6 ms·

A basic income will be necessary for capitalism to survive full automation of our society. It's really the only way the rich will be able to stay rich.

TausAmmer 9y ago
Automation can take care of owners, food, clothing, resources, education. You preserve some exceptional people that improve automation. Why do you need other people around?
- lawless123 9y ago
  >Why do you need other people around? They might wonder the same about the owners. The French Revolution didn't work out well for the owners.
  - maeln 9y ago
    It actually did work out great for owners. The French Revolution was not the perfect "people" revolution that a lot of people think it is. The people who mostly gain from it were the bourgeois who were really restrained under the royality. That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      > That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess. Wherein by "first", you mean "17th article" (or 30). https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Huma... EDIT: Ah, I forgot about the context of the French Revolution, so I looked at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M... of August 1789. The right to property is actually the last article in that one, so the original point remains debunked.
- Anderkent 9y ago
  In a purely selfish model, because when people are made completely redundant, they riot. And because (fortunately) the automate-everything folk are not who makes the laws. In a actual human model, because the point of technology is to make human lives better, and not just to get more technology.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  You can see this in action today with "the resource curse". If you can get mega rich by digging stuff out of the ground then you only need enough modern society to support that activity. If you can get foreign engineers then you can let your country rot while you fly around in your personal jumbo jet.
- mr_luc 9y ago
  I think the argument is that you 'need other people' because those people can vote. The theory is that this ensures that automation is socially benevolent. The theory is that increasing leverage continues to produce even more super-concentrated wealth, creating both the means and the political will (in the form of enlightened self-interest of the ultra-rich) to use surplus wealth to do things like Basic Income. It's plausible, I guess. But I don't think that timeline is necessarily a lock. 'Other people' can vote in a democracy, but that may not be enough! The mass of people used to have more convincing political/market power, due to the world needing them as 'wet robots' for labor. In the absence of real power for the mass of people, in the absence of the world actually 'needing' them for their output, I'm skeptical that mere democratic institutions are a good enough protection. Democratic institutions, despite their relative benevolence, have historically have extended political power to people who are already de facto powerful (at least powerful enough to demand a seat at the table!), whether it be wealthy property owners in the age of the 'one-class' society, or the working heads-of-household during the heyday of human labor. Power finds a way in any human system, is all I'm saying, and to the extent that increasing numbers of people lack power in the market, I'm skeptical that democratic institutions will guarantee benevolent social outcomes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago
> It's really the only way the rich will be able to stay rich. This seems to be a great pitch for convincing rich people to help introduce basic income. Basic income is in their best self-interest. If no one has money to buy their stuff, they’ll stop being rich!
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  I believe this is the original pitch that Bismarck used to introduce the modern welfare state, though it was more about not having your family dragged into the street and shot by revolutionaries who didn't believe your claim to be the God given ruler of the country.
stupidcar 9y ago
I don't believe social conservatives will ever accept genuine universal income, even in the face of major economic disruption caused by automation. Firstly, because it is too contrary to their instinctive ideas of fairness, secondly because it is too tempting to use it as method of social control, and thirdly because there will always be a minority that misspend their assured income, which will require an additional welfare system to help them out. I think it's more likely we'll see a large expansion of existing welfare and food-stamp systems into a system of universal basic rationing. Probably they'll be some kind of parallel, digital pseudo-currency, in the form of spendable credits. They'll be limited to certain categories of goods, and luxury brands and most entertainment products will be banned. I think you'll also see a requirement to do some form of "work", even artificial and meaningless tasks, in order to qualify. This is already how the system works in the UK, for example. In order to access the UK's welfare system, you are basically required to seek work, any work, no matter how menial or pointless. There is a "workfare" system whereby you work, unpaid, for commercial companies, doing things like stacking shelves for low-quality retailers, in order to get access to your welfare payments.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  And there's a backlash forming about this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5168192/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5168192/ I signed on once as I was between contracts and it seemed like it'd be stupid not to. Soul destroying and utterly ridiculous bureaucracy that's feels like it's meant to humiliate you rather than get you a job. And that was like 8 years ago, it's got worse. Ultimately, as automation drives more people out of work, the voting base for a radical change for wealth distribution will grow and the social conservative base will shrink.
- DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
  I'm socially conservative, and I agree with parts of your statement, at least regarding myself. "Fairness" will be a sticking point. It's not reasonable that some people should have to work, so that others may voluntarily sit idle. But my other reasons for opposing universal income are different than what you listed: (1) I suspect universal income makes inaccurate assumptions about human nature. I think that without a need to work, a large fraction of people will choose not to. I doubt universal income could sustain that. (2) Our population keeps on growing, but our planet stays the same size. Unless this changes, we'll see increasing competition for food and living space. The fraction of the economy spent on UBI would continue to increase due to inflation of those costs. If I turn out to be mistaken about (1) and (2), then I'd be more open to UBI.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> It's really the only way the rich will be able to stay rich. Why? If the means of production and warfare run without labour, what do you need population for? Ignore ethics for a second. The rich can be plenty rich buying and selling to and from each other, exclusively, if their guns and butter churn out without workers.
- lawless123 9y ago
  In that case the world will eventually consist of a single person a basement dweller in his cave playing games on planet populated by robots just to serve him/her. Once the rich dispose of the surplus to requirements workers they would turn on each other.
ekianjo 9y ago
Full automation is way farther than what people think. Already in early 20th century peoPle were dreaming of robots to do all menial tasks yet one century later still not even close to that.

TausAmmer 9y ago

Automation can take care of owners, food, clothing, resources, education. You preserve some exceptional people that improve automation. Why do you need other people around?

lawless123 9y ago
>Why do you need other people around? They might wonder the same about the owners. The French Revolution didn't work out well for the owners.
- maeln 9y ago
  It actually did work out great for owners. The French Revolution was not the perfect "people" revolution that a lot of people think it is. The people who mostly gain from it were the bourgeois who were really restrained under the royality. That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    > That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess. Wherein by "first", you mean "17th article" (or 30). https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Huma... EDIT: Ah, I forgot about the context of the French Revolution, so I looked at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M... of August 1789. The right to property is actually the last article in that one, so the original point remains debunked.
Anderkent 9y ago
In a purely selfish model, because when people are made completely redundant, they riot. And because (fortunately) the automate-everything folk are not who makes the laws. In a actual human model, because the point of technology is to make human lives better, and not just to get more technology.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
You can see this in action today with "the resource curse". If you can get mega rich by digging stuff out of the ground then you only need enough modern society to support that activity. If you can get foreign engineers then you can let your country rot while you fly around in your personal jumbo jet.
mr_luc 9y ago
I think the argument is that you 'need other people' because those people can vote. The theory is that this ensures that automation is socially benevolent. The theory is that increasing leverage continues to produce even more super-concentrated wealth, creating both the means and the political will (in the form of enlightened self-interest of the ultra-rich) to use surplus wealth to do things like Basic Income. It's plausible, I guess. But I don't think that timeline is necessarily a lock. 'Other people' can vote in a democracy, but that may not be enough! The mass of people used to have more convincing political/market power, due to the world needing them as 'wet robots' for labor. In the absence of real power for the mass of people, in the absence of the world actually 'needing' them for their output, I'm skeptical that mere democratic institutions are a good enough protection. Democratic institutions, despite their relative benevolence, have historically have extended political power to people who are already de facto powerful (at least powerful enough to demand a seat at the table!), whether it be wealthy property owners in the age of the 'one-class' society, or the working heads-of-household during the heyday of human labor. Power finds a way in any human system, is all I'm saying, and to the extent that increasing numbers of people lack power in the market, I'm skeptical that democratic institutions will guarantee benevolent social outcomes.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago

> It's really the only way the rich will be able to stay rich. This seems to be a great pitch for convincing rich people to help introduce basic income. Basic income is in their best self-interest. If no one has money to buy their stuff, they’ll stop being rich!

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
I believe this is the original pitch that Bismarck used to introduce the modern welfare state, though it was more about not having your family dragged into the street and shot by revolutionaries who didn't believe your claim to be the God given ruler of the country.

stupidcar 9y ago

I don't believe social conservatives will ever accept genuine universal income, even in the face of major economic disruption caused by automation. Firstly, because it is too contrary to their instinctive ideas of fairness, secondly because it is too tempting to use it as method of social control, and thirdly because there will always be a minority that misspend their assured income, which will require an additional welfare system to help them out. I think it's more likely we'll see a large expansion of existing welfare and food-stamp systems into a system of universal basic rationing. Probably they'll be some kind of parallel, digital pseudo-currency, in the form of spendable credits. They'll be limited to certain categories of goods, and luxury brands and most entertainment products will be banned. I think you'll also see a requirement to do some form of "work", even artificial and meaningless tasks, in order to qualify. This is already how the system works in the UK, for example. In order to access the UK's welfare system, you are basically required to seek work, any work, no matter how menial or pointless. There is a "workfare" system whereby you work, unpaid, for commercial companies, doing things like stacking shelves for low-quality retailers, in order to get access to your welfare payments.

mattmanser 9y ago
And there's a backlash forming about this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5168192/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5168192/ I signed on once as I was between contracts and it seemed like it'd be stupid not to. Soul destroying and utterly ridiculous bureaucracy that's feels like it's meant to humiliate you rather than get you a job. And that was like 8 years ago, it's got worse. Ultimately, as automation drives more people out of work, the voting base for a radical change for wealth distribution will grow and the social conservative base will shrink.
DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
I'm socially conservative, and I agree with parts of your statement, at least regarding myself. "Fairness" will be a sticking point. It's not reasonable that some people should have to work, so that others may voluntarily sit idle. But my other reasons for opposing universal income are different than what you listed: (1) I suspect universal income makes inaccurate assumptions about human nature. I think that without a need to work, a large fraction of people will choose not to. I doubt universal income could sustain that. (2) Our population keeps on growing, but our planet stays the same size. Unless this changes, we'll see increasing competition for food and living space. The fraction of the economy spent on UBI would continue to increase due to inflation of those costs. If I turn out to be mistaken about (1) and (2), then I'd be more open to UBI.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> It's really the only way the rich will be able to stay rich. Why? If the means of production and warfare run without labour, what do you need population for? Ignore ethics for a second. The rich can be plenty rich buying and selling to and from each other, exclusively, if their guns and butter churn out without workers.

lawless123 9y ago
In that case the world will eventually consist of a single person a basement dweller in his cave playing games on planet populated by robots just to serve him/her. Once the rich dispose of the surplus to requirements workers they would turn on each other.

ekianjo 9y ago

Full automation is way farther than what people think. Already in early 20th century peoPle were dreaming of robots to do all menial tasks yet one century later still not even close to that.