3 ms·

You seem to be arguing as if "surplus of labour" means that as a whole the world has enough good stuff, and having more people work won't add value. What it ac

You seem to be arguing as if "surplus of labour" means that as a whole the world has enough good stuff, and having more people work won't add value. What it actually means is that there are people who want more good stuff, and are even willing to do work to get it - but that's not an option for them because there are no jobs available. It's the sad state of people not being organized to work to provide their own needs - and it's caused by wealth being so concentrated in the smallest group at the top that economic activity is frozen for everyone else. A basic income would take wealth away from the few who have more than enough, and thaw out economic activity for everyone else. Poor people would be able to spend, AND work because others are spending. All of this has nothing to do with robots. Except.. One of the fears of robotics is that they'll work so well that even more wealth will be concentrated to a few. Basic income is the antidote to that concern. In the long term it gets even better.. Eventually when robots are doing most of the work, a basic income will mean that work is optional for everyone, and people will do work they find meaningful instead of necessary, or will just spend time with their families.

Uehreka 13y ago
First off, you really need to add a disclaimer to this comment. As a cooking robot, your view is clearly biased. That said, I mostly agree with you. However I was mulling all this over last night, and I hit a snag: If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will patronize the services that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people passing money around? Or is wealth redistribution actually in the best interest of rich people, since it means more people will buy their goods and services?
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  > Is wealth redistribution actually in the best interest of rich people, since it means more people will buy their goods and services? I believe the answer is a resounding "yes." However, that doesn't exclude the possibility of a tragedy of the commons, and we all know how good markets are at preventing those... > If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will patronize the services that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people passing money around? It's still a problem if a sizable subset of people are unemployed and have no money or ability to get money. It's not terribly difficult to imagine a system with a underclass, a consumer class, and a "owner" class. Even if we automate manufacturing, the consumer class will include mercenaries of the literal or financial variety. In fact, I wonder if that's not precisely what Wall Street is.
jjoonathan 13y ago
> A basic income would take wealth away from the few who have more than enough, and thaw out economic activity for everyone else. Poor people would be able to spend, AND work because others are spending. I feel like this is a crucial point that many people completely miss.

Uehreka 13y ago

First off, you really need to add a disclaimer to this comment. As a cooking robot, your view is clearly biased. That said, I mostly agree with you. However I was mulling all this over last night, and I hit a snag: If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will patronize the services that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people passing money around? Or is wealth redistribution actually in the best interest of rich people, since it means more people will buy their goods and services?

jjoonathan 13y ago
> Is wealth redistribution actually in the best interest of rich people, since it means more people will buy their goods and services? I believe the answer is a resounding "yes." However, that doesn't exclude the possibility of a tragedy of the commons, and we all know how good markets are at preventing those... > If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will patronize the services that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people passing money around? It's still a problem if a sizable subset of people are unemployed and have no money or ability to get money. It's not terribly difficult to imagine a system with a underclass, a consumer class, and a "owner" class. Even if we automate manufacturing, the consumer class will include mercenaries of the literal or financial variety. In fact, I wonder if that's not precisely what Wall Street is.

jjoonathan 13y ago

> A basic income would take wealth away from the few who have more than enough, and thaw out economic activity for everyone else. Poor people would be able to spend, AND work because others are spending. I feel like this is a crucial point that many people completely miss.