Summary
Economic inequality is bad
- for emotional health
- for social stability
- productivity
The reasons for inequality are
- employment, because labor is a separate market and not linked to profit
- power hierarchy, because abused for inequality
- information hiding, because fairness cannot be checked
If those making a product own its profit, work is linked to profit
Below follows broad and deep argumentation
- how things are but should not be
- i.e. motivating to do things differently
Here the results are summarized
- pproduct
Base fair value-to-work mapping on the product (continuity, employment disadvantages, legal company).
- popen
Use open development (continuity, open information, importance of fairness).
- pchoice
Contributors choose to work on a product (personality).
- powner
Contributors become product owners (company ownership, work for equality).
- pnoboss
The product network has coordinators and mediators, but no boss (importance of fairness, problem of the important man).
- pnoemployment
No separate labor market, no employment (importance of fairness, employment disadvantages).
- pnostock
The legal entity does not use stock for financing the product effort (no shares).
- pprofit
Product profit goes to the contributors (importance of fairness).
- pfair
Effort is also spent on verifying fairness.
Fairness is a development like every other. Fairness needs
- to be planned, done and tested (pdt) or
- legislative, executive and judicial power (separation of powers)
This file is the plan. The next step: do.
Of course everybody is free to engage in unfair relationships. But there are undesirable effect for the economy as a whole, if too many do that.
Economy of Emotions
Economics is a rational science that uses a lot of mathematics based on economic models.
Rational economic models do not contradict the fact, that economy is also built on emotions, a feature of the human animal acquired through biological evolution. We use to contrast emotions with rationality, but emotions are the rationality of a far longer evolutionary history.
Economy is a cooperation to satisfy our needs, that evolved over biological evolution, and are averaged by the Maslow pyramid.
Emotions are the psychological and physiological algorithms developed by biological evolution to safeguard various kinds of resources. These algorithms are encoded in the human genome.
- We love because of our offspring's dependence on the resources of both parents
- We love our parents to provide resources
- We feel at ease and loyal, if accepted by a group as a security on resources
- We fear a threat on our resources
- We become envious or jealous on unfair distribution of resources
- We develop anger to prepare our body to defend resources
- We become sad when we realize a resource is lost
To summarize: Dependence on resources is the evolutionary cause of emotions.
That emotions long predate the dawn of mankind is proven by
- our sharing of emotions with other mammals
- the fact that emotions produce physiological reactions
Some animals prefer a solitary life to avoid the stress of intraspecific biological competition. Other animal live socially, among them the humans.
Humans show emotional evidence of a long evolutionary history of group life. Many emotions predate eusociality of humans, but acquired a social trigger. Emotions can be contagious. We have empathy.
Emotions co-evolved, e.g. a social anxiety, like stage fright, possibly co-evolved with the envy at someone who plays important and demands an unjustified bigger share of limited resources.
Group emotions are in our genes, because of the dependence of individuals on the group. The group is an essential subsystem to the individual. Genes producing behavior destructive for the group decreased the gene-holder's chances to survive. It is still selection on the individual via inclusive fitness rather than selection of groups.
Group emotions constitute a macroeconomic view, which considers the importance of the group. That they evolved shows their usefulness and advices us not to base the economy purely on egoistic motives.
There are also emotional differences between humans:
- Different strategies allowed survival, e.g Some people evolutionarily satisfied their needs via relations, while others did it more directly.
- Different environments selected differently. In the presence of resource scarcity,
- environments where resources could be obtained alone lead to more competitiveness
- environments where resources needed cooperation lead to more cooperativeness
Personality
As a result we can classify two stereotypes with every shade in between:
- those who are interested in things (more introvert) and
- those who are interested in people (more extrovert)
Because extroverts evolutionarily got their resources indirectly, they will likely
- pay attention to what the others want, think or believe and
- behave accordingly
- groom them
- accept a hierarchy
- try to get a better place in the hierarchy
Introverts will
- spend less time in social grooming, because their time is consumed with learning new things.
- team up with people of the same interest and
- see other off-topic grooming more as a nuisance or insincere.
- don't like hierarchies, especially none above, because they take away their freedom to explore new things.
Human emotional peculiarities were shaped in the long prehistory of small groups more then in the short written history. We still feel well in teams that model such natural companies. They put each member at ease with mutual appreciation for
- the help in acquiring and
- fairly distributing resources
The natural companies evolved to fit together and to the environment. Extroverts and introverts complemented each other in the natural company.
Emotions demand respect, because grown and proven over a hundred million years. Those who didn't have these emotions do not exist any more. The lack of respect leads to destructive behavior of individuals or groups, which can become disruptive or destructive for larger social systems.
Legal Company
A company as a legal entity is no such natural company. It rather can be compared to an interface in programming. Economic exchange goes through the (address, role) tuples of a company. The company plays external roles in the economy independent of who provides its function, i.e. the internal roles.
The entity as a separate unit
- makes contracts and
- is legally responsible for them,
- economically spends and earns and
- is taxable for the profit
Legal entity types provide useful constructs for people working together,
- not making everybody liable for the actions of the others (limited liability)
- guaranteeing fair distribution between partners or owners
But legal entity types are mostly abused for exploitation of the inherited capability to form a natural company and achieve great things by working together.
The problematic internal role is the employee role, because employees
- provide the full functionality of a company
- but do get only a minor portion of their achievement
The owners
- have considerably better legal protection
- have power over the employees
- control the money flow through the addresses of the company
Owner vs employee inequality obviously produces also distribution inequality.
Company Ownership
Property is a claim (ownership) on resources, because of a dependence on these resources. This territorial claim we share with other animal.
Because of the importance of property in human history, society has developed special protection for it. Owners can therefore sit back and do without constant emotional stress to defend their claim.
When people started to rely on farming, land became an essential resource and thus people claimed ownership on land. Farmers were raided, though, and fell prey to protection rackets. The racketeers became the authorities (monarchs), claiming taxing rights on their territories (nowadays countries).
There are properties in all levels of society up to a state's territory.
Property is heritable and whether acquired fairly, violently or by tricks, gets forgotten. Society's protection of property stays, though.
Nowadays very few depend on farming. Mostly we depend on cooperation to create and maintain technically complex systems, like computer HW and SW, cars, robots, ... Consequently the important resources of today and the future are companies, the cooperation of people.
To improve distribution of wealth one must aim at a fair distribution of company ownership.
No Shares
To own shares of other companies is possible, but even public float is in principle nothing else than a direct owner of the corporation.
The problem leading to inequality is not that companies are owned, but that they are not sharedly owned by those working there, the employees.
The company is legally obliged to maximize profit for the owner(s), this conflicts with maximizing the profit of the employee and is a legal unfairness.
One should not hold a share on one's own cooperation and not of the cooperation of others.
Maximizing Profit
In principle, there is nothing wrong with profit maximization. Partners expect each other to work together towards this goal. So do shareholders.
The problem are the employees, as they do not help each other to maximize their profit. Even the opposite: There is a pressure on wages to increase the profit of the owners.
By law, the employee is controlled by the employer. Because the majority of people are employees and cannot take part in the profit maximization, employment produces inequality.
To improve their lives, i.e. maximize their profit, employees need to become owners of their work, of their cooperation.
Work for Equality
The idea that work is a product like any other, that you can buy,
- might be OK for physics work (and according jobs)
- but it is not OK for people creating value beyond lifting a weight
Especially highly educated technical people should avoid employment, because they produce immense innovation, like automation and artificial intelligence. If those who own the cooperation get all the profit, instead of those cooperating, this creates an unbelievable inequality. It has done so already and will do more so in the future by orders of magnitude unless the employment relation is avoided.
The employee is regarded as working or thinking machine, basically a slave. Seen from the investor or owner, the productivity of slavery is high (slave = little cost = little input, but high value output). But overall the productivity is low.
The economy is driven by demand, i.e. needs. Making one person super rich does not increase the demand, because a person's needs are more or less limited. Thus, from a macroeconomic viewpoint,
- concentrating resources means recession
- distributing resources means economic growth
A super rich person does not live a million lives and does not have a million thoughts in every instant. The few super rich spend their money only according to their very limited mind, thus curbing economic evolution.
The few super rich create bullshit-jobs in the finance industry, management hierarchy and legal industry to report to their bottleneck mind, which makes the overall productivity small again.
The super rich are not at fault though. Those who played along, without caring for fairness, are at fault. They renounced potentially much higher income to make a few super rich.
It is not a goal of the many, the economy, to be productive for a few super rich people. This is only the goal of the few rich.
The goal of the economy as a whole is to spread freedom to let choose according to individual needs and interests. For this, workers need to be owners themselves, and not be the lackey of some super rich owner.
Real economy is also reduced with shares:
- With public float small shareholders
- waste time gathering information about the company they hold a few shares of or
- delegate to bullshit-jobs in managed funds.
- Majority stock holders or direct owners get too rich.
The money of the super rich is lost, because accepting it would further increase inequality. Actual value is thus lost for the economy, since vaulted by the super rich.
The existence of super rich people is a prove that there is a systemic error in economic practice and laws.
Freedom
A person with own thoughts needs freedom for own plans.
Free choices are not possible without resouces, without alternatives to choose from. Free choice depends on money.
Freedom needs both:
It is extortion, if economic value cannot be obtained by free will, but only under an employer's commands.
The employee does not get its fair share of the actual value of a company and thus renounces freedom of choice.
One has effectively become a slave, if one has no alternatives that make a difference in the pursuit of one's self-interest.
Concentration of wealth is a vicious circle that sucks away freedom from the majority.
Importance of Fairness
Humans did well on this planet. But now there are so many of us, that we are driven to optimize wherever possible. We can no more take a piece soil and plough, or go hunting in the woods. There is much effort or high financial investment needed to reach ownership to keep away competition.
Because one or a few decide over others, currently companies resemble
Being more by number, workers don't need to agree on such terms. They can establish a democracy. Worker ownership brings democracy into the companies.
But also with workplace democracy inequality still can creep in.
A sense of fairness for distributive justice or equality is part of our emotions. The majority of society should be able to agree on it as a common ethical value, unless they agree to be treated badly, which would mean that the majority lacks self-esteem.
Mass lack of self-esteem can happen and maybe is actually the case due to an authoritarian educational system, in which
- students are squashed into a class,
- dominated the first quarter of their lives by central figures (the teachers)
- with continuation in the work place.
Legacy ethics is in many ways mislead. Values can have religious reasons, or be supported simply out of tradition. Even if well thought through, who is to decide, what is right or wrong? One better keeps out of value discussions without relevance. And especially one needs to refrain from discriminating based on values in interactions where those values have no importance. But resource distribution is of relevance.
Fairness is local to a cooperation, because it is associated with information. One needs to demand information to be able to judge fairness.
Hiding information is the major means of exploitation.
Being political is a necessity.
When working together one cannot split
- politics: decision making
- economics: fair distribution
Politics applies to all social structures, not just countries.
We are still animals, but animals with a intellect, that can design and commit to a social structure other than alpha, beta and omega, also because communication has become more flexible.
To overcome a subjective feeling of fairness one needs to compromise on a metric. As is common with measuring, as hard as one tries, there will always be an error. Accordingly there will never be perfect fairness.
The sum of everybody demanding fairness in their local contexts (microeconomy), produces more equality, also globally (macroeconomy), e.g. in a country. Non-local inequality between companies will be leveled by
- a normal healthy competition.
- government redistribution
The problem, though, is to make enough people aware of their marginal importance in reducing inequality. Economies, where enough people exit unfair companies, do better, because a fairer distribution makes an economy grow.
Distributing wealth also
- makes people financially independent
- spreads freedom (alternatives), which
- leads to more diversification
- makes the economy resistant against financial crises
- makes people happier
- protects against social upheaval
- gives a say to many instead of a few
A financial crises is reached when the limit of exploitation is reached. A good example is the 2007-2008 crisis. The rich need to invest, which means that the poor need to incur debt.
The way via fairer laws is often not taken, because the minority, that profits from inequality, has a disproportionate influence on politicians and frame the public via mass media. (obedience, work ethic, virtue, ..., religion, ...).
In a democracy, why aren't their any politicians that promise to end inequality? There are, but only when inequality reaches a critical level for a critical mass. This is then a revolution, which operates outside the laws, and is a threat to life of many and thus the ultimate resort. History shows, when a critical inequality has been reached,
- a financial crisis occurs
- some leader tells the poor, that their misery can be ended by conquering new resources via war
- people revolt( Slave Rebellions French Revolution October Revolution WWII)
These are just the last stages of a long period of preceding suffering. The rich, though, don't experience the suffering and don't see it either. The initiative therefore can only come from those suffering.
Liberté-égalité-fraternité is not just a slogan
- it has relevant content (goal)
- and tells that things were not that way.
Considering the inertia of large systems, there is a point of no return, which one cannot detect. Instead one needs to counteract every local inequality.
Inequality is a world problem, not of countries existing due to historical coincidences.
Employment Disadvantages
- Owner vs employees produces inequality.
The most obvious cause for inequality is company owner versus employee. Employees have produced an unbelievable wealth inequality, because they did not claim ownership of their cooperation.
On a settled market employee's P_e = w versus owner's P_o = r N w (w wage investment, return on investment (ROI) r, N employees) produces a minimal linear inequality growth text{MLD}=ln(r+1)t, where MLD is mean log deviation as inequality metric.
Best would be r=0. Then the price of labour meets the profit of the company and inequality does not rise. This is the case when those working together also own their cooperation. Because the exploiting separate owner role is gone.
The above r is for one company. Between companies inequality can still increase. But then work force would move to the profitable business to level it again. This is normal healthy competition and not due to power hierarchy.
- Employees renounce the market value of an established company.
The value of a company is to a big part of structural nature, internal and in market position.
The ownership of many legal entity types is established at the beginning with no change during the growth of a company. Every new employee's contribution to the value of the company is claimed by the same owners:
- profit per employee
- intellectual property
- structural value (internal and market)
- ...
Basically all accumulated economic value of the company is claimed by the same owners.
Wealth grows exponentially by averaging compound interest (stochastic model: geometric brownian motion). This is the wealth of the owners produced by the employees. The wages of employees, on the other hand, settle on a level to be just enough, to make a living.
- Employees miss opportunities.
An employee is compensated via wages determined by the separate labor market instead of according to the profit in the product market.
- Price of labor (wage) does not reflect value of labor (profit).
Without a say in the company via ownership, wages can basically only be influenced via strikes. The owner has more possibilities in an imperfect competition, the simplest being to increase the price, which has the extra profit, that the ensuing inflation is not immediately reflected in the wages.
- The owners have control over the employees.
The idea of one person controlling one or more others is against the principle of liberté-égalité-fraternité
Employees cannot maximize profit, while the company owners can.
Employees create the company profit, but an owner might still think, s/he pays the wages.
Employees create the company's links to the economy, but lose them all at once when leaving.
Employees cannot decide for themselves, even if they know better.
Employees cannot organize their environment according to their needs, but are placed in loud crowded big open offices.
Employees are not included in decision processes that have an impact on them (especially wages).
Employees get deprived of their intellectual property.
Employees do not get a share of the company matching their relative investment.
Employees sell their full time for an unfair price as if they had no goals of their own. They give up their personal development.
Employees are unprotected against the many causes of loosing their job, their work investment.
The dependent work without rights is coercion of an employee to obey.
Employment is coercive and conflicts
- with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
... equal in dignity and rights.
... should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
... right to life, liberty and security of person
... right to own property
No one shall be subject to ... degrading treatment ...- as well as with liberté-égalité-fraternité
Employment does not create an evolutionary context. Employees cannot decide
- what to offer (what work to do)
- for what price (what pay)
There would need to be an internal market with free decision making. Market encapsulations do make sense, because they reduce the selection cost.
If employees voluntarily or involuntarily leave a company they helped build, they loses the value of the company, especially its market position. The owner role protects against such losses.
An argument for a labor market sometimes is the risk. But employees are exposed to more risk on the labor market, than the owners off a company in the product market. Owners can calculate and limit their risk (e.g. LLC). Employees have the product market risk, because they get dismissed on product failure, but in addition there is the risk from the arbitrariness of the boss and all the disadvantages listed here.
Employment is a cooperation with only a few winners and many losers. If you take a job, the employer wins, you lose. Shouldn't you better hide from employment? One can hide from employment, if one is able to
- think of alternatives and
- offer alternatives
Tech people
Tech people on the average are people that are more interested in things (personality). They don't like hierarchy and have a hard time accepting the owner vs employee discrimination.
Tech people don't like to be chosen on a labor market, but prefer to choose tech systems to work on.
A power hierarchy leads to
- intra-group competition for higher and more profitable roles or
- power-based instead of knowledge-based decisions
This is occupational stress to tech people.
If tech people own their cooperation, the resulting meritocracy produces a better feedback
- not only via resources, but also
- via mutual appreciation, resulting in better self-esteem
Costly employment turnover is avoided, as ownership binds people to the company and secures tech people's links to the market.
A tech coordinator should be
- a highly skilled technical guy himself and
- wise and empathetic enough not insinuate hierarchy
Problem of the important man
An important person, a boss,
- is against equality
- abuses power to increase inequality
- throttles self initiative
- hinders parallelization
- is a bottleneck in the process
- produces sycophants
- spoils communication
Amoral Law
Laws are historically grown rules which mix the goals and ideas of many but especially rich people. As such they are neither moral nor immoral, but amoral.
In our context immoral is
- unequal profit
- subordination
It is immoral to own the cooperation of people, Those cooperating hold a share of the cooperation, simply by logic. Employment is immoral.
Inequality in general is immoral, as those with no wealth must work for the wealthy.
Jurisdictions do little against inequality, A jurisdiction's goal is more to keep continuity for those with influence than to care for equality.
To a large part, company ownership today is a continuation of wealth distribution that is many centuries old. Employment is a continuation of slavery or feudalism. The rich always had, and still have, a big influence on jurisdictions and were able to maintain laws that allowed them to continue their exploitation.
Jurisdictions care for equal treatment of partners and owners, but treat the employees as inferior roles.
Without protection from law, simply by tradition, employees can expect unfair contracts
- that produce inequality with respect to the company
- that put them in a subordinate role
Actually subordination is in the employment contract by law. How to make a majority avoid the employment role that is immoral by law? How to make a majority more suspicious and political?
Since schools are mostly state-controlled, they do not prepare to think politically and economically, leaving them quite exposed to exploitation.
A slave becomes a respectable person, an economic entity instead of a economic resource,
- if his/her will counts
- if s/he can make economic decisions beyond taking/changing jobs a few times in live
- and can get most of his/her needs satisfied
- with minimal out-of-interest work investments
- leaving enough time for work investment in the area of interest
Jurisdictions do not prevent a slave from becoming an independent economic entity
- to organize with others on the same level
- to create economic links (customers and suppliers)
- to follow one's goals
- to control one's own work
- to control the money flows
Still, employment laws are harmful, as they allow to offer slave-like employment roles to which the unaware make themselves available, thus producing an unfair and immoral market and removing opportunities for fair cooperation.
Basically, the one who does not own is a slave. One must own what one depends on, specifically one's cooperation. If the owner is someone else, one depends on that person and is a slave of that person.
Jurisdictions should abandon the concept of employment and employment contracts altogether. Instead of checking for employment misclassification they should distinguish between
- transaction-like interaction with independant contractor or
- sharedly owned cooperation
By regulations one would have an immediate impact.
Jurisdictions do not demand equality, but they do also not forbid it.
Social security providing a basic income through redistribution allows people to avoid unfair contracts and thus indirectly helps to spread and maintain fair cooperation. It is also needed due to automation taking over.
Jurisdictions should make structural change that have a direct distribution effect, like abandoning the concept of employment, instead of only through taxes and redistribution.
Continuity
The tension in the company-employee relationship produces employment turnover which produces discontinuity
- of individual development
- of product evolution
- of economic network
because these are associated to the company, instead of actual people.
If one changes company there is a high chance
- not to work in the field of one's previous expertise any more
- the product left behind will be maintained by people with little knowledge about it
Evolution of complex systems need continuity as a foundation to build upon.
In a technological advanced economy, complex systems are built and maintained. This demands continuity to develop actual improvements of components instead of random alterations from every new employee working on it. Even a new approach is better done by someone that has experienced all the shortcomings.
Worker ownership brings more continuity.
- Having none of the employment disadvantages
- Influence on company decisions relevant for all members
- Better share of the profit via company value and via influence on wages
- Security for the future
- Intellectual property stays with the originator
- The expertise stays valuable
- The product gets a continuous development
- Income can be increased by offering to more clients
- More companies and better distribution of wealth
- Better income and more time produces a feedback to the actual genes (more attractive to the other sex, better care for offspring, ...)
- No power hierarchy, no bootlicking a boss, ...
- Decision right where the information is
- Work according to interest
There must never be someone with to much power, too much wealth, too much leverage.
Especially young people should become aware of their interests and develop in that direction without ever letting anybody distract them. If people want to decide over their actions, employment is not an option, even if it is in the field of interest.
A problem is, though, that young people do not know yet. So they are easily exploited by companies.
The educational system does not teach students to be political and care about fairness.
Open Information
Everyone wants an easy life, but it is often made harder than necessary, through competition instead of cooperation.
Cooperation means that everyone interacting makes the other's life easy. From the personal perspective:
- Everyone makes my life easier.
- I make everyone's life easier.
By choice: I interact with people that make my life easier. I make their life easier, too.
From cooperation follows a better distribution of effort and reward. Technically, "easier" needs to be defined and involves measuring and recording.
Information sharing produces fairness.
Information is
- easy to give
- valuable to get
Opening up information is an easy way to make each other's life easier.
If the information is a byproduct of one's profitable work, because one needs to write things down anyway, there is no extra effort in sharing, and therefore no need for all the useless effort going into agreeing on a price.
Complex Systems
Open development originates from software, which
- consists of pure information
- is complex
But all technical systems build on information. Open source can be seen more generally as open information.
Hardware should first be simulated, but definitely also needs physical prototyping and testing effort. This is considerable effort that should not need to be repeated, which can be easily avoided by sharing information.
The invested effort comes back from the community, by not having to do the effort on a similar occasion, because this time somebody else already did it.
Many complex systems are still hidden. This protectionism is stifling cooperation just like it does between countries.
Complex systems need a lot of effort. So reducing the competition to the level of the final product should be an exception.
An alternative to a company owning a complex system is to use open development: the complex system is open source and one offers work on it as a service.
The effort to develop a complex system alone are prohibitive. The consumer will not want to pay the effort more times. This demands for cooperation on all levels. Opening up the description of the complex system, makes it easy to cooperatively work on it.
Because open development is less effort, those who start will force others to follow to stay competitive.
There can be economic relationships of servicing on the complex system instead. Many small detailed technical contributions have no market to agree on a price, though. So there will be many individual contributions everybody can profit from. Also, those who contribute will get a return of investment
- by the contributions of others
- by the right to use the system
Cooperation is made easy through the internet via services like github, gitlab, bitbucket, sourceforge for development. Also for production there are local and global services (3d, pcb, ...).
Benefits of open development are many, but can be summarized by
- Sharing an information repository reduces effort to create the information and to use (select) it. (create-select is evolution: i.e. less evolution effort, less development effort).
More detailed: Open source (open information)
- means overall less effort and thus also less energy waste and less footprint
- lowers the threshold to enter the market of complex products
- produces supply better fitting the demand (big companies cannot react to niche needs)
- removes the dominance of big companies, which stand for inequality
- creates a community of cooperating equals
- requires less communication
- more developer independence
- creates freedom and continuity for the product and the developer
- speeds up technological evolution as a whole
- allows tech people to develop interest on it
- allows different products to benefit from existing products
- allows work investment to be valuable even if the endeavor out not yet feasible with existing technology
- produces cheaper and better products
- makes contributions rewarding compared frustrating unfair competition
- allows to choose the best of cooperatively competing solutions
- produces fairer distribution of wealth
- allows crowd sourcing (many little contributions add up)
- Customers do get
- more choice
- better support by large community
- can do their special adaptations and possibly contribute them
- have no risk to lose the supplier because a company get bankrupt
- can maintain the product for oneself even if the community abandons it
Hype Product
A tech product with almost full market coverage
- on the one hand is good, as a standardization, as a foundation for new development
- but only if NOT CONTROLLED by one company, as that is a monopoly, and produces inequality.
Hype product is not a problem if produced
- through open development
- with profit distribution
E.g., Windows became a hype product via the PC revolution and produced an amazing amount of inequality. Gnu/Linux, on the other hand, is a moneyless trade of contributions, but innumerous companies earn good money using it in their products. It produces less inequality and more freedom: without a lock in and the possibility of own adaptations.
In the future, automation will enter the mass market. As an extreme case imagine a robot that can take over most work, cheaper than humans. This demands for open hardware and software, else we all become locked in to one company, as the complexity does not allow for competition.
Many companies servicing an open automation infrastructure
- make automation faster
- can also better raise money for a basic income as work is automated away
