5 ms·

Pretty Cynical there. Its really all about perspective. Look at this. As we continue to automate things, we reduce the time and effort required to manufacture

Pretty Cynical there. Its really all about perspective. Look at this. As we continue to automate things, we reduce the time and effort required to manufacture the things we need. This creates an immense amount of leisure time. As we focus on creating social systems which provide basic income and living needs, we are currently on trajectory for a system where people can choose to do whatever they want, with complete leisure. All need for food and devices is sustained by machines, we are provided with all basic needs by the government and you can do whatever your heart desires. Now people may think that is pointless, but imagine what people could accomplish with the ability to pursue anything they want. There is 7 billion people on this planet. Its impossible to expect everyone achieving the american dream through sheer handwork.

x5n1 11y ago
> This creates an immense amount of leisure time. As we focus on creating social systems which provide basic income and living needs, we are currently on trajectory for a system where people can choose to do whatever they want, with complete leisure. Could yes, but will it, maybe in the long run. In my lifetime, basic income will be exactly that, basic. Enough for probably shelter and food. You know people living off food stamps, see how much luxury they have. That is still tied to the economy. Most of the income generated will go to the people who own the machines that produce that output. The sort of optimism you were talking about Adam Smith talked about, it never happened in Capitalism. Despite the fact that we solved a lot of automation problems of producing food, shelter, and material goods around the 1940s. The government only has so much money it can give out. Divide the entire world's GDP by the population and you get 11,038. So if we could do that we can all live on 11,000 a year. That would be in the case that you took away the money from private interest and implemented something like Communism globally. That's not going to happen. The elites will cause massive wars before their give up their strangle hold and control on the world. Private interests will hold on to the money and make people work for it, as they always have.
- kefka 11y ago
  If the means of production were in the hands of the citizens, then there's no reason to make "profit". And if the production was completely automated, then everything would be easy to obtain and at very low cost. Now, we don't have to take away production facilities from companies or individuals, although progressive taxation is probably a good idea. Instead, the federal Govt already owns a great deal of land. We could urge to start developing on a small portion of that, for the needs of all the citizens. This isn't a communist/socialist/capitalist issue. We've been ignoring other economic systems for 2 centuries now, and flirted with communism back in the 20's. It's time to see what's out there that matches with our current technology.
kefka 11y ago
Poor people don't make enough money for companies to target effectively. Poor people also do not have the skills to make them employable- as in the minimum requirements for a human life are not equal to what their economic output is. Automation also provides a significant downward thrust lowering wages and sending people to unemployment or unemployability. This causes the the non-higher classes to be slowly, inexorably be shoved further down, thus creating more in the lower classes. Therefore, the longer we go, the more poor people (per capita) will exist. And poor people will continue to be dismissed, other than hand-wavy good intentions that really fail to solve the issue at hand. Once this cycle goes long enough, then that is the beginning of a national collapse, ala Depression. (No money to do things, no way to get money.)
rdlecler1 11y ago
This assumes that we value leisure over status, a prosperous future, living in a nice house, and putting our kids through good schools. We work 60 hour weeks because if we don't someone will work them instead of us, and we'll be part of the hollowed out middle class whose prospects are worse than their parents. Basically you can have time or you can have money, but not both.
- theseatoms 11y ago
  Time, kids, and money. Choose two.
  - WildUtah 11y ago
    Two? You'd better have a darn good plan for your life and a supportive partner or you'll be darn lucky to have more than one.
wfo 11y ago
>As we continue to automate things, we reduce the time and effort required to manufacture the things we need. This creates an immense amount of leisure time. The first sentence has been very true as we progress with technology and the economy, etc. The second has not followed and there is no reason to believe it will. Less time and less effort will be required to produce, but that will not translate to leisure time for the underclass (it never has -- benefits go to the people who have the power to decide where the benefits go tautologically, i.e. capitalists), it will translate to more profit for the overclass. So long as wealth inequality continues to get worse and we dive wholeheartedly into capitalism progress will just mean centralization of wealth and a stratification of the overlords and the peasantry who work until they drop being paid nothing for someone else's profit. Embracing socialism a little more will help, and failing that the wealthy may realize living surrounded by unwashed hungry angry violent masses is unpleasant and set up some kind of charity for those who behave according to their wishes.
- x5n1 11y ago
  In the past the over-class needed the peasants and serfs to mind the farms. They no longer need the peasants and serfs for anything. The capitalist class needed them to produce goods they could sell for a profit. We basically need some role for the elites to play to justify giving money to other people that they no longer need.
  - FreedomToCreate 11y ago
    I think the cynical thing here is assuming that the Elite class will continue to grow and make the lower economic classes suffer at their expense. The thing is though that being overly rich in a shit world is not much of a benefit to anyone. The Elite could set up there own little world (I'm kind of thinking like Elysium), but even that eventually will break into some elites who have more than other elites, and the cycle repeats. The system will improve once we democratize resources more and more.
    - chishaku 11y ago
      > The system will improve once we democratize resources more and more. Where do you see evidence of this happening?
madaxe_again 11y ago
This creates an immense amount of leisure time. I don't know if I'd classify unemployment without the financial means to survive as leisure, but whatever helps you sleep at night! I'm fully cognizant that my business has generated 50 jobs and cost 10,000. No, we do not create leisure, we create redundant, surplus humans, who must either adapt (re-train), be catered for (universal income), or, sadly, suffer.
jellicle 11y ago
Automation doesn't necessarily create a single second of leisure. Automation creates more productivity. The results of that, if well distributed among the population, could create leisure. But there's no reason it must be well distributed, and plenty of observational evidence suggests it isn't. If robots do all the necessary work in the future, there's no reason to believe that the benefits of this work won't accrue to the 1% (say "ownership class" if you like) and be sold to the rest of the population at whatever the market will bear. The 1% might then have infinite leisure, while the rest of the population would have to do whatever work they demanded (manservant? parasol carrier? masseuse? plenty of frivolous work can be created) in order to earn money to buy those robot-created goods. That's how modern society is set up, currently. There's little prospect of it changing.

x5n1 11y ago

> This creates an immense amount of leisure time. As we focus on creating social systems which provide basic income and living needs, we are currently on trajectory for a system where people can choose to do whatever they want, with complete leisure. Could yes, but will it, maybe in the long run. In my lifetime, basic income will be exactly that, basic. Enough for probably shelter and food. You know people living off food stamps, see how much luxury they have. That is still tied to the economy. Most of the income generated will go to the people who own the machines that produce that output. The sort of optimism you were talking about Adam Smith talked about, it never happened in Capitalism. Despite the fact that we solved a lot of automation problems of producing food, shelter, and material goods around the 1940s. The government only has so much money it can give out. Divide the entire world's GDP by the population and you get 11,038. So if we could do that we can all live on 11,000 a year. That would be in the case that you took away the money from private interest and implemented something like Communism globally. That's not going to happen. The elites will cause massive wars before their give up their strangle hold and control on the world. Private interests will hold on to the money and make people work for it, as they always have.

kefka 11y ago
If the means of production were in the hands of the citizens, then there's no reason to make "profit". And if the production was completely automated, then everything would be easy to obtain and at very low cost. Now, we don't have to take away production facilities from companies or individuals, although progressive taxation is probably a good idea. Instead, the federal Govt already owns a great deal of land. We could urge to start developing on a small portion of that, for the needs of all the citizens. This isn't a communist/socialist/capitalist issue. We've been ignoring other economic systems for 2 centuries now, and flirted with communism back in the 20's. It's time to see what's out there that matches with our current technology.

kefka 11y ago

Poor people don't make enough money for companies to target effectively. Poor people also do not have the skills to make them employable- as in the minimum requirements for a human life are not equal to what their economic output is. Automation also provides a significant downward thrust lowering wages and sending people to unemployment or unemployability. This causes the the non-higher classes to be slowly, inexorably be shoved further down, thus creating more in the lower classes. Therefore, the longer we go, the more poor people (per capita) will exist. And poor people will continue to be dismissed, other than hand-wavy good intentions that really fail to solve the issue at hand. Once this cycle goes long enough, then that is the beginning of a national collapse, ala Depression. (No money to do things, no way to get money.)

rdlecler1 11y ago

This assumes that we value leisure over status, a prosperous future, living in a nice house, and putting our kids through good schools. We work 60 hour weeks because if we don't someone will work them instead of us, and we'll be part of the hollowed out middle class whose prospects are worse than their parents. Basically you can have time or you can have money, but not both.

theseatoms 11y ago
Time, kids, and money. Choose two.
- WildUtah 11y ago
  Two? You'd better have a darn good plan for your life and a supportive partner or you'll be darn lucky to have more than one.

wfo 11y ago

>As we continue to automate things, we reduce the time and effort required to manufacture the things we need. This creates an immense amount of leisure time. The first sentence has been very true as we progress with technology and the economy, etc. The second has not followed and there is no reason to believe it will. Less time and less effort will be required to produce, but that will not translate to leisure time for the underclass (it never has -- benefits go to the people who have the power to decide where the benefits go tautologically, i.e. capitalists), it will translate to more profit for the overclass. So long as wealth inequality continues to get worse and we dive wholeheartedly into capitalism progress will just mean centralization of wealth and a stratification of the overlords and the peasantry who work until they drop being paid nothing for someone else's profit. Embracing socialism a little more will help, and failing that the wealthy may realize living surrounded by unwashed hungry angry violent masses is unpleasant and set up some kind of charity for those who behave according to their wishes.

x5n1 11y ago
In the past the over-class needed the peasants and serfs to mind the farms. They no longer need the peasants and serfs for anything. The capitalist class needed them to produce goods they could sell for a profit. We basically need some role for the elites to play to justify giving money to other people that they no longer need.
- FreedomToCreate 11y ago
  I think the cynical thing here is assuming that the Elite class will continue to grow and make the lower economic classes suffer at their expense. The thing is though that being overly rich in a shit world is not much of a benefit to anyone. The Elite could set up there own little world (I'm kind of thinking like Elysium), but even that eventually will break into some elites who have more than other elites, and the cycle repeats. The system will improve once we democratize resources more and more.
  - chishaku 11y ago
    > The system will improve once we democratize resources more and more. Where do you see evidence of this happening?

madaxe_again 11y ago

This creates an immense amount of leisure time. I don't know if I'd classify unemployment without the financial means to survive as leisure, but whatever helps you sleep at night! I'm fully cognizant that my business has generated 50 jobs and cost 10,000. No, we do not create leisure, we create redundant, surplus humans, who must either adapt (re-train), be catered for (universal income), or, sadly, suffer.

jellicle 11y ago

Automation doesn't necessarily create a single second of leisure. Automation creates more productivity. The results of that, if well distributed among the population, could create leisure. But there's no reason it must be well distributed, and plenty of observational evidence suggests it isn't. If robots do all the necessary work in the future, there's no reason to believe that the benefits of this work won't accrue to the 1% (say "ownership class" if you like) and be sold to the rest of the population at whatever the market will bear. The 1% might then have infinite leisure, while the rest of the population would have to do whatever work they demanded (manservant? parasol carrier? masseuse? plenty of frivolous work can be created) in order to earn money to buy those robot-created goods. That's how modern society is set up, currently. There's little prospect of it changing.