4 ms·

There are two basic solutions to this problem. 1. Everyone works less (the government mandates a 35, 30, 20... hour workweek), raising the relative value of l

There are two basic solutions to this problem. 1. Everyone works less (the government mandates a 35, 30, 20... hour workweek), raising the relative value of labor. 2. We collectively do more than the bare minimum needed for survival and comfort (the government raises taxes, spending them on activities like building sports stadiums or moonbases), raising the demand for labor.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
Or we could just have the government stop having laws that constrain competition, so that automation makes things cost less instead of siphoning the money into the coffers of megacorps, and then at lower prices people buy more products and services, increasing the demand for labor and decreasing the cost of living.
- vundercind 2y ago
  The recent profitflation phenomenon demonstrates pretty conclusively that we can’t rely on lower production costs to result in lower prices without a lot of aggressive trust-busting.
- SleepilyLimping 2y ago
  > so that automation makes things cost less instead of siphoning the money into the coffers of megacorps I cannot trust any company with any modicum of success not to immediately exit into the hands of megacorps. I cannot hope that companies have any type of morality/"want to make the world better" anymore.
  - ghiculescu 2y ago
    But you trust governments to have that morality?
    - vkou 2y ago
      You don't need to trust in their morality, you have a direct ability to influence representative democracies. You have no way to influence the governance of corporations.
      - ghiculescu 2y ago
        Sure you do. You could buy shares. It won’t give you much influence in isolation, but I challenge you to show more influence over your elected representatives.
        vkou 2y ago
        > Sure you do. You could buy shares. Oh, yeah, it's a great system if you're someone who has money. Most people don't. Representatives, on the other hand, can't exist without votes. Most of the money in politics is spent on convincing voters to vote for a particular rep, that's why money holds sway over politicians. But money in itself isn't actually going to get someone elected. And isn't it weird how the people who do get elected actually tend to be of at least vaguely similar political leanings to their constituents? If money was all it took, we'd have no issue electing hard-conservative anti-abortion fundamentalists in, say Chicago, as long as they had policies that their donors found appealing. (Or, conversely, socially progressive, economically regressive 'liberals' in the deep south.) As it turns out, money in elections can only shift the needle so much, and won't turn black into white. What it can do is pick a winner out of a lineup of similar candidates, where the margins are close enough that a bigger advertising war chest will move the needle... And even then, all of those campaigns are only possible by ground-canvassing volunteers, who are motivated ideologically, not financially.
        ghiculescu 2y ago
        If it was that simple then this problem would be solved. Clearly most voters (in your opinion) want a higher minimum wage, UBI, and greater corporate taxation. If elected representatives do what their voters want, why are we discussing this?
- Epa095 2y ago
  Monopolies are the natural end here, since more money means more ability to invest in machinery to produce (or AI), or just buy up any of the newcomers.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  I think the US should seek both capitalistic and socialistic policies simultaneously, but this would require a revolution that may [not be possible / very difficult] to achieve from within the US political system because its "operating system" is tainted by lobbyists for the billionaires. i. Restore corporate tax rates to historically high levels ii. Increase capital gains tax significantly iii. Tax speculation-derived activities, especially real estate and REITs iv. Gradually curtail subsidies on field corn, currently occupying 5% of America's land (~100 million acres) v. Shrink defense spending by half vi. Enact single-payer healthcare for all eliminating co-insurance and better than Medicare up to UK NHS levels but without the government delivering healthcare directly; there shouldn't be good health insurance for just a few people with good jobs vii. Greatly expand visas for engineers and entrepreneurs viii. Also expand visas and professional certification "homologation" for teachers, lawyers, doctors, dentists, and researchers so they don't have to start over ix. Invest in trade schools: plumbers, electricians, machinists x. Invest in adult education, GED, and pre-college prep courseware xi. Earmark funds and network applied STEM courses and internships for industry-practical training, especially for fabs, robotics, and high-tech manufacturing xii. Invest in childcare and pre-K xiii. Revisit tariff adjustments on a more frequent and selective basis xiv. Entrepreneur incubators should get federal subsidies because they're generating wealth xv. UBI - Everyone gets it without requirements excepted tapering down based on income xvi. Small businesses should have even greater incentives in banking, real estate, state and federal bid contracts, and tax treatment
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    > i. Restore corporate tax rates to historically high levels My gut feeling is that this would increase inflation, but I could be wrong. > iv. Gradually curtail subsidies on field corn, currently occupying 5% of America's land (~100 million acres) I would much rather the US spend $2.2B on corn subsidies so that we have food security in the event of a global catastrophe. I’d prefer eating nothing but corn flour/meal for years than starving to death. > v. Shrink defense spending by half As a (biased) US citizen, I would prefer keeping American Hegemony around, and that doesn’t happen without the massive military overspending the US does.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

Or we could just have the government stop having laws that constrain competition, so that automation makes things cost less instead of siphoning the money into the coffers of megacorps, and then at lower prices people buy more products and services, increasing the demand for labor and decreasing the cost of living.

vundercind 2y ago
The recent profitflation phenomenon demonstrates pretty conclusively that we can’t rely on lower production costs to result in lower prices without a lot of aggressive trust-busting.
SleepilyLimping 2y ago
> so that automation makes things cost less instead of siphoning the money into the coffers of megacorps I cannot trust any company with any modicum of success not to immediately exit into the hands of megacorps. I cannot hope that companies have any type of morality/"want to make the world better" anymore.
- ghiculescu 2y ago
  But you trust governments to have that morality?
  - vkou 2y ago
    You don't need to trust in their morality, you have a direct ability to influence representative democracies. You have no way to influence the governance of corporations.
    - ghiculescu 2y ago
      Sure you do. You could buy shares. It won’t give you much influence in isolation, but I challenge you to show more influence over your elected representatives.
      - vkou 2y ago
        > Sure you do. You could buy shares. Oh, yeah, it's a great system if you're someone who has money. Most people don't. Representatives, on the other hand, can't exist without votes. Most of the money in politics is spent on convincing voters to vote for a particular rep, that's why money holds sway over politicians. But money in itself isn't actually going to get someone elected. And isn't it weird how the people who do get elected actually tend to be of at least vaguely similar political leanings to their constituents? If money was all it took, we'd have no issue electing hard-conservative anti-abortion fundamentalists in, say Chicago, as long as they had policies that their donors found appealing. (Or, conversely, socially progressive, economically regressive 'liberals' in the deep south.) As it turns out, money in elections can only shift the needle so much, and won't turn black into white. What it can do is pick a winner out of a lineup of similar candidates, where the margins are close enough that a bigger advertising war chest will move the needle... And even then, all of those campaigns are only possible by ground-canvassing volunteers, who are motivated ideologically, not financially.
        ghiculescu 2y ago
        If it was that simple then this problem would be solved. Clearly most voters (in your opinion) want a higher minimum wage, UBI, and greater corporate taxation. If elected representatives do what their voters want, why are we discussing this?
Epa095 2y ago
Monopolies are the natural end here, since more money means more ability to invest in machinery to produce (or AI), or just buy up any of the newcomers.
hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
I think the US should seek both capitalistic and socialistic policies simultaneously, but this would require a revolution that may [not be possible / very difficult] to achieve from within the US political system because its "operating system" is tainted by lobbyists for the billionaires. i. Restore corporate tax rates to historically high levels ii. Increase capital gains tax significantly iii. Tax speculation-derived activities, especially real estate and REITs iv. Gradually curtail subsidies on field corn, currently occupying 5% of America's land (~100 million acres) v. Shrink defense spending by half vi. Enact single-payer healthcare for all eliminating co-insurance and better than Medicare up to UK NHS levels but without the government delivering healthcare directly; there shouldn't be good health insurance for just a few people with good jobs vii. Greatly expand visas for engineers and entrepreneurs viii. Also expand visas and professional certification "homologation" for teachers, lawyers, doctors, dentists, and researchers so they don't have to start over ix. Invest in trade schools: plumbers, electricians, machinists x. Invest in adult education, GED, and pre-college prep courseware xi. Earmark funds and network applied STEM courses and internships for industry-practical training, especially for fabs, robotics, and high-tech manufacturing xii. Invest in childcare and pre-K xiii. Revisit tariff adjustments on a more frequent and selective basis xiv. Entrepreneur incubators should get federal subsidies because they're generating wealth xv. UBI - Everyone gets it without requirements excepted tapering down based on income xvi. Small businesses should have even greater incentives in banking, real estate, state and federal bid contracts, and tax treatment
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  > i. Restore corporate tax rates to historically high levels My gut feeling is that this would increase inflation, but I could be wrong. > iv. Gradually curtail subsidies on field corn, currently occupying 5% of America's land (~100 million acres) I would much rather the US spend $2.2B on corn subsidies so that we have food security in the event of a global catastrophe. I’d prefer eating nothing but corn flour/meal for years than starving to death. > v. Shrink defense spending by half As a (biased) US citizen, I would prefer keeping American Hegemony around, and that doesn’t happen without the massive military overspending the US does.