Postcapitalism and the Impending Death of Work

[Werthead]

The story of the 21^st Century is likely to be the story of how humanity comes to grips with three great, interconnected problems: climate change, overpopulation and postcapitalism, the end of the centuries-long paradigm under which people work and get paid for it so they can survive. Improved technology, AI and automation will effectively end the relationship between work, survival and rewards that has been the norm. At the same time a changing climate and rising sea levels – even if kept to a modest degree – will present issues for food supply and mass migrations from affected regions (most worryingly, low-lying Bangladesh where at least 60 million people may be forced to move from coastal regions). The problems associated with the mass, worldwide reduction in the need for workers and a growing population crammed into the cities raises issues related to civil rights, law enforcement and simply keeping people occupied.

 

By the midpoint of this century, AI, automation and robots will have replaced many jobs (from menial cleaning tasks to more sophisticated engineering ones) and many others related to customer service and even medicine and science. The unemployment rate will be incredibly high. Judge Dredd, the classic British SF comic book which was one of the first SF works to really examine this problem in the 1970s, suggest an ultimate unemployment rate of between 92% and 97% by the early 22nd Century. The overwhelming majority of the population is that setting survive on a basic, state-provided income. 

 

This possible outcome has been mooted many times in science fiction but actual economists and politicians have always scoffed at the idea. They point to history: when the spinning jenny was invented in the north of England in the 1760s, the inventor’s house was broken into and his machines smashed by people angry that his increased productivity would lower prices (which was correct) and destroy jobs (which was incorrect), since one worker with a spinning jenny could produce cloth at roughly eight times the rate of a worker by hand. However, market economics always favour increased productivity over reduced costs, so companies with the jennies would rather increase output (and thus profits) 800% rather than cut labour costs. Indeed, the increased profits were used to buy bigger premises and employ more people, resulting in the invention of factories and mass industrialisation as we know it. The same was true of almost every major technological invention and innovation from the middle of the 18th Century to the late 20th.

 

However, this movement has been reversed in recent decades. Large factories have been built (mostly in Asia but increasingly in Europe and the Americas) which are very nearly completely automated. In the UK the food company Ocado has an experimental factory which is almost completely unmanned, with robots, algorithms and computers sorting goods and even packing and unpacking lorries. Elsewhere, cars are constructed and built on assembly lines with minimal human oversight. One computer server can now hold and retrieve records that used to require a hundred clerks with filing cabinets to maintain. A company like Amazon can hold, buy and sell goods across the entire planet with a few thousand employees (mostly in warehouse stacking and retrieval jobs which themselves are vulnerable to automation) whilst traditional retail companies require thousands of stores, each with a dozen or more employees, to do the same thing. All of these innovations are built on cost savings: computers, AI and robots are cheaper to build and mass-produce than workers are to train and hire, they never go sick, they never need holiday pay and they’re unlikely to sneak off to the toilet to check on their Facebook feed. Adding more people to these high-tech industries will increase costs and lower productivity and profits rather than increase them. The recent suggestion that jobs outsourced to China could return to Europe and the United States has been surprisingly positively received because many of these jobs have since been largely automated and it doesn't matter at all if a robot is based in China or the USA. Even those coal mines in the US that people have been talking about will be automated with less than 10% of the manpower they used fifty years ago.

 

More recently we have seen traditional jobs in customer services requiring human interaction being lost to self-service machines, not just in supermarkets but increasingly in banks. The rise in personal banking over the Internet has also seen thousands of bank branches (with their attendant jobs) all over the world being shut down as people switch to more convenient ways of banking. Even in banks that are still open, there is usually now 1 clear/teller at best and 10 self-service machines. The same can be seen in McDonalds, with automated screens allowing people to place orders and pay before moving to a pickup point, rather than having 10 people manning tills.

 

The sudden advent of self-driving technology, being pioneered by companies including Uber, Google and Tesla, is an even more alarming threat to traditional jobs. Driving, either taxis or trucks for mass transport of goods, is a valuable source of income for low-skilled workers. In less than a generation - in fact, in less than a decade given how fast things are moving - we may see the majority of these jobs disappear in favour of vehicles that can stay on the road 24/7, never get lost, (hopefully) never have accidents and never overcharge their passengers.

 

Some countries are moving to tackle the issue: Finland is trialling a basic income, where people get enough money to survive from central taxation and anything they earn through work is added onto that amount. A similar trial in Aquitaine in France is also planned, and the Pirate Party in Iceland is advocating for a trial of their own. Economic models in Europe, where taxes are generally higher than the United States, indicate that a basic income is both possible and sustainable, and has positive outcomes (one study showed that only 1 in 10 people on the scheme voluntarily chose to stop working, and most of those were older people close to retirement anyway or parents choosing to spend more time with their children). Such a system would be harder to implement in countries such as the United States, as it would require a near-doubling of taxes to be sustainable. In the UK it would be more achievable due to the UK’s over-complex morass of tax credits and rebates, not to mention the enormously expensive welfare state bureaucracy. Eliminating all of these would move the country some way to affording a basic income (which would replace them).

 

The idea of a basic income is controversial, since it suggests that during the likely decades-long transitional period there would be people who worked hard to effectively subsidise other people who chose not to work at all: Switzerland rejected the notion by 76% in a referendum last year. Although studies show that relatively few people would voluntarily choose not to work at all, there would no doubt be some who did that make that choice, increasing social division and resentment. There is also the risk that those on a basic income in areas with no jobs would soon find themselves in the “just about managing” bracket with the temptation of engaging in crime to supplement their income. This outcome drives a lot of storylines in Judge Dredd and is also a troublesome outcome in James S.A. Corey’s Expanse novels, where automation has required most of the population of Earth to survive on a basic income (whilst those in Mars and the asteroid belt have to work much harder just to survive, to their annoyance). Still, it is another idea once consigned to SF that is now being more actively discussed in the real world.

 

tl;dr: whether you're a soldier, a post worker, a production line operative, a banker or even a brain surgeon, a robot is coming for your job and, short of a neoluddite revolution, there's really not much you can do about it.

[Ormond]

10 minutes ago, Werthead said:

never get lost, (hopefully) never have accidents and never overcharge their passengers.

Most of what you write about is fascinating to think about, and may come to pass, although I have no idea really how fast it would happen or what the true chance of it occurring is.

I really don't believe the one little clause above, though. I do not think it is possible to build any technology that is perfect. I can believe that these transportation problems could be drastically reduced in the future, but the idea that mistakes will NEVER be made seems as unbelievable to me as the idea that there will be a time when electric service will never be disrupted to any location, or that websites will never "go down." Absolute perfection in anything is an unobtainable goal. 

[Werthead]

5 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Most of what you write about is fascinating to think about, and may come to pass, although I have no idea really how fast it would happen or what the true chance of it occurring is.

I really don't believe the one little clause above, though. I do not think it is possible to build any technology that is perfect. I can believe that these transportation problems could be drastically reduced in the future, but the idea that mistakes will NEVER be made seems as unbelievable to me as the idea that there will be a time when electric service will never be disrupted to any location, or that websites will never "go down." Absolute perfection in anything is an unobtainable goal. 

Absolutely. But a massive improvement over the current 30,000 deaths-per-year on the roads in the US is eminently achievable. The big motivating fact will be goods, trucks that just keep going all night without a break and so forth. Companies and corporate interests will be pushing for this to be allowed, easily overriding any concerns from drivers' unions (if there are any left with teeth, and what can they do? Go on strike?).

Even if laws are passed so that supervisors are still needed on board, in case the automation system breaks down or something, companies will be able to argue that these people won't need to be paid as much because 90% of the time they won't be doing anything.

[OldGimletEye]

Let me put this way.

I’ve spent a good part of my life understanding economics and economic history.

And the AI revolution may make all that useless or irrelevant. Typically economics uses production functions that have both capital and labor. Now, most technological improvements, while perhaps often involving slow and painful adjustment processes, have resulted in higher output, as technological improvements eventually made labor more productive.

But, what happens, when AI reaches the point, that labor is simply not needed? Or the need for it becomes very limited. Then that becomes something completely different from what we’ve have experienced in the past.

Its a future that inspires hope and fear. If handled wrongly, it could result in just few individuals having enormous amounts of power, while many people remained unemployed and without resources. If handled correctly, it could relieve humans from much drudgery.

I think a high degree of socialism will be required to make it work. Personally, I’ve always been more partial to JM Keynes than Karl Marx. But, in the future AI may make Marx more relevant.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

If something like what you describe actually does come to pass, I think the outcomes will vary significantly across countries. We Europeans are by and large already used to extensive welfare systems, and have relatively high levels of social cohesion due to our shared histories and cultures. So convincing our populations to switch to some sort of basic income system, if unemployment levels and income inequalities end up becoming extreme, should be doable. 

The USA is a different story, however. I think a Judge Dredd-ish type of situation is more likely to emerge there. That's kind of like how a lot of Latin American countries work already, really. 

[polishgenius]

Perhaps lucky for me, I work in childcare, one of the few profssions that I suspect will be out of danger for a while. It will, however, probably see a massive influx of people trying to get into it though (so I'd better get a solid job and qualification sooner rather than later...).




Basic income, you would have thought, is going to be a necessity at some point. Sure, it has problems, and some people will take advantage, but in the long run, if there are no jobs, what else can you do?


It'd be a whole lot easier to tackle this problem if we weren't facing it simultaneously with the global warming and pollution crises, the (related but not the same) energy crisis/renewables revolution, possibly a medical crisis caused by the antibiotics resistance thing, and probably other obvious catastrophes and massive societo-technological overhauls that I'm missing, as well as of course on more individual national levels all sorts of little but to us huge things (Brexit, Trump, etc etc). But this problem almost seems like the easiest one to tackle if we had our collective heads screwed on straight, since from my perspective the long-term effect could be transformatively beneficial for society, if not for the paymasters currently running it. But as I said in the other topic, people don't just not want to but seem unable to even perceive that they have to discuss it, and as others said (more-or-less) that's because our current model that work is a measure of the worth of a person is ingrained deep.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Perhaps lucky for me, I work in childcare, one of the few profssions that I suspect will be out of danger for a while. It will, however, probably see a massive influx of people trying to get into it though (so I'd better get a solid job and qualification sooner rather than later...).

I'd think that it wouldn't be a particularly valuable job because so many people will be available as nannies or simply staying at home. When you have most of your family to take care of kids, childcare becomes much less important.

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Basic income, you would have thought, is going to be a necessity at some point. Sure, it has problems, and some people will take advantage, but in the long run, if there are no jobs, what else can you do?

 

Depends a lot on the type of economy we end up living in. If we are also postscarcity (at least for basic things), income doesn't make a lot of sense for basic stuff at all. There was a Sterling novel about how you could basically grow livable housing that you could also eat, and a big chunk of people lived in it. It didn't taste awesome and it wasn't the best place ever, but everyone had access to housing, food and water. Does it make sense to give people an income at that point, when they can just literally find a place to live and eat it? 

I think that's further away than the immediate need, but I also don't think it's that far away, and we're likely going to hit a biological version of the information age. I also think using AI is going to result in a lot of very odd ideas that will work really well but seem totally bizarre to us, but we'll go along with them because they're good ideas. 

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

It'd be a whole lot easier to tackle this problem if we weren't facing it simultaneously with the global warming and pollution crises, the (related but not the same) energy crisis/renewables revolution, possibly a medical crisis caused by the antibiotics resistance thing, and probably other obvious catastrophes and massive societo-technological overhauls that I'm missing, as well as of course on more individual national levels all sorts of little but to us huge things (Brexit, Trump, etc etc). But this problem almost seems like the easiest one to tackle if we had our collective heads screwed on straight, since from my perspective the long-term effect could be transformatively beneficial for society, if not for the paymasters currently running it. But as I said in the other topic, people don't just not want to but seem unable to even perceive that they have to discuss it, and as others said (more-or-less) that's because our current model that work is a measure of the worth of a person is ingrained deep.

How many people do you know that have their surname of a job or profession? That's how deep it is.

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I'd think that it wouldn't be a particularly valuable job because so many people will be available as nannies or simply staying at home. When you have most of your family to take care of kids, childcare becomes much less important.

Depends a lot on the type of economy we end up living in. If we are also postscarcity (at least for basic things), income doesn't make a lot of sense for basic stuff at all. There was a Sterling novel about how you could basically grow livable housing that you could also eat, and a big chunk of people lived in it. It didn't taste awesome and it wasn't the best place ever, but everyone had access to housing, food and water. Does it make sense to give people an income at that point, when they can just literally find a place to live and eat it? 

I think that's further away than the immediate need, but I also don't think it's that far away, and we're likely going to hit a biological version of the information age. I also think using AI is going to result in a lot of very odd ideas that will work really well but seem totally bizarre to us, but we'll go along with them because they're good ideas. 

How many people do you know that have their surname of a job or profession? That's how deep it is.

You've hit on something here with the childcare. One way families can and likely will adapt is pooling resources in one place, pretty much a clan system. Parents and kids living together, and oftentimes other relatives. I've already seen a lot of this happening in recent years. It's not sustainable in the face of no work or income, but it is one way families may adapt in an environment of low hours/low paid work. Usually in these types of setups though as they currently are, there is baby boomers in some sort of decently paid work that are paying the mortgage, etc. This is one reason why some young men can get away without having to work.

Informal barter, such as exchange of child care services, is one of the ways people in deep poverty survive the unforgiving American landscape.

Things like illegal living spaces may proliferate as well. Non coded spaces, squatted spaces, etc. There was a news story a while back about these sort of nomad baby boomers in RV's, living basically on the road, only stopping for seasonal jobs and such.

On The Road With America's Nomadic Seniors

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/09/27/nomadland-older-americans-work

[Kalbear]

46 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

You've hit on something here with the childcare. One way families can and likely will adapt is pooling resources in one place, pretty much a clan system. Parents and kids living together, and oftentimes other relatives. I've already seen a lot of this happening in recent years. It's not sustainable in the face of no work or income, but it is one way families may adapt in an environment of low hours/low paid work. Usually in these types of setups though as they currently are, there is baby boomers in some sort of decently paid work that are paying the mortgage, etc. This is one reason why some young men can get away without having to work.

Informal barter, such as exchange of child care services, is one of the ways people in deep poverty survive the unforgiving American landscape.

Things like illegal living spaces may proliferate as well. Non coded spaces, squatted spaces, etc. There was a news story a while back about these sort of nomad baby boomers in RV's, living basically on the road, only stopping for seasonal jobs and such.

Yes, all of this. This is what poor people have known for a while, and it's just going to proliferate. We're seeing a startup that codifies worksharing for a specific job, having multiple people do a 40-hour job as a team or corporation, and that sort of thing is going to go. We're going to gigify the economy significantly. Sure, there will be longer-term positions, probably in leadership and management of humans, that are a bit more permanent (likely because of things like vision and interaction with others in suit), but work that can be pieced out will be pieced out. 

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

You've hit on something here with the childcare. One way families can and likely will adapt is pooling resources in one place, pretty much a clan system. Parents and kids living together, and oftentimes other relatives. I've already seen a lot of this happening in recent years. It's not sustainable in the face of no work or income, but it is one way families may adapt in an environment of low hours/low paid work. Usually in these types of setups though as they currently are, there is baby boomers in some sort of decently paid work that are paying the mortgage, etc. This is one reason why some young men can get away without having to work.

The clan system is how many societies around the world currently work and in fact even Western nations used it not too long ago. It can be argued that the prosperity which allowed children to leave their homes before having a family of their own (which introduces a certain economy) is the exception and its time is quickly coming to an end.

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

tl;dr: whether you're a soldier, a post worker, a production line operative, a banker or even a brain surgeon, a robot is coming for your job and, short of a neoluddite revolution, there's really not much you can do about it.

That is a really nice post and it's not too long to read, but too long to quote so I'll just reply to this part. The statement is true, but the process will be gradual and will almost certainly take at least a couple of decades for the majority of jobs. I'm hedging because there's a small chance that we will build a machine which is capable of building smarter machines at which point all bets are off. Furthermore, I don't think the Judge Dredd or Expanse futures are necessarily the outcome of automation -- we could also get a post-scarcity utopia.

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'd think that it wouldn't be a particularly valuable job because so many people will be available as nannies or simply staying at home. When you have most of your family to take care of kids, childcare becomes much less important.

You may be right there.

 

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Furthermore, I don't think the Judge Dredd or Expanse futures are necessarily the outcome of automation -- we could also get a post-scarcity utopia.

I was gonna say this too. Though even if we do get there there will be bad times along the way (and while we could live to see the Dredd-ish parts we wouldn't live to see the world as a post-scarcity society, I'm fairly sure, even if we manage to set the route). Which is kind of depressing, but there's something to aim at.

[Iskaral Pust]

The aging population in most of the developed world, especially Japan, Western Europe, South Korea and China will become a problem faster than any of the others mentioned.  Just look at Japan already.  We may need the cheap production capability of robots to free up enough carers for the elderly, but that would require a significant govt-led transfer of resources: taxes on robot production to pay health care workers. 

I know immigration is a potential fix but the rise of nativism, largely stimulated by the economic anxiety of automation replacing labor, makes that less likely. 

@polishgenius elder care looks like a demographically more secure career than child care.  Who has voting power to compel govt-paid benefits?

[DMC]

7 hours ago, Werthead said:

The story of the 21^st Century is likely to be the story of how humanity comes to grips with three great, interconnected problems: climate change, overpopulation and postcapitalism, the end of the centuries-long paradigm under which people work and get paid for it so they can survive. Improved technology, AI and automation will effectively end the relationship between work, survival and rewards that has been the norm.

This is an interesting post, and I know this topic has been discussed here many times over.  Personally, I've never thought too much about this and clearly many here have thought quite a bit about it.  So to end my disclaimer, please take the following questions as solely an attempt to understand this vision of the future.  Assuming all that is described in the OP comes to fruition - widespread automation and basic income (and also the "postscarcity" aspect Kal mentioned to alleviate the effects of climate change) - I'm wondering how you (general you) think certain factors will influence this process and/or be dealt with.

First, the aging population.  This has been emphasized in the western world for as long as I can remember, but it has a global reach:

Quote

Over the next 15 years, the number of older persons is expected to grow fastest in Latin America and the Caribbean with a projected 71 per cent increase in the population aged 60 years or over, followed by Asia (66 per cent), Africa (64 per cent), Oceania (47 per cent), Northern America (41 per cent) and Europe (23 per cent). [2]

Obviously, the cost of the elderly's "basic income" is going to be inherently higher than everyone else's.  Of course in the current welfare state paradigm they are funded by younger workers.  If the latter is radically depleted, how is this rectified?  I think the "clan" system discussed above is a sound rationale for general care, but there's still healthcare costs.

Second (and very much the result of the above), the distribution of those in poverty is getting younger throughout the west.  Not just the US, but also throughout Europe:

Quote

Another noticeable shift that has occurred during the past thirty years pertains to the age profile of poverty, with young people replacing the elderly as the group most at risk of poverty. [8]

So, we have more and more elderly with more and more poor youth.  In the proposed future, the latter would almost certainly be wholly reliant on the basic income stipend with no applicable skills.  As is mentioned in the OP, this could lead to resentment and crime.  I think this is much more of a certainty than is presented - as is violence.  Is this a common expectation?  If not, what is the logic behind quelling such a population?

This gets us to the broader inequality question.  I'm just going to focus on the west to limit the scope of inquiry.  I think everybody here is well acquainted with the inequality trends of the US, but see the above "Europe" link that shows it's at alarming rates in most countries there as well.  Since this is the situation going into such a transition, wouldn't basic income crystallize the difference between the haves and have-nots to a degree not seen since...well, we could argue how long it's been, but let's just say a very long time?  And wouldn't the former be the one's deciding what exactly a "basic income" is for the latter?  (Insert preferred variation of "don't they already?" here.)  How does that not lead to perpetual class war; and how is this a sustainable societal structure?

Finally, and most importantly, what exactly is the conceptual definition of "postcapitalism?"  The concept seems far too preoccupied for what it isn't with very little consideration for what it is.  Something has to replace capitalism (well, technically the modern welfare state).  Are there different modes of currency between the elites and the basic incomers?  Are there - and if so, how so - opportunities for the latter to acquire anything beyond basic necessities?  What is the nature of the education system?  Presumably there has to be some training involved to ensure the perpetuity of society among the elites/providers.  Or, are there elites?  Suppose I should have put this at the top, because it can answer all of my questions - is this vision of the future simply something that resembles of WALL-E?

[Spring Bass]

I basically said my piece in the thread that inspired this thread, but I'll repeat the basic jist of it. We'll know when the robots are really coming for our jobs - not just individual sectors and jobs being replaced as in the past, but systemic job loss from automation - when we start seeing a combination of both high and rising productivity and unemployment. Right now we don't see either in the US or UK, and I'm pretty sure (although feel free to check me on this) that it's not being seen in any of the other OECD countries. 

32 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Finally, and most importantly, what exactly is the conceptual definition of "postcapitalism?"  The concept seems far too preoccupied for what it isn't with very little consideration for what it is.

The main definition seems to be a world where we're not actively involved in working, organizing (beyond a very large strategic level), or exchanging in the economy anymore. For all intents and purposes the post-capitalist economy (assuming this is Robot Socialism) would be one where the "system" is an AI-run black box that absorbs inputs and makes available a certain stipend of resources in various potential forms for you to live off of. That could be a basic income, it could be a "basket" of "free" services like housing/food/entertainment/etc, or something else entirely. 

For me, the really interesting thing is what happens once we start modifying ourselves and our desires. Humans might potentially be modifying themselves to never get bored, never get lonely, never get depressed, and so forth. That turns any idea we might have about such a society on its head. 

If we don't get that, then my guess is that - eventually - we'd all essentially have an aristocratic ethos on life. "Machines work, we don't - we instead spend our days playing games, competing in all forms of pageantry, sports, special privileges, and pointless hierarchies, and enjoying rich food, drink, and shelter." People who don't like that or don't like being stuck at the bottom of the hierarchies move off-world to new colonies where they can be bigger fish in initially smaller ponds. 

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Fall Bass said:

For all intents and purposes the post-capitalist economy (assuming this is Robot Socialism) would be one where the "system" is an AI-run black box that absorbs inputs and makes available a certain stipend of resources in various potential forms for you to live off of. That could be a basic income, it could be a "basket" of "free" services like housing/food/entertainment/etc, or something else entirely. 

Yeah this would essentially be the WALL-E eventuality I referred to.  If that's all it is, I find the discussion rather uninteresting - then the only worthwhile argument seems to be whether or not it will come to pass.

26 minutes ago, Fall Bass said:

For me, the really interesting thing is what happens once we start modifying ourselves and our desires. Humans might potentially be modifying themselves to never get bored, never get lonely, never get depressed, and so forth. That turns any idea we might have about such a society on its head.

Heh.  Not sure I can wrap my head around that.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Another possibility is that the resources necessary to sustain this technology start to run out, eventually leading to technological regression.

[The Anti-Targ]

Surely with every labour saving (or eliminating) revolution came a massive explosion in creative output of humanity. If all of the drugery of human work, and a lot of the skilled but technically repetitive stuff, no longer requires human labour, then this will cause the human creative potential to skyrocket. Advancements in the arts and sciences will simply go nuts.

The only thing to really worry about is ensuring education is delivered to everyone in order to help unlock their creative potential.

The only reason many chronically unemployed people lead inactive, unproductive lives is 1) because society constantly tells them that they are worthless because they are not in paid employment, so they get stuck in a cycle of negativity and self-hate and 2) they are often under-educated, which means their creative potential remains locked away.

There is no reason to run out of resources. For starters we have surely not even begun to scratch the surface of effectively and efficiently harnessing energy, and basically energy is the only thing you really need to be able to obtain all other resources.

And don't forget lab meat. If we can grow meat (and other food) from stem cells then land does not become a limiting factor in food production. A lot of land can be put to other uses, including being given back to nature, and at the same time hunger will never be a problem for anyone, ever.

And we'll be exploring space. Super exciting, no?

[Eggegg]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Surely with every labour saving (or eliminating) revolution came a massive explosion in creative output of humanity. If all of the drugery of human work, and a lot of the skilled but technically repetitive stuff, no longer requires human labour, then this will cause the human creative potential to skyrocket. Advancements in the arts and sciences will simply go nuts.

The only thing to really worry about is ensuring education is delivered to everyone in order to help unlock their creative potential.

The only reason many chronically unemployed people lead inactive, unproductive lives is 1) because society constantly tells them that they are worthless because they are not in paid employment, so they get stuck in a cycle of negativity and self-hate and 2) they are often under-educated, which means their creative potential remains locked away.

There would definitely need to be active encouragement for people to create this creative output. What would be the incentive? Some people might create out of love for simply creating, but I'd suggest a lot of creation comes from the desire for respect from peers, and also money. 

I also think there will always be those who just need to be pushed or they will take free time and lack of structure and use it in ways that are unhelpful to society. Nobody wants to be unemployed or a lazy bum, but at the same time people don't like doing tasks they don't enjoy, and a lot of people like simply sitting around consuming entertainment. How do you stop people just deciding to do that instead?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

6 hours ago, Fall Bass said:

I basically said my piece in the thread that inspired this thread, but I'll repeat the basic jist of it. We'll know when the robots are really coming for our jobs - not just individual sectors and jobs being replaced as in the past, but systemic job loss from automation - when we start seeing a combination of both high and rising productivity and unemployment. Right now we don't see either in the US or UK, and I'm pretty sure (although feel free to check me on this) that it's not being seen in any of the other OECD countries. 

...

You are correct, but most advances in AI tech that have made people really start freak out about these things have only come in the last 2-3 years or so. They haven't had time to get implemented on a large scale yet. 

Ditto with solar power, batteries, etc. Huge changes in price levels and performance compared to only a few years ago. Fossil fuels basically don't have a future any longer. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I disagree with this.  I believe that we as a society will simply choose to value things differently.  Simply because we cannot imagine what is valuable now (though I have a sneaking suspicion it will be entertainment and art, at least until we blow ourselves up) doesn't mean that we won't have figured it out by then.  That is, money is an imaginary construct in the first place, and we allocate resources by what is valuable to our society anyhow, so frankly, we will just have to re-imagine what is valuable to us.