[tossandthrow]

Even for people living of wealth, it is not clear what the outcomes are.

If renters of your apartments can not afford to rent them, housing crashes because your city was a looser (Detroit style withdrawals).

Even for stocks we don't know who the winners are. The market as a whole usually does not respond that well on serious turmoil.

So yeah. We are likely seeing some very rough years.

[Slartie]

Yep, most wealth is ultimately dependent on some kind of ability to scrape off tiny bits of practical accomplishments of value achieved by large numbers of people. In some cases, such as your housing example, this is a very direct dependency. In other cases the dependency is indirect and less visible.

The smarter ones among the rich have realized this and are open for something like a universal basic income precisely for that reason: to protect their wealth and the position in the food chain this wealth affords them.

[irishcoffee]

UBI will never happen. I don’t understand why it’s even brought up anymore. Social security isn’t even solvent, health care is a disaster, and people still trumpet UBI like all of the enormous glaring funding holes don’t exist.

It’s embarrassing at this point. Give it up.

[arcticfox]

And what's your solution to mass unemployment due to AI?

If you play this out, UBI or some near variant is inevitable.

[irishcoffee]

The US currently has over 100 million people over the age of 16 who are unemployed.

What point do you think you’re making about mass unemployment, exactly? It’s been here for half a decade already.

[NegativeLatency]

That’s mostly normal and fine though. For example my parents are retired and spouse takes care of our kid.

[UltraSane]

Now imagine 200 million unemployed people over the age of 16.

[GPerson]

Why are you correct even though the early Marxists (who posited that capitalism would inevitably lead to socialism) were wrong? We have had mass production for a hundred years without any hint of socialism.

And I would like you to be right, by the way. But why should I believe you?

[qzw]

Doesn’t most of the developed world already have various forms of socialism? The U.S. is an outlier here, which is due a number of factors unique to this country.

[GPerson]

Fair, but as an American I’m still interested in this more limited question. Why were the early American Marxists wrong and why are the new Americans saying similar things right this time?

[malloryerik]

We have state supported pension plans in most developed countries, unemplyment insurance, these large welfare states with extensive public education, national health and so on, so while the means of production mostly haven't been socialized, the fruits often have, through taxation. Now, some of this existed before the Industrial Revolution -- I wasn't aware how much until I read Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, which is a more important book now than ever, I humbly propose, but the scale is dwarfed by what we have now. And as Polanyi points out, we did get socialism as a response, as well as fascism, which was often btw called corporatism (as in the nation as a single body, not having to do with companies). Liberal democratic capitalism won out, for a while, and in large part because it became social democracy, or so goes a claim to which I subscribe. Without the social welfare aspects of modern democracy, the system would likely have broken politically.

[tossandthrow]

> without any hint of socialism.

You don't seem to know your history.

The US was on track to enact UBI. The US was socialist directly after the great depression.

Some of the most successful capitalist societies (the Nordic countries) have socialist elements.

[GPerson]

I do know that history actually. The UK went for it and we did not.

[UltraSane]

If AI really generates so much wealth UBI becomes much easier to justify and downright irrational to not implement.

[ethbr1]

Anyone who thinks wealthy people willing part with any amount of wealth en masse hasn't studied history.

One of the reason democracy has tended to be a stable form of government is that it naturally finds a balance between the haves and the have nots -- the boundary where the haves are comfortable parting with that much to live in a stable society where they keep the remainder, and the have nots are afforded some amount of social services for their most accute needs.

That's all predicated on a "or riots / internal military action" alternative though.

We've lived through a pretty stable post-WWII economic bargain period, and historically there's not a ton of certainty that continues through distributive renegotiations, which tend to be bloody.

[UltraSane]

If AI makes GDP per hour of labor 2 times higher than that makes it very easy to provide UBI.

[ethbr1]

UBI is an allocation question, not a total question.

If GDP 2x's and labor becomes less scarce (and therefore less powerful), it's as possible that all those gains go to capital as anything else.

[ulfw]

UBI money needs to come from somewhere. Hence it will and can never happen. Fake money helps nobody. There is no difference between getting 0, 1000 or 10000 fake dollars a month if they value of the dollar will go to zero

[UltraSane]

It isn't fake it is the wealth created by AI. Think of it like a national dividend.

[irishcoffee]

This frustrates me so much. Where is the money coming from? The middle class _is_ the economy, if they all decide to say “fuck it, UBI is enough” or can’t get a job, who the hell is funding UBI? This is an enormous hole in the UBI discussion that’s just completely ignored.

Again, we can’t even keep social security solvent, which is basically UBI for old people. It won’t work, the math doesn’t math, and everyone who wants UBI to be a thing just completely ignores this fact.

So frustrating.

[tossandthrow]

You don't appear to understand what money is.

Money is a claim on productivity.

In a world where both creation and consumption is by humans, the productivity needs to align with consumption.

Arguably, that is a century since that was the case, so we tax extra productive human beings in order to make sure that everybody can consume.

This trend need to be accelerated as productivity accelerates.

Ubi, negative tax, etc. There are many good ideas on how to fix it.

However,if this discussion annoys you, I would strongly recommend you to learn more about the subject as it is indicative that you have some holes in your knowledge.

[nuancebydefault]

The money is just a gauge of how much food, housing, clothing, energy,... one person can consume versus another. Money is not absolute, it is relative x/y. Ultimately, the real stuff can be produced by machines operated by say 10 percent of the world population. Machines or robots or even AI can pay taxes, their owner hands over xx percent of the income produced by it to the government who gives it as eg ubi to people.

[UltraSane]

"Where is the money coming from? "

Profitable companies. This is incredibly obvious. It is where dividends come from already.

You keep mentioning social security but it isn't comparable as it has a relatively low income cap on payroll taxes and raising this easily makes it solvent.

What is actually frustrating is the wealth of the richest 400 people in the US now equals 20% of GDP. In 1982 it was only 2%. THE MONEY IS THERE!

[dekken_]

we just need to break the second law of thermodynamics, no big deal

[bbor]

Sadly, we have gone above and beyond the level of innovation where stock market disruption is a primary concern.

Luckily, we're all in this together. As long as enough people realize the weight of what's happening soon enough, I'm confident the indominable human spirit and the relative momentum of post-enlightenment social & institutional progress will carry us the rest of the way on a wave of clearly-justified solidarity.

To think otherwise --to truly face the spectre before us without hope-- is pathology, I think. Not necessarily incorrect of course, but definitely an unhealthy source of cognitive distress.

[idiotsecant]

When the very first prokaryotic life forms saw the very first cells with mitochondria were they cognitively distressed? We face a similar phase change. In our lifetimes, probably.

[sam345]

Loser. Loose means opposite of tight.

[ben_w]

Even as a native English speaker, this is one of my more common mistakes, along with weather/whether[/wether].

How did we end up with the word with the long-o having one o, and the word with the short-o having two?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> How did we end up with the word with the long-o having one o, and the word with the short-o having two?

Neither is pronounced with a long "O" sound or a short "O" sound, and they both have the same vowel sound. (A long "O" would be the vowel sound in "lone", for example. Short "O" is like "log".) The difference is that you use your vocal chords to pronounce the "S" in "lose", making it an English "Z" sound.

[tonic_note]

I think English might be second only to Chinese in terms of how phonetically opaque it is. Unlike say Korean, where if you can speak it you can spell it and vice-versa, English is requires you to just know.

English is kinda neat in that it's a fusion of all the different lingua franca's of the time throughout history.

[bananaflag]

I pronounce lose and loose exactly the same, and have no problem differentiating them in writing.

[tossandthrow]

guaranteed: My comments are not written by an LLM ;)

[ulfw]

It's even the 'smaller' stuff that will be horrible.

Even if you're lucky to be wealthy you'd be living in a city with fewer restaurants, bakeries, shops, anything. Because once a lot of people don't have income they won't be able to go out and buy things and shops will go out of business.

It will also lead to a lot lot LOT LOT LOT more crime. I don't see the semi-wealthy to have an enjoyable life.