Robotic takeover : When labour value tends to zero.

[CultureCitizen]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Let's say we can create a economic system where robots do all the basic shit and everyone can eat? Talk about human freedom!

Of course you oppose this as you love seeing suffering of other people.

 

[Vastator]

But how will this benefit infrastructure?

 

[The Great Goose]

Nationalize it.

I grew up in a nationalist country. I was born in the same decade the white Australia policy was abolished. Race is not that important, but for years, I benefited from national owned services.

For 150 years people have cried socialism, but socialism is only nationalism gone bad.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Of course you oppose this as you love seeing suffering of other people.

Me? No, of course not, that wouldn't be Cultured at all.
Now be a nice forum member and google it yourself "The Culture" (don't miss the quotes).

 

[Penelope]

Yes this is a huge concern since it has begun happening in the 90's, also self service, we now pump gas, check ourselves out, use a machine to buy lotto tickets, order at MD's, so I do wonder where young people will find work as more and more jobs are taken away. We will need higher learning jobs to fix the machines, that will replace the consumer and unskilled or semi skilled labor. Were a lazy enough nation now without people having work, what do people do without work.

At my age, being use to more years of changing channels on the TV itself, being checked out at a store, no computer or calculator in school, no cell phones or rear window defrost, there has been a huge change in a short period of time. For younger people they can't imagine life without computers and cell phones, or remotes.

 

[Freemason9]

Ideally, all human labor would be replaced by technology and humans would be free to explore arts, humanities, culture, science, and other liberal arts. Living wages would be distributed from the productivity of robotic labor.

In reality, human labor will continue to be displaced by technology as a few of the greediest humans (the ones that seek identity through wealth accumulation) accumulate most of the fruits of production. Eventually a worldwide revolution will sweep the globe--with horrible outcomes.

 

[Moonglow]

“Better is bread with a happy heart, than wealth with vexation.”
Amenemope,
Ancient Egyptian Pharaoh

 

[CultureCitizen]

Ideally, all human labor would be replaced by technology and humans would be free to explore arts, humanities, culture, science, and other liberal arts. Living wages would be distributed from the productivity of robotic labor.

In reality, human labor will continue to be displaced by technology as a few of the greediest humans (the ones that seek identity through wealth accumulation) accumulate most of the fruits of production. Eventually a worldwide revolution will sweep the globe--with horrible outcomes.

This is exactly what I would like to discuss. Goods will still be scarce , so we will still need trade and markets. And yet , with little labour supply households will have little bargaining power. Even worse, there will be no need to produce those consumer goods.
One possible solution would be wealth re distribution through taxation, increasing the importance of corporate taxes, relative to the importance of individual income taxes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. And yet , with little labour supply households will have little bargaining power. Even worse, there will be no need to produce those consumer goods.

dear stupid liberal, if the earth has 10 billion people the labor supply is 10 billion people. How is that little labor supply? You say the 10 billion won't need consumer goods like food?? As usual you seem 100% stupid and liberal.

 

[CultureCitizen]

. And yet , with little labour supply households will have little bargaining power. Even worse, there will be no need to produce those consumer goods.

dear stupid liberal, if the earth has 10 billion people the labor supply is 10 billion people. How is that little labor supply? You say the 10 billion won't need consumer goods like food?? As usual you seem 100% stupid and liberal.

There will be a lot of labour supply , but little demand for it.
It is not the same to have need than to have purchasing power. So yes, there will be a lot of needs but people will not have the purchasing power to satisfy them .

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. And yet , with little labour supply households will have little bargaining power. Even worse, there will be no need to produce those consumer goods.

dear stupid liberal, if the earth has 10 billion people the labor supply is 10 billion people. How is that little labor supply? You say the 10 billion won't need consumer goods like food?? As usual you seem 100% stupid and liberal.

There will be a lot of labour supply , but little demand for it.
It is not the same to have need than to have purchasing power. So yes, there will be a lot of needs but people will not have the purchasing power to satisfy them .

100% stupid and illiterate of course. then who can buy the robots and why would the robots produce anything if no one could buy it. You are are always 100% illiterate and liberal.

 

[Jomama]

Labor value tending to zero is a just a stepping stone to SkyNet and the end of humanity. Musk and others have called for limits on AI and I support that.

In general, industrial robots will probably hurt the proletariat and not the capitalists - which is why you should teach your kids to be capitalists and not proletariat. It's your choice. We are only victims of our own decisions.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Labor value tending to zero is a just a stepping stone to SkyNet and the end of humanity. Musk and others have called for limits on AI and I support that.

In general, industrial robots will probably hurt the proletariat and not the capitalists - which is why you should teach your kids to be capitalists and not proletariat. It's your choice. We are only victims of our own decisions.

The problem would be then how to put any limits to AI, this will continue to be a trend while it yields a profit. Actually, if I recall correctly Musk upgraded the tesla to have automatic pilot.
Also measuring the intelligence of an AI could provide a problem if a norm is to be stablished.

Are we ? Even discarding entrepreneurial skils, not everyone has access to land and capital.

 

[CultureCitizen]

. And yet , with little labour supply households will have little bargaining power. Even worse, there will be no need to produce those consumer goods.

dear stupid liberal, if the earth has 10 billion people the labor supply is 10 billion people. How is that little labor supply? You say the 10 billion won't need consumer goods like food?? As usual you seem 100% stupid and liberal.

There will be a lot of labour supply , but little demand for it.
It is not the same to have need than to have purchasing power. So yes, there will be a lot of needs but people will not have the purchasing power to satisfy them .

100% stupid and illiterate of course. then who can buy the robots and why would the robots produce anything if no one could buy it. You are are always 100% illiterate and liberal.

Well , here is it Ed, there could still be b2b commerce. And some consumer goods will still be purchased, but it could happen that the 95% of the population could be left in poverty . That was the scenario at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
And it is still plausible.

 

[Jomama]

Everyone has access to capital sufficient to be an entrepreneur. And there have always been numerous examples which prove this. Lucky for me most don't understand how so it's not a crowded field.

 

[Iceweasel]

Labor value tending to zero is a just a stepping stone to SkyNet and the end of humanity. Musk and others have called for limits on AI and I support that.

In general, industrial robots will probably hurt the proletariat and not the capitalists - which is why you should teach your kids to be capitalists and not proletariat. It's your choice. We are only victims of our own decisions.

The problem would be then how to put any limits to AI, this will continue to be a trend while it yields a profit. Actually, if I recall correctly Musk upgraded the tesla to have automatic pilot.
Also measuring the intelligence of an AI could provide a problem if a norm is to be stablished.

Are we ? Even discarding entrepreneurial skils, not everyone has access to land and capital.

If someone that can't speak English can come to this country and make a living then no one has an excuse. If you are able bodied and truly worthless to society the sooner you expire the better. Automation has been taking place since the industrial revolution. No one continued to make wagon wheels just to employ people. This is the fundamental difference between capitalists and socialists. The socialist feels they have a birth right to be taken care of. The capitalist realizes they need a marketable skill to succeed and they will be the primary determining factor. If a robot can replace you it makes sense to have the robot. No sick days, complaints, sexual harassment suits, pension, wages or demands.

 

[Correll]

Nationalize it.

I grew up in a nationalist country. I was born in the same decade the white Australia policy was abolished. Race is not that important, but for years, I benefited from national owned services.

For 150 years people have cried socialism, but socialism is only nationalism gone bad.

In a post work environment nationalizing it does seem to be the obvious policy.

 

[Correll]

Ideally, all human labor would be replaced by technology and humans would be free to explore arts, humanities, culture, science, and other liberal arts. Living wages would be distributed from the productivity of robotic labor.

In reality, human labor will continue to be displaced by technology as a few of the greediest humans (the ones that seek identity through wealth accumulation) accumulate most of the fruits of production. Eventually a worldwide revolution will sweep the globe--with horrible outcomes.

This is exactly what I would like to discuss. Goods will still be scarce , so we will still need trade and markets. And yet , with little labour supply households will have little bargaining power. Even worse, there will be no need to produce those consumer goods.
One possible solution would be wealth re distribution through taxation, increasing the importance of corporate taxes, relative to the importance of individual income taxes.

With unlimited extremely cheap and highly skilled labor why would goods be scarce?

And the hope that humans would "explore arts, humanities, culture, science, and other liberal arts" is unlikely. Having the majority of the people being unable to contribute meaningfully to society would most likely produce a decadent culture to a degree not seen before.

 

[The Great Goose]

Nationalize it.

I grew up in a nationalist country. I was born in the same decade the white Australia policy was abolished. Race is not that important, but for years, I benefited from national owned services.

For 150 years people have cried socialism, but socialism is only nationalism gone bad.

In a post work environment nationalizing it does seem to be the obvious policy.

Huh?