2 ms·

I think you are under-estimating the number of people who like having a job. Many retired people report not liking having nothing to do. The challenge will be t

I think you are under-estimating the number of people who like having a job. Many retired people report not liking having nothing to do. The challenge will be to create more opportunities for people to learn, socialize, do something creative, find a hobby or some outdoor activity. I think it will be a better world when we transition people away from being wage slaves and enjoy the benefits of the creative activities of newly freed people.

1123581321 5y ago
Retirement is instructive as the intention of the retired to stay busy doesn’t match what they, in aggregate, actually do. We should expect similar difficulty with younger ages if we expand retirement to them.
Consultant32452 5y ago
It's not about what the "non-productive" people will do to entertain themselves. They will socialize, pick up a hobby, spend time with their family, etc. There's no concern about them whatsoever. It's the rest of the population, the minority that is the most competent. These people, by definition laid out in the premise, cannot be replaced by one of the non-productive people because the non-productive cannot outcompete the robots. Let's imagine that robots get so good that only the most competent 30% of the population must work, in the traditional sense of the word work, to maintain the infrastructure, keep the robots going, whatever that looks like. Why would anyone in the most competent 30% of the population be willing to accept a deal where they must work because they are the most competent, but the less competent people get to spend all their time traveling, socializing, enjoying romantic relationships, etc? And remember, they must ALL accept this deal because if any significant percentage of them drops out the infrastructure isn't maintained.
- wmf 5y ago
  Maybe they could live in Elysium.
- mynameishere 5y ago
  Once you get down to 30 percent, you have an inner party/outer party situation within the 30 percent itself, in which society (as far as they are concerned) is mostly limited to those two groups, and their interplay. I mean: The 30 percent aren't really aware of the 70 percent, even when their upkeep comes out of every paycheck. When you add up everyone on social security, disability, government make-work jobs (which includes 95 percent of the military) and the assemblage of programs (section 8, EBT, medicaid) that constitute modern welfare, you are pretty much at 30/70 now. So...to answer your question, why are you accepting the deal as we speak?
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    You answered your own question. Most of the unproductive still have to show up and pretend to be net inputs. Sure, some will accept a system where the less productive stop pretending and just brazenly take. But most won’t. The fairness/justice system is ingrained in primate dna. It would take an evolutionary time scale to remove it and the productive would kill the nonproductive either directly or indirectly long before that happens.

1123581321 5y ago

Retirement is instructive as the intention of the retired to stay busy doesn’t match what they, in aggregate, actually do. We should expect similar difficulty with younger ages if we expand retirement to them.

Consultant32452 5y ago

It's not about what the "non-productive" people will do to entertain themselves. They will socialize, pick up a hobby, spend time with their family, etc. There's no concern about them whatsoever. It's the rest of the population, the minority that is the most competent. These people, by definition laid out in the premise, cannot be replaced by one of the non-productive people because the non-productive cannot outcompete the robots. Let's imagine that robots get so good that only the most competent 30% of the population must work, in the traditional sense of the word work, to maintain the infrastructure, keep the robots going, whatever that looks like. Why would anyone in the most competent 30% of the population be willing to accept a deal where they must work because they are the most competent, but the less competent people get to spend all their time traveling, socializing, enjoying romantic relationships, etc? And remember, they must ALL accept this deal because if any significant percentage of them drops out the infrastructure isn't maintained.

wmf 5y ago
Maybe they could live in Elysium.
mynameishere 5y ago
Once you get down to 30 percent, you have an inner party/outer party situation within the 30 percent itself, in which society (as far as they are concerned) is mostly limited to those two groups, and their interplay. I mean: The 30 percent aren't really aware of the 70 percent, even when their upkeep comes out of every paycheck. When you add up everyone on social security, disability, government make-work jobs (which includes 95 percent of the military) and the assemblage of programs (section 8, EBT, medicaid) that constitute modern welfare, you are pretty much at 30/70 now. So...to answer your question, why are you accepting the deal as we speak?
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  You answered your own question. Most of the unproductive still have to show up and pretend to be net inputs. Sure, some will accept a system where the less productive stop pretending and just brazenly take. But most won’t. The fairness/justice system is ingrained in primate dna. It would take an evolutionary time scale to remove it and the productive would kill the nonproductive either directly or indirectly long before that happens.