5 ms·

Certainly, the world's economy would have collapsed when cars came and the horse and buggy creators lost their jobs, the printing press forced manual copiers ou

Certainly, the world's economy would have collapsed when cars came and the horse and buggy creators lost their jobs, the printing press forced manual copiers out of business, automatic telephone switches made operators lose their job, etc. (Funny story: I have a professor that was in the Center of Mass group for NASA, where they painstakingly calculated the center of mass of each object and part of the shuttle, then computed the center of mass for the whole shuttle. Of course, a computer can do that instantly now.) I honestly do feel bad for the people that lose their job when new tech comes around, but why should I be forced to subsidize an outdated way of life? Plus, it isn't like new tech kills jobs overnight; the writing is on the wall, and in the case of driverless cars and MOOCs, the transition will probably take at least a decade. History has shown that improvements in technology increase the standard of living across the board for all classes. A minimum basic income will hurt us in this instance because people will not have an incentive to have jobs that actually produce value to others.

willholloway 13y ago
> Certainly, the world's economy would have collapsed when cars came and the horse and buggy creators lost their jobs, the printing press forced manual copiers out of business, automatic telephone switches made operators lose their job, etc. Transportation advances caused great economic difficulties from 1870-1890 [1] What happens if the hits keep coming as technological innovation accelerates and new mass employment industries are not created? > I honestly do feel bad for the people that lose their job when new tech comes around, but why should I be forced to subsidize an outdated way of life? I would say a basic minimum income would be investing in defense against violent revolutions. At some point people will just revolt if they are starved or even lack upward mobility. > Plus, it isn't like new tech kills jobs overnight; the writing is on the wall, and in the case of driverless cars and MOOCs, the transition will probably take at least a decade. There are long ramp up times for retraining and educating people. And I don't think education is going to be enough. I think the most radical and unpalatable truth is that a huge segment of humans are just not going to be intelligent enough to provide value in the coming robot and machine intelligence run economy. Our brains and memories could be so much greater, and we should engineer ourselves with all deliberate speed. Humans have to upgrade themselves before they are obsolete. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation
- NotOscarWilde 13y ago
  > What happens if the hits keep coming as technological innovation accelerates and new mass employment industries are not created? I would not invest too much time into speculative futurology at this point. I mean, if somebody brings data, we can talk about those. Without that data, I don't think anyone can predict correctly whether we will end up in a) a dystopia with most people not being able to find work and starving or b) a utopia where the cost of life is so low that anyone can live fully without even working.
BoredAstronaut 13y ago
I think the deeper question that is being ignored is that of how we decide what is valuable: how we measure value. The market approach that is being espoused, and favoured by some here, reduces everything to a dollar amount. This is convenient, especially from an algorithmic standpoint, since then your algorithms can process any kind of input. But this is a pretty big assumption. I'm not saying that you can't put a price on anything--you can. But that doesn't mean that the price is accurate, in terms of the value acquired, which is what some other people are trying to point out. The market assumes you can rationally determine the real value of things, in money terms, and compare all things equivalently. But the future utility of something, let alone knowledge, is impossible to measure with any hope of accuracy. If everybody measures everything with money based on some expectation of value--itself measured in terms of the return on investment of existing money/time--and most people are wrong, then it might have very bad long-term consequences for individuals and society. Lots of things are lost when we replace one way of doing things with another way, and usually the dollar value of those things is never considered, but is externalized and conveniently forgotten. Same is true for the way we treat the value of natural resources (air, water, wildlife, minerals) as zero until exploited. It's a pragmatic necessity, enforced by the limits of our measuring tools, but that doesn't mean that nothing is lost. So, when you say "standards of living have increased", what measures are being used? Past the essentials (food/water/housing/clothing/security), we get into very grey areas. Knowledge and ways of life are changing, and maybe the loss is more costly than people are willing to admit in the rush for material prosperity.
- jdreaver 13y ago
  > The market approach that is being espoused, and favoured by some here, reduces everything to a dollar amount. Enter the subjective theory of value [1]. Market theories do not necessarily try to reduce everything to a dollar amount. Human choice and action are the only true deciders of value, and those decisions are expressed through marginal utility evaluations. > So, when you say "standards of living have increased", what measures are being used? Past the essentials (food/water/housing/clothing/security), we get into very grey areas. Knowledge and ways of life are changing, and maybe the loss is more costly than people are willing to admit in the rush for material prosperity. I understand your sentiment; we are using certain indicators as proxies for measuring standards of living, but maybe those indicators are the wrong ones. To that I reply: it is up to the individual to decide on how to become happy. The fact is, the amount of capital in the world has increased enough so that the common man can much more easily decide what makes himself happy. You are projecting your opinions of what is necessary and what is superfluous in your assessment of how people use their capital when you say a "rush for material prosperity" is a bad thing. It is easy to criticize wealth creation systems (capitalism) and measures of value, but if you can't express alternative explanations or systems then there is nothing to really talk about. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

willholloway 13y ago

> Certainly, the world's economy would have collapsed when cars came and the horse and buggy creators lost their jobs, the printing press forced manual copiers out of business, automatic telephone switches made operators lose their job, etc. Transportation advances caused great economic difficulties from 1870-1890 [1] What happens if the hits keep coming as technological innovation accelerates and new mass employment industries are not created? > I honestly do feel bad for the people that lose their job when new tech comes around, but why should I be forced to subsidize an outdated way of life? I would say a basic minimum income would be investing in defense against violent revolutions. At some point people will just revolt if they are starved or even lack upward mobility. > Plus, it isn't like new tech kills jobs overnight; the writing is on the wall, and in the case of driverless cars and MOOCs, the transition will probably take at least a decade. There are long ramp up times for retraining and educating people. And I don't think education is going to be enough. I think the most radical and unpalatable truth is that a huge segment of humans are just not going to be intelligent enough to provide value in the coming robot and machine intelligence run economy. Our brains and memories could be so much greater, and we should engineer ourselves with all deliberate speed. Humans have to upgrade themselves before they are obsolete. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation

NotOscarWilde 13y ago
> What happens if the hits keep coming as technological innovation accelerates and new mass employment industries are not created? I would not invest too much time into speculative futurology at this point. I mean, if somebody brings data, we can talk about those. Without that data, I don't think anyone can predict correctly whether we will end up in a) a dystopia with most people not being able to find work and starving or b) a utopia where the cost of life is so low that anyone can live fully without even working.

BoredAstronaut 13y ago

I think the deeper question that is being ignored is that of how we decide what is valuable: how we measure value. The market approach that is being espoused, and favoured by some here, reduces everything to a dollar amount. This is convenient, especially from an algorithmic standpoint, since then your algorithms can process any kind of input. But this is a pretty big assumption. I'm not saying that you can't put a price on anything--you can. But that doesn't mean that the price is accurate, in terms of the value acquired, which is what some other people are trying to point out. The market assumes you can rationally determine the real value of things, in money terms, and compare all things equivalently. But the future utility of something, let alone knowledge, is impossible to measure with any hope of accuracy. If everybody measures everything with money based on some expectation of value--itself measured in terms of the return on investment of existing money/time--and most people are wrong, then it might have very bad long-term consequences for individuals and society. Lots of things are lost when we replace one way of doing things with another way, and usually the dollar value of those things is never considered, but is externalized and conveniently forgotten. Same is true for the way we treat the value of natural resources (air, water, wildlife, minerals) as zero until exploited. It's a pragmatic necessity, enforced by the limits of our measuring tools, but that doesn't mean that nothing is lost. So, when you say "standards of living have increased", what measures are being used? Past the essentials (food/water/housing/clothing/security), we get into very grey areas. Knowledge and ways of life are changing, and maybe the loss is more costly than people are willing to admit in the rush for material prosperity.

jdreaver 13y ago
> The market approach that is being espoused, and favoured by some here, reduces everything to a dollar amount. Enter the subjective theory of value [1]. Market theories do not necessarily try to reduce everything to a dollar amount. Human choice and action are the only true deciders of value, and those decisions are expressed through marginal utility evaluations. > So, when you say "standards of living have increased", what measures are being used? Past the essentials (food/water/housing/clothing/security), we get into very grey areas. Knowledge and ways of life are changing, and maybe the loss is more costly than people are willing to admit in the rush for material prosperity. I understand your sentiment; we are using certain indicators as proxies for measuring standards of living, but maybe those indicators are the wrong ones. To that I reply: it is up to the individual to decide on how to become happy. The fact is, the amount of capital in the world has increased enough so that the common man can much more easily decide what makes himself happy. You are projecting your opinions of what is necessary and what is superfluous in your assessment of how people use their capital when you say a "rush for material prosperity" is a bad thing. It is easy to criticize wealth creation systems (capitalism) and measures of value, but if you can't express alternative explanations or systems then there is nothing to really talk about. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value