The repercussions, ethics, and morality of a post-scarcity society

And then the poverty line moves up to where the lowest of society is, and then people are below the poverty line again.

Poverty is relative. That's why I keep bringing up Third World Countries. Our poverty line is not the same as the poverty line of other nations. The poverty line moves with the economical success of a given economy. It is not a universal constant.

edited 31st Mar '14 11:55:54 AM by TobiasDrake

No, really, you're missing the point. Poverty is a social condition every bit as much as it is an economic one, and the two are distinctly related. Hypothetically, if all people have exactly the same "stuff", whatever that is, then either nobody can be in poverty, or everyone is. Go back from there and you'll find a point at which everyone is guaranteed "enough".

If everyone has the same stuff, then a state of absolute communism exists, which works better on paper than in practice for running a large population base.

If a state of absolute communism does not exist, then there is a poverty line. Going off this luxury system, if some people have more luxuries than others, those with fewer luxuries are below the poverty line. They might not need to fear starvation, but they will still be made to feel inferior to those with greater luxuries. Some people will be fine with never being in the golden circles, while some will aspire to be among the wealthy.

The notions of the rich and the poor, and all the social constructs that come with it, would still exist so long as people who work can have more and better things than people who do not work. Taking away threat of starvation does not change that.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, since I don't see myself persuading you otherwise.

edited 31st Mar '14 12:36:01 PM by Fighteer

Keeping up with the Joneses and all that.

On some of the earlier posts regarding being able to ditch bad employers:

For a start, there's already a large level of unemployment due to a scarcity of jobs and it's hard to see that getting anything but worse as more employers turn to automation (which is going to become even more prevalent as robotic systems improve), leaving fewer jobs (even the shitty ones) for people to have.

This is going to mean that people aren't going to have the "option" of saying "stick your crappy fucking attitude", they're going to be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed and find that there are few or no jobs for which they are trained/qualified due to most places laying off their human staff in favour of automation.

In two previous workplaces, I saw people leaving due to various reasons and they were not replaced because the employers figured it was more "cost-effective" to have the other workers shoulder the extra workload, with no pay rise, than to employ someone new - even if the new person were so hungry for a job that they'd take minimum wage.

Increased redundancies due to automation are not going to improve the situation and there are very few tasks that could not be automated given sufficient technology.

Once that technology is available, then the employers have the choice of human staff - who get sick, are erratic in their output, require lunch/tea breaks, can only work a certain number of hours per day and only a certain number of days per week, have to take paid vacations by law etc etc etc - or automata/robots that have none of those problems, work far longer, can be swapped out in minutes if faulty (without risking a strike or litigation) and cost less to own per unit than a year's wages of one human worker.

Even lower and middle management could be replaced (you don't need a Bachelor's degree to wander around and see if the machines are working and phone the contracted service company if they aren't).

In fact, decent in-built fault sensors could ensure that no human need supervise anything.

Repairs/maintenance? So many places have a "swap out" policy for faulty hardware these days that having in-house technicians is becoming an exception rather than a rule and if the automated factory can build an automated checkout or assembly line (or shelf-packing) robot, then it could undoubtedly replace a circuit board or arm or whatever.

There won't be enough places that like to have the "human touch" to employ the millions of unemployed (if there were, they'd exist already and we'd have no unemployment).

Any stipend that people receive is going to have to be more than enough to cover basic food/shelter etc, it's going to have to empower them to live fairly well and make choices with their money:

"I want a nice big house, so that's what I'm going to spend my money on"/"I want lotsa cool toys, I don't give a crap about my house, so I'll focus my spending on my toys"/"I want to be able to buy from this company".

Living in the streets, eating at soup kitchens should not be a requirement for survival, nor should government-provided housing/food/etc.

In order to preserve a capitalist way of life, people need to have a decent income - regardless of whether they're fortunate enough to find/keep a job in a diminishing job-market - that they can spend on what they want. Only that way will the companies be able to maintain an income and compete with one another.

Otherwise, the companies that undercut the others for the government contract will be the only companies in existence within a year or so.

I just want people to have free housing, food, water, healthcare, local transportation, and education. The social constructs do not bother me as long as they don't kill people.

Makes sense. Why do people keep assuming we can't hit post-scarcity without robots, though?

Ah, I've worked in supermarkets and mass retailers, as an overnight stocker even, and enjoyed fantastic comradery with my coworkers. People work for a pay check, yes, but they also work because of community feeling, love of dogs (seriously, I worked for a company where love of dogs was a nearly explicitly labeled as worth a certain amount of money. You took less to work for them than you would elsewhere, because you loved dogs).

Also, Amazon.com does not function without employees, directly or indirectly. Says the person who just finished a shift of watching postal subcontractors who were moving about 2/3 Amazon packages. And in a post-scarcity world, maybe more of that process will be automated, as the cost of humans to do the unengaging backbreaking middle of the night work will definitely be higher.

I do not disagree that the world would be better without my employer in it, but if that happened, the cost of the service we provide would rise, resulting in either higher costs for the products we contribute to (housing, air travel, package delivery, etc.) or in less of the service being consumed, again, not a necessarily bad result.

"Robots" are coming - already here in a lot of places - independently of any other post-scarcity effectors (such as widespread 3D printing) so I tend to factor them in.

We may never reach a proper post-scarcity society - but we'll sure as hell have more robots and automation.

Robots/automated systems would not be the sole contributors to a post-scarcity society, but they certainly have a big impact on the cost and availability of things - bringing up the production and bringing down the prices (while simultaneously allowing the companies' profits to increase, I might add).

But increased automation also means that it's less "you don't have to work for a living" and more "you can't have a paying job because few companies are willing to absorb the costs of human employees in a competitive market".

Sure, we could use our 3D printers to whip up a few trendy coffee mugs that we've designed ourselves and open our own coffee shop out the front of our houses to cater for those who like the "human touch" when being served, rather than swiping their card at a glorified vending machine - but in all honesty, that's not going to bring in enough income to feed/house/clothe a person, not if every second house on your street is a "coffee shop" (the others selling hand-crafted goods etc).

Our 3D printers might be able to replicate a number of handy items around the house but they won't provide everything we need and people will still want choices.

People will still want to be able to choose between BK, Mc Donalds, KFC, the fish 'n' chip shop on the corner etc, people will still want to choose where they live and in what sized house (and landlords will still want people to rent from them). Companies will still want to compete with other companies rather than be pushed out of the running because the cheapest option is the only option available for the majority of the population.

I certainly want to be able to choose who I get my things from and what priorities my money gets spent on - if I want to spend more money on camping, shooting and motorbike riding than I spend on my accommodation, that's my prerogative, just as it's Fred's prerogative to choose having a poster house for Better Homes and Gardens over having lobster and caviar for dinner.

And why should it be perceived that a person who elects to spend all his/her dosh on XBOX games and Fritos is worth less than a person who spends his/her dosh on exercise equipment or fast cars?

There is a strong possibility that within 50 years, everyone will be "on Welfare", there will be no human workforce at all because all the necessary work from shovelling shit or stocking shelves to educating the young and supervising the running of factories will be done by machines.

Within the next 20-30 years - within my lifetime - most jobs will have been replaced by machines. "Robots" are no longer highly expensive things that only the likes of Honda and other huge manufacturers can afford, automated cashiers are cheap and getting cheaper and more sophisticated every year.

This is going to mean a huge rethink on "welfare" and "humans as paid consumers" just to keep the money flowing and business competition alive.

The only country I've heard of that's considering doing anything about it, is Switzerland.

Well, let's don't leave out the jobs that are essentially aesthetic. Sculpting, painting, clothes designing ... most designing, in fact; interior, product, graphic arts, cosmetician and hair styling ... and so on. Aspects of those jobs can be enhanced by automation, but they are all about how human perceive beauty or otherwise invoke emotional, human feelings in other humans.

All the things we lump together as 'talents.' Acting, singing, fabulation, even art appreciation.

Humans will still have their uses of other humans and whatever has a use has a value.

Parting thought: We do have "paid consumers" today. The wealthy. Most of the "1%" are far removed from the production of their own wealth. The wealth itself is the thing that generates more wealth for them. It doesn't require their input, even.

While a lot of people could use the time they have (due not having to work to keep food on the table) to create or engage in various arts, a lot of people also don't have those options.

And those who do would have to be pretty friggin' good at it to make a decent income out of it.

If American Idol and its derivatives have taught us anything, it's that a lot of people who think they can engage in arts actually don't have that option, either.

And there's more ways to not make it than merely not having the requisite talent/ability.

I'm currently a solo parent receiving a benefit and having a difficult time finding a job, despite having a good work history and a willingness to do bloody-near any job.

JK Rowling used her time on a solo parent's benefit to write some rather successful stories and set herself up as a serious author, while I've managed to complete absolutely nothing in the last two and a bit years, despite my lifetime dream of being a published author.

How many would be the JK Rowlings and how many would be like me? How many would be sought-after singers/sculptors/painters and how many would not have the drive/determination or talent to make it?

The modern age means that theoretically we've got better chances of being able to get our creative endeavours out there - when you can post your creations online you don't have to worry about whether or not a big publisher's going to take a chance on your MS/album/whatever, nor do you have to find the dough demanded by a vanity publisher: if you've got the means to make it, you've got access to the means to distribute it.

But not everyone is going to be "employed" in the arts.

Sturgeon's Law applies as it always does, but every major technological revolution in human society has freed up labor to engage in cultural and scientific pursuits. Why should we imagine that post-scarcity wouldn't have a similar effect?

Heck, every technological revolution creates a form of post-scarcity in its wake; when was the last time most people had to worry about electricity or running water in the First World?

edited 1st Apr '14 7:31:58 AM by Fighteer

The impact on the economic state of unskilled labor ultimately boils down to one question: would a post-scarcity world be an employee's market or an employer's?

Employer/Employee relations can often be determined by the economic principle of supply and demand. Think of employees as a product, where the employer is the customer purchasing that product. In the case where there is greater demand than supply - more jobs than people to fill those jobs - the employees have all the power. In an employee's market, employers have to pamper their employees in order to retain them, because the option to walk away and go get another job carries tremendous weight.

When supply is greater than demand - more people looking for work than jobs to accept them - an employer's market is created. Employees are a dime a dozen, and employers hold all the power, because a disgruntled employee can be easily replaced. Right now, the reason the United States has such problematic workforce issues is because we are heavily shifted into the Employer's Market.

As Fighteer has pointed out previously, one factor that would contribute to creating an employee's market is that fewer people would feel they have to work. More people would be free to pursue careers as artists, writers, and other jobs that, in today's world, kids are strongly discouraged from pursuing.

On the flipside of that, a factor that would contribute to an employer's market is the absence of the consequence of death. Harsh as it sounds, when people die, there is less competition for the jobs on the market. Free housing, food, healthcare, etc. means ore people living longer and reproducing more, which means more prospective employees competing for jobs. As unemployment rates rise, employers have more freedom to piss on their unskilled workforce.

Which brings us back to the starting question: would a post-scarcity world create a situation where the supply of unskilled laborers exceeds the demand, or vice versa?

edited 1st Apr '14 7:37:46 AM by TobiasDrake

Tobias, almost every increase in leisure and standards of living reduces, rather than increases, birth rates, because having children is first and foremost a biological survival response.

Yes, generally the poor have the most kids. That or religious groups that feel threatened by the outside world.

Employer/Employee is the broken paradigm. The better roles to think of are Producers/Consumers. Everybody occupies either role in one situation or the other. Both need each other. The assumption that people's labor is a commodity in short supply needed by a producer no longer holds. The age old, rather harmful polarity of "management versus labor" can't be extended to cover a post-scarcity situation.

Basically, yes. We need a new paradigm for working, one in which we no longer have an employer/employee tug of war.

and Well said.

It is already very much an employer's market - has been for quite some time, and as technologies improve, will continue to be even more so.

Under the current employee/employer paradigm, unless we suddenly all got the means to produce everything we'll ever need to survive (and I don't see that happening) or there's something that drastically reduces the world's population, the world is not going to go back to an employee's market.

In fact, even if there were a major decrease in population, all that would do is make it more urgent to automate the jobs needed for survival of the species.

Since killing off most the world's population is not an option I want to experience and we're not going to get Star Trek replicators to produce our own food, the only other option is a paradigm shift away from Employer/Employee to Producer/Consumer and introduce some means to ensure that everyone has the ability to get what they need.

This would then affect any remaining employee/employer relationships and perhaps make the remaining jobs an employee's market, by having a viable alternative to working for a living for all the population.

edited 1st Apr '14 11:48:56 AM by Wolf1066

Thinking about it, in fiction I've seen two post-scarcity societies in novels, both of them sci-fi. I can't remember the name of the first one, but it was a sci-fi book about a colony that started by Earth sending off a ship with a bunch of frozen embryos that were then incubated to term in artificial wombs and raised by robots. Generally speaking, people didn't have "jobs" so much as "things the community needs done." They filled in wherever there was a need. Honestly, I don't see that working in a large-scale society; this worked because the entire colony had <10k people and a great deal of robotic labor.

The other is Isaac Asimov and his robot novels. Spacer society has basically handed off 99% of the manual labor to robots. The remaining humans break down into three groups: people doing jobs that robots aren't capable of (law enforcement, robotics design, etc), people in art/creative endeavors (painting, acting, writing, etc), and people consuming that art and living out their day to day lives. The third group is, by far, the largest, and the first group the smallest, and the first two groups of people look down on the third group. Assuming we could reach a post-scarcity dynamic, that's kind of the breakdown I can see happening^note though without all that Three Law bollocks.

To borrow from William Gibson, post-scarcity is already here but not evenly distributed.

That's been the way of things for quite some time now.

It's precisely due to the long-term, and still ongoing attitude, towards the ever increasing "third group" - "fucking useless bludgers on Welfare" - that any solution needs to be applied to the whole population, not just "those who can't get work".

The solution needs to provide for not just the necessities of bare survival, but for some decent degree of luxury - bearing in mind that an increasing number of displaced workers will be people accustomed to a decent income and will have lifestyles to match.

It needs to be applied evenly across the population - those who worked in crappy low-paying jobs and those who truly don't desire to work as well as those who once worked in higher-paying jobs and those who are still working in jobs that cannot be automated.

There needs to be no difference between someone who would like to be "contributing to society" but can't because the only work (s)he is qualified for has been rendered obsolete and those who are doing things that aren't obsolete and those who would quite happily sit on the couch playing games and eating Fritos 24/7.

The playing field needs to be levelled to get rid of the stigma attached to "Welfare" - and people who are doing jobs that can't be automated shouldn't be "penalised" for having a job any more than someone who hasn't got a job should be penalised for not being able to find one.

Shuffling the dispossessed off to one-size-fits-no-one cheapest-contract housing/food/clothing etc is not an option - neither for the people nor for the companies that would lose customers.

Nor is the option of most people living in cardboard boxes under bridges and eating at soup kitchens.

I reckon a nice round 50-100K per year would probably suffice as a baseline for most people. No, everybody won't be able to rush out and buy a mansion - but not everyone wants to live in a frigging mansion, anyway.

Couples would be pulling in 100-200K per year, which should enable them to do pretty well.

And if they manage to write a successful story or get extra as a singer/painter/sculptor or whatever on top of that, it's a bonus.

If they don't launch that singing career they always dreamed of (but were too busy working 9 to 5) then it's no biggie because they can live moderately comfortably on what they get as a stipend.

100k is quite a bit. matter of fact, its usually seen are really freaking good.

the US's GDP per capita is $51,704, so $50k might be realistic, but only if you cut the gov. down to bare-bones.

edited 1st Apr '14 4:52:12 PM by joesolo

Far from "bare bones"; the government acts as the agent of transferring all that wealth and as an economic multiplier. Besides, most of government non-military expenditures are already for wealth transfers of some sort, so this would replace the need for almost all of them.

Basic income is pretty cool.

Worked pretty good for Canada.

In a long-term scenario, I'd also expect a dramatic decrease in crime rates across the board.

There would also be sweeping changes in education, given that children would be "gearing up" for a future in which they don't have to work in order to survive.

There would still be the basic "3 R's" that will be important to interact and conduct their lives (since they'll be in charge of their own finances, they'll need to be able to live within their means) but they won't have to learn things that'd "be useful in their jobs" and can elect to learn things "because it interests them" - though a wide range of "compulsory subjects" that give them a taste of different things would be beneficial - everyone gets history, a foreign language, science, woodworking, metal working, cooking, art etc for a few years to see what they enjoy and they can take the advanced levels as electives later.

The big problem is that we're currently stuck in the Employer/Employee paradigm and the employers have no desire to let go.

And why would they? They're on velvet! High unemployment rates to ensure that they can back up the threat of "we can easily replace you", enabling them to put whatever conditions they require upon their workers including, in places where there's no minimum wage or the minimum wage level is horrifically low, crappy wages for lots of work.

They can demand any hours they like, set the wages how they like, expect you to take up the tasks of departing workmates and if you don't like it, well, well find someone who'll jump at having your job just to get out of the gutter.

I know many people who work 60+ hours a week (isn't "Labour Day" supposed to be a celebration of getting rid of sweatshops in favour of a 40-hour week?) just to make ends meet or because that's what's expected of them by their employer.

We're in a position that nearly everyone could work a 20-hour week and get enough income to live fairly well, giving the currently unemployed a means of earning and giving the employers fresh, happy workers (avoiding the end-of-week drop in productivity caused by tired workers), but it would mean that the employers would have to pick up their game, somewhat.

So instead, they deliberately foster the current climate of rampant unemployment so that they can use the threat of replacement to "motivate" people.

A precious few realise the benefits of keeping their workers happy, healthy and alert - but sadly they are in a very small minority and there's just not enough of them to go around all the workers.

As already pointed out: Post-Scarcity is here, it's just not distributed properly.

But the current paradigm is not sustainable for much longer. Automation is going to become a driving force - companies are going to adopt more to keep their costs down/profits up and other companies will have to follow suit to compete.

This will shunt a lot of the money-spending workforce "out into the cold" and so the paradigm's going to have to change in order for those consumers to remain able to consume - or all companies are going to suffer from the decrease in cash flow.