7 ms·

Your questions are confusing to me. What's being demanded? Whose costs are reduced "essentially to zero" and why?

olefoo 14y ago
Demand = shorthand for the aggregate demand for goods and services across the economy as a whole; this includes everything from massages to nuclear submarines. costs being reduced = the cost of the production of those goods and services (much of that cost also shows up as demand e.g. the masseuses massage chair, or the nuclear hardened wrenches used to assemble submarines.) If labor costs are entirely removed from the cost of production ( the cost of production is reduced to the raw materials + power + design of the goods to be produced ), then in conventional economic thinking, the aggregate demand for goods and services will also tend to a minimum. Since almost no goods will be in demand in this new economy, it's unlikely that there will be any great shift towards employing the labor force that used to do basic assembly in the production of designs for new goods. So. Quiz time. What will happen to the millions of human beings who are not employable in this new economy? Will they: a. quietly dry up into dust and accept being swept into the dustbin of history? b. form a chaotic seething, resentful mass of violence and petty crime that will make every effort to continue feeding themselves even if they are no longer economically viable entities? c. form a peaceful agrarian commune on otherwise useless spare real estate and sell quaint handcrafts to the few lucky humans who happen to be born into the ownership of mines, powerplants and other assets employed by the new economy? e. all of the above and some other solutions not mentioned as well? Your answer should be provided by how you live through the next twenty years; this exam is final.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- pron 14y ago
  We could just pay a living wage to everyone -- working or not. Those wishing to earn more would work for the extra pay.
  - tankenmate 14y ago
    This looks amazingly like the welfare state that so many hate no?
    - pron 14y ago
      Far more than that -- I'm talking about welfare one can quite comfortably live on. Let's make work a lifestyle choice. If technology allows for that to happen, perhaps even opponents of the welfare state, who are mostly found in the US, will come around. I mean, maybe even they will realize that it makes sense even for the richest person to be only so many times richer than the common folk.
      - tankenmate 14y ago
        I think my statement wasn't as nuanced as it could have been; I am in total support of what you are suggesting. The problem is funding it, usually by dipping further into "capital" i.e. a wealth tax which the wealthy are probably reticent to pay; even though it would probably be in their best interest.
      - rdl 14y ago
        We already basically do this by paying people to provide services (either directly through government, or indirectly) which are essentially unnecessary for production. Or by over-staffing government agencies above what is needed to actually do the work. This is super common in the middle east. You can make $200-400k/yr doing a make-work bureaucratic job, provided you're a local.
- rdl 14y ago
  Mostly B. Also, s/millions/billions. Which together is really terrifying.

Demand = shorthand for the aggregate demand for goods and services across the economy as a whole; this includes everything from massages to nuclear submarines. costs being reduced = the cost of the production of those goods and services (much of that cost also shows up as demand e.g. the masseuses massage chair, or the nuclear hardened wrenches used to assemble submarines.) If labor costs are entirely removed from the cost of production ( the cost of production is reduced to the raw materials + power + design of the goods to be produced ), then in conventional economic thinking, the aggregate demand for goods and services will also tend to a minimum. Since almost no goods will be in demand in this new economy, it's unlikely that there will be any great shift towards employing the labor force that used to do basic assembly in the production of designs for new goods. So. Quiz time. What will happen to the millions of human beings who are not employable in this new economy? Will they: a. quietly dry up into dust and accept being swept into the dustbin of history? b. form a chaotic seething, resentful mass of violence and petty crime that will make every effort to continue feeding themselves even if they are no longer economically viable entities? c. form a peaceful agrarian commune on otherwise useless spare real estate and sell quaint handcrafts to the few lucky humans who happen to be born into the ownership of mines, powerplants and other assets employed by the new economy? e. all of the above and some other solutions not mentioned as well? Your answer should be provided by how you live through the next twenty years; this exam is final.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
pron 14y ago
We could just pay a living wage to everyone -- working or not. Those wishing to earn more would work for the extra pay.
- tankenmate 14y ago
  This looks amazingly like the welfare state that so many hate no?
  - pron 14y ago
    Far more than that -- I'm talking about welfare one can quite comfortably live on. Let's make work a lifestyle choice. If technology allows for that to happen, perhaps even opponents of the welfare state, who are mostly found in the US, will come around. I mean, maybe even they will realize that it makes sense even for the richest person to be only so many times richer than the common folk.
    - tankenmate 14y ago
      I think my statement wasn't as nuanced as it could have been; I am in total support of what you are suggesting. The problem is funding it, usually by dipping further into "capital" i.e. a wealth tax which the wealthy are probably reticent to pay; even though it would probably be in their best interest.
    - rdl 14y ago
      We already basically do this by paying people to provide services (either directly through government, or indirectly) which are essentially unnecessary for production. Or by over-staffing government agencies above what is needed to actually do the work. This is super common in the middle east. You can make $200-400k/yr doing a make-work bureaucratic job, provided you're a local.
rdl 14y ago
Mostly B. Also, s/millions/billions. Which together is really terrifying.