 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
A robot bartender will cost lot more than a human one. Makes no economic sense
It depends. Robots you pay for once. Humans you pay for continuously. Once you buy the robot then it doesn't get tired, it doesn't ask for a salary or sleep. If you use a robot for one year it will likely be more expensive then one years salary for a bartender. You will still need to pay for things like repairs and electricity for the robot. If you are paying the bartender only $2.13 per hour then these expenses would potentially exceed what you would pay the bartender. A robot will also not be able to effectively upsell and encourage additional sales the same ways that a human can. Solar electricity can power robots so I don't think electricity is the issue. I think repair can be made by letting robots make a profit and pay for its own repairs with its savings. I do think robots eventually will be dramatically cheaper for the service industry. It will start with vending machines and slowly progress to robots. |
|
|
|
A robot bartender will cost lot more than a human one. Makes no economic sense
It depends. Robots you pay for once. Humans you pay for continuously. Once you buy the robot then it doesn't get tired, it doesn't ask for a salary or sleep. |
|
|
|
This sounds a lot like socialism.
If everyone had a guaranteed income then why would anyone work?
They would work since said income would be enough to survive living cheap, but not enough to live in relative luxury. A much better question is: Why cant people ever do their research on basic income before asking the same stupid questions as the 100.000 previous askers and calling socialism? Are you aware that Richard Nixon in his days wanted to implement basic income? He certainly was no socialist. The fact is that all research on basic income shows wery positive results. Reduction in mental and physical illness, better nutrition, less educational dropouts and economic growth due to a boom in small local businesses. BI is showing it self to be an extremely usefull tool for reducing powerty. http://www.globalincome.org/English/BI-worldwide.html Guaranteeing income is the best way to keep people from working. Take disability insurance for example. The vast majority of people who go on disability (via social security) will never return to the workforce. In order to qualify for disability you must have some issue that "prevents" you from working for at least 1 year. Once you qualify for disability you continue to receive it assuming you do not earn (via a job) income over a certain amount for live (until retirement age at which point you receive social security "retirement" income). Most disabilities that people use to get on disability are not really preventing a person from working, but rather the fact that the person does not want to work. Extended unemployment insurance is another good example. When a person has a guaranteed income while looking for a job (unemployment) then they will have less of an incentive to be serious about looking for work until this guaranteed income is about to stop. There is a very high percentage of people who would "look" for work for a year or two years while on unemloyment, then once their benefits expire would find a job within weeks (or find a job very close to the end of the benefit) When people work less productivity still goes up. Technology increases productivity. So why do we need people to work? Automation is going to replace most of the jobs that people do and then what? Then people will be out of work and machines will do it. This is a similar situation to when we got rid of the draft and made enlistment voluntary. So why hold onto a legacy attitude designed for the previous century? Adapt to the changing times bro. One of the problems of guaranteed minimum income is that many people who are perfectly capable of working will refuse to do so because they do not feel the need to.
The economy does not need them working. If it did then it would pay them significantly more than they'd get from Basic Income or anything else. Let's face the modern reality, the service and retail jobs will not be done by humans for much longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDJc1NoGg2ghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Teo6veZOghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLTPbdT87a4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt0KOp5UiAIWhy would you need a human bartender or restaurant waiter in an era where the restaurants are being automated along with the bartender. The human worker culture of life is being phased out and human workers just aren't as important as they once were with the machines coming online. This is why unions don't have much power anymore. |
|
|
|
Great discussion, but as brush242 says it would be far too messy to require proof-of-human work every single day. A non-profit verification foundation makes more sense, and to avoid double-dipping/double-claiming it would need to base verification on a derivative of some unique identifying feature that cannot be changed. I think there are three broad categories of such identifiers, all of them imperfect: - Commercial identifiers (phone numbers, accounts on social networks)
- Government identifiers (passport metadata, tax/identity number etc)
- Biometrics (see CheapID for a proposal on this front)
The fourth way is to build a web of trust with crypto, check out OpenUDC project who have gone down that road. They way to do it is to provide universal basic capital. Universal basic income still requires there be corporations or businesses providing products and services. Universal basic capital is owning shares in these businesses. So if your community owns shares or if your nation owns them then the profit of the corporations would become a dividend. This dividend could be the universal basic dividend paid to every citizen or community member. You don't need to tax anyone or redistribute wealth. Wealth creation itself would create the dividend just as it currently does for the small handful of shareholders we have. If everyone had their fair share of ownership then if capitalism does work it works for everyone. Also it would make things more democratic. So if you're an anarcho-capitalist or a left-libertarian it would still work in your favour. If you're a billionaire then you don't have to worry about your taxes going up because it's not funded by taxes. What you would have to worry about is competition from decentralized businesses owned by communities. If you're part of the community today we could take a snapshot of every member of the Bitcointalk forum. We could make each one prove they are human. We could then give each one beta access to a new kind of DAC or decentralized application. This DAC would buy shares in other DACs and then hold them on behalf of the community. If the laws allow then these shares could be turned into real shares or signed over to each member who verifies they are a unique biological individual. The shares would then be legally signed over to them or given to them over Ethereum. What happens next? Well this app would not be an ordinary app. Users of the app would earn shares in the app. The more you use the app the more potential shares you could earn. As the app becomes more profitable your shares would pay dividends from transaction fees. It's also possible to burn the transaction fees and cause deflation which also has the same effect. The app would be 1.0. As a 2.0 is made or when different people make new DACs then they would simply airdrop to the shareholders of the original 1.0 app. That means once you join the community it's once per lifetime and you never have to do it again. The network on Ethereum would remember you and would know you're human. So that would be something which could probably only be done on Ethereum in the form of a DAO. But I don't think taxing people or inflating a currency is a good way to produce a sustainable basic income. A sustainable income could best be produced if you either tax automation or own shares in automation. |
|
|
|
This is just cost/benefit analysis, which is what humans do with every single decision they make, no matter how small.
If humans were all rational all the time you would be correct but this is a bit far fetched. Still it's an ideal that we can say humans strive for. Your paper sounds nice, just like Social Security sounds nice: "we're just asking everyone to pay their fair share to help those less-fortunate." My paper makes no mention of wealth redistribution. In fact the concept my paper promotes is called universal basic capital. My paper presents a plan which would make everyone a capitalist by giving everyone a share in capitalism itself. If you keep excluding people from the rise of capitalism then you cannot expect people to believe in the system. Remove the barriers to entry to that as a community improves it's productivity, and profits rise, the dividend goes to the community who also are the shareholders. Except, well, in practice it has been almost the dead worst investment ever; it takes an enormous amount of personal income, thus acts as a disincentive to productive work; and it has given the government a further tool to mislead the populace and devalue money. This is a straw man argument. I said nothing about social security or socialism. You're debating a straw man and it makes me question whether you really read my paper. My paper is based on the work of James Albus and his book a path to a better world. The difference is my idea is decentralized, global, and doesn't require a government permission. All it would require is that the SEC and government does not persecute future generations of capitalists who want to believe in capitalism. Beyond that? Well, I'll just mention one here. If you actually create some sort of non-owned autonomous entity, someone else is going to take it away from you.
A decentralized autonomous corporation can either be owned by a community (like Bitcointalk) or it could be self owned. If it's self owned then the shares don't exist or they exist but only allow humans to vote. It would mean the machine or autonomous entity would profit for it's own sake and pay humans and machines alike to repair / replicate it. So it is theoretically possible to have unowned machines. If the SEC for example were to persecute people then we could go with the unowned model. Just as we could say no one owns Bitcoin but it still exists. |
|
|
|
Collectivist ideas may look good, but every time in history they ended like this:
I can change the word "Collectivist" to "Capitalist" and post the same image!  No you can't - Killing fields, Gulag, KZ are not things companies come up with. Companies want to sell. Killing your customers is bad for business. The only company that ever killed substantial numbers of people on their own accord was AFAIK the East India Company. And that company grew so big and ugly that it turned into a government. But even they killed orders of magnitude fewer people than collectivists like Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao or the Holy Inquisition. Tell that to tabacco companies, soft drink companies and others. |
|
|
|
THOMAS NASAKIOTO -> Ellusive developer of iXcoin ( early 2011 )
(jumble the letters around)
SATOSHI NAKAMOTO -> Ellusive developer of bitcoin ( early 2009 )
Obvious Anagram. |
|
|
|
There is a high competition for specialised hardware. When Bitcoin started, everyone could mine it on CPU, then GPU, then FPGA and now only an elite can afford the $10K ASIC. The production of the hardware is highly centralised and the people that have access to it are decreasing everyday.
That's partly because we are at a special time in Bitcoin history. It will mature fairly soon (over the next 5 years). ASICs will plateau in power as they catch up with mainstream chip technology. Then they won't be superseded so quickly, so they'll be kept longer. They'll be produced in greater quantities. They'll become cheaper. We'll go back to more people being miners. But people still have to buy those chips and eventually one company could make them all. Bitcoin is centralized, it wont be worthless even if it is centralized but let's not act like Bitcoin will be the best coin 5 years from now. I don't think it will because by design Bitcoin isn't easily scalable or flexible. |
|
|
|
Marxism is still inside the box. The premises it was based on are based on the industrial mind set. The world we will live in will not resemble that world at all. We have a new set of problems now and you're better off learning from Star Trek than from Marxism. Marxism is not future proof, it's not scalable, it's based on assumptions. If you're vegan then you must be excited to know that sooner or later meat will lab grown or be 3d printed, it may actually be healthy to eat meat and no animal will have to suffer. Technology can lead to radical abundance. Capitalism/communism? Update your software. http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/11/26/radical-abundance-by-k-eric-drexler-2013-book-review/ |
|
|
|
STOP THINKING INSIDE THE BOX!!!
I'll take a look at your article thanks. For now, if that was directed at me I'll point out I'm not in this box I'm way outside so fare out people think I'm a Vegan Marxist. The negative ramifications of technological unemployment are non issues for me to be honest the image that comes to mind is the "milk" factory in Cloud Atlas. And I'm sure the humans that still have emotions will self correct. http://youtu.be/WfGMYdalClU this reminded me of this thread. I don't see technological unemployment as necessarily having negative ramifications that outweigh the long term positive ramifications. It depends on how we deal with it. So we don't need humans to do pointless grunt work anymore? We have machines which build and work for machines? Now we can be far more efficient in our designs. We don't have to produce as much waste, or destroy the earth because we will have more people taking part in the research and design phase. Intelligent machines can assist with research and design to optimize for survival scenarios which for instance have the lowest carbon footprint. Technology does not have to be like what you see in Cloud Atlas. Technology liberates people as well. If you watched that movie then you'll realize that it reached that point due to human ignorance. The same technology which would allow us to build intelligent machines would allow us to remove the veil of ignorance. Our design decisions could be longer term, more efficient, ecologically sustainable, and benefit the community designing it by awarding the shares to the designers. Human beings are the grand designers, and while intelligent machines will eventually surpass our capability to design, those intelligent machines will still require human feedback to optimize in a way which supports our habitat and along with it our long term survival. I don't fear technology. I'm no neo-luddite. It's the human being that creates destructive designs, not the tools. You could use 3d printers to reduce poverty, increase self sufficiency, promote ecological sustainability, or you could use it to make guns and other weapons. The human being decides and most human beings aren't very good at thinking about long term consequences. |
|
|
|
Capital assets in the form of dividend paying stocks for instance can provide basic income. You do not need to tax the rich to feed the poor because economic growth can pay enough in dividends to provide basic income to entire cities or entire countries. I hope to show that you can use the levers of capitalism even easier than you can use the levers of government and without any confrontation because you decide how to distribute your shares.
Interesting, who will voluntary give away these shares for free to the unemployed?!  To this exact point this is how much of the Soviet Union divided up the public assets, funny thing all the poor people sold there divided paying stocks to the wealthy. Who would voluntarily give their shares? When did I say it would work like that? Nor do I say some government should steal your shares and distribute it for you. Everyone is part of some community, if you're so greedy that you can't give a percentage of your shares back to the community why should you expect the community to support or protect your business? It's an advantage for a business to support the community they operate in. I would give some of my shares to my community. That doesn't necessary mean "the poor" or random people. When I say my community that could mean my fraternity, my peer group, the Bitcoin community or any community I choose. Most shares wouldn't be given away but should be easy to earn for the volunteers. People already are following this distributed ownership business model. They might not give the shares away for free but they let you in on it at pre-IPO when shares are going for pennies. Look at altcoins for example and you'll see that when altcoins launch they go for pennies. A small community of true believers form around the altcoin. These are the people who actually develop the coin, build value around the coin, etc. In a DAC if we use that as the example then you'll have people volunteering for shares in the DAC. They aren't supposed to all just be given away. In other cases people mine and get them from that. I find it strange that in the Bitcoin community where most are poor and own shares in this Bitcoin thing that you think it's a foreign concept that the same familiar process could be used over and over again to solve poverty. STOP THINKING INSIDE THE BOX!!!Have a look at my blog article and learn more http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/03/12/autopoietic-computing-and-reality-augmented-autopoietic-social-structures/ |
|
|
|
It is insane to waste energy on mining bitcoin in the age of peak oil where greedy energy companies destroy nature for profit. Right now all bitcoin miners consume the amount of the energy produced by an average US nuclear power plant (30 million KwH/day), or the total oil production of Phillipines (12,000 barrels of oil per day) The mining of bitcoin uses PoW (Proof of Work) to secure the network, which leads to an exponential growth of energy spent on mining. All miners compete against each other and must increase mining power (energy usage) to increase their chance of being rewarded in the mining process. But there are other models to secure a crypto currency without the need to waste energy: The security model of PoS (Proof of Stake) relies instead of the ownership of coins. The reason is simple: the more coins you own, the less is the risk that you wish to damage the coin for short term profit, since you would lose the value of your current holdings. So I hope Bitcoin evolves and starts to use PoS, or similar methods to save energy and save the nature. Sources: Proof of Stakehttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_StakeBitcoin Mining Uses $15 Million's Worth Of Electricity Every Day http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/03/fascinating-number-bitcoin-mining-uses-15-millions-worth-of-electricity-every-day/How much electricity does a typical nuclear power plant generate?http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=104&t=21List of countries by oil productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_productionCanada, before and after tar sand mining: Totally agree, Bitcoin is like Myspace, there'll come a cryptocurrency that'll totally obliterate Bitcoin from the markets. Soon. All everyone in this thread is doing, is comparing Bitcoin to other things such as how much electricity is used by banks etc etc, Stop comparing and realize that Bitcoin is just Contributing to the problem... Really guys..this makes me loose faith in humanity lol. Solarcoin actually promotes decentralization of Solar electricity generation. Distributed generation will disrupt the utility industry. Eventually we wouldn't even need to pay for electricity. |
|
|
|
If these machines are capable of replacing us, then why would they care about us or do anything to keep our species going?
It is nearly impossible to predict how AI development will go, but my personal opinion is that autonomous robots and software capable to replace ~50% of workforce will appear much earlier than self-aware ("thinking") machines. Where would a guaranteed income come from?
If you have read my posts you probably know that I prefer another solution rather than unconditional income. Address this question to it's supporters. He was saying that the tech unemployment problem is only something that happens in a socialist system, and can't happen in a capitalist system. Thus, there is no solution for tech unemployment in a capitalist system, because such a thing simply can't happen in that system.
Technological unemployment can appear only in capitalist system. In the variant of socialism with planned economy it is impossible in principle! @thedarklight, please post summary of your idea. Abstract The ideas presented in this paper developed in response to help resolve some of the problems which will result from technological unemployment. We believe that as machines become more intelligent and work currently done by human beings become automated there will be a sharp increase in the unemployment rate as humans are laid off to be replaced by intelligent machines. We believe that intelligent machines can be leveraged to provide a basic dividend to a decentralized pseudo-anonymous group of owners as a means of providing an axillary safety-net which cannot be shut down by any government or corporation. http://darkai.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Resilience-Project-Whitepaper-Draft-3c.pdfMy unfinished whitepaper provides an outline for a solution to technological unemployment. The whitepaper could use some editing, can be improved upon in the details, but it shows that you can have basic income under a pure capitalist system. No one has to use the government to take anything from anyone else. The government is merely bypassed in favor of technology which makes everything so cheap that the cost of living goes down. Capital assets in the form of dividend paying stocks for instance can provide basic income. You do not need to tax the rich to feed the poor because economic growth can pay enough in dividends to provide basic income to entire cities or entire countries. I hope to show that you can use the levers of capitalism even easier than you can use the levers of government and without any confrontation because you decide how to distribute your shares. |
|
|
|
All proposed solutions for tech unemployment I have ever read are more or less socialist. It will be very interesting if you can to suggest market-base one.  Here is my market based solution http://darkai.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Resilience-Project-Whitepaper-Draft-3.pdfThis whitepaper is a draft. Read it and let's discuss solutions rather than dwell on the problem and political division is part of the problem. Divide and rule. Of course I don't expect any of you to read it. You're more interested in debating politics. |
|
|
|
OP is idiotic.
The current financial system uses around 10,000 times more energy then bitcoin.
Think about how much oil you burn when you have brinks trucks driving around to fill up ATMs and move cash around.
Switching to Bitcoin would save the environment.
and Bitcoin uses around 3,000 times more energy then Nxt. That is what OP wanted to say And Solarcoin is more efficient than Nxt. Bitcoin wastes electricity in it's process while Solarcoin generates electricity in it's process. Asics are also terrible because it results in centralization which makes mining a losing activity for most of the people doing it. Compare it to Bitcoin or Nxt https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=429119.0 |
|
|
|
Okay let me join this game. First, check out my whitepaper which is my solution to technological basic income http://darkai.org/?page_id=41It is work in progress. Please let me know what you think. |
|
|
|
There are new conditions there haven't been before. It's never been possible up to now, but we are moving into unknown territory. This certainly isn't true simply because you state it as a conclusion without any reasoning or support whatsoever. It has never been possible up to now, because it isn't possible. There are no new conditions that change the principle that the only thing of value a human has to offer in trade for money (or, in other words, in trade for the labor of others) is their own labor. They have nothing else to offer. Ever. There are a lot of unknowns, that is true, but certainly not with the principle I just mentioned. What is actually unknown is how long people will cling to beliefs that they cannot support. How do you define labor though? Playing WoW is labor if the coins in WoW can be spent to buy real world items. The difference is people will be able to do what they want to do because the basic necessities are free. Very few people will choose to do nothing at all except maybe drug addicts, depressed persons, etc. The people who are depressed or with drug problems is not the vast majority. So as the vast majority has more free time then we will have more art and people playing sports, games, and other kinds of jobs. Work will be between 10-20 hours a week because no one really needs to work more than that and productivity doesn't improve working more than that unless you're trying to start a business and there is literally no one else to do it. |
|
|
|
Poverty becomes their job, my friends. When it's raining outside and you've partied all night you can choose to
a) go out and earn some money
or
b) sleep in and party again tonight because you know working people are sending you a check
Getting a job doesn't make you rich. This isn't about rich and poor really. Every human being costs x amount of resources and has to be accounted for one way or the other. Basic income allows the human being to develop their skills, educate themselves and live up to their potential while prison, poverty and some of the other options only suppress human potential. The idea I have is to use a dividend based around shares in DACs. DACs don't become profitable without any work. If you are going to use 3d printers or develop cool new products you have to be very creative. Artists have to design and render the product. Marketing campaigns have to be developed. It's not as simple as just giving people money and expecting value to generate itself, instead tools have to be built to facilitate value creation. And value isn't created by a useless 9-5 but by innovation and production. Long term poverty tends to be a choice. We have all seen 3rd generation welfare families. 'Cmon...three generations of people couldn't make the effort to uplift themselves? Really???
It's not entirely a choice if we aren't giving people a better option. If it's impossible to get rich, and easier to go to jail, then people will take welfare. If there is basic income instead of welfare then if people want more than just the minimum then they'll have to create value by making something new or doing something important. Most jobs people have today are not important, don't make anything new, and will soon be automated. What happens next? Need money - come to my place and mow my lawn, rake leaves, weed the garden. What? No takers? Oh, the poverty!
Machines will do that, so what happens next? You're not thinking of the big picture are you? Get a job or make one. It's that simple.
How do you make a job without investors? How do you have investors without people who have enough saved? Crowd funding allows anyone to become an investor in anyone else. If everyone in the community is a shareholder and anyone can crowd fund anything then there is plenty of money for people who want to start a business to make jobs. But in order for people to have money to invest they need basic income because you can't invest if you can't eat or pay rent. People who you think should mow your lawn are people I think should be investors and shareholders. Hell, I know an obese "retarded" guy with a limp named Lenny who makes the rounds every day at the local businesses - he gets them coffee, donuts, lunch etc and they pay him to do it.
Are you saying most "poor" people do not have the skills and energy of a fat, physically impaired retarded guy?
Give me a break. Long term poverty is a choice.
Long term poverty is a choice? So you know the secret to getting rich and if everyone follows those steps then everyone can do it? I don't think the situation is that simple. You ignore technological unemployment and the effects of automation. People just aren't all that useful for labor anymore. So if the machines will be doing the labor what should the people who don't want to live poor do? They should own shares in the machines which do the labor. Bitcoin shows the way, let the computer mine for you. |
|
|
|
Okay. So can they kick out the Dutch? Black people? Women? More importantly, would those kicked out, be forbidden from dealing with members of the group, or vice versa?
If we are talking about virtual communities then most of these categories of division do not have to exist. If they do exist because it's a separatist community then the separatists have the right to exclusively associate and assist only other separatists. I don't see how it's my business to interfere with these matters whether or not I agree with it. I don't think you can force a community to support a group of people financially who they don't want to support without initiating force against them. If you're asking about security issues and the use of force that is an area I cannot cover or be involved with but if you're asking about technology to give people the choice to form their own communities in any fashion they like then I can discuss it from a technological and politically agnostic perspective. But the larger point was that allmost universally these ideas are basically Ponzi schemes. While certainly there are economies of scale, if 10 people cannot afford the healthcare for themselves, then neither will 50 people, or 100, or a million, or in the US, 340 million, especially since the money used (taxes) loses 50+ percent of it's value off of the top.
Shares are capital assets. It's not a ponzi scheme to distribute capital assets which appreciate over time. It's not a ponzi scheme to use a dividend to give out basic income. As businesses in the community generate a profit by providing products and services of value they'll have money to give back to shareholders in the form of a dividend. That is not a ponzi scheme, a pyramid scheme, or anything else. No one has to be coerced, it's entirely voluntary and government force does not have to be used so there is no class warfare agenda in my plan. This is one of the issues that people wanting "free money (anything)" schemes refuse to address.
You don't understand because you did not read my white paper. Dividends are not free money. Dividends are given to shareholders only if the business is profitable. Businesses which fail don't produce any dividends. Distributing shares isn't the same as "free money" because shares alone aren't worth anything until people make the businesses profitable. |
|
|
|
|
