[chroem-]

>The people that want to learn will be incredibly leveraged and provide a ton of value to society. Those who don't want to learn should be given enough for basic subsistence. A stipend which covers food, shelter, clothing, catastrophic healthcare, reasonable water access, and unlimited data.

Great, so will that come before or after Donald Trump implements socialized medicine and free education? You're definitely going to get your automation, but the profits from that automation are going to accrue in the hands of a very, very small elite minority.

[dwaltrip]

I'm starting to think that the tax rate on capital/profit should be somehow correlated with how advanced technology is. Increased technology -> greater productive leverage (inputs give more outputs) -> greater financial return. Thus, a larger cut should be used to better society overall, as the larger profits were made possible by the technology that a more advanced society enables.

This says nothing about _how_ that tax revenue should be spent. I think the current generation of government programs could be immensely improved. Worst case, if we are unable to increase the effectiveness of targeted government spending, then we just start cutting dividend checks. I will admit, this is the part I'm most uncertain about. Relatedly, I also think there is a lot of work we can do to vastly reduce the corruption and inefficiencies that are found in even the most modern governments.

The alternative would be letting those with the majority of capital increase their share of global wealth, as technology advances, at insane rates, and simply cross our fingers and hope they use their wealth wisely. Given that individuals have done nothing to bring about the tech that is present at the day of their birth, to me such a situation would feel incredibly unjust.

This is tricky stuff, however. My thoughts are slowly continuing to develop.

[Applejinx]

It's possible that simply cutting dividend checks would be enough. Market capitalism is an interesting sorta-self-regulating mechanism for seeking products and services, and the big drawback is that it isn't a social structure: nowhere in there is any suggestion that the mechanism will produce a consumer class to keep the whole thing going. Without that class, it collapses.

It's possible if you just harness the engine by forcibly redistributing capital amount X (nonlinear amount scaling from negative to positive) to all (citizens? humans? living things?) then you guarantee the consumer class's existence, and make it possible to compete for the capital of that class through producing goods and services.

You might call it the Square Tax. Pay one tenth of one percent of your income, squared… proceeds to be divvied up equally as a human dividend. That neatly results in one dollar for every thousand you make, squared (or one dollar per every 'K' of income, squared). It also means you hit a limit at exactly a million dollars of income a year. I think it's safe to say if you're in a basic income/human dividend society and you still contrive to earn a million dollars a year you need to re-evaluate what you're doing with your life, and/or you already have enough resources that you REALLY don't need to be working yourself into the grave to get more: believe it or not, other people can do things too ;)

[refurb]

the profits from that automation are going to accrue in the hands of a very, very small elite minority

Why would all profits from new efficiencies go to owners? Generally, efficiencies accrue to consumers through lower prices, unless there is some barrier to entry for that given market.

Furniture is a great example. In the past it was hand made, now much of the process is automated (machines size and cut the wood). That didn't make furniture makers more profitable, it just led to cheaper furniture for consumers.

[chroem-]

> Generally, efficiencies accrue to consumers through lower prices

What good is that without a source of income from employment? Even UBI proposals are for far less than the current median income. At best the two will cancel each other out, though that is a pretty optimistic assumption since most of the motivation for automation is to reduce costs while maintaining prices and increasing profits.

[refurb]

motivation for automation is to reduce costs while maintaining prices and increasing profits

The same thing will happen when the cotton gin replaced manual labor back in 1793. Profits won't go to owners since anyone can buy a machine and offer a lower price as well.

The only time I've ever seen extra profits entirely captured by owners is when there are regulatory barriers to competition.

[chroem-]

>anyone can buy a machine and offer a lower price as well

Tell me more about how I can afford to open a new billion dollar factory.