Tangentially, the physical labor jobs I had when younger never really tired me out the way that the mental/bureaucratic/political job I have now does. Physical work actually energized me, I mean this is all confirmed today as well, we know all the benefits exercise brings on well being. There's something about desk jobs that is frankly soul sucking and literally mentally draining in a way where when the day ends, it'…
I have a theory that we can eliminate 90% of the required labor in our economy with the following strategy: End “consumerism” behavior where every problem is perceived to have a solution in the form of a quick product you can buy - much of that is a psychological trick played by marketers and rarely solves the real problem. Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. Des…
Until we had extremely advanced robotics, endless land, and infinite energy/resources, this will never become reality, even then, I have an endless amount of vanity uses of human labor/resources and I could trivially think up. By way of example, if it were the case in which money no issue for me personally, I could choose to then have constant military parades wherever I go, and I shall choose to go anywhere on my 10000 acre plot of gold and diamond covered land.
> End “consumerism” behavior where every problem is perceived to have a solution in the form of a quick product you can buy - much of that is a psychological trick played by marketers and rarely solves the real problem.
This is a quick way to a very poor quality of life. I've been poor, desperately needing basic household items and yet unable to obtain them, it's much, much better from a quality of life perspective to have problems solved with trivial tools that I buy off the shelf. That said, anyone is free to choose this life, buy less things, and retire slightly earlier than our peers. The reality is that cost of most consumer spending purchases is not what at the root cause of preventing people from retiring early, 'stuff' is damn cheap today.
> Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. Hmm, I've heard this line of thinking before, it leads to living in abhorrent conditions. I mean, nobody really 'needs' a 2000 sqft living space, why not just put people in a 20 sqft area instead? Nobody really 'needs' carpet or nice decor, lets build with nothing but cheap concrete. Yeah, let's push for living like prisoners! Thanks, but no thanks, I'm fine with working a little extra to avoid the extremes of this line of reasoning.
> Design machines which can produce those vital things in a fully automated or highly automated way. The point of this part is to reduce the marginal cost of one more item as close to zero as possible. This makes sharing easier as it becomes cheaper to share with one more person.
Like we've been doing? How do you think everything is so cheap to begin with?
> Make those machines completely open source, designed for repair and long life. You're free to spend your time making this and even doing it, but it's wasted effort at this point, we already have extremely efficient 'open source', long-life and 'easy' to repair machines. Visit the US patent site and look at the plethora of old machines that you could go build today if you so pleased.
> Create a system where people can acquire equal ownership shares in the machines they rely on. For any given machine those users work together to keep the machine operational and producing.
Or I could just buy shares of a manufacturing company, and we can use that money along with the revenue generated by the machines use to create goods, to keep the machine operational. What you're describing already exists.
> Land must be held in common (the legal device used today would be a public land trust) and housing, farmland, and manufacturing space is allotted to people based on need.
So who, exactly, is getting to decide how to use this land? Because I need about 100 acres to be happy and live on. In your system, would I be allowed to own that? Or would I still be stuck needing to live in a cell? What about 1000 acres? What about 10000 acres? Why should some group of people or laws prevent me from doing so? Groups of people already get together and prevent me from doing what I want with my land, why would I want even more people in power over me?
> Develop a culture where getting rich is not the goal but making sure everyone has what they need is. This has worked in other human societies before so this should be possible.
Or we could just let individuals make up their own choices on how they want to live and consume life. Those that want to become rich will, those who want to dick around all day drawing pretty pictures or writing poetry will do that. Much like we already have. People create a social hierarchy, even if we got rid of money, there are still going to be people that attempt to be at the 'top' socially. How do you deal with that in your system?
> Then everyone shares the output of their machines with their other shareholders. Each person owns shares in many machines.
You're just playing with words and wealth redistribution. Companies are income producing machines, and the business units are the companies individual machines of production. Each unit shares their output by feeding it into the shareholders already. Each person who decided to buy a share, gets that combined output.
> Under this system, there is no ownership class which can suck up all the surplus value. Instead, every person receives the benefit of automation.
And here it is, saw this one coming. This system fails each time it's implemented, from one reason or another. How does your system handle doctors? What about lawyers? There are no machines there, are they expected to not be allowed to benefit? This is a question that more generally extends to service style roles where there are no machines present, those people don't 'benefit' in the way you're describing from this system. In western reality of course, they benefit by being able to purchase items that were historically extremely expensive to produce, for essentially nothing. The multi-thousand dollar chair, made from the hands of a skilled wood worker becomes a $100 and affordable for all. Also under your system, I don't have a way to retire, I have no hope but to work. If I can't own anything, and thus I can't own to be ahead, I am stuck, forever a slave to these machines.
> In such a world I believe the average persons necessary working hours would be maybe 5 hours a week. We could spend our lives with friends and family, or reading and writing, painting or programming. Most of the necessary work would be done by volunteers who enjoy what they are doing. Work that people do not enjoy could be shared in rotation.
In such a world, I know the average person would become a slave to whomever is on top calling the shots, they would work endlessly to supply more and more to wealth to a few people on top. Be it a dictator or an elite political class, I want my life ruled as little as possible from those people.
>It’s all a voluntary and market based system but captures the main thrust of Marx’s critique of capitalism - the problem with an ownership class sucking up all the surplus value in society.
Except it's not exactly voluntary if I can't own anything that would allow me to stop working altogether, I'm still stuck being a slave to the state. There still exists a power structure that both capitalism and marxist systems have.
> We could do this. End consumerism, make everything open source, share land, know when you have enough and work to serve others in your community.
Thanks, but no thanks. I would rather buy what I feel I need than have you telling me what I actually need. I've been around people long enough to know that sharing land is about the last thing I want. People fuck up public places and there is no incentive to clean other peoples shit up. We already decide when enough is enough, it's just that most of us will always want more, welcome to the human condition. I work to serve myself, and my work is paid for by providing value to my community already.
>Anyway that’s my theory.
I don't mean to poke at you personally, don't take it that way. But this is an awful theory that will lead to more human suffering. If YOU want to live this way, by all means, please do! Just don't suggest 'we' should do it together.