catpower1980: snip
Thus in the end, you get more people under the line of poverty as it's the inherent risk of self-employment. One way to avoid that is the "universal/global income" but since politics and part of the population are reluctant to it....
Yes, it is interesting and I'm sorry I missed its original run.
But nope on the quote I left. The thing everyone forgets is that economics is a two way street.
- We just established as premise that a lot of stuff will be produced much cheaper because of no humans.
- Then we are assuming there are as a result a lot of unemployed or little employed humans. Ok so far.
- We conclude that these humans with little income will be absolutely poor. How come? Part of the premises was that consumption would be cheaper because of all that automatic cheapo - magical production right?
Why would prices hold up unless there is some kind of monopoly? Let prices fall with demand, and a new equilibrium will be found. There was no mass poverty to go with agricultural revolution unemployment. There was no mass poverty from industrial revolution unemployment.
The thing that is preventing technological productivity from resulting in lower prices overall is the state and the belief central planning is possible for such complex systems. The illusion of price control. Of safety.
See this graph I found earlier today and compare education, health and to some extent housing with IT, electronics, and software related stuff. Notice furniture, clothing is null - the kind of stuff that will always be needed. Food is interesting example - it's a stark one since centralized markets were abandoned (historically food provision was the main area of state intervention of course) and the raise in prices hides substantial quality / individualization changes (positive changes obviously). Well, and like with housing there is some subsidization on food markets.
Anyway just like we went from plain clothes and plain food towards abundance and choice. I expect same thing will happen if we let the markets work. Instead of trying to stop the steamroller, let's focus on communnaly helping the few that will be unable to cope - but let's do it locally.
So to me, when this topic comes up, the elephant in the room is always the same. That many people are so afraid of change they let others have power over everyone.
Entertainment is cheaper than ever, and it just happened organically - and yet we consider health or education so valuable, that we ironically prevent it from becoming cheaper - by which I actually mean, from becoming accessible. Then we turn around and try to mandate affordability, and we cause markets to collapse.
Economy gets a very bad reputation as a science. It and IT should be taught much more than they are.
Anyway, this is simplistic counterpoint to the pessimistic majority. I offer it for contrast, and because as you all know it's my missionary zeal. :P