As a quasi-civilized society, we
have the theoretical ability to produce goods and services in abundance. We can
do so—thanks to artificial intelligence (AI) technology—with minimal human
participation. This is not the Star Trek
fantasy it once was, but rather a viable possibility.
The term 'post-scarcity economics' tends
to be confusing. In a post-scarcity economy, there are no supply-side shortages
for goods and services because they can be produced at minimal cost. The cost
factor—be that making farm-tractors or hamburgers—comes down to the expense of labor, energy and cost of materials. Minimize these cost factors, and goods and
services literally plummet.
To juxtapose economic theories, at opposite end
of the spectrum would be Keynesian economics. Both theories seem to have
originated during the 1930s when the world was spinning out of economic control.
Every politician and economic theorist desperately searched for quick-fix employment
solutions.
With Keynesian economics, the rich spend their
accumulated wealth and money trickles down to sustain the employable masses. The
fatal flaw with the theory is that it audaciously assumes lavish spending will
occur. When the greedy hoard their wealth, the theory falls apart, and
insufficient funds trickle down.
Post-scarcity economics tends to be more realistic.
Nonetheless, it too has a fatal flaw. When goods and services can be produced
dirt cheap, what is to become of those workers no longer needed? The political solution
is ‘we retrain them.’ The reality is: To do what? Cut hair? Become
chiropractors? Wardrobe consultants perhaps?
Seriously, while it is conceivable to think we can
replicate the 1940s and 50s by marching backwards to achieve economic greatness,
it also amounts to living in an altered state of consciousness. It would require
dismantling automation and AI technology so that massive labor force would be
needed to replace what automated technology can economically perform.
We could bring back steel
manufacturing to places like Mahoning Valley and Pittsburgh, but today it would
be automated. At best, highly automated production requires minimal labor. Same
applies to strip-mining for coal in West Virginia, and massive ore docks in
Cleveland and Duluth—all of which previously employed a massive workforce.
For the moment, let us put aside salvaging
what is left of our environment: The lunacy of bring back coal-fired blast
furnaces is about as practical as bring back switchboard jobs and elevator
operators. In the not-too-distant future, tow-motor operators, taxi cab and
truck drivers won’t be needed. Even sophisticated computer programmers have a
limited life expectancy due to self-learning AI technology.
The dilemma facing today’s political
demagoguery amounts to delivering some unexpected power or event (a deus ex machina) to salvage a hopeless dwindling employment situation. What
can elected officials possibly do to reverse course? Outlaw automated
technology perhaps? Round up all computers and shut down the Internet? Don’t
hold your breath waiting for that to occur.
On the larger economic scale, how
would any President or Congress coerce or badger rest of the world to go along
with such idiocy? While we would be moving in one direction, everyone else
would be headed in a more progressive direction.
At the current fast pace of AI
technology expansion, over the next 20-to-30 years, post-scarcity economics
could become a full-blown reality. If it were politically and socially embraced
today, that time schedule could be cut in half. But that begs the question: What
do we do with the hopeless masses yearning for steady employment that simply won’t
exist?
The mantra promise of ‘more jobs’ or
full employment amounts to unabashed carrot-on-a-stick lunacy. Okay, makeshift work-projects
might provide a viable segue. However, such a political caveat would be
transcendental at best, and ephemeral at worst. Furthermore, Congress would
never approve such massive debt spending.
In the recent past, we have relied
heavily on protracted wars to keep our economy fluid. Endless wars over an
extended time tend to wear thin, and reek emotional havoc on civil-minded citizenry.
While it constitutes an economic treasure trove for the industrial military
complex, endless warring also return limited benefits: The cost of caring for
wounded warriors is an embarrassingly nasty and pricy tradeoff.
Moreover, nothing short of a nuclear
holocaust could push us back to agrarian living conditions. Those who survived
would definitely find something to do with their idle time: Every adult would
have to work just to stay alive. Okay, that’s over the top, but it illustrates a
sure-bet method for drastic economic reform.
Our current economic course is
somewhat up for grabs—a craps shoot if you will. Whether we muddle along at
near zero inflation toward the inevitable with Hillary, or temporarily derail
the economy for political gain will remain a media fixation. Sooner or later, economic
reality will set in.
One post-scarcity reality is that in
the near future, fewer people will be required to manufacture goods, and many
labor-intensive services will dwindle or disappear. Right now, the technology
exists to automate damn-near everything. Amazon has practically automated its entire
warehousing operation, and they are actively exploring automating its entire
distribution system. Amex uses AI to handle routine calls and inquiries. Uber
is chaffing to introduce driverless cabs. Driverless farm tractors already
exist. IBM’s Watson can diagnose any medical condition with 100% accuracy.
We can do a whole lot more with fewer
folks. Thus, embrace the realities of innovative technology, renewable energy
supplies and recycling everything, and life becomes more palatable and exciting.
Resist change and your mind starts searching for magical solutions, and relying
heavily on political hyperbole that more jobs await us come the next election.
Those jobs simply are not there. Got doubts? –Just call and ask any human switchboard
operator if you can find one.
Copyrighted © 2016 by Robert James