The outcome Chris and Oren are shooting for sounds great. Just like all cheerleading promotions of economic proposals sound. I'd like to see the outcome they propose happen. The question is how can it happen? It would take a fundamental bedrock earthquake over corporate power for that to happen. Labor as an "input" is fundamental to the corporate mindset as is maximizing profit. In fact it is the law. The idea that Big Money investors are going to say, "Yeah, I'll take reduced profit so workers can have meaningful work." is preposterous fantasy in our current Universe.
The change Chris and Oren could happen through the law, through government. But it would require a complete cultural reorientation regarding Ownership. Who is going to manage the proposed balance of industrial advancement and worker advancement? Would government simply decree that workers get paid a comfortable single income family wage? Or would the rules of incorporation be revisited and overturned through legislation and/or the Courts? It is the latter that actually has to happen. Corporations would have to have charters approved by government (the people) to exist as legal entities. They would be fundamentally different than existing corporations. The requirement of substantial worker ownership would be the single most meaningful requirement if the goal Chris and Oren imagine is to have any possibility of being achieved.
But Capital is so powerful now that it has the means to shape culture and buy Government. Ultimately culture will shape government. Imagine a culture in which greed is regarded as an unalloyed reprehensible negative bordering on criminal. Yet in that culture contributors to the well-being of others at any scale are regarded as heroes and are materially rewarded. Excellence is revered and opportunity to achieve it is universally accessible yet those who aren't excellent are also regarded as essential to society. Such a culture would not have the corporate laws we have. There would have to be a deep and broad cultural understanding that economic policy written into law is to serve everyone and not just capital owners. For that to happen politicians would have to compete over who would be the best public servant, best representing their constituents' interests. Hardly a Big Money proposition. Myths of rugged individualism, and rags to riches self made men have to be understood as destructive myths that mendaciously disregard the existing cultural and technical interconnections anyone and everyone who has succeeded has depended on.
In short, the crippling flaws of capitalism would have to be culturally extinguished while maximizing the positive innovation of capitalism. So, ownership. Generally, as Chris and Oren and many others point out meaningful well rewarded work is Healthy for most people. One thing that is decided unhealthy for most people is too much wealth and too much power. Sociopaths appear to do okay with those, but not decent normal people. Most would recognize the essential inequity and absurdity of outlandish wealth, which can never be understood to be truly, individually earned. It’s hard to argue against the idea that profit is the value of labor unpaid to workers. There’s also rentier profit of course but that is an extension and abstraction of underpaid labor as profit. So, as a matter of health, and of keeping power out of the hands of sociopaths, Limits on personal wealth would have to be culturally understood as a good thing for both individuals and society at large. That’s not a strange idea in our history. The golden age of worker productivity in the US that Chris and Oren lament saw excess income taxed at 90%. But that also had unique extenuating circumstances. Naturally the advent of modern “financial instruments” makes wealth less dependent on taxable income. But that can be changed if the culture demands it.
What’s the plan, then, for this seismic culture shift? Resurgent (insurgent?) Christian Nationalism isn’t headed that direction. The unitary executive theory is the opposite direction of worker empowerment. Citizens United and related money is speech and corporate personhood rulings legalized political bribery and ownership by the financial elite so no worker empowerment there. Dumbed down nationalist indoctrination as substitute for thorough history and civics education can't help the cause. A theory is nice. I got a million of them, all good. But what is the actionable plan to get from here to there. I see a lot of noise that keeps going ultimately the wrong way. Chris, Oren, what is your plan for shifting the culture?
Dear Chris, Before Ricardo (and better than), there was Alexander Hamilton, who argued for mechanization in his Report on Manufactures. One of the contexts was his defense of the higher wage levels for workers in the United States. You guys should get to the basics -- Read and review Hamilton Versus Wall Street: The Core Principles of the American System of Economics. Nancy Spannnaus
I quit reading about half way through. The current problem isn't technology. It doesn't matter if you use more workers or machines if at the end of the day you have the stuff done in corrupt or free riding country.
If we keep allowing companies to ha e their stuff produced in places like Mexico or China, or keep letting companies get around paying for defense by putting their headquarters and hiding there profits in Ireland, the whole system is going to collapse anyway.
It's more or less a massive international "tragedy of the commons" at this point.
Interesting question, higher wages often push firms to automate, but that can end up boosting productivity overall. I recently trimmed background processes and saw snappier app launches. A useful lens here is to watch how policy balances short-term labor costs with long-term investment in innovation. (https://memoryreduct.com)
“to be useful, to produce, to transform, to add value – these are fundamental human drives that people satisfy through various forms of labor….” When the United States was formed, 98% of the population were engaged in self sustaining farming (some aided by slavery), but very little straight up work for wages. Since then we have seen a great many shifts in work, population, technology and just about every facet of American life. Yet, things have always improved on the whole despite many projecting that things were going to go to hell in a hand basket, our current President included. Throughout millennia humans and Americans have always found the way forward. I have no doubt it will continue, no matter the pontificating of politicians or over-analysis of academicians.
This is idiotic. AI is going to first replace the vast majority of white color jobs, and then it will come for the blue color jobs. It won't fail. It is inexorable.
And UBI is the only rational response to this sea change in human evolution.
No it isn't, it's going to allow those who adapt to produce better work and it will allow me corporations to be more efficient in their business operations increasing the number of businesses that normally wouldn't have started because of excessive barriers to entry of boring business demands.
The outcome Chris and Oren are shooting for sounds great. Just like all cheerleading promotions of economic proposals sound. I'd like to see the outcome they propose happen. The question is how can it happen? It would take a fundamental bedrock earthquake over corporate power for that to happen. Labor as an "input" is fundamental to the corporate mindset as is maximizing profit. In fact it is the law. The idea that Big Money investors are going to say, "Yeah, I'll take reduced profit so workers can have meaningful work." is preposterous fantasy in our current Universe.
The change Chris and Oren could happen through the law, through government. But it would require a complete cultural reorientation regarding Ownership. Who is going to manage the proposed balance of industrial advancement and worker advancement? Would government simply decree that workers get paid a comfortable single income family wage? Or would the rules of incorporation be revisited and overturned through legislation and/or the Courts? It is the latter that actually has to happen. Corporations would have to have charters approved by government (the people) to exist as legal entities. They would be fundamentally different than existing corporations. The requirement of substantial worker ownership would be the single most meaningful requirement if the goal Chris and Oren imagine is to have any possibility of being achieved.
But Capital is so powerful now that it has the means to shape culture and buy Government. Ultimately culture will shape government. Imagine a culture in which greed is regarded as an unalloyed reprehensible negative bordering on criminal. Yet in that culture contributors to the well-being of others at any scale are regarded as heroes and are materially rewarded. Excellence is revered and opportunity to achieve it is universally accessible yet those who aren't excellent are also regarded as essential to society. Such a culture would not have the corporate laws we have. There would have to be a deep and broad cultural understanding that economic policy written into law is to serve everyone and not just capital owners. For that to happen politicians would have to compete over who would be the best public servant, best representing their constituents' interests. Hardly a Big Money proposition. Myths of rugged individualism, and rags to riches self made men have to be understood as destructive myths that mendaciously disregard the existing cultural and technical interconnections anyone and everyone who has succeeded has depended on.
In short, the crippling flaws of capitalism would have to be culturally extinguished while maximizing the positive innovation of capitalism. So, ownership. Generally, as Chris and Oren and many others point out meaningful well rewarded work is Healthy for most people. One thing that is decided unhealthy for most people is too much wealth and too much power. Sociopaths appear to do okay with those, but not decent normal people. Most would recognize the essential inequity and absurdity of outlandish wealth, which can never be understood to be truly, individually earned. It’s hard to argue against the idea that profit is the value of labor unpaid to workers. There’s also rentier profit of course but that is an extension and abstraction of underpaid labor as profit. So, as a matter of health, and of keeping power out of the hands of sociopaths, Limits on personal wealth would have to be culturally understood as a good thing for both individuals and society at large. That’s not a strange idea in our history. The golden age of worker productivity in the US that Chris and Oren lament saw excess income taxed at 90%. But that also had unique extenuating circumstances. Naturally the advent of modern “financial instruments” makes wealth less dependent on taxable income. But that can be changed if the culture demands it.
What’s the plan, then, for this seismic culture shift? Resurgent (insurgent?) Christian Nationalism isn’t headed that direction. The unitary executive theory is the opposite direction of worker empowerment. Citizens United and related money is speech and corporate personhood rulings legalized political bribery and ownership by the financial elite so no worker empowerment there. Dumbed down nationalist indoctrination as substitute for thorough history and civics education can't help the cause. A theory is nice. I got a million of them, all good. But what is the actionable plan to get from here to there. I see a lot of noise that keeps going ultimately the wrong way. Chris, Oren, what is your plan for shifting the culture?
Dear Chris, Before Ricardo (and better than), there was Alexander Hamilton, who argued for mechanization in his Report on Manufactures. One of the contexts was his defense of the higher wage levels for workers in the United States. You guys should get to the basics -- Read and review Hamilton Versus Wall Street: The Core Principles of the American System of Economics. Nancy Spannnaus
I quit reading about half way through. The current problem isn't technology. It doesn't matter if you use more workers or machines if at the end of the day you have the stuff done in corrupt or free riding country.
If we keep allowing companies to ha e their stuff produced in places like Mexico or China, or keep letting companies get around paying for defense by putting their headquarters and hiding there profits in Ireland, the whole system is going to collapse anyway.
It's more or less a massive international "tragedy of the commons" at this point.
Is it true that American Compass is receiving money from the Hewlett Foundation?
Interesting question, higher wages often push firms to automate, but that can end up boosting productivity overall. I recently trimmed background processes and saw snappier app launches. A useful lens here is to watch how policy balances short-term labor costs with long-term investment in innovation. (https://memoryreduct.com)
“to be useful, to produce, to transform, to add value – these are fundamental human drives that people satisfy through various forms of labor….” When the United States was formed, 98% of the population were engaged in self sustaining farming (some aided by slavery), but very little straight up work for wages. Since then we have seen a great many shifts in work, population, technology and just about every facet of American life. Yet, things have always improved on the whole despite many projecting that things were going to go to hell in a hand basket, our current President included. Throughout millennia humans and Americans have always found the way forward. I have no doubt it will continue, no matter the pontificating of politicians or over-analysis of academicians.
In other words, like China does, approvals by the state are contingent on the volume and quality of jobs provided.
This is idiotic. AI is going to first replace the vast majority of white color jobs, and then it will come for the blue color jobs. It won't fail. It is inexorable.
And UBI is the only rational response to this sea change in human evolution.
No it isn't, it's going to allow those who adapt to produce better work and it will allow me corporations to be more efficient in their business operations increasing the number of businesses that normally wouldn't have started because of excessive barriers to entry of boring business demands.