What Happens to Society When Robots Replace Workers?

[NobleSavage]

Capital gains. Corporate Taxes.

Good in theory, but they may not be happy to participate and they do have quite a lot of influence with the Government.

They have a choice. Keep it and end up losing it. Share it and make more. I'm sure they will see the logic when the time comes.

 

[Jayjay]

I don't want a damn VAT tax. We have plenty of taxes. Just raise the ones we have or cut back expenses.

Who is to pay the taxes to fund the UBI given that the majority of those who normally would be employed and paying taxes have been displaced by automated systems?

Part of UBI could be paid by abolishing other welfare programs made obsolete by it. The difference should be covered with a flat income tax (without touching pre-existing progressive taxation).

 

[Canard DuJour]

Who is to pay the taxes to fund the UBI given that the majority of those who normally would be employed and paying taxes have been displaced by automated systems?

Capital gains. Corporate Taxes.

Those revenues depend on consumers who can afford more than basics. As does VAT. When too few consumers can afford anything but basics, it won't be profitable to mass-produce anything but basics.

I'm all for UBI but it isn't a solution to this problem - which isn't really automation. The problem is surplus capacity in a system of for-profit production with wage-labour (AKA "capitalism"). Robot "labour" ought to usher in unprecedented human wealth. Post-scarcity. Instead we're wondering how we'll manage the poverty.

 

[NobleSavage]

Capital gains. Corporate Taxes.

Those revenues depend on consumers who can afford more than basics.

There is plenty of money to be made selling the basics.

When too few consumers can afford anything but basics, it won't be profitable to mass-produce anything but basics.

Nonsense. The capital necessary to produce things will also drop. I expect quite a few smaller economies of scale, more diversity, and decentralization. People will always pay more for personalized service. There will always be a market for luxury goods. A non trivial amount of people own stock in these companies.

I'm all for UBI but it isn't a solution to this problem - which isn't really automation. The problem is surplus capacity in a system of for-profit production with wage-labour (AKA "capitalism"). Robot "labour" ought to usher in unprecedented human wealth. Post-scarcity. Instead we're wondering how we'll manage the poverty.

I don't see "post-scarcity" as a useful definition. It's more like unlimited wants and limited resources.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Those revenues depend on consumers who can afford more than basics.

There is plenty of money to be made selling the basics.

But not enough to provide everyone with more than basics. Assuming for-profit production, that's like trying to get free energy.

When too few consumers can afford anything but basics, it won't be profitable to mass-produce anything but basics.

Nonsense. The capital necessary to produce things will also drop. I expect quite a few smaller economies of scale, more diversity, and decentralization. People will always pay more for personalized service. There will always be a market for luxury goods. A non trivial amount of people own stock in these companies.

See above. Certainly, our idea of "basics" will improve but still a long way short of capacity.

I'm all for UBI but it isn't a solution to this problem - which isn't really automation. The problem is surplus capacity in a system of for-profit production with wage-labour (AKA "capitalism"). Robot "labour" ought to usher in unprecedented human wealth. Post-scarcity. Instead we're wondering how we'll manage the poverty.

I don't see "post-scarcity" as a useful definition. It's more like unlimited wants and limited resources.

What is? Wants might be unlimited but demand isn't. Demand is constrained by consumer income.

 

[TV and credit cards]

We are going to have to take some long hard looks at how we see people, human nature, and what the goals of life should be. There will need to be shifts in the thinking about the morality of cooperation and competition, charity and solidarity, not to mention punishment, reward, and entitlement. You can not shift to a society where you have a universal income that actually is enough to take care of your people and continue to think of those people as only being good enough if they pass the "right" tests and measures, only if they earn the right to have rights including the right to live.

Of course a prison system based on rehabilitation rather than punishment might help. But what to do with the ones that cannot be rehabilitated?

Capital gains. Corporate Taxes.

Good in theory, but they may not be happy to participate and they do have quite a lot of influence with the Government.

I think the pressure of 30-40% real unemployment may finally trump this influence. Their only course of action is to keep the robots from taking over, keeping poor people minimally employed.

 

[NobleSavage]

Canard DuJour, I'm not following your logic. Maybe try a better example with numbers.

 

[Jayjay]

Capital gains. Corporate Taxes.

Those revenues depend on consumers who can afford more than basics. As does VAT. When too few consumers can afford anything but basics, it won't be profitable to mass-produce anything but basics.

I'm all for UBI but it isn't a solution to this problem - which isn't really automation. The problem is surplus capacity in a system of for-profit production with wage-labour (AKA "capitalism"). Robot "labour" ought to usher in unprecedented human wealth. Post-scarcity. Instead we're wondering how we'll manage the poverty.

I see it more as a way to distribute said wealth. In a system where most people are wage laborers, it kind of makes sense distribute wealth via wages. But how would you do it in a system where large part of the society has little to no economic value compared to machines?

You could think of UBI as everyne owning an equal share of society, and the society paying dividends.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There has to be a shift in thinking about private wealth vs. commonwealth.

 

[bleubird]

This is how Alaska does it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-usa-dividend-alaska-idUSKBN0HC2E320140917

I had a friend in college who always got his Alaska check.

Yes out of state students can get the PFD.As can active military.
With the price of oil down we are fucked on the general fund.
Cuts and more cuts.
Thank the St Jay Hammond for his insight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Hammond
http://www.apfc.org/home/Content/home/index.cfm

 

[Canard DuJour]

Canard DuJour, I'm not following your logic. Maybe try a better example with numbers.

(Low quantities for illustration, add all the zeros you want) : Say there are five consumers and one producer who, with automation, produces enough basics for the consumers. The consumers are given $10 each from the producer's revenue to afford basics. They've no other income since it's cheaper to automate whatever they might do. They buy their basics and the producer gets $50 revenue, all of which he must give to the consumers. There'd be no profit in producing non-basics, despite (indeed because of) surplus capacity.

If stuff like TVs and cars were bespoke items produced for a wealthy minority, they'd be either very primitive or unfeasible. Automation itself would likely become unfeasible for the same reason.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Those revenues depend on consumers who can afford more than basics. As does VAT. When too few consumers can afford anything but basics, it won't be profitable to mass-produce anything but basics.

I'm all for UBI but it isn't a solution to this problem - which isn't really automation. The problem is surplus capacity in a system of for-profit production with wage-labour (AKA "capitalism"). Robot "labour" ought to usher in unprecedented human wealth. Post-scarcity. Instead we're wondering how we'll manage the poverty.

I see it more as a way to distribute said wealth. In a system where most people are wage laborers, it kind of makes sense distribute wealth via wages. But how would you do it in a system where large part of the society has little to no economic value compared to machines?

Share the remaining work, many people work few hours for high wages, abundant stuff to go round. Easier said than done for sure.

You could think of UBI as everyne owning an equal share of society, and the society paying dividends.

Unfortunately, without other interventions, I think it'll be an equal share of basics and not much else. UBI certainly wouldn't hurt and we should do it anyway.

 

[Canard DuJour]

There has to be a shift in thinking about private wealth vs. commonwealth.

Egg zactamundo.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Egg zactamundo.

Yeah, that's much better. To think I was going to jump all over your first attempt.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Have a go. I might be wrong.

 

[TV and credit cards]

For future reference

 

[Jayjay]

I see it more as a way to distribute said wealth. In a system where most people are wage laborers, it kind of makes sense distribute wealth via wages. But how would you do it in a system where large part of the society has little to no economic value compared to machines?

Share the remaining work, many people work few hours for high wages, abundant stuff to go round. Easier said than done for sure.

That does not seem to make any sense at all. How would you share work among people who are not qualified to do it in the first place? And why would you want to, if robots can do the same task more efficiently anyway.

You could think of UBI as everyne owning an equal share of society, and the society paying dividends.

Unfortunately, without other interventions, I think it'll be an equal share of basics and not much else. UBI certainly wouldn't hurt and we should do it anyway.

Maybe it's the consumerist mindset that needs to change first. If you are secure in having basic income, that frees you from stressing about day-to-day survival and instead allows you to do what you want, or what you are good at.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Share the remaining work, many people work few hours for high wages, abundant stuff to go round. Easier said than done for sure.

That does not seem to make any sense at all. How would you share work among people who are not qualified to do it in the first place?

By training as many as possible to do it and mandating high enough per/hr wages that the marginal utility of additional work hours is outweighed by the cost in leisure and family time. Automation makes it possible, but the labour market prevents it without intervention.

And why would you want to, if robots can do the same task more efficiently anyway.

Because (a) too many people will be entitled to nothing but basics and (b) that will restrict the kind of production that is feasible, assuming for-profit production.

You could think of UBI as everyne owning an equal share of society, and the society paying dividends.

Unfortunately, without other interventions, I think it'll be an equal share of basics and not much else. UBI certainly wouldn't hurt and we should do it anyway.

Maybe it's the consumerist mindset that needs to change first. If you are secure in having basic income, that frees you from stressing about day-to-day survival and instead allows you to do what you want, or what you are good at.

Whatever the mass of consumers can't consume will not be mass-produced and many of the good things can only be mass-produced. AA hit the nail on the head : There has to be a shift in thinking about private wealth vs. commonwealth.

 

[DBT]

I think the pressure of 30-40% real unemployment may finally trump this influence. Their only course of action is to keep the robots from taking over, keeping poor people minimally employed.

Which serves to keep poor people poor, a condition without a solution? Always the rich and the poor....

 

[Axulus]

That does not seem to make any sense at all. How would you share work among people who are not qualified to do it in the first place?

By training as many as possible to do it and mandating high enough per/hr wages that the marginal utility of additional work hours is outweighed by the cost in leisure and family time. Automation makes it possible, but the labour market prevents it without intervention.

And why would you want to, if robots can do the same task more efficiently anyway.

Because (a) too many people will be entitled to nothing but basics and (b) that will restrict the kind of production that is feasible, assuming for-profit production.

You could think of UBI as everyne owning an equal share of society, and the society paying dividends.

Unfortunately, without other interventions, I think it'll be an equal share of basics and not much else. UBI certainly wouldn't hurt and we should do it anyway.

Maybe it's the consumerist mindset that needs to change first. If you are secure in having basic income, that frees you from stressing about day-to-day survival and instead allows you to do what you want, or what you are good at.

Whatever the mass of consumers can't consume will not be mass-produced and many of the good things can only be mass-produced. AA hit the nail on the head : There has to be a shift in thinking about private wealth vs. commonwealth.

You aren't making any sense. If most production is automated, then the selling price of the goods will be very low. You yourself said that incomes will be limited, further decreasing the prices charged for items. The very low prices will still be profitable because production costs will be so low. Therefore, you'll have a wealthy segment of society that owns the robots that can live in penthouses, own private jets, get personal chefs, large homes, etc. while the rest of us will be living on the UBI that can afford a few vacations a year, access to the latest technology, cheap entertainment from virtual reality and the like, a home to live in, good education, good healthcare, and a variety of delicious food, and can earn some side money for personal services that require human interaction or that are more preferable to be done by a human than a robot or computer. The rest of society can also use some of their UBI to purchase shares in the companies if they want a piece of the action, since the UBI will be a bit more than enough to cover the bare necessities for survival.