Technological unemployment is (almost) here

[Rassah]

We need an RBE (resource based economy). Is this or death. Cryptocurrencies may be a good transition, but they ultimately solve nothing.

RBE is just free market capitalism, but with votes instead of money as a demand signal. Plus maybe some totalitarianism and Big Brother type stuff.

[knightcoin]

sometimes too much automation is terrible ... when it is hard to pull software out the box, glueless-lego-chip are can be very usefull

  

[giantdragon]

RBE is just free market capitalism, but with votes instead of money as a demand signal.

In RBE all means of production are public property so there are no capital owners at all (in fact, entire population of the community owns equal share of the economy). Difficult to call it the capitalism!

[Rassah]

RBE is just free market capitalism, but with votes instead of money as a demand signal.

In RBE all means of production are public property so there are no capital owners at all (in fact, entire population of the community owns equal share of the economy). Difficult to call it the capitalism!

Whoever controls what each member of the public is able to receive, owns the capital. Be it a capitalist person, or an RBE computer system.

[giantdragon]

Whoever controls what each member of the public is able to receive, owns the capital. Be it a capitalist person, or an RBE computer system.

But redistribution is completely different - in capitalist system unemployed will get nothing but in RBE equal share of the products made by publicly-owned automated factories.

[TCraver]

Or are you just assuming that capital owners would be suspicious that somehow they're getting robbed, if a lot of other people are suddenly better off?

Corporations like Apple and Google have tons of cash in savings but nevertheless dodge paying taxes even at the current tiny rates.
Do you really think capitalists will suddenly start sharing profits voluntary?!

Businesses can easily adapt to an altcoin with fast demurrage.  They'll spend altcoins as fast as they can, of course, and when they acquire a surplus that they don't need to spend right away (i.e. a profit), they'll be able to exchange it for Bitcoins or dollars or some other currency for a small premium.  When they need to spend more than they have on hand, they will be able to exchange their dollars for altcoins to gain back most of the premium they paid to get into dollars. 

The basic question a capitalist will ask him or her self, will be -"Would I rather incur the small effort and tiny cost of accepting and handling a high demurrage rate altcoin, or let these customers with the altcoins go to a competitor who will accept them?"   

As long as there are fast, convenient and reliable online exchanges, I suspect they will take the business.   

For that matter, it seems like any crypto-coin for crypto-coin exchange could be done completely with an online ask/offer/accept/trade protocol, with only the tiny transaction fees.   No need for an intermediary exchange-for-fee business, as there is for converting to/from government currencies.   

[giantdragon]

The basic question a capitalist will ask him or her self, will be -"Would I rather incur the small effort and tiny cost of accepting and handling a high demurrage rate altcoin, or let these customers with the altcoins go to a competitor who will accept them?"   

This question can be equivalent to "Do capitalists agree to pay taxes to fund unconditional income?" or "Do capitalists agree to keep wage the same but reduce working hours?". Demurrage is just another expense for capital owners along with taxes and wages.
Considering this fact and that many (probably most) CEOs and major shareholders are insane right-wingers, the answer is rather obvious!

[Biomech]

RBE is just free market capitalism, but with votes instead of money as a demand signal.

In RBE all means of production are public property so there are no capital owners at all (in fact, entire population of the community owns equal share of the economy). Difficult to call it the capitalism!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Public property is an oxymoron in all languages.

[giantdragon]

@Biomech, tragedy of the commons will occur in capitalist (free-market) economies when tech unemployment will hit them. Consumer demand is the resource that will be depleted!

[Rassah]

Consumer demand is the resource that will be depleted!

The only point at which consumers stop demanding is when they die.

[thedarklight]

Okay let me join this game.

First, check out my whitepaper which is my solution to technological basic income http://darkai.org/?page_id=41

It is work in progress. Please let me know what you think.

[Biomech]

@Biomech, tragedy of the commons will occur in capitalist (free-market) economies when tech unemployment will hit them. Consumer demand is the resource that will be depleted!

Which won't happen in socialist communities because they will eat themselves first. Long before technological unemployment is actually a concept, let alone a problem.

The truth that has been in our faces since the first proto-human figured out a tool is that when we reduce labor in one area, it opens up new areas.

The other truth, sadly, is that there are always a bunch of whining bastards who proclaim the end of the world whenever the paradigm shifts.

Look at the example you're typing on. It put a lot of professions out of business. Yet it CREATED hundreds more. Possibly thousands, given the flexibility of the Personal Computer.

We are not going to be outcompeted by robots. We will adapt. We always have, and we always will. I am a strong believer in the abilities and potential of the human race. We are a dangerous, misguided, fucked up, creative, and wonderful species who will dominate everything we touch, learning along the way, until we either perish utterly or get off this rock. (which will also be a likely scenario as automation pushes further into our lives.)

Technologically speaking, we should have already colonized near space and be well on our way to the stars. All we lack is the will, and with both automation and an unrestricted breeding cycle, the will will come.

[giantdragon]

The only point at which consumers stop demanding is when they die.

People won't die if they won't buy cars, smartphones, luxuries, movies, music, go to fitness, yoga, beauty shops etc!

Which won't happen in socialist communities because they will eat themselves first. Long before technological unemployment is actually a concept, let alone a problem.

Currently there are no truly socialist communities in the world, therefore it cannot happen in principle. But for the most developed countries (which are all free-market capitalist now) technological unemployment is knocking the door. Don't believe?! Look at the U.S. labor participation rate since year 2000.

Look at the example you're typing on. It put a lot of professions out of business. Yet it CREATED hundreds more. Possibly thousands, given the flexibility of the Personal Computer.
We are not going to be outcompeted by robots. We will adapt. We always have, and we always will.

For many people it is just hard to understand what is an exponential growth curve (technology advancements follows it). No doubt new jobs will appear, but after some point their number will be less than jobs automated.

[Biomech]

The only point at which consumers stop demanding is when they die.

People won't die if they won't buy cars, smartphones, luxuries, movies, music, go to fitness, yoga, beauty shops etc!

Which won't happen in socialist communities because they will eat themselves first. Long before technological unemployment is actually a concept, let alone a problem.

Currently there are no truly socialist communities in the world, therefore it cannot happen in principle. But for the most developed countries (which are all free-market capitalist now) technological unemployment is knocking the door. Don't believe?! Look at the U.S. labor participation rate since year 2000.

Look at the example you're typing on. It put a lot of professions out of business. Yet it CREATED hundreds more. Possibly thousands, given the flexibility of the Personal Computer.
We are not going to be outcompeted by robots. We will adapt. We always have, and we always will.

For many people it is just hard to understand what is an exponential growth curve (technology advancements follows it). No doubt new jobs will appear, but after some point their number will be less than jobs automated.

Capitalist, yes. Free market? You seem an intelligent dude, so I'm not going to behead you for that ignorant remark. The only free markets in the US, and most developed nations, are referred to as "black markets" by the media. And they are indeed prosperous. The rest is regulated unto death. A great deal of the lack of labor participation in the US is due to the fact that if you try to engage in any sort of commerce without a small to large fortune backing your endeavors, the barrier to entry via licensing, inspections, necessary bribes, ad nauseam make it nearly impossible. In a free market, the failure rate would be higher, but the losses generally smaller, as the barrier to entry is essentially skill and guts.

Also, of note in your own reply, yes the most developed nations are capitalist. Funny how that works, isn't it? I'm not speaking theoretically when I say socialist societies eat themselves. I'm old enough to have observed it, multiple times. The Soviet Union achieved rather more than most of them, but in the end the necessary contradictions of "public" ownership, as opposed to individual ownership, led to their demise. Socialism is a beautiful concept, if you don't look too deep. It works great for ants, bees, and the Borg. But humans are NOT faceless, replaceable parts in a giant machine. Trying to make us be leads to failure.

The problem you present is real. And yes, I do understand exponential growth (and it's limits!). But the problem is not insurmountable. For one thing, technological advancement does not happen all at once and all in one place. Thus when a certain threshold is passed in one place, those in others observe, react, and where necessary, change course. In a truly free market, this is a quick, dynamic process. In what passes for markets now, it isn't.

The one thing I have in common with socialists is a hatred for the corporate dynamic. Not so much how they organize things, that works, but the very concept of a juridical person. It absolves their leaders of responsibility for atrocious acts. It is exactly the same bullshit as "sovereign immunity" in yet another scam: Central government. Remove the latter, and the former no longer have the patina of legitimacy conferred by the status of Juridical Person. Once that patina of legitimacy is removed, they either have to let the people rise, or show their true colors and raise armies to keep us on their treadmill. Ultimately, the corporatism of the modern age will fail, and when it does, strong individuals will find ways to solve their problems. The weaker or less motivated will emulate them, and we will start making more, different problems for ourselves.

We are a young species. We have come far in a short time, and yes, these issues need to be addressed. But let's not base the solutions on things that have already been proven a failure.

[giantdragon]

Capitalist, yes. Free market? You seem an intelligent dude, so I'm not going to behead you for that ignorant remark. The only free markets in the US, and most developed nations, are referred to as "black markets" by the media. And they are indeed prosperous. The rest is regulated unto death. A great deal of the lack of labor participation in the US is due to the fact that if you try to engage in any sort of commerce without a small to large fortune backing your endeavors, the barrier to entry via licensing, inspections, necessary bribes, ad nauseam make it nearly impossible. In a free market, the failure rate would be higher, but the losses generally smaller, as the barrier to entry is essentially skill and guts.

"Free-market" is very abstract term. This is mostly true if you speak about trade barriers (during last decades most of them have been removed, allowing corporations to outsource labor to third-world countries that affected wages and employment the same way as automation).
Moreover, removing entry barriers and licensing won't significantly affect employment. It will simply increase competition in the currently-protected sectors slashing the wages and profit margins. For example, if the government will entirely remove all taxi regulations, some unemployed will get opportunity to earn living with driving own car while many professional taxi drivers will be pushed away from the market with falling fares.

Also, of note in your own reply, yes the most developed nations are capitalist. Funny how that works, isn't it? I'm not speaking theoretically when I say socialist societies eat themselves. I'm old enough to have observed it, multiple times. The Soviet Union achieved rather more than most of them, but in the end the necessary contradictions of "public" ownership, as opposed to individual ownership, led to their demise. Socialism is a beautiful concept, if you don't look too deep. It works great for ants, bees, and the Borg. But humans are NOT faceless, replaceable parts in a giant machine. Trying to make us be leads to failure.

There are simply no capitalist solutions for the technological unemployment problem. Period! Even moderate right-wingers accept this fact (you cannot call the author of the book "Lights in the tunnel" as socialist because he fully advocates market-based economic model, but nevertheless he insists to implement unconditional income TO SAVE this system). If insane right-wing fanatics (they call themselves "neoliberals" or "neoconservatives") won't change their position, they all will be killed during revolutions.

For one thing, technological advancement does not happen all at once and all in one place. Thus when a certain threshold is passed in one place, those in others observe, react, and where necessary, change course. In a truly free market, this is a quick, dynamic process. In what passes for markets now, it isn't.

World elites now mostly consist of insane neoliberals who try to hide any problems and keep status quo until the end.

[Biomech]

Capitalist, yes. Free market? You seem an intelligent dude, so I'm not going to behead you for that ignorant remark. The only free markets in the US, and most developed nations, are referred to as "black markets" by the media. And they are indeed prosperous. The rest is regulated unto death. A great deal of the lack of labor participation in the US is due to the fact that if you try to engage in any sort of commerce without a small to large fortune backing your endeavors, the barrier to entry via licensing, inspections, necessary bribes, ad nauseam make it nearly impossible. In a free market, the failure rate would be higher, but the losses generally smaller, as the barrier to entry is essentially skill and guts.

"Free-market" is very abstract term. This is mostly true if you speak about trade barriers (during last decades most of them have been removed, allowing corporations to outsource labor to third-world countries that affected wages and employment the same way as automation).
Moreover, removing entry barriers and licensing won't significantly affect employment. It will simply increase competition in the currently-protected sectors slashing the wages and profit margins. For example, if the government will entirely remove all taxi regulations, some unemployed will get opportunity to earn living with driving own car while many professional taxi drivers will be pushed away from the market with falling fares.

Also, of note in your own reply, yes the most developed nations are capitalist. Funny how that works, isn't it? I'm not speaking theoretically when I say socialist societies eat themselves. I'm old enough to have observed it, multiple times. The Soviet Union achieved rather more than most of them, but in the end the necessary contradictions of "public" ownership, as opposed to individual ownership, led to their demise. Socialism is a beautiful concept, if you don't look too deep. It works great for ants, bees, and the Borg. But humans are NOT faceless, replaceable parts in a giant machine. Trying to make us be leads to failure.

There are simply no capitalist solutions for the technological unemployment problem. Period! Even moderate right-wingers accept this fact (you cannot call the author of the book "Lights in the tunnel" as socialist because he fully advocates market-based economic model, but nevertheless he insists to implement unconditional income TO SAVE this system). If insane right-wing fanatics (they call themselves "neoliberals" or "neoconservatives") won't change their position, they all will be killed during revolutions.

For one thing, technological advancement does not happen all at once and all in one place. Thus when a certain threshold is passed in one place, those in others observe, react, and where necessary, change course. In a truly free market, this is a quick, dynamic process. In what passes for markets now, it isn't.

World elites now mostly consist of insane neoliberals who try to hide any problems and keep status quo until the end.

Free market is not an abstract term, but it has been deliberately obscured for a long time. Primarily by the followers of the "great" John Maynard Keynes. He is one of the people that makes me wish I believed in an afterlife, because the thought of that son of a bitch rotting in hell for all eternity makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

For perspective, I'm coming from the Austrian school of economics, which has thus far been very consistently correct in it's predictive and descriptive ability. Keynesian economics have also been very consistent. It hasn't been right once.

However, I completely agree with your last sentence. It's a large part of why I find cryptocurrency so attractive. It's an attempted end run on the system. I don't know that it will work in the long term, but it's making them nervous. I like it when they are nervous.

I am a free market anarchist. I developed my own philosophy over several decades, so I can't point to one school of thought that defines my philosophy, but the closest would be agorism. I don't see competition as a bad thing, and in your example of taxi drivers, the best service would win out. Which is a function of both price and service. Absent the regulation, it would tend to the mean. Yes, some would win and some would lose. To say that regulation and barriers to entry have little effect on employment is frankly to ignore history completely. Even the most diehard centralist is well aware of the direct correlation there. However, "unemployment" is in itself a somewhat misleading term. I assumed it to mean, in your context, gainful work. If you mean gainful work in the service of another entity, then we have been arguing to cross purposes anyway.

I maintain that we have not run out of things to do, and for gain, and that we never will. The robots are tools. Who's hands they fall into will make a lot of difference in the outcome, but people will find a way to subsist.

[bitaxed]

There are simply no capitalist solutions for the technological unemployment problem. Period! [CUT]

Rephrased: there are simply no society based on saving (capitalist) able to conceive solutions for a problem (technological unemployment) that it will never face in free-market economy. We can conceive solutions for imaginary problems: a very good attitude, but not strictly necessary. Fortunately, for planned economies there exists capitalist solutions: bankruptcy solves technological unemployment caused by government intervention.

The real problem for socialist economies is that there are simply no economical solutions for the technological unemployment utopia. Period!

In our planned socialist economies we are often discussing their big-problems caused by big-failures of big-govs, big-banks, big-corps. In free-market capitalism failure is not a problem is the engine.

[Biomech]

There are simply no capitalist solutions for the technological unemployment problem. Period! [CUT]

Rephrased: there are simply no society based on saving (capitalist) able to conceive solutions for a problem (technological unemployment) that it will never face in free-market economy. We can conceive solutions for imaginary problems: a very good attitude, but not strictly necessary. Fortunately, for planned economies there exists capitalist solutions: bankruptcy solves technological unemployment caused by government intervention.

The real problem for socialist economies is that there are simply no economical solutions for the technological unemployment utopia. Period!

In our planned socialist economies we are often discussing their big-problems caused by big-failures of big-govs, big-banks, big-corps. In free-market capitalism failure is not a problem is the engine.

Damn you people capable of brevity!

Well said.

[giantdragon]

I maintain that we have not run out of things to do, and for gain, and that we never will. The robots are tools. Who's hands they fall into will make a lot of difference in the outcome, but people will find a way to subsist.

Do you really think autonomous robots are simply the tools!? They won't just augment human's strength and mind as machines did in the past but replace human workers altogether in the most sectors!

The real problem for socialist economies is that there are simply no economical solutions for the technological unemployment utopia. Period!

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.

In our planned socialist economies we are often discussing their big-problems caused by big-failures of big-govs, big-banks, big-corps. In free-market capitalism failure is not a problem is the engine.

About what country with planned economy are you telling?! After USSR collapse neoliberal capitalism became the only economic model in all developed countries.

[Rassah]

Do you really think autonomous robots are simply the tools!? They won't just augment human's strength and mind as machines did in the past but replace human workers altogether in the most sectors!

If these machines are capable of replacing us, then why would they care about us or do anything to keep our species going? Where would a guaranteed income come from?

The real problem for socialist economies is that there are simply no economical solutions for the technological unemployment utopia. Period!

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.

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.