Apparently we have not outgrown slavery yet. Rules ensured to not use physical violence anymore so no drummer and a whip (...at least in the western world) but in the end the result wished by few are still only achievable by the misery of many. Its not just that they (in the OPs example) replaced robots because they can; but because they "lost" their (slave) labour the moment they had to get (more) wages.

Its why they had the factory in Asia to begin with instead of in Germany (which, surprise, the robotic factory will be build) because the wages they pay there are so low that it would be not just an insult but even a criminal act here.

No, they just torture you instead with homelessness, cold weather, having everyone hate you, prison and starvation.

And when everybody made their factories robotized, and when we have in the service sector robots too, who will buy the factory products, and who will use the robo services when most of the people will be out of jobs?

I did not said that!

...I just made sure to add the word "physical" :D

The thing is, I like automation of factories - the idea is very altruistic if you think about. People will be able to pursue other interests, the uneducated will be able to get an education instead of needing to work to survive. I can't wait for the post scarcity economy.

When scarcity is artificial, is it "life" that is dehumanizing, or the conditions imposed as a direct result of hoarding?

My approach would be to ensure that no one felt compelled to enter into these sorts of abusive relationships, the likely result of which would be that not a single person would "choose" to do so.

Well, my question comes from: where does the guaranteed minimum wage come from, and who gets it?

If the employer is solely responsible for that wage then that's a very difficult hurdle for small business, especially retail with its already-tight margins. And if its something given to everyone - working or not - then taxes or going to increase a lot, further putting pressure on small business.

This is assuming we're talking something like $40k per year for a family of 3 or 4. Granted, I'm picking an arbitrary number but I don't think it's far off the mark of what folks will consider a living wage down here. So then we're looking at $40 an hour if you combine that living wage with just 20 hours per week, or about 1,000 hours per year.

Now the employer has to hire twice as many people at $40 an hour (with no net increase in the total number of hours paid), along with the 15-45% HR overhead, depending on benefits and the general increase in the admin cost of nearly twice as many employees.

To cover that, consumption would need to go waaaay up. Or huge inflation occurs, which then raises the bar for the living wage.

That's why I suspect automation would increase: employee costs would increase at least twofold, and possibly quadruple. Further, those predicted increases in work volume at the small businesses would not happen overnight; until those gains occurred, the businesses would be hemorrhaging money in greatly increased labor costs. But that's if I'm understanding the two premises the same way that you're thinking of them.

Not to mention the enormous increase in worker safety in those workplaces where humans and machinery share the burden of labor.

Scarcity is artificial? Can you elaborate please. I suspect this is the crux of your dislike of economics.

Life is finite, the universe is finite. Everything deteriorates - entropy is a fact. Therefore it is indeed life itself, in its inexorably deteriorating and finite reality that is dehumanizing - naturally.

And if we shift from this meta universal level and start to zoom into more human levels of activity, we will never be able to identify anything where scarcity is artificial in the sense you are stating. The scarcity is always fundamentaly natural, despite the quantifiers being often astronomical. Despite multiple other constraints superimposed on the underlying truth.

Let's make it personal shall we? As I said to Viper I find close to the skin examples are often illuminating.

Are you married richlind? Let's consider a unique "good" in this universe. Your wife. Her DNA sequence is unique. Even if we assume cloning, her experiences are unique. So she, defined as the joining of her genetics and her experiences is unique. Now let's postulate she is in "demand". High demand if you get what I mean. Are you hoarding her? Are the conditions imposed on the rest of us by the "exclusive" relationship you two have dehumanizing? Is the scarcity of her supply artificial in any moral sense?

Food for thought I hope. Scarcity is the most natural thing in the universe. What is artifical is our attempt to evade nature and try and become eternal, perfect. An ultimately pathetic attempt I'm sure, but well, let's see how we do.

I must nitpick, this is not your approach. This is your desire. I share the desire, but without details on the actual approach, who knows what else we share? Certainly an approach that reduces the freedom of the agents I will consider dehumanizing in itself.

What you are saying is grammatically incorrect unless by "life" you mean God or some sort of sentient entity, which cannot be proven or disproven.

How can scarcity be inherently natural when it is frequently caused by human beings?

Was the Ukrainian famine something "natural", or was it the result of the brutal imposition of collectivization?

I wouldn't hesitate to reduce the "freedom" of individuals whose conduct frequently causes millions to suffer horribly and needlessly.

Would you?

So what did you mean by artificial scarcity? :) I already asked for elaboration - and your nitpicking my rhetoric's semantics does not change the fact you are understanding my point and being evasive / disingenuous.

For example, the Holodomor was not caused by hoarding - are you conflating state action (monopoly on use of force blah blah) with market action (greedy capitalists blah blah) again? My agreeing that atrocities are caused by humans has nothing to do with the point you had made.

Think of it mathematicaly - hoarding does not destroy the product - hence its amount remains unchanged - there is no "scarcity". Come on - address my actual point head on. We can have a productive conversation if you stop this almost childish attitude.

As to your other question - no I have no problem with reducing the freedom of some people. But the standard I use is not pure consequentialism, intent and agency also matter. So a baby stepping on the nuclear launch button does not deserve punishment for destroying the world - for a completely stupid example. So, not all tragedies (read - in your words - the needless and horrible suffering of millions) are atrocities.

Instead of talking about Stalin or innocent babies can you actually make you point directly? :) You can't really believe all suffering is caused by malicious agents, so what we should be discussing is whether the kind of market activites you have in mind are or not malicious. You know very well I will say they are not, and you know I know you think they are.

So? :)

That's quite an absurd thing to say, or perhaps disingenuous, when you know perfectly well that scarcity is entirely relative. But so is your statement re the Holodomor, as you also know that my question related to scarcity, not hoarding.

Since you don't seem to have liked my previous questions, let's try a different one: How much wealth does it take to satisfy a man who is obsessed with wealth?

Me too. But how the hell do we get there? We need a *fundamental* change to our collective mentality, here in the States at least, before automation can go from being a negative factor for people's lives, as it is now, to a positive one as in the future you (and I) are looking forward to.

Because right now, any talk of a "guaranteed minimum wage" or anything similar gets you laughed out of the room before you've even finished the sentence, in this country anyways.

In fact, currently in America, if you don't work you are basically considered a "scumbag who doesn't deserve a place to live or really even much in the way of food", according to many people's values, and demonstrated by the weakness of our current "social safety net". Hell even if you do work some job thats considered "not that important" - i.e. a stocker/cashier at Walmart, you're barely considered much better than that, as your wages can't even cover reasonable food/rent.

Right now automation is a disaster for human life in our country, as each job taken over by a robot means one more person/family living in abject poverty. We need more or less a 180 degree shift in the values of our culture before automation and associated job-losses can actually be a good thing (which I agree 100% that it *should* be).

When having this kind of conversation with people expressing utopian desires I like to cover my bases. Even moreso when they try to play gotcha word games. It's hard enough to help people understand the world is as it is, not as we wish it, to let lack of clarity or emotion get in the way.

Anyway, it's not an absurd point. If we end up talking about hoarding money (I think that's what you keep going round and round around) it's a point I like to make, which is that if I destroy my money, your money appreciates in value. If I accumulate my money - there is on balance no effect on the value of yours. And if I create money, yours loses value. Counterintuitive heh? Creating money devalues it. But you should know this. You decry the power of banks / elites to create money - and therefore devalue everyone else's savings. Or are you just upset the money doesn't end up in your pockets? :)

Still, I am glad you didn't want to imply absolute scarcity. Just to remind you, I did make a point involving absolute scarcity. As I mentioned, the relative scarcities you decry (economic inequalities blah blah) ultimately are a result of natural scarcities.

Also, you brought up hoarding when you mentioned artifical scarcity. It was not me making that association. And I did not dislike that question - I merely asked you to elaborate what you meant. I even made a nice example about the scarcity you create on the availability of your loved ones to the rest of us. Remember?

If you don't mind that is still my preference - that you clarify what you meant by artificial scarcity in the context of hoarding. I still think that's the crux of your differences.

Because your last question, despite my seeing the rhetoric connection you are trying to draw of having us imagine some Scrooge McDuck character - I can't answer. Sorry. The answer obviously depends on how obsessed said character is, which since he is being defined / described by you, you can tell me, not the other way around. I'm no mindreader...

Money isn't necessarily currency.

Obsession is like pregnancy: you either are, or you aren't.

And no, man-made scarcity is *not* necessarily the result of natural scarcity.


I'll dumb this down as much as I can: if we have a trillionaire who happens to be obsessed with wealth, the vast majority of people in that world are literally fucked, because that kind of money "earns" returns that are well beyond insane.

If you control a nation's money supply, you simply can't lose, because you know when the markets are going to go up, and you know when they're going to go down. You win every single time you "invest", with no risk whatsoever.

This is why economies have to grow continuously under the existing monetary structure: it's the only way that a Ponzi scheme can be maintained. Sustained contraction means the end.

Three new topics? :)

I'm going to mostly ignore you on money / currency and obsession. I'm not even sure what you are trying to get at with that... is it just word games again? I would appreciate you not playing word games when we are still trying to agree on the basics. We do not need technical definitions - we just need what you are not willing to provide - focus.

Let me refresh you on what you wrote earlier which I still find the crux of our differences:

"When scarcity is artificial, is it "life" that is dehumanizing, or the conditions imposed as a direct result of hoarding?"

I already gave you my answer and will be happy to deepdive into some counter example you propose - in case you want to understand better how I am defining natural limits. I am still waiting to understand how you see free market hoarding imposing dehumanizing conditions of artificial scarcity. Especially considering I did specify that involuntary exchange is not included in how I define free markets.

On new topic number one, which seems to be inspired by Piketty. (I suggest you read some of the specialist critiques of the book, they are not that difficult to find). How exactly are the returns coming in? What is this trillionaire's money invested in? Is there nothing being produced? Is there no third party profiting? Is this trillionaire somehow capable of zero consumption? Why exactly do you assume whoever this person is, to be capable of making perfect investment choices? And if they are perfect, well what exactly is fucked about it benefiting them? And really, they will die eventually resulting in some form of redistribution... you know, another of those natural limits you like to ignore. *

On new topic number two, control of monetary supply. The competition there is international obviously. Just because we had a relatively stable geopolitical period dominated by the US does not mean it will continue forever. How short sighted to look at a century (give or take a decade or two) and assume the end of history. And the relations between stocks and bonds are not as simple as all that, particularly under the kind of mixed systems where government and many corporations are incestuously linked. PS: I would like to see more private currencies as well, but that's a wrinkle we don't need to go into I guess - plus you will just say the world is already bought and paid for.

On new topic number three, of pension schemes. Well duh - of course. But the end of what? Of ilusions of control mostly. Which I would welcome. Because the assets such as land, factories, etc... would continue. The knowledge in our minds would not be lost. Demand for food, clothing, etc would continue. Ergo, exchange and markets would exist. Ergo, not the end of the economy. Just the end of ilusions about safety. We're getting there anyway. Hopefully it will not be too rough a ride.

* It's like, whether they are or not obsessed with hoarding money / currency / wealth is irrelevant. What is relevant is this mentality you have where you see "them" as being somehow all powerful. If I wanted to mess up with you I'd say that's how they control you richlind... :P Sorry... but I do think you have a very pessimistic and even unhealthy approach to this stuff.

edit: typos, typo, and more typos