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

That's great! The first step in addressing any problem is to first realize that a problem exists. So we're making good progress.

Not sure where any of that came from.... :/
I didn't suggest anything about public ownership there, in fact I didn't suggest any specific solution at all to preventing third-world status in general, and nothing was meant to be "slipped in" other than what I actually said,...that being that third-world countries are third-world because they either lack resources (as a country), are consumed by war (within their borders), and or haven't implemented appropriate legislation or policies to resolve their structural issues.....Again, no mention of what would constitute appropriate legislation or policy there,....and I certainly didn't mention anything about taking cars from people and giving them to someone else......seriously,...where did that come from??......:/

I never said it wasn't!.....Though technically speaking the government does have a right to tax it.
But regardless of what sorts of legal and or moral ownership status you seek to apply,
none of that changes the sorts of effects such extreme accumulations of resources have on everyone else.

To illustrate this, lets go back to the deserted island example I brought up at the bottom of my last post.....man1 has his tree, and has built the fence around it, forbidding man2 from getting any food....So man1 can continue to tell man2 "it's mine!" 'till he's blue in the face,...he can even try to claim "I'm not hurting anyone", but again I ask you, is that really true? Is it really right for man1 to do what he's doing? And again, after having tried and failed to find something else on the island of which to satisfy man1 with, what should man2 do in this scenario??

And they'd be helping people even in the case that Fergus and people like him didn't exist.
And they'd probably be a lot cheaper too! Remember, he isn't the one building them,
he simply buys them up as soon as they hit market or auction in an effort to cash in on rental revenue.
If the only people who bought houses, were those who actually wanted to use them directly,
they would most assuredly cost a lot less to buy. And if everyone who wanted to buy
could actually afford to, there'd be a lot less renting going on, and as a result,
renters too, the ones who actually wanted to, would end up paying less as well.

.....So....basically you're saying the poor of the future will at least still have the option of living in a wooden shack made out of recycled garbage,...or that they could move to the north pole.......not really sure how they'd manage to travel or afford a back and forth from work if their shack was far away (not that they'd actually have a job!),...let alone how'd they'd pay for the trip to the north pole,...and who the heck knows what they'd even do once they got there other than freeze to death.

But you know,...we actually had a whole lot of wooden shacks like that before,....whole communities of 'em.
....They were referred to as Shantytowns or Hoovervilles and they were a disaster!....

I do want the government to do something, but I think you misunderstand exactly what it is I want government to do.

-Meta

 

A monopoly is not necessary.

Take Walmart for example...it isn't exactly a monopoly,...agreed?...They pay their employees pretty low right now, so their cost of doing business is not that high as it is (relative to the amount of business they do). And they also currently offer up some of the lowest prices for their goods. And based on their yearly profits they could afford to significantly reduce the prices of the things they sell even further, and the Waltons would still continue to be multi-billionaires,

...and yet, they do not do this,...but who can blame them really; they already attract the customers who are concerned with paying the lowest price,...
so what exactly would their motivation be which would lead them to voluntarily give up some of their profits in order to reduce prices below where they are now?

Wait.......you're saying that if a business becomes a monopoly and subsequently uses that monopoly privilege to price gouge,
that the business then deserves whatever profits it manages to yield from such price gouging???? If so, I couldn't disagree more...

-Meta

 

I agree that that is one potential outcome of ever-increasing automation,...but it'll be a crying shame is we go that rout, as it is far from necessary, and the alternative would be a helluva lot more utopian-esque and it wouldn't even be that hard to achieve given that we as a country were able to find the will to achieve it...

-Meta

 

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

Facts of the matter are as follows:
if automation saves money for Walmart, then Walmart basically has three options for what to do with that extra cash.
a) They can invest it into employees, either by paying employees more or by hiring new ones to do additional work.
b) They can 'spend it' via lowering the prices of the goods sold in their stores while still retaining the same profit margin. Or
c) They can pocket the extra cash as profits.

The only things that'll force Walmart to choose option b) (other than mandate) are increased competition from other businesses,
or a customer base becoming too poor to keep Walmart in business at the current price point.

Again, Walmart already offers up some of the lowest prices for their goods. And based on their yearly profits, if they wanted to, they could afford to significantly reduce the prices of the things they sell even further right now, and the Waltons would still continue to be multi-billionaires,...but they don't, and really why should they be expected to; they already attract the customers who are concerned with paying the lowest price,...why give up profits if its not going to increase market share such that such spending is recouped?

Could is the operative word there. And its true that it could do that, assuming of course that there existed some significant segment of the population who couldn't afford the toothbrushes at the old price but can at the new one (because they certainly aren't going to be taking any more customers from their non-existent competition). But it should be noted that while a decrease in price tends to lead to more buyers, it does not necessarily lead to increased profits which are the ultimate goal. There instead tends to be a sweet spot known as the Profit Maximization Price, which is higher wherever monopolies are involved.

In your toothbrush example, if it were possible for business A to increase its profits by lowering its prices, one would think it would have done so even before the automation came along, seeing as how they had 10cents per brush produced to play with. And if it wasn't possible before, due to insufficient marginal market demand at the lower prices, then automation (that simply reduces cost to produce) is not going to change that. In other words,...the cost of production merely acts as a lower bound for what the price can be set at, as well as a determinant for how much profit can be achieved, but it is otherwise independent of the previously mentioned Profit Maximization Price.

-Meta

 

This is exactly what people need to understand, and also what we as a society need to address.
We've gotten along so far as a country simply because, even as past industries have come and gone,
private resource owners have still, for the most part, always had a need (or want) for the rest of society's labor,
and in the few cases where that need was not sufficient, government has been willing to step in and pick up the slack.
But as that need becomes less and less, in part due to automation, the non-resource owners of society will need to find some alternate way of supporting themselves.

We live in an age where it is now conceivable that nearly every job could potentially be automated.
And if we don't begin to address that now, the consequences of our indifference will be upon us before we know it.
In fact, its already happening, and has been for years.

They're Here!... : Uber to deploy self-driving cars in Pittsburgh

-Meta

 

To the remarks about self-driving cars being a bust...as I already posted,...They're Here!... : Uber to deploy self-driving cars in Pittsburgh.
They're on our roads now, Uber is taking the lead in the U.S. when it comes to familiarizing the general public with these cars,
but fact is these cars have been driving among us for a while now while in testing. And while there isn't a whole lot of data out there yet,
according to one recent study, the statistics which are available seem to suggest that current self-driving cars are safer than human drivers on average.
And of course,...the technology is only going to improve and get better as time goes on: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...man-driven-vehicles-should-you-believe-it.htm

Where some may fail, others will come along after and build on the knowledge gained from such failures, as well as that gained from success,
and in some cases, such as with radio, some innovation or technological breakthrough may come along and completely remove what was once considered a need worth investing money into. Why worry about fixing broken radios when you can make radios that almost never fail and which are so cheap such as to be easily replaceable if they do?

Bottom line,...people need to stop underestimating the grand potential of technology and automation.

Robot Performs Soft Tissue Surgery Better than Human
Flying Robot Drone Can Stick to and Climb Walls like an Insect
Robobee, Flying, Swimming, Fly-like Bot Upgraded to Stick to Almost Any Surface

-Meta

 

No,...I suppose I can't blame you for thinking that,...but I can blame you for trying to ascribe your beliefs about what the solution is to me.
Private ownership of scarce resources, when occurring in excess, can create problems. We actually both seem to agree on that much.
But it is my belief that there are more than one way to handle solving such problems. Taking peoples' cars away is not a solution I think should be considered,
in fact, I'm of the opinion that the ability of citizens to acquire private ownership of things in society, needs to stay in tact.

Again, I think it is great that we can both at least agree that there is a problem.
As far as taxes go....my view is that, morally speaking,...it ought to be the case that the creator of something
has a right to set terms of use for whatever it is they created. It is government that created the fiat currency.
Now if government were to say try to collect taxes in the form of bitcoins, I think you might have a point,
...but, as far as I know, it doesn't do that,...at least not yet.....

Of course both resources matter. But as to how each relates to this discussion, there is a huge difference between them.
One case involves a person withholding a resource (labor) which is inherent to him and which also requires him to exert effort to share.
The other case involves a person withholding something which was provided by nature and which would exist regardless of whether or not he did.

From a moral perspective, we can actually break your question down a bit further by considering that morality,
as a code of conduct which governs a person's actions, can be divided up into the following:

-What is permissible (things which are not morally prohibited or forbidden)
-What is prohibited (things which one must not do/actions which are forbidden)
-What is required (things which people must do. This is where obligations, duties, and imperatives come in)
-What is encouraged (ways we want people to act, but don't think they should be punished if they fail to act this way) and
-What is discouraged (inverse of what is encouraged, and usually only discussed in terms of what is encouraged)​

http://rschlieper.net/ethics/glossary.html
http://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/fall2004/entries/morality-definition/

So with those concepts in mind, I believe there are two questions we are trying to answer here.
One being...is it morally encouraged for the men to share their respective resources with one another?
The other, and I think more important question, being...whether or not there is a moral requirement or obligation for either to share?

In my opinion, what obligates man1 to share the tree or its produce with man2..and what makes it a moral requirement for him to do so, is the fact that his (man1's) actions are the cause which have deprived man2 of access to the needed and otherwise freely available natural resource in the first place. I agree with you, that in general, and in this scenario in particular, there is no moral obligation or imperative for man2 to provide medical aid to man1, though I do believe such an action should still be considered morally encouraged.

Well,...to be fair, not everyone who owns land actually worked for it,...and not everyone who worked for it has it.
But...all of that is sort of beside the point. Point being that, as we agree,...if we allow a limited set of private entities to hoard too much of it,
such creates problems for everyone else, even up to the point that everyone else's very ability to work for that land is severely impaired.
I do have a suggestion for a comprehensive solution to this dilemma,...but,...I will save that for the next post.

-Meta

 

As I've mentioned before, my feeling is that there will eventually come a time when automation is so prevalent that all that'll be necessary to live will be some raw natural resources and a few machines. We cannot however assume that such implies that we'll all automatically have access to said machines, resources, and or the value they produce,...
...Rather, if we want such to be the case, we as a society are going to have to actively make it the case by considering how such resources, machines, and value are distributed.

Again, that does not necessarily imply the forced seizure of private property, such as the automation, though fair warning; my proposal does involve taxation of federally issued fiat currency. Some folks may not like that, but ultimately, it comes down to whether we want an economy in which only select private owners of machines and raw resources can live, or if we want to set things up so that the benefits of these machines and the raw natural resources reaches everyone.....

My suggestion to achieve the latter is as follows:

Phase 1: As automation begins to displace workers: Government should do more to provide for basic needs, by hiring a portion of the displaced to improve the country's various infrastructures (as it relates to food, water, housing, transportation, communication, power, etc.) in areas where the private sector falls short, as well as hiring folks to produce affordable personal automation (and or the resources to run it) at such a time that such automation becomes singularly sufficient to handle the roles of the aforementioned infrastructures. Costs for all of this should be offset, in part by user/purchase-fees, and in part by increased taxes on the most wealthy.

Phase 2: As everyone's basic needs are met: The standard workweek should be reduced where possible, spreading out existing work across an increased # of people, and freeing up time for those who were already employed. Employees should also be afforded more paid vacation, more medical/paternity leave time, etc. etc.
Costs here will be offset by an automation induced increase in productivity.

Phase 3: As people come to have more time on their hands: Government should begin investing more into education, research (cures for diseases, space exploration, additional automation etc.), and training, as well as hiring people to provide for recreational needs, by creating, operating, and maintaining a larger number of parks, community centers, tennis courts, swimming pools, equipment depots, sports orgs., etc. etc. and even branching out into art and music commissions.

Phase 4: Once everything is fully automated: Government simply needs to ensure that the perpetual benefits yielded from the marriage of
that automation along with the natural resources continues to reach everyone. In such a scenario, work itself might become a luxury of recreational nature.
It might even be the case that some begin to pay others for the opportunity to work, not because they needed to, or as an intermediate step to get something they wanted,
but because work itself was what they wanted. This, in my opinion, is where we want to reach.

In summary,...what I want government to do is,
-hire people to provide for basic needs by supporting our society's infrastructures/any automation which takes the role of that infrastructure
-hire people to free up time for others/changing labor laws to do the same after basic needs are met
-hire people to provide for recreational needs, and to promote education and research, and
-continue to do all of the above as needed (if needed) once 100% automation has been achieved.

-Meta