Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Sounds like a great thing for everyone.What's the problem, do you think? The problem is that the declining requirement for human labour is an issue people are ignoring. We need a citizens wage because increasingly people are chasing jobs that aren't there and never will be again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Technology replaces the need for human labour, and yet you argue against a citizens wage. It's only going to get worse;a lot worse. A contact at IBM was showing me some natural language translation technology that will be hitting the market in about a year. It can translate between languages and speak the translation aloud as well as a competent human translator. Multilingual staff (especially those in call centres) who have been able to earn a liveable (although declining) wage will find themselves unable to find work for minimum wage. I know it's going to get worse, I don't really like the citizen's income scheme, but I do accept that an acceptable social scheme for a huge army of labour market cast-offs will have to be devised. Automation is getting so incredibly powerful. It would be an interesting experiment to see just how big a turnover online retail business you could establish without employing any staff. I reckon well into the millions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I know it's going to get worse, I don't really like the citizen's income scheme, but I do accept that an acceptable social scheme for a huge army of labour market cast-offs will have to be devised.Automation is getting so incredibly powerful. It would be an interesting experiment to see just how big a turnover online retail business you could establish without employing any staff. I reckon well into the millions. And surely that is your goal, as it is for every business? To operate with as few staff as possible, and ideally no staff. The problem being of course that with every business pursuing this goal there are fewer and fewer people with income to purcahse goods and services. This process is Capitalism eating itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 And surely that is your goal, as it is for every business? To operate with as few staff as possible, and ideally no staff. The problem being of course that with every business pursuing this goal there are fewer and fewer people with income to purcahse goods and services. This process is Capitalism eating itself. Possibly, to a signifcant degree. It's giant corporations that'll suffer most. B2C will just gradually move to B2B until a natural equilibrium is found. It's a circle from fragmented cottage industries with people spinning and weaving in their front room, to the industrial revolution and concomitant centralising of labour and resources and back again to fragmented. There's products I sell where a single automated machine in your garage could churn out the UK supply, in such circumstances there'd be no point shipping them in from China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 The problem is that the declining requirement for human labour is an issue people are ignoring. We need a citizens wage because increasingly people are chasing jobs that aren't there and never will be again. But people don't need jobs though. We only need the things that can be created through effort, if the effort compenent is significantly reduced then the population should be a lot more wealthy, or enjoy some serious leisure time. The citizens wage is a good idea, but I think the term 'dividend' is more appropriate. If all our taxes were pooled and spent on communally used services; roads etc then the portion left over (the profits) could be divided equally. Much like the dividends from share ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 But people don't need jobs though. We only need the things that can be created through effort, if the effort compenent is significantly reduced then the population should be a lot more wealthy, or enjoy some serious leisure time.The citizens wage is a good idea, but I think the term 'dividend' is more appropriate. If all our taxes were pooled and spent on communally used services; roads etc then the portion left over (the profits) could be divided equally. Much like the dividends from share ownership. I think you and Bbc are wrong. Firstly, what you want has already happened. We do have more leisure time. Look back 150 years. Secondly, you imagine that some kind uncle will come along and sort all of these things out and we'll all be happy. unfortunately, we don't have such a thing, all we have are governments. What you would attempt, misguided though it is, is way beyond the abilities of a mere government to implement. It's impossible. Let's avoid ideas that originate in fairy land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) I think you and Bbc are wrong. ? Firstly, what you want has already happened. We do have more leisure time. Look back 150 years. There have been advances but these have come with a significant downside attached, the reason is that the extra production is siphoned off as a revenue that can only be captured via the land market. So some people can benefit at the expense of others. Secondly, you imagine that some kind uncle will come along and sort all of these things out and we'll all be happy. unfortunately, we don't have such a thing, all we have are governments. What you would attempt, misguided though it is, is way beyond the abilities of a mere government to implement. It's impossible. Let's avoid ideas that originate in fairy land. What is it you're accusing me of wanting to implement? What I said was that after costs of running government the surplus should returned to the individuals, governments just have to spend less than they take in tax. Are you such a cynic that you think the very idea of a balanced budget is an idea from 'fairy land'? Edited August 30, 2009 by chefdave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Nope, the man is dead. And he still made a profit by dying or he wouldn't have done it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 One more thing - it's no tthe employers who keep the wages low - it's all the people who are willing to replace the existing workers. Is there a cogent argument as to why the unemployed shoudn't try to get work for themselves by competing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 And he still made a profit by dying or he wouldn't have done it. Reductio ad absurdum Make a profit by dying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) To the OP - I think that once you have unlocked the secrets of money, its distribution is the key question that needs to be resolved.I start from the following angle.... Money is mostly derived as credit (97%). Money is used in transactions - therefore the amount and velocity is key to prices and more specifically that other key determinant of what we call (on paper) 'wealth', asset prices. So the more debt, the more money and the higher asset prices iteration. I think of this as the vicious circle of our time - not the other way round which is what the governemt is spending our money on to stop going into reverse. I think the mirror image of your question about the concentration of wealth - is also one abut the concentration of debt. I think that the answer to one will be the answer to the other. Nicely put. The majority of bad debt has been the result in tranactions in the property market; on one side of the equation we have a load of homeowners and unnsuccessful speculators that are in an obscene amounts of debt and on the other side we have a group of people with huge bank balances. Its transformed as a problem with the banking system in the capitalist economy, but the banking system wasn't the driving force behind people's indebtedness; it just faciltiated as a middle man for injustices that were already present. Edited August 30, 2009 by chefdave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Reductio ad absurdumMake a profit by dying I didn't say it was sane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I didn't say it was sane. Acting to not lose something does not mean you profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Acting to not lose something does not mean you profit. He wasn't losing anything. neither was the guy in the photo - if it's voluntary it's all profit. Might not be sane, but it's all profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) He wasn't losing anything. neither was the guy in the photo - if it's voluntary it's all profit. Might not be sane, but it's all profit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766490.stm The experimenters performed simple tasks like dropping a clothes peg out of reach while hanging clothes on a line, or mis-stacking a pile of books. Nearly all of the group of 24 18-month-olds helped by picking up the peg or the book, usually in the first 10 seconds of the experiment. They only did this if they believed the researcher needed the object to complete the task - if it was thrown on the ground deliberately, they didn't pick it up. "The results were astonishing because these children are so young - they still wear diapers and are barely able to use language, but they already show helping behaviour," said Felix Warneken. What profit is an 18 month old baby hoping to achieve in his actions? Seems fairly apparent that the only thing to profit from such a human trait is the human DNA in totality - and hence your ability to sit there and bicker about it. Edited August 30, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766490.stmWhat profit is an 18 month old baby hoping to achieve in his actions? Seems fairly apparent that the only thing to profit from such a human trait is the human DNA in totality - and hence your ability to sit there and bicker about it. Why would acting on your instincts lead to a loss? They might not make rational sense but it's still a profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Why would acting on your instincts lead to a loss? Instincts are voluntary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Instincts are voluntary? Acting on them is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) Acting on them is. Breathing is an instinct. You don't act upon it. You act to overrule it. Edited August 30, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Breathing is an instinct. You don't act upon it. You act to overrule it. Only if you think you aren't your lungs and autonomic nervous system. If your unconscious mind doesn't trust you, I guess you should act better. I get on just fine with mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Only if you think you aren't your lungs and autonomic nervous system.If your unconscious mind doesn't trust you, I guess you should act better. I get on just fine with mine. Tell that to an 18month old baby. See how far beyond the gurgling you get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Tell that to an 18month old baby. See how far beyond the gurgling you get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Injin you are a prophet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 They're not creating any wealth they get the option to work in a wealth creating machine, That could be applied equaly to anyone who is employed in any capacity. The truth is that your 'wealth creating machines' currently require the participation of human beings- so it is absurd for you to claim that they do not contribute to the wealth that is created. The truth is that you do not really belive in the idea that those who create wealth should be rewarded. What you actualy belive is that those with the power to exploit should be free to do so without being encumbered by morality of any kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 That could be applied equaly to anyone who is employed in any capacity. The truth is that your 'wealth creating machines' currently require the participation of human beings- so it is absurd for you to claim that they do not contribute to the wealth that is created.The truth is that you do not really belive in the idea that those who create wealth should be rewarded. What you actualy belive is that those with the power to exploit should be free to do so without being encumbered by morality of any kind. He should apply his argument to his own business. It is simply being allowed to operate within a wealth generating machine (a nation state) and as such he should expect only a nominal reward for his efforts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.