5 ms·

So long as machines are not far more effective at building (and possibly some day even engineering) those things we desire...

seanflyon 12y ago
If machines can make everything we want for so cheap that we can't possibly compete that mean that everything we want is incredibly cheap.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  Nope. "Incredibly cheap" is not a relevant metric. The relevant quantity is price/income. If income drops by 50% and price drops by 10%, the good has still effectively become almost twice as expensive.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    But if price only drops by 10% why would income drop by 50%?
- clusterfoo 12y ago
  But under our current economic system, what you can afford is tied to the value of the goods/services you produce. If we find ourselves in a future where 90% of the population produces nothing, then 90% of the population can afford nothing, no matter how cheap. Obviously there is a utopian solution, where most goods and services are so cheap to produce, that most people have essentially free access to them. What is worrying is the dystopian alternative (and probably inevitable adjustment period), where only a tiny fraction of the population is "valuable", and therefore has access to all the benefits of cheap automation, while the other 90% have no value (economically speaking). We also tend to forget that we live in a sort of intellectual bubble. Just by being able to hold a highly technical job, you are probably already in the upper 90% percent of the intelligence spectrum. 80% of the world's population has an IQ of under 115; and half the world's population is under 100 and can barely grasp any form of abstract logical thinking. If the vast majority of jobs in the future require high technical or intellectual aptitude, then the vast majority of the earth's population will be left with nothing to do.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    I was pointing out what I think is often ignored in these conversations: that robots taking all the jobs means we have reached post scarcity. Between that potential future and where we are now there could be some serious problems as you suggest. I agree that the economy is shifting away from low skilled jobs towards high skill jobs and that does seem like a big problem for low skill people. I am slightly more optimistic than you because I think that the primary difference between low skilled people and high skilled people is not innate intelligence, but education and training.

seanflyon 12y ago

If machines can make everything we want for so cheap that we can't possibly compete that mean that everything we want is incredibly cheap.

jjoonathan 12y ago
Nope. "Incredibly cheap" is not a relevant metric. The relevant quantity is price/income. If income drops by 50% and price drops by 10%, the good has still effectively become almost twice as expensive.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  But if price only drops by 10% why would income drop by 50%?
clusterfoo 12y ago
But under our current economic system, what you can afford is tied to the value of the goods/services you produce. If we find ourselves in a future where 90% of the population produces nothing, then 90% of the population can afford nothing, no matter how cheap. Obviously there is a utopian solution, where most goods and services are so cheap to produce, that most people have essentially free access to them. What is worrying is the dystopian alternative (and probably inevitable adjustment period), where only a tiny fraction of the population is "valuable", and therefore has access to all the benefits of cheap automation, while the other 90% have no value (economically speaking). We also tend to forget that we live in a sort of intellectual bubble. Just by being able to hold a highly technical job, you are probably already in the upper 90% percent of the intelligence spectrum. 80% of the world's population has an IQ of under 115; and half the world's population is under 100 and can barely grasp any form of abstract logical thinking. If the vast majority of jobs in the future require high technical or intellectual aptitude, then the vast majority of the earth's population will be left with nothing to do.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  I was pointing out what I think is often ignored in these conversations: that robots taking all the jobs means we have reached post scarcity. Between that potential future and where we are now there could be some serious problems as you suggest. I agree that the economy is shifting away from low skilled jobs towards high skill jobs and that does seem like a big problem for low skill people. I am slightly more optimistic than you because I think that the primary difference between low skilled people and high skilled people is not innate intelligence, but education and training.