Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)(lareviewofbooks.org)
lareviewofbooks.org
Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/post-scarcity-economics
95 comments
The problem we have now is not that there isn’t enough for everyone, it’s that we’re acting like that’s still the case.
Controlling resources is the most effective way to wield and display power over others. It doesn't matter how many resources exist. As long as society is based on authoritarian hierarchy, there will always be haves and have-nots.
On a more personal level, I ask people whether they think of same wages for everyone. Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer.
I don't think the "should" plays any role here. In my opinion, paramedics, nurses and doctors should all earn shit ton of money; so should miners, and janitors, and garbage collectors, and other people doing dangerous and/or socially necessary jobs. And entertainers should earn way less than they do. But here we are.
Supervisors earn more because, through the way the job market works, they can ask for more. That's all there is to it.
Supervisors earn more because, through the way the job market works, they can ask for more. That's all there is to it.
Social hierarchies are created and maintained through displays of dominance and submission. Earning more money is simply that: a domination display.
In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command. Exceptions to that are at least as common as employees having higher wages than managers and supervisors.
I don't understand why do you think this is the case. (I am one of those people who thinks people should have the same salaries, btw.)
What exactly do you mean by "value"? Can you give some examples?
To add: I don't think there is a meaningful comparison of importance of two professions that depend on each other. It's like asking, which part of the car provides more value for the user? Is it the engine or the wheels?
What exactly do you mean by "value"? Can you give some examples?
To add: I don't think there is a meaningful comparison of importance of two professions that depend on each other. It's like asking, which part of the car provides more value for the user? Is it the engine or the wheels?
There is an entire field of study about this, with maybe millions of students.
Why a wage is what it is might be one of the most described, modeled and studied things out there. A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it.
Clearly, the cases where managers earn less than the people they manage follow the same rule (i.e. sports coaches, movie directors, etc).
About the comparison: It depends, if you have a car without engine and a car without wheels, which one is easier for you to fix.
Why a wage is what it is might be one of the most described, modeled and studied things out there. A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it.
Clearly, the cases where managers earn less than the people they manage follow the same rule (i.e. sports coaches, movie directors, etc).
About the comparison: It depends, if you have a car without engine and a car without wheels, which one is easier for you to fix.
> A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it.
But I don't want an explanation of that fact, I have my own. I want an explanation, why some people (who are actually not in the management) think it is right. It is a moral question, not factual one.
But I don't want an explanation of that fact, I have my own. I want an explanation, why some people (who are actually not in the management) think it is right. It is a moral question, not factual one.
As this conversation goes, its nature, it lacks any concept of morality. Why is a rock a rock is not a moral question, and it doesn't merit one in my opinion.
I think you have to reveal what is the moral question you have about preventing that natural result, and I can try to answer why such a thing doesn't bother me at all.
I think you have to reveal what is the moral question you have about preventing that natural result, and I can try to answer why such a thing doesn't bother me at all.
The OP asked: "Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why"
You responded: "In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command."
I asked: "why do you think this is the case"
And I got the pretty much textbook economics reply. But I am not asking about what economists think, I wonder about what you think. Why do you, personally, think the work of the manager is more valuable? So I was wondering how you understand the value.
Based on your response, you seem to value scarcity of either positions or suitable candidates. So do you think the president should have the highest salary? There is only one. I am also not convinced that scarcity itself is "providing value".
You responded: "In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command."
I asked: "why do you think this is the case"
And I got the pretty much textbook economics reply. But I am not asking about what economists think, I wonder about what you think. Why do you, personally, think the work of the manager is more valuable? So I was wondering how you understand the value.
Based on your response, you seem to value scarcity of either positions or suitable candidates. So do you think the president should have the highest salary? There is only one. I am also not convinced that scarcity itself is "providing value".
I think the one that pays the manager believes its more valuable, and that if the value wasn't there, the ones that doesn't pay managers will make a killing and soon infect the rest with that idea.
In general I see people getting what people are willing to give them, even when its an 'unfair' situation (i.e. the son of the business man getting preferred treament).
The opposite, people getting what they have by taking it from people unwillingly, which I find aberrant, is seldom what happens in this scenario, and more what happens with proposed solutions around income inequality.
In general I see people getting what people are willing to give them, even when its an 'unfair' situation (i.e. the son of the business man getting preferred treament).
The opposite, people getting what they have by taking it from people unwillingly, which I find aberrant, is seldom what happens in this scenario, and more what happens with proposed solutions around income inequality.
> I think the one that pays the manager believes its more valuable, and that if the value wasn't there, the ones that doesn't pay managers will make a killing and soon infect the rest with that idea.
> In general I see people getting what people are willing to give them, even when its an 'unfair' situation (i.e. the son of the business man getting preferred treament).
> The opposite, people getting what they have by taking it from people unwillingly, which I find aberrant, is seldom what happens in this scenario, and more what happens with proposed solutions around income inequality.
Are you talking about taxes or ransom? I am all for progressive tax rates and as a poor person I do not support tax cuts for the wealthy (just wanted to clarify that). That being said, we need to fight income inequality just like we need to fight against "nature" in every other scenario. Someone talked about "information asymmetry" a while back. I think all companies should be required to make compensation (salary, bonus etc) information public for all employees and contractors. I don't see how we can get rid of income inequality as long as there is something "they" know that "we" don't.
> In general I see people getting what people are willing to give them, even when its an 'unfair' situation (i.e. the son of the business man getting preferred treament).
> The opposite, people getting what they have by taking it from people unwillingly, which I find aberrant, is seldom what happens in this scenario, and more what happens with proposed solutions around income inequality.
Are you talking about taxes or ransom? I am all for progressive tax rates and as a poor person I do not support tax cuts for the wealthy (just wanted to clarify that). That being said, we need to fight income inequality just like we need to fight against "nature" in every other scenario. Someone talked about "information asymmetry" a while back. I think all companies should be required to make compensation (salary, bonus etc) information public for all employees and contractors. I don't see how we can get rid of income inequality as long as there is something "they" know that "we" don't.
> Are you talking about taxes or ransom?
Some people would ask what is the difference. Im not quite there, but sympathetic to the idea.
> I am all for progressive tax rates and as a poor person I do not support tax cuts for the wealthy (just wanted to clarify that)
This is a technically problematic issue that i think the public does not quite understand.
There is a concept called the statuatory incidence of taxes and the economic incidence of taxes. The first one is who signs the check to the government, the second one is who ends up paying for it. So if for example someone said that "now employers will pay 100% of the social security tax)", it might look to the untrained eye, that taxes are lowered on employees. But actually, it will reduce wages just as much, and in the end, the employee is still paying for it.
Progressive taxation has this debate in economics: the excess wealth of the rich always get invested, which increase competition for labor, which rises wages. (very classical economics). At the same time, when the government seizes that money, a huge chunk is eaten out by the machinery. For example, some goes to the military, some goes to the government machination, some goes to the collector.
Add to that, that now the wealthy will spend money to avoid the tax, which reduces the amount you will tax in comparison to what would have been spent or invested.
I'm not sure if it technically holds true, and this is a debate amongst economists, but the thinking that taxing the rich will help the poor is not as simple at its stated, and I strongly opposed the mentality of "that guy has to much, lets shoot him".
> I think all companies should be required to make compensation (salary, bonus etc) information public for all employees and contractors
I think its even easier for the IRS to do it, since they already collect that data, and it will also inform on the effective tax rates people are paying, leading to a more informed society. I am all up for public salaries, after all ,mine was already forcefully disclosed in the US as an immigrant, lets get the rest in.
Some people would ask what is the difference. Im not quite there, but sympathetic to the idea.
> I am all for progressive tax rates and as a poor person I do not support tax cuts for the wealthy (just wanted to clarify that)
This is a technically problematic issue that i think the public does not quite understand.
There is a concept called the statuatory incidence of taxes and the economic incidence of taxes. The first one is who signs the check to the government, the second one is who ends up paying for it. So if for example someone said that "now employers will pay 100% of the social security tax)", it might look to the untrained eye, that taxes are lowered on employees. But actually, it will reduce wages just as much, and in the end, the employee is still paying for it.
Progressive taxation has this debate in economics: the excess wealth of the rich always get invested, which increase competition for labor, which rises wages. (very classical economics). At the same time, when the government seizes that money, a huge chunk is eaten out by the machinery. For example, some goes to the military, some goes to the government machination, some goes to the collector.
Add to that, that now the wealthy will spend money to avoid the tax, which reduces the amount you will tax in comparison to what would have been spent or invested.
I'm not sure if it technically holds true, and this is a debate amongst economists, but the thinking that taxing the rich will help the poor is not as simple at its stated, and I strongly opposed the mentality of "that guy has to much, lets shoot him".
> I think all companies should be required to make compensation (salary, bonus etc) information public for all employees and contractors
I think its even easier for the IRS to do it, since they already collect that data, and it will also inform on the effective tax rates people are paying, leading to a more informed society. I am all up for public salaries, after all ,mine was already forcefully disclosed in the US as an immigrant, lets get the rest in.
For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible and managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations that allow them to multiply the efficiency of the people working under them. I am aware that in reality this is not always the case.
Edit: In your car analogy, the management aren't the engine; they're the driver.
Edit: In your car analogy, the management aren't the engine; they're the driver.
And yet when you need the car to move people or cargo from one place to another, then suddenly the driver becomes as fungible (sometimes even more) as the car itself.
I don't think there's really any moral justification for managers earning more than their subordinates. It's all power and scarcity at play. Managers get more because there is less of them and they are in position to ask for more.
I don't think there's really any moral justification for managers earning more than their subordinates. It's all power and scarcity at play. Managers get more because there is less of them and they are in position to ask for more.
In this (stretched to breaking) analogy, drivers aren't necessarily fungible since most of them will drive the car off a cliff, and the great ones will turn a Ford into a Ferrari.
> For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible
Everybody in this thread agrees that it is indeed the case. However, the mystery is why some people see it that way.
> managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations
The point of the car analogy was that without workers, managers are nothing, just like car without wheels or engine is useless. In that situation, why would you say one is more important?
Everybody in this thread agrees that it is indeed the case. However, the mystery is why some people see it that way.
> managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations
The point of the car analogy was that without workers, managers are nothing, just like car without wheels or engine is useless. In that situation, why would you say one is more important?
Value is a too ill defined concept. I would say that the manager has more leverage on the destiny of the company, thus you want a great manager more than you want great employees, and thus you have to pay them more.
Except that this is not exactly true either. Some times it is, other times it isn't. Yet the salary relations never change.
Except that this is not exactly true either. Some times it is, other times it isn't. Yet the salary relations never change.
> Except that this is not exactly true either. Some times it is, other times it isn't. Yet the salary relations never change.
I think the meta is for "intellectual"/"mental" workers you have to pay someone enough that they focus on the task they need to work on rather than spending mental cycles on how to afford to pay for rent or food or vaccines/formula for baby.
I think the meta is for "intellectual"/"mental" workers you have to pay someone enough that they focus on the task they need to work on rather than spending mental cycles on how to afford to pay for rent or food or vaccines/formula for baby.
It isn't ill defined. Ideally, and I would argue in most circumstances, wages are a strong approximation of the marginal revenue product, just as neoclassic theory states they should be.
Because the person paying both the manager and the person reporting to them judges that to work better.
Post scarcity is one of those terms that just does not make sense.
How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore?
I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.
How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore?
I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.
I think of it like oxygen. We don't pay for the air we breathe. You don't need an "air" utility to pipe breathable air into your house and have to pay them a monthly bill (yet anyway). You just breathe. You want to breathe harder? Go ahead. Everyone on Earth could run wind sprints all day and we wouldn't run out of air. It replenishes itself naturally.
Once we can do the same with potable water, food, shelter, we'll be at a post-scarcity economy.
Once we can do the same with potable water, food, shelter, we'll be at a post-scarcity economy.
That's really the question though:
Who produces the food, water, shelter?
What are the required incentives for them to continue dedicating their scarce time to continuing to produce it?
What are the incentives or rewards for them to invest in the infrastructure, equipment, etc for them to create that?
Who maintains it and how are they compensated for doing so? What benefit do they gain for committing their time to the endeavor while everyone else enjoys the fruits?
Air is an example that actually fits this well. With air, distribution and production are handled by systems that don't require people to construct and maintain. All of those costs go away.
I don't see a point where post-scarcity is realistic until scarcity of time can be addressed.
Who produces the food, water, shelter?
What are the required incentives for them to continue dedicating their scarce time to continuing to produce it?
What are the incentives or rewards for them to invest in the infrastructure, equipment, etc for them to create that?
Who maintains it and how are they compensated for doing so? What benefit do they gain for committing their time to the endeavor while everyone else enjoys the fruits?
Air is an example that actually fits this well. With air, distribution and production are handled by systems that don't require people to construct and maintain. All of those costs go away.
I don't see a point where post-scarcity is realistic until scarcity of time can be addressed.
Scarcity of energy is the real bottleneck.
Once the cost of production/storage/transmission of energy has gone down to effectively zero, everything else falls into place.
Once the cost of production/storage/transmission of energy has gone down to effectively zero, everything else falls into place.
I've always been convinced that a true post-scarcity economy requires some pretty sophisticated AI and automation for the reasons you specified. A potential solution for technological unemployment is UBI, and UBI is enabled by the technologies that cause the unemployment, which is appealingly tidy in my opinion.
But staples like water, air, and land (source of food, shelter location and materials) are not about production, they are about claims of ownership and creating tollbooths.
That's a good point. I believe the prerequisite for a stable post-scarcity economy is automating the production of all the things we want to not be scarce, over the entire vertical - from getting resources, through manufacturing, delivery, recycling, and maintenance of all of the machines involved. It's a tall order, but not impossible, if we dedicated our minds to it.
What seems to be the real problem is that there is seemingly no good way from here to there. While there are incentives to make things more automated and more efficient, the money from that flows to the wrong places (and with it, power), and there are plenty of incentives for parasitic actors to inject themselves in between steps of any process to try and capture some percentage of the money flow.
What seems to be the real problem is that there is seemingly no good way from here to there. While there are incentives to make things more automated and more efficient, the money from that flows to the wrong places (and with it, power), and there are plenty of incentives for parasitic actors to inject themselves in between steps of any process to try and capture some percentage of the money flow.
Once we can do the same for uranium, platinum, N-(4-Methoxybenzylidene)-4-butylaniline, polyisoprene, hydrogen fuel cells, lithium ion batteries, silicon wafers, liquid oxygen, nitrogen tetroxide, hydrazine...
we'll be at a post-scarcity economy.
we'll be at a post-scarcity economy.
Providing enough for everyone to exist is trivial, what's distinctly non-trivial is satisfying those needs in an economic system like ours. Right now our economy requires access to necessities to be precarious, to motivate people to sell their time and most of their freedom to Those In Charge to buy them.
The alternative to this, where everyone has what they need to exist without submitting to one leader or another, is true Liberty, which rightly terrifies our ruling class.
I know this is a bit abstract, but I hope it makes sense.
The alternative to this, where everyone has what they need to exist without submitting to one leader or another, is true Liberty, which rightly terrifies our ruling class.
I know this is a bit abstract, but I hope it makes sense.
The only reason we have enough is because of that economic system. Take a look at Venezuela. It ought to terrify everyone that so many take what we have for granted.
We shouldn't always point at obviously dysfunctional examples when we look at problems in our society. There is no natural law that things will always end up like Venezuela or the Soviet Union when we change things.
Or North Korea, or Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or...
Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.
Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.
Why does it have to be either socialism or capitalism?
What if every employee became a shareholder and reaped rewards for such, making companies employee owned and 'SHARING' everything.. ---it's a more privatized way of running socialism and imho works better...
I do think gov't should cover healthcare/education -- maybe require service in military, or local community initiatives for those who are pacifists/not fit enough to serve.
Employee owned companies / Worker Co-ops I think are the wave of the future, and the next big economic shift. I'm wanting to start a web dev / growth hacking company built around that principle, where even the janitor would be an employee-owner (that's an example, janitorial would probably be contracted out).
Good examples are Winco foods -- where some cashiers who started with them in the 80s/90s are worth > $1 million dollars and are still working in-store: i.e. haven't necessarily moved to any sort of 'exec' position. They've just received shares/stock to raise up their living standards substantially.
What if every employee became a shareholder and reaped rewards for such, making companies employee owned and 'SHARING' everything.. ---it's a more privatized way of running socialism and imho works better...
I do think gov't should cover healthcare/education -- maybe require service in military, or local community initiatives for those who are pacifists/not fit enough to serve.
Employee owned companies / Worker Co-ops I think are the wave of the future, and the next big economic shift. I'm wanting to start a web dev / growth hacking company built around that principle, where even the janitor would be an employee-owner (that's an example, janitorial would probably be contracted out).
Good examples are Winco foods -- where some cashiers who started with them in the 80s/90s are worth > $1 million dollars and are still working in-store: i.e. haven't necessarily moved to any sort of 'exec' position. They've just received shares/stock to raise up their living standards substantially.
> What if every employee became a shareholder and reaped rewards for such, making companies employee owned and 'SHARING' everything.. ---it's a more privatized way of running socialism and imho works better...
There is nothing stopping this from happening. You can start such a company now. Heck, you can start a communist commune within a free market system. It doesn't happen much because it doesn't work well enough. The classic corporate structure is far more common because it works.
Even if you took all the shares from the shareholders of an existing company and gave them to the employees you'd revert to inequality soon enough. How much are the new cashiers at Winco foods worth? How many of the old Winco foods employees are still rich? How many of the ones who got rich and stayed rich are still working as a cashier? How big is Winco foods compared to Walmart? Most people who have a million dollars don't want to work as a cashier, a few counterexamples notwithstanding. The basic principle of making employees invested in the success of the company is a good one, but the government shouldn't force that model. Let businesses apply that model where they think it works. Google gives stock to employees, great! Company X doesn't, also great.
> I do think gov't should cover healthcare/education
I agree, the government should finance this for people who can't afford it, but the government should not be running the hospitals or the schools for the same reason that the government should finance food for people who can't afford it, but they shouldn't run the supermarket.
> -- maybe require service in military, or local community initiatives for those who are pacifists/not fit enough to serve.
Why? The all-volunteer military works well. Compensate people for the job instead of forcing them to do it.
There is nothing stopping this from happening. You can start such a company now. Heck, you can start a communist commune within a free market system. It doesn't happen much because it doesn't work well enough. The classic corporate structure is far more common because it works.
Even if you took all the shares from the shareholders of an existing company and gave them to the employees you'd revert to inequality soon enough. How much are the new cashiers at Winco foods worth? How many of the old Winco foods employees are still rich? How many of the ones who got rich and stayed rich are still working as a cashier? How big is Winco foods compared to Walmart? Most people who have a million dollars don't want to work as a cashier, a few counterexamples notwithstanding. The basic principle of making employees invested in the success of the company is a good one, but the government shouldn't force that model. Let businesses apply that model where they think it works. Google gives stock to employees, great! Company X doesn't, also great.
> I do think gov't should cover healthcare/education
I agree, the government should finance this for people who can't afford it, but the government should not be running the hospitals or the schools for the same reason that the government should finance food for people who can't afford it, but they shouldn't run the supermarket.
> -- maybe require service in military, or local community initiatives for those who are pacifists/not fit enough to serve.
Why? The all-volunteer military works well. Compensate people for the job instead of forcing them to do it.
You could also take a look at Europe or the US in the 50s. More income distribution than the current state doesn't mean that Stalin's successors will take over immediately.
Europe or the US in the 50s didn't guarantee the necessities for people who choose not to work either. I'm not even necessarily opposed to flattening the income distribution by government intervention, but guaranteeing all the necessities is a radical change. Let's try it on a small scale first.
Communism does not imply totalitarianism, and capitalism does not imply democracy.
Give one example of a communist country that didn't turn totalitarian. Capitalism doesn't imply democracy, but capitalist dictatorships do tend to gravitate in that direction, e.g. Chile.
My point was that making changes to the current system doesn't necessarily mean communism. Capitalism or market economies can have many different shapes without becoming dictatorships.
"Our economic system could be improved" != "Full Communism Now!"
I don't think the improvements I hope for will resemble Capitalism (where Capital is controlled either by a dictator or an oligarchy of shareholders) or past implementations of Socialism, where the State controls Capital.
I don't think the improvements I hope for will resemble Capitalism (where Capital is controlled either by a dictator or an oligarchy of shareholders) or past implementations of Socialism, where the State controls Capital.
Venezuela is more capitalist than China. There are more state controlled industries in China than in Venezuela by a large margin. How come you're not saying "take a look at China"?
Perfect resource allocation requires a perfectly incorruptible coordinator. Perfect socialism might become possible (and even preferable) if/when AGI is solved.
Iain Banks puts it nicely in his "A Few Notes on the Culture" essay [0]:
"Let me state here a personal conviction that appears, right now, to be profoundly unfashionable; which is that a planned economy can be more productive - and more morally desirable - than one left to market forces.
"The market is a good example of evolution in action; the try-everything-and-see-what- -works approach. This might provide a perfectly morally satisfactory resource-management system so long as there was absolutely no question of any sentient creature ever being treated purely as one of those resources. The market, for all its (profoundly inelegant) complexities, remains a crude and essentially blind system, and is - without the sort of drastic amendments liable to cripple the economic efficacy which is its greatest claimed asset - intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between simple non-use of matter resulting from processal superfluity and the acute, prolonged and wide-spread suffering of conscious beings.
"It is, arguably, in the elevation of this profoundly mechanistic (and in that sense perversely innocent) system to a position above all other moral, philosophical and political values and considerations that humankind displays most convincingly both its present intellectual [immaturity and] - through grossly pursued selfishness rather than the applied hatred of others - a kind of synthetic evil.
"Intelligence, which is capable of looking farther ahead than the next aggressive mutation, can set up long-term aims and work towards them; the same amount of raw invention that bursts in all directions from the market can be - to some degree - channelled and directed, so that while the market merely shines (and the feudal gutters), the planned lases, reaching out coherently and efficiently towards agreed-on goals. What is vital for such a scheme, however, and what was always missing in the planned economies of our world's experience, is the continual, intimate and decisive participation of the mass of the citizenry in determining these goals, and designing as well as implementing the plans which should lead towards them.
Of course, there is a place for serendipity and chance in any sensibly envisaged plan, and the degree to which this would affect the higher functions of a democratically designed economy would be one of the most important parameters to be set... but just as the information we have stored in our libraries and institutions has undeniably outgrown (if not outweighed) that resident in our genes, and just as we may, within a century of the invention of electronics, duplicate - through machine sentience - a process which evolution took billions of years to achieve, so we shall one day abandon the grossly targeted vagaries of the market for the precision creation of the planned economy."
[0] http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm
Iain Banks puts it nicely in his "A Few Notes on the Culture" essay [0]:
"Let me state here a personal conviction that appears, right now, to be profoundly unfashionable; which is that a planned economy can be more productive - and more morally desirable - than one left to market forces.
"The market is a good example of evolution in action; the try-everything-and-see-what- -works approach. This might provide a perfectly morally satisfactory resource-management system so long as there was absolutely no question of any sentient creature ever being treated purely as one of those resources. The market, for all its (profoundly inelegant) complexities, remains a crude and essentially blind system, and is - without the sort of drastic amendments liable to cripple the economic efficacy which is its greatest claimed asset - intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between simple non-use of matter resulting from processal superfluity and the acute, prolonged and wide-spread suffering of conscious beings.
"It is, arguably, in the elevation of this profoundly mechanistic (and in that sense perversely innocent) system to a position above all other moral, philosophical and political values and considerations that humankind displays most convincingly both its present intellectual [immaturity and] - through grossly pursued selfishness rather than the applied hatred of others - a kind of synthetic evil.
"Intelligence, which is capable of looking farther ahead than the next aggressive mutation, can set up long-term aims and work towards them; the same amount of raw invention that bursts in all directions from the market can be - to some degree - channelled and directed, so that while the market merely shines (and the feudal gutters), the planned lases, reaching out coherently and efficiently towards agreed-on goals. What is vital for such a scheme, however, and what was always missing in the planned economies of our world's experience, is the continual, intimate and decisive participation of the mass of the citizenry in determining these goals, and designing as well as implementing the plans which should lead towards them.
Of course, there is a place for serendipity and chance in any sensibly envisaged plan, and the degree to which this would affect the higher functions of a democratically designed economy would be one of the most important parameters to be set... but just as the information we have stored in our libraries and institutions has undeniably outgrown (if not outweighed) that resident in our genes, and just as we may, within a century of the invention of electronics, duplicate - through machine sentience - a process which evolution took billions of years to achieve, so we shall one day abandon the grossly targeted vagaries of the market for the precision creation of the planned economy."
[0] http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm
Great rebuttal to one of the other commentator's lines... "Yes, the accumulation of capital gains should rightly go to the owners of capital." This position elevate the good of capital assets while ignoring/not balancing it with the "... acute, prolonged, and wide-spread suffering of conscious beings".
What is AGI?
It is, but a good point of departure for discussion. Can you elaborate on how that alternative can evolve from the present way of doing things?
I am not PP but I think a decent basic income is a good alternative.
Effectively, it is splitting of fruits of economic production into two portions. One portion is redistributed to everybody, and the other is subject of free competition. So you can get the best of both worlds, capitalism and socialism. If you want to compete for the other portion, you can. If you don't want to compete (and be dominated by people who do compete), you live on the basic income.
Effectively, it is splitting of fruits of economic production into two portions. One portion is redistributed to everybody, and the other is subject of free competition. So you can get the best of both worlds, capitalism and socialism. If you want to compete for the other portion, you can. If you don't want to compete (and be dominated by people who do compete), you live on the basic income.
Not easily, I'll admit. We've been working for so long at dealing with scarcity that when presented with abundance we don't know what to do.
I'm at least glad that people are at least starting to understand that our economic system while better than it's predecessors by a mile, should be improved.
This kind of question is better answered piecemeal, like how do we get the homeless into one of the 4-5 empty homes per homeless person, or how do we avoid throwing away 40+% of the food we grow? Correcting horrific market failures like this is a wonderful way to start.
I'm at least glad that people are at least starting to understand that our economic system while better than it's predecessors by a mile, should be improved.
This kind of question is better answered piecemeal, like how do we get the homeless into one of the 4-5 empty homes per homeless person, or how do we avoid throwing away 40+% of the food we grow? Correcting horrific market failures like this is a wonderful way to start.
Fundamentally they can't, but that's not what the concept is aiming at. What we can do is to drop costs of things people need (or want) in their daily lives to the point that supply/demand basically stops working for them on an aggregate scale. If we do this to the point that any person can live a full life and participate in the society at large without having to exchange labour for resources or worrying about their wealth, then we achieve "post-scarcity".
Even in Star Trek, there were scarce things that needed to be allocated. Not everyone got their own starship. But we consider this fictional economy a post-scarcity one, because food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and entertainment were basically free for everyone.
Even in Star Trek, there were scarce things that needed to be allocated. Not everyone got their own starship. But we consider this fictional economy a post-scarcity one, because food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and entertainment were basically free for everyone.
That happened about 50 years ago in the developed world. A well off family in the mid-1800's would purchase a new set of clothing once or twice a year. Each person would have maybe two or three pairs of shoes. They had enough funds heat their homes during winter. Poor people had far less. By the 1950's, a developed economy could easily provide that level of comfort to everyone. We just (mostly) chose not to.
Today, it's quite cheap (relative to average incomes) to provide for basic needs if you define basic needs to food, a few sets of clothing and a heated place live. Problem is, we define that as being in deep poverty now. Now most people living in developed economies include things like 12 years of basic schooling, health care for most ailments, a dozen sets of clothing, reliable home heating, indoor plumbing, various in-home kitchen appliances, indoor plumbing, communications tools, some entertainment, the means to travel many miles every day, etc, etc as "basic needs". 100 years ago, at an absolute level anyway, this was an upper class level of wealth.
In other words, the bar constantly rises as society's overall wealth increases.
Today, it's quite cheap (relative to average incomes) to provide for basic needs if you define basic needs to food, a few sets of clothing and a heated place live. Problem is, we define that as being in deep poverty now. Now most people living in developed economies include things like 12 years of basic schooling, health care for most ailments, a dozen sets of clothing, reliable home heating, indoor plumbing, various in-home kitchen appliances, indoor plumbing, communications tools, some entertainment, the means to travel many miles every day, etc, etc as "basic needs". 100 years ago, at an absolute level anyway, this was an upper class level of wealth.
In other words, the bar constantly rises as society's overall wealth increases.
I don't know how I would have access to food, shelter, and healthcare if I decided to stop working and spend the rest of my life doing recreational engineering. Post-scarcity requires automation to the point that the cost of survival becomes a rounding error on the rest of the economy. When it's possible to survive without engaging in trade (or spending the majority of your life gathering food and shelter from raw materials), we'll be in a post-scarcity economy (and I will be first in line to take the offer).
> Healthcare
We'd have to either normalize suicide or prevent aging in order to get to a world where the demand for healthcare is basically met for everyone. Before we even get there, we've still got a lot of people whose healthcare costs are infinite with current technology.
The NHS is fantastic, it doesn't operate in a post-scarcity environment.
We'd have to either normalize suicide or prevent aging in order to get to a world where the demand for healthcare is basically met for everyone. Before we even get there, we've still got a lot of people whose healthcare costs are infinite with current technology.
The NHS is fantastic, it doesn't operate in a post-scarcity environment.
Right. Healthcare seems like probably the last thing that has a chance to enter post-scarcity environment, simply because as long as people get sick and die, there's always something to spend more resources on. But solving food and shelter would be a good start.
Ah, but what is a "full life?" Might someone believe that they need something more rare in order to attain it?
Isn't "post-scarcity" just taking the limit as supply reaches infinity, and thus just another term for "asymptotically cheap?" Do we really need a "fresh new" economic theory to talk about this?
Isn't "post-scarcity" just taking the limit as supply reaches infinity, and thus just another term for "asymptotically cheap?" Do we really need a "fresh new" economic theory to talk about this?
> Ah, but what is a "full life?" Might someone believe that they need something more rare in order to attain it?
That's indeed a fuzzy term right here. Can't come up with a better one, though. I'm thinking here of a life of an average person, though, not about outliers.
> Isn't "post-scarcity" just taking the limit as supply reaches infinity, and thus just another term for "asymptotically cheap?" Do we really need a "fresh new" economic theory to talk about this?
Maybe? Whether you call it "post-scarcity" or "most stuff is asymptotically cheap now", our current economic theories (and practice) don't handle near-free things well.
That's indeed a fuzzy term right here. Can't come up with a better one, though. I'm thinking here of a life of an average person, though, not about outliers.
> Isn't "post-scarcity" just taking the limit as supply reaches infinity, and thus just another term for "asymptotically cheap?" Do we really need a "fresh new" economic theory to talk about this?
Maybe? Whether you call it "post-scarcity" or "most stuff is asymptotically cheap now", our current economic theories (and practice) don't handle near-free things well.
The way a post-scarcity society could come to exist is if we stop doing any activity in the physical world and everything moves online.
We've actually gone quite a long way down that road already. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years or so, most physical-world activity has stopped.
Once basic electricity, internet connectivity, food, etc. is provided automatically, and all work and leisure is conducted online, there's no barrier to stop anybody from having as much of any kind of information, software, leisure activity, etc. as they want.
I refer to it as "retreating to the virtual realm". Obviously it's not a popular idea at the moment, but I think it'll just happen gradually like it's done so far. Nobody will be forced into moving out of the physical realm, they'll just find that there's increasingly nothing to do as everything has moved to the virtual realm.
We've actually gone quite a long way down that road already. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years or so, most physical-world activity has stopped.
Once basic electricity, internet connectivity, food, etc. is provided automatically, and all work and leisure is conducted online, there's no barrier to stop anybody from having as much of any kind of information, software, leisure activity, etc. as they want.
I refer to it as "retreating to the virtual realm". Obviously it's not a popular idea at the moment, but I think it'll just happen gradually like it's done so far. Nobody will be forced into moving out of the physical realm, they'll just find that there's increasingly nothing to do as everything has moved to the virtual realm.
Although electricity, food, etc. are not provided automatically yet, I don't think that in the developed world they are scarce anymore. People don't chase a promotion, work overhours or buy a lottery ticket in the hope of being able to obtain more food. It might not be a gourmet meal in a Michelin star restaurant, but you surely can buy as much food as you need to never be hungry.
If you want a car, then at least in the Western world, you can buy one. It might not be a Ferrari, but when physical transportation is what you are after, it is definitely affordable.
So why do many people still work so hard? Because they don't just want things that are sufficient, they desire to have luxury goods, food or leisure. And how do you define luxury? It is something better than you have now, or even better, something better than what your neighbours/ friends or colleagues have.
This will not change, no matter how easily food and other basic goods become available. Because it is part of human nature to desire to have status, more than that, this is what is driving evolution for many other animals as well.
So a true post-scarcity will never exist. People will just invent new goods or services to go after in the future when today's iphones and sportscars have become affordable. Not because they need them, but for the simple fact that they are difficult to obtain.
If you want a car, then at least in the Western world, you can buy one. It might not be a Ferrari, but when physical transportation is what you are after, it is definitely affordable.
So why do many people still work so hard? Because they don't just want things that are sufficient, they desire to have luxury goods, food or leisure. And how do you define luxury? It is something better than you have now, or even better, something better than what your neighbours/ friends or colleagues have.
This will not change, no matter how easily food and other basic goods become available. Because it is part of human nature to desire to have status, more than that, this is what is driving evolution for many other animals as well.
So a true post-scarcity will never exist. People will just invent new goods or services to go after in the future when today's iphones and sportscars have become affordable. Not because they need them, but for the simple fact that they are difficult to obtain.
> People don't chase a promotion, work overhours or buy a lottery ticket in the hope of being able to obtain more food.
1/6 of the families in NYC are food-insecure. ( http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/foodpolicy/downloads/pdf/2016-Foo... )
I think you’re confusing your position of privilege for how everyone else lives. That’s a mistake.
1/6 of the families in NYC are food-insecure. ( http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/foodpolicy/downloads/pdf/2016-Foo... )
I think you’re confusing your position of privilege for how everyone else lives. That’s a mistake.
> So a true post-scarcity will never exist. People will just invent new goods or services to go after in the future when today's iphones and sportscars have become affordable. Not because they need them, but for the simple fact that they are difficult to obtain.
This assumes material wealth remain a source of status. If all things are easily aquired, then there is no reason to hold people with certain possesion in high regard. Instead knowing social codes and ability might become even more important. Perhaps the exception would be historical artifacts abd handmade things, asuming those could not be perfectly copied...
This assumes material wealth remain a source of status. If all things are easily aquired, then there is no reason to hold people with certain possesion in high regard. Instead knowing social codes and ability might become even more important. Perhaps the exception would be historical artifacts abd handmade things, asuming those could not be perfectly copied...
> So why do many people still work so hard?
Let me make you a question. For how long will you still afford all that stuff if you simply quit working?
Let me make you a question. For how long will you still afford all that stuff if you simply quit working?
This. Especially with western world moving more and more into service-based economy, we're literally beginning to have to pay rent to survive.
That's quite an insight. I've never connected those concepts together before.
There's a staggeringly long list of things that are now post-scarcity because they're digital. Each item used to be a luxury available to few instead of a thing that scales to all.
So here's a new way to ask an old question: What's something that should be post-scarcity, but currently isn't?
There's a staggeringly long list of things that are now post-scarcity because they're digital. Each item used to be a luxury available to few instead of a thing that scales to all.
So here's a new way to ask an old question: What's something that should be post-scarcity, but currently isn't?
Anything that costs $0 to make a copy of, but is sold at premium. Enterprise software like Oracle, etc. Digital Music. Streamed Movies and shows (Netflix).
Also, anything that costs nearly $0 at scale, but is sold at premium. Internet service. Cellular service.
Also, anything that costs nearly $0 at scale, but is sold at premium. Internet service. Cellular service.
Textbooks? There are many ebooks that are legitimately available for free, but textbooks are typically expensive.
I never thought of moving more to the online world a good thing, but this makes me question that. Let's consider a wealthy art collector. It would seem to be better for the collector to buy digital art, which is electronic and reproducible, than to buy up physical paintings, which means less paintings available for others.
> It would seem to be better for the collector to buy digital art, which is electronic and reproducible, than to buy up physical paintings, which means less paintings available for others.
Except the experience of viewing physical artwork is better than viewing a digital representation, in the same way that physically traveling to another country to experience the culture and atmosphere is better than simply seeing it in the 3D view of Google maps. The map is not the destination, and a PNG of a painting isn't a painting. It's only in science fiction that the physical and virtual worlds are indistinguishable.
Notwithstanding the value that also exists in the rarity of physical artwork itself, and in collecting it because it's not infinitely reproducible.
Except the experience of viewing physical artwork is better than viewing a digital representation, in the same way that physically traveling to another country to experience the culture and atmosphere is better than simply seeing it in the 3D view of Google maps. The map is not the destination, and a PNG of a painting isn't a painting. It's only in science fiction that the physical and virtual worlds are indistinguishable.
Notwithstanding the value that also exists in the rarity of physical artwork itself, and in collecting it because it's not infinitely reproducible.
I would define "post-scarcity" as when you organize your economic system to constrain supply in order to prop up prices.
For instance, the U.S. burns 30% of its corn crop to produce ethanol, which would never happen in a market system, but it happens because of a government mandate.
For instance, the U.S. burns 30% of its corn crop to produce ethanol, which would never happen in a market system, but it happens because of a government mandate.
That's my hope. Maybe the period where humans had an impact on the planet will be short lived and they will disappear again. When I look at my 50 year old body and its slow decline I wouldn't mind getting rid of it and live virtually.
People also like to get married, have families, socialize, play sports, go to nice restaurants, attend shows, etc.
Your vision also assumes every human wants to, or can, be a knowledge worker. A lot of people can only function as manual laborers.
Your vision also assumes every human wants to, or can, be a knowledge worker. A lot of people can only function as manual laborers.
Those things are true now, but I don't think it'll take too many generations for what I described to be considered totally normal.
There's not enough for everyone to have as much as they want, else we'd all be living on our own private tropical islands.
Perhaps that is a reflection of a deeper issues? We've been conditioning to assign value to that type of luxury, which of course is nice, but does it add real value to our lives?
[deleted]
This is why we need a multi-dimensional currency instead of a commodity currency. https://www.wired.com/2014/07/document-coin/
There is plenty for everyone.
The problem is it is not being distributed fairly.
The problem is it is not being distributed fairly.
Enough of what?
An incredible article, it seems so clear the way it is stated.
If demand is the problem, as stated in the article, would a basic-income, providing extra income and arguably more free time for consumers usher in a new "Golden Age" of growth as we have seen post-WWII?
If demand is the problem, as stated in the article, would a basic-income, providing extra income and arguably more free time for consumers usher in a new "Golden Age" of growth as we have seen post-WWII?
You don't even need basic income. Just let people's incomes rise at the same rate the economy grows instead of funneling all gains to the business owners like it happened over the last 30 years or so. Unfortunately in the US the Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans.
I don't know how to change this realistically. It probably needs some change in moral attitudes so it's just not accepted by society that certainly people claim all the gains for themselves instead off spreading them out. Child labor used to be prevalent but in most Western societies it's not ok anymore even if there is profit to be made. So maybe this will happen to income inequality too.
I don't know how to change this realistically. It probably needs some change in moral attitudes so it's just not accepted by society that certainly people claim all the gains for themselves instead off spreading them out. Child labor used to be prevalent but in most Western societies it's not ok anymore even if there is profit to be made. So maybe this will happen to income inequality too.
Just let people's incomes rise at the same rate the economy grows
What do you mean? Have you considered the relationship between income and the "rate the economy grows"?
funneling all gains to the business owners
Yes, the accumulation of capital gains should rightly go to the owners of capital.
Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans.
Those at the bottom of the income spectrum pay virtually no taxes, so yes, tax cuts should be directed towards those that actually pay taxes (upper-middle and upper income earners), and who are, arguably, more skilled in deploying capital in ways which are productive.
I don't know how to change this realistically.
Income inequality will not be resolved through transfer payments or redistribution - it will be solved through job skills training and growth in labor production.
To put it simply: no poor person has ever gotten me a job.
What do you mean? Have you considered the relationship between income and the "rate the economy grows"?
funneling all gains to the business owners
Yes, the accumulation of capital gains should rightly go to the owners of capital.
Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans.
Those at the bottom of the income spectrum pay virtually no taxes, so yes, tax cuts should be directed towards those that actually pay taxes (upper-middle and upper income earners), and who are, arguably, more skilled in deploying capital in ways which are productive.
I don't know how to change this realistically.
Income inequality will not be resolved through transfer payments or redistribution - it will be solved through job skills training and growth in labor production.
To put it simply: no poor person has ever gotten me a job.
"What do you mean? Have you considered the relationship between income and the "rate the economy grows"?"
I have considered that. In my view wages of the middle class should grow at the same rate the top incomes grow. To me that would indicate a healthy and long term sustainable economy.
I have considered that. In my view wages of the middle class should grow at the same rate the top incomes grow. To me that would indicate a healthy and long term sustainable economy.
In my view wages of the middle class should grow at the same rate the top incomes grow.
What does this mean? What do you mean should and who is in the "top"? By should, you mean we should peg "middle-class" wages to some index that will track the growth of "the top" - thereby forcing privately owned business owners to pay what the government tells them to? And what if they can't, they just have to close up shop? Can they fire workers?
I think you need to consider more deeply the implications of you ideas, and concepts such as what people, governments, or institutions "should" be forced to do.
Also, the "top" earners in the USA don't generate labor income, they accumulate capital. If you want to piggyback off their efforts to steer capital in a more productive manner, thereby growing it, you can open up a online brokerage account and buy some shares of any publicly traded company you want.
What does this mean? What do you mean should and who is in the "top"? By should, you mean we should peg "middle-class" wages to some index that will track the growth of "the top" - thereby forcing privately owned business owners to pay what the government tells them to? And what if they can't, they just have to close up shop? Can they fire workers?
I think you need to consider more deeply the implications of you ideas, and concepts such as what people, governments, or institutions "should" be forced to do.
Also, the "top" earners in the USA don't generate labor income, they accumulate capital. If you want to piggyback off their efforts to steer capital in a more productive manner, thereby growing it, you can open up a online brokerage account and buy some shares of any publicly traded company you want.
Personally, I think a max CEO pay of 200X average company salary would be a better metric... if Execs/Board members can only get so much reward and it's directly influenced by # of employees and average employee wage, -- want a pay increase... raise some wages or hire more employees.
Not sure the algorithm would be... but it needs to be tied directly to # employed and average salary to encourage growth, and discourage greed at the top.
Some CEO's do almost fraudulent things -- but get a golden parachute when they leave, this behavior needs to stop too. If a CEO fucks up - fire them, without any severance.
Not sure the algorithm would be... but it needs to be tied directly to # employed and average salary to encourage growth, and discourage greed at the top.
Some CEO's do almost fraudulent things -- but get a golden parachute when they leave, this behavior needs to stop too. If a CEO fucks up - fire them, without any severance.
You know exactly what I mean. You just want to take my point to a ridiculous level to kill the argument.
Over the last 30 years the average salary of top management has grown a lot while the salaries of most other works have stagnated. If a company is successful the salaries of all employees should grow at the same rate. The CEO is already making more money so he is already rewarded more for his role.
Over the last 30 years the average salary of top management has grown a lot while the salaries of most other works have stagnated. If a company is successful the salaries of all employees should grow at the same rate. The CEO is already making more money so he is already rewarded more for his role.
The incomes need to rise but can the business owners be forced? The basic income would make sure everyone gets the extra income.
tax+spend; not supporting 'trickle down' economics w/r/t other gov't policies, actually enforcing monopoly laws, regulating other areas in favor of small business (e.g. FCC used to have media ownership laws to keep media companies smaller) etc..
if everyone has more money but there is no cap on the top, things will just get more expensive, and then more basic income will be provided, and the cycle will continue..
not necessarily a fan or a detractor of any/all of these things, but just chiming in.
if everyone has more money but there is no cap on the top, things will just get more expensive, and then more basic income will be provided, and the cycle will continue..
not necessarily a fan or a detractor of any/all of these things, but just chiming in.
I wonder how things would work out if we had a system where companies beyond a certain size are strongly discouraged. I think the economy would be much healthier if we had many small businesses instead of behemoths like apple and Google
I was going to say "what about research projects that only a billion dollar company can absorb", but now that I think about it an industry consortium seems like a better outcome for society than a monopoly dictating the industry's focus and creating artificial scarcity. It's undoubtedly less efficient, but spreading the work around many organizations reduces the "bus factor" and the duplicated effort of competing incompatible standards.
Small business employ the plurality of Americans. Also, you made a disparaging comment towards Republicans earlier, and I just want to point out that Google, MS, Apple, etc. etc. are virtually all staffed by liberals and Democrats. Oh, and those Wallstreet bankers that seem to be perpetually in the left's cross hairs? Democrat, democrat, democrat.
Are you disputing that the Republican tax plans are mainly aimed towards lowering taxes for upper incomes and most of the benefits would flow to the top 0.x percent? I don't think facts are disparaging.
Somehow they got forced to not hire 6 year olds to work in mines and businesses adapted and did well. So I think it's possible without killing incentives for entrepreneurs. It's a matter of balance.
Basic income has become a buzzword, with different people having different understanding about what it really means. Even right-wing libertarians seem to be in favor of basic income if it means replacing all other forms of social safety net, like welfare, disability benefits, etc.
The more you think about it, the more it doesn't make sense. Should a disabled veteran receive the same amount of basic income as a billionaire heir? Should a single mother of three working at Walmart receive the same total basic income as three Google employees?
A well managed welfare state is a much better option than basic income, in my opinion.
The more you think about it, the more it doesn't make sense. Should a disabled veteran receive the same amount of basic income as a billionaire heir? Should a single mother of three working at Walmart receive the same total basic income as three Google employees?
A well managed welfare state is a much better option than basic income, in my opinion.
Media seems to be a good example of this. Movies and TV shows continue to be created and preserved increasing the supply, but consuming media does not mean less for others.
Scarcity is imposed by physics. Energy is conserved, entropy increases. Even if we realized the wildest extropian dreams and moved all intelligent life into efficient simulations, physics still dictates that every non-reversible computation creates entropy.
A homeless person in the US today has universally better prospects than 99% of the population a thousand years ago; better than all of them in many ways. It’s impossible to starve in a first world country. Even the poorest of the poor are jacked into the global communication network. Necessary survival goods are non-scarce. Are we satisfied? No, we want more. As productive capacity increases, our definition of non-scarcity becomes more and more demanding. I don’t see why this would stop if the only commodity left was mass-energy.
A homeless person in the US today has universally better prospects than 99% of the population a thousand years ago; better than all of them in many ways. It’s impossible to starve in a first world country. Even the poorest of the poor are jacked into the global communication network. Necessary survival goods are non-scarce. Are we satisfied? No, we want more. As productive capacity increases, our definition of non-scarcity becomes more and more demanding. I don’t see why this would stop if the only commodity left was mass-energy.
I recommend people interested in alternative social structures for a post-scarcity world to look into Murray Bookchin