4 ms·

Automation is good. Automation in a capitalist society with unlimited IP laws results in dystopia.

by ajuc 5y ago

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Not necessarily. Society is made of people; some things can be automated in a non-capitalist way (e.g. free software) even by capitalists. Though, of course, we will have to struggle to avoid the dystopia.
worik 5y ago
"a capitalist society" is not a binary attribute. There can be elements of capitalism and elements of "socialism". Private property can coexist with government supplied housing for instance. In the "capitalist" USA a lot of the military industrial complex lives off government handouts. Why not the people too? The cakes and cookies we should earn ourselves, the meat and potatoes (and housing) should be a right for every citizen
godelski 5y ago
i.e. > just with the quality of the result and with who reaped the rewards. Maybe we should leave terms like capitalism and socialism out of the discussion because no one can agree on their meanings so they just become fighting words and their usefulness to the conversations are less than meaningless.
- ajuc 5y ago
  That's why I specified unlimited IP laws. Basically who licences the robots and AIs - owns the world.
  - godelski 5y ago
    Then I'm confused what you are meaningfully adding to the conversation with your comment? The parent to your comment already suggested what you are stating.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
Capitalistic societies still have taxes. Any realistic UBI proposal would have to funnel some of the efficiency gains from automation toward constructing a strong social safety net.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  For a one-sentence policy proposal, that sounds almost perfect… but how do you quantify “efficiency gains from automation”?
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
    Revenue per employee, usually. (There are many measures of labor productivity, though.) Really, you'd just want to tax corporations over a certain size that are both highly automated (i.e. high revenue per employee), and have lopsided compensation structures (which could be measured by CEO to median worker pay). If a company successfully automates a bunch of jobs, and then makes that money rain equally on all their remaining employees, I'd have no problem with it. I only think they should be taxed if they try to distribute those gains exclusively to the executives and shareholders.
    - chii 5y ago
      > makes that money rain equally on all their remaining employees, I'd have no problem with it. why would the remaining employees, who have no invested capital into the business (with which the automation is driven by), receive any of the gains from said automation? The people who invested the capital into the automation reaps the profit. In this case, it's often the shareholders in the end.
      - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
        > The people who invested the capital into the automation reaps the profit. Yes, that's how it works today. That's not how I'd like it to work. Many people here get a significant portion of their compensation via RSUs, ESPPs, and other profit-sharing initiatives, and any company that decides to extend these benefits to lower level workers should be treated favourably by the tax system.

Automation is good. Automation in a capitalist society with unlimited IP laws results in dystopia.

by ajuc 5y ago

Automation is good. Automation in a capitalist society with unlimited IP laws results in dystopia.

Not necessarily. Society is made of people; some things can be automated in a non-capitalist way (e.g. free software) even by capitalists. Though, of course, we will have to struggle to avoid the dystopia.

worik 5y ago

"a capitalist society" is not a binary attribute. There can be elements of capitalism and elements of "socialism". Private property can coexist with government supplied housing for instance. In the "capitalist" USA a lot of the military industrial complex lives off government handouts. Why not the people too? The cakes and cookies we should earn ourselves, the meat and potatoes (and housing) should be a right for every citizen

godelski 5y ago

i.e. > just with the quality of the result and with who reaped the rewards. Maybe we should leave terms like capitalism and socialism out of the discussion because no one can agree on their meanings so they just become fighting words and their usefulness to the conversations are less than meaningless.

ajuc 5y ago
That's why I specified unlimited IP laws. Basically who licences the robots and AIs - owns the world.
- godelski 5y ago
  Then I'm confused what you are meaningfully adding to the conversation with your comment? The parent to your comment already suggested what you are stating.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago

Capitalistic societies still have taxes. Any realistic UBI proposal would have to funnel some of the efficiency gains from automation toward constructing a strong social safety net.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
For a one-sentence policy proposal, that sounds almost perfect… but how do you quantify “efficiency gains from automation”?
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
  Revenue per employee, usually. (There are many measures of labor productivity, though.) Really, you'd just want to tax corporations over a certain size that are both highly automated (i.e. high revenue per employee), and have lopsided compensation structures (which could be measured by CEO to median worker pay). If a company successfully automates a bunch of jobs, and then makes that money rain equally on all their remaining employees, I'd have no problem with it. I only think they should be taxed if they try to distribute those gains exclusively to the executives and shareholders.
  - chii 5y ago
    > makes that money rain equally on all their remaining employees, I'd have no problem with it. why would the remaining employees, who have no invested capital into the business (with which the automation is driven by), receive any of the gains from said automation? The people who invested the capital into the automation reaps the profit. In this case, it's often the shareholders in the end.
    - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
      > The people who invested the capital into the automation reaps the profit. Yes, that's how it works today. That's not how I'd like it to work. Many people here get a significant portion of their compensation via RSUs, ESPPs, and other profit-sharing initiatives, and any company that decides to extend these benefits to lower level workers should be treated favourably by the tax system.