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

51–60 of 96 posts

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#51

Post by jules »

maxxxxx wrote: post #36
jules wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We shouldn't always point at obviously dysfunctional examples when we look at problems in our society. There is no natural law that things will always end up like Venezuela or the Soviet Union when we change things.

Or North Korea, or Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or...

Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#52

Post by pault »

rmah wrote: post #46
TeMPOraL wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally they can't, but that's not what the concept is aiming at. What we can do is to drop costs of things people need (or want) in their daily lives to the point that supply/demand basically stops working for them on an aggregate scale. If we do this to the point that any person can live a full life and participate in the society at large without having to exchange labour for resources or worrying about their…

That happened about 50 years ago in the developed world. A well off family in the mid-1800's would purchase a new set of clothing once or twice a year. Each person would have maybe two or three pairs of shoes. They had enough funds heat their homes during winter. Poor people had far less. By the 1950's, a developed economy could easily provide that level of comfort to everyone. We just (mostly) chose not to. Today, i…

I don't know how I would have access to food, shelter, and healthcare if I decided to stop working and spend the rest of my life doing recreational engineering. Post-scarcity requires automation to the point that the cost of survival becomes a rounding error on the rest of the economy. When it's possible to survive without engaging in trade (or spending the majority of your life gathering food and shelter from raw materials), we'll be in a post-scarcity economy (and I will be first in line to take the offer).

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#53

Post by TeMPOraL »

pault wrote: post #44
js8 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible and managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations that allow them to multiply the efficiency of the people working under them. I am aware that in reality this is not always the case. Edit: In your car analogy, the management aren't the engine; they're the driver.

And yet when you need the car to move people or cargo from one place to another, then suddenly the driver becomes as fungible (sometimes even more) as the car itself.

I don't think there's really any moral justification for managers earning more than their subordinates. It's all power and scarcity at play. Managers get more because there is less of them and they are in position to ask for more.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#54

Post by protonfish »

brightball wrote: post #47
imgabe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think of it like oxygen. We don't pay for the air we breathe. You don't need an "air" utility to pipe breathable air into your house and have to pay them a monthly bill (yet anyway). You just breathe. You want to breathe harder? Go ahead. Everyone on Earth could run wind sprints all day and we wouldn't run out of air. It replenishes itself naturally. Once we can do the same with potable water, food, shelter, we'll…

That's really the question though: Who produces the food, water, shelter? What are the required incentives for them to continue dedicating their scarce time to continuing to produce it? What are the incentives or rewards for them to invest in the infrastructure, equipment, etc for them to create that? Who maintains it and how are they compensated for doing so? What benefit do they gain for committing their time to th…

But staples like water, air, and land (source of food, shelter location and materials) are not about production, they are about claims of ownership and creating tollbooths.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#55

Post by Helmet »

marcosdumay wrote: post #42
conanbatt wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Value is a too ill defined concept. I would say that the manager has more leverage on the destiny of the company, thus you want a great manager more than you want great employees, and thus you have to pay them more. Except that this is not exactly true either. Some times it is, other times it isn't. Yet the salary relations never change.

It isn't ill defined. Ideally, and I would argue in most circumstances, wages are a strong approximation of the marginal revenue product, just as neoclassic theory states they should be.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#56

Post by arkades »

misja111 wrote: post #20
jstanley wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> People don't chase a promotion, work overhours or buy a lottery ticket in the hope of being able to obtain more food.

1/6 of the families in NYC are food-insecure. ( http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/foodpolicy/downloads/pdf/2016-Foo... )

I think you’re confusing your position of privilege for how everyone else lives. That’s a mistake.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#57

Post by mcny »

marcosdumay wrote: post #42
conanbatt wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Value is a too ill defined concept. I would say that the manager has more leverage on the destiny of the company, thus you want a great manager more than you want great employees, and thus you have to pay them more. Except that this is not exactly true either. Some times it is, other times it isn't. Yet the salary relations never change.

> Except that this is not exactly true either. Some times it is, other times it isn't. Yet the salary relations never change.

I think the meta is for "intellectual"/"mental" workers you have to pay someone enough that they focus on the task they need to work on rather than spending mental cycles on how to afford to pay for rent or food or vaccines/formula for baby.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#58

Post by TeMPOraL »

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.

I don't think the "should" plays any role here. In my opinion, paramedics, nurses and doctors should all earn shit ton of money; so should miners, and janitors, and garbage collectors, and other people doing dangerous and/or socially necessary jobs. And entertainers should earn way less than they do. But here we are.

Supervisors earn more because, through the way the job market works, they can ask for more. That's all there is to it.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#59

Post by maxxxxx »

jules wrote: post #51
maxxxxx wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't always point at obviously dysfunctional examples when we look at problems in our society. There is no natural law that things will always end up like Venezuela or the Soviet Union when we change things.

Or North Korea, or Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or... Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.

You could also take a look at Europe or the US in the 50s. More income distribution than the current state doesn't mean that Stalin's successors will take over immediately.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#60

Post by TeMPOraL »

brightball wrote: post #47
imgabe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think of it like oxygen. We don't pay for the air we breathe. You don't need an "air" utility to pipe breathable air into your house and have to pay them a monthly bill (yet anyway). You just breathe. You want to breathe harder? Go ahead. Everyone on Earth could run wind sprints all day and we wouldn't run out of air. It replenishes itself naturally. Once we can do the same with potable water, food, shelter, we'll…

That's really the question though: Who produces the food, water, shelter? What are the required incentives for them to continue dedicating their scarce time to continuing to produce it? What are the incentives or rewards for them to invest in the infrastructure, equipment, etc for them to create that? Who maintains it and how are they compensated for doing so? What benefit do they gain for committing their time to th…

That's a good point. I believe the prerequisite for a stable post-scarcity economy is automating the production of all the things we want to not be scarce, over the entire vertical - from getting resources, through manufacturing, delivery, recycling, and maintenance of all of the machines involved. It's a tall order, but not impossible, if we dedicated our minds to it.

What seems to be the real problem is that there is seemingly no good way from here to there. While there are incentives to make things more automated and more efficient, the money from that flows to the wrong places (and with it, power), and there are plenty of incentives for parasitic actors to inject themselves in between steps of any process to try and capture some percentage of the money flow.

Post reply on HN