5 ms·

> Did it cause a massive dislocation and unemployment when 90% of the human population was more or less replaced by machines? It most certainly did. I'm not th

> Did it cause a massive dislocation and unemployment when 90% of the human population was more or less replaced by machines? It most certainly did. I'm not that familiar with what it looked like among laborers and displaced farmers (the Luddites come to mind, but they're too early); but this had a disruptive effect all the way to the top. Look at the long English tradition of hostility to the new world of manufacturing (William Blake, H.G. Wells, and J.R.R. Tolkien immediately come to mind); or read Fritz Stern's _Gold and Iron: Bismark, Bleichroder, and the Building of the German Empire_, which discusses at some length how the new, low-margin agriculture ruined the German aristocracy.

beat 11y ago
So the old class of exploiters who depended on an agrarian economic structure got replaced by a new class of exploiters who depended on an industrial economic structure. I cry no tears for them. And now the industrialist overlords are getting creamed by the information overlords. Notice a common thread here?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  The industrialists won by pushing people out of agriculture to manufacturing, and then out of manufacturing and into services. Now, the information overlords are cleaning whatever remnants were there in production and pushing the rest out of service jobs. Where do you think those people will go? It's not about the top 1%. They can stay filthy rich for all I care. It's about the rest of us, about our families and friends. With career in software, I could probably outlast most people. By then though, I'll have to work to provide for 20 people, who have no marketable skills whatsoever. That's the core issue. Automation is replacing classes of jobs, and besides the already automated labour-intensive areas and currently automated brainpower-intensive areas, I don't see any class left for people. At least not big enough to hold everyone who needs a job.
  - beat 11y ago
    So maybe restructure society so people don't need "jobs"?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Yes, that's the point. It won't happen by itself though, and pretending that it's not an urgent issue isn't helping.
      - beat 11y ago
        I think part of it for me is that there's a huge difference between "don't have a job" and "don't work". There's a perception that if people don't have jobs, they'll just sit around eating government cheese and watching tv all day. But I think hard work is in our bones, at least the bones of the interesting people. Heck, even if a majority sit around doing nothing all day, if we give those creative, hardworking people the opportunity and resources to act, they'll do amazing things. And personally, I think the need for a "job" is the #1 impediment to creative, productive work by the people engaged enough to do just that.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  At least "the old class of exploiters" offered legally enforceable employment for life (a paid servant could sue if dismissed for getting old, and a tenant was guaranteed the tenure of his farm at a fixed money rent not indexed to inflation; serfdom, meanwhile, had been abolished in England back in the 1500s). The industrialists didn't do that.

beat 11y ago

So the old class of exploiters who depended on an agrarian economic structure got replaced by a new class of exploiters who depended on an industrial economic structure. I cry no tears for them. And now the industrialist overlords are getting creamed by the information overlords. Notice a common thread here?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
The industrialists won by pushing people out of agriculture to manufacturing, and then out of manufacturing and into services. Now, the information overlords are cleaning whatever remnants were there in production and pushing the rest out of service jobs. Where do you think those people will go? It's not about the top 1%. They can stay filthy rich for all I care. It's about the rest of us, about our families and friends. With career in software, I could probably outlast most people. By then though, I'll have to work to provide for 20 people, who have no marketable skills whatsoever. That's the core issue. Automation is replacing classes of jobs, and besides the already automated labour-intensive areas and currently automated brainpower-intensive areas, I don't see any class left for people. At least not big enough to hold everyone who needs a job.
- beat 11y ago
  So maybe restructure society so people don't need "jobs"?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Yes, that's the point. It won't happen by itself though, and pretending that it's not an urgent issue isn't helping.
    - beat 11y ago
      I think part of it for me is that there's a huge difference between "don't have a job" and "don't work". There's a perception that if people don't have jobs, they'll just sit around eating government cheese and watching tv all day. But I think hard work is in our bones, at least the bones of the interesting people. Heck, even if a majority sit around doing nothing all day, if we give those creative, hardworking people the opportunity and resources to act, they'll do amazing things. And personally, I think the need for a "job" is the #1 impediment to creative, productive work by the people engaged enough to do just that.
clock_tower 11y ago
At least "the old class of exploiters" offered legally enforceable employment for life (a paid servant could sue if dismissed for getting old, and a tenant was guaranteed the tenure of his farm at a fixed money rent not indexed to inflation; serfdom, meanwhile, had been abolished in England back in the 1500s). The industrialists didn't do that.