• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How do you distribute wealth in a world with no work?

Aye. But how do you make the transition? THAT is the question of the open.

Star Trek or dystopia?

I'm hoping for the best, but if I was a gambling man, I'd bet on dystopia.
Kinda like Los Angeles in "Blade Runner"
 
But in a world where one's labor isn't a commodity (because it's simply not needed), what does a typical family have to exchange for commodities?

The concept of "labor" will continue to evolve to complement the decreased physical output as it has for the preceding centuries. The occupations today look very different from the occupations before, but there are still people "laboring."
 
As we all are well aware, technology often makes certain jobs obsolete. As machines and electronics start doing more and more of the work that once required manpower, we find ourselves with an interesting dilemma. It's easy to envision a world where all production is done by machines. Currently, this still creates jobs in the technology sector. Yet it isn't difficult to envision a future where machines can repair each other and keep each other running indefinitely. Industries like agriculture and manufacturing could be 100% automated in such a future.

Granted, we would still have a handful of industries that could never be automated, mostly in the creative field. We would have machines that could make everything we need and want and provide us with every service we might want, but we would still need some creative types to come up with new inventions, new fashions, etc. and engineers to develop the programming to make those new things happen. We would probably also still want to be entertained by other humans. But those remaining industries would be tiny.

The problem here is obvious. Work is no longer necessary, but resources are still scarce. Our previous notions about working to earn your rewards are thrown out the window since no work is necessary. We could, of course, create busy work and make people do busy work in order to determine how much stuff they get. But that doesn't seem to make any more sense than making people compete in athletic competitions to see how much stuff they get. So, what do you do in such a world? Split it up evenly across the board? Let the descendants of those people who built the companies that created the machines control everything? Let the few remaining creative types, engineers, and entertainers have all the wealth? Without the work for pay paradigm, what do we have?

Unless you assume that each area (community? person?) will become totally self sufficient then there will still be trade and specialization. If I produce A and you produce B then, assuming we both need A & B, there will still be trade. If we all need/want C then someone will produce that as well. We are not likely to never need/want only that which we are capable of making all the we need/want for ourselves no matter how many machines are at our disposal.
 
Unless you assume that each area (community? person?) will become totally self sufficient then there will still be trade and specialization. If I produce A and you produce B then, assuming we both need A & B, there will still be trade. If we all need/want C then someone will produce that as well. We are not likely to never need/want only that which we are capable of making all the we need/want for ourselves no matter how many machines are at our disposal.

Sure, there is still trade, that's not the issue. The issue is that unless the model changes to something different from what we have now, only the owners of the equipment have anything to trade. Sure, they could trade with other owners of other kinds of factories that produce other things, but the fact still remains only those people who own the means of production have anything to trade.
 
...

there has been just a few changes in the last 100 years...

There has been tremendous changes. A hundred years ago, almost every job was involved in the production of food. Now less than 10% of them are.

A hundred years ago the normal work week was 70 hours, today it's averaging less than 40. Projecting that out for another hundred years, the average work week would be about 10 hours (or less).
 
You've answered your own question then; commodities exist, competition for access still exists, our current system of allocation exists.

Right but, how to compete for access to commodities if all jobs are taken by robots?
 
Would these robots have a union?
 
In a world where there is no need for human labor, no one has "earned it", thus it can't be "stolen".

In a world where there is no labor, there is no wealth and nothing to be redistributed. Oddly, this is the end-result of Socialims/ Communism.

As Winston Churchill said so eloquently, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
 


In a world where there is no labor, there is no wealth and nothing to be redistributed. ...


I said "human labor". Labor can be done by machines, and that's the premise of this thread.

I'm also a little concerned about the word "redistributed", is that any different than "distributed"?

So let's say that a totally automated factory produces a million widgets, but since all factories are totally automated, and no one has an income from work, how do we decide how those widgets get distributed? I'm not so sure that they need to be "redistributed" as they were just made and thus have not yet been distributed to anyone.
 
Last edited:
Right but, how to compete for access to commodities if all jobs are taken by robots?

Until every person on earth comes equipped with a full entourage of every task performing robot capable of performing every conceivable want and need, there will still be a labor market. Once 100% has been reached a labor market will be stabilized at zero percent unemployment.
 
Last edited:
Until every person on earth comes equipped with a full entourage of every task performing robot capable of performing every conceivable want and need, there will still be a labor market. Once 100% has been reached a labor market will be stabilized at zero percent unemployment.

If we don't work, and thus have no income, then where do we get the robots from? Will they just be free?
 
If we don't work, and thus have no income, then where do we get the robots from? Will they just be free?
The segments of society without complete magic robot collections will need goods and services performed. Those markets will still follow traditional methods. There will be diminishing market size as complete magic robot collections become more widespread but markets can still function.
 
There will come a time when the bulk of society only labors towards something they WANT to do...not something they do to earn a living...
 
Until every person on earth comes equipped with a full entourage of every task performing robot capable of performing every conceivable want and need, there will still be a labor market. Once 100% has been reached a labor market will be stabilized at zero percent unemployment.

The issue though is: What will happen with 80% unemployed people, while the 20% compete and have access to commodities?

Before it gets to 100% unemployment.
 
There will come a time when the bulk of society only labors towards something they WANT to do...not something they do to earn a living...

Yet who is going to pay them to play video games or to sing in the shower?
 
Back
Top Bottom