What if the basic necessities of life were free?

[Disserbia]

Some of a safety net is necessary, but too much of one leads to lack of motivation because people when people feel like they are working for the welfare of others and their work isn't benefiting themselves as much as it should they become less motivated.

Here's the thing; while that may be true I'm fairly certain that the threshold of guaranteed income at which a significant population of the country decides working and/or leading a productive existence isn't worth it is well above the income most people would set (and by that I mean at least twice the poverty line, which is also a good deal more than I think our economy could necessarily support; see my calculations above for why).

What I'd bet is that at levels between 1 and 1.5 times the poverty line you'd see more of different kinds of productivity and a re-shaking out of the labor markets rather than simply less productivity; in particular artists, writers, poets, and so on would no longer have to work 40-50 hours at menial jobs and would be able to turn out a great deal more culturally valuable work than they do now, while low-skill menial jobs could once again become boot camps for teenagers who want extra spending money rather than poverty traps.

The challenge with the USA is that an apple is not an apple. Because of Insurance and Credit and market forces, blue collar and white-collar goods and services are overly inflated.
An example of this is property in Florida, what did people think it was worth 5 years ago… where they right? Ask the same question about other basic services, food, medical and ask the same question.

That might be true in a general sense, but I'd like to see more thorough numbers on that. Furthermore, the guaranteed annual income wouldn't operate in a vacuum; if we set it to a similar fraction of the poverty line and then redefine the poverty line based on severely deflated numbers then the markets won't automatically deflate to match the numbers and we'll have people on the streets.

I agree with you completely. I think there is a fine line though. If there is too much of a welfare state then you can have a situation like in France where when they try to do anything there are huge protests. Cultural stuff is important and should be supported, but we should distinguish what actually contributes to society vs. what doesn't. I don't think there should be salary caps or that those who get rich from being innovative should be too highly taxed if what they do actually contributes to society.

[CVT Temp]

To be honest, technology will eventually lead us to that point, so long as we continue to survive. Continual mechanization will necessarily mean that anything even approaching full employment in the quasi-near future is a pipe dream. We'll simply gradually transition to an economic system where not everyone needs to work constantly anymore. It's inevitable.

[Crogach]

Here's the thing; while that may be true I'm fairly certain that the threshold of guaranteed income at which a significant population of the country decides working and/or leading a productive existence isn't worth it is well above the income most people would set (and by that I mean at least twice the poverty line, which is also a good deal more than I think our economy could necessarily support; see my calculations above for why).

What I'd bet is that at levels between 1 and 1.5 times the poverty line you'd see more of different kinds of productivity and a re-shaking out of the labor markets rather than simply less productivity; in particular artists, writers, poets, and so on would no longer have to work 40-50 hours at menial jobs and would be able to turn out a great deal more culturally valuable work than they do now, while low-skill menial jobs could once again become boot camps for teenagers who want extra spending money rather than poverty traps.



That might be true in a general sense, but I'd like to see more thorough numbers on that. Furthermore, the guaranteed annual income wouldn't operate in a vacuum; if we set it to a similar fraction of the poverty line and then redefine the poverty line based on severely deflated numbers then the markets won't automatically deflate to match the numbers and we'll have people on the streets.

I agree with you completely. I think there is a fine line though. If there is too much of a welfare state then you can have a situation like in France where when they try to do anything there are huge protests. Cultural stuff is important and should be supported, but we should distinguish what actually contributes to society vs. what doesn't. I don't think there should be salary caps or that those who get rich from being innovative should be too highly taxed if what they do actually contributes to society.

I'm not a fan of salary caps, but what I would like to see is an explicit tying of wages and benefits for the guys at the top of the food chain to those of the guys at the bottom; that doesn't punish innovation because growth and innovation would still enrich those responsible, but it does keep everyone, especially upper management and executives, directly tied to the welfare of the firm.

As far as cultural contributions to society are concerned, I understand your point but I feel like it's not necessary to be incredibly cautious about stuff that doesn't necessarily contribute to society. As things stand now, our current income structure causes a great deal of lost cultural value in terms of things that could be produced but aren't because time and/or materials aren't available; if a guaranteed annual income wastes an amount of money less than the lost value under the current system, then there's still a significant improvement in overall efficiency there.

Furthermore, I'd argue that a GAI actually works to increase innovation in two ways. First of all, people who have good-paying jobs can basically toss their government income in a savings or market account, leave it there for a few years to accrue interest, and then use it as startup capital for their own small business. Second of all, people will be more likely to take the risks associated with starting a small business if those risks are partially ameliorated, and landing in a starter apartment on a restricted budget is a much better worst-case failure scenario than winding up on the proverbial breadline if you go bust. Again, this may lead to a certain amount of stupid risk-taking and waste, but so long as the capital lost to stupid risk-taking is less than the value of the innovation that's currently not happening due to the severity of the consequences of failure (and I have every reason to believe it will be) then it's still a net improvement.

[Moving Forward Inc]

To be honest, technology will eventually lead us to that point, so long as we continue to survive. Continual mechanization will necessarily mean that anything even approaching full employment in the quasi-near future is a pipe dream. We'll simply gradually transition to an economic system where not everyone needs to work constantly anymore. It's inevitable.

What's to say that the people behind the mechanization will want to share what they have with others?

If there is something that can be gained from humans that cannot be gained from robots, would not the inventors want whatever this is for themselves?

[CVT Temp]

What's to say that the people behind the mechanization will want to share what they have with others?

If there is something that can be gained from humans that cannot be gained from robots, would not the inventors want whatever this is for themselves?

To be honest, if technology gets to that point, it will be rather hard to prevent people being able to duplicate the mechanization themselves. You're also assuming that the people behind the mechanization are entirely business/corporate personality types.

Furthermore, if we got to 90% unemployment with mass starvation due to hoarding, either a revolt of a duplication of mechanization would pretty much inevitably happen. The alternative is unsustainable.

[Moving Forward Inc]

What's to say that the people behind the mechanization will want to share what they have with others?

If there is something that can be gained from humans that cannot be gained from robots, would not the inventors want whatever this is for themselves?

To be honest, if technology gets to that point, it will be rather hard to prevent people being able to duplicate the mechanization themselves. You're also assuming that the people behind the mechanization are entirely business/corporate personality types.

Furthermore, if we got to 90% unemployment with mass starvation due to hoarding, either a revolt of a duplication of mechanization would pretty much inevitably happen. The alternative is unsustainable.

They might not be business corporate types when they build the revolutionary mechanization, I'm guessing probably a bunch of eccentric innovators working for some sort of engineering business, but when they make the invention they will want the profits for themselves.
Invent mechanization, Found MechCo, hire workers and start mass production, grow grow grow.

Unemployment will go up as they get their Mech's to manage themselves and build themselves, replacing workers who get sacked.
By then, everyone will be pissed and MechCo will have billions of dollars.
The question is, how will they hold back a revolution and having their Mech's taken?
Do exactly what Marx says the capitalists are doing.
Use your money to get both state and church to join your side, and indoctrinate the proletariat.

Anyway, I doubt that the Digital age is going to be the last technological age of humanity.
Chances are, the moment the proletariat get their hands on the mechs, is the moment they will become absolutely worthless.

[CVT Temp]

Chances are, the moment the proletariat get their hands on the mechs, is the moment they will become absolutely worthless.

What do you mean?

[Crogach]

Chances are, the moment the proletariat get their hands on the mechs, is the moment they will become absolutely worthless.

What do you mean?

My guess is that he's assuming that the division between haves and have-nots is functionally the same as the division between makers and takers; he's assuming that the tiny fraction of people who get wealthy from full mechanization are the only segment of the population who won't run around breaking, abusing, or otherwise ruining the goose with the golden eggs. It's an assumption that I fundamentally disagree with, but this is Moving Forward Inc we're talking about here so I'm not surprised.

[Norstal]

To be honest, technology will eventually lead us to that point, so long as we continue to survive. Continual mechanization will necessarily mean that anything even approaching full employment in the quasi-near future is a pipe dream. We'll simply gradually transition to an economic system where not everyone needs to work constantly anymore. It's inevitable.

Or we switch to a service-based economy.

Like...what's happening right now.

[GCMG]

To be honest, technology will eventually lead us to that point, so long as we continue to survive. Continual mechanization will necessarily mean that anything even approaching full employment in the quasi-near future is a pipe dream. We'll simply gradually transition to an economic system where not everyone needs to work constantly anymore. It's inevitable.

Or we switch to a service-based economy.

Like...what's happening right now.

The issue is the basic services are getting more complicated.

[Genivaria]

If manual labor were mechanized and automated would it even be possible for the now unemployed manual laborers to find new work?
Or....what? What would happen?

[Sobaeg]

If manual labor were mechanized and automated would it even be possible for the now unemployed manual laborers to find new work?
Or....what? What would happen?

thats the question we will need to answer, people can go around burning looms all they like, but the point is that all basic tasks will be automated eventually beyond the threshold of essential needs.

[Norstal]

Or we switch to a service-based economy.

Like...what's happening right now.

The issue is the basic services are getting more complicated.

Yes. Either you become specialized or develop your talent. Well, you should do the latter anyways.

If manual labor were mechanized and automated would it even be possible for the now unemployed manual laborers to find new work?
Or....what? What would happen?

Sure. There's no shortage of actors, painters, or any other type of artists.

[Trollgaard]

If manual labor were mechanized and automated would it even be possible for the now unemployed manual laborers to find new work?
Or....what? What would happen?

thats the question we will need to answer, people can go around burning looms all they like, but the point is that all basic tasks will be automated eventually beyond the threshold of essential needs.

Nonsense.

[Sobaeg]

thats the question we will need to answer, people can go around burning looms all they like, but the point is that all basic tasks will be automated eventually beyond the threshold of essential needs.

Nonsense.

will be, pointless to speculate, anyone that argues against progression into the next level of civilisation obviously knows more than I do about the political instability of the world.

[Trollgaard]

Nonsense.

will be, pointless to speculate, anyone that argues against progression into the next level of civilisation obviously knows more than I do about the political instability of the world.

Society won't let it progress to the point where the majority of people are unemployed. Society will collapse at such a point, as it fucking should. Any society where a person doesn't have a decent shot of finding work is fucked and will not long survive.

[Sobaeg]

will be, pointless to speculate, anyone that argues against progression into the next level of civilisation obviously knows more than I do about the political instability of the world.

Society won't let it progress to the point where the majority of people are unemployed. Society will collapse at such a point, as it fucking should. Any society where a person doesn't have a decent shot of finding work is fucked and will not long survive.

People will work in other areas in orbit, other planets asteroids, probably just supervising the robots that are doing the automation, and we will progress unless destroyed - Many experts believe the AI-Human singularity will be reached by 2040.

[Trollgaard]

Society won't let it progress to the point where the majority of people are unemployed. Society will collapse at such a point, as it fucking should. Any society where a person doesn't have a decent shot of finding work is fucked and will not long survive.

People will work in other areas in orbit, other planets asteroids, probably just supervising the robots that are doing the automation, and we will progress unless destroyed - Many experts believe the AI-Human singularity will be reached by 2040.

A year or two ago it was supposed to be 2020. lololololol

In 2030 it will be 2060. In 2050 it will be 2077, etc, etc....

[Moving Forward Inc]

Chances are, the moment the proletariat get their hands on the mechs, is the moment they will become absolutely worthless.

What do you mean?

Back in caveman days, we had caveman things: animal skin clothes, and spears.
We live in tents made from bits and pieces, or caves, and we hunt wild game and wild plants for food.
Move on a bit, our clothes are still made from animal skins, but are sown together, and much more fashionable, better suited to protecting us from the weather, we have swords, bows, catapults, ballistas, and walls.
We live in houses made from rocks, mud, or woof, and we farm our food.
Today, we live in the digital age.
We use our digital electronic shit to mass produce clothes to near perfection, suiting whichever fashion we want almost, we use it to mass produce weapons, guns which can kill a man by moving your finger one inch.
We eat mass produced food that is genetically modified and fed selected chemicals, and we live in houses made of processed materials, like steel, and modified forms of wood, and bricks (modified forms of stone).
We have fucking computers, they take data, and we can load data from them.
This data can contain images of our memories, in the form of things we can hear, and see.

The issue is that we can not work with biological data: the neuroelectric signals in our brains.

Once we are finished with the digital age, my bet is that we will move on to the biological age:
The age where we can put brains in vats and use that to create alternative realities, an age where with genetic engineering, we can load information on to biological beings of our creation, and through some sort of biological means data can be sent all over the world.

[Sobaeg]

People will work in other areas in orbit, other planets asteroids, probably just supervising the robots that are doing the automation, and we will progress unless destroyed - Many experts believe the AI-Human singularity will be reached by 2040.

A year or two ago it was supposed to be 2020. lololololol

In 2030 it will be 2060. In 2050 it will be 2077, etc, etc....

Thats why I said speculate, because no one really can predict the future, but people working on that technology day in day out have a pretty good idea of the timeline.

[Trollgaard]

A year or two ago it was supposed to be 2020. lololololol

In 2030 it will be 2060. In 2050 it will be 2077, etc, etc....

Thats why I said speculate, because no one really can predict the future, but people working on that technology day in day out have a pretty good idea of the timeline.

And fusion is only 20 years or so away, too?

[Sobaeg]

Thats why I said speculate, because no one really can predict the future, but people working on that technology day in day out have a pretty good idea of the timeline.

And fusion is only 20 years or so away, too?

They know more than you… but we are getting off topic, can we manage if the basics are free.. yes we can and yes countries do… its just Americans who have a problem with this.

[Moving Forward Inc]

What do you mean?

My guess is that he's assuming that the division between haves and have-nots is functionally the same as the division between makers and takers; he's assuming that the tiny fraction of people who get wealthy from full mechanization are the only segment of the population who won't run around breaking, abusing, or otherwise ruining the goose with the golden eggs. It's an assumption that I fundamentally disagree with, but this is Moving Forward Inc we're talking about here so I'm not surprised.

As far as I can tell, what I said can be interpreted a billion different ways.
What you call makers I call takers.
What you call takers I call makers.
Such vague terms aren't worth using.
The bottom line is, things aren't always made by the corporations, sometimes they are made by ordinary guys, or eccentric innovators, separate of businesses, I'll admit that they are the primary makers, but the moment these things are made, private enterprise gets interested and takes advantage.
When people get pissed, they do absolutely everything Marx accused the capitalist class of doing (Yep, guilty as charged) - take advantage of religion and of state.
By the time the resources in question are put into collective ownership, they don't matter as much any more, and private enterprise is investing in something else, the cycle repeats.

Tell you what, is war still waged without firearms?
Are family owned farms the primary source of food today?
Does having slaves still mean you get to exercise authority over them?
Does Europe still suck up to to the Catholic church?
Is music done with pre 19th century instruments?
No is the answer to all those questions.
The poor can get access to all of those things today, but they aren't worth shit anymore.
In a few decades, all the poor will easily get Ipad's, Windows 8, the latest phone that comes with the best camera of this time, HD LED TV's, the whole shebang, and none of it will be worth shit.
And that, is fucking the fucking cycle of life.

[Trez-Nem]

Just a few pages back everyone was arguing about many people not wanting to work, now about how everything would collapse bacause there's no jobs. If people have no incentive to work (not that I would agree with that), it wouldn't matter if there was no jobs.

[GCMG]

Just a few pages back everyone was arguing about many people not wanting to work, now about how everything would collapse bacause there's no jobs. If people have no incentive to work (not that I would agree with that), it wouldn't matter if there was no jobs.

No-one has even attempted to address my argument that this is a price ceiling of $0.