6 ms·

Nothing new.. If i can replace a security guard of my office for a cheaper more efficient, less error prone, robot/software instead of a human for half the pric

Nothing new.. If i can replace a security guard of my office for a cheaper more efficient, less error prone, robot/software instead of a human for half the price, WHY NOT! The exact same philosophy goes into "software is eating the world".

toomuchtodo 11y ago
It works until you run out of consumers with cash, at which point it no longer works.
- wnevets 11y ago
  sounds like capitalism is broken.
  - jes 11y ago
    Do you mean people trading with others on a voluntary, win-win basis, or do you mean what today is labeled capitalism but is characterized by coercive force and cronyism?
    - wnevets 11y ago
      I mean if efficiency leads to no one having jobs and thus cash to buy anything. That sounds like a broken system to me. >It works until you run out of consumers with cash, at which point it no longer works. edit: spelling
    - juliangregorian 11y ago
      Capitalism always tends toward monopoly, there's only a difference in the minds of idealistic libertarians.
      - merpnderp 11y ago
        Only in the corporate welfare system we have today (see Chevrolet bailout). Without corporate welfare in the forms of subsidies, bailouts, and regulations, companies like Telsa would be destroying the major auto manufactures. What old major companies would still be around without un-capitlistic like interventions from the government?
        juliangregorian 11y ago
        No, it was true for East India, it was true for Standard Oil, and it's still true today. Much of regulation was intended for the protection of consumers, not to cement incumbents, and the subversion of the same is evidence of capitalism's predatory nature.
        merpnderp 11y ago
        Businesses continue their regulatory capture in the US. The line between corporations and government grows thinner every time a burdensome regulation is created that only companies with significant resources can follow. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060815-756320-dominos-grocery-stores-fight-regulatory-burden-of-menu-labels.htm?p=full http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060815-756320-domin...
        juliangregorian 11y ago
        Of course they do. This is not unique in history or in the US. This is simply capitalism working as intended. What did you think Tesla would do after they finished "destroying the major auto manufacturers"?
      - jes 11y ago
        Did you miss the use of the word "voluntary" in my comment? Absent force, a person is free to either accept or reject a given deal.
        juliangregorian 11y ago
        A deal implies ownership. Ownership requires force. Try again.
        dllthomas 11y ago
        Does a deal actually imply ownership? Where is the ownership in a deal trading service for service?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > or do you mean what today is labeled capitalism but is characterized by coercive force and cronyism? That's what has always been labeled capitalism, starting with the socialist critiques of the dominant system (filled, as it was, with coercive force and cronyism) in the developed world in the mid-to-late 19th century who invented the term "capitalism" as a label for that system. Outside of incoherent, fantasies the neither exist in the real world or stand up to much examination even in theory -- fantasies constructed largely as a propaganda to defend that coercive, cronyistic system from its critics -- nothing else but coercive, cronyism-dominated systems has ever been referred to with the label "capitalism".
  - mason240 11y ago
    It's not broken, it's just that reality of labor is changing to the point that the ideas we have about how to create a healthy economy won't work anymore. It's similar to how Marx's theories were only applicable when the vast majority of labor was simple factory or agricultural work, and you assume everything about the industrial revolution would remain static. The #1 method for creating a strong economy has been to try reaching maximum labor participation - everyone has a job, and government does what it can to move people into a position to meet labor demand. Once we move into a post-labor economy, we will just have to adjust how we make capitialism work through things like Universal Basic Income.
  - chc 11y ago
    Having an economy dominated by private, profit-seeking businesses isn't really the problem here. For example, communist societies also face some awkwardness when there isn't enough work to go around, albeit to a lesser degree. The fundamental problem is the assumption that people have to work to live.
- mason240 11y ago
  Universal Basic Income is the best post-labor system I've read of. Everything is still based on the same capitalism we have now, and the ~20% of people who work will still be able to make income (meaning there will still be incentive for enterprise).
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    Except you'll have increasing encroachment on motivation of the productive. When Ronald Reagan was a top-billed Hollywood actor, he faced a ~90% tax bracket. Rather than work hard only to see most of his earnings confiscated, he'd make just a few movies and then enjoy those profits instead of spending time on diminishing returns. Same for plenty of us motivated ones: if 80% are living off the 20%, that will require taking so much from the 20% that most of those will opt for doing something interesting and untaxable. The "seriously productive" ones you're expecting to leech off MUST have lots of less-but-still-productive people working for them - and you're tearing out the incentive to do so. Raise my taxes enough (only to "redistribute" to those opting to not work) and I'll switch to untaxable yet satisfying "off the grid" living.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Raise my taxes enough (only to "redistribute" to those opting to not work) and I'll switch to untaxable yet satisfying "off the grid" living. That's actually not a harm, and its exactly why you aren't tearing out the incentive for productive activity; when you devote more of your time to that because you've hit a high-enough marginal tax rate that the marginal benefit post-tax from additional gain through taxable activity is not sufficient to meet your marginal opportunity cost from that activity, simple supply and demand increases the incentive for others for whom that balance works out differently -- perhaps because they are lower on the progressive tax scale so that the marginal realized net monetary return is greater, or perhaps because they are at a similar place to where you are but weigh the costs differently -- to engage in the activity you are forgoing. In fact, a net upward (on the wealth/income) scale shift in tax burden increases the incentive for productive activity at the lower end of the scale.
    - nostrademons 11y ago
- wyager 11y ago
  The net production capacity of humanity (per capita and absolute) is constantly increasing. Why would you ever run out of consumers? Just because fields occasionally become irrelevant doesn't mean that those workers and their descendents will never find work ever again.
  - juliangregorian 11y ago
    Right, this is the problem with capitalism. It's predicated on the assumption of returns increasing to infinity, which is clearly impossible.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      I'm not sure where you get that idea. There may well be individual capitalists who believe that, and certainly in the heat of speculation some individuals act as if that is their belief, but the system itself has no such requirement.
      - juliangregorian 11y ago
        Economics 101. Both parties are supposed to gain additional utility from any trade. I'll wait while you do the math.
        dllthomas 11y ago
        Both parties are supposed to gain additional utility from any trade or it doesn't happen. That's not to say that both parties gain utility from any trade that could be made (obviously), and there's nothing that implies an infinitude - just a difference in how much people value different things. Of course, past Econ 101, we also get into issues of people making trades they think will be beneficial but aren't.
        juliangregorian 11y ago
        Alright, we have an economist here. So the bank makes you a loan and they expect you to pay it back with interest. Where is that extra capital supposed to come from?
- hittudiv 11y ago
  Why would i run out of money if i pay half of what i pay to a normal guard.. would i not be saving more money? there is more money to spend on more gadgets :) thats how the economy works
  - fixermark 11y ago
    You would have money. The people who used to work the security positions would not have money, and it's an open question whether your consumption of many products (such as food) could keep up the consumption rates to justify the production to keep the market operating at its current flow levels. If they can't, the market would have to contract, which means if what you're guarding is a food store, you may also find yourself out of a job because we no longer need to guard the food nobody is buying. This is how Great Depressions occur. And that's just looking at the numbers. Stepping away from the simulation and getting into what it represents, we realize we're looking at a situation where some people have the money to do whatever they want and many, many more starve. If the system is structured to make that happen, the system is flawed by several quite reasonable metrics.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Where do you get your money? I'm assuming from customers paying you. But customers will only pay you as long as they have money. If the trend toward this kind of automation keeps going, then the number of customers with money will keep shrinking and shrinking.
s73v3r 11y ago
From your perspective, it's pretty black and white. However, from society's perspective, it's pretty nuanced. What are the people who would have taken that guard position going to do now? They have to eat and pay rent too. Some might be able to go study and get better jobs, but many will not. They simply may not have the economic freedom to not have a job and go study, which is a HUGE luxury. So what is to become of them?

toomuchtodo 11y ago

It works until you run out of consumers with cash, at which point it no longer works.

wnevets 11y ago
sounds like capitalism is broken.
- jes 11y ago
  Do you mean people trading with others on a voluntary, win-win basis, or do you mean what today is labeled capitalism but is characterized by coercive force and cronyism?
  - wnevets 11y ago
    I mean if efficiency leads to no one having jobs and thus cash to buy anything. That sounds like a broken system to me. >It works until you run out of consumers with cash, at which point it no longer works. edit: spelling
  - juliangregorian 11y ago
    Capitalism always tends toward monopoly, there's only a difference in the minds of idealistic libertarians.
    - merpnderp 11y ago
      Only in the corporate welfare system we have today (see Chevrolet bailout). Without corporate welfare in the forms of subsidies, bailouts, and regulations, companies like Telsa would be destroying the major auto manufactures. What old major companies would still be around without un-capitlistic like interventions from the government?
      - juliangregorian 11y ago
        No, it was true for East India, it was true for Standard Oil, and it's still true today. Much of regulation was intended for the protection of consumers, not to cement incumbents, and the subversion of the same is evidence of capitalism's predatory nature.
        merpnderp 11y ago
        Businesses continue their regulatory capture in the US. The line between corporations and government grows thinner every time a burdensome regulation is created that only companies with significant resources can follow. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060815-756320-dominos-grocery-stores-fight-regulatory-burden-of-menu-labels.htm?p=full http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060815-756320-domin...
        juliangregorian 11y ago
        Of course they do. This is not unique in history or in the US. This is simply capitalism working as intended. What did you think Tesla would do after they finished "destroying the major auto manufacturers"?
    - jes 11y ago
      Did you miss the use of the word "voluntary" in my comment? Absent force, a person is free to either accept or reject a given deal.
      - juliangregorian 11y ago
        A deal implies ownership. Ownership requires force. Try again.
        dllthomas 11y ago
        Does a deal actually imply ownership? Where is the ownership in a deal trading service for service?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > or do you mean what today is labeled capitalism but is characterized by coercive force and cronyism? That's what has always been labeled capitalism, starting with the socialist critiques of the dominant system (filled, as it was, with coercive force and cronyism) in the developed world in the mid-to-late 19th century who invented the term "capitalism" as a label for that system. Outside of incoherent, fantasies the neither exist in the real world or stand up to much examination even in theory -- fantasies constructed largely as a propaganda to defend that coercive, cronyistic system from its critics -- nothing else but coercive, cronyism-dominated systems has ever been referred to with the label "capitalism".
- mason240 11y ago
  It's not broken, it's just that reality of labor is changing to the point that the ideas we have about how to create a healthy economy won't work anymore. It's similar to how Marx's theories were only applicable when the vast majority of labor was simple factory or agricultural work, and you assume everything about the industrial revolution would remain static. The #1 method for creating a strong economy has been to try reaching maximum labor participation - everyone has a job, and government does what it can to move people into a position to meet labor demand. Once we move into a post-labor economy, we will just have to adjust how we make capitialism work through things like Universal Basic Income.
- chc 11y ago
  Having an economy dominated by private, profit-seeking businesses isn't really the problem here. For example, communist societies also face some awkwardness when there isn't enough work to go around, albeit to a lesser degree. The fundamental problem is the assumption that people have to work to live.
mason240 11y ago
Universal Basic Income is the best post-labor system I've read of. Everything is still based on the same capitalism we have now, and the ~20% of people who work will still be able to make income (meaning there will still be incentive for enterprise).
- ctdonath 11y ago
  Except you'll have increasing encroachment on motivation of the productive. When Ronald Reagan was a top-billed Hollywood actor, he faced a ~90% tax bracket. Rather than work hard only to see most of his earnings confiscated, he'd make just a few movies and then enjoy those profits instead of spending time on diminishing returns. Same for plenty of us motivated ones: if 80% are living off the 20%, that will require taking so much from the 20% that most of those will opt for doing something interesting and untaxable. The "seriously productive" ones you're expecting to leech off MUST have lots of less-but-still-productive people working for them - and you're tearing out the incentive to do so. Raise my taxes enough (only to "redistribute" to those opting to not work) and I'll switch to untaxable yet satisfying "off the grid" living.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Raise my taxes enough (only to "redistribute" to those opting to not work) and I'll switch to untaxable yet satisfying "off the grid" living. That's actually not a harm, and its exactly why you aren't tearing out the incentive for productive activity; when you devote more of your time to that because you've hit a high-enough marginal tax rate that the marginal benefit post-tax from additional gain through taxable activity is not sufficient to meet your marginal opportunity cost from that activity, simple supply and demand increases the incentive for others for whom that balance works out differently -- perhaps because they are lower on the progressive tax scale so that the marginal realized net monetary return is greater, or perhaps because they are at a similar place to where you are but weigh the costs differently -- to engage in the activity you are forgoing. In fact, a net upward (on the wealth/income) scale shift in tax burden increases the incentive for productive activity at the lower end of the scale.
  - nostrademons 11y ago
wyager 11y ago
The net production capacity of humanity (per capita and absolute) is constantly increasing. Why would you ever run out of consumers? Just because fields occasionally become irrelevant doesn't mean that those workers and their descendents will never find work ever again.
- juliangregorian 11y ago
  Right, this is the problem with capitalism. It's predicated on the assumption of returns increasing to infinity, which is clearly impossible.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    I'm not sure where you get that idea. There may well be individual capitalists who believe that, and certainly in the heat of speculation some individuals act as if that is their belief, but the system itself has no such requirement.
    - juliangregorian 11y ago
      Economics 101. Both parties are supposed to gain additional utility from any trade. I'll wait while you do the math.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        Both parties are supposed to gain additional utility from any trade or it doesn't happen. That's not to say that both parties gain utility from any trade that could be made (obviously), and there's nothing that implies an infinitude - just a difference in how much people value different things. Of course, past Econ 101, we also get into issues of people making trades they think will be beneficial but aren't.
        juliangregorian 11y ago
        Alright, we have an economist here. So the bank makes you a loan and they expect you to pay it back with interest. Where is that extra capital supposed to come from?
hittudiv 11y ago
Why would i run out of money if i pay half of what i pay to a normal guard.. would i not be saving more money? there is more money to spend on more gadgets :) thats how the economy works
- fixermark 11y ago
  You would have money. The people who used to work the security positions would not have money, and it's an open question whether your consumption of many products (such as food) could keep up the consumption rates to justify the production to keep the market operating at its current flow levels. If they can't, the market would have to contract, which means if what you're guarding is a food store, you may also find yourself out of a job because we no longer need to guard the food nobody is buying. This is how Great Depressions occur. And that's just looking at the numbers. Stepping away from the simulation and getting into what it represents, we realize we're looking at a situation where some people have the money to do whatever they want and many, many more starve. If the system is structured to make that happen, the system is flawed by several quite reasonable metrics.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Where do you get your money? I'm assuming from customers paying you. But customers will only pay you as long as they have money. If the trend toward this kind of automation keeps going, then the number of customers with money will keep shrinking and shrinking.

s73v3r 11y ago

From your perspective, it's pretty black and white. However, from society's perspective, it's pretty nuanced. What are the people who would have taken that guard position going to do now? They have to eat and pay rent too. Some might be able to go study and get better jobs, but many will not. They simply may not have the economic freedom to not have a job and go study, which is a HUGE luxury. So what is to become of them?