You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless.
Incidentally, this was exactly the reason of demise of the Roman Empire. Instead of robots, there were slaves captured in military conquests (slavery is morally wrong, of course, but it was "sustainable" and there were no significant slave uprisings). But it didn't end well.
> You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless.
I am envisioning a world where ultra-generous industrialists give away their wealth to help the world. You cannot say it cannot happen; it has/already is happening.
Indulge me for a moment, but isn't Bill Gates (along with Warren Buffet) giving away almost all their entire net worth in a very results-driven way to help raise the quality of life for the very worse off? And did Elon Musk (no fan boy comment here, just truth) not give away (really, offer to license at a very small cost) the patents necessary for existing vehicle manufacturers to make better electric cars?
Not everyone is greedy. Not everyone is an ultra-rich capitalist.
Bill Gates' fortune (that he hasn't gave off yet, BTW) is around $80 billion. OK, imagine that he actually put all of it to charity, all 80 billion. Say, to finance the basic income in the US. Let's assume $1000 per month will be enough for the US (the Swiss are rich poor bastards). So, for how long it will last?
The answer is ONE WEEK.
Throwing Buffet, Musk, Zuckerberg and all other rich ultra-generous industrialists in the equation will probably extend the runway to several months, perhaps a year. But that would be it.
The bulk of purchasing power in capitalist countries is still produced by working middle class.
When politicians start talking about taxing the rich more, they are really talking about the upper-middle class in the US. Otherwise there just isn't enough money higher up the income ladder to make it work.
I remember the NDP in Canada being asked who the rich were (back in a 1990's election). The said a family of 4 making more than $60,000 per year.
What if its not "taxing the rich more" and instead, is "preventing them from capturing all of the productivity gains the economy is realizing"?
Because then we get into this real uncomfortable argument, don't we? About what ownership is? Because when you're taxed, people will say that's theft of what they've "earned". But the wealthy don't earn like everyone else. They earn as rentiers, of either land, capital, or intellectual property.
I'm suggesting the entire ownership model is going to need to be turned on its head. Otherwise, those who own what the rest of the world needs will continue to siphon wealth out of the economy, to the detriment of everyone else.
The only missing number here is the US population (320 million). Basic income per month of $1000 gives $320 billion per month, or 4 Bill Gates fortunes.
Also interesting because the ~$80bn Gates fortune isn't exactly like tomorrow he could have $80bn cash, with the intent of spending it, like basic income would provide. I don't think there are many billionaires with even $100m cash. So, the effects of 1000 people having $1000 vs 1 person having $1,000,000 are very different, and for this reason I find comparisons of the illiquid wealth of an individual to basic income propositions incongruent.
The US has about 300 million people (well, more, but math is easier if you round it). At $1000 per month, that's a total cost of $300 billion / month, or $3.6 trillion dollars a year.
The US government spent $3.5 trillion in FY2014, according to Wikipedia.
That's assuming there isn't a loss of value in being forced to liquidate $6T in holdings, which there certainly would be. For every seller there has to be a buyer and most eligible buyers would be having their assets seized by the government.
> You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless.
Advances like universal health care and basic income enable self-organizing democratically governed means of production. Where the surplus (profit) is shared amongst the participants, vs gobbled up by the executive class.
Ya, legit concern. The race to zero marginal cost worries me. My hope is that people will still value (economically) authenticity, fashion, locally sourced goods, etc. And maybe there's industries which are too small to bother automating.
I agree with you very much on this, but the key is, how can you streamline the process for creating such organizations? And make it easier for autonomous teams to find its participants and collaborate? And ensure the fruits of the activity are shared equitably? (I think Buffer leads in this regard; transparency first).
These are all problems that are going to need to be worked out, but I have hope they will be!
> Future of capitalism is worker owned cooperatives
Oh, please, go run a business with 20+ employees for ten years and then come back to this comment. You'll see juat how ridiculous it actually sounds. Until then, please stop thinking you understand how a business runs, 'cause you don't.
Incidentally, this was exactly the reason of demise of the Roman Empire. Instead of robots, there were slaves captured in military conquests (slavery is morally wrong, of course, but it was "sustainable" and there were no significant slave uprisings). But it didn't end well.