Res Ipsa wrote:The question I think DT is trying to get at, is what happens under capitalism when the demand for labor falls to zero, or something close to it. In that case, only the owners of capital (robots and resources) earn money, and population shrinks until the small amount of labor that has some value becomes scarce enough to raise the price of labor to at least subsistence level. The moral is: be one of the guys that owns capital.
Exactly! Thank you! I don't see how capitalism is going to be successful when the robots dominate the workforce. Socialism might be the future.
What do you mean by “successful”? Here’s a scenario. As the value of labor begins to diminish, the world’s population begins to decline. Like, say, the trends today in Europe or Japan. Population declines to a sustainable level, or even below that. Eventually, the value of labor hits zero. The only folks who survive are the owners of capital. But they live on a planet that can more than simply sustain the population. Is this a success?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote: The only folks who survive are the owners of capital.
I guess, but robots will dominate in the near future (like in 30 to 60 years from now) and the world population is not decreasing. So are all adults going to have at least one robot slave?
Res Ipsa wrote: But they live on a planet that can more than simply sustain the population. Is this a success?
It is under your scenario, but unlikely to happen anytime soon.
DoubtingThomas wrote:I guess, but robots will dominate in the near future (like in 30 to 60 years from now) and the world population is not decreasing.
So are all adults going to have at least one robot slave?
What kind of slave?
You're still looking for a girlfriend, aren't you?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned, so if the means of production are robots, then people will own the robots. Whether robots obtain sentience is a whole different question.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:Under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned, so if the means of production are robots, then people will own the robots.
I understand, but I don't think most people will have robots in the near future. If things get out of control and the unemployment rate goes up by a lot, then I think the government will have to take over and control the means on production. Or at least provide UBI.
You keep using the concept of UBI as subsidizing someone keeping a couch from floating away. Society already has jobs that are basically keeping people at a subsistence level of income with minimal expectations for their role in productivity. My impression is you want to drop the part where you get up, shower, and go in to a pointless job but still get the paycheck. What's the incentive to society in this?
I should add, that's not reflective of arguments for UBI broadly. I'm just focusing on what I hear from you here on this board.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Res Ipsa wrote:Under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned, so if the means of production are robots, then people will own the robots.
I understand, but I don't think most people will have robots in the near future. If things get out of control and the unemployment rate goes up by a lot, then I think the government will have to take over and control the means on production. Or at least provide UBI.
I think the speed of transition makes a big difference. How long would it take for the value of labor to drop to zero? Right now, the US birth rate is below replacement level. If we had zero immigration, our population would be declining. So, would the decline in population track the decline in the value of labor? Or will massive numbers of workers be unemployed at once. There is a whole range of possible scenarios.
We may at some point be faced with a situation where we are faced with adopting UBI or watching a whole lot of Americans starve to death. But adopting UBI doesn’t require socialism. It’s interesting to me that The Expanse depicts that kind of future. The UN becomes a world government, there are very few jobs, and most people on Earth live off UBI. But the means of production still seem to be in private hands. I wouldn’t want to live in that world, but it’s an attempt to think About what that kind of world would look like.
At any rate, you’re talking with guy who’s heard his whole life that cheap electricity from nuclear fusion was “just around the corner,” so I’m from Missouri on the notion that A.I. will be capable of running everything in the near future.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951