 |
|
|
Scifi and Fantasy Forum: Speculation: What if everything were free?
What if everything were free?
We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!
PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS
A lot of people have lost their livelihood to progress. Scribes lost out to printing presses, handcrafters lost out to steam engine-powered factories, farmers lost out to automated agribusiness, clerical grunts lost out to digital computers and telecomm gear. If all of these people were now unemployed, we'd have about an 80% unemployment rate. Instead, we keep working, but most of what we do nowadays is nonproductive.
When manufacturing, refining, and production industries became automated, we switched to service industries. Japan was famous (don't know if it still is) for having both the most automation and, oddly, the lowest unemployment of any industrialized nation.
If everything were free, I agree that most people would waste their time on drugs, hedonism, gossip, and fads. A few would pursue arts and sciences. And a few would pursue profit and power. If everything's free, we'll come up with something new to charge for...just like we come up with new jobs to replace those that have been automated.
But I don't think it'll happen. Agriculture's a good example. Used to be, almost everyone was involved in agriculture. Even in the industrial age, 50% of the population were needed to feed themselves and the rest. Now 2% can feed themselves and the other 98%. Why don't they just make the food free? Why does a hamburger that cost ten cents 60 years ago cost two dollars and ten cents now, if it's so much cheaper to make? Theoretically, it should cost less than half a cent.
Posted By:  Arkana Mar 10, 2003 - 06:26 pm |       | I agree with –Aslan- that, if everyone had all their material wants met, space would become the commodity most desired, but what would happen if everyone also received all of the space they could want? As a result of everyone’s needs being met (save intellectual spiritual and emotional) would society become bored and begin to rebel against itself? I think that maybe, people would not only turn to hedonism gossip and fads but also turn against the system in which they exist. For example: people would begin to do the usual and criticize the whole system of equality (no matter how undiscriminating a society is, in a human world, there are always opportunities to criticize it)... I don’t know. Anyone have an opinion.
| Posted By: RongFo Apr 11, 2003 - 08:43 am | | This is an old topic, but I've been dealing with a similar issue in a series of short stories. In the near-future world of my stories, a Canadian philosopher wrote a proposal which was embraced first by Canada, then by the EU and Russia, and is "currently" being debated in the US. His proposal is similar to what someone mentions earlier in this thread: All "needs" for shelter, clothing, healthcare and food are provided by the government. However, to pay for this free care, a ludicrously high "luxury tax" is implemented for everything deemed non-essential: entertainment, recreational drugs, designer clothing, toys, etc.
In my world, this stratifies the nations subscribing to this model into various economic classes. The "loafers" spend their time goofing off, getting fat, and complaining about their boredom. The "workers" work part-time or freelance to provide a modicum of luxury for themselves and/or their families. The "climbers" work hard to afford decadent lives of luxury. The "riders" are those who inheirited a substantial sum of money, but don't bother to work. And finally, the "makers" are those who produce the most valuable commodity of all in a new economy of leisure: entertainment (writers, artists, actors, directors, etc.).
The above is a simplification/generalization, but one that I feel is a semi-accurate estimation of how people would actually behave in such a system. Crime in this world would include a black market system providing luxuries without taxation. Punishments for theft would be severe, since no one needs to steal to survive.
Just my couple coppers. I know it's an old thread, but any thoughts?
That's an interesting concept, and sounds like a realistic stratification. You've caught some points that a lot of utopiists (is that a word?) miss.
In a world in which "people don't need to work because anything can be produced cheaply or free" stuff still needs to be designed, allocated, distributed, delivered, etc. And of course, you can't get free health care without doctors. Why would they work when they could just slack and get everything for free?
And presumably if there is no profit involved in making and selling things, and/or no competition, the quality of things drops significantly. Also there is be little incentive for product differentiation. For cheap, efficient production of mass quantities of stuff to give away freely, it would be best to make it simple and plain. Perhaps anyone can get free plain grey t-shirts and government issue boots, but if you want a bright tie-dye t-shirt with glossy threads and a pair of gel-pack designer tennis shoes, that would cost...and employ advertisers, designers, market analysts, etc.
It seems many utopian authors/thinkers miss those sorts of details. But it looks like you've thought them out, RongFo.
One question though, why do the wealthy continue to pay those extreme luxury taxes to support all the lazy people? If the foundation of power is wealth, they should be able to change the system. It seems the 'climbers' having worked so hard, would be especially resentful. And being the most ambitious ones, especially powerful.
| Posted By: Bmat Apr 12, 2003 - 04:36 am | | I conjecture that people need structure, and so they would end up arranging their lives in some kind of order that could included doing some jobs. Medical maybe- as humanitarian work.
When I was raising my children I didn't hold a paying job, but I spent quite a bit of unpaid time volunteering in church and civic organizations and in the schools.
It could have been that I was accustomed to structure and so sought it even when it wasn't required.
When I have off from work now, I find it very easy to be unstructured, but then it is for a short time.
| Posted By: RongFo Apr 12, 2003 - 10:28 am | | AD: "One question though, why do the wealthy continue to pay those extreme luxury taxes to support all the lazy people? If the foundation of power is wealth, they should be able to change the system. It seems the 'climbers' having worked so hard, would be especially resentful. And being the most ambitious ones, especially powerful."
That's something I'm spending some time working out. Not to go overboard with details, but I use luxuries, sex appeal, and access to a full-sensory VR net as the primary motivating factors for those who work. Those who work a lot, inherit $ or create popular entertainment can afford nice clothes, fine food, mods (plastic surgery, animated tattoos, etc.), and the costly door fees to various hotspots. Those on the dole or who work only a little, wear go'ment clothes, eat go'ment food, and spend their scant luxury rations escaping their bland existences on the net.
The "haves" are generally more beautiful (sometimes due to mods), glamorous, sexy, longer-lived and healthier (due to expensive non-go'ment doctors), and basically live the good life. People don't so much notice the high prices anymore, since luxuries are the only things that require $. I imagine a large (say 10%) upper-upper class with no desire to change the system, since their lives are so much better than those of loafers. The climbers are indeed the ones who become resentful, but they are too busy trying to crack into the upper crust and/or out-do the neighbors to unite into a political movement.
I'm playing with the idea of politics being respectively dominated by a) the extremely wealthy and conservative leisure class, b) a liberal and influential party of artists and media providers, and c) a growing coalition of idle poor people and anarchists who have more time to think, write, socialize and network than any other poor class in history.
Fun stuff!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion
