There's quite a lot of confirmation like this, of our economic strategy in relation to automation.
I worry that it's a necessary and yet insufficient solution.
Economically, as the ranks of the unemployable increases, wealth disparity, even with basic income will continue to increase to levels way beyond current levels, even as productivity and efficiency in industry continues to increase. To continue supporting the increasingly unemployable portion of the population, we have to tax the employed people more. Those people would also be the most economically mobile, and so they would have strong incentive to move elsewhere. Even if they stay, any incentive to advancement would be crippled by taxation. There's a similar problem with taxing businesses more. Lots of incentive to just go do business elsewhere. Businesses are happy enough to pay tax to support social welfare, to the extent that it produces a stable environment to do business, but there comes a point where they just add up the cost benefit and say no. I think this applies regardless if whether it's a land tax or other more direct profit/revenue/transaction based taxation.
In short, social welfare is great, but we can only afford it under current economics, if we don't kill the golden goose of business and concurrent employment.
Culturally (and therefore politically), ballooning levels of unemployable's is a disaster. It produces a kind of existential crisis for entire generations.
"What's my purpose? What am I supposed to do with my time? How can I get out of this basic existence when everyone around me seems to be stuck in it too? Life sucks and there's no way out."
At a personal, individual level, this turns into crime, drug & alcohol abuse, increasing suicides, increasing violence, or they turn to gangs to create at least some semblance of belonging etc.
Politically, this is what Trump just tapped into to win the US election. It's total BS. He can't deliver, but people all across the mid-west that were experiencing exactly what I describe above were prepared to vote for that buffoon, just on the basis that he was the only one talking about their problem. Arguably, it's the same thing.
I guess what I'm saying is that this problem is beyond just economics. People also need a way to find meaning and purpose in their lives, and that's hard to even broach when you're living day-to-day on a minimum income with no opportunities.
Now, it doesn't escape me that there are already a lot of people in that situation, but the difference is scale. There's a tipping point to these things, beyond which everything gets chaotic, revolutionary etc, and history suggests that doesn't end well.
So, what's the solution?
I don't know yet, but I'm reading widely, and I think that being the political party that presents a credible solution to this would be just great. It's of core strategic value. It requires vision. That's what really drew me into that huge discussion about monetary theory a while back. We need a new economics model that allows us to engage the whole population in fruitful purpose, while maintaining compatibility with current economics because revolutions suck for everyone.
I have a weird inkling that being left/libertarian puts us in a unique position to address this.
I haven't heard much discussion about the relationship between left and libertarian. We're clearly there, and yet we don't talk much about how they relate. What's going on with that?