4 ms·
Rant ahead, sorry.... I had this debate with people all the time, and it turns out I was wrong. There WILL be jobs. They were right about that, I believe. I
by VikingCoder 9y ago
Rant ahead, sorry....
I had this debate with people all the time, and it turns out I was wrong.
There WILL be jobs.
They were right about that, I believe.
It's just that they won't pay enough to be able to provide for yourself.
We have divisions of labor, because they work.
But your ability to sit in an office, type on a computer, answer phone calls, and go to meetings, only translates into your ability to feed yourself, clothe yourself, have a living space, because of supply and demand. Those skills are in short enough supply right now, that they have enough value... to trade with the people who make your food, clothing, housing.
But if you imagine that in the future, automation is going to make it so that smaller and smaller numbers of people are necessary to do your job (it's happening to Radiologists and Physicists, it can happen to anyone), then essentially there's far too many of you in the supply, so you won't be able to demand good wages.
On the other hand, it's not like the demand for food, clothing, and housing will drop. And even though the COST to make food, clothing, and housing will drop, THAT'S NOT HOW THINGS ARE PRICED. They are priced by their scarcity.
And the machines that make the food, clothing, and housing, are still going to be relatively expensive. (Lucky for the people who own them!)
So the people who own the machines will have you over a barrel. You need what they can make, and you have nothing they want in exchange.
Without Universal Basic Income, I think we'd have to resort to Socialism (literally, the government control of the means of production of basic needs like food, clothing, housing), in order to not have people starving in the streets.
OR
People will stop "dividing their labor," and they'll get good at taking care of themselves. Like the Amish. Farming. Sewing. Textiles. Chopping wood. I don't mean this sarcastically, there's nothing wrong with that kind of life. If you look at history, the Amish are very healthy in comparison to everyone else. Maybe they're more puritanical than any of us would accept, but their DIY, hands on, back to nature life isn't a crazy idea.
But if we do have Universal Basic Income, I think people will find ways to keep busy, and to make some extra money for luxuries.
Want to go to Disney World? Well, work in the record shop you like. Listen to tunes all day, discuss music with people with similar interests. You only earn about $2 an hour, but that's fine. It's all just gravy.
Want to be a Radiologist? That's great - use your UBI to pay for college. Earn tons of money. Go to Disney World all the time.
UBI + Progressive taxes just makes tons of sense to me.
Don't tax me much when I'm getting started in my career. Tax the crap out of me when I'm figuring out whether I can afford 5 weeks or only 4 at Disney World each year.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago> On the other hand, it's not like the demand for food, clothing, and housing will drop. And even though the COST to make food, clothing, and housing will drop, THAT'S NOT HOW THINGS ARE PRICED. They are priced by their scarcity. But if the cost of making food, clothing, and housing drops, but the price doesn't, then a bunch of people are going to look at the situation and see that there's big money to be made. And this will increase the supply until there isn't much scarcity left. (This argument sweeps a bunch of stuff under the rug, like collusion/cartels, regulation, lag time, and probably a few others. Still, I think the overall point is valid.)
- VikingCoder 9y agoI think the barriers to entry will be sufficiently high, and the mergers and acquisitions will be rapid enough that we won't even need to worry about the things you listed.
- PKop 9y agoYou points seem to me as a microcosm of the globalism vs nationalism debate. Nations specialize to a ridiculous degree and benefit (for a while) from free trade, but then more and more jobs within wealthy nations get priced out of their country. So a country has less and less they can be competitive on the global stage, while more of their people become unemployed (drain on economy anyways as a result of welfare or UBI needs), if they intend to fully squeeze out all excess costs of goods. OR They hedge: Keep some markets local (national) and pay the price of not optimizing all jobs to global maximum efficiency, but retain opportunities for millions more of their citizens to be productively(?) employed. One point supporting this is you don't want to go years as a country without any experience working in certain markets that you abandoned long ago... if in the future labor costs will rise globally and keeping those jobs at home would become more viable anyways. (well.. automation might make this a moot point. that is probably the bigger issue.. but medium term "globalism" destroying jobs has merit) Also, hedging your bets as an economy and not putting your eggs in one (highly skilled) basket while depending completely on foreign countries for everything else (global supply chain issues, foreign policy, etc.) just seems prudent.