5 ms·

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

by 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.
- Infinitesimus 12y ago
  >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. Does it really handle it perfectly? I assume perfectly handling it will mean those who do live on this welfare system have their basic needs met, is that the case in the current economy?
  - logicchains 12y ago
    >I assume perfectly handling it will mean those who do live on this welfare system have their basic needs met, is that the case in the current economy? In most Western Countries it is. America seems to be an exception in terms of having relatively lower welfare payment rates.
- ConfuciusSay 12y ago
  >what's qualitatively different between 70% of the population working with 30% on welfare, and 10% of the population working with 90% on welfare? The government receives less tax revenues because 20% of the population is no longer working (and paying taxes). At some point if enough of the population is no longer contributing, unless there are massive changes in how we manage the economy, the country will become insolvent and won't be able to afford the welfare payments as tax revenue decreases.
  - logicchains 12y ago
    >The government receives less tax revenues because 20% of the population is no longer working (and paying taxes). The assumption is that machines exist that are more productive than all these people no longer working. If these machines didn't exist, then these people would still be productively employed.
    - ConfuciusSay 12y ago
      Ahh yes, then we shall tax the machines!

by jasim 12y ago

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.

Infinitesimus 12y ago
>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. Does it really handle it perfectly? I assume perfectly handling it will mean those who do live on this welfare system have their basic needs met, is that the case in the current economy?
- logicchains 12y ago
  >I assume perfectly handling it will mean those who do live on this welfare system have their basic needs met, is that the case in the current economy? In most Western Countries it is. America seems to be an exception in terms of having relatively lower welfare payment rates.
ConfuciusSay 12y ago
>what's qualitatively different between 70% of the population working with 30% on welfare, and 10% of the population working with 90% on welfare? The government receives less tax revenues because 20% of the population is no longer working (and paying taxes). At some point if enough of the population is no longer contributing, unless there are massive changes in how we manage the economy, the country will become insolvent and won't be able to afford the welfare payments as tax revenue decreases.
- logicchains 12y ago
  >The government receives less tax revenues because 20% of the population is no longer working (and paying taxes). The assumption is that machines exist that are more productive than all these people no longer working. If these machines didn't exist, then these people would still be productively employed.
  - ConfuciusSay 12y ago
    Ahh yes, then we shall tax the machines!