4 ms·

Isn't the converse also true? If, in theory, you automate everyone's jobs away you could increase productivity and economic growth. But if there's nobody workin

by bumby 4y ago

Isn't the converse also true? If, in theory, you automate everyone's jobs away you could increase productivity and economic growth. But if there's nobody working, that productivity is also pointless because there's nobody with money to consume the product. I think the OP's point was there has to be balanced approach.

marcinzm 4y ago
>nobody with money to consume the product. Then tax production and just give people money (ie: Universal Basic Income). You're doing the exact same thing with pintless jobs anyway so may as well be less wasteful about it.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  It would be interesting to see what kind of caste system we would end up with if we did such a thing.
- spinach 4y ago
  People derive self-worth, dignity and meaning from their jobs. How will you replace that?
  - xyzzy123 4y ago
    They could join voluntary organisations. Or they could voluntarily do any of the infinite number of jobs to do in the world which cannot and will never be automated, even though they don't really need the money. Unless there's something special about being forced to work that boosts the dignity and self worth people feel?
  - M2Ys4U 4y ago
    People do things that give them self-worth, dignity and meaning even if they don't get paid to do them. I mean that's pretty much the definition of a hobby.
    - bumby 4y ago
      There's an added value to being felt as necessary to one's society that a hobby may not capture. To the point of the commenter above, something like volunteer work would probably fulfill that need better than a hobby.
      - M2Ys4U 4y ago
        I guess that depends on the hobby - some are more solo pursuits but others are more social.
- bumby 4y ago
  To a similar point, I think there's at least an argument to be made for an automation tax. But I also think that is politically unpalatable due to the potential impact on economic growth.
csomar 4y ago
Not really. These people will work in services instead (and develop valuable skills as a result). They could do things (even like Pet Grooming) that benefits other people and free more of their time.
- bumby 4y ago
  I agree, but the issue is people are paid according to their impact on the economy. Sob while they may spend time doing things that benefit society, it doesn’t mean they will have the money to consume. If a hedge fund manager quits to be a social worker, they are doing something to benefit society but they aren’t going to be able to support the lifestyle of an economically productive hedge fund manager
jwmhjwmh 4y ago
If you automate everything, how is profit made? Say every firm charges a 5% markup above costs of materials and machine upkeep. A given firm must pay other firms' 5% markups on the materials it needs, making it cheaper for the firm to produce those materials itself. This tends toward complete centralization. There are two ways to fix this. The first is to have an economy based on many monopolies trading resources. This obviously suboptimal for economic calculation. The second way is to adopt a planned economy. As labor productivity increases, profitability decreases, as historical data shows[1]. In the long term, this problem of capitalism cannot be avoided. [1]: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/01/22/a-world-rate-of-profit-important-new-evidence/ https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/01/22/a-world-ra...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- imtringued 4y ago
  Or you could just allow the interest rate on capital to fall to 0% by introducing a negative interest rate on cash and close up all the economic rent seeking via land value taxes and similar approaches. That would eliminate the profitability and growth requirement and result in the end of capitalism as we will have too much capital to care about it specifically.
- bumby 4y ago
  If you automate everything, how is profit made? I think profit is a different issue. Profit is not necessarily dependent of automation. Automation is just a means to reduce human labor. Generally, this increases efficiency which leads to increased productivity, but it's definitely not the only way to improve efficiency. There are other ways of increasing productivity and I would argue you will never have completely efficient processes. And innovation is always a potential disrupter to generate new profit. Even Marx said it's just a tendency for profit to fall and not an absolute maxim.

by bumby 4y ago

marcinzm 4y ago

>nobody with money to consume the product. Then tax production and just give people money (ie: Universal Basic Income). You're doing the exact same thing with pintless jobs anyway so may as well be less wasteful about it.

rootusrootus 4y ago
It would be interesting to see what kind of caste system we would end up with if we did such a thing.
spinach 4y ago
People derive self-worth, dignity and meaning from their jobs. How will you replace that?
- xyzzy123 4y ago
  They could join voluntary organisations. Or they could voluntarily do any of the infinite number of jobs to do in the world which cannot and will never be automated, even though they don't really need the money. Unless there's something special about being forced to work that boosts the dignity and self worth people feel?
- M2Ys4U 4y ago
  People do things that give them self-worth, dignity and meaning even if they don't get paid to do them. I mean that's pretty much the definition of a hobby.
  - bumby 4y ago
    There's an added value to being felt as necessary to one's society that a hobby may not capture. To the point of the commenter above, something like volunteer work would probably fulfill that need better than a hobby.
    - M2Ys4U 4y ago
      I guess that depends on the hobby - some are more solo pursuits but others are more social.
bumby 4y ago
To a similar point, I think there's at least an argument to be made for an automation tax. But I also think that is politically unpalatable due to the potential impact on economic growth.

csomar 4y ago

Not really. These people will work in services instead (and develop valuable skills as a result). They could do things (even like Pet Grooming) that benefits other people and free more of their time.

bumby 4y ago
I agree, but the issue is people are paid according to their impact on the economy. Sob while they may spend time doing things that benefit society, it doesn’t mean they will have the money to consume. If a hedge fund manager quits to be a social worker, they are doing something to benefit society but they aren’t going to be able to support the lifestyle of an economically productive hedge fund manager

jwmhjwmh 4y ago

If you automate everything, how is profit made? Say every firm charges a 5% markup above costs of materials and machine upkeep. A given firm must pay other firms' 5% markups on the materials it needs, making it cheaper for the firm to produce those materials itself. This tends toward complete centralization. There are two ways to fix this. The first is to have an economy based on many monopolies trading resources. This obviously suboptimal for economic calculation. The second way is to adopt a planned economy. As labor productivity increases, profitability decreases, as historical data shows[1]. In the long term, this problem of capitalism cannot be avoided. [1]: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/01/22/a-world-rate-of-profit-important-new-evidence/ https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/01/22/a-world-ra...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
imtringued 4y ago
Or you could just allow the interest rate on capital to fall to 0% by introducing a negative interest rate on cash and close up all the economic rent seeking via land value taxes and similar approaches. That would eliminate the profitability and growth requirement and result in the end of capitalism as we will have too much capital to care about it specifically.
bumby 4y ago
If you automate everything, how is profit made? I think profit is a different issue. Profit is not necessarily dependent of automation. Automation is just a means to reduce human labor. Generally, this increases efficiency which leads to increased productivity, but it's definitely not the only way to improve efficiency. There are other ways of increasing productivity and I would argue you will never have completely efficient processes. And innovation is always a potential disrupter to generate new profit. Even Marx said it's just a tendency for profit to fall and not an absolute maxim.