Those two issues are orthogonal to each other. On some plane of understanding, business executives understand that lack of money makes commerce grind to a halt. It's a form of tragedy of the commons, in monetary philosophy. Henry Ford understood this concept; it's why he paid his people well to make cars... which his workers bought.
> there is no discourse on how to handle everyone when nobody needs to work.
I was in haste in that sentence. Things like UBI are being discussed. However, the flip-side is the actual actions that grind down the worker to a 'nothing': robotic/computer work is ideal for every job, to the minds of the Silicon Valley exec.
UBI/Minimum Income: It's been given a many great names through the years. But it's understood as a way for everyone to receive the basic necessities of life, plus a bit more. But this idea requires buy-in of the population at large. Or at least, buy in from the "rich" ( https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig?t=12 )
The problem with Silicon Valley is that they have an assumption this either this already exists somehow, or it will magically appear. What instead happens, is that people lose jobs, wages are forced yet lower and lower, and the human is removed carte blanche in the favor of unpaid robotic labor. On an individual company level, this helps the bottom line of the company (race to the bottom). However, when this idea is expanded to wider and wider areas, it gentrifies the owner class away from everyone else. For in that eventuality, not even upper class jobs exist.
I do not argue that column lines or minutes/week are not given to the idea of UBI. A simple HNsearch query shows that. But I do, and have argued, that SV culture seeks to an absolute minima of nobody working except the owners and, nobody getting paid except for the owners. This, given enough iterations, leads to economic slowdown and disenfranchisement.
As closing questions: What happens when these wheels of extreme automation are turned within the current iteration of government? What happens when we get 50% unemployment? 75%? 95% (nobody working except owners)? Do you think Marshall Brain's idea of Manna is possible or likely?
> there is no discourse on how to handle everyone when nobody needs to work.
I was in haste in that sentence. Things like UBI are being discussed. However, the flip-side is the actual actions that grind down the worker to a 'nothing': robotic/computer work is ideal for every job, to the minds of the Silicon Valley exec.
UBI/Minimum Income: It's been given a many great names through the years. But it's understood as a way for everyone to receive the basic necessities of life, plus a bit more. But this idea requires buy-in of the population at large. Or at least, buy in from the "rich" ( https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig?t=12 )
The problem with Silicon Valley is that they have an assumption this either this already exists somehow, or it will magically appear. What instead happens, is that people lose jobs, wages are forced yet lower and lower, and the human is removed carte blanche in the favor of unpaid robotic labor. On an individual company level, this helps the bottom line of the company (race to the bottom). However, when this idea is expanded to wider and wider areas, it gentrifies the owner class away from everyone else. For in that eventuality, not even upper class jobs exist.
I do not argue that column lines or minutes/week are not given to the idea of UBI. A simple HNsearch query shows that. But I do, and have argued, that SV culture seeks to an absolute minima of nobody working except the owners and, nobody getting paid except for the owners. This, given enough iterations, leads to economic slowdown and disenfranchisement.
As closing questions: What happens when these wheels of extreme automation are turned within the current iteration of government? What happens when we get 50% unemployment? 75%? 95% (nobody working except owners)? Do you think Marshall Brain's idea of Manna is possible or likely?