As I understand it, the increased productivity resulting from increased automation will reduce the need for human beings to engage in economic drudge work.
That seems entirely reasonable to me.
However, it sounds as if the benefit from the increased productivity is to be taken from the person who produced it, and redistributed to others.
In other words, if I own a factory, and I install some robots to paint the cars, and thus no longer need to hire people to paint cars, the economic benefits from the increased automation are to be used to help provide others with a guaranteed income.
No, thank YOU for the clarification. ;) I see your point, this is a hard question.
Automation here is making production a function of capital rather than a function of labor. Certainly legacy property rights would be with the idea that the owner of capital would have all rights to the benefits of the productivity improvements in this case.
Maybe this is a fallacious slippery slope, or projecting too far forward as a means of deflecting your point, but if this process can be extended indefinitely, you might have a small rentier class who have inherited their unearned wealth/capital and a large mass of displaced workers whose labor is obsolete in the scarcity economy.
If your factory is the whole economy, it sounds like a massive decrease in utility to throw all those workers on the street when robots have taken all their jobs. Besides, I don't know who you'll sell your cars to if you fire all your workers. Redistribution seems like a less-bad option.
There's a deeper level, I think, where those legacy property rights are built upon a certain kind of social compact. And if the owners of capital make large numbers of the population economically obsolete, then the social compact has got to change. If the ethical basis of the law is built upon preserving property rights rather than human flourishing, it seems like we'd all be replaced by robots in the end.
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. Thank you for that.
In your second paragraph, I'm going to suggest that automation is a function of capital, intellectual effort, personal will and the freedom to act in one's self-interest. Remove any of these and I don't think automation is likely to occur.
Thank you for the comment about the rentier class and inheritance.
If a person owns a certain amount of wealth, and he gives it to someone else, should anyone else somehow obtain title to some or all of it? I say no, on the basis that this undermines property rights.
If I own a gold coin, and give it to my daughter, by what justification does anyone else claim even a fraction of that coin?
I recognize that many people will have a different view. I'm genuinely interested in the logical basis for different views.
As regards the large mass of displaced workers, whose labor is said to be obsolete in the scarcity economy.
I wish to ask, is it really, absolutely, the case that these men and women, if they are free to use their minds, and do choose to use their minds, cannot be productive in a changed economy?
I don't know a lot about it, but I'm wondering if the idea that these people will necessarily be unemployed forever, because "all they have to offer is their labor" (quotes mine) is a projection of the mind-body dichotomy?
I have to get back to work, but in closing, your comment about utility catches my eye as well. For the record, I'm not an advocate of utilitarianism, if that's part of this discussion.
Interesting discussion indeed. Personally I think past some point of automatisation and concentration of production means, these means will need to be made a public resource in some way.
Ideally the owners of the factories/robot armies will have an upside to that deal, but I think once a huge proportion of the population cannot produce and the basic goods are completely delivered by a few private parties,the social balance would collapse and could lead to a revolution.
About employment, I think the notion of work would change, and we'get back to a concept of occupying people. Of course entertainment would be of super high value, but one could imagine that fields with very low return on time invested like research, social care, artisanal craft or art/monuments building would also raise in popularity, with some additional sense of urgency so people emotionaly engage with their 'work'.
In that system people still get value from their work, don't need to feel assisted under a 'basic income' banner. What they do just doesn't affect production of basic goods anymore.
Also religion and gambling and cruel games would be on the rise.
It depends how UBI is funded. If it's based on consumption then the people buying your cars end up paying more (say 20%), the additional amount goes to fund UBI. When you buy raw materials and machinery for your factory you pay more (just as the consumers do) which goes to fund UBI. So instead of 10 robots maybe you can only purchase 8 for your factory, initially.
In most places within the US we pay state and local sales taxes today. If we eliminated income tax, AMT, and other taxes on earnings and instead went after consumption, I think it would be a simpler system with fewer loopholes. Obviously transactions between individuals wouldn't be taxed unless there was a way to enforce it (e.g. make eBay capture that 20% consumption tax) but we have that issue today with the states trying to figure out how they can tax online sales.
