DescentBB

I read this one.....twice, and found the concept both fascinating and massively problematic. However, there is utterly no reason to believe we are not, largely, heading towards a global economy with very little need for human physical labor. Thus, if not this approach, what, or if you disagree with the end point of the trajectory, why?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technolo ... li=BBnb7Kz

I have long been a proponent of the Basic Income. Use it to replace almost all welfare programs, as well as the majority of tax breaks.

http://www.basicincome.org/basic-income/

Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues?

Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?

Woody just touched on among my first issues of worry--supply and demand sort of relies on demand. Second, this is a recipe for very distinct division into haves and have-nots in society, as my suspicion is that the investment class will produce most of the children that hold the remaining professional jobs to supplement that basic income. I have more, around incentive v. disincentive(part of my suspicion of Lothar's prior suggestion about this was that it seems more dis,incentivizing to just hand out a check adequate for all minimal life expenses, than to force people to sign up and participate in a series of programs), around global scale rates, around basic human societal fabic, etc.

It is definitely something that needs to be researched. At some point the economic reality is going to require something like this because approaching full automation fundamentally breaks every economic model currently in use. It is better to have an approach planned out in advance or all the automation in the world will be completely meaningless if nobody can pay for the resulting products of that automation.

Krom wrote:It is definitely something that needs to be researched. At some point the economic reality is going to require something like this because approaching full automation fundamentally breaks every economic model currently in use. It is better to have an approach planned out in advance or all the automation in the world will be completely meaningless if nobody can pay for the resulting products of that automation.

actually, the model has been provided for such an economy. It was called Feudalism, and the 99% were the peasantry. I agree completely, to the extent that I feel it to be the overriding economic concern of our age, that we need to develop a humane model for how this works without resorting to that model. I'm sure a few recall me stating in the past that we are hurtling the bulk of our population towards a nouveau serfdom, and this is why.....

callmeslick wrote:this is a recipe for very distinct division into haves and have-nots in society, as my suspicion is that the investment class will produce most of the children that hold the remaining professional jobs to supplement that basic income

The alternative is that the investment class owns 100% of the robots that are actually handling production, and therefore the only people who can get work are those who the investment class pays to pamper them.

Though I suspect, in reality, there will still be plenty of demand for supplemental jobs and workers -- even if I have a robot to clean my house, I probably don't have a robot to do every possible landscaping or repair job. Even if my son does the majority of his learning online, there will be demand for specialists who understand his particular learning style and who can help him overcome challenges relating to "non-preferred activities".

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:this is a recipe for very distinct division into haves and have-nots in society, as my suspicion is that the investment class will produce most of the children that hold the remaining professional jobs to supplement that basic income

The alternative is that the investment class owns 100% of the robots that are actually handling production, and therefore the only people who can get work are those who the investment class pays to pamper them.

Though I suspect, in reality, there will still be plenty of demand for supplemental jobs and workers -- even if I have a robot to clean my house, I probably don't have a robot to do every possible landscaping or repair job. Even if my son does the majority of his learning online, there will be demand for specialists who understand his particular learning style and who can help him overcome challenges relating to "non-preferred activities".

it will be an interesting future, but then, the future always is to some of us......

So robots takes over, everyone gets a yearly stipend...I wonder what percentage will basically become do nothing zombies. What incentive will there be for people to improve themselves?

woodchip wrote:So robots takes over, everyone gets a yearly stipend...I wonder what percentage will basically become do nothing zombies. What incentive will there be for people to improve themselves?

thus, touching on one of my other core concerns, coupled with what class takes advantage of the income opportunities to be had. Scary when Woody and I share concerns, but that's just how it works, some days!

As much as it saddens me that we agree ( ), this topic goes beyond party ideology.

The world economy will seek balance, or the worst case will happen…total meltdown.

Total meltdown is unlikely because automation isn't going to happen overnight, but it is a pretty sure bet we are in for more recessions and depressions in the future because the only people who think ahead are the crooks.

woodchip wrote:So robots takes over, everyone gets a yearly stipend...I wonder what percentage will basically become do nothing zombies. What incentive will there be for people to improve themselves?

self-determination and drive to be better.

Personally I think the fact that so many people tie "improving themselves" so intrinsically with how they happen to earn their salaries to already be a rather sad statement. The most enriching parts of my life are about as far away from my job as possible.