Whenever I see this expressed, I envision the picture Gene Roddenberry painted of a possible future society.

Go easy on the harsh ...Milton

Gene was an idiot (However much I like Star Trek).

Why would anyone serve? On Star Trek there are a lot of people that do menial jobs. Why?

I'm guessing because they need money...

Because they go to space, man!

I mean, there are people with billions that still go to the office everyday to do some bullshit job pushing numbers. Why do they do it? They couldn't even spend all their money if they wanted to. Why does Buffet do it? Why don't they just cash in and go lie on the beach all day?

TL;DR.

Maybe you'd like to try that in a couple of sentences.

You sound like one of those Basic Income nut jobs.

Work for your money.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people seem to actually get offended by *any* insinuation that this world can get better/more fair.

Well? How does it get more fair? Basic Income is nut jobs wanting money without working.

So you're okay with a basic income for children then? Or are you of the opinion that a kid should be punished if their legal custodians have no talent in making money?

Children should get child care. So every child gets the same.

But you can't expect free money once you're an adult.

Whenever I see this expressed, I envision the picture Gene Roddenberry painted of a possible future society.

Go easy on the harsh ...Milton

Gene was an idiot (However much I like Star Trek).

Why would anyone serve? On Star Trek there are a lot of people that do menial jobs. Why?

I'm guessing because they need money...

Because they go to space, man!

I mean, there are people with billions that still go to the office everyday to do some bullshit job pushing numbers. Why do they do it? They couldn't even spend all their money if they wanted to. Why does Buffet do it? Why don't they just cash in and go lie on the beach all day?

People with billions can do whatever they like.

This OP is obviously a 'Basic Income' advocate. They just want free money to do whatever they like, and have robots do the work.

Grow up.

This OP is obviously a 'Basic Income' advocate. They just want free money to do whatever they like, and have robots do the work.

Grow up.

So let's say, for argument's sake, that in 50 years it is actually possible to have robotic "slaves" that produce many goods and services, in such a capacity that it allows us to cover the basic needs of every person in Earth, regardless of whether they work or not. Some people might actually choose to do some work for personal gratification, or to gain access to extra luxuries, or both.

You're saying you would actually outlaw this, so that everyone *has* to work for their food, even if it's no longer necessary?

This OP is obviously a 'Basic Income' advocate. They just want free money to do whatever they like, and have robots do the work.

Grow up.

So let's say, for argument's sake, that in 50 years it is actually possible to have robotic "slaves" that produce many goods and services, in such a capacity that it allows us to cover the basic needs of every person in Earth, regardless of whether they work or not. Some people might actually choose to do some work for personal gratification, or to gain access to extra luxuries, or both.

You're saying you would actually outlaw this, so that everyone *has* to work for their food, regardless if it's no longer necessary?

Of course not. *When* robots can take care of us, money is irrelevant.

Until then. Capitalism rules.

This OP is obviously a 'Basic Income' advocate. They just want free money to do whatever they like, and have robots do the work.

Grow up.

So let's say, for argument's sake, that in 50 years it is actually possible to have robotic "slaves" that produce many goods and services, in such a capacity that it allows us to cover the basic needs of every person in Earth, regardless of whether they work or not. Some people might actually choose to do some work for personal gratification, or to gain access to extra luxuries, or both.

You're saying you would actually outlaw this, so that everyone *has* to work for their food, regardless if it's no longer necessary?

Of course not. *When* robots can take care of us, money is irrelevant.

Until then. Capitalism rules.

I believe the OP was saying just that, that such a future is actually feasible in a few decades, provided technology advances in reasonable pace, and is something capitalism can't handle, in which case it would either be substituted by another system more equipped to handle the new situation, or start another large-scale war in order to destroy resources and "reboot", so to speak.

The question is, of course, whether you want to sit and wait for when we reach that junction, or start preparing the successor of capitalism today, so it's ready to fully handle the new situation when it arrives, and also maybe accelerate its arrival. Don't forget that "when machines can take care of us" isn't a singularity, it won't happen overnight, it will be a continuous event, even if it will unfold rapidly, say in a period of a few years. They are already taking care of us, to some extent. Forget basic income. Are you sure that, at least the nutrition needs of every person on the planet can't be covered *today*, with the resources we have? And if they're not, what's the cause of that?

People with billions can do whatever they like.
This OP is obviously a 'Basic Income' advocate. They just want free money to do whatever they like, and have robots do the work.
Grow up.

The OP is clearly talking about a future where capitalism is no longer tenable. So how you jumped to the conclusion that you did and justify the tone of your rhetoric is a bit baffling.

Isn't a dwindling supply another reason why capitalism would be unwound? Especially if the workforce is taken over by robots and people are left to do nothing else but consume.