[eevilspock]

It would count as progress if the automated means of production were owned by the labor that is put out of work. Oh wait, that sounds like communism, and we could never ever have a reasonable discussion about that amongst a group of people who thrive off of a system that is the opposite.

[eevilspock]

RangerScience, many people, myself included, have. And guess what? We are down-voted. And then our future posts are automatically pro-actively ranked lower (A penalty has been attached to my account. See my history. Do I deserve that?). Politics is discouraged and even banned[1]. HN prides itself as being "a place for civil discussion", but it achieves that through effective suppression of dissent and criticism of SV culture. It's worked. I rarely comment here anymore.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/05/hackernews-calls-for-polit...

[RangerScience]

How are you distinguishing from suppression of dissent and criticism, and suppression of uncivil discussion?

From what I've seen, contrary opinions that are well expressed are rewarded (even if controversial - I've got a few that ultimately got more up votes than down, but it was a ride). Contrary opinions that, well, presume a fight? Not so much.

[RangerScience]

I'm down-voting you, here's why:

Instead of claiming that we can't have that discussion, why not try to have that discussion?

[logfromblammo]

Okay, I'll bite. How do the workers so recently unemployed by the automated machines gain ownership of those machines in a way that does not entirely remove the incentive for building them?

[RangerScience]

Something of a loaded question, but more, a super hard question.

Your question is loaded because it assumes that ownership of such machines is the best solution for those made unemployed by them - I think this is probably flawed, because management is a different skill set than direct contribution.

The problem is that the worker's skills have lost value. They need new skills - management skills for owning the machines, or different skills that haven't been automated yet.

Or maybe a refinement on their existing skills. My understanding of Japanese factories is that it's commonplace to have one of the fabrication lines done by people - the thinking goes: "If you do not know how to do it better, how can you make machines do it better?". I also remember a story of, I think it was GE, getting their designers, engineers, and assemblers (the people literally putting the pieces together) all together to improve the design. The assemblers noted a particularly difficult step, and in making that step easier, the engineers removed a number of parts. Everything got better.

Let's look at the other part of your question - incentives for building the automation. It seems like the R&D incentive comes from the end-user value, so let's skip to that - I want an automated machine for a number of reasons: Quality consistency, up time, wage cost reduction, safety. Eventually, all of these do boil down to "profit", but the routes taken are important. QC means you can sell more and/or charge more; but you could make more and charge less in ways that make more or less profit.

I don't think I can answer your question, because I don't know why you think that the incentives for building them would be removed; and in my head, the first blocker for the recently unemployed to own such machines is wanting to run a business. I don't think most people want that.

[logfromblammo]

I blame the grandparent post by eevilspock for loading the question.

I don't think it can even be answered with that assumption included. Let's say you have a cobbler, who makes shoes. He recently lost his job to the burgomeister's new Elfbot 4000, that can make the same quality of shoe, but turns out 2 dozen pairs in a single night.

The Elfbot 4k runs all week on a single saucer of milk, without sleeping. The cobbler has to eat 2000 kcal every day, and sleep 8h every night. It is completely obvious that the cobbler can no longer compete in the shoe market with the Elfbot. The value of the cobbler's one marketable skill has been devastated by automation. So the cobbler cannot raise enough money from selling shoes to buy the Elfbot. No matter how hard the cobbler works, his productive output cannot reach a level high enough to equal the value of the Elfbot.

So the cobbler would have to get the money from somewhere else. But the burgomeister is the richest man in town, and the only one with enough money to lend out. Why would he give a loan to the cobbler, to buy the robot, whose production would be used to pay off the loan, when he could just sell the production and get the money without that source of default risk?

So the cobbler could also just steal the Elfbot. But if Elfbots could just be stolen willy-nilly, no one would bother keeping one. The burgomeister would obviously have to defend his property against one-man robberies.

That leaves a torch-and-pitchfork rebellion. After that happens, no one bothers bringing new machines to the village, because they don't want to lose their property.

Or the cobbler could study the machine, and build his own, if it can be done cheaply enough. Unfortunately for him, the burgomeister has a patent, which equates copying with theft.

The only way for the cobbler to own an Elfbot is if he is the first to build one. And that just puts all the other cobblers in his shoes for the above scenarios.

The displaced workers just can't get the capital in a capitalist society through the use of their obsoleted skill, and the capital is not created as quickly or as easily in a non-capitalist society. They would have to acquire a different marketable skill to be able to afford one, but once they have that skill, they no longer have any specific connection to or need for that particular machine. If the cobbler becomes an expert in specialty candle marketing, and makes a pile of cash, he no longer has any need to own the Elfbot. He could buy the Dribbler Deluxe instead.

[RangerScience]

Ah! I hadn't noticed that you weren't the question's author.

I really like your summation that "can't get the capital in a capitalist society through the use of their obsoleted skill".

Arguably, the benefit of the cobbler could be a) highly custom small batch work, b) expertise to maintain the Elfbot, and c) a thinking mind behind the task. Elfbot will not improve by itself, the cobbler would.

[Kliment]

But you have to remember that the one machine has put a large number of cobblers out of work, and you need very few for the tasks you listed, so the total displacement is still problematic.

[matt4077]

As production costs approach zero, many industries will resemble intellectual property with it's 0 marginal costs more closely.

In the IP space, we have an example working perfectly with the communist maxim "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need": Open Source Software.

[clavalle]

Communism seems like an idea from the 19th century shoehorned onto economic discussions in the modern age.

Is it really necessary that the means of production be owned by the labor put out of work? Or is the real problem not inequality (which has some very nice incentivizing benefits) but desperation at the lower end of the economic scale which lead to extortion like transactions? And if that is the case, is a full scale distribution of wealth necessary or can we have the best of both worlds by redistributing just enough wealth to guarantee that everyone has their survival needs taken care of?