If the robots are made by Dyson then i am ok with it ;).Cheers

One job that is actually going to need more people in the future:

hockey mask manufacturers

I would love to see humanity reaching a post-scarcity society with 'luxuriae sunt communia', but I don't see that happening. Probably an even more deeper over-production economic system will unfold (as the recent crisis cycles have been showing). Which will lead to an unbearable distopia, not a Star Trek utopia. That is because work and production are related to the satisfaction of profit, not human necessities.
As briliantly pointed by you, the question that is relevant is how is the wealth will be distributed (scarcity is linked to distribution and finity to quantity), not if a huge amount of wealth will be produced by robots (which is the reality already).

Oh, ansewring some op points: it is human work and the need to satisfy necessities that make us go foward, not capitalism; and human liberation of work would be marvellous IF could free us from explotation and give possibilities of developing activities in other areas (even ones that we do not know yet), but I do not see that scenery happening because, in the end, capitalism hold us from going foward.

This type of posts are hell on my willpower...

+1 to the OP and few comments. To the quotes I left very quick answers: dehumanizing life conditions predate capitalism; and no job is future proof.

The last time this topic came up this was my first answer and I think it's still ok.

And if you have links at hand to the articles, would be interested. Y pueden ser en espanol. I do commend you on the clarity of vision. Indeed the solution is to value money properly, however given the inflated condition of most currencies, and that the central monetary planners are no where near to losing power - rather they have increased that power and debased curencies' value for at least a century - well... I'm not optimistic that the deflationary correction that would lead us to the "post-scarcity" reality will be allowed to happen.

In conclusion, capitalism is being destroyed not by itself, but by "soft" fascism, by which I mean government control over economic activity. And the technological innovation and increases in productivity are being more and more constrained.


I so wish you are right, but not optimistic. A contemporary example. Here in Poland there is a new law prohibiting retail work on Sundays (will be phased in, there are details I'm simplifying).

As I see it this is partly due to cultural motives (holy day) and economic populism (protect workers from exploitation). It will likely benefit gas station chains, which are exempt from it and already plan to expand type of producst for sale in their "shops".

In the kind of world where this type of political influence over free trade is accepted by society I don't think post scarcity stands a chance.

But I do hope technological innovation is powerful enough to revolutionize matters.

Is is the one I linked? You were active on it. If not I'd be interested if you find it.

That sounds Star Trek indeed, but I think it'd require a lot of changes on multiple levels globally for humanity to make the transition from every known and tried economy model to that one, wouldn't it? Do you think humanity can, and will, make it by the end of the 22nd century like in Star Trek?



This piece of dialogue had made a great, chilling impression on me when I fist watched the film, and it's the bit I most clearly remember to this day.

Eh, it's pretty much b.s., however.

Deer only reach equilibrium when wolf populations increase and/or food shortages or weather hit them hard. What makes us unique is the lack of predation means resource shortages or natural disasters are about the only constraints on growth.


I share your skepticism.

Post-scarcity cooperation is a great idea in theory, but in the U.S. and elsewhere there's very little evidence that people will choose to move in that direction, because it only takes a few with the desire and opportunity to consolidate wealth and power and blow the model up.

To me that makes perfect sense. People of the future will be too lazy to even have sex with each other, so they will build robots that have sex with each other. Hot steamy robot sex.

I was about to say that they will also build robots that play our games for us, but that is already the reality (cat-bots in Team Fortress 2). The future is here.

SHIT!

I spoke too soon!

Long story short - if you're in a non-specialized position, you might find a robot coworker next to you soon.

And depending on your specialty, your age, or where you are in your career when shifts happen, you might still be SOL.

I don't. But I also do not think that capitalism will kill itself anytime soon.

Robot workers? Where is the problem with that? People will just do something else or work less which is what they did in the past centuries all the time.

200 years ago we would probably all be ploughing a field somewhere.

I'm not afraid. More time for playing computer games is exactly what I need. And taxing robots or robot ownership doesn't seem to difficult either.

I disagree. Using up all your time to scrap together enough money just to cover your basic needs (roof, water, warmth, food) prevents people from the lower classes (which are a core part of capitalism) to apply their talents/creativity and invent or improve things. Sadly I know what I am talking about.

About basic income:
Imho we aren't at the point where we'd desperately need it yet (we will though), what we'd need now would be equal minimum wage globally and ways to prevent corruption by also introducing a globally enforced maximum wage since the gap between the classes is growing all the time and if that wouldn't be there, everyone had more chances to apply his potential and not being exploited throughout his entire life.

We'd also need to stop forcing people to work 40-60h per week since we wouldn't have an unemployement problem at all if people would only work 20-30h per week and they'd also have enough time to actually keep their culture (music, traditions, etc...) alive. How many households do you know, where everyone can play at least one instrument and where making non-commercially motivated music together as a social component is normal amongst family and friends? That was a thing once and still is in a few select rural areas where people aren't slaves yet.
This would also end the widespread burnout syndrome and caffeine addiction that most people have now.
Less stress would also mean fewer health-care costs and a more stable and secure social environment.

Relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HknHtMYYkIA

Definitely. Also all wars should be ended right at this moment, and every man should have a sexy girlfriend or two with big boobs.

I can't understand why all this is not happening right now. Sounds simple to me, just do it. Do it. Or else I'll start cracking some skulls and start wars.

Realistically, most humans in this world care more about their own family members and people who live nearer to them in a similar culture as them, and I find that quite natural. It is a similar thing like why most animals are less likely to kill and eat their own species (or else that species would soon become extinct). Good luck trying to convince everyone to care about some unknown dude across the globe as much as they care for their own children, or siblings, or whatever.

So yeah, I can understand why Trump Sr gave Trump Jr one million dollars, and not e.g. me. Donald was more dear to him than I ever was.

Also, why are you suggesting that we should have global minimum and maximum wages? Isn't that still discriminating causing jealousy and whatnot, people having different wages? Wouldn't it be more logical to demand the same wage to every person globally? No minimum or maximum, all the same?

If you feel that it is still ok that there is variation in wages between different people, then I don't see the point of trying to force some kind of minimums or maximums globally either.

It's simple. It's a myrshnik eats myrshnik world. Unfettered capitalism only works if there's a ruling class that exploits a working class though. But if the working class is increasingly disposable by way of automation, the precious oh so functional capitalist system will go to shit. The poor won't be able to get work and the rich will make money the Valve way, by doing absolutely nothing. In great contrast, the simple fact will be illustrated that in general, neither poverty nor wealth is "earned" in any perceivable way.

We are much, much closer to this reality than many of you seem to think. We already face the problem that companies are way better off financially when they invest in automation instead of paying minimum wages. Already paying a pittance to foxconn workers doesn't pan out for Apple & Co. any more - machines are much more profitable.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966

Still, e.g. the Trumpian trickle down bollocks may work exactly as intended, boost "the US economy" and create "millions of jobs" - but of course this will work only as long as the people employed can not sensibly sustain themselves from their salary.

My job will probably be secure for another 10 to 20 years, but still remains an ace candidate to eventually be done by a machine. Those are the facts of the case. I will in all probability not be able to make it to retirement with the job I have now, or will be forced to enter retirement without sufficient funds to sustain myself. Yes, in the oh so rich German country, a wealth evidently amassed by totally different people.

I've read about the painfully obvious solution, and to my surprise, it's being pitched by the industry, by some corporations, by some successful tech innovators (in this case, guest speakers at a university of economics over here). Those who profit this much have to give back. They have the moral obligation to create jobs in any sector, especially the social, create jobs that would otherwise be unsustainable in a capitalist system, to make up for what they're taking from society.

To reiterate: We still live and will go on to live in a world in which the workforce of everybody is desperately needed. It's just that the jobs we're all needed for are totally unsustainable in a capitalist system, because they don't reinforce the capitalist system.

This fundamental idea to give back what was taken was - equally, to my surprise - not presented as disruptive or particularly innovative. It was presented with a shrug and a nod, yes of course it has to be that way. The biggies would weasel out of it, of course, the smaller companies would embrace it.

No idea whether it will come to pass of course, this strange capitalist utopia. You can imagine, I'm sceptical.

Capitalist wankers gonna capitalism after all. I don't really see how the individual's egoistic urge to aquire wealth way beyond the necessary, always always always at the cost of his fellow people, brings the human race forward as a whole. It sure as hell doesn't help the individual one bit. And sure as h*ck, a survival strategy that may have been sound for a species for hundreds of years may lead to its doom eventually.

Point in case, the history of just about my favorite animal in the world, the Kakapo. Listen to the wise words of Mr. Douglas Adams - we can still learn from their inability to change their #1 survival strategy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONkf6EZdjEc
(watch both parts, you'll love it. The point is well made in the second part.)