Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

If a meta debate goes meta, does it become meta squared, or does the meta debate un-meta?

Too meta for me.

[Tsuchigumo550]

I stand corrected.

America probably won't adapt well, though.

[Frumple]

And specifically in response to that bolded bit up top: Base labor already has to a large extent become a robot's job - just compare the portion of society made up by farmers in, let's say, 1700, and that same portion now. Is capitalism dead?

Productivity seems to be killing it, yes. Wealth disparity continues to increase, which is basically a way of saying (among other things) that less people are providing desired scarce elements. Just because the death throes are fervent doesn't mean the heart still pumps

And the article that more or less kicked this discussion off was pointing out that a huge upswell of unemployment is likely barreling down on ("developed", anyway) world.

Much of the developed world has or is turning to a service economy, sure, but part of the question is what happens if (and, quite likely, when) automation takes those, too -- when the man-hour required per unit of output is far and below the desired amount (insofar as fitting it into the current ethos of "those who don't work, don't eat" goes). Turning to creative efforts are all well and good, but for all the incredibly diversity involved in such, there's still a limited amount of work that can be done in the field. You'd still have a lot of people with just... nothing to do. You don't have to remove scarcity to break a capitalistic system. You just have to make it so a majority or significant minority of the folks relying on it to survive can't participate, because the remainder is doing everything that portion could, and more.

[wierd]

The problem I have with the "capitalism will live foreverz!" idea is that once a sufficient amount of human labor is no longer needed, the unemployed/unemployable will grossly outnumber the people who are, and it will become unrealistic to expect those people to pay for *ANYTHING*. (How can they? They are unemployed, and have no money with which to transact the purchase!)

Money doesn't just grow on trees. The capitalist business model relies on there being liquidity. If people have no service to provide, having been obsoleted by machines, they are unable to get that liquidity, and thus cannot give any themselves.

Capitalism as a system will fundamentally break when this tipping point is reached.  We need to have systems in place to catch the resulting chaos.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The problem I have with the "capitalism will live foreverz!" idea is that once a sufficient amount of human labor is no longer needed, the unemployed/unemployable will grossly outnumber the people who are, and it will become unrealistic to expect those people to pay for *ANYTHING*. (How can they? They are unemployed, and have no money with which to transact the purchase!)

This is the basic logic behind the idea of a universal income. At the very least, it should buy time for the economic readjustment of civilization to a resource economy.

[wierd]

The problem I have with the "capitalism will live foreverz!" idea is that once a sufficient amount of human labor is no longer needed, the unemployed/unemployable will grossly outnumber the people who are, and it will become unrealistic to expect those people to pay for *ANYTHING*. (How can they? They are unemployed, and have no money with which to transact the purchase!)

This is the basic logic behind the idea of a universal income. At the very least, it should buy time for the economic readjustment of civilization to a resource economy.

Maybe i've become too pessimistic over the years, or, perhaps living in the Republican Crazy States of America has left me embittered and cynical.. but I don't see that happening in the USA, which is sadly the country with the world's reserve currency. (BIG MISTAKE IMF! BIG BIG MISTAKE!)

Instead, I see more of the "47%" rhetoric happening...

(Namely that "All these people without jobs are KILLING our economy, and killing the government by not paying any taxes because they have no money! These deadbeats still draw benefits! Who's gonna pay!? NOT ME! WAAAAAA!")

Followed by riots in the streets, destruction of vital properties and assets, war, and general mass global hysteria--- followed by a sudden resurgence in the need for human labor, because everyone lost their minds and broke everything, including the automated factory robots.

[Helgoland]

Frumple: That was precisely the point of my example - this 'problem' has occured before. And when labour becomes more abundant, it will be used in more places - large-scale unemployment drives down wages, more jobs become profitable*, and eventually an equilibrium is reached. And that doesn't even include genuinely new types of employment, like the ones that arose during the Industrial Revolution.

And once again, to all ye Americans: There is such a thing as a welfare state that takes care of the unemployed. In Germany, you get Hartz4, which is about 400€ a month, if you're out of work for more than a few months and have no resources of your own. It's really really little, but it's sufficient for survival. If robots really do take over all the jobs that don't require an IQ above 120 (metaphorically speaking; IQ is a horrible way to determine stuff like this), we could raise taxes and up that welfare money to a more comfortable amount.
We have no Republicans and Fox to put up with, though...



*Example: Household cleaners. (Are they really called household cleaners?) Not so wide-spread now because it would cost too much, but lower wages could easily change that - to a degree, it's happening in Europe already. South Africa might be a good example: In South Africa, it is considered asocial to clean your own house instead of paying somebody to do it if you can afford it because you're taking away another person's job. Of course, cleaning could be automated too, but you see my point.

[wierd]

The problem Helgo, is that Germany is not the world's reserve currency holder.

Note how much crazy almost happened when the nutters in congress held the country hostage-- on the GLOBAL stage.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Maybe i've become too pessimistic over the years, or, perhaps living in the Republican Crazy States of America has left me embittered and cynical.. but I don't see that happening in the USA, which is sadly the country with the world's reserve currency. (BIG MISTAKE IMF! BIG BIG MISTAKE!)

They talk big about how they're going to fuck the deadbeat poor now, but we'll see what they have to say when base unemployment reaches 10%, 20%, or higher.

(Namely that "All these people without jobs are KILLING our economy, and killing the government by not paying any taxes because they have no money! These deadbeats still draw benefits! Who's gonna pay!? NOT ME! WAAAAAA!")

Which is silly, really. The economy functions on being used, not everybody participating having a job.

[WillowLuman]

It all depends on the price of robots, really. Assuming that a robot is cheaper than a human in every job probably won't be true. While over years it might be cheaper to make a one-time payment for that AI-cash register than to pay the wages for the human clerk, the small business owner might not have the dough at any given time to pay the initial cost for the robot, rather than the minimum-wage of the register-jockey.

You might see a culture emerge like the Old South, i.e. social status is based on owning robots. The rich own many and control production, while everyone else dreams of owning one.

[Helgoland]

The problem Helgo, is that Germany is not the world's reserve currency holder.

Note how much crazy almost happened when the nutters in congress held the country hostage-- on the GLOBAL stage.

Meh, the Euro is gaining traction - China seems to have confidence in us, and once the EU gets its act together, we'll own America so hard they'll think we're Asian

[scrdest]

It all depends on the price of robots, really. Assuming that a robot is cheaper than a human in every job probably won't be true. While over years it might be cheaper to make a one-time payment for that AI-cash register than to pay the wages for the human clerk, the small business owner might not have the dough at any given time to pay the initial cost for the robot, rather than the minimum-wage of the register-jockey.

You might see a culture emerge like the Old South, i.e. social status is based on owning robots. The rich own many and control production, while everyone else dreams of owning one.

Or, for that matter, using robots as currency.

[SalmonGod]

I understand your points, Helgo.  There is plenty of reason to believe that a sensible society would handle these adjustments to the operation of the economy just fine.

My problem is, I don't believe we live in a sensible society.  Maybe those european countries with good social system and culture of cooperation will do alright.  Here in the U.S.... I've had no reassuring experiences here on the subject.  Our culture is just sooooooooo fucking slow to wake up to things like this.  I've brought it up with plenty of people face to face, and I wasn't exaggerating when I say that most have looked at me like I was speaking an alien language.  Like the concept I was presenting was incomprehensible gibberish.  If you bring up gay marriage with a republican, they at least understand what you're talking about.  They may scream a stupid argument in your face, but at least they'll have SOMETHING.  What I'm saying is that 90% of people here don't even have that much on the subject. 

Maybe that's just my state, which is especially bad.  When Occupy was in full-swing, I think we only had a few hundred participants in the entire state.  I think even Alaska had more activity than us.

I think it's far more likely that people will die than capitalism (as we have it now, that is).  Instead business models going obsolete, people will.  That's just how we roll.  That stuff you said about abundance driving down prices?  That doesn't happen here like it should.  Here we maintain scarcity by brute force.  Deadly force, even.  Our leaders will continue on with foreclosure fraud schemes to kick people out of their homes, even if it means killing them in the process, even when there are 6 times as many empty homes as homeless people.

Maybe i've become too pessimistic over the years, or, perhaps living in the Republican Crazy States of America has left me embittered and cynical.. but I don't see that happening in the USA, which is sadly the country with the world's reserve currency. (BIG MISTAKE IMF! BIG BIG MISTAKE!)

They talk big about how they're going to fuck the deadbeat poor now, but we'll see what they have to say when base unemployment reaches 10%, 20%, or higher.=

That depends on how it happens.  If the spike is sudden enough, sure.  If not, the police state may be able to suppress the rumbles.

[Frumple]

Frumple: That was precisely the point of my example - this 'problem' has occured before. And when labour becomes more abundant, it will be used in more places - large-scale unemployment drives down wages, more jobs become profitable*, and eventually an equilibrium is reached. And that doesn't even include genuinely new types of employment, like the ones that arose during the Industrial Revolution.

Heh. I think I had a teacher once that kind of obliquely referred to that as the "tire problem" (not in those words, but it gets the idea across). Last time you drove down the road, your tires worked. The time before that, when you drove down the road, your tires worked. Means absolutely nothing in relation to whether they'll work the next time you get on the road. All the times makeup of the labor force has changed, there's been room for it to adapt, places for people to go. Labor became more abundant and got used in more places or places not previously used. That's not a guarantee it'll happen again*.

The worry is the proverbial tire has worn down -- the treads are soon to be gone. No more places to use labor, or at least not to the extent necessary to support people.  All the labor in the world and the cheapest of wages will do no good if the machine still does the job cheaper, or one person can do the work of twenty (or thirty, or etc. -- and since that twenty or thirty and one are competing over the same resources, you're going to see some of them, possibly most of them, left out.). And in general, once the workforce has shifted away from one sector due to productivity improvements... they don't really shift back.

Hopefully welfare will catch the slack (and improve in places like the states), but the obvious worry (especially for us poor bastards in the states ) is it either won't, or won't be prepared enough when the potentially inevitable happens.

*Mind you, it probably will happen another time or two, but eventually...

It all depends on the price of robots, really. Assuming that a robot is cheaper than a human in every job probably won't be true.

Mm. Yeah, but full automation isn't the only problem, remember? The other side of it is productivity improvements. "Stupid" software alone is putting people out of work simply due to not needing as many to do the same work. Simple database software can make a lot of paper pushers superfluous, just as an example. What happens when it's cheaper to hire one human to manage multiple registers (due to ubiquitous communications improvements, perhaps) than individuals for each? There's only so many stores that can manage to be open, and so many people that would be needed to run them. And if -- when -- that's not enough for the whole (or, at least, enough to support the rest) population...

[wierd]

Frumple:

That is precisely what I was getting at. But it is more than that even.

Rich people only have "Obscene" amounts of money. They do not have "Infinite" amounts of money. As such, trying to balance a system on having rich people foot the bill (just to keep capitalism alive on life support with welfare supported by taxing the rich) isnt going to work very well. At the "best", the taxation of the rich will just recirculate money. There will be no possibility of economic growth. As such, there will be no investment, since there could be no promise of return on the investment. All kinds of problems will manifest.

Humanity will have to come off the "No free lunch" mantra cold turkey, and it WONT be a pretty sight, because nobody wants to make lunches for other people without getting something extra.

What I see happening, is that people will wise up to automation and AI replacing humans, and causing abject and systemic poverty (Since the capitalist system will be bolstered up with anything and everything that the current powerbase can throw at it), and will demand laws restricting its development and deployment-- which will make things WORSE. That just allows the people who adopted early to reap all the rewards, while perpetually locking everyone else out, preventing any and all social advancement-- all because "I WANT MINE DAMNIT!"

Instead, what NEEDS to happen is for 100% automation to occur, so that 100% unemployability occurs. Then there are no wealthy people. The robots have no problems whatsoever making free lunches for other people. That WONT happen, because humans are fundamentally paranoid about not being in control, and because people are greedy idjits who will instead believe that the output of the robot factory that they 'own', belongs to THEM, and that if those OTHER people want any, then they will have to pony up and pay for it-- even though it costs literally NOTHING to make the product, and as such has no real value.