3 ms·

Much of what you have said here I would label as articles of faith. I think that there are limits to the powers of human consumption, which are at least bounded

by z0r 15y ago

Much of what you have said here I would label as articles of faith. I think that there are limits to the powers of human consumption, which are at least bounded by the finite quantity of time available to each of us. I think then that it would follow that there is probably a cap on the number of possible jobs. I think that it is possible that the work of a small proportion of the total population could provide for the whole, with the right degree of automation. I don't disagree with any of the second half of your post, though!

ef4 15y ago
Well, there are some pretty good reasons beyond faith to think that there's no practical upper limit on human wants. First, there's the drive for status. No matter how rich everyone is, demonstrating that you're slightly richer (usually to obtain a mate) is deeply ingrained in our psyches. Second, there's the historical precedent that people have been wrong about the "problem of overproduction" since the start of the industrial revolution. They continually fail to appreciate how wealth creates new demand, which creates new wealth, which creates new demand. Third, we rich westerners are walking existence proofs that at least X level of per capita consumption is possible. While this doesn't prove an unlimited cap, is proves a cap much higher than what the world has today. > I think that it is possible that the work of a small proportion of the total population could provide for the whole, with the right degree of automation. I'm not disagreeing with that statement. In fact, we've already achieved what you're describing. If you told a farmer in 1850 how productive the farmers of 2012 would be, he would assume that most of us are unemployed, because we have in fact reached the point where a tiny fraction of the population can use automation to "provide for" the whole. But of course we've invented entirely new forms of economic activity to keep the rest of us busy now that we don't need to all farm. I'm arguing that the same process is happening to wide swaths of our present economy.

by z0r 15y ago

ef4 15y ago

Well, there are some pretty good reasons beyond faith to think that there's no practical upper limit on human wants. First, there's the drive for status. No matter how rich everyone is, demonstrating that you're slightly richer (usually to obtain a mate) is deeply ingrained in our psyches. Second, there's the historical precedent that people have been wrong about the "problem of overproduction" since the start of the industrial revolution. They continually fail to appreciate how wealth creates new demand, which creates new wealth, which creates new demand. Third, we rich westerners are walking existence proofs that at least X level of per capita consumption is possible. While this doesn't prove an unlimited cap, is proves a cap much higher than what the world has today. > I think that it is possible that the work of a small proportion of the total population could provide for the whole, with the right degree of automation. I'm not disagreeing with that statement. In fact, we've already achieved what you're describing. If you told a farmer in 1850 how productive the farmers of 2012 would be, he would assume that most of us are unemployed, because we have in fact reached the point where a tiny fraction of the population can use automation to "provide for" the whole. But of course we've invented entirely new forms of economic activity to keep the rest of us busy now that we don't need to all farm. I'm arguing that the same process is happening to wide swaths of our present economy.