However, our society rations resources, including resources that are needed for living, and including resources that are not actually scarce, on the basis of money, which can be returned based on capital or labor. Most people have no capital, so are forced to sell their labor. As work is automated, the return on capital increases, but the return on labor decreases (because more people are competing for a decreasing amount of paying labor).
Capital-holders wanting to preserve the existing system (if they are reasonably foresighted) are promoting the idea of a universal basic income. But the equitable long-term solution to this imbalance is Fully Automated Luxury (Gay Space) Communism.
I don't think it's a silly question, but I think free money basically means dismissing the money system altogether. That would work in an ideal world with ideal people but we are not that far out of the jungle yet (and I'm not referring to intelligence levels but to qualities that didn't evolve as fast as our intelligence). So, while you're right in principle, in practice there will probably still be a lot of injustice and suffering to go around long after everything is automated. Having said that, I still think it's a step in the right direction to reduce the ills of society.
> Why will everyone need jobs if so much stuff is automated?
In a system with property rights of the type found in capitalism, you need income from capital or labor to survive, basically. Unless the distribution of capital is levelled (and some force is exerted to keep it levelled), that means most people will rely on labor because they have no other choice.
Instead, why not transition from a labor based system of resource acquisition for the masses to an investor based system of resource acquisition for the masses?
Assuming that the labor economy is dying, then all laborers (truck drivers and code writers) need to figure out how to transition from generating livable income with their labor to generating livable income from their investments.
Difficult? Yes. But is it any more difficult than attempting to acquire sufficient resources to live using obsolete labor skills?
> Instead, why not transition from a labor based system of resource acquisition for the masses to an investor based system of resource acquisition for the masses?
Because that means the existing capitalist class has to be forcefully deprived of much of their capital so that it can be redistributed, and a system needs to be set up to prevent it being from be reconcentrated.
The existing capitalist class, which holds disproportionate power, largely opposes this for obvious reasons.
Agreed that top-down solutions will likely be opposed by those who are already at the top.
And this is exactly the reason why the comment was posted. I.e., the debate about how to help laborers transition to different types of labor may not be the correct debate because it only pushes out the problem to the next technological revolution, which will likely come even faster. Improving technology reduces the need for labor while at the same time it increases opportunities for investment. Hence, perhaps the debate should focus on transitioning from a labor based society to an investor based society.
> The existing capitalist class, which holds disproportionate power, largely opposes this for obvious reasons.
Counter-point -- if the situation really _is_ such that the vast majority of the population enters into a situation where they require capital that only a minority have, then its inevitable that some form of wealth sharing would develop in any non-dictatorial society. In other words, I argue that such a transition could happen in a relatively peaceful, progressive way. _If_ it really needed to.
You have to collect the money from somewhere (printing it counts as “from savings accounts”), and the people you collect it from have, historically, tended to resist this any way they can.
I’m not saying this problem can’t be solved — I rather hope it can — but that’s why it is still an open problem.
Silly question. Why give out free money when you can starve them to death? I've heard that average American dumps lots of food into trash. I've heard that a lot of children in Africa are starving to death. Yet I don't see some real efforts to solve starvation problem, even if it's obvious that humanity technically is able to feed everyone on this planet. Yet we spend those resources on military stuff and other stupid things.
I don't really see free money working, at least because people are selfish and won't agree to pay their money to someone else.
> I've heard that average American dumps lots of food into trash. I've heard that a lot of children in Africa are starving to death. Yet I don't see some real efforts to solve starvation problem
There is a lot of effort put towards solving starvation and other forms of poverty around the world, and staggering progress made on that front. But its not nearly as simple as sending food that was destined for the trash to another country is it? There's logistics and when crossing state boundaries, politics as well. If you try to merely send food -- or _any_ form of wealth to a less wealthy country, it won't always have the immediate effect of making people's lives better.
However, our society rations resources, including resources that are needed for living, and including resources that are not actually scarce, on the basis of money, which can be returned based on capital or labor. Most people have no capital, so are forced to sell their labor. As work is automated, the return on capital increases, but the return on labor decreases (because more people are competing for a decreasing amount of paying labor).
Capital-holders wanting to preserve the existing system (if they are reasonably foresighted) are promoting the idea of a universal basic income. But the equitable long-term solution to this imbalance is Fully Automated Luxury (Gay Space) Communism.