In the long run it seems pretty clear labor won’t have any real economic value
I’d love to see a full post on this. It’s one of those statements that rings true since it taps into the underlying trend (at least in the US) where the labor share of GDP has been declining. But *check notes* that was from 65% to 60% and had some upstreaks in there. So it’s also one of those statements that, upon cognitive reflection, also has a lot of ways to end up false: in an economy with labor crowded out by capital, what does the poor class have to offer the capitalists that would provide the basis for a positive return on their investment (or are they...benevolent butchers in the scenario)? Also, this dystopia just comes about without any attempts to regulate the business environment in a way that makes the use of labor more attractive? Like I said, I’d love to see the case for this spelled out in a way that allows for a meaningful debate.
As you can tell from my internal debate above, I agree with the other points—humans have a long history of voluntarily crippling our technology or at least adapting to/with it.
In the long run I think it’s extremely likely you can make machines that can do anything a human can do, at well below human subsistence prices. That’s a claim about the physical world. I think it’s true because humans are just machines built by biology, there’s strong reason to think we can ultimately build similar machines, and the actual energy and capital cost of a machine to replace human labor would be well below human subsistence. This is all discussed a lot but hopefully not super controversial.
If you grant that, then humans may still pay other humans to do stuff, or may still use their political power to extract money that they give to laborers. But the actual marginal value of humans doing tasks in the physical world is really low.
in an economy with labor crowded out by capital, what does the poor class have to offer the capitalists that would provide the basis for a positive return on their investment
I don’t understand this. I don’t think you can get money with your hands or mind, the basis for a return on investment is that you own productive capital.
Also, this dystopia just comes about without any attempts to regulate the business environment in a way that makes the use of labor more attractive?
It’s conceivable that we can make machines that are much better than humans, but that we make their use illegal. I’m betting against for a variety of reasons: jurisdictions that took this route would get badly outcompeted and so it would require strong global governance; it would be bad for human welfare and this fact would eventually become clear; it would disadvantage capitalists and other elites who have a lot of political power.
I’d love to see a full post on this. It’s one of those statements that rings true since it taps into the underlying trend (at least in the US) where the labor share of GDP has been declining. But *check notes* that was from 65% to 60% and had some upstreaks in there. So it’s also one of those statements that, upon cognitive reflection, also has a lot of ways to end up false: in an economy with labor crowded out by capital, what does the poor class have to offer the capitalists that would provide the basis for a positive return on their investment (or are they...benevolent butchers in the scenario)? Also, this dystopia just comes about without any attempts to regulate the business environment in a way that makes the use of labor more attractive? Like I said, I’d love to see the case for this spelled out in a way that allows for a meaningful debate.
As you can tell from my internal debate above, I agree with the other points—humans have a long history of voluntarily crippling our technology or at least adapting to/with it.
In the long run I think it’s extremely likely you can make machines that can do anything a human can do, at well below human subsistence prices. That’s a claim about the physical world. I think it’s true because humans are just machines built by biology, there’s strong reason to think we can ultimately build similar machines, and the actual energy and capital cost of a machine to replace human labor would be well below human subsistence. This is all discussed a lot but hopefully not super controversial.
If you grant that, then humans may still pay other humans to do stuff, or may still use their political power to extract money that they give to laborers. But the actual marginal value of humans doing tasks in the physical world is really low.
I don’t understand this. I don’t think you can get money with your hands or mind, the basis for a return on investment is that you own productive capital.
It’s conceivable that we can make machines that are much better than humans, but that we make their use illegal. I’m betting against for a variety of reasons: jurisdictions that took this route would get badly outcompeted and so it would require strong global governance; it would be bad for human welfare and this fact would eventually become clear; it would disadvantage capitalists and other elites who have a lot of political power.