Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Indirect Addressing in PLC

If you are a C++ programmer then you already know pointers. According to WikiPedia a pointer is a programming language data type whose value refers directly to (or "points to") another value stored elsewhere in the computer memory using its address.

The same concept of pointers is used in PLC but named "Indirect Addressing". When an indirect memory address is specified, the designated memory word will contain the address of the memory word that contains the data that will be used as the operand of the instruction.

To make this more clear let's see an example using OMRON PLC:

1- Direct Addressing :
[url=http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=128&u=15207678][img]http://i70.servimg.com/u/f70/15/20/76/78/direct10.jpg[/img][/url]

This is an example of direct addressing. When the input "0.00" is on then "5" will be moved to memory word "DM0" directly.
2- Indirect Addressing :
[url=http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=129&u=15207678][img]http://i70.servimg.com/u/f70/15/20/76/78/indire10.jpg[/img][/url]


The previous image may look like the first one of direct addressing, but if you tried to find the differences between the two images you will notice an asterisk (*) in front of the memory address "DM0". This is indirect addressing. Here, when the input "0.00" is on, the value "5" will not be moved to "DM0" it self but it will be moved to the memory address whose value is stored in "DM0".
For example suppose that "DM0" holds a value of "10", then -simply speaking- the value "5" will be moved to the memory address "DM10".

Indirect addressing will simplify you ladder and make it easy to modify.
As a real example, I was working in a concrete batching plant project which is a plant to produce concrete by mixing different aggregates with cement and water. The recipe page in the HMI software was like this:

[url=http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=130&u=15207678][img]http://i70.servimg.com/u/f70/15/20/76/78/recipe10.jpg[/img][/url]
There was five set points (Agg1, Agg2, Agg3, Cement and Water) and these five set points are the recipe. There was a slider with values ranging from 0 to 99. The operator of the plant should enter the desired recipe then choose a value on the slider then press "Save Recipe" button to save the 5 set points (recipe) in the chosen location on the slider. To load the saved recipe the operator chooses a value from the slider then presses the button "Load Recipe".


Now how this is done in the ladder diagram using OMRON PLC:
The addresses are as follows:

Slider = DM18
Save Recipe button = 21.12
Load Recipe button = 21.13

If we don't use indirect addressing then the ladder would be like this:

1- Save Recipe :


[url=http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=131&u=15207678][img]http://i70.servimg.com/u/f70/15/20/76/78/savere10.jpg[/img][/url]
Here when "Save Recipe" button is pressed the slider value is compared to zero and if it equals zero the recipe starting from "DM8" to "DM12" will be saved to addresses "DM1500" to "DM1504".

2- Load Recipe :

[url=http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=132&u=15207678][img]http://i70.servimg.com/u/f70/15/20/76/78/loadre10.jpg[/img][/url]
Here when "Load Recipe" button is pressed the slider value is compared to zero and if it equals zero previously saved recipe will be loaded from addresses "DM1500" to "DM1504" to addresses "DM8" to "DM12" (the opposite of save operation)

So we used five registers (DM1500 to DM1504) to save and load only one recipe. To save 100 recipes we need 5*100=500 register. If this is done using direct addressing then we need to make 100 compare instructions, 500 move instructions and 100 rung to save recipe and the same numbers to load recipe. Of course this will be very boring and difficult to modify.

Now comes the solution of indirect addressing :

[url=http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=133&u=15207678][img]http://i70.servimg.com/u/f70/15/20/76/78/savelo10.jpg[/img][/url]

Believe or not, this is only the complete ladder to save and load 100 recipe (500 values are saved and loaded, No move instructions, No compare instructions and very easy to modify).

I decided to save the 500 value in the range of registers from "DM1500" to "DM2000". First the desired starting position in this range is calculated by the following equation:
Desired Save/Load Position = (Slider Value * 5) + 1500
So if the slider position was "0" then the desired save/load position would be:
(0*5)+1500=1500
If the slider position was "99" then the desired save/load position would be:
(99*5)+1500=1995


Then to save and load I used "XFER" instruction which transfers a set of consecutive registers to another set of consecutive registers. The instruction parameters are number of words to transfer, first source word and first destination word.

By using indirect addressing when "Save Recipe" button is pressed, 5 values starting from "DM8" will be moved to another five registers starting from "*DM310" which is the recipe pointer and its value is calculated using the above equation for calculating the desired save/load position.

When "Load Recipe" button is pressed, 5 value starting from "*DM310" will be moved to another five registers starting from "DM8".

Let's see some examples:
1- Slider position = 99
so Desired Save/Load Position=(99*5)+1500=1995
so 5 words from "DM8" to "DM12" will be Saved/Loaded to/from another 5 words from "DM1995" to "DM1999"

2- Slider position = 50
so Desired Save/Load Position=(50*5)+1500=1750
so 5 words from "DM8" to "DM12" will be Saved/Loaded to/from another 5 words from "DM1750" to "DM1754"
and so on.

Finally I hope this article was useful for you.
Good bye.

Automation

Automation is the use of control systems and information technologies to reduce the need for human work in the production of goods and services. In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the muscular requirements of work, automation greatly decreases the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well. Automation plays an increasingly important role in the world economy and in daily experience.
Automation has had a notable impact in a wide range of industries beyond manufacturing (where it began). Once-ubiquitous telephone operators have been replaced largely by automated telephone switchboards and answering machines. Medical processes such as primary screening in electrocardiography or radiography and laboratory analysis of human genes, sera, cells, and tissues are carried out at much greater speed and accuracy by automated systems. Automated teller machines have reduced the need for bank visits to obtain cash and carry out transactions. In general, automation has been responsible for the shift in the world economy from industrial jobs to service jobs in the 20th and 21st centuries.[1]
The main advantages of automation are:
Replacing human operators in tasks that involve hard physical or monotonous work.[2]
Replacing humans in tasks done in dangerous environments (i.e. fire, space, volcanoes, nuclear facilities, underwater, etc.)
Performing tasks that are beyond human capabilities of size, weight, speed, endurance, etc.
Economy improvement. Automation may improve in economy of enterprises, society or most of humanity. For example, when an enterprise invests in automation, technology recovers its investment; or when a state or country increases its income due to automation like Germany or Japan in the 20th Century.
The main disadvantages of automation are:
Technology limits. Current technology is unable to automate all the desired tasks.
Unpredictable development costs. The research and development cost of automating a process may exceed the cost saved by the automation itself.
High initial cost. The automation of a new product or plant requires a huge initial investment in comparison with the unit cost of the product, although the cost of automation is spread in many product batches.
[edit]Relationship to unemployment


It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article. (Discuss)
[edit]Multivariate effect

This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2011)
Most people consider it common sense that automation has the potential to foster unemployment, because it obviates human work by transferring tasks to machines. However, the translation of that potential into observed effect has largely not happened in the two centuries during which it has been continually predicted. After many decades of automation development and dissemination, the net macroeconomic effect has been generally positive—automation has been part of a general trend of economic growth worldwide; standards of living have risen in many places; and automation has never yet been shown to have induced any widespread structural unemployment. The main explanation for this is that, so far, job losses in any one particular economic niche have always been more than offset by job gains in other niches. As the lowered unit cost of goods and services (which the automation made possible) gave consumers more purchasing power to devote to other goods and services, new jobs sprang up in the production of those goods and services. Thus each time that automation has freed up human resources, those resources have been redeployed by market forces (although it did not always happen without turbulence in the lives of individual workers).
One of the earliest promises of automation was to allow more free time, without any threat of income reduction. This effect has been seen in many individual facets of life (for example, the automatic washing machine has made laundry less time-consuming; engine control units have reduced the amount of automotive downtime; the automatic dishwasher has made dishwashing less time-consuming), but the net outcome of modern life in developed economies remains a state of hurry and busyness, mostly because rising living standards have brought rising expectations in direct relation. (Each time-saving improvement has made room for a new aspiration to take its place.)
Automation also does not imply unemployment when it makes possible tasks that were unimaginable without it (such as exploring Mars with the Sojourner rover). Likewise with fields where the economy is already fully adapted to an automated technology, and the jobs were lost long enough ago that the displacement was long since absorbed by the workforce (as with the continually advancing automation of the telephone switchboard, which eliminated most telephone operator jobs and kept many more from ever existing in the first place).
Today automation is quite advanced (relative to just a few lifetimes ago), and it continues to advance with an accelerating pace throughout the world. Although it has been encroaching on ever more skilled jobs, the general well-being and quality of life of most people in the world (where political factors have not muddied the picture) have improved. Clearly a multivariate effect has been at work (something much more than just the obvious idea that automation has the potential to cause unemployment). In fact, the idea that automation posed an imminent threat to employment, first articulated in 1811 by a group of textile workers known as Luddites, has proven to be so fallacious over the ensuing two centuries that economists call the imminent-threat idea the Luddite fallacy.
There is some concern today that the economy's ability to continue absorbing ever-increasing automation without experiencing significant structural unemployment may be heading toward an upper limit—that is, that we are approaching a point where the Luddite premise will no longer be entirely fallacious, because the relationship of humans to machines that made it fallacious is changing. In this view, the empirical strength of the eternal-fallaciousness idea is only a reflection of the parameter values of the environment thus far. In other words, the idea is undoubtedly an excellent explanation of the past, but whether it can accurately predict the future is an independent problem. Like an investment prospectus, proponents of this view caution that "past performance is no guarantee of future results."
[edit]Timeline of concerns about automation's relationship to unemployment
[edit]Early in the Industrial Revolution
See also: Industrial society and Industrial revolution
Historical concerns about the effects of automation date back to the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when a social movement of English textile machine operators in the early 19th century known as the Luddites protested against Jacquard's automated weaving looms.[3] The Luddites destroyed a number of these machines, which they felt threatened their jobs.
[edit]Later in the Industrial Revolution
The development of the American system of manufacturing disgusted many skilled machinists at a time when the very definition of being a machinist included a core element of skilled toolmaking and fitting on a craft basis. Innovations of this system included increasing reliance on jigs and gauges and on machine tools that built more of a process into the tool's movements (such as turret lathes and screw machines). These innovations continually turned skilled work into semi-skilled or unskilled, contributing to vast migrations of laborers across borders and oceans. However, despite this transformation, there were always other economic niches for skilled workers to go to, given enough searching. Recessions interfered with employment, but no foundational aspects of structural unemployment were caused by automation itself.
[edit]During the Machine Age
As in the preceding century, the period of 1880 to 1940 saw no underlying automation-induced structural lack of new economic opportunities for skilled workers to go to, given enough searching,[4] although the Great Depression caused a tremendous disruption to employment. The foundational potential for full employment had not been lost, as would later be shown by the post–World War II economic expansion and other economic miracles.
[edit]During the 1950s through 1990s
See also: Information society and Information revolution
See also: Post-industrial society
The postwar development of new automation technologies using electronics, servomechanisms, and digital computers stoked a new wave of fears similar to the old Luddite ones. Among the working class and labor unions, there was stiff resistance to loss of employment through automation, including contract clauses won in hard-fought contract negotiations that mandated alternate employment for any workers whose positions were eliminated by automation.[5] These clauses seemed a great victory for union workers at large corporations in developed nations, but because they had no effect at smaller, nonunionized companies or in developing nations, those corporations faced withering competition that shrank their market shares until their workers' gains eventually undermined their own success.[5] However, the salvation for employment rates damaged in the industrial sector (secondary sector of the economy) came from the service sector (tertiary sector), which absorbed all of the workers that automation displaced elsewhere. For example, many manufacturing jobs left the United States during the 1990s but were offset by a one-time massive increase in IT jobs at the same time. And in some cases the freeing up of the labor force allowed more people to enter higher skilled managerial jobs and technically specialized jobs, which are typically higher paying. Therefore, fears of unemployment due to automation were generally dismissed as just another instance of the Luddite premise, which had proven fallacious time and again over many decades. Given this obvious empirical contradiction of the premise, people who nevertheless returned to it were usually viewed by the mainstream as cranks misled by quixotic leftist political bias. For example, works by scholars including David F. Noble[6] and Jeremy Rifkin[7] were often respected but discounted. At worst, they were mocked with the disparaging label "neo-Luddite". Noble even wrote a later book titled Progress Without People: In Defence of Luddism[8] to try to further explain why the Luddite premise should not be laughed out of academia.
[edit]Post-market musings
Rifkin's End of Work,[7] published in 1995 and written by a non-engineer, predicted automation-induced unemployment despite having a rather hazy idea of how IT would evolve over the next decade. (The book mentioned the Internet once in passing and the World Wide Web not at all. Its IT focus was mostly on robotics.) Also hazy was Rifkin's explanation of any solution to the problem. The book's subtitle called the solution a "post-market economy", but its concluding chapters did not clearly lay out how such an economy could be engineered, leaving readers to conclude that a non-market solution involving a planned economy was implied between the lines.
In terms of political economy implications, there was no clear differentiation at the time between the ideas of authors like Noble or Rifkin (on the one hand) and traditional leftist agitation (on the other hand). To the extent that readers could ask "What point is this guy getting to?" and answer the question with "socialism" or "a welfare state", they dismissed these authors.
[edit]During the 2000s and 2010s
Since the 1990s, the possibility has been raised again in even an apolitical, technocratic way that the Luddite premise (that automation creates unemployment) was only fallacious in the absence of highly advanced and ubiquitous automation, which until recently was mostly out of reach technologically. This would explain why it has always been fallacious until now, but also why it might not always remain so. For example, Marshall Brain,[9] Martin Ford,[10] and others have suggested that exponentially accelerating information technology (IT) may ultimately result in widespread structural unemployment, because an implicit assumption underlying the "eternally fallacious" idea (that lots of regular humans will always find ways to do service work that machines can't do) will itself be fallacious as IT advances. They suggest that, unlike in the 20th century, when the tertiary sector absorbed all of the workers that the automation of the secondary sector expelled, the tertiary sector now also faces depopulation via automation; its employment will shrink, not grow, and this time there is no other sector to backstop the process by absorbing the displaced workers. The high unemployment rates of the late-2000s recession have brought the idea of structural unemployment back into mainstream attention, as observations are made about positions that require extensive specialized skill and experience standing long vacant even while general unemployment rates above 9% (and horror stories of fruitless job searches) would seem to suggest that such vacancies ought to be scarcer. The idea that automation has finally advanced to the point that the Luddite premise is no longer entirely fallacious is one of the components of some theoretical explanations for the string of jobless recoveries in developed economies in recent decades. Expectations that the (already eroding) fallaciousness will fall off sharply in coming decades underlie the fear of structural shift.[11][12]
Writers such as Rifkin,[7] Brain,[9] and Ford[10] often suggest that the structure of the economy will have to shift to a basic income because its present structural foundation (trading labor for income) will no longer be an available option on a full employment basis. It would perhaps be available to only 90% of workers in the next decade, perhaps 75% of workers a decade after that, and so on. Often included in the basic income idea is an element of civic obligation, such that able people must somehow contribute civically in order to receive the basic income. The labor-market economy (trading labor for income) already achieves that outcome today (because working for income generally produces civic value in various ways, directly and indirectly), but the argument is that advanced automation will decouple the linkage that makes that possible. Thus the same result (trading civic value for income) would have to be driven by different forces—either non-market ones, or via a new kind of market. The non-market idea seems infeasible given the generally abysmal performance record of planned economies. But the idea of engineered new markets leaves room for the disciplining and motivating powers that make capitalist markets capable of positively shaping human behavior where government alone is usually unable.
[edit]New-market engineering
Brain[9] and Ford's[10] books, in stark contrast to Rifkin's, came later and were written by engineers with extensive under-the-hood knowledge of modern production methods, computer hardware and software, and the Internet. They explicitly reject non-market solutions as unworkable and instead suggest new kinds of markets. Rather than being "post-market" proponents, such authors could be called "new-market" proponents. They vigorously distance themselves from socialism or welfare states—generally seeking to keep a market economy with private enterprise, which they believe cannot be preserved unless its foundation is modified from its current structure. Thus, quite contrary to being anti-market agents (as critics might suppose them to be), they believe themselves to be salvaging markets from destruction. They envision creating consumer purchasing power by some other mechanism than the traditional labor market as we have known it so far, in order that free markets may continue to provide the invisible hand component of production-possibilities decisions. In other words, they believe that market forces are necessary to generate allocative efficiency, and they believe that without a structural modification that (at least partially) decouples purchasing power (and consumer confidence) from employment determined by the traditional labor market, there will be a systemic market failure, which they seek to avoid.
Just as new-market advocates are pro-market and pro-private-property, they are also very much non-Luddite (in fact, exactly opposite of Luddite) in the respect that they like technology—they don't hate it. They want it to continue advancing as robustly as ever. They simply feel that income and purchasing power must be decoupled from human participation in production. (The decoupling does not have to happen all at once; it could start small and gradually increase.) If that happens, then they essentially do not have any problem with technology or automation, per se. In contrast to old-style welfare, they do not feel that income should be unconditional, or equal, or "free" (given out "for nothing"). They believe that people should have to work for it (in a new sense of the word "work"), in the respect that they are given incentives to do positive things, like take classes, read books, conserve (or remediate) environmental resources, and so on. People would be paid to do civically valuable things, and if they chose not to do those things, they would not be paid. In this way, new-market advocates align themselves with human nature, which generally requires selfish motivations and incentives to shape behavior, and with the market's invisible hand, which is needed to make the right production-possibilities decisions (because the idea that individual human managers, or groups of them, are capable of making those decisions correctly with zero invisible-hand assistance has been empirically discredited).
Discussions of new-market ideas usually lead to the topic of post-scarcity economic paradigms. But new-market engineers argue that without clear-eyed, realist engineering of the intermediate steps, there is an abyss of dysfunction and hardship between today's economy of scarcity and the starry-eyed goal of any fully developed economy of abundance.
[edit]Wage-recapture market variant
Ford's main new-market mechanism would be to create a tax that recaptures most (not all) of the value that firms and their customers gain from eliminating wages, then use the tax revenue to pay people for doing civically valuable actions—that is, pursuing activities, such as higher education or environmental preservation, that have positive externalities.[10] The main reason for paying these "wages" need not be their altruistic or environmentalist components; the main reason is simply to prevent the market economy from collapsing due to noncirculation of value (that is, the lack of adequate trade which would occur if lack of consumer purchasing power and confidence left no way for an adequate mass market to exist). Ford points out that the tax could not take all of the gains away from the corporations and their customers, because this would destroy the natural incentive to innovate that a market economy needs to be sustainable. The value would be split between the innovators, their customers, and the rest of the population, because leaving out any of that trio would wreck the sustainability of the model. (The leaving out of the third leg is what is causing today's economic pathologies and promising tomorrow's, in the view of new-market engineers.) Ford's idea is an earnest market effort because it preserves the invisible hand as the maker of production-possibilities decisions for goods and services. However, it does rely on human planning (via a technocratic government agency in each country) to make the production-possibilities decisions for civic actions. The latter is viewed as unfortunate but necessary due to the lack of an alternative.
[edit]Mirror-image market variant
Another idea for a new-market mainspring which solves the aforementioned "lack of an alternative" problem is a "mirror image" idea, which has an even more private-sector approach in which the invisible hand helps make even the civic-actions production-possibilities decisions. In this model, the government does not collect a wage-recapture tax at all. Instead of enforcing tax payment, it only enforces payment of a new-style "wage" directly from corporations to consumers that looks to us today like something we might label "mandatory philanthropy", but which would actually be a true market wage of a new type. In today's old market, money flows from consumers, through (partially automated) companies, past the eyes of the government enforcement sentry (but not through its hands) as wages, into the hands of workers (who are also the consumers, thus completing the cycle of value recirculation). In the new market (mirror-image variant), money would flow from consumers, through (highly automated) companies, past the eyes of the government enforcement sentry (but not through its hands) as [new-style] "wages", and into the hands of [new-style] "wage" earners, who are paid the "wage" for civically valuable actions. (They are also the consumers, thus completing the cycle of value recirculation).
In this model, the decisions about what the civic actions are can be made by the invisible hand, because each "mandated philanthropist" gets a large degree of authority in what actions their "philanthropy" (which is actually [functionally] a new-style "payroll") will or won't pay for. Many such paymasters functioning simultaneously could constitute the "buyers" in a market for civically valuable actions (with mass-market "workers" as the "sellers"). There would still be some regulation involved, because, for example, it would be illegal to base the "payroll" decisions on race, color, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, marital or veteran status, and so forth. To decide which "workers" were on a given "payroll", there might be a clearinghouse to randomly match the two, rotating assignments every several years. Or perhaps the businesses that run the "payroll" could even "hire" the "workers" themselves, in which case workers would compete for "jobs" by showing off how "productive" they could be in doing the civic actions (another level of invisible hand yet again). The "mirror image" name comes from the idea that this variant of new market is a very free market where the invisible hand remains just as powerful as it was in the 1945-2008 economy, but with many mirror-image aspects (which are visualized above by the amount of quotation marks that are necessary to signify mirror-image senses for words that were always [up till now] widely known only in their non-mirror-image senses).
The axis of reflection in the mirroring seems to be, at root, a "polarity shift" from where human individuals can add value only by doing production (from within production systems) to where they can also add value by avoiding hurting production systems (from outside). The hurt-avoidance comes from such civic actions as providing goods-and-services demand via consumption (which the system requires in order to stay running) instead of failing to consume (because of lack of income); ensuring the sustainable supply of energy and environmental resources to the production systems (by avoiding overconsuming those); and ensuring the supply of people educated enough to provide the few humans that the production systems will need in the future, by pursuing education and cognitively enriching pastimes. The humans that the systems need will be few, but those few will need to be highly intelligent, talented, and educated, constituting a human resource that might be endangered if the general population does not act as a "farm team system" for it by valuing education and self-education as a civic action. An analogy is provided by sports' relationship to general life. Few humans are talented and practiced enough to play professional sports, but the professional teams rely on a system that filters such scarce people out of the general population via little league/pee wee programs, high school play, college play, farm-team play, etc. People in the general population are not considered inferior human beings (versus the pro players) because of their lack of pro talent. They are valued as the fans and ticket-buyers that make the pro system economically viable. And a small fraction of them grow up to become pros themselves.
In today's old market, governments enforce the payment of wages by having outlawed their nonpayment (i.e., slavery); by levying tariffs on cheap competition from countries that kept their nonpayment (slavery) (that outlawing has now been global for many decades); and by attempting to minimize their underpayment (i.e., wage slavery, a sharply cheapened value of work [with elites and their customers keeping the money]). In the new market (mirror-image variant), governments enforce the payment of "wages" by outlawing their nonpayment (i.e., evading the "payroll"); by levying tariffs on cheap competition from countries that kept their nonpayment (non-participating countries); and by attempting to minimize their underpayment (i.e., "wage" slavery, a sharply cheapened value of civic actions [with elites and their customers keeping the money]).
One of the inherent challenges of the mirror-image variant is that various forms of dressing up corporations' financial self-interest in a specious cloak of civic virtue would inevitably arise. This would be a "washing" form of marketing and operations that included greenwashing and analogous washing in other domains of life (e.g., education, infrastructure). It seems unlikely that this can be entirely negated; instead, it would have to be perennially pruned by social censure and regulatory oversight. However, no other system is without its chronic weaknesses, either. For example, the classical variants of capitalism (implemented thus far) have scored poorly on various tests, such as environmental sustainability and (potentially) the employability of the average human (as that was traditionally defined) as automation grows pervasive. Twentieth-century variants of communism fared even worse in environmental sustainability, and also failed economically in average standard of living and politically in individual freedom. The wage-recapture new-market variant, with its technocratic decisions on how to spend the revenue, holds promise to minimize the corporate "washing" problem, yet it also holds risks of failing on allocative efficiency and market-driven innovation, which the mirror-image variant mitigates. As elsewhere in reality, each choice has pros and cons, rather than any choice being perfect. The "washing" problem may be the mirror-image analog of classical capitalism's tendency to exaggerate needs (for example, a maker of antibacterial soaps encouraging the populace to fear microbes to an irrational degree). Both are forms of conflict of interest that cause "chronic irritation" to a socioeconomic system but need not be "fatal" to it if given adequate "medical management". The washing problem may be less systemically injurious than the allocative inefficiency problem, just as the "exaggerated needs" problem of classical capitalism was less systemically injurious than the allocative inefficiency problem of central economic planning.
In choosing the decider of production-possibilities decisions (whether of goods, services, or civic actions), the invisible hand is generally preferred to committees of humans because it has proven to be superior at the decision making (except for regulatory issues such as race-color-religion-etc and the "washing" discussed above). In the future it will also be necessary to ask what role artificial intelligence might possibly have in making those decisions, and whether humans would allow it. Perhaps artificial intelligence, like human intelligence, will share the role with the invisible hand but be barred from usurping the entirety of it.
[edit]Implementations
Regarding the chances of any new-market ideas being implemented, there are both significant barriers and significant drivers, with a net potential of perhaps "even chances". Ford[10] discusses many of these barriers and drivers. The barrier side includes (a) natural cultural conservatism that powerfully resists systemic changes; (b) the powerful influence of laissez-faire ideals, which would resist any engineered systemic change to markets (especially anything involving a tax); (c) the fact that early implementation by individual countries faces an immediate threat from the export and offshoring competition of countries that haven't yet implemented; and (relatedly) (d) the all-or-nothing problem, which may occur if a new system would work well but only if the switch from old to new was an off-on switching rather than a gradual evolution. However, on the driver side there are powerful forces that may answer all of the barriers. Foremost would be a dawning realization by economic elites that they have a choice between a new market with prosperity, or the old market spiraling into near-total failure. Globalization so far has not threatened the wallets of economic elites (only those of average workers), and has in fact enriched the elites thus far; but the changing parameter values of the economic system as automation advances would alter that runtime environment and transform it into a new one, where even the elites' wealth would be threatened by a market failure that killed their businesses and reduced asset values throughout the economy. Realizing these options, elites might actually switch from opposing new markets to actively supporting their implementation (including addressing the competition between countries whose policies differed). The all-or-nothing problem does not have to occur if an implementation is engineered such that extremely profitable, extremely automated industries began piloting new markets while other industries continued with an old-market status quo for quite some time. In this model, the early adopters voluntarily become leaders, and the pilot projects would act simply as economic stimulus on the broader economy (although a type of stimulus much more effective than old-style stimulus, whose efficacy seems to be eroding because it relies on the Luddite premise being a total fallacy as opposed to shifting by degrees out of total fallaciousness). The overall transition in this model could actually be quite painless, as a generally prosperous economy changed gradually over decades from mostly-old-with-some-new to mostly-new-with-some-old. The selfish motivation of the early-adopter leaders would be the aforementioned choice faced by economic elites. They would choose to stimulate the broader economy because that result would ensure their own continuing strong sales and growth by preserving a runtime environment of general prosperity for them to operate within, without which depression or malaise would occur.
Given the aforementioned choice faced by economic elites, those in the private sector might even choose to pursue the new market without government involvement. But the private sector faces two hurdles that would make it difficult: the natural competition between firms (which is necessary and thus must be protected by competition law), and legal obligation to maximize shareholder value. The traditional definitions of shareholder value evolved in an earlier era whose commercial environment had different parameter values due to lack of advanced automation. Those traditional definitions would bar new-style payrolls. But in the face of market failure without them, perhaps a case would emerge for an updated definition. Competition is the other hurdle. Companies are barred by competition law from agreeing to limit competition, and even if they weren't, individual companies generally cannot make the first move of increasing expense without being killed by competition from rivals who don't. This is why "a level playing field" would have to be created by policy, or to use a different analogy, "a high tide that lifted all boats equally". This is directly analogous to existing minimum wage laws. Individual companies generally could not survive in the market if they volunteered to self-enforce minimum limits on wages (in the absence of any laws requiring them). There is breathing room for above-market wages (e.g., to attract superior talent) at some companies in some industries who enjoy a relatively high level of imperfect competition; but most companies in most industries face competition too close to pure to survive the attempt. In this sense, the mandated value recirculation (whatever anyone calls it, from "wage recapture" to "new-style wages") is as unremarkable and non-novel an idea as any legislative or regulatory mechanism in commerce. For goals that make long-term systemic balance possible but cannot be pursued by the self-interest of individual market players, these mechanisms provide a path by forcing all competitors to play the game by the same rules. Existing examples include employment standards (e.g., child labor laws, minimum wage laws), environmental protection, and financial regulation (to prevent bubbles and thus crashes). These exist in perennial tension with the forces of pure capitalism; thus the extremes perform checks and balances on each other. Businesses usually fight for inadequate regulation; government usually fights for excessive regulation; and a sustainable balance results. Over decades, systemic pathologies gradually push the balance point out of the sustainable range; periodic breakdowns then yield correction by counteractive forces (e.g., trust-busting [leftward correction], the Reagan revolution [rightward correction]).
Laissez-faire ideals reigned supreme worldwide for about three decades (roughly centered on the fall of the Soviet Bloc, which vindicated capitalism over central planning in many ways). In this environment, where the lesson commonly extrapolated was that pure capitalism will always be better than any mixed-economy alternatives, the prevailing theory has been that higher corporate taxes can only harm economic prosperity. The reasoning is partly that countries can simply compete to undercut each other's corporate tax rates (which is true), but also, more importantly, that only the invisible hand is capable of recirculating capital back toward the base of the economy in a successful manner (which is not to be dismissed lightly, and may in fact be true). The disparaging label for such ideas is "trickle-down economics", but many intelligent people have earnestly believed in these ideals; and the fact that their discounting has often been facile and done by imperfect opponents has only encouraged believers to stay faithful. Widespread fervor for trickle-down beliefs (in both the public and private sectors) poses a formidable barrier to the wage-recapture-tax new-market variant. But these conventional beliefs rely on the assumption that the Luddite premise is entirely and eternally fallacious. Unfortunately, there has already been a decade of empirical evidence that low taxes, new business investment, and economic growth no longer have a sure-fire correlation to strong, "good-jobs" employment in developed economies.[13][14][15] If the Luddite premise has been starting to shift into partial accuracy, then no amount of continued low taxes and deregulation will ever be able to produce enough trickling down to create broad-based prosperity. In that case, mandating the payment of new-style wages could recirculate value back to the base of the mass market. The promise of the mirror-image variant would be that humans need not turn to taxes for the value recovery (at the top) nor to central planning for the distribution details (at the bottom). As long as the "minimum wage" (referring to the new-style wages) and other employment standards are being enforced, then government's role ends there.
Conceivably, both the Luddite premise and the lump of labor premise could change states in continuous-graph fashion, from completely false to partially true, depending on parameter values in the commercial environment, most specifically, the available modes of value recirculation. In this view, for two centuries they were completely false or very nearly so, because the traditional labor market provided sufficient means of value recirculation. As that fails because of advanced automation, they could enter partial influence. But if new forms of broad-based personal income came into being (for example, basic income, guaranteed minimum income, or new-style wages), they could revert back to a state of complete or near-complete falsehood again. The difference would be that enough value was circulating broadly enough through a mass market of consumers and corporations that services which today could not possibly garner middle-class wages and benefits (for example, full-time jobs reading stories to hospitalized children, painting murals, or attending university) would become viable at that wage level.