Economics in an automated nation

Other solutions include: mass-sterilization of the poor/dumb/unemployed, preventing hordes of dindu nuffins from getting welfare gibs me dat money, making it illegal to give any charity to the poor in hopes that they starve, and other eugenics programs to attempt to make the population more orderly (increase IQ) and thus society less prone to fall into chaos when lack of jobs becomes a real problem.

problem solved

I'm sure some sort of welfare system or basic income can be part of the solution. If nothing else it can prevent riots.
The problem tho is it getting out of control. It already has in the West. That's a problem with democracy I would say, people vote in their interest, and that usually is to take from the minority of more productive people and enrich themselves. Just because you or I have an idea how it should be approached doesn't mean the masses will endorse it.

Other ways that contributes to it getting out of hand is allowing these recipients to breed as they wish. If they have lower IQs, which probably always is the case generally if they have trouble finding work, then they probably naturally breed more. And they might breed more than the average person even if you give them very limited funds (but not limited enough, or not without people being allowed to give to them in charity), because they don't know better. And so they will through evolution perpetuate this pattern of behavior and create new mouths that need to be fed by some sort of hand-out system.
Unless of course tied to this receiving of funds there are restrictions put on the recipients reproduction.

Remove illegals working slave wages and the problem is solved.

And mining is not an essential human need. Nowhere in the animal kingdom is there any requirement to mine ore.

You argued about "make work" jobs - mining is a make work job. We don't need to do it, we *choose* to because we perceive it has tangible benefits. The type of world you predict is one we're already living in and have been for quite some time.

The vast majority of the labor we already take upon ourselves. We'll continue to discover and create new problems to solve. The problem with basic income fags is that they think that necessity drives us. It doesn't. Most of what we do isn't necessary. Discovery is what drives us. Only niggers are happy with the bare minimum, your argument is essentially that in the future niggers will have nothing to do. So what? They don't right now, even though they could go back to Africa and try to fix the numerous problems there. They simply don't give a fuck. Shit-tier people will always be that way.

I hope I learned how to embed videos now

I'm back, sorry for the delay.

That, I believe, is one of the strengths of my system. It doesn't require taking from the successful because it is provided regardless of them in the form of a currency that's basically pulled out of thin air.

There is no shortage of resources. They could breed all they want and we'd still be fine as long as a few still have incentive to work.

Except in the human branch.
because it does.

Necessity is necessity. It's desire that drives us to seek beyond that. Most scientific discoveries were made, not for profit, but the desire to know.
Your stance is in no way a counter to basic income.

forgot to quote
sorry

Yes, there is a massive shortage of resources, we just haven't yet felt the greatest impacts of them yet. But they're there. Species mass extinctions are now common, and water scarcity is going to absolutely obliterate the developing world later this century. That and deforestation are some of the greatest threats to humanity.

Here's some spitballs:

What if instead of pure automation, we use the automation tech to enhance the plebs, specialized exoskeletons and drone drivers?
Then they're vastly more productive, and they still have a purpose.

What if we popularize various games and contests, and turn those into actual jobs?
Then the plebs still have a purpose, and get to have a lot of fun.

Or, and here's my personal favourite:

What if we colonize space?
Then there's somewhere to point that vastly powerful industrial production system, and the people get to have a REAL sense of purpose, with a large threat of death.

that simply wrong. our government pays farmers to destroy food to prevent deflation.
false
can be kept under control.

much less efficient than just having robots.
So expand the sports industry? I can see that going somewhere, but that's more of a free market thing.
That should be a top priority. but short term benefits of it don't necessarily justify the massive amount of money required. If money is the primary incentive like in our current system, it won't get dons because nobody wants to invest in something they will never reap the benefits from. If intelligent people could do their research without having to worry about putting food on their table, we just might enter the space age in the next generation or so.

Automation is not futurist tech , The automation of many manufactarion process has been going for long way before you think (See any book of machining or machinery about automated process before the 2003s) Its just that modern robotics and machine learning changed the scoop ,Its not that jobs that were deemed impossible now are possible to automate but most studies and economic models around this suggest that all jobs below the average wage in the US are around 70 to 80% more prone to modern automatisation .

Basically most Workers with no skills will be done for in the next two decades by most predictions ,

This is correct. Relay logic has been used to replace tedious jobs since the telegraph was still a thing. PLC's replaced relays in many areas around the 70's/80's to make the task of dealing with them much easier. And that's what's still largely in use today.

Not to mention how cheap microcontrollers have gotten. It's only a couple cents to get an integrated circuit capable of automating simple processes.

I personally believe that the "everything will be automated and there will be no more jobs" meme is nothing more than an insurance policy by the corporate kikes in order to quash anyone from considering bringing domestic jobs back. It doesn't take a lot of research to figure out that bringing machine learning to actual applications is a difficult and resource intensive task. Furthermore, creating robots that can utilize machine intelligence requires significantly more motors, sensors and cameras than current robot designs, making them prohibitively more expensive. It doesn't matter if a computer with the intelligence of Watson only costs a few hundred dollars, without a series of motors for hands, and an array of cameras to track and coordinate motion, it cannot replace anyone's job. The problem with saying that "robots are the future" is based on a belief that the mechanical components required to build robots will become cheaper. This is not the case. Cameras capable for tracking motion have not become significantly cheaper, and motors have not become cheaper at all over the past several years. The true cost of robots in the present and future is not in the software and computational capability, but rather in the hardware. As long as the hardware remains expensive (which there is no reason for it not to remain expensive) the automation revolution will not occur.

STAY WOKE

+OP is probably a Jew
+no links or archives
+I am an autist who has no life outside of analyzing threads for purity
+thread is incredibly vague or something

Remember, sage grows in all fields!

...

Dont think so, electronics are dirty cheap in China.In my opinion if they success with the Made in China 2025 Agenda they will be able to manufacture any hardware with better quality and at a low enough price that your premise will be obsolete, Last time i checked Changying Precision Technology Company in Dongguan 2014-2017 transition to fully unmanned its going well.

That was from a news report from 2015 , currently its even better as we ahead to last year of the transition.

Obviously the rammification of a Robotic Industrialization go way larger than the socioeconomic scope (local economy , labour force relocation) but also to a macroeconomical level but thats stuff for another thread.

Of course there will be jobs, just not enough for everyone to have one.
The goal, hardware wise, has always been to minimize the amount of hardware you use. For example: if a set of photo resistors can be used instead of the motion sensing camera, use the photo resistors. If it isn't quite as easy as swapping one component for the other, try reworking your system so it can have that compatibility. The point is irreducible complexity with minimal cost.

No, get fucked. All rich kikes need to die.

or we can stop playing the blame game and actually find solutions.
but i guess attacking your subduers works too. it's not like every attempt to do so has either failed, led to worse shit, or simply not fixed the problem in any meaningful way or anything.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing)
The fact that we even have a term for this means a lot of people are gonna be fucked soon.

...

Ownership OP. I forgot the name of it (not socialism we know that is a pipe dream).

Basically business own the factory and the profit, but each machine they have sponsors a human, and that human owns "stock" in that robot. This stock is not owned by the company.

If that job previously cost the company 15$ an hour to fill, then the human would get $15 per hour for 8 hours 7 days a week.

Why would they do this? Because the robot can now work 24/7 365. The human, will get an extra 2 days of pay, the company will get an extra 2 days of work and the hours doubled for each "worker."

24 day - 16 hours profit per day for the robot goes to company, 8 hours to a sponsored human. The human would have to learn the robots task in case the robot every stopped working, or some cataclysmic event happened.

Every human could acquire more stock in other robots to increase per hour wages. Or they could work other odd jobs to supplement their income.

What you want to avoid is a situation where the government or corporations own everything and the people own jack shit.

How would you avoid this? Why would someone pay $15 an hour when they could buy the robot and have it cost (electricity cost) after paying itself off in saved labor?

because if they don't fucking society will burn down, and no one would have any money to buy their filthy products in the first place.

The race to the bottom has to end somewhere. Henry Ford had it right, you have to pay people enough to buy your products.

Problem is this overpopulation issue and whether or not we have already hit carry capacity for the earth. The (((elite ))) have set up the banking system so that is strangles the wealth of the nation so everyone gets poorer and then transfers that resource purchasing power to third world nations.

That is the real game we are playing.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Jews are responsible for all the world's problems.
What is a bigger priority to you? Punishing the guy who lit your house on fire or putting out the flames and rebuilding?

regardless of who is responsible, going after the responsible party is almost never a solution that actually accomplishes anything.

That's not how automation works. One machine is made to replace an entire assembly line.
See this thing right here? This is a PLC. New factories almost always have one. Some older ones have an array of relays (basically magnetically controlled switches) that perform essentially the same function. That function is to collect data from a bunch of sensors and move actuators when the proper sensors are triggered.
How many "robots" do you see?

This is the first time I've heard something like this, and it's a neat idea, but I'm not sure how we would define 1 robot. An assembly line that could do the work of 10 people could technically be considered one robot. Also, what is stopping my from buying 20 robots, while other people couldn't afford any.

well then you split the money up

so if it replaces 100 workers then you have to find another robot sponsor for some or all of those 100 OR you split up 1/3 of the money it saves to sponsored humans.

Keep in mind, people would still work, it just may be part time or low cost. So you might make 1k a month from your robot sponsor, then 600 at a part time job or something.

The elite don't need our goyim asses once they have robot factories that make them all they need. To be precise, they don't need nearly as many of us as there are.

Why are you here? Go back to reddit, you faggot. I bet you believe the holohoax too. As for your question, yes, going after responsible party accomplishes everything. It's making sure that the crime does not happen again.

My idea is a modified version of this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

Several companies in the USA and Canada operate this way, and it always gets hi marks for worker satisfaction and management satisfaction. Plus they usually profit share.

You would not want the workers to have more than a 1/3 vote, you would have to setup some form of quasi government branches within the company, and have unions and government play referee somehow, but not too much. Just to prevent fraud.

I agree, they will at first use "universal income" as the way to get us under control, then slowly inflate the money so we use less and less resources. All while claiming it has to be done so they can feed poor people in African, who of course will never get any of the money.

lol, should have drawn on shitty circle tits, but I admire your revulsion by the shitposting autistic faggot who usually just points out what most of us know and contributes nothing to the thread.

My sister and I were talking about this today. What I want to know is what we could do with all of these retards if most labor isn't required anymore. Bloated bureaucracy is bad in my opinion because it doesn't create any value. Can't we just dump them all onto Mexico's doorstep? Is there any chance that once full automation comes in 10-20 years, we'll have found out how to write skills into someone's mind so we can make them useful whether they like it or not? Moon base?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

There is a bunch of Maxist bullshit in that article, but their is no need for any of that, as our system is already setup to handle stock ownership ect.

Point being is you want people to have ownership and not mega corporation lording over the people with the government being the enforcers, doling out small amounts of resources to the people.

how does one objectively determine how many workers are replaced?
and you didn't tackle the main problem and that's that not everyone is going to be able to work.

I'm not denying Jews are evil. I'm just saying we should focus on putting out the fire, rebuilding something better, and not making the punishment of some "privileged class," whatever class that may be, an intrinsic part of the design.
Okay, I think we should clean up the fallout before thinking about punishment though. I'm not chasing the guy who lit my house on fire when my fucking house is on fire. I'll put that off for another time.

Your system is fine with the way things are, but not with how things will be. The entire problem that needs to be addressed is the fact that not everyone will be able to work profitably in the next few decades. The workers aren't the issue, it's those who aren't needed.

There is plenty of work to be done, fixing the environment, build houses for the 3 billion poor people ect.

The issue is the banking system is setup on purpose to strangle those nations and prevent shit from getting done.

How can you have 3 billion poor people who need food, infrastructure and housing and still have massive unemployment. China builds ghost towns to keep the economy going, just shift that to the people who need it in exchange for natural resources.

yes, but not profitable work. cleaning the environment and building houses for poor people are not revenue generating tasks there's more empty houses than homeless people by the way.

Sure, but the solution is to take the necessity out of labor and replace it with desire. Imagine what we could accomplish if our question at the end of the day wasn't "can I feed my family doing this?"

Well its not profitable because the system is set up to not make it profitable.

For the third world you just replace the financial raping the (((banks))) are doing now, with infrastructure in exchange for natural resources.

If a third world-er signs up for a house and resources, he has to agree to have only two kids max, and you enforce it with that ball injecting birth control for men. If they refuse they go to the back of the line.

Because the system is setup the way it is in order to control people and nations, in order to control birth rates and resource consumption, to keep the price down on natural resources for western markets.

It's not profitable because nobody wants to pay out of their own pocket to have it done. There's no cabal of evil men who hate the environment and thus don't want anything done to fix it. They are just greedy assholes who note that cleaning the environment does not entice anyone but charities and certain voters to part with their cash.

They don't want to control you. They don't give a fuck about you. You could die right now for all they care. All they want is your money.

That's why the system needs to be changed, because it dehumanizes people in such a way. We need something that allows people to live a humble lifestyle without having to be part of the system. They can then send their time and energy making the change they want to see. We could fix the problems we have simply by virtue of people not wanting to have to deal with the inconvenience they cause.

You should lurk more and learn how the system works. Right now its based on Oil. Oil backs the USD. Oil will no longer be needed if we can get fusion energy going in the next 10 years or solar farms. We just change oil with natural resources. Zimbabwe can trade us 100k tones of lead for 10 power plants or whatever.

Geopolitics has to do with one thing, population control. (((They))) are afraid of too many people because (((they))) are actually a very small number of people, and their books say they are the chosen and own the whole earth, we are just renters.

When you start to read geo-politics from this angle and ask yourself, "how does this effect population control" things will start to make sense.

Lol at kids thinking there will ever be ubi

Great argument. When someone questions the narrative that must mean he hasn't heard it repeated enough.
I know what the petrodollar is, and it's there to make US currency more valuable internationally. Also, overpopulation is a meme. We have more than enough resources for the next several generations. We could make it eternity if we get space farming and water desalination mastered.

And again, I could just feign ignorance on our system and it wouldn't affect my argument at all.
I know it doesn't work.
I am providing what i think to be a viable alternative.

This is needlessly complex and inefficient compared to just owning stock and living off the dividends.

It's not even a requirement for humans. We can survive without it. The point is we don't have to, so we invented it for the sole reason of making our lives easier. That's what most work is these days - finding ways to augment and expand ourselves. That won't go away simply because we've solved yet another piece of drudge work we already invented for ourselves.

Yes, we'll have to make additional work for ourselves - but that's what we're already doing. Let's stop pretending we're going to run out of things to do. We've only been on this planet a very short time, there's a whole lot more to achieve.

what we have achieved though is the ability to replace the majority of human labor in the future.
when a couple guys discover something huge that will revolutionize our lives, do you think humans will be the ones doing the grunt work to implement it? of course not, our first goal after the discovery will be to find a way to automate the process as soon as possible.

But whats even your argument , Keynes technological unemployment was proved wrong.

As occupations are destroyed by technological advances new occupations will be created , even if a robotic industrialisation would happen ( and i think it will) If you know how many occupations are being replaced and how many are being created you can take meassures.

America has a great system monitoring occupations and how the demand in labour shifts in onetonline.org/ and already starting to move the labour force since 2015 (TechHire initiative).

The most plausible scenario is that after several years of growing technological unemployement
Overton window would shift and ideas like basic income could be implemented

Human labor will never become a thing of the past because there's a shitload of things that you can't automate no matter how advanced your machinery is. On top of that it wouldn't be possible for any economy to do so even if there were machines that advanced because they still need people buying their products so any economy starting to get close to that point will simply start seeing automated companies go bankrupt.

This is a retarded argument by its very nature. The entire point of paying for machinery is to lower the cost of production, one of those costs being the wage you're paying the workers you're replacing. Yes, you would have to have skilled laborers that you pay more each to handle the machinery, but for the end goal of having fewer total workers to pay.

The whole reason companies hire skilled workers is to save money on the multiple workers they replace.

Human labor will always be a necessity, but there's not enough labor to go around. This thread is about preventing the collapse you alluded to.

Dividends don't pay that much, and are only paid 4 times a year. Plus you know the nigs will blow it all in a week and then starve.

We do have enough resources however, the price of those resources are in question. With the growth in population moving so fast the price for goods would skyrocket causing a market collapse and war, and that is essentially the base of western foreign policy since the end of WW2, keep raw materials cheap.

That is why the west is falling apart, by design, but so they have an excuse as to why you end up poor at the end. They will blame the Muslims and Mexicans for the collapse and at the same time destroy with the following wars with them because they will not control their birth rate.

So what? Every new discovery will create subproblems they can work on that have implications all the way down the line. The number of problems will not decrease, they'll increase. If, for example, you find a replacement for steel it will have far reaching material implications - new cars, new tooling, new homebuilding, new physics, new engineering projects. Every new invention or discovery creates at least as many problems as it solves.

solution is free internet. open media. creativity.

new enlightment age. production is no longer necessary for survival, everyone can be an artist. the new supply and demand economy is one of art.

Is not an argument , is what actually happens from a economics perspective. This is the 4th
fourth industrial revolution and in every single one of them the technological unemployement premise that Keynes made was prove wrong.

Occupations outside the manufacturing does exists, Obviously as certian sector shrinks labor force will reallocate.

David Autor(Mit Economist) and David Dorn do a great job explaining this, he document a structural shift in the labour market, with workers reallocating
their labour supply from middle-income manufacturing to low-income
service occupations in his 2013 work.

Automation will increase until all jobs are automated. Not just physical work by robotics but also mental work by AI. Collective control of production and a welfare system needs to be implemented before a scarcity of jobs reaches dangerous levels.

...

when they become more scarce, cheaper alternatives will be discovered.

And the solution will always be to attempt to automate the process. New jobs will always come up, but never enough to replace the workers replaced. every innovation has reduced the amount of labor man has needed to do. We could go back to the fucking stone age on this. The invention of agriculture meant less people needed to hunt/gather. Luckily, crafts filled the void and people began to specialize. We learned more efficient ways of producing certain goods, and many related jobs disappeared.

We continue the trend today, except this time there aren't nearly as many new fields for the workforce to run off to. and every new advancement which creates a new field will only need a handful of actual people doing anything.
The fallacy there is you're replacing like with like. If you replace Steel with a new material, all the steel workers could, in principle, move to the new material. That's not the same thing as when you discover a method of more efficiently producing steel (or whatever material). by doing so, you're replacing the now useless laborers with a machine that does their job for the cost of electricity.

Except it did happen every time. Motors put work animals out of a job way back when and now their population has dramatically dropped as a result. Later on more and more people moved to finance. There isn't anything productive they can do so they work as glorified calculators and take some money off the top. When jobs like that and the service sector reach saturation, there's nowhere for the remainder to go. They can't "reallocate" anywhere because there's nothing of value they're needed for.

There's always going to be a need for the guy overseeing the process. Jobs will always exist, just not enough for everyone.

In the end this is only going to get worse once we get into space and hit practical post scarcity in a number of resources.

Redistribution/basic income are going to be our only real options for maintaining an economy in the developed regions.
All other options would be too socially unstable.

Because taking the burden of work off humanity has ever been a good thing in history and totally hasn't led to decadence and decline?

...

In an automated nation, there isn't a need for the populace, so they'll be liquidated. So fuck automation, people should do their own work anyways, arbeit macht frei.

There's not going to be welfare for useless people, we'll all be killed, dipshit. That's why people who support full automation are total retards. "YOU'RE A LUDDITE LOL I TOTALLY WANT TO MAKE MYSELF OBSOLETE, IT'S SO FUCKING PROGRESSIVE!" You won't sit around on welfare being a philosopher artists, you'll just be killed. Fuck automation, work and toil is good for mankind, arbeit macht frei.

The golden ages of Greece were the days of the aristocracy. These were wealthy men who had nothing to do all day but think, and think they did. We could very well see those days again, except this time we have the scientific method.

Not necessarily. Sufficiently advanced AI could replace human supervisors.

The only people who won't be liquidated are kikes and their good goyim minions. And the Greek aristocracy were a warrior aristocracy, not lazy gentry.

there is only one real option to prevent all the tech and wealth from consolidating into the hands of a few corporations…. that is to move automation into the home.

I think that
1)power generation
2)food production
3)water collection

should all be done in the home first as much as possible by adding technologies to a standard house build

that way the 'basic wage' is replaced with a base level of automation technology, no bureaucracy no middle man no money changing hands no chance interference

if those three things can be accomplished with one or two days work a week for each house, that leaves people free to do as they please on the other days, to work for gain or to do nothing

then no one has to work for dollars for anyone else, everyone can pick whatever enterprises they are involved in more wisely, it makes it hard for anyone to laze about living off of other peoples backs

its sort of happening now as houses and technology naturally evolve, its even almost possible at the moment with aquaponics and turbines, all you really need is to add 1 cheap source of amino acids and 1 cheap source of carboydrates to get the ball rolling… until you can 3d print meat and what not

with all that in place its a couple days work at home for food and power and a couple days work somewhere for money to spend on the weekend and luxuries, a 3 or 4 day week would leave bulk time for various shit postings and diggings

basic wage is just as stupid as fiat currency…
bring everyone down to a base minimum using a value token that is baseless itself?

how about set the bar high and drag everyone up to where value actually is and is then applied. there is only one decent thing for the exchange of value, applied skilled labor itself

other than that I feel like a new tier is needed, like to get citizenship and be able to vote you should have to achieve a qualification, a trade or do service in the military… but none of the shit degrees of course.

We have documentated the economics growth , unemployement rate and working reallocation the fact that you are defending the Luddite fallacy is ridiculous.

If we divide occupations by Perception
and Manipulation , Creative Intelligence and Social Intelligence we already have a couple of economics models explaining how we should reallocate the labour force. We even know what occupations will be automated or are more likely to be automated thanks to Carl Benedikt Frey
and Michael A. Osborne work and its fairly accurate. Will unskill worked suffer? Yes, will their jobs be replaced by machines? Yes .Will be the end of the world? No.

You are living in a world with a huge techbubble. Huffington Post was Sold in 2011 for 315 m for fuck sake, Technological Unemployement as an unavoidable Microeconomics apocalpsis is nonsense, Im way more worried by the techbubble and the macroeconomics effects that the automation
will produce to the external markets.

You're forgetting one field that would greatly benefit from automation arms and ammunition.

keep your second amendment and we wont have those problems

The moment someone decides to fully automate an entire factory (including quality control and supervision) would be the marking of the stupidest decision of all mankind. You never know what could go wrong in a sufficiently advanced AI. a human overseer would need to be there in case something does go wrong.

It's much more difficult (and more expensive) to do these things on a small scale than at large. It would be nice for everyone to be able to produce everything for themselves, but it's just not feasible.

I never said it will be the end of the world. I'm saying it would result in a shitty life for a huge portion of the population.

Hell, even today we have a ton of people living on welfare, yet those who want to work often struggle to find it. Imagine if all the welfare queens decided to get a job? the problem would be even worse.

we don't have a labor shortage in almost any field: we have a surplus.

Since the guy is still actively running around lighting more fires, and has no intention of stopping, I'm going to have to go with A) Gas the kikes.

There's already welfare for useless people. Eventually everyone is going to be useless. There's just going to be more welfare until everyone is on welfare. A welfare system must be implemented before a dangerous level is reached so that we're not all killed. Unless you're talking about killer AI.

Excess plebs should be employed in acquiring lebensraum.

Come on mate , 2016 Unemployement rate is 5.3 Take a look compare it with any point in the history past 1946.
web.archive.org/web/20160410031120/http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsa2015.pdf

They already are taking measures , see this year Economic report of the council of economic advisers in the page 236. T

ia601506.us.archive.org/27/items/ERP2016BookCompleteJA/ERP_2016_Book_Complete JA.pdf

If massive technological unemployement ever occurs then sure basic income and other ideas will be in the picture to fix the shitty life of most of the population. But you are heavily understimating the US economist if you think that will happen any time soon.

TechBubble exploding, Economic recession , External markets crashing are way more worrysome than technological unemployement

That's rubbish though.
t. Trump

I'll admit, you kinda BTFO'd me with that argument. But can't we gas the kikes AND develop an economic system capable of coexisting with the automated revolution?

so, your idea is to make all non workers fuck each other all day?
at least they will be docile i guess…

You're literally retarded. If you're not actively seeking a job you are not included in the unemployment rate.
Fetch me the workforce participation and discouraged worker rate and then we'll talk.

flood

Well if you assume that the AI is more error prone than a human, then of course. But that's similar to saying that AI driven cars are going to be a disaster because you underestimate their potential.

There's a reason a human being has to be behind the wheel and ready to take control.

Tell me why we need this technological progress or why it's inevitable then explain to me how it's any difference than the "inevitability" of social progress.

Technology is just another false god you've been sold, it's nice and all, but going full automation is suicidal for all of us. Even best case scenario we're all just even more useless worthless soulless techno-dependents. We need to moderate technology for the good of mankind and its soul. People should work with their hands and toil for their daily bread, not be given everything by machines and the state.

Name one problem technology has completely solved without having an even worse side effect.

Read, noted, discarded.

On that note, I need to get some sleep. Keep this thread bumped for me, will you?

I will not , and we will not talk again. Arguing with such a illterate person is a waste of time. Enjoy my last reply.

This has been predicted for hundreds of years and has never happened. The work has become more varied and complex, not less so. When the internet came out, for example, people have reworked many professions and there are still many left that haven't modernized - particularly in bureaucratic organizations. Look how long it took to have online classes as one example. The fear shouldn't be that we will change, but that we won't change. There's outmoded ways in everything we do. People are still driving cars to work every day in professions that don't need it.

You just said it there - crafts. Totally unnecessary make work. It caused a population explosion, of course, and now we live longer but none of that is necessary to our survival as a species. It's already 90% make work and 10% necessary for survival. So what if that 10% becomes 0%? So what if everything becomes 100% make work and the rest is handled by automation? We already do the vast majority of things that way and the sky hasn't fallen.

This is only a problem if you practice dysgenics. Has nothing to do with not enough fields, but not enough qualified people. If you have tons of niggers in Africa with their 70 IQs reproducing, then you won't be able to find jobs for them. Good, let them die. They were incapable of advancing on their own anyway. It has no bearing on our survival as a species though. All of them could die off and the world would certainly be better off without them.

UBI is dysgenics. It's keeping shit-tier individuals who are not creative enough to solve their own problems alive to reproduce just because. UBI in the form of the African gibs program is the problem, you're billing the cause of the problem as its solution.

You're a ficking idiot. Mines give us metal. Try living without using any metal, for anything, ever. Have fun watching half your kids die fron dysentery or whooping cough before they turn five because we can't produce any modern medical equipment - even syringes to give them immunizations. Don't worry though - once the average life expectancy goes back down to 25, you won't be mourning for long.

People say the stupidest shit around here sometimes.

Yes, for now.

Yes, for now. But the tech is in its infancy and development may increase exponentially.

Because that *has* worked for us in the past doesn't mean that it always will. There's a thing called a "point of diminishing returns" beyond which happy formulations like that don't work anymore. Eventually, it's inevitable that we're going to hit a point of diminishing returns on technology, and the whole point of this thread is that we're probably staring down the barrel of that gun right now.

Decentralization of production is a reasonable approach. Many emerging technologies are well suited to this, like additive manufacturing (3D-printing), drones, growing food in controlled environments etc.

Personally I believe that synthetic biology will upend our current industrial paradigm. Food and garden waste will be easible convertible into plastics for the 3D-printer, tool-like plants, building materials etc.

People who think that liquidating the population because you automated manufacturing have no idea what they are talking about. Without that population to provide demand for factory products, the factories will rust. Without breeders, no engineers to improve and maintain the factories. The elites would have to accept spiraling into personal destitution to even attempt mass murder of the impoverished.

Except that most people can't be artists, and the world is full of dumb 85 IQ motherfuckers who, without gainful employment to keep them busy, will spend their days getting wacked on malt liquor and marijuana, fucking anything that moves and popping out more 85 IQ babies, committing petty crimes to get the money for weed and lottery tickets, and getting fat on junk food and hours spent on the couch watching cable TV.

If you ever want to get depressed, ask a cable TV installer about the high-end packages he sets up in the ghetto. Our "poor", who lead lives of leisure that would have been the envy of any 18th century nobleman, spend their days in a state of stupefied intoxication, watching shitty TV shows on their $200/mo cable plans.

Name one problem technology has completely solved without having an even worse side effect.>>7147649

Read, noted, discarded.

Why shouldn't we? Did you get /fit/ isn't that making life harder on yourself and getting better for it? Isn't the making things harder for yourself beneficial. Does it really benefit us that there are no more craftsmen? All of our shit is produced by machines and systems and processes and if anything ever disrupts the delicate chains of supply that keep it all running most people will die because they're too fucking stupid and dependent and to provide for themselves as their ancestors did? Is it really all that beneficial to us that our ancestors left their farms to become slaves to Jews in prisons disguised as cities gilded with techno-trash distractions, just replaceable, disposable cogs in a consumerist machine? Are you better off living in a shit apartment, deep in debt, working as functionary in some system to enrich the globalist elites who are destroying us all than working your own land for your and your family's subsistence?

Have we really made things easier for ourselves or easier for those who are destroying us? We had bigger families when we were struggling for survival in a hostile untamed wilderness than we do now in this age of supposed luxury.

U1 numbers are utter political bullshit, they're merely the rate of those actively collecting unemployment benefits, not the actual rate of unemployed adults; actual unemployed population is not 5.3%. Look at the actual labor participation rate: lowest in the history of the statistic.

As if the elites possess that level of self-awareness, reason, or long-term thinking?

OH LOOK ANOTHER UTOPIAN /LETYPOL/ THREAD
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT
SAGE&REPORT

No, you're a fucking idiot. The survival of our species does not depend on metal. The quantity of our species and our quality of life does. Dysentery, diarrhea, etc kill people yes - but they don't kill enough to prevent us from surviving on very basic technology, otherwise we wouldn't have made it here.

It's exactly the kind of "make work" you Basic Income fags are complaining about. You've convinced yourself it's a requirement for human survival, but in reality it's only necessary to sustain our population at its current size. Your own individual comfort, life, and protection from disease is not essential to humanity's continued existence. Mine isn't either.

Don't make the mistake of projecting your personal desire to live a certain way onto humanity as a whole. So long as people can eat, drink, shit, achieve homeostasis and avoid danger long enough to reproduce, then we have succeeded - everything we do beyond that is just icing; "make work".

Why should be continue technological progress? For the same reasons we always have. But tech doesn't necessarily have to decrease our quality of life. It can and does increase our quality of life. A healthy lifestyle and a high tech lifestyle aren't inherently incompatible

OP, google "Karl Marx" and stop being so retarded.

Happy? Now procced to explain how a fluctuation of 67% and 58.6% between 1948 to 2017 after 3 industrial Revolution makes the luddite fallacy any less laughable.Let alone the fact that in the current year the labor participation rate is 62% not the lowest in history of the statistic , unless 62% is less than 58% in your world.

data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Sure are a lot of fucking commies out tonight. Get the fuck outta here.

You faggots could invest your income in stocks and live off the dividends. It's the labour force getting reduced, not the companies.

The reasonable solution to this problem is to tax production and not labour. Right now the machine has a huge competetive advantage vs the human in that the machine has barely any tax on it, the human has huge tax costs.

If you want employment you gotta tax total production, not the means of production. Having people employed is vastly preferable for the state, as they require less benefits if they have income.

But does it really or is that just something we assume to be true? I mean none of the problems technology was developed to tackle have ever truly been solved, they've only grown and birthed a slew of additional problems. Hell, medicine which people almost universally assume is an undeniable good has itself inadvertantly created super-diseases worse than anything old Mom Nature shat out on her own, we're still swarming with diseases, and has kept alive a bunch of people it probably shouldn't have.

How much of those 62% are foreign-born, because fuck them, we don't view them as actual humans.

One day we will have machines that can just make things out of thin air. Its imperative that we move away from a scarcity based economy. We're already seeing the precursors of economic problems with trying to price digital products (piracy etc)

We cant divide infinity, so we need to come up with a new way to determine value.

Thats without getting into problems of dehumanisation and humanity growing soft on the machines tit.

Because food is the only resource that we have to worry about. Nevermind the water that mentioned. What about wood, ores, rare minerals/stones needed for electrical equipment etc. You are implying that once our labor is automated our resources will be infinite. This is simply not the case, and anyone with an IQ about 85 would realize that such a system is not self-sustaining on this planet. We would be acquiring and processing resources faster than they could replenish (if they can even replenish at all- ores, stones etc). We would HAVE to turn to space and other colonies in space which opens up a massive new field for employment as colonists, spaceship engineers/scientists/doctors etc etc.

I simply don't see near-complete automation of labor as you described in the relatively close future as it is not sustainable for any long period of time. Perhaps once we make the galaxy great again such a world can exist.

That depends on who produces the goods they buy. If only a very few are in charge of basically all production then you are just giving production away to the poor.

financed by the more successful

And more fundamentally any funds given to someone who does not work is a tax on whoever is more productive. Stuff has to come from somewhere, even if money doesn't.

meet the boss

sit back and relax,user

catch up on that old tv series,24.

We are here to "serve you".

Soylent green is very nutrtious with added fat and sugar.

We will deliver your mobility scooter soon.

good reporting!!

here's a treat

No intervention is needed. As supply lines become increasingly automated, prices for goods will fall until they reach zero (as the cost of all goods and services is intrinsically tied to human labor). It's the same model as the internet, which is highly automated. You don't pay for the vast majority of content. You CAN pay for PREMIUM content, and a very few people enjoying such premium content/goods covers the costs of the free stuff for everyone, costs which are so low that it isn't worth it trying to collect.

You can already see this in some ways. Go to any restaurant, and you will find that condiments are free. The tiny costs per person are more than covered by the cost of the food and drink sold. Now imagine a point where their costs fall so much, and there is so much competition that they start offering free drinks to get people in. Then free french fries. Then free basic burgers. Entirely possible when there are no employees, and the cost of your ingredients has fallen dramatically. Energy costs drop just like the others. Even rents fall, as landlords find it costs far less to maintain property and need less money for themselves due to all the cheap and free stuff everywhere.

These threads really do bring the idiots out of the woodwork.

Soylent green burgers to feed a population of 14 billion

Yum!

Please name the costs, keeping in mind that all the labor involved is automated and thus subject to the same economic forces as everything else in this scenario.

Also, how much do you have to pay per post to shitpost here?

No, quality rises. The internet is almost entirely automated, and you don't have to pay for any other content you consume, despite it largely looking very nice and slick. That is because there is so little human labor involved per viewing of said content.

The internet doesn't require unpolluted soil,fertilizer,water and need a less resource-intensive product(beef uses alot of resources for the calorie output) to get to a huge population.

Processing the dead with tank grown algae is the way to feed our children

If half the population is out of work, won't they just make work for themselves? This is assuming a lack of gibs, obviously.

So encourage mass share ownership on a level never seen before enabling the majority of the population if not everyone to live off being a shareholder?
With those who do choose to work probably working part time at most?

Sounds pretty communist to me.

Hey, I came up with that too, great autists think alike I guess

In my world, there would also be another system, the bonus good boy income, which would depend on how much people hated you (this implies small communities of 500-1500 people who all know each other). This bonus income would be an incentive for not being an asshole. I decided to go with hate (dislikes) instead of love (likes) because otherwise people would just create like4like circles, and also because people would certainly tend to forget to like important yet unseen members of society.

I've also thought of all jobs being centralized on some list and you being able to vote on what jobs you wouldn't want to do, making them have higher salaries. Of course this implies an AI running everything

Oh and these two (universal and bonus incomes) would be the sole sources of income. When paying someone for a product/service, the money would leave your hand and vanish as opposed to going to theirs.

ding ding ding ding
ladies and gentlemen, we have our winner

No we won't. That's just silly. You retards and your faith in techno-Jesus are worse than actual Christcucks.

problem is its super hard to get killed in war these days if your american.

Reading Uncle Ted's manifesto says theres no way to accomplish this as dehumanization is the essence of the system.

But I've always daydreamed about technology allowing for people to fuck off into outerspace in personal spacecrafts, gathering shit from the galaxy to survive and noone can tell them what to do. Sort of a technological/libertarian event horizon.

As a thought: how much of the population would revert back to traditional home life? I'm willing to bet 75% of women want to be stay at home moms again.

Retirement age might go down. Its all a matter of how it gets rolled out in my mind