How do you distribute wealth in a world with no work?

[CrabCake]

As we all are well aware, technology often makes certain jobs obsolete. As machines and electronics start doing more and more of the work that once required manpower, we find ourselves with an interesting dilemma. It's easy to envision a world where all production is done by machines. Currently, this still creates jobs in the technology sector. Yet it isn't difficult to envision a future where machines can repair each other and keep each other running indefinitely. Industries like agriculture and manufacturing could be 100% automated in such a future.

Granted, we would still have a handful of industries that could never be automated, mostly in the creative field. We would have machines that could make everything we need and want and provide us with every service we might want, but we would still need some creative types to come up with new inventions, new fashions, etc. and engineers to develop the programming to make those new things happen. We would probably also still want to be entertained by other humans. But those remaining industries would be tiny.

The problem here is obvious. Work is no longer necessary, but resources are still scarce. Our previous notions about working to earn your rewards are thrown out the window since no work is necessary. We could, of course, create busy work and make people do busy work in order to determine how much stuff they get. But that doesn't seem to make any more sense than making people compete in athletic competitions to see how much stuff they get. So, what do you do in such a world? Split it up evenly across the board? Let the descendants of those people who built the companies that created the machines control everything? Let the few remaining creative types, engineers, and entertainers have all the wealth? Without the work for pay paradigm, what do we have?

 

[Unrepresented]

Wealth is just access to commodities. In a world of plenty, there are no commodities.

 

[Slartibartfast]

As we all are well aware, technology often makes certain jobs obsolete. As machines and electronics start doing more and more of the work that once required manpower, we find ourselves with an interesting dilemma. It's easy to envision a world where all production is done by machines. Currently, this still creates jobs in the technology sector. Yet it isn't difficult to envision a future where machines can repair each other and keep each other running indefinitely. Industries like agriculture and manufacturing could be 100% automated in such a future.

Granted, we would still have a handful of industries that could never be automated, mostly in the creative field. We would have machines that could make everything we need and want and provide us with every service we might want, but we would still need some creative types to come up with new inventions, new fashions, etc. and engineers to develop the programming to make those new things happen. We would probably also still want to be entertained by other humans. But those remaining industries would be tiny.

The problem here is obvious. Work is no longer necessary, but resources are still scarce. Our previous notions about working to earn your rewards are thrown out the window since no work is necessary. We could, of course, create busy work and make people do busy work in order to determine how much stuff they get. But that doesn't seem to make any more sense than making people compete in athletic competitions to see how much stuff they get. So, what do you do in such a world? Split it up evenly across the board? Let the descendants of those people who built the companies that created the machines control everything? Let the few remaining creative types, engineers, and entertainers have all the wealth? Without the work for pay paradigm, what do we have?

Look up the basic income movement

Also I'm not so sure machines can't be creative, its looking increasing like creativity can be modeled mathmatically

 

[grip]

As we all are well aware, technology often makes certain jobs obsolete. As machines and electronics start doing more and more of the work that once required manpower, we find ourselves with an interesting dilemma. It's easy to envision a world where all production is done by machines. Currently, this still creates jobs in the technology sector. Yet it isn't difficult to envision a future where machines can repair each other and keep each other running indefinitely. Industries like agriculture and manufacturing could be 100% automated in such a future.

Granted, we would still have a handful of industries that could never be automated, mostly in the creative field. We would have machines that could make everything we need and want and provide us with every service we might want, but we would still need some creative types to come up with new inventions, new fashions, etc. and engineers to develop the programming to make those new things happen. We would probably also still want to be entertained by other humans. But those remaining industries would be tiny.

The problem here is obvious. Work is no longer necessary, but resources are still scarce. Our previous notions about working to earn your rewards are thrown out the window since no work is necessary. We could, of course, create busy work and make people do busy work in order to determine how much stuff they get. But that doesn't seem to make any more sense than making people compete in athletic competitions to see how much stuff they get. So, what do you do in such a world? Split it up evenly across the board? Let the descendants of those people who built the companies that created the machines control everything? Let the few remaining creative types, engineers, and entertainers have all the wealth? Without the work for pay paradigm, what do we have?

The dilemma turns into a -catch 22- with machines producing more and more for people who have no income or employment to buy the stuff. In time, they will have to produce less people who need resources or more ways to make people productive again.

 

[CrabCake]

Wealth is just access to commodities. In a world of plenty, there are no commodities.

No one is talking about such a world. The fact that work is no longer necessary in order to produce goods and services does not mean that resources become infinite. We are still limited by the resources available to us. What can change is how we allocate those resources. But we are still limited every year to having: only as much ore as can be mined in a year, only as much plastic as could be produced in a year, only as much petroleum as can be extracted in a year, only as many widgets as factories can produce in a year, etc. Automation will not solve the basic economic problem. What it will do is destroy the justification for the current economic models and force us to rethink how we approach the distribution of resources.

 

[Unrepresented]

No one is talking about such a world. The fact that work is no longer necessary in order to produce goods and services does not mean that resources become infinite. We are still limited by the resources available to us. What can change is how we allocate those resources. But we are still limited every year to having: only as much ore as can be mined in a year, only as much plastic as could be produced in a year, only as much petroleum as can be extracted in a year, only as many widgets as a factory can produce in a year, etc. Automation will not solve the basic economic problem.

You've answered your own question then; commodities exist, competition for access still exists, our current system of allocation exists.

 

[spud_meister]

Property and wealth will have to be forcibly redistributed, or the world will crash. :shrug:

 

[CrabCake]

You've answered your own question then; commodities exist, competition for access still exists, our current system of allocation exists.

Competition based on what?

No work is necessary to produce anything. The old ideals about earning what you want are gone. How do people compete?

 

[lifeisshort]

Property and wealth will have to be forcibly redistributed, or the world will crash. :shrug:

Cuba forcibly redistributed and crashed too. When will you commies ever learn? It does NOT work.

 

[CrabCake]

Cuba forcibly redistributed and crashed too. When will you commies ever learn? It does NOT work.

What does capitalism look like in a world with no work?

 

[imagep]

Property and wealth will have to be forcibly redistributed, or the world will crash. :shrug:

No reason it will have to be forcibly redistributed, although that is an option.

 

[Unrepresented]

Competition based on what?

No work is necessary to produce anything. The old ideals about earning what you want are gone. How do people compete?

Competition for access to commodities. That's the way capitalism works. Take commodities, distribute them, exchange them.

The commodities change over time and over societies.

 

[imagep]

Cuba forcibly redistributed and crashed too. When will you commies ever learn? It does NOT work.

To the best of my knowledge, Cuba still exists, even despite 50 years of economic sanctions and the loss of support from the USSR.

 

[imagep]

Somehow I can't see a world where there is absolutely no need for human labor.

What I can see is a world where the need for human labor is minimal, and I believe that this may be the case before the end of the 21st century.

My solution would be to set effective maximums on the amount of work hours that employees can work, and to reduce the number of years in the workforce that we need to work. This would increase the number of jobs available to those who desire to work, so that every family could have at least one.

A "citizens dividend" (or guaranteed income) may also be part of the solution.

 

[spud_meister]

No reason it will have to be forcibly redistributed, although that is an option.

If the owners of the robots won't voluntarily relinquish the products the robots make, then they would have to be taken by force.

 

[spud_meister]

Cuba forcibly redistributed and crashed too. When will you commies ever learn? It does NOT work.

There is no other option when robots produce all things.

 

[CrabCake]

My solution would be to set effective maximums on the amount of work hours that employees can work, and to reduce the number of years in the workforce that we need to work. This would increase the number of jobs available to those who desire to work, so that every family could have at least one.

Couldn't we already do that? More importantly, shouldn't we?

 

[imagep]

Competition for access to commodities. That's the way capitalism works. Take commodities, distribute them, exchange them.

The commodities change over time and over societies.

But in a world where one's labor isn't a commodity (because it's simply not needed), what does a typical family have to exchange for commodities?

 

[imagep]

If the owners of the robots won't voluntarily relinquish the products the robots make, then they would have to be taken by force.

By taxation, yes, if that's what you are calling force. But we do that already, so that's not really a paradigm shift, it's just a matter of intensifying what we already do, and as long as we aren't talking about a 100% tax, it doesn't have to lead to true socialism or communism because there will still be an economic reward for capitalists.

 

[imagep]

Couldn't we already do that? More importantly, shouldn't we?

We do, do it already.

We have child labor laws, we incourage retirement by age 65, we have a progressive tax system.

It's just a matter of degree, and we can steadily increase this degree as the need for human labor is reduced.

And yes, we should.

 

[UtahBill]

Work is and always will exist....the robotics age has cut into the tedious, mundane, and dangerous work, but there is still plenty to go around.
The grass still grows, the leaves still fall, as does snow. Somebody has to deal with that, and it won't be a robot. Just because the technology
exists to do something doesn't mean it is economically feasible.
Robots haven't cut into farming much either. And construction, perhaps, if you want a community of boring ticky tacky houses that all look the same.
Every technical breakthrough has created jobs while killing off others. THe new jobs usually require more education for the few needed.
I used to be an electronics repair man, started in 1965....the job still exists, but only a small fraction of repair personnel are needed compared to 1965.

If you want job security, learn robotics, and even then, watch for changes within that might require you to retrain....

 

[imagep]

Work is and always will exist....the robotics age has cut into the tedious, mundane, and dangerous work, but there is still plenty to go around.

Right now there is (even that is arguable). But what about the future?

....the job still exists, but only a small fraction of repair personnel are needed compared to 1965....

That right there, is the issue. It's not so much that there won't be any work, just that there won't be enough 40 hour/week jobs for every family to have one.

 

[gdgyva]

Property and wealth will have to be forcibly redistributed, or the world will crash. :shrug:

What the **** do you think has been happening for years now

Guys like me, who continue to make more and more income with my wife, seem to pay a larger share of it every year

And most of our income is taxable at the highest rates

Now....we don't mind paying a fair share....but the definition of a fair share keeps changing

What percentage should we be able to keep? 50...40?

And we are both nearing retirement.....trying to build our nest egg so we don't have to rely on uncle Sammie and his social security program that may not be there

There comes a point when too much is too much......

We are nearing that for a lot of us in my predicament

 

[imagep]

...

Now....we don't mind paying a fair share....but the definition of a fair share keeps changing

What percentage should we be able to keep? 50...40? ...

Good point. The top income tax rate peaked during WW2 at 92%, and has pretty much been declining ever since, so you should be rejoicing that you are a 1%er (which you are if you are in the top income tax bracket), and that you don't have to turn over 92% of your top bracket earnings.

 

[UtahBill]

Right now there is (even that is arguable). But what about the future?




That right there, is the issue. It's not so much that there won't be any work, just that there won't be enough 40 hour/week jobs for every family to have one.

Short term fix, make the standard work week 35 hours.....with a minimum tax rate on overtime wages of 50%. Overtime will cease to exist, employers will have to hire more people.

Pay them the same as if working 40 hours. Employers won't pay any benefits, it should be up to the individual to take care of the health care expenses, the retirement plans, etc.