This paper created some neat theoretical mathematical models but I can't see anything that indicates that they have anything to do with reality.
I thought they'd come up with a neat mechanism that looked at actual wages in real companies where automation was introduced, but no. It's all spherical cows.
>Automation can, therefore, reduce the value of work before it eliminates jobs.
As automation takes over, the value of labor collapses, and workers' market bargaining power under capitalism is the first to crumble. Ultimately, this drives up the value of real assets. I agree that tech companies can profit and gain the upper hand in negotiations simply by demonstrating a machine before licensing it, as this alone diminishes the value of workers. I am seriously worried these days.
But what's the point of real assets if you can't do anything with them? No point in holding real estate if nobody can afford to rent/buy your houses or go do whatever money-spending thing you put on your commercial lots.
The tenants might change in the future. Right now they are individuals, but perhaps properties will be leased to build power grids or autonomous logistics warehouses. Also, if techno-feudalism accelerates and public purchasing power collapses, leading to the introduction of UBI, I think most of that money will just end up going toward essential housing costs anyway. In fact, if you look at recent trends in real estate, commercial properties are where the big money is being made, aren't they?
> Also, if techno-feudalism accelerates and public purchasing power collapses, leading to the introduction of UBI
This always makes me laugh. What motivation would the oligarchs have to pay out UBI? If they can automate the labor who needs more mouths to feed? They’ll push undesirables into ghettos and start a slow genocide of starvation and disease.
Because, think about it. Let's assume techno-feudalism is complete. Every piece of infrastructure is going to have usage fees attached anyway. Everyone is using AI, so are you going to be the only one not using it? Of course you'll use it. It's a structure where everyone has to rely on a specific corporation's products to get anything done, meaning the wealth will automatically be absorbed back to them anyway. So why would they go out of their way to commit a massacre?
From a cost-benefit perspective, I think it's a terrible idea. In the case of a massacre, long-term instability makes it hard to build a supportive faction. But if you provide just the bare minimum to survive through UBI, the capitalists will gain a loyal faction that will act as their Red Guards to attack dissidents, which I think is much cheaper in the long run. There are already plenty of people who blindly defend corporations even when they do terrible things, right? In my opinion, UBI is simply the cheaper option. Historically speaking, post-massacre recovery has always ended up costing much more.
Does anybody have a link where I don't need to download a PDF and zoom and it's still messed up for reading? I just want HTML, mannn.
This paper created some neat theoretical mathematical models but I can't see anything that indicates that they have anything to do with reality.
I thought they'd come up with a neat mechanism that looked at actual wages in real companies where automation was introduced, but no. It's all spherical cows.
>Automation can, therefore, reduce the value of work before it eliminates jobs.
As automation takes over, the value of labor collapses, and workers' market bargaining power under capitalism is the first to crumble. Ultimately, this drives up the value of real assets. I agree that tech companies can profit and gain the upper hand in negotiations simply by demonstrating a machine before licensing it, as this alone diminishes the value of workers. I am seriously worried these days.
But what's the point of real assets if you can't do anything with them? No point in holding real estate if nobody can afford to rent/buy your houses or go do whatever money-spending thing you put on your commercial lots.
That sounds like a Q4 problem.
Robots will use real estate as rain shelter after the human occupants have starved to death.
The tenants might change in the future. Right now they are individuals, but perhaps properties will be leased to build power grids or autonomous logistics warehouses. Also, if techno-feudalism accelerates and public purchasing power collapses, leading to the introduction of UBI, I think most of that money will just end up going toward essential housing costs anyway. In fact, if you look at recent trends in real estate, commercial properties are where the big money is being made, aren't they?
Who is going to pay for UBI?
Taxing capital? Impossible! Obscene! Everyone knows that only labor can/should be taxed.
> Also, if techno-feudalism accelerates and public purchasing power collapses, leading to the introduction of UBI
This always makes me laugh. What motivation would the oligarchs have to pay out UBI? If they can automate the labor who needs more mouths to feed? They’ll push undesirables into ghettos and start a slow genocide of starvation and disease.
Because, think about it. Let's assume techno-feudalism is complete. Every piece of infrastructure is going to have usage fees attached anyway. Everyone is using AI, so are you going to be the only one not using it? Of course you'll use it. It's a structure where everyone has to rely on a specific corporation's products to get anything done, meaning the wealth will automatically be absorbed back to them anyway. So why would they go out of their way to commit a massacre?
From a cost-benefit perspective, I think it's a terrible idea. In the case of a massacre, long-term instability makes it hard to build a supportive faction. But if you provide just the bare minimum to survive through UBI, the capitalists will gain a loyal faction that will act as their Red Guards to attack dissidents, which I think is much cheaper in the long run. There are already plenty of people who blindly defend corporations even when they do terrible things, right? In my opinion, UBI is simply the cheaper option. Historically speaking, post-massacre recovery has always ended up costing much more.
Is it because UBI is cheaper than a massacre? Since it will all end up being absorbed by the capitalists anyway.