Let's keep things in perspective. The purpose of establishing a society based on division of labor, is not JOB creation. It is WEALTH creation which in turn serves not to create more WORK but rather to create more LEISURE.

it takes people to make the automated machinery so new jobs will come into being.

Percolating on the left is either guaranteed government income (protection money) or guaranteed government job (social engineering.) One or the other may be "required" to ensure the domestic tranquility, of the two I think I prefer income as it is the simplest to implement and does not allow for a lot of government manipulation as Congress and the Excutive would surely do with a massive jobs program.

There may never be enough jobs working for someone else again. There will always be enough jobs working for ones self.

Even if we got a new government which was pro-industry and we started building factories, that wouldn't make for a lot of jobs.

Modern factories are highly automated.

In this model, productivity gives way to investment. Direct, income-producing investment.

The title should read "there never will be enough jobs again!" because in order for jobs to be available there must be factories and the government has very successfully done away with most and those that haven't gone away will simply die away here.

I tend to agree

Diabetics and heart des ease will clean out a lot more people early in life

I think that Capitalism is not inconsistent with a social welfare state. In Capitalism, the producers have control over what to do with the results of their productivity.

One can imagine a system where there was a tax evenly applied such as to not interfere with the marketplace that was used to fund a guaranteed annual income.

With the bulk of the production automated a relatively small portion of the population could produce all the goods and services that the population could reasonably use.

I brought this question up with a friend of mine who is a long time Objectivist, and she immediately responded that Ayn Rand said that a person must be "productive" but did not specify that they had to earn money thereby.

I think that the concept of a world where everyone has (due to robots) what we now consider an affluent lifestyle as a 'given'. A subset of those people go on to be productive in spite of the fact that they have no physical incentive to do so.

On the other hand, my social span of acquaintances is broad and I am aware that there is already a substantial segment of society who make their lives around drugs and lethargy and TV. I think that this would become the norm in such a world.

What do you think?

Jan

Interesting point Jan.

I tend to agree with you and have often wondered about what that model is. Does Capitalism work in a world where people are no longer needed for much of the productive labor.

We have Taxies without drivers in New York (Vagas passed a law to prevent them from being put in there)

McDonnalds opens it first robot operated fast food place in the US in Phoenix either this month or next.

More and more will come.

So what is the new model of productivity? It something I have thought about some but not come up with a good answer on.

Even if there were a magical and instant absence of regulations and disincentives, there might well 'never be enough good jobs again'. All that needs to happen is for robots to become a bit more pervasive and the jobs disappear.

But then we will not need them. And that requires a new model of productivity.

Jan