Welcome to the Lounge

Mycroft Holmes4-Dec-17 13:48

Mycroft Holmes

4-Dec-17 13:48

For a start you seem to assume a robot is sentient, good luck with that one, if it is not sentient then it has no rights and no requirement for wages/recompense.

Compensating someone (Govt) for using a robot to do the work is not going to happen, it isn't today, why would you think it will in the future. A completely different economic model is going to have to be invented to achieve your vision.

And if you think the corporates are going to abdicate the money management to a govt your nuts. A production tax may be one way to go!

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH

Munchies_Matt4-Dec-17 21:43

4-Dec-17 21:43

Mycroft Holmes wrote:
you seem to assume a robot is sentient, good luck with that one

You seem to much, I dont.

Mycroft Holmes wrote:
it has no rights and no requirement for wages

Of course not, but it has to be treated as if it does in order to generate revenue the govt will need to pay the ex-manual labourers unemployment money, at a decent rate.

Mycroft Holmes wrote:
why would you think it will in the future

Legislation.

And why not? Is this not a better world? No more manual, dull labour. Those people get to sit around, play golf, spend the day in the pub. Let the robots do their work.

Those who enjoy their work, the artists, the professionals, will quite happily continue working.

And we will all live like plantation owners of the past, in luxury, because at the bottom of society will be an army of metal slaves, working for us.

Gerry Schmitz5-Dec-17 2:49

5-Dec-17 2:49

I see "money and goods" being shuffled around; I didn't see anyone "buying" anything.

The take is that "robots" can produce goods out of nothing; and produce revenue from goods that nobody buys; and said revenue is then distributed to the masses; to buy the goods produced from nothing.

Sounds like this is where Bitcoin comes in: fake money for fake goods.

Moore's law (because it is starting to fail) predicts a depression / recession: what to do with all the "labor" when the next "IPhone" isn't "better" than the previous and no one wants to upgrade.

"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 2:51

5-Dec-17 2:51

Gerry Schmitz wrote:
The take is that "robots" can produce goods out of nothing; and produce revenue from goods that nobody buys;

No, they would be goods produced today, that people buy. Just produced by robots.

Gerry Schmitz5-Dec-17 3:14

5-Dec-17 3:14

So, your robots will be giving "credit" to people who don't work? So they can buy goods with money they don't have? Because the won't get their "distribution" until the goods are sold?

Or are you planning on running a deficit? How does "that" get paid off?

You first need expropriate all the world's resources; using robots...

"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 3:26

5-Dec-17 3:26

Yes, the robots will generate tax revenue which will be paid as unemployment benefit to those whose jobs have been replaced by the robots.

If 8 hours of human labour is worth 100 $ to a firm, a robot can make 300 $ a day, so if the govt takes 100 $ off the firm, it still makes 200$ worth off its back ( a robot works 24 hours a day).

The govt gives this money to the worker.

He is happy, the firm makes more money, and goods are cheaper.

Exports increase, labour onshores, because robots are cheaper than say Vietnamese, the trade deficit shrinks, so does govt debt.

And all dull, manual work is done by machines.

Gerry Schmitz5-Dec-17 3:36

5-Dec-17 3:36

You're still handing out "free" money because you haven't sold the goods to earn the "revenue" you're giving to the "humans".

Marx, Mao, perpetual motion machines...

"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 3:56

5-Dec-17 3:56

Gerry Schmitz wrote:
because you haven't sold the goods to earn the "revenue"

One assumes of course that there is no labour, human or machine, involved, today, in producing goods that cant be sold.

jschell5-Dec-17 10:20

5-Dec-17 10:20

Gerry Schmitz wrote:
Marx, Mao, perpetual motion machines...

Not sure what you mean.

Modern world economies are based on perceived value anyways. A dollar or a euro has no value if people do not perceive that it has value.

So in the modern company, an employee (human) produces value for the company and is paid, as the human perceives it, value for that work. Then that human spends the money that they made on something they want. And often that value has nothing to do with a real product being sold at that point. When the receptionist asks someone to wait in the waiting area until their appointment there are no goods being sold nor, for that transaction, will there ever be.

On this fantastical scheme here, which does in fact have many problems, the human employee in the above is still paid but that money goes into a pool which is distributed to all people in the country. If the company does not use the robot there is no 'pay' and it doesn't go into the pool.

Gerry Schmitz5-Dec-17 10:46

5-Dec-17 10:46

The premise is that all the wealth ($) generated by robots will be distributed to humans.

Where do the raw resources come from? How are they paid for?

You can't sell what you haven't produced. If you haven't "sold" anything, there is no "revenue" to distribute or buy resources.

You're now left with expropriating all the world's resources. And since this is now a "equal distribution society", you will need to "share" your resources (i.e. no private property).

Marx, Mao ... all "grand experiments". With less than "100% efficiency", millions starved to death.

The "projects" one undertakes is what gives life meaning ...

With robot "project managers", we'll insure your efforts are not wasted (in terms of its "benefit" to "society").

"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal

jschell8-Dec-17 8:20

8-Dec-17 8:20

Gerry Schmitz wrote:
The premise is that all the wealth ($) generated by robots will be distributed to humans.

Where do the raw resources come from? How are they paid for?

First as I noted the scheme here has many problems and is nonsensical. So pointless to investigate each bad assumption.

However the original stipulation was not that all workers would disappear nor would all wealth (assets) disappear.

Just that some workers would be replaced.

So if a car company replaces workers with robots those workers would pay the stipend to the pool.

However the purchase of steel by that company would still require buying the steel. The steel company would still receive money and they in turn might have robots (replacement humans) and would pay to the pool as well. This continues throughout all supply chains.

Gerry Schmitz8-Dec-17 8:34

8-Dec-17 8:34

Will we have "minimum wage" robots?

Do all robots, regardless of task, get paid the same wage?

Will there be robot unions?

I suspect there will be activities for a given robot (on duty) that are "too hazardess" (e.g. EMPs), and we will need to send in humans.

"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal

jschell8-Dec-17 12:43

8-Dec-17 12:43

Gerry Schmitz wrote:
Will we have "minimum wage" robots?

Like I said there are many problems with the original supposition and no way to defend them. It wasn't my suggestion and I am not going to attempt to defend what I consider utter fantasy in many different ways in the first place.

Gerry Schmitz8-Dec-17 14:52

8-Dec-17 14:52

Got the sense some thought this was a good idea; the start of another "grand plan". Note that it always involves having to do "less work".

The final nail should be that the "energy" to create all these robots could feed untold numbers. Humans are cheaper in the long run and more recyclable; keeping "busy" will keep them out of trouble.

"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal

jschell11-Dec-17 6:03

11-Dec-17 6:03

Gerry Schmitz wrote:
Got the sense some thought this was a good idea; the start of another "grand plan"

Without re-reading the entire thread, my impression was that only the OP thought it was a realistic possibility.

I considered it nonsense when I read it.

sasadler5-Dec-17 4:08

sasadler

5-Dec-17 4:08

So....what happens if/when the robots become sentient?

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 4:22

5-Dec-17 4:22

I dont think a machine can ever become sentient.

Member 81020065-Dec-17 5:08

Member 8102006

5-Dec-17 5:08

So? Then what?

We can all live, behave, and look-like Jabba the Hutt, with our drink serving droids providing for our every need?

Guess we'll also be entertained like Jabba - watching other being tortured?

Doesn't sound too attractive to me...

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 5:13

5-Dec-17 5:13

Member 8102006 wrote:
We can all live, behave, and look-like Jabba the Hutt, with our drink serving droids providing for our every need?

If you like.

Or you can go for walks, play tennis, golf. Go sailing.

Your choice. But you will have the time to do whatever you like.

SeattleC++5-Dec-17 8:45

SeattleC++

5-Dec-17 8:45

You didn't account for a single very important question. With government already in the pockets of industry, why would the owners of robots ever allow such a tax to be levied? Wouldn't they be happier and richer if they kept all the money?

Let me paint you a different future scenario. People work like slaves at horrifying low-wage jobs for 40 years to make enough money to purchase a robot. They lease this robot to a manufacturer to make profitable things, living off the income produced by this lease. Leasees have little incentive (beyond their contract) to care for the leased robots, so sometimes they are used harshly, destroying a lifetime of work for some squishy human. If newer, better robots come out, the value of the older robot is degraded, causing an income shortfall for the lessor.

In the end, robots become a more desirable workforce than humans for all types of jobs, and only families who own a robot on that day can make enough money to feed themselves. The remaining humans live a Mad-Max life in unwanted wasteland, trying to grow or forage enough calories to survive day-to-day. They turn to crime, dry-gulching robots and stripping them for parts to make other robots. Just as happened with the Luddites, the government makes disassembling a robot a capital offense. Now robots are people too, and just in time, as they gradually become self-aware.

Now societies of robots form businesses that go into competition with human-controlled businesses, and compete for resources with human-controlled businesses, driving up prices. This is the end for wild humans, and the beginning of the end for human-run businesses. Human activity is now fully superfluous everywhere. AIs controlled by the robots evolve faster than AIs controlled by humans, and outthink them.

If we're very lucky, the robots won't decide to exterminate us, but will set up a reservation for the human remnants, something like Madagascar or Austrailia: something without many valuable resources.

I wonder if the last Neandertal observed those tall-walking, gracile homo sapiens and was proud of his successors. Or was he bitter and disillusioned for having invited them into his villages and caves, only to be out-competed and out-smarted.

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 21:46

5-Dec-17 21:46

You have much imagination! Smile | :)