The problems of production and pay is being solved by technology, we just haven’t realized it yet. Take housing data-in essence, in its natural form it belongs to the property owner and they should share in the profits it generates. But, they don’t because they have been to willing to give it away for free because the current process tells them that it has always been done this way. Well, the information from the data they actually own generates billions of dollars when the data is aggregated. If a property owner is allowed to have a share of these profits, it alone will not make them rich, but it will be just one of many revenue streams that will help keep them from abject poverty and the economy growing.

It will be a bumpy ride, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be a long one. We will have to change our thinking where it concerns work and how we allow people to earn income. Let’s Get Going!

Personally, I think the days are numbered for both.

The real risk as I see it isn’t technology somehow sputtering out, or being unable to develop better or new industries (e.g. computers smashed old ways of pretty much everything but also spawned a new industry to support them). Rather, I see technological growth displacing ever smarter people as the threat. We keep forgetting that IQ is a bell curve. Take your average Joe and 1/2 the people will be stupider and 1/2 will be smarter. Technological change is causing the machine to displace ever smarter people, and these folks won’t be able to retool.

I think the moment the machines begin to displace engineers is the time we should really start to worry. Engineers haven’t lost the need to think and strategize yet. If that happens, we may as well inject ourselves with nanobots or upload our consciousness to merge with the machines, because we won’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of maintaining our inquisitiveness and ultimately stagnate (think Idiotocracy).

That conflicts with the diversity ideology promoted by our elites. White and Asian MEN tend to dominate technological fields for a reason, and when the state steps in to enforce “diversity,” then progress in those fields effectively stops.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

By all means prove me wrong.

There will always be dictators, corruption, etc. Before MontSanto, there was the East India Trading Co. This pattern has been propagating for some time now. The idea is these laws would have to be laid down now, not after the fact. For a long time, here in the US we’ve been legislating on problems that have been nipping at our heels for decades. Rarely do you see someone bring up legislature that actually preempts certain problems. But that’s all very political, so we shan’t get into it much, lest the forums explode. :)

I am not one for banging the raising taxes drum, but it would seem that the best solution is to raise taxes on corporate profits over time and require them to bring their profits back into their home countries. It would create a society where corporations with trillions of dollars of profits would pay taxes to the government and the money would be distributed throughout the population. That sounds a lot like socialism, but pure capitalism with a huge labor force is going to go away. So some hybrid like this has to exist, and keep in mind, corporations will need this system at some point to maintain demand for their products. Their profits will ultimately come back to them with new purchases. They will also be able to make things with fewer workers, and they will be taxed on their profits only. It could work, but everyone will still have to figure out what to do with their free time while the robots and AI make everything. Hopefully that doesn’t involve starting a war.

So economic growth is something that is soooo predictable!

And read this:
Michael Clemens of the Center for Global Development provides some interesting perspective.

The entire effect of the 1994 so-called “Tequila” Crisis on per-capita real income of the average Mexican . . . was erased in exactly three years. In Thailand, epicenter of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, it took all of six years. In Indonesia, the poverty rate in the population was back to its pre-crisis level within just three years. Even the big, bad 1982 Latin American debt crisis, in this figure, looks a lot more like mean reversion: Yes growth was bad in Mexico after 1982, but it had been unusually high in the years beforehand, and the net result is that real income per capita simply reverted to its historical trend. The same goes for Thailand in 1997. Bad years are typically followed by offsetting good years, and good years by bad. The good years get smaller headlines, or none at all.

He also points us to this graph of real GDP per capita for the last 200 years of American history:

He writes:

Over these years we had violent financial crashes of various types, bank panics, piles of recessions and a huge depression, many foreign wars and one enormous domestic war, had a central bank and didn’t, were on the gold standard and weren’t, had governments topple in scandal and multiple leaders assassinated, and what did it all amount to in the medium to long run? In per-capita income terms: Nothing. The overall trend does not bend or shift. Every bad year was followed by a good year that returned us to trend. The US average growth rate of real per capita incomes over the last 190 years has been 1.8% a year, and the same rate over the last 10 years has been…. 1.8% a year. Stare at that graph: The Great Depression was traumatic in countless ways, but astonishingly, it’s not clear that we are any worse off today than we would be if the whole thing never occurred. Anyone who made such a claim in the 1930s would have been scoffed at, but that’s what happened.