patrick.net

Indiana Jones says

Soviet Union was not practicing Marxism, or Communism for that matter. It was more fascism with a communist veil. Too centralized, and way too much power in the center.

What if there were no corporate owned "supermarkets"? And instead collectives that worked together to produce their own food for a smaller group? While others in the group produced other goods the group needed? You could be connected directly to your own work and production.

dublin hillz says

The alienation present in the soviet union was actually very monstrous

What if? Well, for one thing, it would be a very good reason to move to that place. ;-)

Indiana Jones says

Non-Capitalism does not = Soviet Union

Non-Capitalism does not = China

Non-Capitalism does not = North Korea

Non-Capitalism does not = Sweden

Non-Capitalism does not = Fascist Italy or Germany

There are many people on this site that are not very good at math. This may be over their heads.

Folks, a lot of ppl don't get it, starting circa ~2025, a lot of work will start to become automated due to robotics/AI.

In the transition period, from 2025 to 2050, there will be no more meaningful work for ppl to produce.

As that occurs, a massive state/govt welfare state will need to evolve so that those who can't find work, which then will include actuaries, paralegals, pharmacists, and countless other former white collar tasks.

Thus, we don't need to worry about politics because in effect, ppl will become redundant, as worker bees.

Indiana Jones says

Soap. Soap to be made either by individuals in the collective or if no one knew how to make soap, the collective would acquire it from another collective that did. Your soap is not a personal decision. It is a collective decision. You no longer have 63 bottles of salad dressing to choose from. You have 4. But those four are made lovingly from food grown organically by people in your collective and our healthful and delicious. And you don't have to buy it anymore, it is part of being in the collective and contributing your work.

In other words, the "collective" would grant the 4 an oligopoly. In order to protect the "domestic" big-4 soap producers, I suppose the next item on the "collective's" agenda is import tariffs on soap bars from elsewhere.

Corn. If the collective wants to switch their supplier of corn, then they can contact Bob's collective to see how they can work out a trade with them for their plump corn.

Why should such a decision be made by the collective instead of by the individual? Do you want your Condo Association busybodies do your grocery shopping every week?

Or they can ask Bob how to get that plump corn and grow their own. The collectives share info with each other because they are interested in bettering lives of all and there is no need for competition. Competition is based on scarcity, and there is no scarcity.

If you truly believe there is no scarcity, can I move in your house this weekend? and help myself to, not only your food and clothing, but also your sexual charms? There is no scarcity, right? Why doesn't your husband share every piece of info with me, about YOU! including hands-on experience!

What you are proposing here is essentially the Stalinist Collectivization, and Maoist / Pol Pot Communes. If you think the previous paragraph was crude, trust me, when collectivism comes like it did for the hapless Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese and Cambodians, you will not own your own body. Your feminine charms will belong to the "leaders" whether you like it or not. You will be starving so badly you will offer yourself up to the "leaders" just to get a can of tuna or even less, like so many thousands/millions of women did in those countries. People need to realize that, in addition to the 100+ million people killed by those collectivization attempts in the 20th century, there were billions people who had to live through dehumanization that came before deaths.

Rin says

Folks, a lot of ppl don't get it, starting circa ~2025, a lot of work will start to become automated due to robotics/AI.

In the transition period, from 2025 to 2050, there will be no more meaningful work for ppl to produce.

As that occurs, a massive state/govt welfare state will need to evolve so that those who can't find work, which then will include actuaries, paralegals, pharmacists, and countless other former white collar tasks.

Thus, we don't need to worry about politics because in effect, ppl will become redundant, as worker bees.

A lot of work are already automated, for example farming with the GPS-controlled combines. Farming accounted for 80% of jobs in the US a century ago. Now only 2%. Somehow those 78% managed to find "new" jobs in the past century, which probably produced more than 200% new jobs, as more than half of the jobs created a century ago probably already disappeared.

What happened in agro/farming is nothing, next to the disappearance of much of the white collar work. The prior 20th century was not the era of expert systems.

Right now, a floor of actuaries costs an insurance company some $6M/yr in headcount costs. When IBM Watson and other such machine based algos replace that dept, the corporation can recover $6M for the owners.

And likewise, that'll happen for more and more occupations out there. And then, "new" jobs won't come up, as AI/robots will even fill those roles. Sure, a handful, call it 10% of creative designers and so-forth will have some work in designing the next generation of expert systems but on the whole, machines will be involved in the QA and development of other machines.

What you are saying is that actuarial jobs will be replaced by computers, just like typist jobs were replaced by computers. New jobs will emerge to replace them, so long as the government does not subsidize unemployment to such a degree that sucking off the government's teets becomes more comfortable than kissing the asses of bosses and consumers.

Seriously, when all else fails, kissing asses can be a real job. I for one would rather have my ass kissed by a real human being than by a machine. LOL.

Reality says

New jobs will emerge to replace them

Fewer and fewer, as the decades roll by. Look, I work for monied interests and one of the things they don't like is ... headcount.

If a rich person can create a fully automated company and only have a CEO and a few salespersons, that's what they'll do.

Rin says

Reality says

New jobs will emerge to replace them

Fewer and fewer, as the decades roll by. Look, I work for monied interests and one of the things they don't like is ... headcount.

If a rich person can create a fully automated company and only have a CEO and a few salespersons, that's what they'll do.

So do they then spend all their time and earned money on Amazon? No! They spend that profit from automation on their wives, girlfriends, kids going to school and taking after-school dancing classes, personal trainers, house keepers, land scapers, chauffer, personal cook, etc. etc. These are all jobs! Working the production line will indeed be as obsolete as farm jobs a century ago.

Reality says

They spend that profit from automation on their wives, girlfriends, kids going to school and taking after-school dancing classes, personal trainers, house keepers, land scapers, chauffer, personal cook, etc. etc. These are all jobs!

In other words, the so-called *servant* class of the olde British Empire, where the Ugandans, South Asians, and Eastern Europeaners toil for their Patrician land owners for meager wages.

Well, that's just a great vision, for the future of America. Realize, even many of those jobs will also be taken by robots, once realism (humanoid 'bots) starts to become more mainstream.

Obviously, I can't be the only one with this belief; it doesn't work like that. This is a group effort, might I even say a "collective" effort. All persons involved must have basic understanding of the concepts.

BTW, comparing the personal sexual space of one human being with the resources of this earth just doesn't equate. Besides being in very bad taste.

"If you truly believe there is no scarcity, can I move in your house this weekend? and help myself to, not only your food and clothing, but also your sexual charms? There is no scarcity, right? Why doesn't your husband share every piece of info with me, about YOU! including hands-on experience!

What you are talking about are horrific forms of dictatorship in Pol Pot and Stalinism. This is about the people themselves having the power, which is why there are many smaller communities, and people working together within the community for the betterment of that community. Betterment does not mean profit. These communities are connected to others making a network throughout the country or world.

Those people who cannot reign in their greed or need for control will necessitate restraint in some manner. They cannot participate because they will destroy this type of system. Maybe they can be placed together so they can terrorize one another. These people are sociopaths, and this system can not work with sociopaths involved on any level.

I believe that because our current systems worldwide are run by sociopaths, with a few exceptions, the system is flawed and brings out the worst in us humans. Greed, envy, lying, victimization, selfishness, etc. If the new system is set up to empower the individual within the context of contributing to the well being of the community and by extension everyone else, then what can be brought out is the flip side-- care for others, generosity, honesty, equality, integrity, respect for others, etc.

In early cultures, they would not tolerate a sociopath/psychopath in their community. Once it became clear that they were dealing with this type of person, the community would banish them.

As far as the robots: Are we seriously going to just roll over and let the machines take over the damn place? Come on, I know you've all seen The Terminator! If you follow the logic, either we will become slaves to the machines or obsolete. If AI happens, what use are humans?

Indiana Jones says

As far as the robots: Are we seriously going to just roll over and let the machines take over the damn place? Come on, I know you've all seen The Terminator! If you follow the logic, either we will become slaves to the machines or obsolete. If AI happens, what use are humans?

The 'we' in this case, are the owners of corporations, not the mass of the worker bees.

Sure in the beginning, AI seems like 'just a tool', and thus, a lot of white collar work is replaced by these tools.

And then, in time, more and more work gets replaced by expert systems until the avg human being, becomes expendable.

So you see, the Terminator thing is not something, owners of corporations are worried about.

Because that's ever actually worked on a large scale.

OMFG talk about not understanding human psychology and for that matter biology and genetics.

Put down the bong.

Indiana Jones says

Are we seriously

Last thought on the 'we' concept.

Anyone, who's been a member of management team, understands these principles: productivity, contain headcount, overhead, liability, etc.

Neither C levels nor middle managers, sit around and worry about whether or not a computer is going to replace someone.

In fact, some of my own IT work, has eliminated a headcount for a full time tax consultant. Instead, we have a part-time consultant, who comes in once in a while, before we send our work out to the auditors. Our firm believes in the idea of growth but w/o increasing liability which in this case, means adding employees. If we were to hire someone, aside from the salary, we have NDA and bonding procedures so we hire very judiciously. If a computer could do the work of everyone out there, our partners would be more than pleased.

I suspect that many companies out there, would also be thrilled if they didn't need employees.

Rin says

I suspect that many companies out there, would also be thrilled if they didn't need employees

Yeah with all the laws and regulations and federal mandates on hiring, equal pay rules etc. etc. etc.

It is a balance, one doesn't want workers to be so unsafe that they are dying or losing life and limb. but ours is the other extreme, where the employers seem to have no rights at all-except of course picking up and moving.

Indiana Jones says

Non-Capitalism does not = Soviet Union

OK, you can say that just like some people will claim that united states is not "real capitalism." The fact remains that soviet union was the most powerful communist empire that ever existed and united states remain the most powerful capitalist nation.

Lenin as a matter of fact was influenced by writings of marx and engels to a great deal. The name USSR stood for united soviet socialist republics and the one and only party that existed in society was the communist party. Lenin/stalin have actively tried to bring communist theory to fruition depsite the fact that their apologists try to cover up for them and say that they were practicing "state capitalism" or whatnot.

If that form society is not to your liking, then perhaps you may want something else. In which case reading Marx is probably not the way to go to realize your vision.

Also, united states is the most individualistic society in the world. To bring a communal lifestyle here will be extremely challening due to this cultural variable. It's very important to understand local cultures when bringing about change. Look how well the "bring democracy to iraq" project has worked out.

The closest that you can probably come to realizing the "commune lifestyle" would be to buy a mcmansion with a few families and how that every one cooperates. Easier said that done when people cross the age of 30 though.

Guaranteed Basic Income would balance the massive advantage possessed by employers over employees.

It would be easier to say "FU" to a crappy boss or soulless corp environment.

Rin says

In other words, the so-called *servant* class of the olde British Empire, where the Ugandans, South Asians, and Eastern Europeaners toil for their Patrician land owners for meager wages.

Well, that's just a great vision, for the future of America. Realize, even many of those jobs will also be taken by robots, once realism (humanoid 'bots) starts to become more mainstream.

1. What the Ugandans, South Asians and Eastern Europeans had as jobs in the British Empire was far better than the serfdom or peonery that they had in their own native countries. Sure, as a serf or peon or slave in their own country, free food, free medicine, free housing, free education and free retirement may well have been available to a degree provided by the masters . . . however, the quality was obviously subpar, or those British "servants" would not have left their own native countries. A situation rather similar to all the immigrants leaving all the free medicine, free education etc., etc., behind in former socialist countries to immigrate to the US in the 20th century.

2. How is your job ass-kissing potential investors into your hedge fund any different from "servants"? What is the difference among:

gutting a chicken or cattle on a processing line (as a minimum wage worker)
vs.
gutting a fish to customer's order at the sea food market (as an owner-operator directly interacting with customer)
vs.
a medical surgeon operating on a patient with all the same blood and gore?

IMHO, the difference is in increasing liablity/stress level and increasing pay, the latter of which leads to some sort of perceived social status.

So if personal care jobs carry high pay, the workers shed the "servant status" just like you don't consider your ass-kissing on the phone as some kind of "servant" job but a worthy job to put in your time before your retirement, when someone else will kiss your ass in turn.

Just like the difference between street hooker vs. high price escort vs. porn star paid for having sex on adult video vs. mega movie star launching her career on a select few nudity and sex scenes on R-rated movies . . . the increasing pay scale makes the job worth-while and "morally"/"socially" acceptable. Notice, the technology of movies / mass media made the necessary time period for her to "put herself out" shorter before accumulating enough capital for her retirement.

So if each person more or less go through a shorter "servant" phase and get well paid for it and then be able to live off that, humanity will have made a huge step in progress. After all, all our jobs are servant servicing someone else. I consider myself a housing service provider, not a "landlord" as I have no feudal privilege over my customers. I'm providing a service to earn my retirement and my kids education, just like you are earning yours serving your hedge fund clients.

Indiana Jones says

Obviously, I can't be the only one with this belief; it doesn't work like that. This is a group effort, might I even say a "collective" effort. All persons involved must have basic understanding of the concepts.

Different people have different understandings. That's called individuality. The same person may even be / usually is hypocritical when it comes to doing things to others vs. having things done to him/herself.

BTW, comparing the personal sexual space of one human being with the resources of this earth just doesn't equate. Besides being in very bad taste.

The line between the two is thinner than you think. Human civilization having achieved what it has is very much the result of female population selecting males capable of providing material well being for her children. If all female population had chosen mates based on who can thump his chest the loudest, the species would have stagnated at the level of mother teaching the baby gorilla/chimpanzee how to use a bade of grass to catch ants from an ant hill, and that would be the limit of their most advanced technology. If the way to generating material provision for a mother/child is shifted from being a productive member of the society in market exchanges to being a success in mutual looting, human history has proven again and again that the veneer of civilization is quite thin. A man accustomed to looting other men through violence is equally prone to imposing himself on women against their free will as well.

Indiana Jones says

What you are talking about are horrific forms of dictatorship in Pol Pot and Stalinism. This is about the people themselves having the power, which is why there are many smaller communities, and people working together within the community for the betterment of that community. Betterment does not mean profit. These communities are connected to others making a network throughout the country or world.

I agree with your sentiment on free association in smaller communities (i.e. the right to secede from larger imposed "communities.") However, you understanding of "profit" may be off. Profit is simply the difference between how much other people have expressed in desiring something vs. the "sacrifices" that they are willing to make. Profit in a competitive market place with many other choices offered (i.e. not mandated looting) is how betterment is achieved.

Those people who cannot reign in their greed or need for control will necessitate restraint in some manner. They cannot participate because they will destroy this type of system. Maybe they can be placed together so they can terrorize one another. These people are sociopaths, and this system can not work with sociopaths involved on any level.

The common tragedy is that, when a collectivist system is imposed on a population, the sociopaths rise to the top. The scums rise to the top whenever violence is used. As simple as that. A far less costly way to eject sociopaths is usually not banishment by a government, but simply the other members individually choosing to not do business with the sociopaths. Of course, defense against trespassing is a different story.

Indiana Jones says

I believe that because our current systems worldwide are run by sociopaths, with a few exceptions, the system is flawed and brings out the worst in us humans. Greed, envy, lying, victimization, selfishness, etc. If the new system is set up to empower the individual within the context of contributing to the well being of the community and by extension everyone else, then what can be brought out is the flip side-- care for others, generosity, honesty, equality, integrity, respect for others, etc.

There is no new system. Systems constantly evolve. Voluntary association and voluntary exchanges promote peace and collaboration. Whereas forceful imposition always lead to the scums rising to the top; the dysfunctions that you witness all around the world now has a lot to do with coercions of all sorts in the past.

In early cultures, they would not tolerate a sociopath/psychopath in their community. Once it became clear that they were dealing with this type of person, the community would banish them.

I do not share such romantic view of early cultures. The early human societies were probably quite brutish, as you can see from other social animals: the lion pride would have the dominant male lion chasing away other maturing males; if he is overthrown, the new king would kill all infants in the pride so the females would be fertile again for him to impregnate them. It's not the sort of stuff we as a civilized society want to romanticize about.

thunderlips11 says

Guaranteed Basic Income would balance the massive advantage possessed by employers over employees.

It would be easier to say "FU" to a crappy boss or soulless corp environment.

The alternative to working for crappy bosses is not unemployment, so long as the government does not prevent people from setting up their own shops.

Guaranteed minimum income from whom? Why should some young punk choosing to live high on drugs 24hrs a day be guaranteed a living by other members of society? Heck, if such a system were in place, wouldn't it be a solid incentive to be high and "cool" and impregnate "pretty young things" in a serious case of adverse-selection?

Reality says

thunderlips11 says

Guaranteed Basic Income would balance the massive advantage possessed by employers over employees.

It would be easier to say "FU" to a crappy boss or soulless corp environment.

The alternative to working for crappy bosses is not unemployment, so long as the government does not prevent people from setting up their own shops.

Guaranteed minimum income from whom? Why should some young punk choosing to live high on drugs 24hrs a day be guaranteed a living by other members of society? Heck, if such a system were in place, wouldn't it be a solid incentive to be high and "cool" and impregnate "pretty young things" in a serious case of adverse-selection?

Whereas now that punk robs people to get his fix and already knocks up any young thing, pretty or not that will share his needle.

We already have millions of drug addicted people living in public housing, eating food paid for by taxpayers with an army of public caregivers, and free education.

LOL, New Renter, I agree. We already have some of that adverse-selection in place; that's why the young generation in their 20's are suffering from such a malaise, when it should be the start of their most productive and career-building years. Guaranteed minimum income would only make the situation even worse.

Reality says

The alternative to working for crappy bosses is not unemployment, so long as the government does not prevent people from setting up their own shops.

So if you're a chef, and you have no money and can't get anywhere near enough for a one year lease, fixtures, etc., and don't know any rich people, how do you go into business for yourself? Nevermind all the licenses and everything else.

Many people *Could* be very successful, but fail because people don't have the capital to see themselves through the first year or so. It's not uncommon to say "Gee, what a great coffee shop. Wonder why they went out of business?" - They probably ran out of cash just when they were on the verge of success via Word of Mouth.

Another problem is that US Business is so Corpratized and Franchised, there are fewer and fewer small businesses to support other small businesses. Target is not going to hire Owen Consulting, a one-person startup by a 20-year Marketing Industry Veteran. They are going to hire a big Madison Avenue Company. And there aren't enough small fry to solicit. The number of self-employed has been declining for the last half-century.
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/more-about-entrepreneurship-rates/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Reality says

Why should some young punk choosing to live high on drugs 24hrs a day be guaranteed a living by other members of society?

Why should I pay to dredge Harbors for Panamax Shipping from China? Let COSCO pay for it. Why should I pay a fortune to spy on Petrobras? Let Exxon-Mobile spy on Petrobras with it's own money.

PS Middle Class means:
* Even if one didn't work for another, one could live at or above the poverty line. Via dividends, rental income, etc.

It doesn't matter if one has a BMW or an ancient beat up Dart, whether you have 20 years left on a 30-year mortgage or rent a studio in the bad side of town, whether you can go 3 months without employment or 3 weeks without employment, if you depend on income from labor - rather than ownership - to stay above the poverty line, you ain't middle class.

US Gov Propaganda during the cold war switched the definition of Middle Class from independent (even if relatively poor) means to "Has a mortgage, car, and takes vacations".

Most people in the US who think of themselves as middle class are really the upper end of working class.

thunderlips11 says

So if you're a chef, and you have no money and can't get anywhere near enough for a one year lease, fixtures, etc., and don't know any rich people, how do you go into business for yourself?

Right off the top of my head, I can think of not one but two solutions for such a chef:

1. Advertise on Craigslist as a personal chef, to cook at people's homes. All those McMansions with fully stocked/equipped chef's kitchens are crying out for real chefs.

2. Find a store-front owner or a retiring restaurant owner who is willing to take an equity position instead of collecting rent. With so many retail locations losing tenants, it should be do-able. Of course, the chef has to come up with something that people want to buy and eat! Otherwise, he/she may want to look into another line of work, like house cleaning or yard work, both involve minimum start capital and can earn income right away!

Nevermind all the licenses and everything else.

There, you are talking about government impositions. Either vote to have them removed or find a line of work where there is no such restriction, or working on both.

Many people *Could* be very successful, but fail because people don't have the capital to see themselves through the first year or so. It's not uncommon to say "Gee, what a great coffee shop. Wonder why they went out of business?" - They probably ran out of cash just when they were on the verge of success via Word of Mouth.

LOL. That's called bad entrepreneurship. Their failure leave room for someone else to enter and do a better job for the potential customers.

thunderlips11 says

Another problem is that US Business is so Corpratized and Franchised, there are fewer and fewer small businesses to support other small businesses. Target is not going to hire Owen Consulting, a one-person startup by a 20-year Marketing Industry Veteran. They are going to hire a big Madison Avenue Company. And there aren't enough small fry to solicit. The number of self-employed has been declining for the last half-century.

thunderlips11 says

Why should I pay to dredge Harbors for Panamax Shipping from China? Let COSCO pay for it. Why should I pay a fortune to spy on Petrobras? Let Exxon-Mobile spy on Petrobras with it's own money.

If you want to talk about getting government out of the business of tilting the playing field in favor of big corporations, at the expense of small businesses, I whole-heartedly agree with you.

Reality says

LOL. That's called bad entrepreneurship. Their failure leave room for someone else to enter and do a better job for the potential customers.

Again, most "Middle Class" people couldn't afford either cash or loan any reasonable storefront setup - even in the neighborhoods where they live! The idea that they fail - often on the verge of being successful - simply for lack of capitalization is a market failure - the failure of the market to offer reasonable rents or loans.

The instance of the retiring restaurant owner? That's pretty rare. He'd get the money up front with no risk by selling the facility to Carabad's Italian Grill.

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

LOL. That's called bad entrepreneurship. Their failure leave room for someone else to enter and do a better job for the potential customers.

Again, most "Middle Class" people couldn't afford either cash or loan any reasonable storefront setup - even in the neighborhoods where they live! The idea that they fail - often on the verge of being successful - simply for lack of capitalization is a market failure - the failure of the market to offer reasonable rents or loans.

All businesses eventually fail. That's just how the real world works. If a business fails before it even gets off the ground, then the founder bit off more than he/she could chew . . . a mark of bad entrepreneurship. There are plenty other businesses that can be started with near-zero capital requirement. No one is owed to make a small fortune, by starting with a bigger one. LOL. Advertising on Craigslist to cook at the homes of McMansion owners would cost nothing.

The instance of the retiring restaurant owner? That's pretty rare. He'd get the money up front with no risk by selling the facility to Carabad's Italian Grill.

If restaurant owners do not retire, then there is no room for new restaurants beyond population growth and increasing consumer propensity to dine at restaurants. In reality, every single restaurant owner has to retire! Either he/she retires while alive, or his heir having no interest running the restaurant and therefore selling it (retiring the restaurant) after the death of the earlier owner.

BTW, it's interesting that you avoided addressing the widespread retail vacancies. If the fledgling chef doesn't want to negotiate with owner of the empty spaces, that's his/her own problem.

If this happens, this is the end of the executives and owners, as well. Once robotics goes global, how will the masses participate in an economy? How will the corporations survive if the consumers can't buy the products? They are digging their own graves by their creations.

Rin says

Folks, a lot of ppl don't get it, starting circa ~2025, a lot of work will start to become automated due to robotics/AI

Reality says

BTW, it's interesting that you avoided addressing the widespread retail vacancies. If the fledgling chef doesn't want to negotiate with owner of the empty spaces, that's his/her own problem.

I'll address that.

Why is it that almost every declining downtown I visit, they're asking sky-high prices for retail rents, despite substantial vacancies?

Tax-write offs are more valuable than the tenant's rent, esp. if the same owner (and that's typical with plazas or large buildings) can use the empty space to offset more profitable properties elsewhere.

We need to eliminate write-offs for empty commercial space. Then they'll have to rent out at what the market can bear, rather than choosing the tax break.

Yes, the U.S. is not true capitalism either. Just as we got closest to a true free market, the soviet union probably got closest to communism, but they still ended up with a dictatorship in the end. China never got even close. I am not expert on Chinese history, but it seems to me that China has had a centralized power for thousands of years, and they will name it whatever happens to be the best propaganda tactic, whether communism 60 years ago or capitalism now. The smaller elite ruling the masses hasn't shifted.

dublin hillz says

OK, you can say that just like some people will claim that united states is not "real capitalism." The fact remains that soviet union was the most powerful communist empire that ever existed and united states remain the most powerful capitalist nation.

Automation will vastly increase the output from some sectors of the economy, thereby making the products ridiculously cheap, therefore pushing workers and executives alike to other sectors of economy. Meanwhile, new sectors will emerge due to the cheapness of those products.

80% of the US population used to be farmers, and people used to spend more than half of their entire household budget on food. Automation by first steam then diesel powered machinery, then transportation, made food much much less expensive. Now a typical American household spends less than 15% of total household budget on all food, and less than 1/3 of that go to the actual farm output (the rest to processors and retailers). Farmers account for only 2% of the population . . . meaning 78% of the US population have found work elsewhere . . . including burning food as fuel!

Indiana Jones says

If this happens, this is the end of the executives and owners, as well. Once robotics goes global, how will the masses participate in an economy? How will the corporations survive if the consumers can't buy the products? They are digging their own graves by their creations.

Rin says

Folks, a lot of ppl don't get it, starting circa ~2025, a lot of work will start to become automated due to robotics/AI

This is a huge point and I completely agree with you. This is why the system I describe will only work when we corral up the sociopaths and disempower them completely.

Reality says

the sociopaths rise to the top. The scums rise to the top whenever violence is used. As simple as that. A far less costly way to eject sociopaths is usually not banishment by a government, but simply the other members individually choosing to not do business with the sociopaths. Of course, defense against trespassing is a different story.

What you wrote only conveys the idea that you have not owned any property, commercial or residential ;-) Commercial vacancy is very expensive to the owner. The cost of upkeep is a write-off regardless whether the property is occupied or not, so deliberately leaving it empty makes no economic sense whatsoever. The lost rental revenue goes directly to the bottom line. Some commercial properties are empty or the asked rent is too high simply because the owner does not wish to run the risk of short term unreliable tenant mess up the place or run into city code violations that the owner then would have to fix.

BTW, what you describe also does not jive with reality on the ground. Mall owners often offer free rental for the first several months during economic downturns, so as to avoid having the mall looking vacant; sometimes even agreeing to equity positions instead of collecting rent. It seems to me that you never even tried to talk to the vacant space owners.

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

BTW, it's interesting that you avoided addressing the widespread retail vacancies. If the fledgling chef doesn't want to negotiate with owner of the empty spaces, that's his/her own problem.

I'll address that.

Why is it that almost every declining downtown I visit, they're asking sky-high prices for retail rents, despite substantial vacancies?

Tax-write offs are more valuable than the tenant's rent, esp. if the same owner (and that's typical with plazas or large buildings) can use the empty space to offset more profitable properties elsewhere.

We need to eliminate write-offs for empty commercial space. Then they'll have to rent out at what the market can bear, rather than choosing the tax break.

Realism is hindered by the fact that one is limited in believing what already is. Idealism is unhindered because it believes in the possibility of what could be.

Reality says

The cost of upkeep is a write-off regardless whether the property is occupied or not, so deliberately leaving it empty makes no economic sense whatsoever.

It must, because they refuse to budge on rents. I've seen the same places advertised for years, and they're expensive and always empty. Why do the landlords keep holding it?

These aren't McMansion owners insisting on 2006 prices, these are powerful families and large organizations owning these properties.

Landlords then have the choice of decreasing rents in order to fill space — and take a risk on whether the businesses will be viable enough to stick around — or they can keep the rents at a higher level, leave the spaces empty and come up with another plan.

“[Renters] can only be helped so much. As a landlord, I can drop the rent and keep the tenant, or keep the space empty and write it off on taxes,” Sideris said. That’s especially true for landlords who own other, more profitable properties.

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

The cost of upkeep is a write-off regardless whether the property is occupied or not, so deliberately leaving it empty makes no economic sense whatsoever.

It must, because they refuse to budge on rents. I've seen the same places advertised for years, and they're expensive and always empty. Why do the landlords keep holding it?

These aren't McMansion owners insisting on 2006 prices, these are powerful families and large organizations owning these properties.

Just because they advertise for a price doesn't mean they are not willing to take 50% off the price or agreeing to first 3 months for free. Talk to them if you have a good idea on how to use the space. Mall owners routinely offer free rent for several months to attract shops during economic downturns. For owners of malls and other commercial spaces, vacancy is blight.