Want to pay NO income tax? Cut welfare.

[myrkul]

I don't know about you, but I don't see that as a problem. Do me a favor. Logic through, step by step, how, exactly, that's a problem.
I'll start you off:

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

with limited worldwide resources and resources being a necessary part of production, worldwide productivity has, even without considering demand at all, an upper limit. therefore, it is, at some point, impossible, to let everybody work at maximum productivity. since it is inefficient to teach double the amount of workers and let them work half-time, work will eventually be done by few people working full time.
to avoid that you can either:
- let a society be deliberately inefficient, giving everyone work
- find a way to distribute wealth without the necessity for work

both of which your prefered society cannot accomplish. or, for that matter, any existing one i know of.
so, increasing productivity is not a problem by itself. the problem is that we dont have a good way to deal with its consequences.

I don't think you quite understand how to do a logical progression. Let's try again.

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

Each individual will be able to produce more in less time. Therefore, it follows that:

There will be less workers needed to produce the same amount of products. Therefore, it follows that:

Less workers will be trained to produce products. Therefore, it follows that:

If people want to work, they will have to find something to do other than production. Therefore, it follows that:

The economy will shift largely from a manufacturing one to a service economy.

This is already being seen in industrialized nations. Your bogeyman is nonexistent. Not every job is one that produces something, some, perhaps even most, are services, such as daycare, tech support, or sales.

[1714763468]

1714763468

[1714763468]

1714763468

[fornit]

I don't think you quite understand how to do a logical progression. Let's try again.

Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:

Each individual will be able to produce more in less time. Therefore, it follows that:

There will be less workers needed to produce the same amount of products. Therefore, it follows that:

Less workers will be trained to produce products. Therefore, it follows that:

If people want to work, they will have to find something to do other than production. Therefore, it follows that:

you mistake appearance for function. just because you make it look formal doesnt mean its correct. specifically, without arguing with limited resources, less producing workers is no consequence of higher efficiency.

The economy will shift largely from a manufacturing one to a service economy.

This is already being seen in industrialized nations. Your bogeyman is nonexistent. Not every job is one that produces something, some, perhaps even most, are services, such as daycare, tech support, or sales.

my bogeyman is very much alive. service economy is nothing new, its just that services are a little more complicated to automate than production. but that doesnt mean service economy is the future, it just means its a little less ancient history than production economy. most services either require a good education or are at risk of becoming obsolete. daycare, medical care and similar services are one of the very few exceptions.

eventually, you just run out of services you can offer. unless, instead of increasing quantity you increase quality, which, for the most part, means better educated service personnel.

[myrkul]

eventually, you just run out of services you can offer. unless, instead of increasing quantity you increase quality, which, for the most part, means better educated service personnel.

So, your fear is that automation will take all jobs except those that need the most education, do I understand that correctly?

[fornit]

eventually, you just run out of services you can offer. unless, instead of increasing quantity you increase quality, which, for the most part, means better educated service personnel.

So, your fear is that automation will take all jobs except those that need the most education, do I understand that correctly?

what i fear is that current societies will only address the symptoms as long as it is possible to maintain the illusion that work for everyone is an option.
what i fear is that, if the problem is tackled to late, unequality, poverty and civil unrest will already have grown to the point where rational debate and a slow transformation of a society is no longer possible.

automation will take jobs, period. i can only predict to some extent what jobs that will be, and in what order. easy example: pretty much everything that has to do with transportation and logistics is likely to vanish within the next few decades.

[myrkul]

eventually, you just run out of services you can offer. unless, instead of increasing quantity you increase quality, which, for the most part, means better educated service personnel.

So, your fear is that automation will take all jobs except those that need the most education, do I understand that correctly?

what i fear is that current societies will only address the symptoms as long as it is possible to maintain the illusion that work for everyone is an option.
what i fear is that, if the problem is tackled to late, unequality, poverty and civil unrest will already have grown to the point where rational debate and a slow transformation of a society is no longer possible.

You still haven't logically connected automation and poverty. You do realize that this song has been sung before, yes?

The Curse of Machinery (Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson)

[fornit]

You still haven't logically connected automation and poverty.

only like a million times. how do you distribute wealth without work?

You do realize that this song has been sung before, yes?

The Curse of Machinery (Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson)

yeah, very long text.
does it address finite resources at some point?
because thats really the key to the argument. in the past (industrial era etc.), resources havent been a problem.

[myrkul]

You still haven't logically connected automation and poverty.

only like a million times. how do you distribute wealth without work?

You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?

You do realize that this song has been sung before, yes?

The Curse of Machinery (Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson)

yeah, very long text.
does it address finite resources at some point?
because thats really the key to the argument. in the past (industrial era etc.), resources havent been a problem.

Read it and find out. Trust me, you will be better for the experience. In fact, read the whole book. You will be exponentially better informed. If you read one text on economics in your lifetime, this is it.

[fornit]

You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?

they are selling products, plus they will be obsolete eventually.

You do realize that this song has been sung before, yes?

The Curse of Machinery (Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson)

yeah, very long text.
does it address finite resources at some point?
because thats really the key to the argument. in the past (industrial era etc.), resources havent been a problem.

Read it and find out. Trust me, you will be better for the experience. In fact, read the whole book. You will be exponentially better informed. If you read one text on economics in your lifetime, this is it.

i skimmed it a bit:

It would be far better, if that were the choice—which it isn’t—to have maximum production with part of the population supported in idleness by undisguised relief than to provide “full employment” by so many forms of disguised make-work that production is disorganized. The progress of civilization has meant the reduction of employment, not its increase. It is because we have become increasingly wealthy as a nation that we have been able virtually to eliminate child labor, to remove the necessity of work for many of the aged and to make it unnecessary for millions of women to take jobs. A much smaller proportion of the American population needs to work than that, say, of China or of Russia. The real question is not how many millions of jobs there will be in America ten years from now, but how much shall we produce, and what, in consequence, will be our standard of living? The problem of distribution on which all the stress is being put today, is after all more easily solved the more there is to distribute.

We can clarify our thinking if we put our chief emphasis where it belongs—on policies that will maximize production.

i tihnk its pretty clear that he does not address the problem of finite resources and/or a society that already moved from not employing children to not employing anyone that isnt between 20-50.

[myrkul]

You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?

they are selling products, plus they will be obsolete eventually.

Are they producing anything? Is the tech support rep on the phone producing anything?

You're seriously worrying about a non-issue.

[fornit]

You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?

they are selling products, plus they will be obsolete eventually.

Are they producing anything? Is the tech support rep on the phone producing anything?

You're seriously worrying about a non-issue.

sales clerks are already a dying species and the modern phenomenon called "tech support" is a scourge, and hopefully a short-lived one.

[myrkul]

You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?

they are selling products, plus they will be obsolete eventually.

Are they producing anything? Is the tech support rep on the phone producing anything?

You're seriously worrying about a non-issue.

sales clerks are already a dying species and the modern phenomenon called "tech support" is a scourge, and hopefully a short-lived one.

I see. you've never needed assistance with your computer, then?

You're evading, by the way.

[fornit]

I see. you've never needed assistance with your computer, then?

when i need assistance its usually with problems tech support needs assistance with, too.

You're evading, by the way.

evading a non-argument you never even presented properly.
but if you really insist: just because there are jobs that dont require any production doesnt mean there is an infinite number of possible jobs there. it doesnt even mean there is a single extra job there. unless you can make up a realistic scenario that doesnt require 80% of the worlds population becoming tech support staff i really dont see that i need to prove anything here.

[myrkul]

unless you can make up a realistic scenario that doesnt require 80% of the worlds population becoming tech support staff i really dont see that i need to prove anything here.

There are many more service-oriented careers that won't go out of style, no matter how automated the world gets, besides tech support. and yes, that includes sales clerk. The more upscale shops might even pride themselves on having human staff. Can you predict the future with 100% certainty? Neither can I. Nobody can. But the market can react to it when it happens, so long as it's not constrained by short-sighted regulations.

[fornit]

There are many more service-oriented careers that won't go out of style, no matter how automated the world gets, besides tech support. and yes, that includes sales clerk. The more upscale shops might even pride themselves on having human staff. Can you predict the future with 100% certainty? Neither can I. Nobody can.

strawman. i never claimed to precisely predict the future. neither did i claim that every single job will vanish. but if some jobs disappear, you need replacements. you didnt come up with any.

But the market can react to it when it happens, so long as it's not constrained by short-sighted regulations.

"the market" consists of human beings, which are short-sighted too - and usually dont give a fuck about other human beings that are only an abstract number in a statistic.
trusting in the market to magically solve all problems is just another religious belief.

[myrkul]

There are many more service-oriented careers that won't go out of style, no matter how automated the world gets, besides tech support. and yes, that includes sales clerk. The more upscale shops might even pride themselves on having human staff. Can you predict the future with 100% certainty? Neither can I. Nobody can.

strawman. i never claimed to precisely predict the future. neither did i claim that every single job will vanish. but if some jobs disappear, you need replacements. you didnt come up with any.

No, expecting me to come up with the new jobs is the strawman. I can't predict the future any more than you can. So I can make up jobs, like "fnargle washer," but without knowing what a fnargle is, I can't say for certain that it would need washing. But I can tell you that a great many of the service jobs that exist today will not go out of style, either because they cannot be automated, or because it will be a mark of prestige that you have chosen not to automate that particular service.

But the market can react to it when it happens, so long as it's not constrained by short-sighted regulations.

"the market" consists of human beings, which are short-sighted too - and usually dont give a fuck about other human beings that are only an abstract number in a statistic.
trusting in the market to magically solve all problems is just another religious belief.

The market responds to needs. it responds to needs by filling them. Filling those needs provides employment. If all human needs are filled by a machine, then that would be a pretty damn fine problem to have, don't you think?

[fornit]

No, expecting me to come up with the new jobs is the strawman. I can't predict the future any more than you can. So I can make up jobs, like "fnargle washer," but without knowing what a fnargle is, I can't say for certain that it would need washing. But I can tell you that a great many of the service jobs that exist today will not go out of style, either because they cannot be automated, or because it will be a mark of prestige that you have chosen not to automate that particular service.

there is precious little that can not be automated. mostly stuff that requires either creativity or complex manual labor. sure, some people will prefer human personnel, even if it costs a little extra. but that doesnt change the general trend.
i agree that its not fair to ask you to make up new jobs. its also not fair to claim that the service economy will neutralize the effect of lost production jobs without any possible way to back that claim up 

The market responds to needs. it responds to needs by filling them. Filling those needs provides employment. If all human needs are filled by a machine, then that would be a pretty damn fine problem to have, don't you think?

in theory, with a much nicer human race around or with infinite resources, yeah it would be.
but with finite resources and everybody wanting as much luxury as possible?

[myrkul]

The market responds to needs. it responds to needs by filling them. Filling those needs provides employment. If all human needs are filled by a machine, then that would be a pretty damn fine problem to have, don't you think?

in theory, with a much nicer human race around or with infinite resources, yeah it would be.
but with finite resources and everybody wanting as much luxury as possible?

I just don't see where your fears are. Are you afraid we'll strip the planet? You can't honestly believe that if all human needs are met by a machine that people would be unable to meet their needs because they don't have work, because that's a straight contradiction. Of course they will be able to meet their needs, all human needs are met by a machine.

And you seem to forget that the earth is not the sole source of resources in universe, or even in the solar system. Surely a culture so automated as to meet everyone's needs by machine will have solved the problems involved in asteroid mining, most likely, again, by sending... wait for it... a machine.

[fornit]

I just don't see where your fears are. Are you afraid we'll strip the planet? You can't honestly believe that if all human needs are met by a machine that people would be unable to meet their needs because they don't have work, because that's a straight contradiction. Of course they will be able to meet their needs, all human needs are met by a machine.

so you phrase something badly and when i dont correct you, you make up a contradiction solely based on your bad formulation? seriously?

And you seem to forget that the earth is not the sole source of resources in universe, or even in the solar system. Surely a culture so automated as to meet everyone's needs by machine will have solved the problems involved in asteroid mining, most likely, again, by sending... wait for it... a machine.

up until now, i was talking relatively short-term changes like automated transportation, supermarkets etc. using offworld resources is way way beyond that. you have to realize i am not making up science fiction here. i talk about stuff that already exists, is in development or is at least possible without any significant new technologies.

[myrkul]

I just don't see where your fears are. Are you afraid we'll strip the planet? You can't honestly believe that if all human needs are met by a machine that people would be unable to meet their needs because they don't have work, because that's a straight contradiction. Of course they will be able to meet their needs, all human needs are met by a machine.

so you phrase something badly and when i dont correct you, you make up a contradiction solely based on your bad formulation? seriously?

Look, it's very simple: Until and unless all human needs are met by machine, there will still be work to be had. Once all needs are met by machine, there will be no need for work. Your fears are unfounded.

And you seem to forget that the earth is not the sole source of resources in universe, or even in the solar system. Surely a culture so automated as to meet everyone's needs by machine will have solved the problems involved in asteroid mining, most likely, again, by sending... wait for it... a machine.

up until now, i was talking relatively short-term changes like automated transportation, supermarkets etc. using offworld resources is way way beyond that. you have to realize i am not making up science fiction here. i talk about stuff that already exists, is in development or is at least possible without any significant new technologies.

And there will be some short-term disruption with each new technology. But by focusing on that short term disruption to the exclusion of the long term gains you commit the very error I was trying to prevent by suggesting you read the chapter I provided you. Now, do us all (and especially yourself) a favor, and spend a few minutes learning from Sv. Hazlitt.

[grondilu]

3. Remove defense (we don't need to be fighting in any wars)

You might want to reconsider this.

It's not because you don't need to be fighting that you should not be prepared for a fight.  Si vis pacem...