"I think eventually we're going to move to a society that works on different principles, where the state supports...

“I think eventually we’re going to move to a society that works on different principles, where the state supports…

Reading Time: 1 minute

“I think eventually we’re going to move to a society that works on different principles, where the state supports people, maybe from taxes that come from the people that own most robots,” said Marcus. “They’re going to have a different kind of- almost like a leisure kind of life, but I think more people have come to realize that a guaranteed minimum income from the state really is the endgame here.”



  1. One can only hope.. I mean, depending on what one needs to do for that income..

  2. Gideon Rosenblatt read Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by Cory Doctorow 

    Science fiction novel set in a future where scarcity of resources has been eliminated as well as menial labor. He imagines an economy called Wuffie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie) that I think will intrigue you.

  3. Sounds like a book I have to read Mark Traphagen​

  4. $2 in the play store, score 🙂

  5. Yup… Sanders 2016

  6. No one suggested the absolute classic on this subject: Vonnegut’s Player Piano. A life of low income leisure can lead to a cancerous form of ennui.

  7. The people owning the robots will have the power and they won’t give away anything and nobody can force them.

  8. This seems to include a lot of wishful thinking. It could easily lead for our world to become a better place for everyone but I doubt it will work out too well. 

  9. All thinking in this direction (and I agree it is probably the direction) comes down to distribution of wealth. Classically, and supposedly, work was the distributor: you work, you get wealth, work harder, get more wealth. It never really worked that way  entirely, of course, but at certain times and in certain places it was close.

    If we remove work as the primary distributor, something must replace it.

    One tack would be to change corporate charters so that employing people and taking care of them is a primary objective as opposed to stockholders income first.

    Another would be the government as the distributor, taxing corporate income and paying it out.

     A third tack might be something like non-transferrable stock ownership, perhaps by individuals, the government, or some other public proxy.

    In the end, production is made possible by consumption, and consumers must be able to buy. If it all boils down to massive corporations paying consumers to buy their products, it starts to look like some kind of ouroboros.

     It might also make clear the bottom problem with a growth-based economy, which is sustainability. It might be inevitable that humanity must learn to control its population to some optimum level.

  10. Joe Repka​ Darius Gabriel Constantine​ sure, all nice and good but how can we make the powerful do it. If they don’t need us for work and as customers they will give a shit. If robots can produce everything, money will become less interesting. You won’t buy much anymore, you just order your robots to build it. The only things left to buy are raw materials. Most humans will be out of the loop.

  11. Most positions you mention will be replaced by robots someday. Police and army will be robots and drones, and their job will be to keep other people out.

  12. Joe Repka​, I’m still getting my head around where I land on these issues. It’s obviously very complicated, and we never know what the future will hold. Having said that, my sense is that we are going to need to look at multiple sources of income. I think that includes broadening capital ownership, which is to say broadening ownership of the machines.

    The problem, as I’ve come to understand it from reading Piketty, is that wages account for a really large portion of total income. I was surprised, as I assumed that income from investments would have been larger. Broadening equity ownership, in other words, is not going to cut it: there’s probably not enough there. That may change, of course; in an economy without labor, capital become more valuable to overall income. So equity is still something worth trying to figure out on this whole equation. It’s just very complicated because you get into all kinds of questions about it’s distribution when you’re talking about stakeholder-based approaches. This is one of the areas in trying to dig into.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up here for the latest articles. You can opt out at any time.

Subscribe by email:

Or subscribe by RSS:

%d bloggers like this: