3 ms·

No well-paid workers (or UBI), no consumer economy. Their call.

by jleyank 5mo ago

chrncirurp 5mo ago
> No well-paid workers (or UBI), no consumer economy. Their call. Maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re wrong. No point wasting money on UBI before it’s a problem. Let’s wait and see if UBI is actually required. That is, do people actually protest and vote. Probably not.
- jleyank 5mo ago
  “Nine missed meals from anarchy.” There’s a lot of armed people in the US so social unrest will be a problem if they ever get so angry that Fox News can’t trank them.
- danaris 5mo ago
  Yeah; after all, if we went and gave people money when it wasn't absolutely required for living, we'd just have made everyone's lives better, made the economy more robust, and given people a real chance who were struggling, all for nothing![0] [0] cf. https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/files/2023-07/HOAXrgb.jpg https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/files/2023-07/H...
theptip 5mo ago
This is only a bargaining chip until the robot workers come online. Once capital can fully replace labor it’s game over. (And once the robots outpower the humans, you can’t even protest or overthrow your new overlords.) Important to know when your cards must be played.
- blacksmith_tb 5mo ago
  Not the OP, but I think the implication is you can't run a consumer economy if the consumers aren't making any wages to buy the products and services those cheap and efficient robots are churning out. Or pay taxes. So the entire socioeconomic system we currently enjoy/endure vanishes, robotic factories included.
  - general1465 5mo ago
    Exactly. Economy of scale will cease to exists. Thus the demand for robots in the factories will stop making sense - what they would be making for whom? Nobody have money, nobody can buy anything. So next step, business go bust, because there is just not enough billionaires to keep all of them alive. Another step is states go bust because there is no income to be taxed and there is no capital exchanging hands in buying goods which could be taxed.
    - skeledrew 5mo ago
      There are economic systems which aren't based on the concept of "money".
      - general1465 5mo ago
        If you mean bartering, then what people which has been pushed out by AI into uselessness are going to barter?
        skeledrew 5mo ago
        Not really. "Money" is actually just a middleman that facilitates bartering in new configurations, such as the exchange of goods/services with very different valuations. So there concept is retained. I mean systems in which there're no expectations of giving something in return for getting something of economic value. That which happens naturally within family.
  - theptip 5mo ago
    Right, perhaps true, but my point is that you don’t need a consumer economy if/when you have fully replaced labor with automata. I agree this would represent the end of the current socioeconomic system, and that many/most would not enjoy the neo-feudalistic-at-best system that would replace it. The robot factories don’t require consumers as inputs. They don’t necessarily vanish if the consumer economy vanishes. (I agree they would vanish if you tank the economy in, say 2027.)
- spwa4 5mo ago
  Of course, "playing these cards" may require winning wars. Against China and Russia for starters. In fact any global policy against self-interest needs at least the credible threat of defeating any other power that may implement such a policy. And since we're not willing to put in that effort, why discuss it?

No well-paid workers (or UBI), no consumer economy. Their call.

by jleyank 5mo ago

No well-paid workers (or UBI), no consumer economy. Their call.

> No well-paid workers (or UBI), no consumer economy. Their call. Maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re wrong. No point wasting money on UBI before it’s a problem. Let’s wait and see if UBI is actually required. That is, do people actually protest and vote. Probably not.

jleyank 5mo ago
“Nine missed meals from anarchy.” There’s a lot of armed people in the US so social unrest will be a problem if they ever get so angry that Fox News can’t trank them.
danaris 5mo ago
Yeah; after all, if we went and gave people money when it wasn't absolutely required for living, we'd just have made everyone's lives better, made the economy more robust, and given people a real chance who were struggling, all for nothing![0] [0] cf. https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/files/2023-07/HOAXrgb.jpg https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/files/2023-07/H...

theptip 5mo ago

This is only a bargaining chip until the robot workers come online. Once capital can fully replace labor it’s game over. (And once the robots outpower the humans, you can’t even protest or overthrow your new overlords.) Important to know when your cards must be played.

blacksmith_tb 5mo ago
Not the OP, but I think the implication is you can't run a consumer economy if the consumers aren't making any wages to buy the products and services those cheap and efficient robots are churning out. Or pay taxes. So the entire socioeconomic system we currently enjoy/endure vanishes, robotic factories included.
- general1465 5mo ago
  Exactly. Economy of scale will cease to exists. Thus the demand for robots in the factories will stop making sense - what they would be making for whom? Nobody have money, nobody can buy anything. So next step, business go bust, because there is just not enough billionaires to keep all of them alive. Another step is states go bust because there is no income to be taxed and there is no capital exchanging hands in buying goods which could be taxed.
  - skeledrew 5mo ago
    There are economic systems which aren't based on the concept of "money".
    - general1465 5mo ago
      If you mean bartering, then what people which has been pushed out by AI into uselessness are going to barter?
      - skeledrew 5mo ago
        Not really. "Money" is actually just a middleman that facilitates bartering in new configurations, such as the exchange of goods/services with very different valuations. So there concept is retained. I mean systems in which there're no expectations of giving something in return for getting something of economic value. That which happens naturally within family.
- theptip 5mo ago
  Right, perhaps true, but my point is that you don’t need a consumer economy if/when you have fully replaced labor with automata. I agree this would represent the end of the current socioeconomic system, and that many/most would not enjoy the neo-feudalistic-at-best system that would replace it. The robot factories don’t require consumers as inputs. They don’t necessarily vanish if the consumer economy vanishes. (I agree they would vanish if you tank the economy in, say 2027.)
spwa4 5mo ago
Of course, "playing these cards" may require winning wars. Against China and Russia for starters. In fact any global policy against self-interest needs at least the credible threat of defeating any other power that may implement such a policy. And since we're not willing to put in that effort, why discuss it?