![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danieldwilliamIn the future lots of stuff will be automated. It’s already starting now. Lots more stuff then is currently automated and probably the roll out of more automation will be quite quick. Quicker than the roll out of automation and other labour saving technology we’ve seen over the last few hundred years. The reach of automation is likely to be deeper and broader than we’ve previously experienced. Semi-skilled, non-repititious work is likely to be automated. Data collation and analysis too.
Manufacturers are moving production back to the USA, but using robots rather than people. No good paying jobs for USians. Or Asians.
In the longer term this is good news. Fewer humans doing laborious tasks. Cheaper goods and services.
In the shorter term there may be significant dislocation of labour which comes on top of already significant dislocation of labour in the both the West and the rest of the world as a result of globalisation.
Bluntly a lot of people might rapidly lose their jobs to robots and weak artificial intelligence systems. As more work is done by capital, holders of capital become wealthier. Holders of rare and hard to replicate or automate skills benefit from reduced costs for manufactured goods and semi-skilled labour. Those thrown out of work and those with whom they are now directly competing for work don’t do so well.
The end game is that we all get to live in the Culture but the transition to that state might be really rocky.
There is a significant risk that many people might find themselves very poor with no real prospect of ever gaining meaningful or well-paid work again. Good times for those of us who have the right skills or the foresight to be born rich or become rich. Bad times for everyone one else. There’s a genuine Rawlsian Veil of Uncertainty to this too. I’m not that certain my job is safe from the march of the machines. There’s a good chance that my mother’s career as a radiologist won’t be available to her grandchildren.
Which brings me to the problem. Or rather The Problem. In the context where we are still framing the debate about employment and welfare around strivers and skivers and the debate about social provision and collective insurance in terms of deserving and undeserving poor how do we arrange to channel goods and services to those who have only a very tangential relationship with their creation and who have nothing of much value to trade for them.
Some of the options include
We don’t – we let them find their own stuff as best they may and let the market set the price for labour.
We rely on charity.
We introduce significant de jure or de facto restrictions on working hours and ration out the work so that income from that work is more evenly shared. (I’m aware of Says Law and the lump of labour fallacy but I’m paying attention to the transition rather than the future equilibrium. I’m also on convinced that the lump of labour fallacy applies to robot workers owned by a narrow oligarchy)
We introduce high tax rates and operate social democracy where we attempt to predistribute wealth by giving people access to opportunities to gain valuable skills and hire a whole bunch of people to do nice stuff.
We introduce high tax rates and operate some form of citizens’ income or negative income tax.
We collectivise ownership of the means of production and distribution.
None of these strike me as a complete solution on their own.
I think the tax rates we’ll need to be talking about to operate a full bhuna social democracy and a citizens’ income amount to pretty much state ownership and I fear that setting a dividend policy for the a whole nation but not globally might not be work out well.
So I’m entering a plea for collectivised ownership, in a distributed way. By stealth.
Why? Because we are currently struggling to get enough people to accept that, if they want good public services they have to pay for them through taxes, to make that an election winning manifesto. We’re very far away from getting people to accept that the role of the state, be that the EU or the community council, should be expanded. The serious suggestion that we should take money from <insert economic or moral virtue here> people and just give it away to the jobless so they can live a dignified life without working I genuinely fear might cause riots and civil strife.
So what I would propose is a movement working towards distributed collective ownership of capital. Ownership of exactly the capital that is replacing the worker. Actions would include mandating some remuneration to be in the form of shares that must be held for the long term, so that when you are eventually made redundant by a machine, you, individually own a part of that machine. Encouraging local authorities to take stakes in firms which provide them with goods and services or which want advantagous planning permission. Some taxes could be taken not in cash but in shares. That charitiable organisations of all types should hold capital to use for their charitable purposes but that the workers aim to take control of as many charities as they can.
The aim is to accumulte as much capital in the hands of the workers before they stop being workers.
I’m proposing a self-help co-operative movement for the 21st Century.
I don’t think this is a complete solution to The Problem but it does begin to address one visceral critique of any other transfer system. Why are you giving stuff to *those* people? Because they own it.
Manufacturers are moving production back to the USA, but using robots rather than people. No good paying jobs for USians. Or Asians.
In the longer term this is good news. Fewer humans doing laborious tasks. Cheaper goods and services.
In the shorter term there may be significant dislocation of labour which comes on top of already significant dislocation of labour in the both the West and the rest of the world as a result of globalisation.
Bluntly a lot of people might rapidly lose their jobs to robots and weak artificial intelligence systems. As more work is done by capital, holders of capital become wealthier. Holders of rare and hard to replicate or automate skills benefit from reduced costs for manufactured goods and semi-skilled labour. Those thrown out of work and those with whom they are now directly competing for work don’t do so well.
The end game is that we all get to live in the Culture but the transition to that state might be really rocky.
There is a significant risk that many people might find themselves very poor with no real prospect of ever gaining meaningful or well-paid work again. Good times for those of us who have the right skills or the foresight to be born rich or become rich. Bad times for everyone one else. There’s a genuine Rawlsian Veil of Uncertainty to this too. I’m not that certain my job is safe from the march of the machines. There’s a good chance that my mother’s career as a radiologist won’t be available to her grandchildren.
Which brings me to the problem. Or rather The Problem. In the context where we are still framing the debate about employment and welfare around strivers and skivers and the debate about social provision and collective insurance in terms of deserving and undeserving poor how do we arrange to channel goods and services to those who have only a very tangential relationship with their creation and who have nothing of much value to trade for them.
Some of the options include
We don’t – we let them find their own stuff as best they may and let the market set the price for labour.
We rely on charity.
We introduce significant de jure or de facto restrictions on working hours and ration out the work so that income from that work is more evenly shared. (I’m aware of Says Law and the lump of labour fallacy but I’m paying attention to the transition rather than the future equilibrium. I’m also on convinced that the lump of labour fallacy applies to robot workers owned by a narrow oligarchy)
We introduce high tax rates and operate social democracy where we attempt to predistribute wealth by giving people access to opportunities to gain valuable skills and hire a whole bunch of people to do nice stuff.
We introduce high tax rates and operate some form of citizens’ income or negative income tax.
We collectivise ownership of the means of production and distribution.
None of these strike me as a complete solution on their own.
I think the tax rates we’ll need to be talking about to operate a full bhuna social democracy and a citizens’ income amount to pretty much state ownership and I fear that setting a dividend policy for the a whole nation but not globally might not be work out well.
So I’m entering a plea for collectivised ownership, in a distributed way. By stealth.
Why? Because we are currently struggling to get enough people to accept that, if they want good public services they have to pay for them through taxes, to make that an election winning manifesto. We’re very far away from getting people to accept that the role of the state, be that the EU or the community council, should be expanded. The serious suggestion that we should take money from <insert economic or moral virtue here> people and just give it away to the jobless so they can live a dignified life without working I genuinely fear might cause riots and civil strife.
So what I would propose is a movement working towards distributed collective ownership of capital. Ownership of exactly the capital that is replacing the worker. Actions would include mandating some remuneration to be in the form of shares that must be held for the long term, so that when you are eventually made redundant by a machine, you, individually own a part of that machine. Encouraging local authorities to take stakes in firms which provide them with goods and services or which want advantagous planning permission. Some taxes could be taken not in cash but in shares. That charitiable organisations of all types should hold capital to use for their charitable purposes but that the workers aim to take control of as many charities as they can.
The aim is to accumulte as much capital in the hands of the workers before they stop being workers.
I’m proposing a self-help co-operative movement for the 21st Century.
I don’t think this is a complete solution to The Problem but it does begin to address one visceral critique of any other transfer system. Why are you giving stuff to *those* people? Because they own it.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-08 12:24 pm (UTC)http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/surprise-as-ukip-leader-nigel-farage-dines-with-rupert-murdoch-8525616.html
Which indicates it might not be The Mail that moves to UKIP...
no subject
Date: 2013-03-08 12:30 pm (UTC)C'mon the UKIP. Oh, for the Sun to go for UKIP.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-08 12:31 pm (UTC)And yes. Let Hilarity Ensue!
no subject
Date: 2013-03-08 12:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-08 01:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-08 12:28 pm (UTC)Of course, this means that the councils income is now more based on the profits of the businesses in its area - so in bad times the councils income drops rather more, I'd imagine.
I'll have to think about it more!
no subject
Date: 2013-03-08 12:51 pm (UTC)They could borrow against future dividend income in order to smooth consumption or stimulate demand (depends on whether you think a local authority in an open economy trying a Keynsian stimulus is a good idea or not.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-08 01:27 pm (UTC)And engage in complex financial instruments?
I'd rather they could just charge businesses an amount of money, that they then spend on services. Seems less likely to have unforeseen failure modes that mere mortals are not fit to understand.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-08 01:59 pm (UTC)I wasn’t thinking of anything more complex than a municipal bond. The only difference is the income stream paying the interest and capital is now partly made up of dividends rather than just all tax receipts.