[isodev]

I think 33% is very high. Also converting the value to % erases the fact that this is still a very high price for what you get in return. Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate the economics around housing - maybe betting against human lives doesn’t feel right. Also, with overpopulation and climate changes, access to housing and the need for relocation will drastically change the landscape of what one needs to do to put a proper roof over their head.

[ejb999]

>>I think 33% is very high. Also converting the value to % erases the fact that this is still a very high price for what you get in return.

Guess it depends on how each person defines 'what you get in return'. It seems this chef values living in a particular expensive neighborhood in Seattle, presumably close to where s/he works - and s/he values that. The smallish apartment size is the tradeoff they make.

[nottathrowaway3]

>maybe betting against human lives doesn’t feel right

This is an inappropriate emotional appeal. Real estate is dependent upon the price/value of labor. It's betting for/against labor prices.

Labor is not your life. You are more than your job.

[zo1]

Warning, uncomfortable honesty ahead. I'd be betting against labor. With all the automation going on, and the "Huge" technological advancements I foresee probably < 20 years away, I don't see why I should do otherwise. I also don't see violent revolutions being a possibility with all the societal level monitoring and controls all countries are putting in place, so I'm betting on pure "capital" and "the means of production". The more I have of it, the more likely I'll be part of the upper strata of society when whatever dystopian tech hell hole we end up getting.

Of course, I won't step on others, and I'll help where my conscience requires me. But at the end of the day (or the end of the world) I am here to provide a safe future for my children, and perhaps secondary, my culture's children... but definitely not to save the world. The world is beyond saving at this point.

[nottathrowaway3]

>The more I have of it [capital], the more likely I'll be part of the upper strata of society when whatever dystopian tech hell hole we end up getting.

Why do you conclude that money will keep you safe? Easy to hyperinflate currency, freeze bank accounts, seize gold, etc. Typically in a "violent revolution" you mentioned, power lies in the military.

[AstralStorm]

Capital comes in many form, and money is just one. Probably most problematic in times of strife.

Assets, in particular high value, portable or hard to destroy ones, that are easy to defend, or skills that are very hard to replace without destroying you or their value.

Military is strong mostly due to the assets it has - obedient manpower and destructive hardware. The problem is, however, that using these assets destroys value in the medium term, not creates.

A factory making guns is worth much more than guns themselves. People who know how to operate it, as well. A working mine is worth more than a mountain.

Every conqueror wants submission and instead reaps destruction.

[nottathrowaway3]

>portable defensible assets

Yes if they have inherent value.

>factory ownership

You only own said factory because government says you do and will enforce your ownership. A junta or communist party might not agree you own it anymore.

[nottathrowaway3]

My point is, more things than not have dependency on government or legal system. In case of widespread automation via AGI, the rich are not safe. Probably drone swarms and wilderness survival are your best bet. Who would want to survive like a rat in such a world, though.

To quote the mars man: "all things considered with regard to AGI existential angst, I would prefer to be alive now to witness AGI than be alive in the past and not".

[int_19h]

> I also don't see violent revolutions being a possibility with all the societal level monitoring and controls all countries are putting in place

In the world you're describing, they're not just possible, they're inevitable.

Consider the implications of automation taken to the extreme. Today, we have capitalists who own the means of production, and workers who use them to produce value. Workers don't get a fair slice of the pie that they make, but they get some of it at least because labor is needed for capital to be useful. The system is unfair overall and popularly perceived as such, but most people aren't pushed far enough that violent revolt would be rational and feasible.

But if means of production that don't require workers to operate them become dominant, and lots of workers become outright economically redundant, it will literally be a question of what do their children eat tomorrow. And, well, there's a lot more labor; whatever societal monitoring and control tech you devise, it won't help you if 90% of the population realize that the only way they won't starve is if they forcibly take what the other 10% has hoarded.

Not only that, but should that happen, the torches-and-pitchforks mob will target the people on the bottom of the upper class first, simply because they are more prominent in day-to-day interactions, live closer, can afford less security, and don't have ready access to escape routes (like a private plane or yacht). For some vivid descriptions of how this works out for the people who can't escape, read about the 1917 Russian revolution.

So unless you're already comfortably upper class - enough so to afford a bunker in New Zealand or similar arrangements - this doesn't sound like a good long-term survival strategy to me. Indeed, I would argue that, among white collar workers, it's precisely the high middle class people that have the most vested interest in "saving the world", in a sense of coming up with a new economic consensus that would prevent the above scenario - we have to, if we want a safe future for our families. And I don't think it is at all impossible for a political alliance of all labor across the board to push this change. Our societies are bad at democracy, generally speaking, but supermajorities still matter.

[chii]

> But if means of production that don't require workers to operate them become dominant

if this happens, then production of the goods become even cheaper than before. Therefore, the availability becomes higher, and therefore, those who are not redundant would become richer, as they can now afford more, or pay less for what they consume, leaving extra for luxuries.

This would generate demand for new goods/services, which become new opportunities for those who have become redundant. And the cycle continues, until one day, every possible piece of work to be done is automated (ala, star trek).

[int_19h]

Why would it become an opportunity, if you can take care of that new demand with more automation (produced using existing automation)? The "redundant" people become permanently redundant in this arrangement.