As a society we should aim for everyone having this thing. The best state is for everybody to be idle because they all own enough capital not to have to work.
Besides, preventing this outcome is silly unless there is solid evidence that the alternative is more economically efficient. Jeff Bezos being rich doesn't diminish the quality of my life in any way. Same for all the other wealthy folk.
> As a society we should aim for everyone having this thing. The best state is for everybody to be idle because they all own enough capital not to have to work.
By "capital" do you mean "intelligent robots"? Because otherwise, who is going to do the work when everyone is idle?
I mean capital. You could have asked the same question in 1823 and the answer turned out to be "no". Unintelligent capital is so productive that most people were forced out of all known jobs in the 1800s.
Yeah that was probably poorly articulated. Put it this way - everyone used to be a farmer. Capitalism happened, now the number of farmers in capitalist economies rounds to 0. There was no need for intelligent robots to do that. AI is likely to have a similar effect on some knowledge workers.
At this point, arguably, very few people need to work. They persist regardless, and we are better off for it, but maybe growth in robotics and AI will some day force people to stop. And that would be a good outcome. Even now, if people don't need to work that is arguably for the best. The only concern I have is government policy encouraging productive people not to exert themselves. Either way, identifying people who are highly productive but not working and making them waste their time is stupid. We should want less people to need to work.
Capitalism happened, now the number of farmers in capitalist economies rounds to 0.
No it doesn't. There are 2 million farms in the United States, and they don't just take care of themselves.
Moreover, besides the farmers themselves, there are many people working in farming-related jobs, e.g., manufacturing farm equipment. Not to mention, how do you think the food gets from the farms to your table? The trucks don't just drive themselves yet.
> At this point, arguably, very few people need to work.
That's ridiculous. Ruthless capitalists would have gotten rid of employees already if they could.
> No it doesn't. There are 2 million farms in the United States, and they don't just take care of themselves.
I'm not abreast of the stats for the US, but it would appear those 2 million farms employ order of magnitude 2 million farmers [0]. Which averages 1 farmer per farm, and while that seems a bit low it isn't inconceivable to me when considering the productivity of farmers in this day and age.
The population of the US is 333 million people. Factor in geography, there may well be people who have literally never talked to a farmer in person. There are not a lot of farmers out there, the industry has been eaten by capital.
That leaves around 99% of the population that may literally does not need to work to sustain a lifestyle that would be considered typical through most of human history. No intelligent robots required.
> Ruthless capitalists would have gotten rid of employees already if they could.
They have. Industries have been all but wiped out for employees by capitalists. The only thing keeping people employed is they refuse to be satisfied with what they have and keep finding new jobs. Although if they were a bit more savvy they'd invest in capital and stop wasting time working. Capital wins when it comes down to it.
This insistence that people should put the foundation of their lifestyle on work instead of capital accumulation is a habit that is sorta silly. The expectation should be that the average person owns capital and policies should be aimed at enabling that. Forcing successful capitalists to work is the opposite of clever.
If you think 2 million is approximately 0, you should look at the stats from other professions. For example, there are actually more farmers than physicians.
This "conversation" is becoming ridiculous. Do you think we need no physicians? No nurses? No dentists? No hair stylists? No home builders? No plumbers? No chefs? I could go on and on and on, but I actually don't want to go on and on and on with you.
No TEACHERS. No librarians. No electricians. No sanitation workers. No engineers. No mail carriers. No maintenance or repair people. No sales people. No cashiers. No snow plowers. No architects. No SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS. No journalists. No writers. No actors. No musicians. No police. No lawyers. No airline pilots.
How in the world do you think the world works without people?
Perhpas you're putting a lot into "sustain a lifestyle that would be considered typical through most of human history", but why would we want to roll back the clock and live like it's the Dark Ages?
Historically we'd be talking about 80-90% of people being farmers [0]; even putting aside the fact that "farmers" in this day and age, by productivity, are basically just minding big machines that work hard. Tell you what, how about I say 1%. So maybe it is a 98% reduction in farming employment instead of 100%. None of my arguments change though.
Now that is a long list, but a several the jobs you're listing there might be on the verge of extinction as a practical matter. Software developers in particular; it is clear that LLMs are about to do something big to the profession. It isn't clear if the job title will survive. Engineers more broadly I'd put in the same bucket, the category is at risk as an employer. ChatGPT is already outcompeting a lot of teachers I know in terms of being able to explain & tutor concepts. Airline pilots we should probably make illegal fairly soon; I wouldn't want to trust my life to human judgement when we could automate that away. We're on the edge of self driving cars and presumably self driving planes is either the same or easier difficulty because navigating the sky is easier than a street. I haven't talked to a cashier or salesperson in a long time because my local shopping centre has self-service or I buy things online. Etc, etc.
And I don't know why you think all those jobs are so important to preserve. If we can get rid of them we should, and as far as technology goes we're in spitting distance. The software is a matter of years, so really it is a question of where the economic limits are for robotics. I don't think we will; I imagine work will be found. But in terms of should we replace these people with capital, we should. And in many cases we will. And the goal should be to remove people from the workforce altogether through capital ownership because that is a much more comfortable lifestyle.
> but I actually don't want to go on and on and on with you.
As a style point, I'd recommend putting that at the end of the list, rather than the middle. I got a bit of a chuckle out of that, so if you did it for effect I thought it was a nice touch.
Surely the goal of society would be egalitarianism? In which the entire concept of money- a vehicle of inequality- would be no longer needed. The concept of capital as you described it would not need to exist at all.
How could that even be a theoretical possibility? Nobody having to work is a possible outcome. Societal equality as far as I can see isn't. If nothing else, we could all start equal and then someone starts working because they are bored and accumulate more stuff.
It isn't a useful goal anyway. If you have all that you need, someone else having more than that isn't a problem.
Besides, preventing this outcome is silly unless there is solid evidence that the alternative is more economically efficient. Jeff Bezos being rich doesn't diminish the quality of my life in any way. Same for all the other wealthy folk.