3 ms·

> Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. i

> Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. i realize that the rest of your post details technological advancements that could create this condition (on an indefinite timeline), but you also seem to be saying that it is already possible today. i often see this sort of claim these days, and i always wonder why this is treated as self evident fact. in 2015, the PPP adjusted GDP per capita over the entire planet was just under $16k [1]. this is only 125% of the US poverty line for a single person in the same year [2]. even if we could deliver this sum to every person in the world without losing production capacity and with no administrative cost, it hardly seems enough to provide what you mean by a "modest living" to everyone. much closer to mere subsistence in a developed nation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... [2] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...

TaylorAlexander 9y ago
I imagine it would start in the wealthier countries. US GDP per capita is $57.5k. I think if we had previously been focused on building a non-consumerist society, we could already have what I talk about today. That is, the problem is not technological but political and cultural. These efforts have not in my opinion really begun in earnest, but my hope is that robotics can be leveraged to rapidly replace the old human centric infrastructure with an automated one. Then it all just comes down to who owns the machines. I recognize that in many places in the world, the development isn’t there. However the US can also play a part by ending the imperialism that helps keep these countries down.
Maybestring 9y ago
This would be such a massive change to the world economy that I'm not sure present day prices for anything are even relevant.
rocqua 9y ago
Measure productivity different from money made. The point is that based on current production levels, we could provide everyone with sufficient food, decent housing and basic amenities like water and electricity. The reason this doesnt happen is that those who sell the food, or build the housing are better off getting paying customers. This makes sense as a market, sellers are self-interested. It also leads to a certain kind of optimum. But certainly, as a matter of production, it is feasible to give everyone a modest life without needing to change productivity. As a matter of social stability, it isn't feasible, but in some sense, that should be a denouncement of society.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
GDP is an erroneous measure for what we're discussing and falls into the same recursive logic that is noted at the top of this comment chain a la broken window fallacy. If you blow up a tank, and then build a new one, this is considered a net gain in GDP even though in reality there was a relative net loss of human labor.

TaylorAlexander 9y ago

I imagine it would start in the wealthier countries. US GDP per capita is $57.5k. I think if we had previously been focused on building a non-consumerist society, we could already have what I talk about today. That is, the problem is not technological but political and cultural. These efforts have not in my opinion really begun in earnest, but my hope is that robotics can be leveraged to rapidly replace the old human centric infrastructure with an automated one. Then it all just comes down to who owns the machines. I recognize that in many places in the world, the development isn’t there. However the US can also play a part by ending the imperialism that helps keep these countries down.

Maybestring 9y ago

This would be such a massive change to the world economy that I'm not sure present day prices for anything are even relevant.

rocqua 9y ago

Measure productivity different from money made. The point is that based on current production levels, we could provide everyone with sufficient food, decent housing and basic amenities like water and electricity. The reason this doesnt happen is that those who sell the food, or build the housing are better off getting paying customers. This makes sense as a market, sellers are self-interested. It also leads to a certain kind of optimum. But certainly, as a matter of production, it is feasible to give everyone a modest life without needing to change productivity. As a matter of social stability, it isn't feasible, but in some sense, that should be a denouncement of society.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

GDP is an erroneous measure for what we're discussing and falls into the same recursive logic that is noted at the top of this comment chain a la broken window fallacy. If you blow up a tank, and then build a new one, this is considered a net gain in GDP even though in reality there was a relative net loss of human labor.