are perfectly likely to make it into the "productive" class. And since the incentive is applied after the kid is born, it hasn't really helped anything. Plus, there are already pretty strong economic disincentives for having lots of children, and it doesn't seem to be stopping anyone. People (particularly low income people) are not rational when it comes to children.
anamax 17y ago
> Lobbyists for those companies are fighting to the death against efficiency and progress (nationalized health coverage) In what universe is nationalized health coverage efficient? Govts don't do efficient. Disagree? Provide three examples. Bonus points if more than one involves the US govt. Note - valuable and effective (such as the US military) are not the same as efficient.
- anthonyb 17y ago
  In what universe is privatised health coverage humane?
  - anamax 17y ago
    > In what universe is privatised health coverage humane? I expected at least some defense of "efficent govt". What definition of "humane" are we using? (Be careful - the US has universal govt-provided healthcare. Most people opt out.) Are you claiming that govt healthcare is necessarily "humane"?
    - anthonyb 17y ago
      Uh, that would be the definition where you don't screw people out of tens of thousands of dollars when they're most vulnerable. I'm not sure why you're picking out "Efficiency" in a health care system, and deliberately ignoring "Effective and valuable". While efficiency is commendable, you're missing the point of a health care system somewhat...
      - anamax 17y ago
        > Uh, that would be the definition where you don't screw people out of tens of thousands of dollars when they're most vulnerable. Yes, it's much better to simply deny them care. As I pointed out the US has a tax-payer supported medical system with universal coverage. Most people opt out. In that, it's exactly like every other "free" system - anyone who can afford to go outside the "free" system does. Given that, why would you want to expand the scope of free? > I'm not sure why you're picking out "Efficiency" in a health care system, and deliberately ignoring "Effective and valuable". While efficiency is commendable, you're missing the point of a health care system somewhat... It's almost impossible to be effective without being somewhat efficient. We don't have infinite resources to spend on medical care and expanding public won't change that. What it will change is reduce efficiency, which leads to more total spending and/or less medical care. (It's likely to be both.) Which reminds me - "public option" advocates don't want to talk too much about "effective and valuable" as some of their key research support is based on lower cost per death, not cost per life. Unless, of course, the goal is effective deaths.

lmkg 17y ago

> "In 50 years, only a minority will be able to earn a living on a free labor market." Marxist communism was predicated on this assumption, based on the increasing efficiency of industrialism. It's an interesting idea, but historically the trend has been that increased efficiency leads to increased production and increased consumption, not static production and reduced labor. I see no reason why this would cease to be the case.

pw0ncakes 17y ago
The "automation" that occurred in the Industrial Revolution was the standardization of process-- especially in regard to the use of capital-intensive machines that required a skilled workforce-- but those processes still required humans as the main actors, since robots and computers hadn't been invented yet. This led to a Jevons Paradox-- increased efficiency in the use of X, where X is human labor, led to the increased use of X. In 1944, full human employment was possible in the United States, for pretty much the last time. We're in the midst of another Jevons "paradox", but in this case, X is abstract computational (and mechanical, in the form of robots) power. So computers are becoming more powerful and prolific, replacing human labor. The result is that only people who are smart enough to understand the new regime can contribute in a sustainably economically valuable way; the rest will see the market value of their labor approach zero.
- lasthemy1 17y ago
  Mostly in serving there programmer overlords?
  - oz 17y ago
    One can live in hope...
jules 17y ago
There will come a time where it's pointless for some humans to work because everything they do machines can do better.
- gojomo 17y ago
  At which point, they will be connected to the ZyngaBook pleasure orbs and allowed to live the rest of their natural lives in engaging but meaningless bliss?

exit 17y ago

> "In 50 years, only a minority will be able to earn a living on a free labor market." what is the outcome of this? does that mean the majority will be provided for free of cost?

pw0ncakes 17y ago
Most likely outcome: governments take the following eugenic approach. The smartest get government-provided education and an encouragement to reproduce. Available to all will be basic income and public services. It will be engineered in such a way that those whose children are not likely to succeed economically are somewhat discouraged (e.g. a basic income that declines as they have more kids), but it won't look that way. Essentially, it will look like this: basic income that brings everyone out of poverty (so those who currently reproduce whilst in poverty as they have nothing to lose lifestyle-wise, now have a relatively nice lifestyle and an incentive not to have kids that society can't afford) and social services directed at intelligent children-- educational grants and resources. Thus, having children is an economic negative if your kids are not smart and positive if they are. Eugenics by carrots, not sticks. Which is good IMO. I have no problem with eugenics so long as (1) no one is forcibly sterilized or killed, and (2) no racism is involved. Basic income is necessary. There will be a large set of people who won't be able to compete with automation on the free market-- the work they've traditionally done will be done by robots. What remains is the work that requires intelligence and creativity. Our demand for this kind of work is (as far as I can see) unbounded. However, our process for rewarding this type of work is extremely "noisy", because creative work has a lot of variance in terms both of its success and in its ability to capture the (often intangible and indirect) value it adds. So we'll need a basic/guaranteed income for smart people because the work we'll want them to be doing is work that doesn't always pay off immediately and the problems they'll be solving will not always be soluble.
- lukev 17y ago
  "a basic income that declines as they have more kids" ? The people who this hurts the most are the kids themselves - the ones who aren't at fault and who, given different circumstances, are perfectly likely to make it into the "productive" class. And since the incentive is applied after the kid is born, it hasn't really helped anything. Plus, there are already pretty strong economic disincentives for having lots of children, and it doesn't seem to be stopping anyone. People (particularly low income people) are not rational when it comes to children.

anamax 17y ago

> Lobbyists for those companies are fighting to the death against efficiency and progress (nationalized health coverage) In what universe is nationalized health coverage efficient? Govts don't do efficient. Disagree? Provide three examples. Bonus points if more than one involves the US govt. Note - valuable and effective (such as the US military) are not the same as efficient.

anthonyb 17y ago
In what universe is privatised health coverage humane?
- anamax 17y ago
  > In what universe is privatised health coverage humane? I expected at least some defense of "efficent govt". What definition of "humane" are we using? (Be careful - the US has universal govt-provided healthcare. Most people opt out.) Are you claiming that govt healthcare is necessarily "humane"?
  - anthonyb 17y ago
    Uh, that would be the definition where you don't screw people out of tens of thousands of dollars when they're most vulnerable. I'm not sure why you're picking out "Efficiency" in a health care system, and deliberately ignoring "Effective and valuable". While efficiency is commendable, you're missing the point of a health care system somewhat...
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Uh, that would be the definition where you don't screw people out of tens of thousands of dollars when they're most vulnerable. Yes, it's much better to simply deny them care. As I pointed out the US has a tax-payer supported medical system with universal coverage. Most people opt out. In that, it's exactly like every other "free" system - anyone who can afford to go outside the "free" system does. Given that, why would you want to expand the scope of free? > I'm not sure why you're picking out "Efficiency" in a health care system, and deliberately ignoring "Effective and valuable". While efficiency is commendable, you're missing the point of a health care system somewhat... It's almost impossible to be effective without being somewhat efficient. We don't have infinite resources to spend on medical care and expanding public won't change that. What it will change is reduce efficiency, which leads to more total spending and/or less medical care. (It's likely to be both.) Which reminds me - "public option" advocates don't want to talk too much about "effective and valuable" as some of their key research support is based on lower cost per death, not cost per life. Unless, of course, the goal is effective deaths.