Do you agree that Technology is going too far?

[Shamar]

An interesting model, that is, send your robot to work for you. Are you suggesting that your robot would be paid your "living wage"? You would be responsible for the purchase price, insurance, all the maintenance, software updates, and daily charging costs.

In this "capitalist" model:
1. Low income folks, folks on some form of financial assistance, might not have the resources to purchase a robot, nor the associated costs. Furthermore, in a world of robot workers, few employers are going to hire humans knowing the productivity differences between the two. The poor will remain poor because they might not be able to participate in the economy.

2. Middle class folks would be able to afford 2-4 robots, and the be able to pull in the income from, potentially improving gross incomes.

3. Wealthy will be able to afford entire fleets of robots, further pushing their income upwards.

4. Prices for goods and services might not drop, nor will accessibility. No significant changes from the current socio-economic structure. People will still be dissatisfied with wealth disparity.

A "socialist" model, which I am also highly biased against, but may be a necessity in this new world, might work, but this requires a long list of "IFs", as described in a previous post.

I don't see any way of significantly affecting the percentages of nor the rise of the "elites", "uber wealthy", "sociopathic or psychopathic" leaders. As you've suggested, humans have the common personality traits of greed, accumulation of resources, envy, jealousy, and competitiveness. Some more than others, and extremes in these traits lead to either extreme wealth and/or criminal behavior. Luckily, these individuals make up the tiniest percentage of the population. On the other hand, humans also tend to be social creatures, seeking comfort and safety in numbers, are often motivated by fear, and will tend to follow the herd,...all of these traits allow them to become easily influenced and controlled. The vast majority of the "working class" have been brainwashed over the centuries in the sense that their entire social structure and narrative is based upon a "hard days work", that it is "noble" somehow, not realizing that nobody has gotten truly wealthy working for someone else. They are quick to point fingers at the wealthy. Entrepreneurs, the truly successful ones, that 0.001%, do put in a hard days work, probably more hours than anyone, suffer more rejection than anyone, the people who have an insane level of drive, the people who persevere and are highly adaptive, these are the people who rise to the top. People are quick to point out that someone with billions in wealth are somehow "evil", without any concept of the work and rejection to get there, even the ones who got there through advantageous loopholes, NGOs, and criminal activity. They are just jealous and envious of the differences, and it gets twisted into some sort of distorted moral argument. I don't blame these wealthy elites for my lot in life. I don't want their money. I don't pay any attention to them. I take care of myself and my family. I rose from literally nothing with a lot of hard work and discomfort. It's my responsibility, not anyone else's.

I read a science fiction story years ago, in which robots made goods so cheap that society was economically inverted. The lower classes got one day off per week in order to work, and were required to spend the rest of their time consuming, trying to wear out what was produced. Everyone had personal robots to take care of things like housework. The richer people worked more days per week, instead of consuming. One lower class person solved the problem by having his personal robots do the consuming, wearing out all the things that the family had to wear out. He became a national hero for figuring out how to use robots to use up all the goods the other robots were producing. We are now so surreal and backwards, I can see it happening. At least one other person around here has to have read it.

 

[Uri]

We have made some decent technological progress over the last 500 years with the invention of science and industrialization but sadly our mentality remained the same.

We are still the same greedy and selfish people we were since the stone age.

Although today we don't kill each other directly like people did during the stone age and the stone age was brutal since people were always fighting and killing each other for access to food, today we kill each other with our selfishness and excessive capitalist greed.

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

I really don’t trust the optional camera Nintendo has made for the Switch 2. It makes me feel uncomfortable and the thought that the company is spying on me in my own home.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

selfishness and excessive capitalist greed.

**OFF TOPIC**, but somewhat related to the discussion above, AI and robots vs. human workers and how is this "system" going work, a capitalist model or a socialist model.

I think we often have a distorted perspective. "Who is going to spend that much money?" "Why aren't they donating it to people in need?" "Charitable donations are a tax write-off, why don't they donate a few billion?" We are quick to judge because we don't understand that just because someone is a CEO of a multibillion-dollar company and let's say this hypothetical person is "worth" 500 billion, it does not mean that this wealth is realized. It's on paper, more accurately, in stocks and other investments. It's not like it's sitting around lying fallow in a safe somewhere. It's not in a bank account. This person doesn't actually possess this wealth like you, and I do when we receive a paycheck from work. It's stocks, and this person will be penalized heavily in taxes if he/she does access it (capital gains tax). This wealth is not realized until it is sold. Everyone's (your parents and grandparents) retirement 401K, 403B accounts are the same. They may have 1.2 million set aside in their retirement account, but are NOT a millionaire, per se, because the wealth is not realized. One major downturn in the market and everything could be wiped out. The CEO has very little to say about the stock price, or their "wealth", as it is tied to whatever the stockholders are willing to pay for the stock. It's the stockholders that determine what a person and stock is "worth", not the CEO.

Are there people that have the personality traits associated with selfishness and greed? Absolutely. Are there people that spend their wealth on giant mega-yachts, personal 747 Jumbo jets, a collection of supercars, and have multiple homes around the world? Yes.

However, greed is a human condition. It's not isolated to the rich. Some of the most selfish and greedy people are actually the poverty-stricken poor. Why? Because they have nothing and are desperate for "more". Billions of people a year gamble their money away on lotteries and in casinos on the 1 in a million off chance they might "hit it big". Socialism in the USSR and Venezuela amplified poverty, selfishness, and greed. The oligarchy took even a higher percentage of the wealth from the masses and essentially wiped out the middle class. So, by all historical accounts, for as bad as Capitalism has been for the distribution of wealth, it's always been worse in a Socialist and Communist regime. You cannot stop the rich from becoming richer, because they have a completely different relationship with money than you and I. They know how things work and how to manipulate a system with the resources they have, and we don't.

No one is happy about the distribution of wealth in the world, but regardless of which system you subscribe to or your economics professor at the university tried to convince you of, the poor will be poor, and the rich will be rich. A better approach will be to simply take care of yourself, be responsible, and make your own money and leave other people out of it. F the rich. They aren't your problem. You are.

 

[Shevek]

An interesting model, that is, send your robot to work for you. Are you suggesting that your robot would be paid your "living wage"? You would be responsible for the purchase price, insurance, all the maintenance, software updates, and daily charging costs.

In this "capitalist" model:
1. Low income folks, folks on some form of financial assistance, might not have the resources to purchase a robot, nor the associated costs. Furthermore, in a world of robot workers, few employers are going to hire humans knowing the productivity differences between the two. The poor will remain poor because they might not be able to participate in the economy.

2. Middle class folks would be able to afford 2-4 robots, and the be able to pull in the income from, potentially improving gross incomes.

3. Wealthy will be able to afford entire fleets of robots, further pushing their income upwards.

4. Prices for goods and services might not drop, nor will accessibility. No significant changes from the current socio-economic structure. People will still be dissatisfied with wealth disparity.

A "socialist" model, which I am also highly biased against, but may be a necessity in this new world, might work, but this requires a long list of "IFs", as described in a previous post.

I don't see any way of significantly affecting the percentages of nor the rise of the "elites", "uber wealthy", "sociopathic or psychopathic" leaders. As you've suggested, humans have the common personality traits of greed, accumulation of resources, envy, jealousy, and competitiveness. Some more than others, and extremes in these traits lead to either extreme wealth and/or criminal behavior. Luckily, these individuals make up the tiniest percentage of the population. On the other hand, humans also tend to be social creatures, seeking comfort and safety in numbers, are often motivated by fear, and will tend to follow the herd,...all of these traits allow them to become easily influenced and controlled. The vast majority of the "working class" have been brainwashed over the centuries in the sense that their entire social structure and narrative is based upon a "hard days work", that it is "noble" somehow, not realizing that nobody has gotten truly wealthy working for someone else. They are quick to point fingers at the wealthy. Entrepreneurs, the truly successful ones, that 0.001%, do put in a hard days work, probably more hours than anyone, suffer more rejection than anyone, the people who have an insane level of drive, the people who persevere and are highly adaptive, these are the people who rise to the top. People are quick to point out that someone with billions in wealth are somehow "evil", without any concept of the work and rejection to get there, even the ones who got there through advantageous loopholes, NGOs, and criminal activity. They are just jealous and envious of the differences, and it gets twisted into some sort of distorted moral argument. I don't blame these wealthy elites for my lot in life. I don't want their money. I don't pay any attention to them. I take care of myself and my family. I rose from literally nothing with a lot of hard work and discomfort. It's my responsibility, not anyone else's.

It's this same mindset that I have, "I worked hard and earned my money, therefore you can't just have it." that makes me a capitalist, versus a socialist. People with a hand out, whining and complaining, create a rotten taste in my mouth. I have zero empathy for able-bodied people, diverting responsibilities, who make a choice not to contribute to society. Parasites. However, my tune will likely change if the realities of a robot-based workforce transform the landscape, because I know that there must be a driving force behind any economy and survival of any society. A corporate tax structure that pumps money into the economy on the front end, while the masses spending that money on goods and services pumps it back into the corporations on the back end. It's a reciprocity-based economy that keeps the wheel turning. What we don't need is a bloated governmental bureaucracy, full of corruption, that sucks up all the money and doesn't funnel the majority back to the people, which is a huge concern right now, because this is exactly what we have, trillions of tax payer dollars being skimmed off the top in waste, fraud, and abuse by nefarious bureaucrats, NGOs, criminals, and politicians.

If we had progressive taxation, a rich person or a corporation would not be able to get a net benefit from more automation, but someone in a low tax bracket would. With no other market, the robot makers would arrange financing for them.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Well, in the US, there is a progressive taxation system in place. The wealthy entrepreneurs make sure, at least on paper, they don't "own" anything (houses, cars, boats, art, the business suits, the business itself, etc.) as everything gets placed under the umbrella of the business. The business owns everything. The individual owns nothing. All the wealth is in the form of stocks and other investments. They then go to the bank, borrow money to live on, using the business assets and stocks as collateral. Currently, you cannot tax money that is borrowed, nor the stocks (unrealized wealth). A beautiful system if you can play the game. So, until you can also get wealthy politicians to change their own tax code (they have their own loopholes), the system is what it is, at least until panic sets in and the economy contracts.

Corporate taxation is the only way that one could expect to obtain tax income to drive the economy. Right now, the US purposely keeps their corporate tax rates low in order to encourage businesses to stay or come to the US, providing US investments and jobs. As I suggested though, if we switch to a robotics-based workforce, resulting in 80-90% unemployment, no income for the masses, panic sets in, the system will collapse unless there are some major changes in the tax code. An increase in the corporate tax rate may be a necessary stimulus to pump money into the hands of the people, to then, purchase goods and services, driving further profits for the corporations in a reciprocal cycle.

No bank is going to approve financing a work robot for a low-income person with bad credit. The majority of poor, once again, will not be able to participate in the economy. Your idea of a co-op may work, similar to how farming communities currently operate and share equipment, they are used to this model, but I don't see how this would work for the average person in a city or suburb.

 

[Shevek]

Well, in the US, there is a progressive taxation system in place. The wealthy entrepreneurs make sure, at least on paper, they don't "own" anything (houses, cars, boats, art, the business suits, the business itself, etc.) as everything gets placed under the umbrella of the business. The business owns everything. The individual owns nothing. All the wealth is in the form of stocks and other investments. They then go to the bank, borrow money to live on, using the business assets and stocks as collateral. Currently, you cannot tax money that is borrowed, nor the stocks (unrealized wealth). A beautiful system if you can play the game. So, until you can also get wealthy politicians to change their own tax code (they have their own loopholes), the system is what it is, at least until panic sets in and the economy contracts.

Corporate taxation is the only way that one could expect to obtain tax income to drive the economy. Right now, the US purposely keeps their corporate tax rates low in order to encourage businesses to stay or come to the US, providing US investments and jobs. As I suggested though, if we switch to a robotics-based workforce, resulting in 80-90% unemployment, no income for the masses, panic sets in, the system will collapse unless there are some major changes in the tax code. An increase in the corporate tax rate may be a necessary stimulus to pump money into the hands of the people, to then, purchase goods and services, driving further profits for the corporations in a reciprocal cycle.

No bank is going to approve financing a work robot for a low-income person with bad credit. The majority of poor, once again, will not be able to participate in the economy. Your idea of a co-op may work, similar to how farming communities currently operate and share equipment, they are used to this model, but I don't see how this would work for the average person in a city or suburb.

Sure, the US has progressive income tax. The peak rate was 91% in times of general prosperity, and it has been higher when the country was in need. Now it is 37%, and a staff of experts can dodge most of that. Please try to imagine a world where the rich don't run everything to their advantage, the loopholes are shut tight, and the government responds to the vast majority of people who just want a fair return on their services. If someone in a low tax bracket is almost sure to prosper with a robot, they become an excellent credit risk. Maybe you have been blinded by living vicariously as a billionaire yourself.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Sure, the US has progressive income tax. The peak rate was 91% in times of general prosperity, and it has been higher when the country was in need. Now it is 37%, and a staff of experts can dodge most of that. Please try to imagine a world where the rich don't run everything to their advantage, the loopholes are shut tight, and the government responds to the vast majority of people who just want a fair return on their services. If someone in a low tax bracket is almost sure to prosper with a robot, they become an excellent credit risk. Maybe you have been blinded by living vicariously as a billionaire yourself.

That would be difficult to imagine, but so is a robot labor force, and we are about to stare right down the barrel of it, like it or not. It's not a matter of IF the tax code changes, but rather WHEN, HOW, and WHY.

Personally, I started from nothing. Rather I started from less than nothing. I started from a point of crushing debt. I lived paycheck to paycheck with next to nothing until the kids left the house about 10 years ago. I learned how to invest. I learned how the tax code works for the wealthy and their little "life hacks" that allow them to live the way they live legally. I dug myself out with a lot of hard work, discomfort, and sacrifice, whilst making a lot of mistakes.

What I don't do is allow envy, jealousy, my own greed, my sense of unfairness and inequity get the better of me. I am not in the streets protesting, nor have I succumbed to the woke mind virus, nor do I see the world through a lens of oppressed and oppressor. All I see in that is victim mentality, a lack of responsibility, weaponized empathy, and shameful behavior. I don't subscribe to it. I don't blame anyone for my lot in life. It is my responsibility. I don't have ill will towards wealthy entrepreneurs and don't get into moral judgements about their wealth. It's not my circus, it's not my monkeys, I don't care, as long as they are doing things legally. If there is any ill will, its towards those parasites that want to sponge off of my tax dollars, are able bodied, and choose not to work. They didn't earn the right to my money. If there is any ill will, its towards these nefarious criminals, bureaucrats, and politicians that steal my tax dollars to fill their own pockets when it should have been directed towards people truly in need. Example: San Francisco, California, 2022: Why does it cost nearly 1.7 million dollars to install a single public restroom (1 sink, 1 toilet) for the homeless?

 

[Dagan]

My first major time thinking that technology has gone too far, is when actual, physical money / currency didn't have to exist anymore. It can be and most often only is...digital. When you make something no longer a physical thing in order to have to be "forcefully taken away" from anyone, you have gone too far, in my opinion.

 

[MildredHubble]

My first major time thinking that technology has gone too far, is when actual, physical money / currency didn't have to exist anymore. It can be and most often only is...digital. When you make something no longer a physical thing in order to have to be "forcefully taken away" from anyone, you have gone too far, in my opinion.

I like the convenience of paying via contactless payment. I rarely use cash any more but I do worry about it disappearing as an option. It also annoys me that using digital payment means our transactions can be easily tracked and the data used in ways we can't possibly imagine.

Who knows what we might have denied to us in several decades time. Because right now doughnuts are legal and plentiful doesn't mean that in the future you won't be considered some sort of moral failure because you purchased and ate them, and then be denied healthcare.

 

[Dagan]

Oh, definitely. I worry that show Black Mirror is coming true, as much as I already feel like the movie Idiocracy is kinda sorta already, sadly true.

 

[Aspergers_Aspie]

Even if the brightest minds those with PhD etc are intimidated by robotics/ai then isn't that scary?