|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:How do you explain the children of the rich then? The king of the Netherlands moonlights as a first officer for KLM, and princes Harry and William both fly SAR missions. They could do nothing beyond their official responsibility, but they choose not to, because doing stuff is awesome as gently caress. With that being said, yes, you'll have to pay people a lot more to scrub the bogs. C'est la vie!
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
no matter what happens, you'd have to give people something they can collect and crow about to their neighbors about how much more and better things they have. the idea that an enlightened society would pop from the aether simply because you don't need people to work anymore is laughable. we've been greedy and prideful assholes since the dawn of time, its how our ancestors survived, that isn't going to disappear overnight. maybe buttcoins or puka shells
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Every one of these questions puts the cart before the horse. What you should be asking is whether most humans can actually survive in a world where the vast majority of tasks with any value to industry can be performed by machines. The idea that UBI is some curative to the human horror of accelerating Capitalism is laughable. If you acknowledge that the point where almost all labour can be automated is fast approaching, it should not have escaped your attention that securitisation of property is a form of labour. You cannot win an arms race against autosophisticating Capital. It will protect itself with ruthless, inhuman efficiency, and you will starve. quote:Post-Work society poses a existential threat to Capitalism. Dead wrong. "Post-work society" is simply post-human Capitalism. You are trying to sell the idea that Capital no longer having use for Labour will herald some sort of victory for Labour over Capital. This is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Is that a statement that the poor will be terminated by the rich through automation or are you suggesting the machines will become capitalists themselves because they're programmed to be and thus eliminate humanity?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Is that a statement that the poor will be terminated by the rich through automation or are you suggesting the machines will become capitalists themselves because they're programmed to be and thus eliminate humanity? What difference does it make? edit: The question is clearly framed so one sounds like science-fiction stupidity and the other is credible. But I'm serious: what's the difference? It's not exactly a new notion that Capital can be talked about as an agent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:What difference does it make? The former is something that has been acknowledged and is obvious, the latter is distinct and more interesting. Also with the latter, all humans are gone. I wasn't trying to say it was scifi stupidity. I just think the idea of capitalism running automatically without any humans while gruesome, is interesting. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You are trying to sell the idea that Capital no longer having use for Labour will herald some sort of victory for Labour over Capital. This is nonsense. Well it can go one of two ways: we go the neo-feudalism route and the rich horde gold in their basement and levy their own armies or the consumer economy falls apart and currency is meaningless without the sell > earn > buy churn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Exactly so. The Protestant work ethic roots of a decent amount of American thought are a burden, not a gift.  But really I would think a UBI would be a boon for academia, with my needs met and not worrying about having a productive job I could do what I really want: go out to the desert looking for dinosaurs and writing research papers on them. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Heres a direct link to the study on Iranian labor participation after adding UBI to their welfare net. And the abstract for tl;drquote:We study the impact of a nation-wide unconditional cash transfer program on labor supply in Iran. In 2011, the government started monthly deposits of cash into individual family accounts amounting to 29% of the median household income. We use panel data and fixed effects to study the causal effect of the cash transfers on labor supply using the exogenous variation in the intensity of treatment, which we define as the value of cash transfers relative to household income in the year before transfers. We also use a difference-in-differences methodology that relies on exogenous variation in the time households first started receiving transfers. With the exception of youth, who have weak ties to the labor market, we find no evidence that cash transfers reduced labor supply, while service sector workers appear to have increased their hours of work, perhaps because some used transfers to expand their business. And for people concerned about costs of UBI, Iran implemented this while under economic and financial sanctions. So Im pretty sure any first world country can do it too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Heres a direct link to the study on Iranian labor participation after adding UBI to their welfare net. And the abstract for tl;dr Absolutely. UBI is a transfer from the idle rich and unsuccessful businesses to everyone else. Entrepreneurship would skyrocket. Consumer spending would increase. Investors in successful companies would see huge gains, enough to offset the additional taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I wasn't trying to say it was scifi stupidity. I just think the idea of capitalism running automatically without any humans while gruesome, is interesting. Doesn't it seem inevitable on current trajectory? The near-total redundancy of flesh-power in the near future is the fundamental premise of this entire thread. It's insane to ask "How will human beings find true spiritual fulfillment absent any need for them to work?" when it's nowhere near clear that human beings have a future of any sort if they're going to be mercilessly out-competed in terms of productivity by machines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
But if UBI happens and everybody gets, say, $2000 tax free dollars a month, what will stop the price of goods from escalating to the point where $2000 tax free dollars doesn't do any good? I asked this in the economics forum, and the answer I got was "it won't." But it will, I say!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Oyak posted:But if UBI happens and everybody gets, say, $2000 tax free dollars a month, what will stop the price of goods from escalating to the point where $2000 tax free dollars doesn't do any good? That's inflation. It does that. You're not wrong. I suspect the saving grace, in theory, is that the process would probably be gradual, and would have less of an effect on basic resources like groceries. That's sort of how minimum wages are supposed to work; while you encourage some amount of inflation through a minimum wage, a small amount of inflation is a net positive because it encourages spending. Meanwhile minimum wage helps to allow people to get enough money to buy the things they need and keep the economy functioning in the first place. Sometime it feels like an awful lot of economics is trying to plot trends based on how our stupid brains mishandle information. E: Also, I too am somewhat fascinated by the idea of capitalism advancing beyond human involvement, horrifying as that sounds, but until capitalism has greater decision-making autonomy and more versatile bodies than the occasional truck or factory arm, I have trouble imagining it as a credible threat to human existence. Economics deciding 'lol gently caress you money is king' WOULD lead to millions of innocent deaths...but that part's already happening even with the human involvement still present. Shady Amish Terror fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Doesn't it seem inevitable on current trajectory? The near-total redundancy of flesh-power in the near future is the fundamental premise of this entire thread. It's insane to ask "How will human beings find true spiritual fulfillment absent any need for them to work?" when it's nowhere near clear that human beings have a future of any sort if they're going to be mercilessly out-competed in terms of productivity by machines. Capitalism describes the relationship between the owners of the means of production and the people required to work them. If there are no longer any people required then what you have is not capitalism. Capitalism without consumers, workers, or classes, is not Capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Capitalism describes the relationship between the owners of the means of production and the people required to work them. If there are no longer any people required then what you have is not capitalism. Capitalism without consumers, workers, or classes, is not Capitalism. That sounds like a very valid point, and it's fascinating to live in an age where we can seriously have this discussion. At the point that all human life is dead or entirely excluded from productive processes it's probably purely academic, but fascinating none the less.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Capitalism describes the relationship between the owners of the means of production and the people required to work them. If there are no longer any people required then what you have is not capitalism. Capitalism without consumers, workers, or classes, is not Capitalism. I'm sure semantics will prove to be an effective shield for you against ruthlessly exploitative, human-indifferent industrial automation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
If the argument is actually that literally everyone is going to die and human civilization is going to be superceded by self replicating but non-sapient robots, that's a bit sillier than I was thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Why does it particularly matter if everybody is dead or not? If a very small number of humans manage to retain beneficial ownership of the fully automated economy, should that cause you any less concern?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why does it particularly matter if everybody is dead or not? If a very small number of humans manage to retain beneficial ownership of the fully automated economy, should that cause you any less concern? If everybody except them is dead then 100% of the humans are beneficial owners of the fully automated economy. You have achieved de-facto fully automated gay luxury communism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If everybody except them is dead then 100% of the humans are beneficial owners of the fully automated economy. You have achieved de-facto fully automated gay luxury communism. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If everybody except them is dead then 100% of the humans are beneficial owners of the fully automated economy. You have achieved de-facto fully automated gay luxury communism. The price seems a bit steep.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:human-indifferent industrial automation. It might end up customer/consumer facing. Even the biggest libertarian business shitheels believe in producing value for the consumer as almost an axiomatic principle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:Sometime it feels like an awful lot of economics is trying to plot trends based on how our stupid brains mishandle information. Yeah, you could throw darts at a board and be about as accurate as the big name economists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:The price seems a bit steep. I mean it's not my preferred approach either. However given that nearly everybody is going to die in less than 100 years from any given point of time, and that their doing so has not hitherto achieved an idyllic quality of life for humanity from that point on, it could be viewed as a price that is going to be paid anyway regardless of whether it actually buys anything, and that the return might be quite good? I can't say I think it's likely however given that it seems to rely on someone inventing and mass producing terminators overnight. It's a rather silly idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Increased automation that reduces demand for labor also causes a balancing loop. The choice to spend capital to automate is based on the automation being cheaper than the equivalent labor. As automation becomes more widespread and reduces demand for labor, labor will get cheaper to hire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Increased automation that reduces demand for labor also causes a balancing loop. The choice to spend capital to automate is based on the automation being cheaper than the equivalent labor. As automation becomes more widespread and reduces demand for labor, labor will get cheaper to hire. That hits a fairly sharp bottom when the offering price for labour falls below a liveable level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That hits a fairly sharp bottom when the offering price for labour falls below a liveable level. It can go lower. Employee dormitories, company stores, etc. Liveable is much lower than we think it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:That's inflation. It does that. You're not wrong. that's not really how inflation works not even if you just print every single dollar instead of borrowing or taxing or
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It can go lower. Employee dormitories, company stores, etc. Liveable is much lower than we think it is. It can but that has consequences, historically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Under UBI what happens if someone walks into a casino and blows their monthly on the roulette wheel? These schemes seem to assume a drastic reduction in social services to free up money. Would such a person starve? Become homeless? Be institutionalized?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
You can't count on people to spend money on their basic needs as opposed to luxuries, so it wouldn't solve any social issues. If you've ever seen someone unemployed for more than three months, you know it causes them to become depressed and spend most of their time watching tv and playing video games. That's going to be the long term effect of UBI on people. A lot of people would quit their current high paying high stress jobs and take on less stressful work if they knew they could rely on UBI, which would be bad for the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
ProSlayer posted:You can't count on people to spend money on their basic needs as opposed to luxuries, so it wouldn't solve any social issues. None of these are even remotely proven at an aggregate level unless you know of some examples I'm not aware of. Particularly, the Iran case is LITERALLY the opposite. The first point frankly makes me wonder if you're even arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
ProSlayer posted:A lot of people would quit their current high paying high stress jobs and take on less stressful work if they knew they could rely on UBI, which would be bad for the economy. Many of these jobs don't have to be as high stress as they are. They might take more people to staff, if individuals are more willing to walk off. This is bad for shareholders but not necessarily for the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Melting down over total automation is premature and stupid. Read Marx, the problem happens in capitalism well before total automation, and its got to do with a crisis of overproduction/under-consumption, not killbots or whatever other fantasy is grouping your imagination. It's called the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
ProSlayer posted:You can't count on people to spend money on their basic needs as opposed to luxuries, so it wouldn't solve any social issues. If that were true then a random slice of the population would just starve to death for no reason, everybody in the world puts need before luxury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Also poor people are poor because they have no money, not because they lack fiscal responsibility. The number of people who will not spend on basics is incredibly small, and wasting all your cash on gambling is more a sign of an addiction problem, not a 'don't know what to do with money guess I'll just throw it away  ' problem, which is basically an insulting stereotype that rich people have of poor people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I can't say I think it's likely however given that it seems to rely on someone inventing and mass producing terminators overnight. It's a rather silly idea. It doesn't rely on that at all. You're doubting Capital's ability to protect itself even as it automates all other labour. Very foolish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:It doesn't rely on that at all. I am doubting Capital's ability to do anything other than tell other people to do things. Your proposition relies on people voluntarily killing themselves for no reason. There is a difference between pitting Labour against itself and getting people to commit mass suicide because the work-to-consume cycle doesn't work any more. Every other instance in history where that has occurred it has resulted in revolution and a realignment of the capital-labour balance, not mass suicide. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am doubting Capital's ability to do anything other than tell other people to do things. Well then. Nothing for humans to worry about from Capital I suppose! quote:Your proposition relies on people voluntarily killing themselves for no reason. There is a difference between pitting Labour against itself and getting people to commit mass suicide because the work-to-consume cycle doesn't work any more. Can you stop saying my proposition relies on things it very clearly doesn't? I have no doubt the great mass of humanity will struggle for survival. I just don't think they have any plausible hope of succeeding. quote:Every other instance in history where that has occurred it has resulted in revolution and a realignment of the capital-labour balance, not mass suicide. a) There are many, many instances of Labour-in-revolt having been violently crushed. If you think the plucky underdog fighting for hearth and home against inhuman malignancy always or even usually wins then you consume far too much comforting media. He almost always dies. b) Every other instance in history was not accompanied by the total obsolescence of flesh-power, including in warfare. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
So you are going for the terminator argument then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 14:25
|
|