4 ms·

> These are salaries that will never ever need to be paid that goes directly to the bottomline. This is only true for the first innovators. Competition means t

by dao- 10y ago

> These are salaries that will never ever need to be paid that goes directly to the bottomline. This is only true for the first innovators. Competition means that these 'saleries' will just disappear rather than going directly to the bottomline. Exchange value (~ the price) shrinks as you replace human labour, as Karl Marx would already have told you. ;) And that's not even a bad thing. It's good that people don't have to waste their lives in mines etc. The crucial question is how we as a society deal with this.

intended 10y ago
Well if you dont generate value in society, what will society do with you? Or any system for that matter? I may not personally support such a view, but from a purely functional stand point, you are about as much value as you earn and can therefore afford.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  Isn't that an incredibly individualist standpoint - that nobody has duty nor obligation towards others?
- scarecrowbob 10y ago
  Well, the problem then becomes "what do all these folks who have no 'value' to a society do to that society when they realize have no 'value'". That's probably also a problem from a "purely functional standpoint", but it's compounded by folks who think there is some kind of natural law that says "value" === "economic productivity" when that's only true for a subset of societies.
- goatlover 10y ago
  Isn't that an old fashioned way of thinking about people in societies headed for more and more automation? Your value is that you're human being. Let the machines be enslaved to producing goods and services for the humans.
  - krapp 10y ago
    > Isn't that an old fashioned way of thinking about people in societies headed for more and more automation? That's the capitalist way of thinking about people. Old fashioned or not, it dominates the lives of most people on the planet, and the value of most lives can be summed to a precise monetary amount - that being the value of the labor extracted from them by society over their lifetime, as determined by the market. We should be considering what to do about the likelihood that most people made redundant by automation will simply be left valueless to society. No one seems to actually be trying to use automation to build a utopia and free everyone from the struggles of work. Rather, automation is allowing the elite to reap the benefits of labor without the burden of supporting society through compensating human beings for work.
- zelias 10y ago
  The "functionalist" truth is not that these individuals add no value, it's that they generally add negative value. When you're unemployed with no job prospects and unable to support yourself or your family, chances are you are now "functionally counterproductive" to society (crime, homelessness, etc). Any ethical society (a society which does not kill or imprison people for this reason) should, from a "functional" standpoint, do its best to make these people productive again.
  - intended 10y ago
    Theoretically yes we should make them functional again. But re-spilling takes longer than expected, doesn't happen very successfully across the board and is effectively a huge hole in that theory. And that's if the people are close enough to the skill domain to manage the jump. Side note- people underestimate how variables govern human learning, Native ability, language skills, previous success with studies, self discipline, presence of children, health, spare time, non competing obligations, nutrition.
- marchenko 10y ago
  We are all - even the exceptional among us - essentially earning dividends on the long history of human advancements to this point. Society should compensate people from whom it has taken the opportunity to hunt/gather/homestead as part of the cost of developing a complex civilization. The question is what is the best form for this compensation to take. Society exists for the benefit of the humans who comprise it.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >from a purely functional stand point, you are about as much value as you earn From a purely functional standpoint, most income isn't earned - it's derived from rents. There is a good case to be made for redistribution of rents equally and only allowing income to be earned, though.
vertex-four 10y ago
With a sufficiently complicated system involving sufficient capex to get started, you can avoid having to compete with anyone but the companies who started around the same time as you, at least for several years. Startups try to build network effects into their products to build this up - many businesses invest lots in physical infrastructure. You might not be able to get away with charging twice what a taxi used to cost, but you can certainly make a very healthy margin, and healthier still as you buy up competitors.

by dao- 10y ago

intended 10y ago

Well if you dont generate value in society, what will society do with you? Or any system for that matter? I may not personally support such a view, but from a purely functional stand point, you are about as much value as you earn and can therefore afford.

vertex-four 10y ago
Isn't that an incredibly individualist standpoint - that nobody has duty nor obligation towards others?
scarecrowbob 10y ago
Well, the problem then becomes "what do all these folks who have no 'value' to a society do to that society when they realize have no 'value'". That's probably also a problem from a "purely functional standpoint", but it's compounded by folks who think there is some kind of natural law that says "value" === "economic productivity" when that's only true for a subset of societies.
goatlover 10y ago
Isn't that an old fashioned way of thinking about people in societies headed for more and more automation? Your value is that you're human being. Let the machines be enslaved to producing goods and services for the humans.
- krapp 10y ago
  > Isn't that an old fashioned way of thinking about people in societies headed for more and more automation? That's the capitalist way of thinking about people. Old fashioned or not, it dominates the lives of most people on the planet, and the value of most lives can be summed to a precise monetary amount - that being the value of the labor extracted from them by society over their lifetime, as determined by the market. We should be considering what to do about the likelihood that most people made redundant by automation will simply be left valueless to society. No one seems to actually be trying to use automation to build a utopia and free everyone from the struggles of work. Rather, automation is allowing the elite to reap the benefits of labor without the burden of supporting society through compensating human beings for work.
zelias 10y ago
The "functionalist" truth is not that these individuals add no value, it's that they generally add negative value. When you're unemployed with no job prospects and unable to support yourself or your family, chances are you are now "functionally counterproductive" to society (crime, homelessness, etc). Any ethical society (a society which does not kill or imprison people for this reason) should, from a "functional" standpoint, do its best to make these people productive again.
- intended 10y ago
  Theoretically yes we should make them functional again. But re-spilling takes longer than expected, doesn't happen very successfully across the board and is effectively a huge hole in that theory. And that's if the people are close enough to the skill domain to manage the jump. Side note- people underestimate how variables govern human learning, Native ability, language skills, previous success with studies, self discipline, presence of children, health, spare time, non competing obligations, nutrition.
marchenko 10y ago
We are all - even the exceptional among us - essentially earning dividends on the long history of human advancements to this point. Society should compensate people from whom it has taken the opportunity to hunt/gather/homestead as part of the cost of developing a complex civilization. The question is what is the best form for this compensation to take. Society exists for the benefit of the humans who comprise it.
crdoconnor 10y ago
>from a purely functional stand point, you are about as much value as you earn From a purely functional standpoint, most income isn't earned - it's derived from rents. There is a good case to be made for redistribution of rents equally and only allowing income to be earned, though.

vertex-four 10y ago

With a sufficiently complicated system involving sufficient capex to get started, you can avoid having to compete with anyone but the companies who started around the same time as you, at least for several years. Startups try to build network effects into their products to build this up - many businesses invest lots in physical infrastructure. You might not be able to get away with charging twice what a taxi used to cost, but you can certainly make a very healthy margin, and healthier still as you buy up competitors.