- 08 Jul 2010 02:42
#13439704
I think that, rather than energy accounting, labor should be the primary currency in technocracy. Energy is a tremendously unstable currency, given that production will constantly be increasing as society grows economically. On the other hand, there is an inherent stability to labor accounting: Assuming that one doesn't engage in senseless acts of destruction (which I suppose at times people do, but given technocracy I think that there could be fairly effective strategies to minimize gang violence and other forms of destruction, including white collar destruction, like accidentally crashing the economy), one has to contribute between 0 and 24 person-hours per day. Assuming that the society is capable of feeding itself without undue exertion, I think that a 35-40 hour work week should be sufficient, though this is not based on any calculations. The amount of person-hours per person will be more-or-less constant over time.
As the level of technology increases, there will be deflation in the cost of any given item, because fewer person-hours will be required to create it. However, I don't see any reason why this means that people should work less: If you can support yourself at level X on a 40 hour week when you enter the workforce, and the economy doubles in productivity when you leave it, if you are still working a 40 hour week, then your standard of living has doubled.
I imagine pay would be on average, one person-hour per hour of work (It would have to be, if pricing is related to hours put in), although subject to a multiplier due to productivity and skill (I suppose this multiplier would range from between .3 and 3 or so), since people tend not to be more than 10 times more productive or 10 times more skillful than other people, or 3 of each for that matter.
As the level of technology increases, there will be deflation in the cost of any given item, because fewer person-hours will be required to create it. However, I don't see any reason why this means that people should work less: If you can support yourself at level X on a 40 hour week when you enter the workforce, and the economy doubles in productivity when you leave it, if you are still working a 40 hour week, then your standard of living has doubled.
I imagine pay would be on average, one person-hour per hour of work (It would have to be, if pricing is related to hours put in), although subject to a multiplier due to productivity and skill (I suppose this multiplier would range from between .3 and 3 or so), since people tend not to be more than 10 times more productive or 10 times more skillful than other people, or 3 of each for that matter.
-Josh
Numbers never lie. People, however, lie often, and use numbers to support their falsehoods. For every statistic, there is an equal and opposite statistic.
Any number not followed by a unit and a source is worth 0 seconds of attention (Me 2011).
Numbers never lie. People, however, lie often, and use numbers to support their falsehoods. For every statistic, there is an equal and opposite statistic.
Any number not followed by a unit and a source is worth 0 seconds of attention (Me 2011).