5 ms·

The day when there are machines smart enough to do all the service jobs that humans currently do will be the day machines are smart enough not to work for free.

The day when there are machines smart enough to do all the service jobs that humans currently do will be the day machines are smart enough not to work for free. >an economic system which sets your ability to feed yourself and your families based on the effort you put in As opposed to an economic system in which your ability to feed yourself is based on the effort others put in? Such a system requires some entity to prevent you from reaping the gains of your own effort and/or take the fruits of others' efforts to give to you, and historically such entities are prone to realising that the power they have allows them to just take everyone's stuff for themselves. >The benefits of automation only accrue to the owners of capital, while everyone else gets completely left out. This is absurd: compare someone born to a household in the bottom income quartile today to someone born in that quartile a hundred years ago, the difference in quality of life is ridiculous. All the technology that exists today is the result of automation and capital accumulation: without any, we'd all still be subsistence farmers. It doesn't matter if one doesn't own any capital, one can still buy the things produced by the world's accumulated capital.

carrotleads 12y ago
I see a contradiction... explain the last bit mate.. How does one buy things produced if one doesn't own any capital.
- logicchains 12y ago
  Capital generally means accumulated savings/investment. One can still have cash without having capital, and this is actually pretty common (or even people having negative capital, like student debt). In short, one buys things by doing/making things for people who do have capital, or for people who don't have capital but have themselves acquired money by doing things for people with capital.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    If that was as simple as you write, then we wouldn't have unemployment and there would be no need for welfare - after all, you don't have to go hungry when you're jobless, you can always "do/make things for people with capital or" someone like you closer to them in the chain.
    - logicchains 12y ago
      We have unemployment because of minimum wage laws. If the minimum wage is n, then many jobs paying less than n are eliminated, as the potential employer might decide that they'd rather go without the service than pay n. Developed countries with lower minimum wages like Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan have unemployment rates under 4%.
jasim 12y ago
The OPs question was whether Capitalism as we understand it now, is suited for the future when we expect most kinds of labour to be done by machines. We don't need fully self-aware machines to get to that point. For example, when self-driving cars become pervasive, they'll remove a source of livelihood for a large section of human population. Driving has a low barrier to entry and can be done by most able-bodied humans irrespective of their level of acquired intelligence. This description works for most jobs that are going to be automated away. Typically any automation problem we solve rolls out globally at a staggering rate. It puts people out of jobs faster than they can skill up. Also, social and economic mobility is externally constrained (and changes can only happens over 2 or 3 generations), and not everyone can move up even if they try. Which means automation will give rise to an increasing number of people who cannot undertake non-automatable knowledge-work, and thus become doomed to be unemployed, and leads to a self-reinforcing cycle out of which they cannot escape. This is a problem that the civilization has to confront, and our current way of thinking about economics will not work there. The so-called 'fruit of others labour' notion is something that made most sense in the pre-industrialized era. Applying it today in its entirety without considering how much of an inter-dependent society we have become is simplistic. This is as true in technology (open-source software that powers commercial entities) as in other fields (research that builds on top of pre-existing knowledge, industrialized economies impacting global ecosystem, ..). If we consider that each of us is beholden to the collective past of entire humanity, the idea of ownership and 'fruits of labour' becomes just a social construct. This construct nevertheless is required today and for the foreseeable future as the only practical way to divide resources. However it is a complicated and probably intractable idea, and is not at all axiomatic as you seem to make it out to be.
- stretchwithme 12y ago
  What jobs that we'd like computers and robots to do require self awareness?
- logicchains 12y ago
  > The OPs question was whether Capitalism as we understand it now, is suited for the future when we expect most kinds of labour to be done by machines. Capitalism "as we understand it now" is not pure capitalism, it's capitalism accompanied by a welfare system. Why is that not scalable to a future where most labour is not done by machines; what's qualitatively different between 70% of the population working with 30% on welfare, and 10% of the population working with 90% on welfare? >Which means automation will give rise to an increasing number of people who cannot undertake non-automatable knowledge-work, and thus become doomed to be unemployed, and leads to a self-reinforcing cycle out of which they cannot escape. This is a problem that the civilization has to confront, and our current way of thinking about economics will not work there. How is it a problem? If they're less productive than robots in every way, why not just put them on welfare? Current economics handles this perfectly. >If we consider that each of us is beholden to the collective past of entire humanity, the idea of ownership and 'fruits of labour' becomes just a social construct. This construct nevertheless is required today and for the foreseeable future as the only practical way to divide resources. However it is a complicated and probably intractable idea, and is not at all axiomatic as you seem to make it out to be. 'Fruits of labour' is axiomatic in the sense that rejecting it necessarily entails violence. Eg, if Joe picks an apple, but is not allowed to keep the fruits of his labour, this necessarily entails violence or the threat thereof to take the apple away from Joe. If Aaron sings a song and Camelia offers him a pumpkin in exchange for this, but they're not allowed to trade freely, this necessarily implies some violence or threat thereof against them to prevent them from making the exchange. If Martha builds a car for Fred and Fred offers Martha a house in exchange, but then it's decided Fred shouldn't be allowed to keep the car, violence or the threat thereof is necessarily required to take the car from Fred. Unless Fred wanted to give it away freely, for instance charity, but he's perfectly capable of doing this anyway under a 'fruits of one's labour' system.
vertex-four 12y ago
> The day when there are machines smart enough to do all the service jobs that humans currently do will be the day machines are smart enough not to work for free. The self-checkout at my supermarket is smart enough to demand pay? Wow, I didn't know that. Actually, you could quite easily automate an entire store with robotics that haven't been state-of-the-art in years. The main issue is up-front capital, not scaring people, and having one person in the shop to deal with complaints/loss prevention. It'd be even easier for McDonald's - picking things out of crates, going through pre-set steps to cook them, and packaging them, isn't exactly very hard. You could have one human for quality control if you really wanted. So, retail as a sector will, at the same time as growing, employ fewer and fewer people. I'm sure you can pick out examples of existing technology that's not very hard to apply to most sectors, aside from capital concerns.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Well, then you have Amazon's automated warehouses, where humans are already reduced to the role of flexible actuator. The only thing they do is take things marked by a laser pointer, put in a proper container and press "DONE" button. Even the actual product search handles itself, a worker doesn't have to move around at all.

carrotleads 12y ago

I see a contradiction... explain the last bit mate.. How does one buy things produced if one doesn't own any capital.

logicchains 12y ago
Capital generally means accumulated savings/investment. One can still have cash without having capital, and this is actually pretty common (or even people having negative capital, like student debt). In short, one buys things by doing/making things for people who do have capital, or for people who don't have capital but have themselves acquired money by doing things for people with capital.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  If that was as simple as you write, then we wouldn't have unemployment and there would be no need for welfare - after all, you don't have to go hungry when you're jobless, you can always "do/make things for people with capital or" someone like you closer to them in the chain.
  - logicchains 12y ago
    We have unemployment because of minimum wage laws. If the minimum wage is n, then many jobs paying less than n are eliminated, as the potential employer might decide that they'd rather go without the service than pay n. Developed countries with lower minimum wages like Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan have unemployment rates under 4%.

jasim 12y ago

The OPs question was whether Capitalism as we understand it now, is suited for the future when we expect most kinds of labour to be done by machines. We don't need fully self-aware machines to get to that point. For example, when self-driving cars become pervasive, they'll remove a source of livelihood for a large section of human population. Driving has a low barrier to entry and can be done by most able-bodied humans irrespective of their level of acquired intelligence. This description works for most jobs that are going to be automated away. Typically any automation problem we solve rolls out globally at a staggering rate. It puts people out of jobs faster than they can skill up. Also, social and economic mobility is externally constrained (and changes can only happens over 2 or 3 generations), and not everyone can move up even if they try. Which means automation will give rise to an increasing number of people who cannot undertake non-automatable knowledge-work, and thus become doomed to be unemployed, and leads to a self-reinforcing cycle out of which they cannot escape. This is a problem that the civilization has to confront, and our current way of thinking about economics will not work there. The so-called 'fruit of others labour' notion is something that made most sense in the pre-industrialized era. Applying it today in its entirety without considering how much of an inter-dependent society we have become is simplistic. This is as true in technology (open-source software that powers commercial entities) as in other fields (research that builds on top of pre-existing knowledge, industrialized economies impacting global ecosystem, ..). If we consider that each of us is beholden to the collective past of entire humanity, the idea of ownership and 'fruits of labour' becomes just a social construct. This construct nevertheless is required today and for the foreseeable future as the only practical way to divide resources. However it is a complicated and probably intractable idea, and is not at all axiomatic as you seem to make it out to be.

stretchwithme 12y ago
What jobs that we'd like computers and robots to do require self awareness?
logicchains 12y ago
> The OPs question was whether Capitalism as we understand it now, is suited for the future when we expect most kinds of labour to be done by machines. Capitalism "as we understand it now" is not pure capitalism, it's capitalism accompanied by a welfare system. Why is that not scalable to a future where most labour is not done by machines; what's qualitatively different between 70% of the population working with 30% on welfare, and 10% of the population working with 90% on welfare? >Which means automation will give rise to an increasing number of people who cannot undertake non-automatable knowledge-work, and thus become doomed to be unemployed, and leads to a self-reinforcing cycle out of which they cannot escape. This is a problem that the civilization has to confront, and our current way of thinking about economics will not work there. How is it a problem? If they're less productive than robots in every way, why not just put them on welfare? Current economics handles this perfectly. >If we consider that each of us is beholden to the collective past of entire humanity, the idea of ownership and 'fruits of labour' becomes just a social construct. This construct nevertheless is required today and for the foreseeable future as the only practical way to divide resources. However it is a complicated and probably intractable idea, and is not at all axiomatic as you seem to make it out to be. 'Fruits of labour' is axiomatic in the sense that rejecting it necessarily entails violence. Eg, if Joe picks an apple, but is not allowed to keep the fruits of his labour, this necessarily entails violence or the threat thereof to take the apple away from Joe. If Aaron sings a song and Camelia offers him a pumpkin in exchange for this, but they're not allowed to trade freely, this necessarily implies some violence or threat thereof against them to prevent them from making the exchange. If Martha builds a car for Fred and Fred offers Martha a house in exchange, but then it's decided Fred shouldn't be allowed to keep the car, violence or the threat thereof is necessarily required to take the car from Fred. Unless Fred wanted to give it away freely, for instance charity, but he's perfectly capable of doing this anyway under a 'fruits of one's labour' system.

vertex-four 12y ago

> The day when there are machines smart enough to do all the service jobs that humans currently do will be the day machines are smart enough not to work for free. The self-checkout at my supermarket is smart enough to demand pay? Wow, I didn't know that. Actually, you could quite easily automate an entire store with robotics that haven't been state-of-the-art in years. The main issue is up-front capital, not scaring people, and having one person in the shop to deal with complaints/loss prevention. It'd be even easier for McDonald's - picking things out of crates, going through pre-set steps to cook them, and packaging them, isn't exactly very hard. You could have one human for quality control if you really wanted. So, retail as a sector will, at the same time as growing, employ fewer and fewer people. I'm sure you can pick out examples of existing technology that's not very hard to apply to most sectors, aside from capital concerns.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
Well, then you have Amazon's automated warehouses, where humans are already reduced to the role of flexible actuator. The only thing they do is take things marked by a laser pointer, put in a proper container and press "DONE" button. Even the actual product search handles itself, a worker doesn't have to move around at all.