Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

World_May_Wobble t1_j6fv9bh wrote

>I think by now we all agree that a highly automated society can become a post-labor society and therefore should resort to a wealth distribution instrument such as universal basic income.

Uh. Don't put me down for that. I don't have expert knowledge in macroeconomics, so I don't have a clue what an automated economy looks like. Not even a guess. North and South could become East and West for all I know.

Anyone here who purports greater certainty than that is lying to you or themselves.

16

strvgglecity t1_j6gf35n wrote

Nobody does, it's never existed. That's why there's palpable anxiety or fear as AI and automated machines are very rapidly being introduced by major corporations to automate industries that employ hundreds of thousands of workers.

7

slickbandito69 t1_j6gn8gj wrote

Nobody knows what it looks like but i gotta hunch that everyone who isn't 1% will be either dejure or defacto genocided

−4

wannabesaddoc t1_j6hg5s2 wrote

Do you really, honestly, believe that 99% of the population will be genocided? Like over 7 billion people?

2

TheSecretAgenda t1_j6hl1vl wrote

No more like. You get $1000 a month UBI normally. If you are between the ages of 18 and 50 and agree to be sterilized, you get $1,500 a month. You get no additional UBI if you have a child.

Within 100 years the working class will take itself out.

−1

reidlos1624 t1_j6hs7b7 wrote

Population growth drives consumerism in many if not most capitalist societies. We're already seeing the panic as population curves near negative growth.

1

World_May_Wobble t1_j6ihei4 wrote

I think something like half of annual GDP growth comes population growth, and the rest from gains in productivity. That's not a feature of capitalism, because even the Soviet Union's output benefited from more bodies.

That said, yes. The flattening of population growth hurts economic growth, but that might be mitigated against by removing labor as a bottleneck. Human consumption could stagnate, but there's no reason productivity has to, so the economy could continue to grow.

3

reidlos1624 t1_j6ijfq3 wrote

If Human consumption stagnates, so does production. Production is determined by consumption, that's why in a supply side economic model we get these stupid boom bust cycles where economic downturn is just expected after a few years of growth. Difference is that a population drop wouldn't be a typical bust cycle and would more than likely break many economic systems.

But I'm not an economist and this is just my understanding of how these systems work.

1

World_May_Wobble t1_j6inou9 wrote

No, I think you're right about how the economic model works today. If population flat lines, consumption does too, and production follows, both because there's no growth in demand and because there are no new bodies to work.

1

SantoshiEspada OP t1_j6g011n wrote

You don't have to be so fussy on yourself. This is reddit not the Davos Forum, you can just have an opinion based on your current knowledge or experience. Thank you four your comment and have a great day.

−13

World_May_Wobble t1_j6g9lwy wrote

I have an opinion. I expressed it. My opinion is that none of this is as obvious as you made it out to be.

8