Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:28 PM
nxylas (6,440 posts)
Welcome to the post-work economy
More at: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3056483/welcome-to-the-post-work-economy?partner=wired
|
9 replies, 3822 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
nxylas | Mar 2016 | OP |
wobble | Mar 2016 | #1 | |
angstlessk | Mar 2016 | #3 | |
wobble | Mar 2016 | #4 | |
angstlessk | Mar 2016 | #5 | |
wobble | Mar 2016 | #7 | |
Kip Humphrey | Mar 2016 | #2 | |
nxylas | Mar 2016 | #6 | |
inanna | Mar 2016 | #8 | |
Pakhet | Mar 2016 | #9 |
Response to nxylas (Original post)
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:42 PM
wobble (16 posts)
1. I like these articles!
This would be a fantastic proposition for the United States. Unfortunately, this probably does not jive with the capitalist system. If the capitalist sees diminishing returns to his investment in capital, the capital investment slows.
I could spend hours just coming up with economic fluff arguments that could convince ignorant people to believe that this sort of idea would be a detriment to society. It is shocking how easy it is to mislead people about economics and personal finance. We could start by ingraining personal finance and economics principles into our society through compulsory education throughout the developmental years of ones life. I could see that as a legitimate step in the right direction within the capitalist system so loved by our Oligarchs. I am a strong proponent of the Universal Basic Income, but there is no way that it could be accepted by our government's owners. Capitalists will simply not allow labor to derive direct benefit from their capital, unless they are so graciously given this benefit by the capitalist in the form of wages (or other benefits). Vox did an excellent YouTube video about this issue, they dove into the history of the concept and how it was obliterated by the controllers of the government. |
Response to wobble (Reply #1)
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:58 PM
angstlessk (11,862 posts)
3. Do you have a link to the VOX YouTube Video?
I would very much like to watch it
|
Response to angstlessk (Reply #3)
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:36 PM
wobble (16 posts)
4. Here
It's short, sweet, to the point. |
Response to wobble (Reply #4)
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:46 PM
angstlessk (11,862 posts)
5. Much too short...this is an egnormous idea
I want an hour or two to absorb the reality..
I recall in the early days of the internets when you got to choose which search engine to use, there were those espousing the great innovations giving us all leisure time..I was soooo very hopeful. Now robots..I do believe our 'leisure' time will be spent in tent cities. |
Response to angstlessk (Reply #5)
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:53 PM
wobble (16 posts)
7. I will keep my eyes open
a documentary on this subject would be quite an interesting watch. I will look into this.
I recall a lecture I attended during which my professor explained the concept of Keynesian Economics. The theory of productivity was that productivity would increase linearly and that we would all share in the successes of our economy. Robots would do the work and we would have a 10-20 hour work week with massive productivity, and great wealth to show for it... The professor then showed us how the productivity had increased relative to Keynes estimation, and it was relatively similar considering the great advances he had hypothesized. Wealth creation had also kept up with the Keynesian expectation. Increases in technology should usually increase the wage rate, in theory, commiserate to the advances in output caused by that productivity. Thus higher tax rates would be levied on the persons who hold these jobs, leading to higher velocity of money... ETC. Unfortunately this is not our reality. He who has shall prosper, and he without shall have his prosperity determined by he who has. The capitalist in my above scenario would likely increase the wage rate marginally for the laborer assisted by the machine because "does not need to do as much as before". On the other side he will invest in the capital because "he has the means". Then the difference is allocated by (and often to) the capitalist. One day we may be able to have our tent cities AND our jobs... ![]() |
Response to nxylas (Original post)
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:56 PM
Kip Humphrey (4,753 posts)
2. UBI simplifies almost everything while ensuring everyone can live in dignity.
it is a win, win, win, win. It doesn't even impact the 1% in any significant way. The only real losers are the bullies & bigots.
|
Response to Kip Humphrey (Reply #2)
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:10 PM
nxylas (6,440 posts)
6. Sadly, that describes too many of the 1%
They don't just want to have nice things, they want to have nicer things than everyone else. And even lower down the ladder, the puritan inheritance means that there are plenty of people who believe that life should be a constant struggle, and that financial security erodes character (in other people, of course, not in themselves).
|
Response to nxylas (Original post)
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:21 AM
inanna (3,547 posts)
8. Definitely a "good read".
Thanks for posting.
|
Response to nxylas (Original post)
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 05:37 AM
Pakhet (520 posts)
9. Very good. I don't see it happening here, though
For the reasons already mentioned
|