7 ms·

Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

42 points by hocaoglv 9y ago

baron816 9y ago
The problem we have now is not that there isn’t enough for everyone, it’s that we’re acting like that’s still the case.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- protonfish 9y ago
  Controlling resources is the most effective way to wield and display power over others. It doesn't matter how many resources exist. As long as society is based on authoritarian hierarchy, there will always be haves and have-nots.
  - mcny 9y ago
    On a more personal level, I ask people whether they think of same wages for everyone. Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command. Exceptions to that are at least as common as employees having higher wages than managers and supervisors.
      - js8 9y ago
        I don't understand why do you think this is the case. (I am one of those people who thinks people should have the same salaries, btw.) What exactly do you mean by "value"? Can you give some examples? To add: I don't think there is a meaningful comparison of importance of two professions that depend on each other. It's like asking, which part of the car provides more value for the user? Is it the engine or the wheels?
        pault 9y ago
        For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible and managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations that allow them to multiply the efficiency of the people working under them. I am aware that in reality this is not always the case. Edit: In your car analogy, the management aren't the engine; they're the driver.
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        And yet when you need the car to move people or cargo from one place to another, then suddenly the driver becomes as fungible (sometimes even more) as the car itself. I don't think there's really any moral justification for managers earning more than their subordinates. It's all power and scarcity at play. Managers get more because there is less of them and they are in position to ask for more.
        pault 9y ago
        In this (stretched to breaking) analogy, drivers aren't necessarily fungible since most of them will drive the car off a cliff, and the great ones will turn a Ford into a Ferrari.
        js8 9y ago
        > For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible Everybody in this thread agrees that it is indeed the case. However, the mystery is why some people see it that way. > managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations The point of the car analogy was that without workers, managers are nothing, just like car without wheels or engine is useless. In that situation, why would you say one is more important?
        conanbatt 9y ago
        There is an entire field of study about this, with maybe millions of students. Why a wage is what it is might be one of the most described, modeled and studied things out there. A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it. Clearly, the cases where managers earn less than the people they manage follow the same rule (i.e. sports coaches, movie directors, etc). About the comparison: It depends, if you have a car without engine and a car without wheels, which one is easier for you to fix.
      - marcosdumay 9y ago
        Value is a too ill defined concept. I would say that the manager has more leverage on the destiny of the company, thus you want a great manager more than you want great employees, and thus you have to pay them more. Except that this is not exactly true either. Some times it is, other times it isn't. Yet the salary relations never change.
        Helmet 9y ago
        It isn't ill defined. Ideally, and I would argue in most circumstances, wages are a strong approximation of the marginal revenue product, just as neoclassic theory states they should be.
        mcny 9y ago
        > Except that this is not exactly true either. Some times it is, other times it isn't. Yet the salary relations never change. I think the meta is for "intellectual"/"mental" workers you have to pay someone enough that they focus on the task they need to work on rather than spending mental cycles on how to afford to pay for rent or food or vaccines/formula for baby.
    - protonfish 9y ago
      Social hierarchies are created and maintained through displays of dominance and submission. Earning more money is simply that: a domination display.
    - jules 9y ago
      Because the person paying both the manager and the person reporting to them judges that to work better.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I don't think the "should" plays any role here. In my opinion, paramedics, nurses and doctors should all earn shit ton of money; so should miners, and janitors, and garbage collectors, and other people doing dangerous and/or socially necessary jobs. And entertainers should earn way less than they do. But here we are. Supervisors earn more because, through the way the job market works, they can ask for more. That's all there is to it.
- brightball 9y ago
  Post scarcity is one of those terms that just does not make sense. How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore? I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    The way a post-scarcity society could come to exist is if we stop doing any activity in the physical world and everything moves online. We've actually gone quite a long way down that road already. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years or so, most physical-world activity has stopped. Once basic electricity, internet connectivity, food, etc. is provided automatically, and all work and leisure is conducted online, there's no barrier to stop anybody from having as much of any kind of information, software, leisure activity, etc. as they want. I refer to it as "retreating to the virtual realm". Obviously it's not a popular idea at the moment, but I think it'll just happen gradually like it's done so far. Nobody will be forced into moving out of the physical realm, they'll just find that there's increasingly nothing to do as everything has moved to the virtual realm.
    - dougmwne 9y ago
      That's quite an insight. I've never connected those concepts together before. There's a staggeringly long list of things that are now post-scarcity because they're digital. Each item used to be a luxury available to few instead of a thing that scales to all. So here's a new way to ask an old question: What's something that should be post-scarcity, but currently isn't?
      - jpindar 9y ago
        Textbooks? There are many ebooks that are legitimately available for free, but textbooks are typically expensive.
      - baursak 9y ago
- jstanley 9y ago
  There's not enough for everyone to have as much as they want, else we'd all be living on our own private tropical islands.
  - rrivers 9y ago
    Perhaps that is a reflection of a deeper issues? We've been conditioning to assign value to that type of luxury, which of course is nice, but does it add real value to our lives?
- jchanimal 9y ago
  This is why we need a multi-dimensional currency instead of a commodity currency. https://www.wired.com/2014/07/document-coin/ https://www.wired.com/2014/07/document-coin/
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  Enough of what?
- ionised 9y ago
  There is plenty for everyone. The problem is it is not being distributed fairly.
ddnb 9y ago
An incredible article, it seems so clear the way it is stated. If demand is the problem, as stated in the article, would a basic-income, providing extra income and arguably more free time for consumers usher in a new "Golden Age" of growth as we have seen post-WWII?
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  You don't even need basic income. Just let people's incomes rise at the same rate the economy grows instead of funneling all gains to the business owners like it happened over the last 30 years or so. Unfortunately in the US the Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans. I don't know how to change this realistically. It probably needs some change in moral attitudes so it's just not accepted by society that certainly people claim all the gains for themselves instead off spreading them out. Child labor used to be prevalent but in most Western societies it's not ok anymore even if there is profit to be made. So maybe this will happen to income inequality too.
  - ddnb 9y ago
    The incomes need to rise but can the business owners be forced? The basic income would make sure everyone gets the extra income.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      Somehow they got forced to not hire 6 year olds to work in mines and businesses adapted and did well. So I think it's possible without killing incentives for entrepreneurs. It's a matter of balance.
    - cat199 9y ago
      tax+spend; not supporting 'trickle down' economics w/r/t other gov't policies, actually enforcing monopoly laws, regulating other areas in favor of small business (e.g. FCC used to have media ownership laws to keep media companies smaller) etc.. if everyone has more money but there is no cap on the top, things will just get more expensive, and then more basic income will be provided, and the cycle will continue.. not necessarily a fan or a detractor of any/all of these things, but just chiming in.
francisofascii 9y ago
Media seems to be a good example of this. Movies and TV shows continue to be created and preserved increasing the supply, but consuming media does not mean less for others.
wyager 9y ago
Scarcity is imposed by physics. Energy is conserved, entropy increases. Even if we realized the wildest extropian dreams and moved all intelligent life into efficient simulations, physics still dictates that every non-reversible computation creates entropy. A homeless person in the US today has universally better prospects than 99% of the population a thousand years ago; better than all of them in many ways. It’s impossible to starve in a first world country. Even the poorest of the poor are jacked into the global communication network. Necessary survival goods are non-scarce. Are we satisfied? No, we want more. As productive capacity increases, our definition of non-scarcity becomes more and more demanding. I don’t see why this would stop if the only commodity left was mass-energy.
kiliantics 9y ago
I recommend people interested in alternative social structures for a post-scarcity world to look into Murray Bookchin

42 points by hocaoglv 9y ago

baron816 9y ago

The problem we have now is not that there isn’t enough for everyone, it’s that we’re acting like that’s still the case.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
protonfish 9y ago
Controlling resources is the most effective way to wield and display power over others. It doesn't matter how many resources exist. As long as society is based on authoritarian hierarchy, there will always be haves and have-nots.
- mcny 9y ago
  On a more personal level, I ask people whether they think of same wages for everyone. Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command. Exceptions to that are at least as common as employees having higher wages than managers and supervisors.
    - js8 9y ago
      I don't understand why do you think this is the case. (I am one of those people who thinks people should have the same salaries, btw.) What exactly do you mean by "value"? Can you give some examples? To add: I don't think there is a meaningful comparison of importance of two professions that depend on each other. It's like asking, which part of the car provides more value for the user? Is it the engine or the wheels?
      - pault 9y ago
        For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible and managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations that allow them to multiply the efficiency of the people working under them. I am aware that in reality this is not always the case. Edit: In your car analogy, the management aren't the engine; they're the driver.
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        And yet when you need the car to move people or cargo from one place to another, then suddenly the driver becomes as fungible (sometimes even more) as the car itself. I don't think there's really any moral justification for managers earning more than their subordinates. It's all power and scarcity at play. Managers get more because there is less of them and they are in position to ask for more.
        pault 9y ago
        In this (stretched to breaking) analogy, drivers aren't necessarily fungible since most of them will drive the car off a cliff, and the great ones will turn a Ford into a Ferrari.
        js8 9y ago
        > For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible Everybody in this thread agrees that it is indeed the case. However, the mystery is why some people see it that way. > managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations The point of the car analogy was that without workers, managers are nothing, just like car without wheels or engine is useless. In that situation, why would you say one is more important?
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        There is an entire field of study about this, with maybe millions of students. Why a wage is what it is might be one of the most described, modeled and studied things out there. A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it. Clearly, the cases where managers earn less than the people they manage follow the same rule (i.e. sports coaches, movie directors, etc). About the comparison: It depends, if you have a car without engine and a car without wheels, which one is easier for you to fix.
    - marcosdumay 9y ago
      Value is a too ill defined concept. I would say that the manager has more leverage on the destiny of the company, thus you want a great manager more than you want great employees, and thus you have to pay them more. Except that this is not exactly true either. Some times it is, other times it isn't. Yet the salary relations never change.
      - Helmet 9y ago
        It isn't ill defined. Ideally, and I would argue in most circumstances, wages are a strong approximation of the marginal revenue product, just as neoclassic theory states they should be.
      - mcny 9y ago
        > Except that this is not exactly true either. Some times it is, other times it isn't. Yet the salary relations never change. I think the meta is for "intellectual"/"mental" workers you have to pay someone enough that they focus on the task they need to work on rather than spending mental cycles on how to afford to pay for rent or food or vaccines/formula for baby.
  - protonfish 9y ago
    Social hierarchies are created and maintained through displays of dominance and submission. Earning more money is simply that: a domination display.
  - jules 9y ago
    Because the person paying both the manager and the person reporting to them judges that to work better.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I don't think the "should" plays any role here. In my opinion, paramedics, nurses and doctors should all earn shit ton of money; so should miners, and janitors, and garbage collectors, and other people doing dangerous and/or socially necessary jobs. And entertainers should earn way less than they do. But here we are. Supervisors earn more because, through the way the job market works, they can ask for more. That's all there is to it.
brightball 9y ago
Post scarcity is one of those terms that just does not make sense. How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore? I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.
- jstanley 9y ago
  The way a post-scarcity society could come to exist is if we stop doing any activity in the physical world and everything moves online. We've actually gone quite a long way down that road already. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years or so, most physical-world activity has stopped. Once basic electricity, internet connectivity, food, etc. is provided automatically, and all work and leisure is conducted online, there's no barrier to stop anybody from having as much of any kind of information, software, leisure activity, etc. as they want. I refer to it as "retreating to the virtual realm". Obviously it's not a popular idea at the moment, but I think it'll just happen gradually like it's done so far. Nobody will be forced into moving out of the physical realm, they'll just find that there's increasingly nothing to do as everything has moved to the virtual realm.
  - dougmwne 9y ago
    That's quite an insight. I've never connected those concepts together before. There's a staggeringly long list of things that are now post-scarcity because they're digital. Each item used to be a luxury available to few instead of a thing that scales to all. So here's a new way to ask an old question: What's something that should be post-scarcity, but currently isn't?
    - jpindar 9y ago
      Textbooks? There are many ebooks that are legitimately available for free, but textbooks are typically expensive.
    - baursak 9y ago
jstanley 9y ago
There's not enough for everyone to have as much as they want, else we'd all be living on our own private tropical islands.
- rrivers 9y ago
  Perhaps that is a reflection of a deeper issues? We've been conditioning to assign value to that type of luxury, which of course is nice, but does it add real value to our lives?
jchanimal 9y ago
This is why we need a multi-dimensional currency instead of a commodity currency. https://www.wired.com/2014/07/document-coin/ https://www.wired.com/2014/07/document-coin/
marcosdumay 9y ago
Enough of what?
ionised 9y ago
There is plenty for everyone. The problem is it is not being distributed fairly.

ddnb 9y ago

An incredible article, it seems so clear the way it is stated. If demand is the problem, as stated in the article, would a basic-income, providing extra income and arguably more free time for consumers usher in a new "Golden Age" of growth as we have seen post-WWII?

maxxxxx 9y ago
You don't even need basic income. Just let people's incomes rise at the same rate the economy grows instead of funneling all gains to the business owners like it happened over the last 30 years or so. Unfortunately in the US the Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans. I don't know how to change this realistically. It probably needs some change in moral attitudes so it's just not accepted by society that certainly people claim all the gains for themselves instead off spreading them out. Child labor used to be prevalent but in most Western societies it's not ok anymore even if there is profit to be made. So maybe this will happen to income inequality too.
- ddnb 9y ago
  The incomes need to rise but can the business owners be forced? The basic income would make sure everyone gets the extra income.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Somehow they got forced to not hire 6 year olds to work in mines and businesses adapted and did well. So I think it's possible without killing incentives for entrepreneurs. It's a matter of balance.
  - cat199 9y ago
    tax+spend; not supporting 'trickle down' economics w/r/t other gov't policies, actually enforcing monopoly laws, regulating other areas in favor of small business (e.g. FCC used to have media ownership laws to keep media companies smaller) etc.. if everyone has more money but there is no cap on the top, things will just get more expensive, and then more basic income will be provided, and the cycle will continue.. not necessarily a fan or a detractor of any/all of these things, but just chiming in.

francisofascii 9y ago

Media seems to be a good example of this. Movies and TV shows continue to be created and preserved increasing the supply, but consuming media does not mean less for others.

wyager 9y ago

Scarcity is imposed by physics. Energy is conserved, entropy increases. Even if we realized the wildest extropian dreams and moved all intelligent life into efficient simulations, physics still dictates that every non-reversible computation creates entropy. A homeless person in the US today has universally better prospects than 99% of the population a thousand years ago; better than all of them in many ways. It’s impossible to starve in a first world country. Even the poorest of the poor are jacked into the global communication network. Necessary survival goods are non-scarce. Are we satisfied? No, we want more. As productive capacity increases, our definition of non-scarcity becomes more and more demanding. I don’t see why this would stop if the only commodity left was mass-energy.

kiliantics 9y ago

I recommend people interested in alternative social structures for a post-scarcity world to look into Murray Bookchin