5 ms·

The problem with this rosy picture as all other rosy pictures about automation is that depending on the speed of technological change any automation will potent

The problem with this rosy picture as all other rosy pictures about automation is that depending on the speed of technological change any automation will potentially destroy the livelihood of a lot of people before they are able to re-adjust to a new economic reality. People can't typically change their skill-set as fast as technology can be introduced. This doesn't have to be a problem if a country has welfare system mechanism to cope with redundant workers, giving them a line to hold onto until they can re-adjust to the new reality. The problem is when you combine rapid technological progress with small government dogma. That creates a toxic combination where the only winners are the rich. This is unfortunate because when you setup a society this way it causes large fractions of the population to fight technological advancement, free trade and immigration. I think the %1 have to to realize that if people are going to buy into their desired free trade and technological upgrades, then you got to offer something in return. Taxes stuffed away in Panama isn't an acceptable answer to most people ;-)

hartator 11y ago
I think the current "1%" should be the one afraid of AI. Introducing new technology usually seems to shift wealth to a different set of people.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Not in this case. The owners of the commercial AI and robotics benefit. We're already seeing the effects of this: look at the increasing stratification of wealth in the context of increased productivity and automation in recent years.
true_religion 11y ago
> The problem is when you combine rapid technological progress with small government dogma. If this is where the problem lies, then I doubt people will hold to their anti-welfare beliefs once there is widespread joblessness. In a democratic society, people should be expected to eventually vote for their own benefit.
flubert 11y ago
>automation will potentially destroy the livelihood of a lot of people before they are able to re-adjust to a new economic reality. ...only if solar powered Santa Claus machines don't come along first I suppose... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus_machine
meric 11y ago
>> small government dogma I think a bigger military, bigger IRS, bigger police departments, bigger spy agencies, bigger BLM, bigger reserve banks will be a more toxic combination where the only winners are the rich. So no, you don't get to dismiss "small government" as dogma. People ought to be allowed to maintain their own livelihoods and not interfered with by government, through excessive taxation going to the military, confiscation of cash while travelling, confiscation of real estate property by being the premise of a crime, be spied on, have their cows taken, have their bank deposits "bailed in" - even if there is widespread automation reducing the number of jobs. People who cannot afford goods and services in the automation economy will be able to serve each other. And then they will always be employed this way. I have no position on welfare in this future, as I have not seen it yet.

hartator 11y ago

I think the current "1%" should be the one afraid of AI. Introducing new technology usually seems to shift wealth to a different set of people.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
Not in this case. The owners of the commercial AI and robotics benefit. We're already seeing the effects of this: look at the increasing stratification of wealth in the context of increased productivity and automation in recent years.

true_religion 11y ago

> The problem is when you combine rapid technological progress with small government dogma. If this is where the problem lies, then I doubt people will hold to their anti-welfare beliefs once there is widespread joblessness. In a democratic society, people should be expected to eventually vote for their own benefit.

flubert 11y ago

>automation will potentially destroy the livelihood of a lot of people before they are able to re-adjust to a new economic reality. ...only if solar powered Santa Claus machines don't come along first I suppose... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus_machine

meric 11y ago

>> small government dogma I think a bigger military, bigger IRS, bigger police departments, bigger spy agencies, bigger BLM, bigger reserve banks will be a more toxic combination where the only winners are the rich. So no, you don't get to dismiss "small government" as dogma. People ought to be allowed to maintain their own livelihoods and not interfered with by government, through excessive taxation going to the military, confiscation of cash while travelling, confiscation of real estate property by being the premise of a crime, be spied on, have their cows taken, have their bank deposits "bailed in" - even if there is widespread automation reducing the number of jobs. People who cannot afford goods and services in the automation economy will be able to serve each other. And then they will always be employed this way. I have no position on welfare in this future, as I have not seen it yet.