4 ms·

You're not thinking in the grand scheme. The shift from full employment towards (idealistically) full automation requires drastic paradigm shifts in how we view

by _ak 12y ago

You're not thinking in the grand scheme. The shift from full employment towards (idealistically) full automation requires drastic paradigm shifts in how we view economics. Just try to contemplate this question: what would a society, an economy look like if everyone was provided with everything for their basic needs, like a house or a flat, food and an "allowance" to participate in social activity, people could still be able to choose to work if they wanted to, but not working would not be frowned upon? How would this society develop, what would people do because they can do what they please all day, what would the influence on society's creativity and inventiveness be? "Basic income would negatively affect our current economic system" is not the right answer to that question. Automation will not become less, full employment will be less and less feasible, so answering these questions will be inevitable.

estebank 12y ago
I mostly agree with you, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind: 1) With full automation, scarcity is pushed down, availability up, cost down, so price necessarily is pushed down. 2) Companies have a tendency of trying to avoid killing the golden eggs goose, and decreasing prices by higher availability is usually frowned upon by the people making the money, understandably so, I might add. It's perfectly rational, it just sucks for everyone else. Just look at the history of the music, books and movie/TV entertainment industries. 3) The road from "here" to "there" is going to be necessarily tumultuous, no matter what, precisely because of 2). I'm sure we'll get that omelette, but eggs on every side will be broken. 4) There is a sizable percent of the population (let's say 10%, pulling it from my backside) that have not found any artistic, professional or personal aspirations, regardless of social class. It might sound like I'm dissing "those" people, but I'm not. People are wired differently, and just in the same way a Linux user doesn't understand why somebody would be a VB.Net developer, or a programmer why anyone would be a lawyer, that doesn't mean those people are lesser in any way, they just have different interests and motivations. The increase in "leisure time" should be accompanied by an increase in availability and promotion of "entertainment" (I believe "pursuits" would be a better word) of many different kinds, to have a higher chance of people actually finding what does drive them.
saalweachter 12y ago
I think there are at least three answers to the problem. 1. Basic income. Redistribute wealth, since enough wealth is produced, it just isn't available to everyone. 2. Force everyone to work less (for more money). If you lower the maximum number number of hours people are allowed to work, more people will need to be employed to do the same amount of work. You would probably need to accompany this by an increase in minimum wage. 3. We could all do more. Government could take a more active roll in back-filling demand. If we decided to employ a million more doctors, or revamp the entire power grid, or build a Moon base, or colonize Mars, or move Mars into orbit around Venus, or accelerate Venus's rotation to support colonization, we could easily achieve full employment.

by _ak 12y ago

estebank 12y ago

I mostly agree with you, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind: 1) With full automation, scarcity is pushed down, availability up, cost down, so price necessarily is pushed down. 2) Companies have a tendency of trying to avoid killing the golden eggs goose, and decreasing prices by higher availability is usually frowned upon by the people making the money, understandably so, I might add. It's perfectly rational, it just sucks for everyone else. Just look at the history of the music, books and movie/TV entertainment industries. 3) The road from "here" to "there" is going to be necessarily tumultuous, no matter what, precisely because of 2). I'm sure we'll get that omelette, but eggs on every side will be broken. 4) There is a sizable percent of the population (let's say 10%, pulling it from my backside) that have not found any artistic, professional or personal aspirations, regardless of social class. It might sound like I'm dissing "those" people, but I'm not. People are wired differently, and just in the same way a Linux user doesn't understand why somebody would be a VB.Net developer, or a programmer why anyone would be a lawyer, that doesn't mean those people are lesser in any way, they just have different interests and motivations. The increase in "leisure time" should be accompanied by an increase in availability and promotion of "entertainment" (I believe "pursuits" would be a better word) of many different kinds, to have a higher chance of people actually finding what does drive them.

saalweachter 12y ago

I think there are at least three answers to the problem. 1. Basic income. Redistribute wealth, since enough wealth is produced, it just isn't available to everyone. 2. Force everyone to work less (for more money). If you lower the maximum number number of hours people are allowed to work, more people will need to be employed to do the same amount of work. You would probably need to accompany this by an increase in minimum wage. 3. We could all do more. Government could take a more active roll in back-filling demand. If we decided to employ a million more doctors, or revamp the entire power grid, or build a Moon base, or colonize Mars, or move Mars into orbit around Venus, or accelerate Venus's rotation to support colonization, we could easily achieve full employment.