Yeah. I remember reading a scifi story in a collection, ages ago, where economic activity had become sufficiently automated that all needs were met, but every family was given a set amount they were required to consume; "wealth" was measured by only being required to consume to your needs; poverty implied that you had to consume substantially more than you needed.
Let's pretend a new fangled service eliminates the need for 100,000 jobs from the american economy. Just, boom, no longer needed.
As is, this is would be seen as a bad thing, because that's 100,000 people without income.
Why in the world. Those people didn't stop being valuable, contributing members of society just because we eliminated the shitty jobs they had. Now they can be free to be humans.
This was a major problem in ancient Rome following the end of the Punic Wars (because Rome had enslaved SO MANY Carthaginians; we'll call this contextually analogous to automation). I won't try to list all of the other times in history that things melted down due to lack of jobs, but at least since the Industrial Revolution, it's been a pretty well constant problem, and a top cause for immigration to the US.
I don't even want a lot beyond the basics. In a post scarcity/reputation economy, I'd be okay with fairly basic standard of living it meant that I got to have everything covered and I could focus on the things I enjoy and that makes things better for others.
We need to ween ourselves off of the capitalist treadmill, as a society. Start by tapering down work hours as we get closer to retirement. The older people need less $$ because saving has already taken place, and the younger people need more $$ upfront. Theoretically we can get this to be a virtuous cycle where people work hard in their prime years some subset of the 20-40 range and then slow down and hand off the reigns to the next group, at ever increasing cycle speeds as we close in on automation.
Folks, I don't want to act like the force of economic habit isn't a big deal ... but it seems very odd to be describing the Puritan work ethic as if it were only (or even primarily) about organizing how we get things done.
It's always been about social control. Getting necessary things done for society is the excuse.
For me, the basics are food (maybe not amazing food, but not like, all soy either), water, access to facilities for hygenic purposes (cleaning yourself and your occupied spaces), clothing, shelter that is tolerably comfortable (no extremes of temp), medical coverage, reasonable internet access, and access to transportation.
I expect that some would disagree with me on those, but that's what I feel is what a post-scarcity basic state would be. Nothing fantastic (you have to work or otherwise do things for that), but enough to get by and not have to worry about your next meal or paying rent or whether you have to choose between clothes or access to the internet (and everything it provides), and so on and so forth.
Any argument about what a post-scarcity economy ought (by justice) to look like needs to apply to cat-videos:
In other words, if your philosophy places constraints on what people in post-scarcity should be allowed to consume, it also needs to explain why somebody who has already earned internet access and free time should be forbidden from watching more cat videos, unless and until they do the work to earn those videos.
We are (unquestionably) in a post-scarcity economy as regards cat videos. Even watching ten screens simultaneously, more is created each second than any person can watch in that second.
So if someone (for-instance, Aaron) has a notion that in a post-scarcity society people should be limited to the basics, he should be able to explain it in terms of "You can watch adult calicos and tabbies just by having an internet connection, but if you want kittens or persians then you have to pay extra." The same arguments should apply, right?
Aaron has stepped out for personal reasons. But, I think the argument is something like: Sure, watch as many cat videos as you want. But, don't eat as much food as you want as that is not post scarcity.
Transportation and delivery I'm really not convinced that we have the ability to transport sufficient food to enough people such that anyone can eat as much as they want.
...coming in late, but: I think we "need" jobs because they're the only generally approved form of redistributing wealth.
Wealth is (currently) required to afford basic utilities and food staples.
It also provides a soft limit on luxury consumption -- as opposed to a hard limit like rationing.
If (as) we move away from most people having jobs, we face those other questions -- how to distribute necessities, and what kinds of incentives against waste and luxury spending exist.
Because it's totally possible for one person to waste a ludicrous amount of resources, as we all know.
I agree with the general argument, but I'd like to point out some obstacles to a soft landing where we all have Aaron's basic needs met, maybe plus some extra.
The U.S. has a culture that says if you don't work, you don't deserve to be happy, but if you have obtained money in any way other than received it from the government, you have earned it and do deserve to be happy, and you deserve to keep all that money, even if it's way more than you need to be happy... even if obtaining it caused a lot of other people to be unhappy or to lose money. That culture is firmly ingrained in many people, even people who consider themselves progressive. It's even ingrained in many poor people. That culture needs to change if we are to have any hope of providing a decent living for everyone in a post-scarcity world.
Having a job, while it can be back-breaking, soul-destroying, and time-devouring, also provides people with a purpose. Without a purpose, people cannot survive. We are likely to see addiction and suicide rates increase in a post-scarcity world unless we can provide for this basic human need.
Money is power, so the people with the most money have the most power, and many of them are loath to relinquish any of that money or power to others. And because they have the most power, it is difficult to force it from them. We've made great strides in eradicating world poverty, but at the same time, there has been a huge increase in inequality within wealthy countries. Power is increasingly concentrated. That's a political problem we will have to solve.
I'm not saying we have to work forever... I'm saying we have a lot more work to do before we can quit working.
Yeah. I remember reading a scifi story in a collection, ages ago, where economic activity had become sufficiently automated that all needs were met, but every family was given a set amount they were required to consume; "wealth" was measured by only being required to consume to your needs; poverty implied that you had to consume substantially more than you needed.
ReplyDeleteI wish we could get to the post scarcity times of the sci-fi future already.
ReplyDeleteYeah. What is wrong with us that we identified personal value with ability to create economically.
ReplyDeleteBUT WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY.
ReplyDeleteLet's pretend a new fangled service eliminates the need for 100,000 jobs from the american economy. Just, boom, no longer needed.
As is, this is would be seen as a bad thing, because that's 100,000 people without income.
Why in the world. Those people didn't stop being valuable, contributing members of society just because we eliminated the shitty jobs they had. Now they can be free to be humans.
When jobs are considered a required condition to survive. But hey, who really needs a post scarcity economy antways?
ReplyDeleteThis was a major problem in ancient Rome following the end of the Punic Wars (because Rome had enslaved SO MANY Carthaginians; we'll call this contextually analogous to automation). I won't try to list all of the other times in history that things melted down due to lack of jobs, but at least since the Industrial Revolution, it's been a pretty well constant problem, and a top cause for immigration to the US.
ReplyDeleteI would like to not need a job. To not need to participate in the bullshit that we call capitalism.
ReplyDeleteI don't even want a lot beyond the basics. In a post scarcity/reputation economy, I'd be okay with fairly basic standard of living it meant that I got to have everything covered and I could focus on the things I enjoy and that makes things better for others.
ReplyDeleteWe need to ween ourselves off of the capitalist treadmill, as a society. Start by tapering down work hours as we get closer to retirement. The older people need less $$ because saving has already taken place, and the younger people need more $$ upfront. Theoretically we can get this to be a virtuous cycle where people work hard in their prime years some subset of the 20-40 range and then slow down and hand off the reigns to the next group, at ever increasing cycle speeds as we close in on automation.
ReplyDeleteEven Ankh Morpork knows the main thing is to keep the money moving. Having it not move is bad bad bad.
ReplyDeleteFolks, I don't want to act like the force of economic habit isn't a big deal ... but it seems very odd to be describing the Puritan work ethic as if it were only (or even primarily) about organizing how we get things done.
ReplyDeleteIt's always been about social control. Getting necessary things done for society is the excuse.
.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not like we even need to take wealth from the richest 1%. Ten people would do.
ReplyDeleteDefine the basics, Aaron
ReplyDeleteI hear people that rich are delicious. Can you confirm?
ReplyDeleteFor me, the basics are food (maybe not amazing food, but not like, all soy either), water, access to facilities for hygenic purposes (cleaning yourself and your occupied spaces), clothing, shelter that is tolerably comfortable (no extremes of temp), medical coverage, reasonable internet access, and access to transportation.
ReplyDeleteI expect that some would disagree with me on those, but that's what I feel is what a post-scarcity basic state would be. Nothing fantastic (you have to work or otherwise do things for that), but enough to get by and not have to worry about your next meal or paying rent or whether you have to choose between clothes or access to the internet (and everything it provides), and so on and so forth.
Aaron Why should my ability to consume be limited by my ability work an economic system to my advantage?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand the question, but that's on me and I want to continue the conversation when I'm feeling better, if that's okay.
ReplyDeleteSURE. You are a human being and I value that!
ReplyDeleteAny argument about what a post-scarcity economy ought (by justice) to look like needs to apply to cat-videos:
ReplyDeleteIn other words, if your philosophy places constraints on what people in post-scarcity should be allowed to consume, it also needs to explain why somebody who has already earned internet access and free time should be forbidden from watching more cat videos, unless and until they do the work to earn those videos.
Can you expand on that a bit, Tony Lower-Basch? I'm not sure I follow.
ReplyDeleteWe are (unquestionably) in a post-scarcity economy as regards cat videos. Even watching ten screens simultaneously, more is created each second than any person can watch in that second.
ReplyDeleteSo if someone (for-instance, Aaron) has a notion that in a post-scarcity society people should be limited to the basics, he should be able to explain it in terms of "You can watch adult calicos and tabbies just by having an internet connection, but if you want kittens or persians then you have to pay extra." The same arguments should apply, right?
Aaron has stepped out for personal reasons. But, I think the argument is something like: Sure, watch as many cat videos as you want. But, don't eat as much food as you want as that is not post scarcity.
ReplyDeletePretty sure we could create more food than everybody on earth could conceivably eat.
ReplyDeleteNot entirely sure we don't already.
Transportation and delivery I'm really not convinced that we have the ability to transport sufficient food to enough people such that anyone can eat as much as they want.
ReplyDelete...coming in late, but: I think we "need" jobs because they're the only generally approved form of redistributing wealth.
ReplyDeleteWealth is (currently) required to afford basic utilities and food staples.
It also provides a soft limit on luxury consumption -- as opposed to a hard limit like rationing.
If (as) we move away from most people having jobs, we face those other questions -- how to distribute necessities, and what kinds of incentives against waste and luxury spending exist.
Because it's totally possible for one person to waste a ludicrous amount of resources, as we all know.
.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the general argument, but I'd like to point out some obstacles to a soft landing where we all have Aaron's basic needs met, maybe plus some extra.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. has a culture that says if you don't work, you don't deserve to be happy, but if you have obtained money in any way other than received it from the government, you have earned it and do deserve to be happy, and you deserve to keep all that money, even if it's way more than you need to be happy... even if obtaining it caused a lot of other people to be unhappy or to lose money. That culture is firmly ingrained in many people, even people who consider themselves progressive. It's even ingrained in many poor people. That culture needs to change if we are to have any hope of providing a decent living for everyone in a post-scarcity world.
Having a job, while it can be back-breaking, soul-destroying, and time-devouring, also provides people with a purpose. Without a purpose, people cannot survive. We are likely to see addiction and suicide rates increase in a post-scarcity world unless we can provide for this basic human need.
Money is power, so the people with the most money have the most power, and many of them are loath to relinquish any of that money or power to others. And because they have the most power, it is difficult to force it from them. We've made great strides in eradicating world poverty, but at the same time, there has been a huge increase in inequality within wealthy countries. Power is increasingly concentrated. That's a political problem we will have to solve.
I'm not saying we have to work forever... I'm saying we have a lot more work to do before we can quit working.