You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
I'm eager to see how this works. To be honest, given that mechanized labor seems to be on the near horizon, and with it a sharp decrease in the cost of labor and increase in its availability, I can't think of a way to avoid massive amounts of poverty other than something like the "basic income" idea (as far as I understand it anyway).
Of course, I'm not an economist, so if anyone has better ideas, I'd love to hear them.
Right, but our capacity for production would increase, a lot, possibly to where one person would be capable of expending only minimal effort to do what used to be the jobs of multiple people. Many people will become redundant, economically speaking, particularly those who are only capable of doing jobs that become automated. What are they supposed to do? I guess we could have a bunch of people around maintaining a handful of machines each, but... Why would a company over-staff themselves like that? What makes you think we'd go down the route of having a bunch of people do very little rather than having only a few people expend slightly more effort?
In before Marxists trip all over themselves to draw conclusions from a short-term trial program while ignoring that the incentives and decisions would be different under a long-term policy.
If it made its way to the U.S. you would be beholden to the dispensers of money.
You would have to register for it. Prove you need it , on a quarterly basis. You would be subject to government bureaucracy that at any time could decide...hey we overpaid you. Guess you will have to pay that back.
Sort: Top
[–] FPSFairy 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I'm eager to see how this works. To be honest, given that mechanized labor seems to be on the near horizon, and with it a sharp decrease in the cost of labor and increase in its availability, I can't think of a way to avoid massive amounts of poverty other than something like the "basic income" idea (as far as I understand it anyway).
Of course, I'm not an economist, so if anyone has better ideas, I'd love to hear them.
[–] cynoclast [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
The whole point of machines is not to make us more productive, but so that we don't have to work as much.
The goal isn't productivity, it's laziness. And as Heinlein said:
[–] FPSFairy ago
Right, but our capacity for production would increase, a lot, possibly to where one person would be capable of expending only minimal effort to do what used to be the jobs of multiple people. Many people will become redundant, economically speaking, particularly those who are only capable of doing jobs that become automated. What are they supposed to do? I guess we could have a bunch of people around maintaining a handful of machines each, but... Why would a company over-staff themselves like that? What makes you think we'd go down the route of having a bunch of people do very little rather than having only a few people expend slightly more effort?
[–] Chiefpacman ago (edited ago)
It would be alright if humans never reached that level.
Life will suck when we are spoiled with that.
[–] BoiseNTheHood 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
In before Marxists trip all over themselves to draw conclusions from a short-term trial program while ignoring that the incentives and decisions would be different under a long-term policy.
[–] eagleshigh 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
G-d I hate Marxists with a passion.
[–] cynoclast [S] 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
[–] BoiseNTheHood 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
*Realistic man points out facts.
[–] XAPHAN ago
This would not come without a price.
If it made its way to the U.S. you would be beholden to the dispensers of money.
You would have to register for it. Prove you need it , on a quarterly basis. You would be subject to government bureaucracy that at any time could decide...hey we overpaid you. Guess you will have to pay that back.
In other words ... they would literally own you.
[–] Pattoe 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
So, it won't be any different, then?