A World Without Work?

[Oldguy]

It is not possible for the government to force the rich (defined as those who are still productive) to perform their labor for the benefit of those who won't work. It isn't a matter of no work being available. The work is available. It that the kind of work that is available is unacceptable.

But, a lot of the traditional work out there does not pay enough to subsist a family without some kind of help. What then?

 

[Oldguy]

It is not possible for the government to force the rich (defined as those who are still productive) to perform their labor for the benefit of those who won't work. It isn't a matter of no work being available. The work is available. It that the kind of work that is available is unacceptable.

The working poor & middle-class perform their labor for the benefit of those entitled rich who won't work. Government can force the rich to stop stealing so much from the working man.

First, would you rather there be no need for their labor? As I am sure the rich could leave and take those jobs with them or even do those jobs themselves as they worked hard to get where they are today and are familiar with hard work. Secondly mental labor is labor whether you think so or not. Mental stress causes more strokes and heart attacks than physical labor.

Don't judge until you have walked a mile in their shoes.

They wouldn't be eliminating labor. They'd just be creating it someplace else.

 

[Oldguy]

When the "wealthy" business owners are forced to give away their business income and profit to those who won't work, it becomes no longer economically feasible for them to continue in their business so they shut the business down. Then not only do they not have an income, there is no longer any left for the government to steal and give away to those who don't or won't work.
Keep going down that path and eventually there is nothing left for anyone.

But, if businesses don't have to subsidize those who CAN'T work (not WON'T work), who will? And, can society as we know it survive without someone supporting those who would work, but for whom no work is available?

That's not the purpose of business. The purpose of 'business' is to make money by providing needed products and services for it's community - nothing more, nothing less. In doing so, that business invests in it's community and hires workers who in turn support that community in the way of their own purchases and investments.
The taxes paid on purchases, income and investments add to the coffers of the local, state and federal governments. While most businesses donate to charitable organizations, it is certainly not their job to give away their companies away by way of government redistribution.
The job of providing for the needy rests primarily on those folks' families, churches and other charitable organizations.
It is also the mission of "providing for the general welfare", as stated in the Constitution, of the government, but that goes only as far as ensuring that the truly needy are fed, clothed, housed. They must also have medical care, but for life-saving measures only, not for every little cut, scrape and splinter they may encounter. It is certainly not the government's job of stealing from those who otherwise work to support and enhance their communities and giving to those who make a habit of taking, and taking, and taking some more.

Businesses should not pay taxes?

 

[midcan5]

But, how do you judiciously divide that wealth without interfering in the free market?

Repeat after me one thousand times: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET.

I completely disagree with the idea that work is becoming obsolete. Anyone here ever buy a fixer-up house or be out of money with a mortgage and kids. Drive the backroads or look at the deterioration of our cities and infrastructure. This for me is hypothetical BS, makes no sense in the real world. Ask the many Chinese making Apple products or sewing up Nike Sneakers about work, or ask the Asian Indian about their Dell, Verizon or ATT work? It is always funny the person putting forward the idea has a cushy job at the NYT. Maybe he should be out of work thinking about the real for a change. Let's outsource nonsense.

Here's a book worth a look and a read for those who wonder why such ideas even exist. "The Betrayal of the American Dream," by Donald Barlett and James Steele. From the prologue: ""The skewing of the tax code in favor of the rich is a subject we have written about for years. In this book, we tabulate the unprecedented riches the preferential tax law provisions have showered on the wealthy, and we explain why they will hollow out the middle class for years to come. The well-being of the majority of Americans is also coming under assault from U.S. policies having to do with trade, regulations, and benefits. In each of these areas, we address the broader context, drawing on decades of our own research and observations. It is the cumulative impact that has been so detrimental to the middle class. Yet most of the media cover these stories as if they were isolated events, devoid of a larger significance or pattern. Unfortunately, the significance is stark.

At a time when the federal government should be supporting its citizens by providing them with the tools to survive in a global economy, the government has abandoned them. It is exactly what members of the ruling class want. The last thing they want is an activist government-a government that behaves, let's say, the way China's does. Their attitude is "let the market sort it out." The market has been sorting, and it has tossed millions out of good-paying jobs. Now that same ruling class and its cheerleaders in Congress are pushing mightily for a balanced budget at any cost. If it happens, it will be secured mostly by taking more out of the pockets of working people, driving yet another nail into the middle class coffin.

The economic elite have accomplished this by relentlessly pressing their advantage, an advantage mat exists for the simplest of reasons: the rich buy influence. As the divide between them and everyone else has grown since the early 19705, the wealthy have poured more and more money into lobbying and politics in order to control the agenda. Now the "one percent" is plowing untold millions into political contributions and lobbying, and every effort to try to reduce the influence of money in politics has been rebuffed. With the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling of January 21,2010, the message was driven home to the middle class that politics had become slavishly addicted to the big bucks of the moneyed class and that the ability of average Americans to influence elected officials would be overwhelmed by that money. Now, for a price, the elite will select the candidates and bankroll the campaigns, and few politicians will be able to afford to give up the corporate dollars." p xii and xiii. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Betrayal-American-Dream-Donald-Barlett/dp/1586489690/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]The Betrayal of the American Dream: Donald L. Barlett, James B. Steele: 9781586489694: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there, good for you. But, I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." Elizabeth Warren

 

[Sallow]

It is not possible for the government to force the rich (defined as those who are still productive) to perform their labor for the benefit of those who won't work. It isn't a matter of no work being available. The work is available. It that the kind of work that is available is unacceptable.

The working poor & middle-class perform their labor for the benefit of those entitled rich who won't work. Government can force the rich to stop stealing so much from the working man.

I don't "steal" from my employees when I give them a job. I provide them with a paycheck with which they can provide for themselves. I give them that paycheck whether or not the business that I have makes a profit that week because as anyone with even the slightest real world experience will tell you...profits trickle up...not down!

This is America...I don't have employees chained to the wall, nor do I lash them with a whip. If they don't like the pay I provide or the job that pay requires then they are perfectly free to go down the street and work for my competition. If I really DID steal from them as you seem to think, I wouldn't have employees or a business.

So this business you have..is it on an island in the middle of the sea? Is it powered by electricity that you yourself generate? Is it housed in a building that you yourself built? And the building and generator..you gathered up the building materials to make both those things, I imagine, right?

And how do you make money? It must be hard because on this island that you have your very own business..there wouldn't be anyone..right? Except of course..your employees?

Right?

 

[Sallow]

Why should we work when we can all live in huts and make neat stuff, then on occasion walk our stuff to a flea market and sell our neat stuff. Kumbaya.

Quite obviously someone would make more neat stuff than someone else. Sell more and be rich.

Of all the ridiculous ideas liberals come up with the idea that technology will give them lives of laziness is one of the silliest. Do they really believe that inventors will invent, engineers will build and technicians will maintain for the pleasure of the slothful?

What they really want is slavery with nice masters.

And you probably voted Romney.

A man who lives the life you describe.

Doesn't make anything but money.

 

[editec]

But, how do you judiciously divide that wealth without interfering in the free market?

Depends on how one defines FREE MARKET.

As it stands now?

There is NO WAY to do that.

This IS part of the systemic problem of our economic system I sometimes refer to.

I suppose free market could be defined as the unfettered exchange of goods, services, capital and labor.

Yes, that's a good theoretical description for a free market.

Where it gets theoretical is with the word "unfettered".

Every market is fettered by something (the law, or the traditions of the people involved in that marekt) or it would not be possible to even have a market.

Merriam-Webster defines it as: "an economic market operating by free competition."

free competition is a contradiction in terms.

In order to have competition in a market, the market needs rules of competition. Rules imply a LOSS of ABSOLUTE freedom. Hence no market is entirely free. Its an impossiblity. Markets can be free only as defined by the PLAYERS agreeing to play by the rules of their market

Whatever the definition used, it's a basis for the global economy, though that does not preclude government involvement in either ensuring a level playing field or to "tilt" that field in favor of domestic entities. No economy, even a "free" one, can be completely divorced from the government which sustains it (Adam Smith said so and he should know.)

Bingo!

Most of what right leaning people think Adam Smith said about free markets and government is wrong.


Few of them, I suspect, ever bothered to read his works. They depend on some talking head's interpretation of what the man said, generally those propagandists take Smith's word out of context in order to prove their point.

What the author of the piece I originally posted, and you, seem to be suggesting is that a society and economy based upon something other than traditional work MUST include some kind of subsidy for "non-work," either in the form of income redistribution (by whatever means) or government restrictions upon the free market to ensure that those who do not "work" aren't left high and dry when, or if, their "non-working" lifestyles come up short.

What I am saying is this...when the value of human labor is replaced by smart machines, then society either finds a new way to divey up the wealth or a significant percentage of the population finds itself unable to participate in that society.

Here's the facts leading to the economic trends humankind is facing.

1. Machines can do more physical labor than humans (industrial revolution)

2. Technology can and is now replacing much of the intellectual labor that humans formerly had to do. (Digital revolution)

3. Machine and digital laboring devices are cheaper to run and cheaper to maintain than human laborers.

4. Therfore owers of smart machine production make more profits than human labor production.

5. Capitalists who choose NOT to take advantage of technology's higher profit making ability inevitably will be driven out of business by those capitalists who do take advantage of technology.

You can do the math from here, right?

You can see the trend for the value of human labor, right?

We are going to achieve a technological singularity soon.*

That's where smart machines make new smarter machines until those machines can replace ALL human labor, physical OR intellecual.

Now that may leave a very tiny percentage of the population fabulously wealthy, but it will also leave the vast majority of people (regardless of how clever they are, how strong they are, how ambitious they are) essantially with NO MARKET VALUE as workers.

And if you tell yourself that this is science fiction, or if you imagine that this technology revolution is going to work out like the industrial revolution, then you must not understand why UNIONS were so necessary to change the social contract to accomodate the new reality of industrialism

The solution to this happy smart machine technology problem is a new SOCIAL contract.

But there is no path to a new social contract possible in classical capitalist economies.

In large part that is exactly the problem we are facing right now, and citizens, that problem is going to get worse and worse and worse, until something DRASTIC comes along to force us to change.

Conversely, if we keep to the "working" model, those subsidies will still be required to ensure the availability of "work," right?

I think you and I are basically on the same page here.

Mankind is facing a choice THIS CENTURY.

It can recognize where the techology is taking us and adapt our economic system to make this a BOON to mankind.

Or...

We can deny this is happening until there is a large enough percentage of the population who are so disenfranchised that they have NOTHING TO LOSE.

People with nothing to lose have everything to gain from CRASHING the system.

*The technological singularity is the theoretical emergence of superintelligence through technological means.[1] Since the capabilities of such intelligence would be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the technological singularity is seen as an occurrence beyond which events cannot be predicted.
Proponents of the singularity typically state that an "intelligence explosion",[2][3] where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds, might occur very quickly and might not stop until the agent's cognitive abilities greatly surpass that of any human.
The term was popularized by science fiction writer Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement, or brain-computer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity. The specific term "singularity" as a description for a phenomenon of technological acceleration causing an eventual unpredictable outcome in society was coined by mathematician John von Neumann, who in the mid-1950s spoke of "ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue." The concept has also been popularized by futurists such as Ray Kurzweil, who cited von Neumann's use of the term in a foreword to von Neumann's classic The Computer and the Brain.
Kurzweil predicts the singularity to occur around 2045 while Vinge predicts some time before 2030.

 

[Papawx3]

That's where smart machines make new smarter machines until those machines can replace ALL human labor, physical OR intellecual.

But that's where you err. Until machines become "censcient", or self-aware, this will never happen. That is because many machines, especially robots, are activated and controlled by computers. Then also remember one basic and unchangeable rule of computers. A computer can only do what someone tells it to do. That usually involves human interaction. That means that machines cannot build and control other machines.
In my line of work I have always known another basic rule. No matter how 'smart' a machine may become, it will eventually need service, and that also requires an experienced and knowledgeable human to perform that task. Components wear out or fail which leads to the failure of computer circuitry and thus failure of the machine itself. Computers don't have the knowledge to look at another computer, see what's wrong and fix it. That takes a human being with the knowledge and experience necessary to troubleshoot and repair the failed components.
In short, to echo the comments of a previous poster. You watch too much Star Trek.

 

[Oldstyle]

The working poor & middle-class perform their labor for the benefit of those entitled rich who won't work. Government can force the rich to stop stealing so much from the working man.

I don't "steal" from my employees when I give them a job. I provide them with a paycheck with which they can provide for themselves. I give them that paycheck whether or not the business that I have makes a profit that week because as anyone with even the slightest real world experience will tell you...profits trickle up...not down!

This is America...I don't have employees chained to the wall, nor do I lash them with a whip. If they don't like the pay I provide or the job that pay requires then they are perfectly free to go down the street and work for my competition. If I really DID steal from them as you seem to think, I wouldn't have employees or a business.

So this business you have..is it on an island in the middle of the sea? Is it powered by electricity that you yourself generate? Is it housed in a building that you yourself built? And the building and generator..you gathered up the building materials to make both those things, I imagine, right?

And how do you make money? It must be hard because on this island that you have your very own business..there wouldn't be anyone..right? Except of course..your employees?

Right?

It's powered by electricity that I'm billed for monthly. It's housed in a mall that I pay the lease on every month and the cost of that mall's being built and maintained is built into the cost of that lease.

This progressive notion that I somehow owe any success that I've had to society and therefore government has the right to take whatever they like from whatever profits I manage to make is farce at it's finest. You seem to think that businesses like mine exist for only one reason and that's to be an ATM for progressive government spending. That's a mindset that will destroy what's left of America. What's always attracted people to this country is that we had a rule of laws that protected individuals from having their property seized by those in control of the government. We weren't some 3rd world banana republic where businesses would be seized by the goverment at a leader's whim. People like you now think government is the solution to our problems when in fact it's always been our ability to limit government that's made us the economic power that we've become.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Millions of illegals are already members of the "no work" demographics.

Section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, free medical, free college, free cell phones, etc.

You really don't get out much, do you?

In any case, let's not turn this into another "illegals" thread, shall we?

Or another life is unfair, unjust, unequal, redistributive, i am owed, communal , beggars deserve more , socialist belch.............

 

[Oldguy]

Depends on how one defines FREE MARKET.

As it stands now?

There is NO WAY to do that.

This IS part of the systemic problem of our economic system I sometimes refer to.

Yes, that's a good theoretical description for a free market.

Where it gets theoretical is with the word "unfettered".

Every market is fettered by something (the law, or the traditions of the people involved in that marekt) or it would not be possible to even have a market.



free competition is a contradiction in terms.

In order to have competition in a market, the market needs rules of competition. Rules imply a LOSS of ABSOLUTE freedom. Hence no market is entirely free. Its an impossiblity. Markets can be free only as defined by the PLAYERS agreeing to play by the rules of their market




Bingo!

Most of what right leaning people think Adam Smith said about free markets and government is wrong.


Few of them, I suspect, ever bothered to read his works. They depend on some talking head's interpretation of what the man said, generally those propagandists take Smith's word out of context in order to prove their point.






What I am saying is this...when the value of human labor is replaced by smart machines, then society either finds a new way to divey up the wealth or a significant percentage of the population finds itself unable to participate in that society.

Here's the facts leading to the economic trends humankind is facing.

1. Machines can do more physical labor than humans (industrial revolution)

2. Technology can and is now replacing much of the intellectual labor that humans formerly had to do. (Digital revolution)

3. Machine and digital laboring devices are cheaper to run and cheaper to maintain than human laborers.

4. Therfore owers of smart machine production make more profits than human labor production.

5. Capitalists who choose NOT to take advantage of technology's higher profit making ability inevitably will be driven out of business by those capitalists who do take advantage of technology.

You can do the math from here, right?

You can see the trend for the value of human labor, right?

We are going to achieve a technological singularity soon.*

That's where smart machines make new smarter machines until those machines can replace ALL human labor, physical OR intellecual.

Now that may leave a very tiny percentage of the population fabulously wealthy, but it will also leave the vast majority of people (regardless of how clever they are, how strong they are, how ambitious they are) essantially with NO MARKET VALUE as workers.

And if you tell yourself that this is science fiction, or if you imagine that this technology revolution is going to work out like the industrial revolution, then you must not understand why UNIONS were so necessary to change the social contract to accomodate the new reality of industrialism

The solution to this happy smart machine technology problem is a new SOCIAL contract.

But there is no path to a new social contract possible in classical capitalist economies.

In large part that is exactly the problem we are facing right now, and citizens, that problem is going to get worse and worse and worse, until something DRASTIC comes along to force us to change.



I think you and I are basically on the same page here.

Mankind is facing a choice THIS CENTURY.

It can recognize where the techology is taking us and adapt our economic system to make this a BOON to mankind.

Or...

We can deny this is happening until there is a large enough percentage of the population who are so disenfranchised that they have NOTHING TO LOSE.

People with nothing to lose have everything to gain from CRASHING the system.

*The technological singularity is the theoretical emergence of superintelligence through technological means.[1] Since the capabilities of such intelligence would be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the technological singularity is seen as an occurrence beyond which events cannot be predicted.
Proponents of the singularity typically state that an "intelligence explosion",[2][3] where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds, might occur very quickly and might not stop until the agent's cognitive abilities greatly surpass that of any human.
The term was popularized by science fiction writer Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement, or brain-computer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity. The specific term "singularity" as a description for a phenomenon of technological acceleration causing an eventual unpredictable outcome in society was coined by mathematician John von Neumann, who in the mid-1950s spoke of "ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue." The concept has also been popularized by futurists such as Ray Kurzweil, who cited von Neumann's use of the term in a foreword to von Neumann's classic The Computer and the Brain.
Kurzweil predicts the singularity to occur around 2045 while Vinge predicts some time before 2030.

Excellent points and they highlight the basic issues which cannot be addressed within the framework of the old "work" system. What happens to those workers when there is no more work to do? What happens to capitalism when the customers have no more source of income? What happens to communism when there is no more proletariate?

I can't imagine what system of government might be devised to meet that new reality, if any, but Smith postulated that the economy must create the form of government it needs to support it. If that's so, and barring any kind of subsidization of the non-working, is the only possible outcome a world inhabited ONLY by the elites and what few workers are needed to meet their needs (food, shelter, clothing, services etc)?

Or, are we on the verge of an era where human beings are superfluous?

 

[Oldguy]

That's where smart machines make new smarter machines until those machines can replace ALL human labor, physical OR intellecual.

But that's where you err. Until machines become "censcient", or self-aware, this will never happen. That is because many machines, especially robots, are activated and controlled by computers. Then also remember one basic and unchangeable rule of computers. A computer can only do what someone tells it to do. That usually involves human interaction. That means that machines cannot build and control other machines.
In my line of work I have always known another basic rule. No matter how 'smart' a machine may become, it will eventually need service, and that also requires an experienced and knowledgeable human to perform that task. Components wear out or fail which leads to the failure of computer circuitry and thus failure of the machine itself. Computers don't have the knowledge to look at another computer, see what's wrong and fix it. That takes a human being with the knowledge and experience necessary to troubleshoot and repair the failed components.
In short, to echo the comments of a previous poster. You watch too much Star Trek.

Not yet. But, even if that remains true forever, it does not provide enough "work" to sustain billions of people, does it?

 

[Freemason9]

I would suggest that the ideas in the OP are basically correct; eventually (perhaps soon), there will be no need for human labor. As technology increases in capability and capacity, machines will be able design, build, and maintain themselves and other newer machines. They will do so better than humans.

Human society could quite easily live with high standards of living, lavish livestyles, and a huge amount of leisure time. Why is this unlikely to happen?

BECAUSE wealth is defined by the claim of the rich on the labor of the working class. If wage labor disappeared, so would wealth; the aristocracy must maintain the labor class to keep their hold on power. Even if that labor is completely unnecessary.

 

[Oldguy]

I would suggest that the ideas in the OP are basically correct; eventually (perhaps soon), there will be no need for human labor. As technology increases in capability and capacity, machines will be able design, build, and maintain themselves and other newer machines. They will do so better than humans.

Human society could quite easily live with high standards of living, lavish livestyles, and a huge amount of leisure time. Why is this unlikely to happen?

BECAUSE wealth is defined by the claim of the rich on the labor of the working class. If wage labor disappeared, so would wealth; the aristocracy must maintain the labor class to keep their hold on power. Even if that labor is completely unnecessary.

Will they be smart enough to see that for themselves, or will government have to compel them to do so?

Or, perhaps we'll just develop a new definition of wealth.

 

[G.T.]

Future By Design

 

[G.T.]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwJaLFMf7IA]The Venus Project - Future By Design - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oldguy]

Future By Design

From your link:

"...No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns..."

This is the same rock on which communism foundered. It presumes human beings can be "fixed" or manipulated into being something other than human beings. It denies human nature.

 

[G.T.]

Future By Design

From your link:

"...No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns..."

This is the same rock on which communism foundered. It presumes human beings can be "fixed" or manipulated into being something other than human beings. It denies human nature.

I'm not into the exact phraseology they use - more-so the techniques, technologically, to make life more enjoyable.

We're taught from birth that life should only, necessarily, be S0 enjoyable.....never fully.

It's all perspective. If society doesn't need to slave 40 to 120 hours a week per household and can start enjoying nature itself, and their relationships - a lot of our ills would begin to fix themselves.

 

[Freemason9]

I would suggest that the ideas in the OP are basically correct; eventually (perhaps soon), there will be no need for human labor. As technology increases in capability and capacity, machines will be able design, build, and maintain themselves and other newer machines. They will do so better than humans.

Human society could quite easily live with high standards of living, lavish livestyles, and a huge amount of leisure time. Why is this unlikely to happen?

BECAUSE wealth is defined by the claim of the rich on the labor of the working class. If wage labor disappeared, so would wealth; the aristocracy must maintain the labor class to keep their hold on power. Even if that labor is completely unnecessary.

Will they be smart enough to see that for themselves, or will government have to compel them to do so?

Or, perhaps we'll just develop a new definition of wealth.

Why do you cling to the duality of "wealth" vs. "poverty?" Why do you believe it is a necessary distinction?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Good grief....

Really??????????