Topic: The post-employment economy
started by: GORDON
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 15 2014,05:57
The derail in the youtube thread got me thinking.So there is going to have to be a new system of supporting yourself in the new world, if that will even be possible, right? Are we all going to just be put into mega-buildings with warm babyfood taps coming out of the walls if we can't find other sources of income?
Here is a guy who says something about it:
< http://www.wfs.org/content/postemployment-economy >
QUOTE
The high-profit, small-staff business model will rule. An example is the Web-based movie-rental company Netflix, which has effectively driven rival Blockbuster to bankruptcy. Consumer demand for goods will plummet as unemployment rises. Defaults on mortgages and consumer debt will reach unprecedented levels, and plunging values for housing and other assets will result in cascading financial crises. College enrollment will fall as potential students shy away from “knowledge worker” jobs that are susceptible to automation and off-shoring. Young people will instead compete for trade jobs in the occupations that can’t be automated. (Hypothetical examples here might include nursing or even specific types of high-tech machine repair.) Governments will face rising pressure to restrict technological progress. Organized labor may realize a last-ditch resurgence. High unemployment in developed countries will dramatically reduce demand for foreign-manufactured goods. The result may be social unrest and political instability in places like China as export trade crumbles. The U.S. government’s already dire projections for pensions and government entitlements will become even more dismal as wide unemployment among young people decimates payroll tax revenues. Sovereign debt crises—of the type playing out in Greece at the time of this writing — will spread as demand for government services outstrips revenue. Political battles will become even more heated, partisan, and irrational.
And something I considered this morning... if the USA automates 90% of its work force, and there is suddenly no money in the economy to buy goods from China, and, if America then becomes the main exporter of crap to the world that China is because of the automated workforce.... China is going to EMP the shit out of America. It's win/win for them to do so, as long as we can't retaliate (hello systems hackers).
Posted by Vince on Aug. 15 2014,07:33
I wonder if the survivors won't become nomadic? Obviously some people will stay in cities eating government dispensed baby food, but I wonder if others don't become nomads. People will lose property for lack of taxes being paid, and then they'll be run off as squatters. But what if they just become nomads like many of the American Indians were?
Posted by Troy on Aug. 15 2014,07:36
That video and this thread make me want to invest in woodland.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 15 2014,07:37
Not sure about the "forced off as squatters" thing. Who is going to force them off? The local bank tax man who is also out of a job? And if you are nomadic you are still on SOMEONES property, usually.I think we'll see a resurgence of walled towns, then castles, then feudalism.
Well, I don't really think that... but I see it as something that could happen in some places.
Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 15 2014,08:18
(Troy @ Aug. 15 2014,10:36)
QUOTE
That video and this thread make me want to invest in woodland.
Right? Although, I think you'll want a decent amount of farmland, and some running water in that land.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 15 2014,10:26
Well, if the federal government takes the ability to create money away from the banks by setting the fractional reserve back to 100%, then they'll have to print (or digitally create, much like the banks do now) a crapton of money to get our money supply back to where it is now. Basically 90% of all the money tied up in bank loans was created form nothing by the banks. The federal government can take that back from them and keep that ability - to create money - for itself and will then need to do so to balance the system. The bankers will scream bloody murder, but fuck those guys. But it can be done less painfully by grandfathering existing loans and still have an enormous effect practically overnight.
What does it do with all that new money? Why, it could send out a check for $20,000 to every citizen - including children - and barely make a dent. When you couple that with the likely depreciation that will have occurred by then and made everything cheaper, there's one year of post-labor economy squared away right there.
What about year two? I don't know. But we've got time to figure it out. Probably something like < this >. Although more likely with a much less socialist slant given our national character. See Robert Heinlein's < For Us, The Living > for some interesting ideas along these lines.
The point is there are in theory ways to run an economic system that end up with everyone involved getting a check that is enough to survive on with reasonable comfort. Those that want more will be able to get more by making artisanal cheeses, selling artwork, or doing other semi-hobby things that can make a little cash on the side if you find a customer for it. And there will always be some jobs out there for people that just really need to work to be happy. Take away all the people that would rather not work at all and the smaller number of jobs to be had in the post-labor economy will probably be about right for the demand.
This isn't the end of the world, guys. This is a good thing. We will soon have so much stuff and will make it so easily that everyone can have stuff and not need to work for it. The only hard part is figuring out a fair and equitable system under which stuff can be made available to people without requiring them to trade their time for it, because no one wants that time from them anymore.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 15 2014,10:57
(TPRJones @ Aug. 15 2014,13:26)
QUOTE
This isn't the end of the world, guys. This is a good thing. We will soon have so much stuff and will make it so easily that everyone can have stuff and not need to work for it. The only hard part is figuring out a fair and equitable system under which stuff can be made available to people without requiring them to trade their time for it, because no one wants that time from them anymore.
That's the entire nut, though. That is the entirety of the problem. Is there any way to do it without the government taking control of everything and distributing as needed? I can't see private business doing shit out of the goodness of their hearts... too many people are doing 70 hour weeks creating something and don't want to just give away what they are creating to the other 95% of the population. All progress stops and suddenly NO ONE has nice things any more.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 15 2014,11:08
Absolutely. Go back up a few paragraphs in the post you quoted and I offer one potential solution that doesn't involve the government taking control of everything.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 15 2014,11:09
(TPRJones @ Aug. 15 2014,14:08)
QUOTE
Absolutely. Go back up a few paragraphs in the post you quoted and I offer one potential solution that doesn't involve the government taking control of everything.
I was hoping for an executive summary of that link. ;-)
Posted by Vince on Aug. 15 2014,11:11
Sorry, I don't see that ever happening. It's not within out nature.Either money has value, or it doesn't. In the example of your link, there's the woman dancing for viewers in much the way we have Internet peep shows today. But it's just dancing. If money has no value, then a lot more people will pay for that. If money DOES have value, then fewer people will pay for it. So the inverse is that if it has no value, how long would she continue to perform for it? Unless she does it for the joy of doing it. In which case, why charge for it? Unless money has value.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 15 2014,11:23
(GORDON @ Aug. 15 2014,13:09)
QUOTE
I was hoping for an executive summary of that link. ;-)
It took Heinlein an entire novel and you expect me to be able to do better?
Actually the wiki article does a decent job:
QUOTE
The Heritage System in "For Us, the Living" can be summarized by four major actions:
1. A required end to fractional reserve banking. Banks must always have a 100% reserve for any loan they give out.
2. New money is printed only by the government, and then, only enough to counteract the natural deflation that would occur in a system without fractional reserve banking.
3. The government uses this money (and only this money), divided among all of its necessary roles. Any extra is divided evenly among citizens and businesses that over-produce, to offset the loss of not selling their over-production (the government buying the over-production for its own use, which can be bought by citizens later if they so desire at the same price.)
4. Goods bought by the government are later sold by the government (or used by it), and normal governmental services (such as postage) are sold. These goods and services provide the standard backing for the currency, similar to how gold is used to back the gold standard.
1. A required end to fractional reserve banking. Banks must always have a 100% reserve for any loan they give out.
2. New money is printed only by the government, and then, only enough to counteract the natural deflation that would occur in a system without fractional reserve banking.
3. The government uses this money (and only this money), divided among all of its necessary roles. Any extra is divided evenly among citizens and businesses that over-produce, to offset the loss of not selling their over-production (the government buying the over-production for its own use, which can be bought by citizens later if they so desire at the same price.)
4. Goods bought by the government are later sold by the government (or used by it), and normal governmental services (such as postage) are sold. These goods and services provide the standard backing for the currency, similar to how gold is used to back the gold standard.
Basically right now the ability to create money from nothing is given for free to private banks, to the tune of 90% of the outstanding debt in the US. And we have a lot of debt, so that's a lot of money being created by private banks. Take back that ability and use it in the public sector instead, and you've got almost enough money to pay everyone enough to live on. Add to it the differences between production and consumption that causes deflationary pressure on the currency - i.e. print the more money needed to keep the dollar value constant instead of falling - and you'll have the rest of what is needed plus enough to run a reasonably-sized federal government.
We all laugh at people that say "print the money needed to pay the national debt", but the truth is we could do exactly that. If we first took back the ability to create money from the private banks and then also did it slowly over time so as not to cause inflation while doing so. But it wouldn't be very slowly. Like I said, 90% of all debt is a LOT of virtual money that would need to be replaced. Several times our national debt, in fact.
QUOTE
Sorry, I don't see that ever happening. It's not within out nature.
This is just one possible alternative. There are lots of others that might be better or more likely to be tried.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 15 2014,11:26
(Vince @ Aug. 15 2014,13:11)
QUOTE
So the inverse is that if it has no value, how long would she continue to perform for it? Unless she does it for the joy of doing it. In which case, why charge for it? Unless money has value.
Why can't it be both? She takes joy from it and also some people give her money that has value because they appreciate it.
Look at webcomics listed on Patreon. They still give away the comics for free to every reader, but some people give them money for it anyway in appreciation. It's the same thing.
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 15 2014,11:39
Of course we'd have to have a radically different approach to politics for this to work here. Our current political system is way too corrupt to let that much power over the economic life of the citizens be trusted to it. But if things do get "woodlands" bad, we'll have hanged all the corrupt politicians by then and maybe can start over with a fresh less-corrupt batch.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 15 2014,11:45
Yeah, I was about to say I don't trust our government to not fuck it up even if given a perfect set of instructions. 90% of everything is still going to get funneled to the 5 counties around Washington DC.
Posted by Vince on Aug. 15 2014,13:25
I thought about the government aspect as well. As long as they have power and influence to sell, the importance and structure of money isn't going to change much.I had a question on the banks having 100% of the money they loan out... wouldn't it be better to just do away with loans entirely? How is a loanee with really nothing more than the promise to pay it back any different than the loaner with nothing to back the loan?
Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 15 2014,14:12
There's not much practical difference. Once you are talking about them in massive numbers, then it comes down to do you want to side on the side of the banks and make all those people homeless or on the side of the failed debtors and put the banks out of business.EDIT: Not that a bank with a crapton of repossessed homes that no one can afford to buy will last much longer anyway.