The problem with envisaging how current technological trends will shape society in the future is that we try to work it out rationally, when people mostly take what they're given without thinking about it too much. The ability to listen to and watch recorded artistic performances - music, plays - ought to have decreased the value of live performances, but tickets to those performances are now more expensive than ever.
The comment on AI parenting isn't as revolutionary as it sounds: wealthy people raising their own children (rather than employing a dedicated nanny) is a 20th-century innovation, at least in the West. But I think people will feel unsettled about their children being raised by robots, regardless of the quality of the tech - Norlands College has little to worry about, I think.
But the central issue of this article is the issue I have with Universal Basic Income. If a person's labour is worthless, then the State has to provide some sort of income for them by taxing the business for which they would otherwise have worked. If this becomes ubiquitous throughout the economy, then the State becomes a dominating force in the economy, and the principles of the market economy start to break down. The idea that nothing can be produced without labour is a fundamental assumption to all economic models, and without it, we're in very dangerous territory.
>hen the State becomes a dominating force in the economy, and the principles of the market economy start to break down
But isn't that the second element of this? The principles of the market economy break down because most people won't have anything to offer in the market, not because the government is over-reaching by trying to provide support for people who no longer have any legal means of supporting themselves in a market where their value is now zero.
We're going to be in very dangerous territory, but it's not because of government meddling (which is how I read your comment as viewing UBI - sorry if this isn't the case, but there are quite a few free market opinions on here, so again sorry if I'm misrepresenting your views). It's because the very thing that all economic models are based on is about to have the rug pulled from underneath it. The models will need to be altered as production without labour is about to become much more common.
Live performance from a given artist doesn't scale. There are more people who want to watch Taylor Swift than who wanted to watch Elvis Presley because there are more people, and there is more opportunity to travel to the performance. Even if a modern top-tier artist can attract fewer people in terms of percentage (because people are happy watching on netflix or whatever), the price will still increase because the total number has increased
If there are 1M in the catchment area, and 50% want to see them, and there is seating for 50k, then prices will increase to what's affordable for the top-10%
If there are 3M in the catchment area, even if just 33% want to see them, seating is still 50k, then prices will increase to what's affordable for the top 5%
> But the central issue of this article is the issue I have with Universal Basic Income. If a person's labour is worthless, then the State has to provide some sort of income for them by taxing the business for which they would otherwise have worked.
Tax the land. Land value has massively increased over the years, everyone needs at least some land to live, even if it's just 100 square feet. Everyone has a fair claim to the land, unless you're a fan of feudal lords.
Your taxable business will not have a great business if nobody has any income. Doesn't matter how many widgets they make if nobody can afford them.
The comment on AI parenting isn't as revolutionary as it sounds: wealthy people raising their own children (rather than employing a dedicated nanny) is a 20th-century innovation, at least in the West. But I think people will feel unsettled about their children being raised by robots, regardless of the quality of the tech - Norlands College has little to worry about, I think.
But the central issue of this article is the issue I have with Universal Basic Income. If a person's labour is worthless, then the State has to provide some sort of income for them by taxing the business for which they would otherwise have worked. If this becomes ubiquitous throughout the economy, then the State becomes a dominating force in the economy, and the principles of the market economy start to break down. The idea that nothing can be produced without labour is a fundamental assumption to all economic models, and without it, we're in very dangerous territory.