Economic failure because of productivity increases / excessive productive capacity

I'm starting this topic, rather than derailing the Trickle Down Economics - Does It Work? topic. Productivity was brought up there before, but Percy's mention and graph there in message 297 has triggered this topic.As I see it, in the developed world, productivity has gotten to the point that we need people as consumers but not as producers. Our production capacity has far outstripped our consumer needs. And much production is using up natural resources to create products of dubious at best need.This concentrates the wealth into the hands of those doing the production and leaves the unneeded as producers to struggle.Moose

Quite true, and given our technical advancement we may not need any workers or a handful of workers in just about every field of production. But no one will be able to buy anything because they wont have an income, since they will not be needed at the workplace.the only fix to this problem would be to convert to Evil communism., state owned robots would do the work and then distribute the goods equally, a bit more for the people who would still have to work of course.

Your argument is similar to the one I made in my Replacing Consumerism thread. I agree with most of what you say. However, I don't necessarily think we are at the point of having too much production in general, but just too much production of the wrong stuff.We devote production energy to making small little packets of butter that most people don't even put on their McDonald's pancakes but instead throw right in the garbage. In other words, we are expending resources to produce garbageactual garbage, something that is never used but makes its way from factory to landfill without providing any utility to anyone.What a waste!On the other hand, there are many things that we fail to produce in adequate quantities. A good example is environmental quality. Have you read today's StarTrib yet? Our very own Twin Cities are at the borderline of failing EPA tests for healthy air.As I said in the other thread, I do agree that it is possible to get to a level where there are no more reasonable avenues of production (there just isn't anything more that society needs) without a fully utilized workforce. When this happens, possibly the best solution (and this is contrary to frako's suggestion that we either have to suffer starvation from unemployment or resort to fascism) is to simply grant people their leisure and cut them a check. That last bit addresses your final point: wealth concentration; everyone does a fair amount of work and receives a fair compensationthe guy in the air conditioned office signing papers and playing Wii golf doesn't make $5 million/year while the worker in the hot factory lifting 15 lb crates all day makes only $10k/year. That's just not right.Now some might characterize this as 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' but I prefer to just call it what it is: a livable wage for livable work.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

It's amazing how completely backwards you've all gotten it.The world where production is accomplished with less and less human labor is a world of plenty, not a world of deprivation; it's the post-scarcity world of the Star Trek-style replicator where there is no need for money, because everything you want is so abundant that it is free.Where production happens because it fulfills a human need to produce, not to meet a human need to consume. Musicians who make music because they cannot help but play. Writers who write novels because they cannot help but write. Designers who design because they see a need unmet or a challenge unsolved.The world where people are not needed as producers is not a world without production; it's a world without want.Don't romanticize wage slavery. The ideal world is the world where nobody has a job because no one needs one, where human labor is no longer a commodity to be bought and sold, where solving a problem is an end unto itself, not something someone does for money.

So, if I need a new fridge, I find a guy who loves building fridges? And if he needs a steak, he finds a guy who loves herding cows?

No, you find a guy who loves designing fridges, and you load his physibles into your replicator. No, he finds a guy who loves designing meals, and he loads that guy's physibles into his replicator.And if neither of you have a replicator, you find someone who does and load the physibles for a replicator into his replicator.

But I think that we are now living in a world of plenty, although parts of the worlds population are getting too big of a piece of the pie while other parts of the worlds population are getting too small of a piece of the pie. It's hard to buy pie if your income is too low, even if there's plenty of pie to go around. "Star Trek-style replicator" = "Fantasy". It would be great, but it's not going to happen. But if no one wants to buy your production, at least enough for you in turn to buy your survival needs, aren't you screwed? No, it's a world where many have no way to get what they need. Supply without functional demand (the consumer can't afford to buy it) is excess production. I'm not doing my job for love of money. I'm doing it because that money can be exchanged for food and other needs. How do you propose that the unneeded as producers are to get their needed consumables?MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Change "by" to "buy". D'oh.

I know that our species has its problems. But surely even we could organize a piss-up in a brewery, given enough time to think the thing over; and in the same way we might just manage, in a world with a limitless supply of goods, to avoid plunging the world into abject poverty.

Economics 101: if there's plenty of pie, then pie is cheap and it's easy to buy. At the limit, where the marginal cost of the next pie is zero, pies are free.This is just basic lemonade-stand economics. Nothing "fantasy" about it. It's already starting to happen. Get with the times, old fart. And, look, there's no difference between "replicators" or whatever and production simply increasing to such a degree that the marginal labor cost of every next good and service is zero. One is the technological breakthrough; the other is the economic description of the phenomenon. There's no "economic ruin because everyone is so productive" because, by definition, that's the world where everybody's needs can be met for free. You defined it that way. But you have this silly, contradictory idea that in the world where nobody has any unmet needs, nobody can meet any of their needs. Huh? Did you read anything? This is specifically in the context of the post-scarcity economy - where the marginal cost of all goods is zero - where you no longer need to be paid to live. There aren't "survival needs" any more because all of your survival needs are provided for, for free, because the marginal cost of all the materials you need to survive have fallen to zero. If you're productive, it's because you like to produce, not because you have to labor or lose your life. 100% wrong. Stupidly so. If people still have needs that they need the production of others to meet, then by definition we're still talking about the world of scarcity, and where you can make a living producing the things that people need.You can't have it both ways, Moose; you can't propose a world where there's so much production that everybody's needs are met, and then complain that it's a world where nobody can meet their needs!Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

While a 'Star Trek replicator' isn't going to happen, we will be able to use 3-D printing..Making pharmsicals via 3-D printing IS being investigated now.Geek

You shouldn't be eating pies, even if there's plenty to go around. It's called will power. Try raw almonds instead, they are much cheaper than pies.And remember, push ups, sit ups and a light jog of 5-6 miles is totally free.- Oni