thanks bro. I look forward to calling you on that.
Originally Posted by KevinKohler
1. I reject the idea that robots are going to replace all workers. That claim has been being made for centuries now, with as-of-yet no results. The combined ingenuity of humanity is incredible at putting un or under-utilized resources (such as labor) to making a profit. Machines change the nature of our workforce, and they change demand for particular kinds of labor. They aren't going to kick 90% of workers out of a job.
You HAVE to concede that with the way modern technology is going, the mechinization of our labor...that THIS is the direction we NEED to be moving in, no matter how distasteful you or I find it to be, in order to retain some form of capitalism. When robots are doing 90% or more of the work, SOME form of wealth redistribution is going to be needed in order to retain some semblance of capitalism. It just is, IMO.
2. That being said, I agree that - as a political matter, some form of wealth redistribution is necessary in order to increase stability.
[indent]2a. However, a minimum wage isn't a means of wealth redistribution. It's just a price-floor. One that serves to keep our lowest-educated and lowest-skilled potential workers trapped out of the market. There are people whose value-added is not $15 an hour. A $15 an hour MW doesn't redistribute skills to them, or redistribute work experience. It also doesn't redistribute money. All it does is make them structurally unemployable.
I am delighted you asked, because it gives me yet another chance to hawk my plan to lift every single American citizen out of poverty, reduce costs to the federal, state, and local social safety net systems and make our tax revenues more stable.
What are your alternatives?
Sort of. It's very similar to the automobile in that regard. We had multiple large industries that were built around the assumption that the horse would continue to be the main form of transportation - leather workers, farriers, vets, stables, poop-scoopers, you name it. Put out of work when the automobile came along and took over American society. But are we dominated today by hordes of jobless blacksmiths and horse-trainers? No. Those workers were reallocated to other tasks once their labor became available.
Remember, robots don't consume. Programs don't consume. And all of this movement towards automation is to REMOVE human workers, due to their inherent costs.
That's what the market does when a resource (such as labor) becomes available - it allocates it to a productive end. So long as some bright fool doesn't come along with a jacked up idea for a price floor on that item that makes it prohibitive to use.
Ah yes, of course..... this time it's always different.... because it is. Got it.
So don't cop out with the "Those workers will move to other industries" meme. I assure you, it's NOT going to play out like that this time around,
sometimes I do get bored and leave threads. I don't think I've ever conceded in an argument about whether or not there would be a demand for low-income labor were it allowed.
and it's already been beaten to death in other threads, threads which I believe you have participated in, and even, by silence, conceded. Correct me if I'm wrong, lol.
Simply because you lack imagination to come up with new ways to use low-income workers does not mean that the aggregate ingenuity of 330 million people will. You are pretty smart, but you aren't that smart - none of us are:
I simply don't see any way around this. It's this, or crash, and face some sort french style revolution, which I'd rather not.
"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."
- Paul Krugman, 1998