5 ms·

It'd probably looks quite a bit like pure communism.

by joshAg 14y ago

zanny 14y ago
Which means we are going to destroy ourselves before admitting we don't need people without drive or motivation in creative pursuits working menial tasks. I imagine when we get there, we are going to have an absurd concentration of wealth as the automated means of production are in the hands of very few ultra-wealthy, and everyone else is destitute because their factories and robots make everything for effectively free. That sounds like bloody revolution.
- busyant 14y ago
  Krugman says precisely what you have said: "Ah, you ask, but what about the people? Very good question. Smart machines may make higher GDP possible, but also reduce the demand for people — including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/is-growth-over/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/is-growth-over/
- olefoo 14y ago
  Not necessarily, you could end up with a sort of Walmart Feudalism, where basic material goods and essential services are low-priced enough that you can afford them on the little that is accorded to you from the generosity of the aristocracy.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  The problem is that opening a furniture factory or expanding a grocery chain were far more commonsense propositions than starting a social-media company, pitching a new videogame idea on Kickstarter, on even just opening a trendy bubble-tea cafe. As the business serves a need further up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it becomes riskier, both due to possible disruptions further down the pyramid (larger, higher-priority line-items of the household budget) and also due to increased variability of consumer preferences. Or, on the other hand, the creative economy could turn into a huge engine of bespoke design and manufacturing, so that real people start to own mostly customized items. I can definitely see Etsy, crowdfunding, and merchandising sites heading this way. I guess "we are all My Little Pony dolls now".
  - zanny 14y ago
    My mother is currently unemployed after Wells Fargo went on a shutdown spree of old Wachovia locations, and spends her time knitting and sewing. I told her she should seriously consider making custom pony plushes full time because they sell at such an absurd scarcity markup. I've heard of them selling for over a thousand dollars for $10 worth of materials and 4 hours of time.
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Similar things happened with Pokemon dolls in the '90s, but I think it's a bit more "intense" this time because the buyer demographic includes a lot more teens and 20-somethings with actual disposable income. But rather than toy fads, I was more referring to how each character or doll has accessories paired to them and only them. So rather than buying 2 dolls and 5 generic dresses and swapping pieces between the dolls, they're now selling 6 dolls with 6 dresses, plus more stupid little accessories and such. My hypothesis was that as manufacturing of consumer goods gets cheaper and processes get better, real people are going to stop consuming mass-manufactured goods entirely and start to become more like the dolls. Instead of my buying clothes at a department store (for instance), and thus wearing much the same stuff as my friends, family and coworkers, it will start to become economical for me to go to a neo-clothier and purchase items specifically measured, designed, cut, manufactured and adjusted for me. Quality and uniqueness start to become emphasized in consumer goods over mass-production quantities. Basically, "The Diamond Age". As people say, "the future is here, it's just unevenly distributed."

It'd probably looks quite a bit like pure communism.

by joshAg 14y ago

It'd probably looks quite a bit like pure communism.

zanny 14y ago

Which means we are going to destroy ourselves before admitting we don't need people without drive or motivation in creative pursuits working menial tasks. I imagine when we get there, we are going to have an absurd concentration of wealth as the automated means of production are in the hands of very few ultra-wealthy, and everyone else is destitute because their factories and robots make everything for effectively free. That sounds like bloody revolution.

busyant 14y ago
Krugman says precisely what you have said: "Ah, you ask, but what about the people? Very good question. Smart machines may make higher GDP possible, but also reduce the demand for people — including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/is-growth-over/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/is-growth-over/
olefoo 14y ago
Not necessarily, you could end up with a sort of Walmart Feudalism, where basic material goods and essential services are low-priced enough that you can afford them on the little that is accorded to you from the generosity of the aristocracy.
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
The problem is that opening a furniture factory or expanding a grocery chain were far more commonsense propositions than starting a social-media company, pitching a new videogame idea on Kickstarter, on even just opening a trendy bubble-tea cafe. As the business serves a need further up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it becomes riskier, both due to possible disruptions further down the pyramid (larger, higher-priority line-items of the household budget) and also due to increased variability of consumer preferences. Or, on the other hand, the creative economy could turn into a huge engine of bespoke design and manufacturing, so that real people start to own mostly customized items. I can definitely see Etsy, crowdfunding, and merchandising sites heading this way. I guess "we are all My Little Pony dolls now".
- zanny 14y ago
  My mother is currently unemployed after Wells Fargo went on a shutdown spree of old Wachovia locations, and spends her time knitting and sewing. I told her she should seriously consider making custom pony plushes full time because they sell at such an absurd scarcity markup. I've heard of them selling for over a thousand dollars for $10 worth of materials and 4 hours of time.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Similar things happened with Pokemon dolls in the '90s, but I think it's a bit more "intense" this time because the buyer demographic includes a lot more teens and 20-somethings with actual disposable income. But rather than toy fads, I was more referring to how each character or doll has accessories paired to them and only them. So rather than buying 2 dolls and 5 generic dresses and swapping pieces between the dolls, they're now selling 6 dolls with 6 dresses, plus more stupid little accessories and such. My hypothesis was that as manufacturing of consumer goods gets cheaper and processes get better, real people are going to stop consuming mass-manufactured goods entirely and start to become more like the dolls. Instead of my buying clothes at a department store (for instance), and thus wearing much the same stuff as my friends, family and coworkers, it will start to become economical for me to go to a neo-clothier and purchase items specifically measured, designed, cut, manufactured and adjusted for me. Quality and uniqueness start to become emphasized in consumer goods over mass-production quantities. Basically, "The Diamond Age". As people say, "the future is here, it's just unevenly distributed."