Replies

Throughout all of human history, people, especially men, have been better off with work . . . you cannot think that having 49.5% of the population digging ditches, and 49.5% filling them in again, is either plausible or desirable.

We agree that people are better off with work. I don't think make-work is desirable, but it's a whole lot better than paying them to be parasitic. I'd rather see people develop skill as entertainers, as artists, in massage, or as something else productive that robots cannot do as well.

Our standard of living now is so much higher than it was 200 years ago because of machines. Rather than saying "well, a machine can make furniture, firearms, and fabric and do farm work so much better, so I'll sit at home on welfare instead of doing those jobs", the people displaced from those occupations found work that didn't exist before. We can do the same again; it just takes motivation.

We agree that people are better off with work. I don't think make-work is desirable, but it's a whole lot better than paying them to be parasitic.

I am not talking about paying them to be parasitic. I am talking about the marginal cost (in terms of labor, including labor of input) of things dropping towards zero. There is a big difference, between those two things. Air has no marginal cost. I consume it freely, and am not being parasitic in doing so. What I am talking about is the very real, certain future in which everything that we currently desire (essentially all) are similarly of zero cost, and of unlimited supply. So your choice isn't quite right. The choice is make-work, vs. people choosing to not work and consume things that are of zero cost (not, as you said, make-work vs. paying them to be parasitic).

I'd rather see people develop skill as entertainers, as artists, in massage, or as something else productive that robots cannot do as well.

First off, you make the assumption that automatic, self-sufficient machines, couldn't do these things in a manner vastly superior to what humans can do. I disagree with this premise. More importantly, if everything those artists (et al) people demand are similarly free (in other words, their costs of meeting their demands are also zero), then their primary incentive is not to meet some latent demand, but rather because they like doing art. It is a hobby, not a job. If some do it because they are meeting some latent demand, they will be outcompeted by those who do it as a hobby, but have no outstanding demand, and can therefore do it freely.

In this, I agree with you, that people can and should find pursuits that give them, and others, value. But this isn't an economy in the historical sense of the word, but something more akin to the intersection of charity and past-time. But for others, they may find pursuits that are not giving others value, but are purely for their own satisfaction. Nothing wrong with that, either. But in no case, is it what we know of as an "economy".

Our standard of living now is so much higher than it was 200 years ago because of machines. Rather than saying "well, a machine can make furniture, firearms, and fabric and do farm work so much better, so I'll sit at home on welfare instead of doing those jobs", the people displaced from those occupations found work that didn't exist before. We can do the same again; it just takes motivation.

There were several, very big differences between previous technological changes, and this one. While prior changes reduced the marginal cost of things, it didn't eliminate that cost. That meant that there still was a labor demand in these industries. The second is that while some industries saw a reduction in labor demand, in other industries, there was little change. This meant that much of the labor supply simply shifted to another industry, where the demand was higher. And third, this technological change will affect virtually every known industry and service similarly. Meaning that, unless there are demands currently unknown to us, there is nowhere for this labor supply to go. While prior technological changes resulted in new industries, those newly created industries were not without labor costs. In this particular technological change that has recently begun, it is quite reasonable to expect that any newly created industry will not come with a new demand for labor.

The only way that new sources of labor demand can be created is if there are things that humans can do better than machines will be able to (in the next few decades), and that these things are so desired that they act as an incentive for others to work for them (and, in a testament to how much things are going to change, these people who demand such products must be able to find another industry in which labor is still in demand -- no mean feat).

It won't take "motivation". We are going to be running into the end of labor as a significant component of human existence. Any effort placed in trying to artificially reintroduce the concept of labor would be effort far more productively placed elsewhere, like giving someone a free massage, or painting a picture.

I forgot the biggest difference between these changes now, versus changes in the past: the changes now make choosing not to work a very real and practical decision. In the past, the cost of things went down, but not nearly enough, and not nearly across enough industries, to make it a viable or practical response. A farm laborer who lost his job would have had a very low standard of living if he left the labor force. His equivalent today (or in a matter of a few decades), could retain his current standard of living solely by consuming things that have (or will have) no cost.

A huge difference.

In addition, while some may want to remain working, an economy cannot function unless a sufficient percentage of the population are sufficiently unsatisfied with a standard of living provided by consuming things that have zero cost and either own something inherently scarce, like land, or are able to find an industry lacking in labor.

While currently, our economy can function, because most people either need to work, or are sufficiently motivated by demand. An economy, at least as we know it, simply cannot exist if 90+% simply drop out.