Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#11

Post by twoquestions »

brightball wrote: post #5
baron816 wrote: post #2

The problem we have now is not that there isn’t enough for everyone, it’s that we’re acting like that’s still the case.

Post scarcity is one of those terms that just does not make sense. How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore? I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.

Providing enough for everyone to exist is trivial, what's distinctly non-trivial is satisfying those needs in an economic system like ours. Right now our economy requires access to necessities to be precarious, to motivate people to sell their time and most of their freedom to Those In Charge to buy them.

The alternative to this, where everyone has what they need to exist without submitting to one leader or another, is true Liberty, which rightly terrifies our ruling class.

I know this is a bit abstract, but I hope it makes sense.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#13

Post by aswanson »

twoquestions wrote: post #11
brightball wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post scarcity is one of those terms that just does not make sense. How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore? I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.

Providing enough for everyone to exist is trivial, what's distinctly non-trivial is satisfying those needs in an economic system like ours. Right now our economy requires access to necessities to be precarious, to motivate people to sell their time and most of their freedom to Those In Charge to buy them. The alternative to this, where everyone has what they need to exist without submitting to one leader or another,…

It is, but a good point of departure for discussion. Can you elaborate on how that alternative can evolve from the present way of doing things?

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#14

Post by jules »

twoquestions wrote: post #11
brightball wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post scarcity is one of those terms that just does not make sense. How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore? I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.

Providing enough for everyone to exist is trivial, what's distinctly non-trivial is satisfying those needs in an economic system like ours. Right now our economy requires access to necessities to be precarious, to motivate people to sell their time and most of their freedom to Those In Charge to buy them. The alternative to this, where everyone has what they need to exist without submitting to one leader or another,…

The only reason we have enough is because of that economic system. Take a look at Venezuela. It ought to terrify everyone that so many take what we have for granted.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#15

Post by js8 »

conanbatt wrote: post #10
mcny wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a more personal level, I ask people whether they think of same wages for everyone. Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer.

In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command. Exceptions to that are at least as common as employees having higher wages than managers and supervisors.

I don't understand why do you think this is the case. (I am one of those people who thinks people should have the same salaries, btw.)

What exactly do you mean by "value"? Can you give some examples?

To add: I don't think there is a meaningful comparison of importance of two professions that depend on each other. It's like asking, which part of the car provides more value for the user? Is it the engine or the wheels?

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#16

Post by maxxxxx »

ddnb wrote: post #8

An incredible article, it seems so clear the way it is stated. If demand is the problem, as stated in the article, would a basic-income, providing extra income and arguably more free time for consumers usher in a new "Golden Age" of growth as we have seen post-WWII?

You don't even need basic income. Just let people's incomes rise at the same rate the economy grows instead of funneling all gains to the business owners like it happened over the last 30 years or so. Unfortunately in the US the Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans.

I don't know how to change this realistically. It probably needs some change in moral attitudes so it's just not accepted by society that certainly people claim all the gains for themselves instead off spreading them out. Child labor used to be prevalent but in most Western societies it's not ok anymore even if there is profit to be made. So maybe this will happen to income inequality too.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#17

Post by protonfish »

mcny wrote: post #9
protonfish wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Controlling resources is the most effective way to wield and display power over others. It doesn't matter how many resources exist. As long as society is based on authoritarian hierarchy, there will always be haves and have-nots.

On a more personal level, I ask people whether they think of same wages for everyone. Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer.

Social hierarchies are created and maintained through displays of dominance and submission. Earning more money is simply that: a domination display.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#18

Post by dougmwne »

jstanley wrote: post #7
brightball wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post scarcity is one of those terms that just does not make sense. How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore? I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.

The way a post-scarcity society could come to exist is if we stop doing any activity in the physical world and everything moves online. We've actually gone quite a long way down that road already. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years or so, most physical-world activity has stopped. Once basic electricity, internet connectivity, food, etc. is provided automatically, and all work and leisure is conducted online, the…

That's quite an insight. I've never connected those concepts together before.

There's a staggeringly long list of things that are now post-scarcity because they're digital. Each item used to be a luxury available to few instead of a thing that scales to all.

So here's a new way to ask an old question: What's something that should be post-scarcity, but currently isn't?

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#19

Post by ddnb »

maxxxxx wrote: post #16
ddnb wrote: post #8

An incredible article, it seems so clear the way it is stated. If demand is the problem, as stated in the article, would a basic-income, providing extra income and arguably more free time for consumers usher in a new "Golden Age" of growth as we have seen post-WWII?

You don't even need basic income. Just let people's incomes rise at the same rate the economy grows instead of funneling all gains to the business owners like it happened over the last 30 years or so. Unfortunately in the US the Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans. I don't know how to change this realistically. It probably needs some cha…

The incomes need to rise but can the business owners be forced? The basic income would make sure everyone gets the extra income.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#20

Post by misja111 »

jstanley wrote: post #7
brightball wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post scarcity is one of those terms that just does not make sense. How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore? I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.

The way a post-scarcity society could come to exist is if we stop doing any activity in the physical world and everything moves online. We've actually gone quite a long way down that road already. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years or so, most physical-world activity has stopped. Once basic electricity, internet connectivity, food, etc. is provided automatically, and all work and leisure is conducted online, the…

Although electricity, food, etc. are not provided automatically yet, I don't think that in the developed world they are scarce anymore. People don't chase a promotion, work overhours or buy a lottery ticket in the hope of being able to obtain more food. It might not be a gourmet meal in a Michelin star restaurant, but you surely can buy as much food as you need to never be hungry.

If you want a car, then at least in the Western world, you can buy one. It might not be a Ferrari, but when physical transportation is what you are after, it is definitely affordable.

So why do many people still work so hard? Because they don't just want things that are sufficient, they desire to have luxury goods, food or leisure. And how do you define luxury? It is something better than you have now, or even better, something better than what your neighbours/ friends or colleagues have.

This will not change, no matter how easily food and other basic goods become available. Because it is part of human nature to desire to have status, more than that, this is what is driving evolution for many other animals as well.

So a true post-scarcity will never exist. People will just invent new goods or services to go after in the future when today's iphones and sportscars have become affordable. Not because they need them, but for the simple fact that they are difficult to obtain.

Post reply on HN