5 ms·

I think you miss the point of why we actually need BI research and one of the foundational reasons for it. I know predictions could be off. But if in 20 years

I think you miss the point of why we actually need BI research and one of the foundational reasons for it. I know predictions could be off. But if in 20 years there are simply no jobs available to 60% of the population. What are they gonna do? Just all starve to death? BI is the inevitable step towards a post scarcity society. When majority of people not only don't want to work but that there are simply no jobs for most people yet there is plenty still to buy/consume because automation. This has nothing to do with your 1980s example because there were still plenty of jobs to be had that needed doing.

return0 10y ago
The reason why they do specifically BI research, is because BI will prevent the Market from collapse since people will still have the discretion of buying things, instead of rationing. Otherwise, BI is not the simplest, not the most obvious, and not the inevitable way to provide for the unemployable. As long as there are human needs , there will be people willing to do those jobs, so it's not like the starving people will just sit there waiting to die anyway.
danielweber 10y ago
> But if in 20 years there are simply no jobs available to 60% of the population. It means we are living in paradise. There is nothing to be cleaned. There is nothing to be fixed. There is nothing to be repaired. There is nothing to be trimmed or maintained.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  I think you misunderstand market economics. There might be things to do, but the owners would not be willing to pay people a living wage to do them. People without a living wage can't afford housing, groceries, etc. etc. etc. Like how Ireland('s landed gentry) was exported potatoes during the potato famine. There was plenty of food; the locals just couldn't afford it.
  - danielweber 10y ago
    > I think you misunderstand market economics. I dunno, this doesn't sound like what I learned in my official concentration at MIT. Hey, how about a real argument, instead of one that doesn't rely on accusations of ignorance or appeal to credentials? That would be awesome. > There might be things to do, but the owners would not be willing to pay people a living wage to do them. The proper response is EITC or NIT. This takes the work that is below the worker's reservation wage and puts it above the worker's reservation wage. Saying "there are no jobs available to 60% of the population" is a solution (BI) looking for a problem (no employment). If you were to actually come across this problem in the wild, where there was lots of work to be done but it was all below labor's reservation wage, the obvious answer would be to subsidize labor.
    - lawpoop 10y ago
      FWIW, I don't believe we're going to have 60% unemployment in the future due to automation (or any other factor), but I do think that unemployment, underemployment, and plain old poverty wages are a real problem now. My living quarters could use a good sweeping, but I ain't doing it, and I ain't paying anyone to do it, even though I could easily afford it. I guess I'm an armchair internet expert, but I don't see how a theoretical 60% unemployment or the 10-30% under-employment/poor compensation we have now means there's no work to do.
djrogers 10y ago
> in 20 years there are simply no jobs available to 60% of the population Said people in the early 1800s. And early 1900s. Look, it's just not gonna happen. Jobs will change, but there will always be work for those willing to do it. You may not like the job - hell, you may not like your current job either - or it may be a better job than any that exists today. Look around you, how many of the jobs you see people doing in your office existed 100 years ago? How about 50? 20?
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > Look around you, how many of the jobs you see people doing in your office existed 100 years ago? How about 50? 20? Close to 95% actually. Customer service and sales existed since the introduction of money; and 50-100 years ago, our company probably would have required many more employees to provide a comparable level of service that we do today. Maybe that's not true for a silicon valley office, but for the vast majority of companies out there, the sales, customer service and management still comprise the bulk of the employee force.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > but there will always be work for those willing to do it. No there won't, the past doesn't predict the future and post scarcity is a different problem than past automation. If you're looking to the past for examples, you don't understand the problem being discussed because the whole point is that automation is at a level that even white collar jobs are no longer immune and most people simply aren't going to be able to compete with machines at anything they're capable of doing.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    "Post-scarcity" is nonsense and would end all problems if it wasn't. The problem is declining real value of most people's best laborer prospects without eliminating scarcity. Which isn't no jobs, just progressively crapper jobs for a large segment of these population.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
weddpros 10y ago
The same researchers probably think there will be no oil either, just like researchers thought there would be no oil today. 20 years ahead projections are always wrong, sometimes VERY wrong. It's just another case of "X will kill jobs" where X could be steam machines, electricity, robots, whatever... In the 80s my dad who worked in the automotive industry told me I should study IT because robots would eventually replace men. Today I'd say he was wrong: it's good to be in IT because of the Internet and mobile revolutions, which have nothing to do with robots. The only sure thing is that we can't predict the future accurately.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  Of course predictions can be wrong; that includes yours. Betting tremendous amounts that 60% of the population will be out of work in 20 years seems foolhardy to me. But so would be assuming that it can't happen. Building systems (and our understanding of how we can build systems) that can help, in those circumstances or others, seems like a good move.

return0 10y ago

The reason why they do specifically BI research, is because BI will prevent the Market from collapse since people will still have the discretion of buying things, instead of rationing. Otherwise, BI is not the simplest, not the most obvious, and not the inevitable way to provide for the unemployable. As long as there are human needs , there will be people willing to do those jobs, so it's not like the starving people will just sit there waiting to die anyway.

danielweber 10y ago

> But if in 20 years there are simply no jobs available to 60% of the population. It means we are living in paradise. There is nothing to be cleaned. There is nothing to be fixed. There is nothing to be repaired. There is nothing to be trimmed or maintained.

lawpoop 10y ago
I think you misunderstand market economics. There might be things to do, but the owners would not be willing to pay people a living wage to do them. People without a living wage can't afford housing, groceries, etc. etc. etc. Like how Ireland('s landed gentry) was exported potatoes during the potato famine. There was plenty of food; the locals just couldn't afford it.
- danielweber 10y ago
  > I think you misunderstand market economics. I dunno, this doesn't sound like what I learned in my official concentration at MIT. Hey, how about a real argument, instead of one that doesn't rely on accusations of ignorance or appeal to credentials? That would be awesome. > There might be things to do, but the owners would not be willing to pay people a living wage to do them. The proper response is EITC or NIT. This takes the work that is below the worker's reservation wage and puts it above the worker's reservation wage. Saying "there are no jobs available to 60% of the population" is a solution (BI) looking for a problem (no employment). If you were to actually come across this problem in the wild, where there was lots of work to be done but it was all below labor's reservation wage, the obvious answer would be to subsidize labor.
  - lawpoop 10y ago
    FWIW, I don't believe we're going to have 60% unemployment in the future due to automation (or any other factor), but I do think that unemployment, underemployment, and plain old poverty wages are a real problem now. My living quarters could use a good sweeping, but I ain't doing it, and I ain't paying anyone to do it, even though I could easily afford it. I guess I'm an armchair internet expert, but I don't see how a theoretical 60% unemployment or the 10-30% under-employment/poor compensation we have now means there's no work to do.

djrogers 10y ago

> in 20 years there are simply no jobs available to 60% of the population Said people in the early 1800s. And early 1900s. Look, it's just not gonna happen. Jobs will change, but there will always be work for those willing to do it. You may not like the job - hell, you may not like your current job either - or it may be a better job than any that exists today. Look around you, how many of the jobs you see people doing in your office existed 100 years ago? How about 50? 20?

antisthenes 10y ago
> Look around you, how many of the jobs you see people doing in your office existed 100 years ago? How about 50? 20? Close to 95% actually. Customer service and sales existed since the introduction of money; and 50-100 years ago, our company probably would have required many more employees to provide a comparable level of service that we do today. Maybe that's not true for a silicon valley office, but for the vast majority of companies out there, the sales, customer service and management still comprise the bulk of the employee force.
gnaritas 10y ago
> but there will always be work for those willing to do it. No there won't, the past doesn't predict the future and post scarcity is a different problem than past automation. If you're looking to the past for examples, you don't understand the problem being discussed because the whole point is that automation is at a level that even white collar jobs are no longer immune and most people simply aren't going to be able to compete with machines at anything they're capable of doing.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  "Post-scarcity" is nonsense and would end all problems if it wasn't. The problem is declining real value of most people's best laborer prospects without eliminating scarcity. Which isn't no jobs, just progressively crapper jobs for a large segment of these population.
  - gnaritas 10y ago

weddpros 10y ago

The same researchers probably think there will be no oil either, just like researchers thought there would be no oil today. 20 years ahead projections are always wrong, sometimes VERY wrong. It's just another case of "X will kill jobs" where X could be steam machines, electricity, robots, whatever... In the 80s my dad who worked in the automotive industry told me I should study IT because robots would eventually replace men. Today I'd say he was wrong: it's good to be in IT because of the Internet and mobile revolutions, which have nothing to do with robots. The only sure thing is that we can't predict the future accurately.

dllthomas 10y ago
Of course predictions can be wrong; that includes yours. Betting tremendous amounts that 60% of the population will be out of work in 20 years seems foolhardy to me. But so would be assuming that it can't happen. Building systems (and our understanding of how we can build systems) that can help, in those circumstances or others, seems like a good move.