4 ms·

Now you are talking like a communist. The robots will earn money for the owners of the capital that invested in their construction. You can work in the shale fi

by Evbn 14y ago

Now you are talking like a communist. The robots will earn money for the owners of the capital that invested in their construction. You can work in the shale fields scrubbing motor oil out of rocks until you die of lung cancer.

mc32 14y ago
Not sure where it is my thoughts coincide with theirs --all I meant was that if ordinary job tasks (outside of research and a few other highly intellectual areas) are 'done for us' by robots or become automated, and (most) people would not want to do that same job for that same capital then reverse taxes would be necessary, since few people would be 'earning' a living. However, people would have to find some way to fulfill their lives. Watching TV or going on global treks is not going to fulfill lives. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I think great amounts of people with too much time on their hands become counterproductive and I don't have an idea of how that would be solved. (Just heard about another Muni bus getting torched after the 49ers won their _playoff_ game.)
- chii 14y ago
  > people would not want to do that same job for that same capital then reverse taxes would be necessary, since few people would be 'earning' a living. why would reverse tax (which i assume means the gov't pays you money) be necessary when many jobs become robotisized? Those people who are made obsolete by robots will have to find another way to create value - if they don't they either will have to survive on the dwindling social welfare (which seems to have to be lower as the number of people claiming them grows), or have to rely on family members. The unspeakable option which you allude to is to tax the owners of these robots (who invested their capital) to pay the reverse tax to those who the robots have replaced - i cannot agree with that option because its very unfair.
  - mc32 14y ago
    >why would reverse tax (which i assume means the gov't pays you money) be necessary when many jobs become robotisized? Correct. Because people will become obsolete as primary workers for most stuff but will still want to have things (I mean luxuries, as opposed to necessities). >The unspeakable option which you allude to is to tax the owners of these robots I'm thinking of a time after this. When robots produce robots --when capitalists become much less necessary. The building of things would be more about 'should we?' rather then 'who'll build?'.
    - chii 14y ago
      I was reading this http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm a while ago, which is quite apropos for this topic. Unfortunately, i really don't see a path from the current era, to the future you describe (which is to say, i hope it would happen, but i can't see a way forward that will make it happen).

by Evbn 14y ago

mc32 14y ago

Not sure where it is my thoughts coincide with theirs --all I meant was that if ordinary job tasks (outside of research and a few other highly intellectual areas) are 'done for us' by robots or become automated, and (most) people would not want to do that same job for that same capital then reverse taxes would be necessary, since few people would be 'earning' a living. However, people would have to find some way to fulfill their lives. Watching TV or going on global treks is not going to fulfill lives. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I think great amounts of people with too much time on their hands become counterproductive and I don't have an idea of how that would be solved. (Just heard about another Muni bus getting torched after the 49ers won their _playoff_ game.)

chii 14y ago
> people would not want to do that same job for that same capital then reverse taxes would be necessary, since few people would be 'earning' a living. why would reverse tax (which i assume means the gov't pays you money) be necessary when many jobs become robotisized? Those people who are made obsolete by robots will have to find another way to create value - if they don't they either will have to survive on the dwindling social welfare (which seems to have to be lower as the number of people claiming them grows), or have to rely on family members. The unspeakable option which you allude to is to tax the owners of these robots (who invested their capital) to pay the reverse tax to those who the robots have replaced - i cannot agree with that option because its very unfair.
- mc32 14y ago
  >why would reverse tax (which i assume means the gov't pays you money) be necessary when many jobs become robotisized? Correct. Because people will become obsolete as primary workers for most stuff but will still want to have things (I mean luxuries, as opposed to necessities). >The unspeakable option which you allude to is to tax the owners of these robots I'm thinking of a time after this. When robots produce robots --when capitalists become much less necessary. The building of things would be more about 'should we?' rather then 'who'll build?'.
  - chii 14y ago
    I was reading this http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm a while ago, which is quite apropos for this topic. Unfortunately, i really don't see a path from the current era, to the future you describe (which is to say, i hope it would happen, but i can't see a way forward that will make it happen).