[brbsix]

Not everyone's time is worth the same. Some people have more experience, intelligence, or can simply brute-force the task with determination. Productive societies reward people as such, and for good reason. You're talking about obliterating incentives as we know them. Perhaps you can test your hypotheses in a voluntary society before advocating for a coercive state to enact such policies.

[x5n1]

It's easy to account for this in terms of education. Number of years of education should be added into the calculation for that. For instance for every year of schooling you get a a certain percentage more currency in terms of hours worked than someone with less schooling. And I am for all sorts of pilot programs to explore how else we can organize society.

As for "productive societies", I don't know what that will actually mean in the near future. Automation is 100% productive. It needs no people for that. These terms have meaning for industrial society where people are treated like robots. It has little meaning for society where robots produce more of the goods. And everything else is about simply organizing society so that people feel some sense of meaning and contentment.

At the end of the day in motivated people with money, and engineering society in that direction, we actually get a lot of ills like burnout, alcoholism, workaholics, etc. Yes people can be coerced by money, but often it's not for their own good. It for the good of the owners of money so they can make more profit. But at the same time, this sort of thing ruins the experience of life for the worker.

[sarreph]

I'm not sure I agree with

> Automation is 100% productive

Because perfect (i.e. 100%) productivity is technically unobtainable because there will always be efficiencies to be made. Yes, machines are 'always on' and will complete a task in the most efficient way we tell them to, or that they learn to do themselves, but I think that humans will always play a role in raising productivity of even fully-automated systems by making efficiency improvements.

That is for the foreseeable future anyway, until AI starts making its own exponentially big efficiency improvements ;)

[x5n1]

Whatever you get there rather quickly. Things are productive enough as it is now. It will only get better. It's irrelevant. It's sad how obsessed we have become over terms like these, when they should not matter at all. Reality is that art like entrepreneurship does not care about efficiency. Only factory work does, and when it is done by robots then yes I am sure some engineer will figure out how to squeeze that last bit of performance out of that before starting to hit diminishing returns and getting himself fired in the process. Eventually machines will learn how to optimize themselves, and at that point in a very very short time they will be fully optimized and stay that way forever. These terms will become redundant and irrelevant.