Can people pick holes in this please?

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I see the fact that we're broadly rewarded for the benefit we confer upon others to be quite egalitarian in a sense. Why shouldn't a footballer, who's had little or no formal education, be paid insane sums of money if he brings a degree of happiness to millions?

Why shouldn't a plumber earn more than a lawyer if that's what his skills and the market demands?

The question the OP poses is an interesting one, but one that could never work if society was going to advance at its potential rate (assuming that is seen as a good thing).

Also, the profit motive has advanced human society immeasurably, as uncomfortable a fact that is for many on the left. For the profit motive to flourish hard work AND creativity have to exist in tandem imo.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

The problem is that income isn't based on effort but instead on the supply and demand of the services. Those are the variables in society that you'd have to control rather than the human element.

Well your answer if the population stayed roughly the same? There would be peaks and low points naturally, due to lots of factors.

My idea - not ideal! is that people get rewarded for all activity.

It is unrealisitc, it was a thought experiment type question only..

Not sure I explained that very well.

My issue isn't with thought experiments, in fact I love them, only that you're trying to control one section of market forces by linking it to effort. The problem is that the controller of those forces is not effort but demand. If we live in outer space and you're a super motivated/hard working welder but I'm a lazy oxygen salesman there's no way for you to replicate my income because my product is superior.

We all produce goods when we work and its the saleable price of those goods, which is controlled by the supply/demand for them, which determines our wage.

In your thought experiment where everybody is paid as much as they earn, you haven't found a way to control the market. You'd have to presume a limitless supply of resources and energy.

Under those circumstances where your robotic implants were made and we have a limitless supply of resources, the money wouldn't come from anywhere because you would have eradicated it. Money doesn't have any inherent value past its paper and ink, only the value that we assign to it as the ability to purchase resources. In a world of limitless resources which you'd need to have for an effort based market to work, there is no need for money to exist any more.

aaah. I get it.

That's fine.

" if we live in outer space and you're a super motivated/hard working welder but I'm a lazy oxygen salesman there's no way for you to replicate my income because my product is superior. "

So you're saying there's a chance... YEAH!

Joking... cheers. - Just trying to establish what my idea of utopia would be.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

I see the fact that we're broadly rewarded for the benefit we confer upon others to be quite egalitarian in a sense. Why shouldn't a footballer, who's had little or no formal education, be paid insane sums of money if he brings a degree of happiness to millions?

Why shouldn't a plumber earn more than a lawyer if that's what his skills and the market demands?

The question the OP poses is an interesting one, but one that could never work if society was going to advance at its potential rate (assuming that is seen as a good thing).

Also, the profit motive has advanced human society immeasurably, as uncomfortable a fact that is for many on the left. For the profit motive to flourish hard work AND creativity have to exist in tandem imo.

It is natural I think to be egalitarian/utilitarian. Not that that is necessarily what is best. All subjective of course, we're not conscious for nothing.

The tech doesn't exist yet for it to work.. but as you say, it probably wouldn't anyway. It is too close to communism. Which I believe unobtainable by general man.
The last sentence is true (in my eyes) Men are ambitious/greedy. Maximzation is a trait of people. I'm of left, I suppose, and I see that plainly.

It leaves me to wonder though, if man wasn't greedy, would we be here now? would we be futher?

I honestly do not know.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Yeah, I know, I'm obviously in a crazy thread/typing mood tonight mate.

The problem I have with YOUR system is that there are still rich and poor, the finances are simply divided differently, but the wealth divides would still exist, there would still be "haves" & "have nots", and that's the major problem that I have with the current Capitalist system; in MINE there is no concept of rich and poor (not in a financial sense anyway), everybody is worth the same monetary value.

Who knows, maybe when the entire wealth is divided equally amongst the entire population, those that pull, lift, push and sweat would get a bigger share than they currently do, I don't know the numbers, but they might, then we'd both be happy, wouldn't we?

We would indeed matey. But it aint gonna happen under capitalism.

My point was, as now, those who happen to be born in well-to-do circumstances obviously have the advantage. Science is historically a rich mans pusuit. A silly sentence, you get me though, those that achieve the most understanding are usually born well. Put aside sport (it is weird)

But forget that. There will be rich and poor under my system (you are right) with the abscence of greed and human nature not wanting to share, it will always be so. I was trying to get at those that look at people as lazy.

I don't earn a lot, but I work hard (sweat) I don't want a mansion. I am either unambitious or content. Content really.

I wasn't proposing Utopia. Just something fairer than we have now. I don't believe Utopia is possible with humans.

Just to reiterate.. I have no problem with having less than the fit intelligent bloke next door, it seems fair, but I want to be rewarded for my efforts proportionately.

WHOOSH! I completely misinterpreted your standpoint until I read this ( ^ ^ ^ ) post. Told you I was dumb didn't I :)
I get where you're coming from now.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

WHOOSH! I completely misinterpreted your standpoint until I read this ( ^ ^ ^ ) post. Told you I was dumb didn't I :)
I get where you're coming from now.

Ha, be careful! I struggle with making myslef understood. - I AM NOT DRUNK... tonight. I try to be concise, but it is the best I can do. My previous post is a mess. I lack real clarity.

i feel sad for the people reading and interpreting this stuff... I tried!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It leaves me to wonder though, if man wasn't greedy, would we be here now? would we be futher?

I honestly do not know.

If man wasn't greedy, he'd still be picking fruit from trees in Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

It leaves me to wonder though, if man wasn't greedy, would we be here now? would we be futher?

I honestly do not know.

If man wasn't greedy, he'd still be picking fruit from trees in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Admittedlty, I don't get it :(

If you explain...

If you're saying man hasn't surpassed greed yet, i agree, but it is on the way.
When all man has surpassed this 'thing' or all working men, there has to be a revolution?

I don't know. Even the unambitious man has it comfy here. That's me. Change is a contant... (more or less) axiomatic.

I am interested in what comes next - I don't really know. What's your guess?

My biggest interest is what happens next, Tomorrow, or the next generation, or in the next millenia

 

[NQCitizen]

It leaves me to wonder though, if man wasn't greedy, would we be here now? would we be futher?

I honestly do not know.

If man wasn't greedy, he'd still be picking fruit from trees in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Admittedlty, I don't get it :(

If you explain...

If you're saying man hasn't surpassed greed yet, i agree, but it is on the way.
When all man has surpassed this 'thing' or all working men, there has to be a revolution?

I don't know. Even the unambitious man has it comfy here. That's me. Change is a contant... (more or less) axiomatic.

I am interested in what comes next - I don't really know. What's your guess?

My biggest interest is what happens next, Tomorrow, or the next generation, or in the next millenia

You shouldn't be rewarded for the quantity of your work, but instead the importance of your work and how easily replaced you'd be.

If the likes of Tim Berners Lee had been tempted to go into a role much more lucrative role because it took more elbow grease then we couldn't even have this discussion.

A global financial market decides your worth and then your own talent and your competition are what increase or decrease that over time.

... also why wouldn't women be high earners?

 

[TangerineSteve17]

NQ - I meant sports persons in general wouldn't be among the richest.

God it's a tough read the next day. I was blabbering.

I think I touched on the importance thing which the choice you take. If you choose to be a copper or doctor or scientist etc it shouldn't necessarily mean you earn more.

Blimey it made sense at the time.

 

[york away to this!]

in this strange utopian world of yours, how do we compete for wimmin, if we all look and act alike. Do we simply get in a queue? - or do they?

 

[Damocles]

My version of utopia is a global technocracy.

The theory goes that we already have more than enough resources in the world to support civilisation for all of its citizens, the issue preventing this are the bylaws of global capitalism where every decision must be made with the best profit margins in mind. It isn't financially viable for the UK for example to provide a national health service to the citizens of Sudan. Nor is it worth Carillion building hospitals and schools all across Bangladesh.

Resources to perform these jobs cost money. Workers need wages. The company needs to be able to charge somebody to perform these tasks. But nobody is willing to pay.

The answer is logical and clear - the robotics revolution is coming and will replace millions of workers anyway so why try to fight against the current? Let them replace them and make the development of robotics an academic and engineering concern. Once you have much few workers your cost of resources suddenly plummets to nothing. If you have no cost of resource and no workers to pay, why do you even need money?

Once money is removed and everybody has access to all of the resources of the planet, people can choose to work in whichever way they want. Want to sit home all day and do fuck all? Do that. Want to sit and stress your life out by managing a high performance internet forum? Do that, you sad fucker. Want to have a bash at painting or cooking or designing a new type of lightbulb? Do that. True freedom is freedom from slavery and the necessity to do something you hate because otherwise you'll starve to death is a form of economic slavery.

The people who want to work do so and share their invention with the rest of the world because there's no financial incentive to keep it back. In fact Universities would become packed to the rafters as adults now with a bunch of free time rediscover their love of education and learning that was stolen from them as children. Pubs and restaurants would be booming as people catch up with friends and rediscover the social nature that we're increasingly losing in an isolated world.

I understand that this is just madness to some people because what we're talking about is the eradication of our current version of society and unfortunately some people's mind are chained inside of it but it's perfectly logical. It's the monetary system in the 21st century that's the illogical thing if you think about it for a minute.

We have robots that are built using free, open source software. These robots are able to use inbuilt systems to turn soil and plant seed in an automated fashion. Then we have another robot that is able to harvest the crop and load it onto a truck for transport to a main facility. This truck is a self driven truck who knows exactly where it's going and gets there in time every time. Then the unloading and processing is done as is the packaging and delivery to your local shops.

All of this is capable right now using currently existing technology and not one human needs to be involved in the process outside of the cost of resources such as fuel. So automate the fuel gathering process and the metal work or tyre production process.

Robots would maintain and fix robots without so much of an issue, but the technology of them would be far in advance of now because we'd have interested volunteers experimenting and updating the software all of the time just like open source software runs right now. There are millions of apps, many of which you use everyday, which are built and maintained by volunteers for no cost. This forum is one. The software which this forum runs on is another. The operating system which the software runs on on the server is another. All completely open source and all maintained for free by volunteers for their enjoyment. Unix servers run mission critical servers all over the world without any issues. It's a self correcting mechanism as if somebody attempted to introduce a bug for their malicious intent, somebody else sees the bug, undos it and bans the guy from contributing further.

A great man once said that capitalism isn't a good system, it's just the best system we have got. Now we've found a better one.

 

[smudgedj]

My version of utopia is a global technocracy.

The theory goes that we already have more than enough resources in the world to support civilisation for all of its citizens, the issue preventing this are the bylaws of global capitalism where every decision must be made with the best profit margins in mind. It isn't financially viable for the UK for example to provide a national health service to the citizens of Sudan. Nor is it worth Carillion building hospitals and schools all across Bangladesh.

Resources to perform these jobs cost money. Workers need wages. The company needs to be able to charge somebody to perform these tasks. But nobody is willing to pay.

The answer is logical and clear - the robotics revolution is coming and will replace millions of workers anyway so why try to fight against the current? Let them replace them and make the development of robotics an academic and engineering concern. Once you have much few workers your cost of resources suddenly plummets to nothing. If you have no cost of resource and no workers to pay, why do you even need money?

Once money is removed and everybody has access to all of the resources of the planet, people can choose to work in whichever way they want. Want to sit home all day and do fuck all? Do that. Want to sit and stress your life out by managing a high performance internet forum? Do that, you sad fucker. Want to have a bash at painting or cooking or designing a new type of lightbulb? Do that. True freedom is freedom from slavery and the necessity to do something you hate because otherwise you'll starve to death is a form of economic slavery.

The people who want to work do so and share their invention with the rest of the world because there's no financial incentive to keep it back. In fact Universities would become packed to the rafters as adults now with a bunch of free time rediscover their love of education and learning that was stolen from them as children. Pubs and restaurants would be booming as people catch up with friends and rediscover the social nature that we're increasingly losing in an isolated world.

I understand that this is just madness to some people because what we're talking about is the eradication of our current version of society and unfortunately some people's mind are chained inside of it but it's perfectly logical. It's the monetary system in the 21st century that's the illogical thing if you think about it for a minute.

We have robots that are built using free, open source software. These robots are able to use inbuilt systems to turn soil and plant seed in an automated fashion. Then we have another robot that is able to harvest the crop and load it onto a truck for transport to a main facility. This truck is a self driven truck who knows exactly where it's going and gets there in time every time. Then the unloading and processing is done as is the packaging and delivery to your local shops.

All of this is capable right now using currently existing technology and not one human needs to be involved in the process outside of the cost of resources such as fuel. So automate the fuel gathering process and the metal work or tyre production process.

Robots would maintain and fix robots without so much of an issue, but the technology of them would be far in advance of now because we'd have interested volunteers experimenting and updating the software all of the time just like open source software runs right now. There are millions of apps, many of which you use everyday, which are built and maintained by volunteers for no cost. This forum is one. The software which this forum runs on is another. The operating system which the software runs on on the server is another. All completely open source and all maintained for free by volunteers for their enjoyment. Unix servers run mission critical servers all over the world without any issues. It's a self correcting mechanism as if somebody attempted to introduce a bug for their malicious intent, somebody else sees the bug, undos it and bans the guy from contributing further.

A great man once said that capitalism isn't a good system, it's just the best system we have got. Now we've found a better one.

Like it. Unfortunately I think the future is more Blade Runner than Star Trek.

 

[NQCitizen]

My version of utopia is a global technocracy.

The theory goes that we already have more than enough resources in the world to support civilisation for all of its citizens, the issue preventing this are the bylaws of global capitalism where every decision must be made with the best profit margins in mind. It isn't financially viable for the UK for example to provide a national health service to the citizens of Sudan. Nor is it worth Carillion building hospitals and schools all across Bangladesh.

Resources to perform these jobs cost money. Workers need wages. The company needs to be able to charge somebody to perform these tasks. But nobody is willing to pay.

The answer is logical and clear - the robotics revolution is coming and will replace millions of workers anyway so why try to fight against the current? Let them replace them and make the development of robotics an academic and engineering concern. Once you have much few workers your cost of resources suddenly plummets to nothing. If you have no cost of resource and no workers to pay, why do you even need money?

Once money is removed and everybody has access to all of the resources of the planet, people can choose to work in whichever way they want. Want to sit home all day and do fuck all? Do that. Want to sit and stress your life out by managing a high performance internet forum? Do that, you sad fucker. Want to have a bash at painting or cooking or designing a new type of lightbulb? Do that. True freedom is freedom from slavery and the necessity to do something you hate because otherwise you'll starve to death is a form of economic slavery.

The people who want to work do so and share their invention with the rest of the world because there's no financial incentive to keep it back. In fact Universities would become packed to the rafters as adults now with a bunch of free time rediscover their love of education and learning that was stolen from them as children. Pubs and restaurants would be booming as people catch up with friends and rediscover the social nature that we're increasingly losing in an isolated world.

I understand that this is just madness to some people because what we're talking about is the eradication of our current version of society and unfortunately some people's mind are chained inside of it but it's perfectly logical. It's the monetary system in the 21st century that's the illogical thing if you think about it for a minute.

We have robots that are built using free, open source software. These robots are able to use inbuilt systems to turn soil and plant seed in an automated fashion. Then we have another robot that is able to harvest the crop and load it onto a truck for transport to a main facility. This truck is a self driven truck who knows exactly where it's going and gets there in time every time. Then the unloading and processing is done as is the packaging and delivery to your local shops.

All of this is capable right now using currently existing technology and not one human needs to be involved in the process outside of the cost of resources such as fuel. So automate the fuel gathering process and the metal work or tyre production process.

Robots would maintain and fix robots without so much of an issue, but the technology of them would be far in advance of now because we'd have interested volunteers experimenting and updating the software all of the time just like open source software runs right now. There are millions of apps, many of which you use everyday, which are built and maintained by volunteers for no cost. This forum is one. The software which this forum runs on is another. The operating system which the software runs on on the server is another. All completely open source and all maintained for free by volunteers for their enjoyment. Unix servers run mission critical servers all over the world without any issues. It's a self correcting mechanism as if somebody attempted to introduce a bug for their malicious intent, somebody else sees the bug, undos it and bans the guy from contributing further.

A great man once said that capitalism isn't a good system, it's just the best system we have got. Now we've found a better one.

Why build the robots if there's no incentive?

What about jobs people don't want to do but robots can't do?

If all the world's resources are open and there's no money how do you control sustainable access to those resources?

Aren't a large amount of the resources needed to pull off that robot revolution far too scarce anyway?

Would a society that was driven by detached hedonism collapse in on itself?

Would people bother doing anything if they couldn't see that effort rewarded - aren't most people working to enjoy a better life than average?

 

[Damocles]

Why build the robots if there's no incentive?

Not everybody works for financial incentive. I don't get paid to work on the backend of Bluemoon but do so anyway. Almost nobody in the open source or free software movement gets paid to build what they build but do it anyway. Nobody in the amateur robotics field gets paid to do what they do but they build them anyway.

People do things all of the time because they like them and not because they are paid to do them. Anybody in academia could probably earn 5 times what they do in private sector but don't because they like what they do.

What about jobs people don't want to do but robots can't do?

There are no manufacturing or production jobs that robots cannot do. I'd even argue that there are no jobs a human can do that a robot theoretically cannot do but I'm a computer systems engineer with a bit of real knowledge of AI. Many people who don't know much about it really tell me it can't do their job.

If all the world's resources are open and there's no money how do you control sustainable access to those resources?

You don't, people take what they need. You don't seem to be considering that we're talking about global resources, on a planetary level. Not just resources that can be commercially viable to farm. Of course it would be stupid not to have some sustainable policies in place for certain resources but economic scarcity is often a manufactured trait.

Aren't a large amount of the resources needed to pull off that robot revolution far too scarce anyway?

No. There are hundreds of millions of robots already working in the world, there aren't any particular resources that are hard to come by.

Would a society that was driven by detached hedonism collapse in on itself?

No, people have had freedom from economic realities due to their wealth from thousands of years and society hasn't collapsed in on itself.

Would people bother doing anything if they couldn't see that effort rewarded - aren't most people working to enjoy a better life than average?

Most people work because they need to work to support their financial outgoings, not to feel good about how much better they are than other people.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

That's better than mine Damo. It can be understood for a start.
When would this be up and running? (assuming it does) what year? Or century. If you had to hazard a guess.

 

[Damocles]

That's better than mine Damo. It can be understood for a start.
When would this be up and running? (assuming it does) what year? Or century. If you had to hazard a guess.

It's very much a utopian vision based on the tenets of Marxism mixed with the notion that technology has consistently improved the lives of humans and allowed them to work less.

This isn't something that could be achieved in today's society as if one country tries it unilaterally then they'd still have to import goods which costs money, no one country is resource rich enough to pull it off. It would have to be a collection between many major countries to unite their economic, political and social systems better which other countries could join at will.

As a stepping stone towards this, I'd like many unions to expand themselves worldwide to create a global socialism in a global economy. You cannot protect workers in Britain because they'll move jobs to cheaper places in China, and you cannot protect workers in China because they are paid little enough where any treatment reforms can be thrown out. If ALL workers demanded the same rights as each other and a minimum wage then it could potentially benefit everybody - the jobs would be spread out more and the increased wage in developing economies could kick start their public spending. To be honest though the economic effects of a global minimum wage has always been something that I cannot wrap my head around and have said many times that I understand that I don't understand economics. To me it seems like one big confidence trick and I refuse to accept it as the zero sum game that some present it as.

There are many potential ways to get there and the technology is coming right now. Driverless cars are already on British roads, you only need to walk into the average warehouse or production line to see how many jobs "stupid robots" are doing already. The comparison to make is that in technological terms today we're at the BBC Micro generation of robots. We should be considering the economic effects in 30 years when they reach the iPhone 6 generation of sophistication.

Globalisation and the integration of world economic and social system just seems like the good choice to me. Speaking of utopian visions, imagine how much more peaceful the entire world would be if tomorrow we elected a world Government under the guises of Western Democratic Moralism with the ability to Police it efficiently. Imagine if every backwards country in the world suddenly allowed freedom of speech and religion, freedom of expression and sexuality. How much could we progress in economic terms or in social terms if that were to happen just for 10 years?

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Interesting stuff. I do wonder if we'll ever get there. It's the greed thing with people I mean, not the technology. I can't envisage a society ever being ready for what you said. I guess it isn't natural? I might just think that though because I live in the west and the whole american dream type deal rubs off here. More, more, more it seems. Then I think, is that how we really are? Or are we just stuck into this way of thinking. I think we may have gone over the event horizon and there is no coming back.

 

[Damocles]

I don't subscribe to the notion that greed is an innate human trait, rather that greed is a product of scarcity.

If resources are limited then it makes sense rationally to horde as many as possible to you and your family. If we use efficient manufacturing processes and renewable materials then there's no reason to hoard things as although not unlimited, resources are so abundant that it makes no sense.

Think of it this way - are you into computer games much? Do you know where you're playing a game and there's some artificial scarcity built into it, like how you have to spend money to build something or you have to earn 3 stars to progress to the next bit? When you remove that artificial scarcity people generally go mad right at the start then sort of realise that there's no reason to go mad because unlimited means unlimited and soon become bored with it all.

Perhaps a better analogy - outside extreme situations, nobody hordes drinking water. It's cheap enough out of a tap whereby you barely notice any increased usage so why don't you have 4000 bottles of water frozen? Because it's an abundant resource and scavenging or competing with other people over it seems crazy.

Our economic systems work on the idea that resources are scarce so have an intrinsic value due to demand. Somebody more well up on the company could tell you more, but certain diamond manufacturers like DeBeers have literally invented a scarcity in their product slowing down the manufacturing process which in turn raises the price. Some oil manufacturers have been accused of the same though I don't know the details of whether it's legit or not. Scarcity creates demand and demand creates scarcity.

A world where you have abundance of resources like the same way that we do with water in the UK now is no more alien a concept really than free flowing water that you don't need to fight wars for would be to people a thousand years ago.

We shouldn't confuse the difficult with the impossible

 

[TangerineSteve17]

I agree. I don't think greed is innate either. I just saw it as a by product of the system. Sometimes I think we might be in love with the system too much and we have absorbed 'greed' into our make-up. We don't get exploited enough I don't think for it to change. In the west I mean. It has to start with the poor doesn't it and the poor are not poor enough.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Part of the answer to that question Tange depends upon where we were starting from.

If we were starting from now, then assuming there were no other initiatives being implemented to redistribute wealth, then I guess it would just drain away from the people who didn't deserve to be paid as much (according to the new rules).

If this was how it all started however, if we think about it (...ahem, some more...,) <-- you condescending me? :) then I suppose the money would do the same as it does now and would eventually do the same long term as above - accumulate with those who put the most effort in according to the rules. Someone does something for someone else and gets paid a certain amount for it. It's the same principle re: trading money for goods/services/effort, only the new system would provide a fixed and constant level of reward for everything traded or bit of effort that took place, no?

The only reason the current system is like it is is that some people have prospered through various combinations of physical and mental effort and luck. We would just be recalibrating the reward system for the effort and removing some of the luck element.

That's a great post, (thanks for taking the time) I couldn't get there I guess. That is all sense. Thanks.

Ha, no condescension intended mate. Was playing around with the concept and just hit a rare moment of clarity