[z2]

Andrew McAfee has a number of interesting articles and talks on this. E.g. http://andrewmcafee.org/2014/06/mcafee-autor-edsall-jobs-ski...

The way I see it, automated jobs will still add real value to the economy. Perhaps everyone can receive a share of that surplus through some form of universal income. At that point, assuming most of society's economic value creation is automated, monetary compensation could be completely decoupled from labor, yet everyone can be better off since everyone would be resource rich.

[vidarh]

This question has a 170+ year long history, yet somehow it has come to the forefront against in recent years with people often entirely ignoring its history.

The foundation of the birth of modern socialism in the 1840's was based on the basic premise that technology would drastically increased efficiency and grow the economy to a point where redistribution could eradicate poverty and reduce the amount of labour necessary.

To your specific suggestion, variations over this was the viewpoint of some of the earliest socialist ideologists, who believed it possible to transform society through example and appeals to decency and charity.

Marx was one of the earliest to criticise that view strongly.

As early as the mid 1840's he made the argument that one of the main sources of eventual downfall for capitalism would not be some sudden enlightenment of the elites, but that capitalism would be too successful (the Communist Manifesto starts with a number of paragraphs gushing over the advances that capitalism and the bourgeoise have brought - Marx saw the development of capitalism as absolutely essential for progress) and eventually lead to over-production and under-employment at the same time, causing massive social upheaval and eventually leading to revolution if (though Marx also argument strongly that it was a when, not if) the ruling classes refuse to redistribute voluntarily.

[jjoonathan]

> massive social upheaval and eventually leading to revolution if ... the ruling classes refuse to redistribute voluntarily.

The sad part is that his conclusion is only incorrect because the ruling class figured out (more plausibly, stumbled into) a strategy for doing precisely the minimum amount of redistribution required to avoid revolution.

http://www.guernicamag.com/daily/anya-groner-the-heart-you-s...

[e12e]

Maybe, maybe not -- see eg: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfork...

Another part of this is globalization -- you could argue that most people in the US (for example) are quite well off (as contrasted with complete destitution, starvation and lack of clean water) -- and one way to stave off revolution is to simply live on the other side of an ocean, and fill that ocean with friendly nuclear submarines and hangar ships.

But there is no guarantee such a scheme will last forever either -- as you'll likely still have people working in factories, and those factories will be producing (among other things) the weapons used for maintaining the status quo. At the very least it's hard to see how any industrial production could be made immune to strikes and sabotage, if the workers were desperate enough -- and that would likely result in a transfer of wealth (by no means is a "fair" outcome guaranteed, but change seems very likely).

I think it is too early to conclude that the revolution will never arrive. Be that just a small one (redistribution of wealth in the US for example) or a larger one (redistribution including the entire world).

[steveklabnik]

This was true to the point that the IWW had slogans about a four hour, four day workweek: http://www.salon.com/2014/06/01/help_us_thomas_piketty_the_1...

[bjelkeman-again]

I have said this before. But it may be worth repeating:

"The problem is that the worker who is going to be out of a job doesn't own the company that buys the robots to replace him/her. Ever heard of a lights out factory that has all the former assembly line workers at home with full salary? Didn't think so."

The way capitalist societies are structured doesn't really allow for income distribution that way, the way I understand it.

[dragonwriter]

> The way capitalist societies are structured doesn't really allow for income distribution that way, the way I understand it.

That's pretty much true-by-definition when it comes to "capitalist societies", but most advanced modern societies aren't really capitalist, and while the course hasn't been strictly monotonic, they've been overall getting farther from capitalism since the late 19th Century heyday of capitalism.

[lmm]

> "The problem is that the worker who is going to be out of a job doesn't own the company that buys the robots to replace him/her. Ever heard of a lights out factory that has all the former assembly line workers at home with full salary? Didn't think so."

Port containerization went a bit like that. Of course, that was back when America had labour unions.

[iak8god]

> The way capitalist societies are structured doesn't really allow for income distribution that way, the way I understand it.

In the fully-automated future, these societies will violently implode if they aren't reconfigured to provide people with something to do and something to eat.