"everybody it [is] fully satisfied with what they have and there's nothing more that they'd buy if they had more money."

That's the idea. Let's for the moment, just assume that AI and robots and some other technologies are ridiculously productive sometime in the future and we solve all sorts of problems and have the resources to provide everyone with everything they want.

At that point it's not a question of giving everyone jobs it's a question of whether or not we decide to distribute our plentiful resources (and a question of, should we?).

Of course, I don't think the time has arrived yet for all this to happen. But as mentioned earlier, I do think it is going to happen (if we don't have some horrible nuclear war or some other megadisaster that kills everyone first)

> whether or not we decide to distribute our plentiful resources

You can already decide to do this today, and the government will even reward you for doing so. What you're really talking about is redistributing others' resources.

A non-zero number of businesses already do this. For example, where I presently work I don't get paid for overtime or public holidays in spite of the law requiring that I do.

I complained, and I was told that if I don't like it I can quit. I said that I would be going to the regulatory body, and I was outright threatened with physical harm: "Bad things happen to people who do that."

In accepting this position, are you not allowing others to be harmed? I'm assuming you're not uniquely being abused by the powers that be.

> redistributing others' resources

Automation is getting cheaper by the year, and more open. People will be able to benefit directly from automation after the transit period, and won't need UBI forever. At some point it's going to be free to cover the needs, especially if we can use raw materials that are in abundance in nature. After the first self replicating factory is going to be made, any country or region could bootstrap itself out of poverty.

Self replication is closer than AGI, it's just a matter of digitizing the industrial process and developing accessible materials. Human society, the ecosystem and the cell are self replicating factories too. We need to compile a factory in itself, to bootstrap the whole material process. Just like a DNA molecule is replicating all it needs to survive and reproduce, such a factory would be able to make "babies".

Maintaining the system of resource allocation we use today known as "property" takes resources and violence. If we can create one that is cheaper, less cruel, and has better outcomes then the current one, we should do it. Arguing that its wrong because this system says it is wrong is backwards circular thinking.

Right. This star trek utopia is a long way off.

So you're saying there's no way to reach post-labour before post-scarcity?

Hmm, that's interesting, I hope it's not true.

There certainly is!

Prices for goods just need to keep dropping, as they have already been doing to.

If they keep dropping, then our existing welfare system will handle the rest.

If the percent money that society spends in welfare state the same, and goods get cheaper and cheaper, then that means that living off welfare will eventually be a pretty sweet deal, able to provide all your wants and needs.

There are more goods than just smartphones. Arguably more important ones too.

Rent, food, energy, all the things you need to live are getting more expensive with inflation. The welfare system is lagging behind and the benefits need to be bumped a little every year or so or it gets harder and harder to live on them. Unfortunately we apparently can't always seem to afford to increase the benefits. For instance student benefits in Finland were "cut" by simply not increasing them in accordance with the index.

I'm saying that austerity is being disguised as near-post-scarcity. Jobs are hard to come by in the US at the same time that infrastructure is crumbling. That's a lack of jobs not a lack of necessary work.

It's a lack of political will to enforce the deal between the state and corporation (edit: and citizens). Governments grant tax cuts to corporations (edit: and citizens), even thought it hurts the very infrastructure and society that enabled corporations to extract the money from the environment.

The current taxation systems nowhere pays for all the externalities. If a company made a dollar in a country, a fair share of it should get back to the state for providing the environment that made it possible. Education, security, infrastructure.

Got it.

It's a pretty flimsy disguise though. If people are simultaneously complaining about bad infrastructure and high taxes, then they are simply saying that they want their earned money themselves more than they want to use it for shared infrastructure projects. People would just rather have the latest iPhone than good highways. :-/

>If people are simultaneously complaining about bad infrastructure and high taxes, then they are simply saying that they want their earned money themselves more than they want to use it for shared infrastructure projects.

Sure, and the American people picked Trump as leader because they thought he was the most qualified person in the entire country.

I know you're being glib, but a lot of people voting for him actually hold this to be true. He is successful, therefore he is competent.

Very true: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

How it could be not true? What is "fair" income in scarcity?

I can imagine a future where the basic standard of living for everyone is like what we give senior citizens today. Everyone is clothed, fed, has a roof over their heads, and has access to medical care.

But if you want more than basic, then you have to perform labour of some sort. Want to take the trip to Mars? Gotta work for it.

Yes, there will be a difference between those who labour and those who don't, but I still think it would be a huge win if noone in society would ever struggle to put food on their table.

There's a struggle between retired pensioners and everyone else in society about how much retired citizens should get, but there's still an understanding on both sides that past labour has some value, but that that value is less than present labour, so there's a balance. I hope the same would be true in a post-labour society.

And, of course, the difference between the labourers and the not-labourers would be an incentive to reach post-scarcity where that difference is wiped out.

> I can imagine a future where the basic standard of living for everyone is like what we give senior citizens today. Everyone is clothed, fed, has a roof over their heads, and has access to medical care.

This is already a reality in many countries. It would be very easy to also make it a reality in the US. The resources are there.

They are not. Even for the senior citizens — existing pension systems are on the verge of collapse already.