I don't want to be a hater, but James Albus is an engineer. He is not an economist and although he is right about somethings, when you actually look at the numbers he's putting up and examine the reasoning behind it, it should be very clear to anyone whose ever even glanced at macro economics that what he's suggest will not work. I'm trying to convince a friend at the London School of Economics to write a paper on the transition we'll experience as AI causes our wages to shrink to nothing- if I'm lucky maybe she'll use Albus as a jumping off point.

Engineers make awful biologists and, apparently, equally awful economists.

PS, your idea about BS jobs is infinitely more likely than this people's capitolism nonsense... of course if we get any of the stuff nanodot's pitching it'll all be a moot point.

Didn't Gene Rodenberry resolve all of this for us back in the 70's?

Well, Albus is off- but it's not in the math

15 trillion divided by 200 million = seventy-five thousand

That's US 2008 GDP divided by the number of US households.

Albus's point - I think- is that if we cut up the pie differently, the pie will get bigger faster and the distribution will be more even.

LIke anyone wants that really. TJC

Every microeconomic and game theory study I've seen or heard about concludes that in a free market transaction, people choose less for themselves as long as it means even less for the other guy. And they choose more for them selves only when it doesn't mean more for the other guy.
Of course, more for me and less for you is my first choice. But the market rarely offers such a clear first choice. ANd my last choice inversely is less for me, more for you. Equally unlikely. But why wouldn't I choose more for both of us? I get more- and I don't get care if you get more would seem rational. Apparently, we value the differential.

see
Freakanomics, Levitt, S.
Predictabiliy Irrational. Areily, D.
(and http://www.predictablyirrational.com/
and just because he's good -
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html)

In the bigger analysis of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, the initial broad look at how markets work. You , "invisible hand" and all that.

But even there Smith wasn't all about free market disparity all the time. He recognized that the market didn't accomplish everything we wanted- nor did it prevent everything we wanted prevented. What?!- there are other social forces at work at any given time than just the market theorized individual benefit maximization.

Yes. But that subjective and irrational valuation of the differential is a tough one. I'm sure that post early retirement, people would find other ways to create (and rationalize) the differential. But intellectual rationality would suggest that the differential is worth far less than we actually value it.

Ie
If you had to choose ether a) more for you and more for me or b) less for you, but more than me which would you choose?

Until most of us choose a) - we're going to resist the robot overlords.

I was marching for the first article, and I'll march with vigor for this one. It seems to me, people will always find work. With so many people unhappy in their work (not me, but sure, I'd like better) maybe more freedom to choose, would produce healthier humans. Let me check out the links, and see if I can wrap my head around all this (back in a bit).

Ok, well, I was hoping BS meant something else in this case, and was disappointed. So, some marketing may do the trick here. How about "Lovely Jobs" instead of BS jobs? As for the economics, well I remember the introductory course's book started out, "economics is the study of human behavior", or something similar. So, I suggest after some delay, the economics will find us, and provide the scale to punish slackers, in which there is so much concern (lol).

And, I'd just like to add, everyone will really love this. There are always life risking thrills for those prone to boredom.

This is really all that needs to be said on the subject, 'If you had to choose ether a) more for you and more for me or b) less for you, but more than me which would you choose?

Until most of us choose a) - we're going to resist the robot overlords.'

You are absolutely right about that. Some where I have a science article on this subject book marked... but that's not what bothers me about Albus's ideas...

Does anyone else feel that the situation he’s purposing is like an economics perpetual motion machine? In order to prevent increases in inflation a person is forced to contribute to a personal savings account. In order for this to be effective the total contributions to savings needs to be roughly equal to the new wealth created. In other words, his plan is to inject the system with money, offset this monetary injection’s influence on inflation by slowing the speed of money through the system (forced savings). His theory is that that this will create more income for everyone. In turn, to continue to fight inflation people will have to, again, adjust their savings levels. The savings will be accumulating interest but the only way to collect that savings (without causing inflation) is to reduce your other forms of income (work less).

Or, you could keep more of your money if someone else would agree to save more of theirs. We can’t impose this and as we’ve already identified the underlying psychological reason why no one (or virtually no one) is will to do this we’re left with three options- stasis- everyone can work, stop working, or anything in-between, but they are more or less locked into their relative income levels. In this situation inflation is still static. Freezes- people’s money is frozen to allow others to catch up. Inflation is static. The incentives for a frozen person to work are nil. Though they won’t be at risk, opponents of this idea will frame it as punishing success. And finally-
Abandon silly ideas about inflation being the mother of all evil. Hyperinflation is awful. A little inflation is good.

Then my last bit, and I'll leave off on the guy- it doesn't seem address that while efficiency increases (fewer people accomplishing the same amount of work or more) wages will decrease. There are more people competing for fewer jobs and (at least if good AI is introduced) there are programs that will be able to do many of those jobs as well. Each year the price of a program drops the competition to find work will increase. Is there any good news? Yes. Stuff will get cheaper faster. It costs less to produce and as fewer people have substantial wages, prices need to either increase and only sell to the super wealthy, or decrease and go with a low margin high volume model. Any more good news? Yes, a lot of this would be completely irrelevant if we have molecular assemblers and decentralized production.

So what comes first? Strong AI or Molecular Assemblers? Personally I think if we get MA's first the transition will be faster but less difficult. Either way we won't have the political will to change our system of government/economics until we have to.

"Either way we won't have the political will to change our system of government/economics until we have to."

I hope not.
I'm hoping that we can realize the path we want to choose- and choose it. Necessity is fine- but it takes so dang long.

Simple and cheap - like soap and penicillin. But we choose.

MDarling- I absolutely agree with you, its a situation where I hope that I am dead wrong. But we don't have a great track record of changing in advance of problems. Remember this past summer how angry Americans were over the price of gas? We wanted alternative fuels and we wanted them immediately. Then the prices fell. We have a new and I'll admit, more pressing problem. But no ones really talking about alternative energy like we were this summer.

I wrote Anissimov a letter not to long ago, in it I mentioned that I think sooner rather than later a lobbying group will need to be formed. Maybe its time to informally state a case for such a group.

It could be low key, a few thinkers draft a letter. A few programmers develop a webpage. The site periodically sends out emails to congressmen, senators and others- and, preferably, leaders in other countries as well. Initially just in an effort to raise awareness that this is coming down the pike. Later, it could recommend specific actions.

At first the group will be teased, but any media attention would be good. We might even want to court it. We need to engage everyone else who doesn't think about these issues and doesn't see what's coming. It might even be useful to engage in public debates with skeptics of the singularity- of course this raises the risk of being compared to ID loons.