back to article Basic income after automation? That’s not how capitalism works

Philosophers, economists and other academics have long discussed the idea of “basic income” – an unconditional monthly check from the government to every citizen, in an amount at least high enough to cover all basic necessities. Recently, this idea has gained more political traction: Even conservative parties consider it, and …

Silver badge

Re: Errrm

has anyone even TRIED to design something that rewards sociophilic behaviour (and thus disadvantaginging the kind of buggers that have caused the big economic meltdowns that have happened every now and then) ? And if not, why not?

Esme, have a look at the Icelandic Commonwealth from ca. 930 and the pledge of fealty to the Norwegian king with the Old Covenant in 1262.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @I guess that's economists for you

If I were to list the number of occasions I had seen someone assume that because they understood logic and had decent reasoning skills, they could make pronouncements in any field by abstracting a few gross principles and finding a pleasing conclusion, we would be here for a very long time.

In that case why don't you justify your argument for not using logic and reasoning skills? Presumably you have everyone join hands and sing Koombaya.

Case in point, Aristotle loved his idea of his five elements to explain matter. And justified it with assumptions and logic based upon them because the conclusion seemed elegant to him.

The strong compulsion people have to rubbish Aristotle has always mystified me. Apart from inventing logic, the metaphysical stuff of mathematics that allows computers to work, and his contributions to marine biology that needed 2,000 years to confirm, he also proposed an amendment to Empedocles' four elements (earth, water, air and fire, or solid, liquid gas and plasma in modern parlance). The fifth element he named aether and until the 20th C was considered essential in physics. After a brief period of no being needed, it would appear to have snuck back by John Wheeler under the name quantum foam.

"The arrogance of someone who thinks" they understand Aristotle without reading him is "staggering".

My comment was aimed at the comment, not the article. The article was rubbish and had nothing whatsoever to do with the author majoring in philosophy. It is entirely possible to major in philosophy in the 21st C without any understanding of logic, though it was not always so.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Errrm

How many of the people reading this have a job?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @Doctor Syntax

"I reckon the horses produced more pollution, too".

That's an interesting one. It seems to me the horses produced more obvious, visible, possibly smellable pollution. Pollution you could (and very likely did) step in and swear at. But cars produce invisible pollution that attacks your lungs and gets insidiously into your blood. Healthwise, I think the horse manure was probably a great deal less harmful.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @Doctor Syntax

Healthwise, I think the horse manure was probably a great deal less harmful.

It was the basis of the French Intensive market gardening system.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Errrm

How many of the people reading this have a job?

Not me :-) I'm retired and it's kewl...

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Errrm

In the 19th Century (~100 years ago) there were over 3 million horses in the UK and they were mainly working animals. Today there are about a million, mainly in leisure and sports. We haven't been able to redeploy all the horses because they're not up to doing the jobs we have.

Would you want to redeploy them?

Those are some very old horses.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Errrm

They weren't. US wages have increased broadly in line with productivity.

Oh, a jokester!

2
1
Silver badge

Re: @I guess that's economists for you

In that case why don't you justify your argument for not using logic and reasoning skills? Presumably you have everyone join hands and sing Koombaya.

If you're going to straw man try to use clean straw. That stuff stinks of obvious bullshit.

But if it needs saying, what you describe as an argument against using logic and reasoning skills is actually an argument that logic and reasoning skills are not enough if you don't also have knowledge about what the fuck you are talking about. Logic, reasoning and knowledge of the subject are the best option, but regurgitated book knowledge is a fair second over making it up as you go.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @I guess that's economists for you

if you don't also have knowledge about what the fuck you are talking about

You really do need to read Aristotle before condemning him...

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Errrm

The biggest problem with, current, capitalism is that everybody is looking to make money NOW! Very few are looking at investing for long term growth, decent quality products that last and make products that are environmentally balanced.

By this I mean things like electronics designed to break just after the warranty runs out, built in failure points, so that after a set number of uses the device will break, so that people will buy a new one. What happened to pride in the work and quality? My parents bought products, they were expensive, but they lasted decades. Today, the products are either cheap and fall apart after a couple of uses or they are expensive and last a few years.

A lot of "improvements" in products aren't there to improve the product, but are changes in design to make it look newer and cooler, so that people will throw out existing, working products to buy new ones.

We are in a consumer death spiral. The amount of waste we produce, because things break or go out of fashion so quickly is not sustainable. Investors are looking for a return on investment for the next quarter or, if they are investing "long term", then the next year or two at most. Nobody is looking to make sure a company is sustainable and will grow steadily, providing good income, for the next 10 or 50 years, let alone looking at the long term. It is all, "I have made my profit from the company and exited, now it can go to hell, for all I care."

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Errrm

"The author isn't attempting to say that capitalism is forever and UBI won't work because capitalism is a natural law. She is saying that capitalism does not work, and we can't simply 'patch' it with UBI to make it keep working like it used to. It's a broken model, and the groups latching on to UBI as a kind of panacea for the many problems that emerge from it are barking up the wrong tree, because it'll maybe tide things over for a few decades before the fundamental contradictions cause it to collapse again."

But then that evokes a paraphrase. "Capitalism is the worst system out there...except for everything else." Meaning that if the best option we have for society is hopelessly broken, we're basically sunk. You say people are essentially needy. I say people are needy AND fighting with the neighbors. Many say economics isn't necessarily a zero-sum game. I saw it DOES at time, and it at THOSE times when things get ugly. When there's no external crisis or issue (like a war) to force us together, we start to turn inward and compete with the neighbors. It's instinct: humans I feel are most fundamentally social only in a tribal sense. We form immediate attachments to family and perhaps one level up, but when it comes to the neighbors we tend to be more mercurial.

Anyway, the discussion leads to what I feel is a fundamental human trait: humans will cheat if they can get away with it. And that affect any and all economic systems humans can devise. Some human somewhere WILL (not MAY) find a way to game the system...ANY system. And since it's practically instinctive in the human condition, I don't think it's possible to fix it (because there are those who have the will AND the means to actively prevent it because they benefit from it) without creating a better human, and as the saying goes, "Nice guys finish last."

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Errrm

"What happened to pride in the work and quality? My parents bought products, they were expensive, but they lasted decades. Today, the products are either cheap and fall apart after a couple of uses or they are expensive and last a few years."

How many people know the names Electrolux and Kirby? Not many these days, and they were as you described: companies that made expensive vacuum cleaners that lasted for years and years. But then that was their problem. Once customers got their vacuum cleaners, they never came back because they never needed another.

There's your answer. "One and done" isn't financially sound because ANY business in the world will have running costs. Thus, one key goal of any business is to have repeat business.

0
2
Silver badge

Re: Errrm

How many people know the names Electrolux and Kirby? Not many these days,

Shirley you're joking. "Electrolux is the fourth largest household appliance company worldwide based on its sales in 2013."

Statistics and facts about Electrolux

Mrs Git was given her Electrolux vacuum cleaner for her 21st birthday. It's almost as geriatric as we are ;-)

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Errrm

"Shirley you're joking. "Electrolux is the fourth largest household appliance company worldwide based on its sales in 2013.""

No, because I'm speaking from an American perspective, and over here the dominant names in vacuum cleaning are Hoover, Eureka, and Oreck. Except for the last who tends to cater to the hospitality industry (who can in turn pay the money and apply the pressure), those names aren't really associated with machines that last for generations. Finding either Kirby or Electrolux anywhere in America tends to call for specialty shops that can be difficult to locate. Trust me; I looked.

0
0

Re: Errrm

Not infinite, but certainly the upper limit is dynamic and not fixed. When compensation goes up, spending goes up. Put simply, there is no end to human wants and desires. Do your really believe that a woman with 40 pairs of shoes would not buy 40 more if she could afford them?

0
0

Re: Errrm @Charles 9

"Nice guys finish last." That is the most depressing, and the most wrong statement ever made, and it is only ever used by psychopaths excusing their world-view. It is time the nice guys got together and made sure that the bad guys never, ever, get a chance to screw the world up again with their selfishness and hatred of standards of behaviour that most people accept as decent. There is much more to success than money and screwing everyone else over.

1
0
Coat

Re: Errrm

there's a phrase in economics - something called 'inferior' goods?

anyway, certain products become so inexpensive to make, that, theoretically, at zero 'cost' goods should tend to 'infinite consumption'. clearly, if bread is 'zero' there's only so much you can 'consume'.

For TV's, as an example, the key here was the technology and the patents. When europe switched to colour, Philips, Thorn et.al. kept hold of the PAL patents, allowing Europe to keep its manufacturing base. Hence, Philips, Ferguson (Thomson, JVC [J2T]) and (yes!) Sony TV's made in europe. (at one time, Sony near Bridgend made most of their Trinitrons for the euro market here). However, come flatscreen and HD, all the TV's are made in China and Korea.

Once a 'good' becomes a commodity, then yes, you can own 2, 3 or 4 at low cost, but they quickly reach saturation point. But, 'robots', to quote Henry Ford, don't buy cars - people do.

I've forgotten my point now...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Errrm - lack of upvotes for your comment really exemplifies the hypocrisy of us westerners

Very rarely do i ever read anything in any article about technology, globalisation, free markets/capitalism versus socialism etc etc about how really we are just moaning about how bad it's been for us westerners ... and even that's relative ... the poorest in most western societies are sooo much better off than most of the general poor in other parts of the world. No, we're all moaning 'cos someone in india can bash about a bit of bog standard coding cheaper or someone here. So more upvotes to the OP for pointing this out .. the last 30-40 years have seen the biggest, faster uplift of people out of poverty in history. So the system is working ... just not in a way that's that great for complacent westerners. But even we are still massively better off than we in say, the 70s. I earn about the same now as i did 20yrs ago but my quality of life in many ways is better with cheaper computational devices and the internet etc

0
0

Re: Errrm

"The new technologies result in new work that hadn't previously been envisaged. ..."

That is true, barely, but irrelevant to the point of being political spin. If you automate 1,000 autoworkers jobs off shore, the automakers are out their jobs indefinitely. There is no guarantee that they will (or can) be trained in some form of "new work." Especially new work that will actually pay a salary or wage comparable on an annual basis withe their old job. Otherwise how do they pay for the house and car they owe the bank a significant chunk of their income for the next 15 to 30 years for under the fractional reserve system which permits banks to print money and then point to the government as the culprit. The basic assumption of capitalism is that markets are efficient at redistributing wealth and generating new wealth. But we do not HAVE a capitalist system, nor a Marxist one for that matter. The wealthiest sectors - that one percent - dread real capitalism more than they do socialism. They can afford socialism but capitalism has a genuine potential to level the financial field in ways the socialist merely dreams of. Instead we have corporate welfare. Profits are privatized while losses are distributed socially. The vanishing middle class and manner in which wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a very, very few, is the problem, it is not a problem with capitalism or with socialism. It derives from oligarchic and kleptocratic patterns that are merely labeled as "capitalism."

0
0
Silver badge

Automation hasn't happened so quickly as now and not everyone's cut out to be a rocket scientist

Something's got to give, in this case it will have to be the state.

The article seems to talk about who deserves their salaries, who doesn't, and massively reorganising pay so that it reflects that. That stage could only come after mass poverty and civil unrest which would only be brought about if there's no basic income.

11
2
Silver badge

Re: Automation hasn't happened so quickly as now and not everyone's cut out to be a rocket scientist

I'm sure the same argument was made about the automation of farming, the printing press, gas lights making way to electric etc etc.

Many of us are plenty old enough to remember the printers being on strike to try and prevent the end of 'hot metal'.

Yet here we are with unemployment below 5%.

11
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Automation hasn't happened so quickly as now and not everyone's cut out to be a rocket scientist

Yet here we are with unemployment below 5%.

For sufficiently narrow definitions of "unemployment".

39
5

Re: Automation hasn't happened so quickly as now and not everyone's cut out to be a rocket scientist

Unemployment is only under 5% if you:

1. Sanction large numbers of welfare claimants for very dubious reasons, thus taking them off the unemployment statistics

2. Force people to go self-employed, with no guarantee of any income

3. Force others onto zero hour contracts - where they may have earned NOTHING this week, but aren't allowed to claim benefits. They may have a clause in that contract that forbids them from working elsewhere, as it limits their availability for work. And if they resign from the job they have 'made themselves unemployed' and so can't claim anything either

THIS is why food banks are everywhere these days. In what is supposedly the 5th richest nation in the world.

Not to mention all the long-term sick who have to be assessed on a regular basis for their ability to work. Do you have any idea how many people (it's in the thousands) have died within weeks of being pronounced fit to work?

But no, you carry on believing that we have near full employment if that makes you feel better...

53
8
Anonymous Coward

Re: Automation hasn't happened so quickly as now and not everyone's cut out to be a rocket scientist

Burn the tractors! Back to the fields with you plebs!

8
0
Gold badge

Re: Automation hasn't happened so quickly as now and not everyone's cut out to be a rocket scientist

Unemployment is not the jobseekers allowance claimant count. That's a separate stat.

Unemployment is measure according the ILO (International Labour Organisation) method - which is the Labour Force Survey. This is a large survey which asks people if they're economically inactive by choice, or looking for work, or if they're part time and want more hours/full time. Plus other stuff. The ONS say they interview 40,000 per quarter to get it.

So whatever government does regarding who can claim benefits is irrelevant to it.

The unemployment rate is the numnber of people who are looking for work but don't have it. There's another stat for people who are "economically inactive", another for those claiming out-of-work benefits and yet another for those who are part-time who want to be full time/have more hours.

Zero hours contracts appear to be on the rise, though only the name is new - there have always been people employed like this. According to the ONS, it's about 2.5% of the workforce - and of those only 20% want more hours, 10% a different (I'm guessing full time?) job with more hours and 70% say they've got the number of hours they want.

Linky to ONS here.

2
3
Silver badge

Fallacy

While I believe that to a certain degree it is correct that automation doesn't necessarily result in less human work, the view taken and example in the article is fundamentally flawed.

In the case of the shoe factory given the example of a machine, operated by a human, being replaced with a more efficient machine not reducing the human work hours because the company simply produces more shoes has never been the concern about automation.

The idea that automation allows you to either increase efficiency or production volume or both is of course the driving force behind automation but the concern about job losses doesn't come from replacing one machine with a more efficient version of the same, it comes from the possibility of the automation removing the need for a particular skill set that a certain group of employees have.

If your skill set is no longer needed in your profession because the job has been automated, there may well still be human work to be done in the form operating and monitoring the new automated equipment but this is not part of your skill set and you are now out of a job.

To say that "there is no reason to fear (or hope) that automation will put people out of work permanently" may well be true on the grander scale, as a percentage of the population and over time certainly the unemployment will be temporary.

But what of the workers who are made unemployed by automation who don't have another skill set to gain employment with, and are of such an age where once they have retrained to do something else their prospects of gaining new employment are exceedingly low.

HGV or Taxi drivers are a good example of this, if we reach a point where all driving work of this nature becomes automated, what does a say 55-65 year old HGV driver with no other skills or work experience beyond driving HGVs and no qualifications besides a HGV licence do when he is made redundant? Where does his income come from when he can't find work because the only work he was qualified for has been automated, and he is still a number of years from being able to retire and draw pension.

Certainly I would agree that in the long term, on a large societal scale, there is no reason to fear automation putting people out of work. Since as certain areas of work are eliminated by automation, the education system will adjust to direct people toward other forms of work and training and new young employees will be seeking different kinds of work.

But to say "The Automation Argument simply misunderstands how our economy works" is not true. The Automation Argument does understand how our economy works, but our economy doesn't give a flying fuck about the individual worker it only takes account of the population at large scale.

42
3

Re: Fallacy

Thank you, you have very eloquently conveyed exactly my concerns that people may not be able to re-train for a new type of job when their old one is automated. Sure new school leavers may be qualified to supervise and manage the machines and therefore balance the employment figures but the old workers won't just vanish into thin air, they will be the ones left on the scrap heap.

While it's not an exact comparison, I think a good real world example is the closure of various British heavy industries in the '80s. Most of the workers in those industries were unskilled and when the coal mine/steel mill/factory closed there weren't any new jobs in the area that they were qualified for and they weren't able to re-train for anything else. I could see automation doing exactly the same thing.

10
2
Silver badge

Re: Fallacy

"If your skill set is no longer needed in your profession because the job has been automated, there may well still be human work to be done in the form operating and monitoring the new automated equipment but this is not part of your skill set and you are now out of a job."

This was the argument being made in my area about a century ago when one of the cloth making processes was mechanised. In fact the population in the area grew hugely in the following decades as employment in the textile industry soared. Those new recruits didn't arrive with the appropriate skills, they had to learn them to adapt from previous trades just as the Luddites would have had to do.

4
4
Silver badge

Re: Fallacy

"Most of the workers in those industries were unskilled and when the coal mine/steel mill/factory closed there weren't any new jobs in the area that they were qualified for and they weren't able to re-train for anything else."

It was the lack of new jobs that was the real problem. The old industries closed because of cheaper overseas competition. The early C19th mechanisation of those industries also made old skills obsolete but replaced old jobs with many new ones. The challenge governments face now is to recreate that situation.

6
1

Err

"Under capitalism, technological progress results in more products, not in more leisure. Factories that improve their efficiency don’t shut down and send workers home early – workers keep the same hours and crank out more goods."

Oddly, the most remarkable change in human life over the past couple of centuries of capitalism has been the massive expansion of leisure time.

The reason being that as we get richer we take some part of our greater wealth as more leisure. The substitution effect.

But then that's what you get when you've philosophers trying to do economics.

17
1

Re: Err

"Oddly, the most remarkable change in human life over the past couple of centuries of capitalism has been the massive expansion of leisure time."

That's only partially true. Men have more leisure time. Thanks to the wonders of feminism women have less leisure time than ever before.

3
17
Silver badge

Re: Err

"Thanks to the wonders of feminism women have less leisure time than ever before."

Really?

I grew up in the late '40s-early-'50s in a house that had no electricity. Doing the family wash occupied at least a full day of my mother's time once a week. Clothes had to be washed in a tub which had to be filled up by bucket. They had to be wrung dry by a heavy hand-cranked mangle. In the absence of modern fabrics they all had to be ironed - without the help of an electric iron. But perhaps you count all that as leisure.

24
1
Silver badge

Re: Err

There have been improvements in many labour saving devices

e.g. back in the day washing took a lot of time, however my mother did not have paid employment so had more free time so still had plenty of time after washing.

Father did not have massively well paid / qualified job, but was enough to cover a mortgage, buy food, run car, cover other bills.

Fast forward and it takes 2 of us working to cover mortgage etc (& we keep telly, car etc until they fall apart so not squandering cash on new shiny). We would love a scenario where we could afford for one of us not to work.

In UK the exorbitant cost of housing leading to (assuming a couple) in many cases both parties needing to work, is a killer of leisure time.

14
0

Re: Err

No, sorry, not true.

I'm sure someone or other has written an article about it around here too.

Male market working hours have fallen substantially, female market working hours have risen. Male household working hours have fallen, female household working hours have fallen substantially.

Leisure hours for men and women have risen strongly over the past century.

That Keynes and only working 15 hours a week thing has in fact happened. It's the household working hours that have fallen.

14
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: Err

Welcome back, Tim.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Make robots pay tax

"In 1930, British economist John Maynard Keynes famously predicted that, within 100 years, only 15 hours of work per week would be needed to satisfy one’s “absolute needs.”

I think it's fairly easy to argue that that is true, at least in the UK (although current housing market distortions are trying their best to roll it back).

I can't quite work out where the author is coming from: libertarian - all state is bad - or socialist - all capitalism is evil? Their penultimate argument, if it is in fact an argument, that:

"Those of us who are laid off are not entitled to any of the gains that the new technology produces. The owner of the new technology alone is entitled to its proceeds, while all of our fellow citizens are now responsible to pay for our living (through taxes that fund basic income)."

could well be read as a rallying call to do something about taxation: Robo-Shoes Corp may 'own the technology' but the technology was almost certainly developed by a university paid for by the state, by workers educated by the state, using raw materials delivered by roads built by the state and protected from fire and theft by the state. At the very least robots should pay NI contributions!

12
1
Silver badge

Re: Make robots pay tax

If robots pay NI does that mean they get free repairs, pensions at end of life, legal personality, and the right to vote?

I'd also add most of the shoes are made by manual labour in Asia, not robots.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Make robots pay tax

They couldn't do much worse on the voting side of things than we have done.

4
2

Re: Make robots pay tax

" I can't quite work out where the author is coming from: libertarian - all state is bad - or socialist - all capitalism is evil? Their penultimate argument, if it is in fact an argument, that:

"Those of us who are laid off are not entitled to any of the gains that the new technology produces. The owner of the new technology alone is entitled to its proceeds, while all of our fellow citizens are now responsible to pay for our living (through taxes that fund basic income)." "

What you're missing is the second part of the headline: "That's not how capitalism works."

The author includes a lot of spraff about economic theory, but that's a common fallacy -- equating industrial/post-industrial economics with capitalism. None of the economic theories capitalists adhere to are unique to capitalism. The difference between capitalism, cooperativism, communism and socialism is simply the model of ownership and the resulting distribution of profit.

Capitalism is nothing more sophisticated than "the guy (aka "capitalist") who puts the money (aka "capital") in to start/improve the business owns the machine and gets the profit". There is nothing more to it than that. The paragraph you quote is simply a restatement of what capitalism, and a claim that this means basic income shouldn't exist.

But taxation has always diluted pure capitalism, so we do not live in a truly capitalist society anyway.

5
1

Re: Make robots pay tax

I can't believe that it's 2016 and there are still people who believe the State has money of its own.

*shakes head sadly and moves on*

7
7

Re: Make robots pay tax

It's called VAT and it's not going to drop below 20% anytime soon. The shame is that it's applied to the hospitality and building traders industries in the UK, Cutting it on those would result in not much revenue loss but a lot of social gain.

But also: The Swiss recently voted against a basic income in a referendum (doesn't make them right, only maybe too early).

An aside: I once visited a feedstuff factory in the North to work on their process control system - it basically ran the factory with a skeleton 24 shift system of 2-3 guys. The large canteen was eerily empty at lunchtime and I commented on this to the shift supervisor,. He said the guys who used to use it has been made redundant as a result of the automation system I was working on.

13
1
Silver badge

Re: Make robots pay tax

The 'State' normally controls the printing presses. Don't forget, money is just a useful collective delusion. An abstraction of value which facilities transactions. Money is only worth what you can get for it.

3
1

Re: Make robots pay tax

modern money is nothing less than universal rationing vouchers, society agrees that is has worth in that you don't have to barter goods/time directly. But if most people become unemployable as the general purpose robot/ai takes over the work then money itself could start to become worth less.

3
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Gold badge

Re: Make robots pay tax

Re: Make robots pay tax

It's called VAT and it's not going to drop below 20% anytime soon.

VAT isn't a tax on the robots, or the company.

VAT is a consumption tax. It's paid by the final consumer of a good, or very small businesses.

Once your turnover is more than the threshhold (£60k?) then your only VAT obligation is to be an unpaid tax-collector for government. You invoice with VAT on, but then hand over the loot to the government at the end of the quarter - minus the VAT you've paid on stuff you've bought.

The tax on robots is corporation tax, which is a tax on the profits of business. So if they can cut salaries and so increase profit, then they're going to be paying more of that. Plus of course more tax from the shareholders on their dividends.

3
1
M7S
Coat

Re: Make robots pay tax

At least with robots, there's already a means of charging them

I thank you...

1
0
Silver badge

One problem with these models

These model assume that the infinite productivity increase will be matched by an infinite consumption increase.

That is simply bollocks.

We are rapidly approaching a point where we produce more than the population can consume in most industries. At that point we have no choice, but to reduce production which in turn means reduce employment and/or working hours.

So, we have reduced them, now what? Two options:

1. Lay off the "this is not how capitalism works" the no longer needed workforce and get the mother of all winters of discontent.

2. Bread and circuses. Works in the short term (this is what the guaranteed pay is at the end of the day). We all know where it ended up for the Roman Empire.

Neither are sustainable - one is a short term disaster, the other one is long term disaster.

The reality is - an infinite productivity increase without providing a bread and circuses environment which is a killer in the long term mandates option 3:

3. Long term population growth control to match the actual labour demand.

8
5
Silver badge

Re: One problem with these models

"These models assume that the infinite productivity increase will be matched by an infinite consumption increase."

I couldn't agree more. To make things worse, all those masses of the unemployed will have to lower their consumption rates. Yeah, Mr. Capitalist got rid of most of his workforce but now he has nobody to sell his goods to!

The "basic salary" is just, as you said, bread and circus, and a temporary solution at best.

In my humble opinion, the only -acceptable- way out of this conundrum would be shorter work hours for everybody, mandated by the State with heavy fines -or even jail time- for those employers that don't comply. But I'm afraid that we'll have to survive several revolutions first. :-(

10
2
Silver badge

Re: One problem with these models

In my humble opinion, the only -acceptable- way out of this conundrum would be shorter work hours for everybody, mandated by the State

French tried it by switching to 4 day work week. They tried it too early. While their per-hour productivity is quite high (used to be significantly higher than UK), it was not high enough to sustain it and then the financial crisis hit them for 6. So they are now rowing back on this one.

That is one option, however, while there is quite a bit of runway in it, it is also limited ultimately leading to the obvious situation where we will have no choice, but to have "Third" as a swear word. That as well as licensing parents and giving child permits.

4
1

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018