The new politics when automation removes low and middle skilled jobs.

We don't need machines to survive, though they do make surviving much more effortless.
As I mentioned in the other thread, what is actually needed, is access (whether direct or indirect) to raw natural resources.
The threat here is in having a significant portion of those needed natural resources becoming privately owned by folks who have no or little motivation to share it with the rest of society, due to automation meeting all their labor needs.

It will basically lead to massive unemployment for a very large segment of the population that wont be able to compete with the machines. For the vast majority of roles one could imagine, there will always be a robot employed by the wealthy resource owners that can do the job more efficiently. Supposing there are things which automation cannot handle, these jobs will suddenly become oversaturated with an increased number of candidates seeking employment from an ever decreasing number of employers...and of course, without access to raw natural resources themselves, it isn't as if that displaced segment of society could simply employ each-other. They'd basically be unemployable insofar as they were cutoff from their own means of production. Some folks just say put 'em all on welfare, but to me that sounds like a terrible idea.

-Meta

 

I think I listed pretty clearly my idea for steps to address increasing automation in the very post you were quoting.
They mentioned nothing about taking automation from the wealthy (the "evil capitalists" as you call them) to give it to the poor. That's just silly.
Instead, it makes much more sense to simply build the poor their own automation, and then ensure they have access to the required raw natural resources to use it,...and again the steps I listed out mention as much.

That's an excellent question. And I would say there are three hurdles we as a people need to cross to reach that point.

First is maturing the technology. Yes, we have some amazing stuff in the works today, but for the most part we haven't exactly reached the point in most areas where things are truly fully automated to the point of not needing in depth technical expertise to operate and maintain.

Once the tech has been matured, crossing the second hurdle would then involve lowering the cost of producing that automation such that it can be mass produced.

After the above two criteria have been met, the final challenge would be in bridging what I simply refer to as the political hurdle.

-Meta

 

I'm confused by your post,.....what exactly does any of the ^above have to do with the thread topic?

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I want the robots to be reallocated,
But as for the rest of your question, the simple broad answer is,...when all the needs and most of the wants of the inhabitants are being met.....I'm sure you wanted a more specific answer,...but for that you need to ask a more specific question.

-Meta

 

Like I said, the access doesn't necessarily need to be direct.
Today, most people access such materials indirectly, and that's perfectly fine
as long as the benefits of those materials continues to make its way to every person who requires them.

Aside from that, also keep in mind we're talking about a future world in which almost everything can be handled by automation.
Who's to say there wont be automation which refines that oil or melts down that iron and shapes it into some piece for construction purposes. (though it likely would be used instead to make some sort of future alloy)

-Meta

 

The thing is, people simply having desires is insufficient for employment to exist.
What is required are people who not only have desires, but who also happen to have access to the means needed for meeting those desires.

Case in point, many people who fall under the poverty line have more desires and needs than the more well off, but it is a rare site to see such a poor person employing anyone else,...and the reason is obvious, they typically have little if anything to offer up in exchange for such employment.

Those who do have things to offer up (ie: resources/access to resources direct or indirect, money, power, etc..) generally offer these things in exchange for labor,...something most everyone can offer. But if automation begins to replace all of the things that can be done by labor (regardless of whether this is service sector work, manufacturing, mental, physical, or otherwise)...well then, you can sort of see where the problem starts to come about for those who don't have their own access to those needed resources....

-Meta

 

Well, I will admit that continued/increased welfare probably would prevent a lot of the issues that would otherwise come about as a result of more and more roles becoming automated.....But, at the same time I have to question the notion that that is really the best way to go about handling things.

For one thing, such an expanding welfare state creates an untraversable rift between the rich and the poor,
and sews a deep seeded resentment of the other in each. One holding it towards the ever growing group which it views as lazy and yet must perpetually support in exchange for seemingly nothing, and the other towards the first who's levels of wealth and power its members continually have no hope of ever achieving, no matter how skilled or brilliant they are.

Secondly, a welfare state simply doesn't make for a very efficient economy, especially when there are still at least a few things which could be done by humans,...and especially when the amount of welfare provided isn't sufficient to meet all desires. Just think about it for a moment....regardless of whether the rich have automation which can build their houses for them,...as long as there are still people who are homeless, what makes more sense?.....

a) paying one of those poor homeless folks $40k over the course of a year to build additional houses/make more affordable automation to build said houses/train others to do the same...or

b) paying one of those poor homeless folks $40k over the course of a year in exchange for them doing nothing!....

Note: I'm not saying that welfare is bad,...I'm simply suggesting that they are better ways to spend the money.

-Meta

 

We may eventually need something like that,...once everything becomes fully automated
and once that automation has the capacity to meet everyone's needs.
Between now and then though, I think it makes more sense to put most of the money towards simply hiring folks.
Hiring them to see to citizen's basic needs. Hiring them to upgrade/maintain our infrastructures. Hiring them to create and perpetuate
the very automation which will move us towards that point of true full automation...

-Meta

 

I'm not really sure implementing a ubi is quite the same as "giving the state more power",....
(more power to me implies the state gains a right to do something it didn't already have)....
I also wonder why if it worked in small-scale Finland, it could not also work in larger-scale USA....either way though, I'll reiterate that I personally think that,
a) it may be possible that we'll eventually have no other choice but to implement some sort of ubi, and that
b) whether or not ubi will be needed in the future, it is not needed now as there are still a ton of things we could be asking people to do in exchange for that money.

If you don't like the ideas that have been offered so far,....what then would you do to address the looming prospect of significant job loss due to automation??

-Meta

 

[video=youtube;FIXtGi28R-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIXtGi28R-o[/video]