6 ms·

So this article really touches on a hundred different topics but I wanted to point this out: "If your job can be replaced by a computer program, chances are, i

by allenp 17y ago

So this article really touches on a hundred different topics but I wanted to point this out: "If your job can be replaced by a computer program, chances are, it will. In fact, Goldin and Katz suggest that prosperity and equality in the U.S. will need a workforce that has more of the mental agility of a Leibniz or a Kircher in order to adapt to rapid technological change." I really think this is key to understanding this "underclass." It is like a surfer riding a wave, as long as you're up front everything is ok but once you get behind (and fall off the board) it gets harder and harder to get back on. It sounds a little singularity-ish, but we really are seeing an acceleration in the rate of change of technology and culture (or cultural norms like the acceptance of technological interruption at any point). So I think the question that comes from this is what responsibility do we as a society have to help those that can't keep up with this change? We were just talking about internet access as a human right the other day, so where does this play in? Is there some sort of digital welfare that we need to set up? Is the fact that non-agile workers can always fall back on retail jobs good enough?

pw0ncakes 17y ago
Is there some sort of digital welfare that we need to set up? Is the fact that non-agile workers can always fall back on retail jobs good enough? First step, since we'll need to go there anyway: half of all economic growth goes into a basic income fund that everyone gets; no strings, no questions, given to rich and poor alike. Asymptotically, this means that no one will have less than a 1/2N share. Eventually, we'll be able to get rid of other entitlement programs once this basic income fund is sufficient to eliminate poverty. We're destined for sub-20% employment* in 50-200 years. The best we'll be able to achieve is a state where most of those who are unemployed are studying up for their next career. This eliminates the "fall behind" problem. People fall behind today because they still have to work when they do, often in more taxing jobs than we work (retail sucks). So they have no energy to push forward. Second, we'll need to improve human intelligence either through "transhuman" advancement or eugenics ^. Not to sound like a dick, but a lot of people are "falling behind" on technology because they aren't smart enough. It's not that they are lazy or disadvantaged, but that the skills required to master advanced technology weren't necessary throughout most of our evolutionary history and are therefore uncommon. ^ On "eugenics", please understand that I'm not excusing the horrors that have been given that name (a misapplication thereof) in the past. I'm not advocating harming anyone, but I think there should be strong incentives (e.g. free education) for smart people to reproduce.
- coolnewtoy 17y ago
  On "eugenics" - what if the most significant factor in differences in intelligence is social rather than genetic? What if intensive parenting practices like near-constant eye contact and talking to infants and toddlers, long hours of reading to preschoolers, and a steady stream of enriching extra-curricular activites for schoolage kids accounts for larger intelligence gains over the generations than could be explained by genetic variations alone?
  - pw0ncakes 17y ago
    Then we need to encourage people to be better parents. Regardless of whether the effect is cultural or genetic, smart people have smart kids. Although I'd like it to be cultural, I tend to think the latter. In either case, we want to encourage smart people to reproduce.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Eventually, we'll be able to get rid of other entitlement programs once this basic income fund is sufficient to eliminate poverty. Not at all. Many entitlement programs are based on differences which an equal share simply doesn't address. Also, as the "share" increases (in absolute terms), the number of people who say "hey, I can live on that - why work?" also goes up, which reduces the size of the pool. I am curious - why do you think that "half of economic growth" is the right number? (And, don't you really mean "half of economic output", or rather "profit"?)
  - pw0ncakes 17y ago
    I mean half of (real) economic growth because no one gets poorer that way. If we redistributed 50% of all current income, a lot of people would get much poorer. Whereas here, if the current pool (GDP) is $100 and grows by $4 in a year, there will be $102 non-redistributed and $2 distributed evenly. If it grows by 4% ($4.16) the next year to $108.16, then $104.08 is non-redistributed and $4.08 is redistributed. At 4%, you'll double every 18 years. So after 90 years, the pool is $3200 of which $1650 is not redistributed and $1550 is. What this gives you is: 1. the nonredistributed pool is growing, so you don't have anyone complaining about income loss. 2. Asymptotically, you get to a society where everyone has at least a 1/2N share of the pie. Also, as the "share" increases (in absolute terms), the number of people who say "hey, I can live on that - why work?" also goes up, which reduces the size of the pool. If GDP declines, the basic income would decline and people would have to work again, but I don't think this style of economy would be any more recession-prone than the one we have now. Honestly, I think the danger of this (people not working) is overstated. Most people would rather work than not work; the reason people hate retail jobs is not that they want to be unproductive, but because everyone treats them like shit at such jobs (because they can, and they can because the people in those jobs are stuck there). If we liberated humanity from the necessity of work, people still would work, but they'd be a lot more creative and self-directed in how they go about it. This would be good for everyone. As for those, who would laze about and not work, they're most likely people who are not very productive anyway.

by allenp 17y ago

pw0ncakes 17y ago

Is there some sort of digital welfare that we need to set up? Is the fact that non-agile workers can always fall back on retail jobs good enough? First step, since we'll need to go there anyway: half of all economic growth goes into a basic income fund that everyone gets; no strings, no questions, given to rich and poor alike. Asymptotically, this means that no one will have less than a 1/2N share. Eventually, we'll be able to get rid of other entitlement programs once this basic income fund is sufficient to eliminate poverty. We're destined for sub-20% employment* in 50-200 years. The best we'll be able to achieve is a state where most of those who are unemployed are studying up for their next career. This eliminates the "fall behind" problem. People fall behind today because they still have to work when they do, often in more taxing jobs than we work (retail sucks). So they have no energy to push forward. Second, we'll need to improve human intelligence either through "transhuman" advancement or eugenics ^. Not to sound like a dick, but a lot of people are "falling behind" on technology because they aren't smart enough. It's not that they are lazy or disadvantaged, but that the skills required to master advanced technology weren't necessary throughout most of our evolutionary history and are therefore uncommon. ^ On "eugenics", please understand that I'm not excusing the horrors that have been given that name (a misapplication thereof) in the past. I'm not advocating harming anyone, but I think there should be strong incentives (e.g. free education) for smart people to reproduce.

coolnewtoy 17y ago
On "eugenics" - what if the most significant factor in differences in intelligence is social rather than genetic? What if intensive parenting practices like near-constant eye contact and talking to infants and toddlers, long hours of reading to preschoolers, and a steady stream of enriching extra-curricular activites for schoolage kids accounts for larger intelligence gains over the generations than could be explained by genetic variations alone?
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  Then we need to encourage people to be better parents. Regardless of whether the effect is cultural or genetic, smart people have smart kids. Although I'd like it to be cultural, I tend to think the latter. In either case, we want to encourage smart people to reproduce.
anamax 17y ago
> Eventually, we'll be able to get rid of other entitlement programs once this basic income fund is sufficient to eliminate poverty. Not at all. Many entitlement programs are based on differences which an equal share simply doesn't address. Also, as the "share" increases (in absolute terms), the number of people who say "hey, I can live on that - why work?" also goes up, which reduces the size of the pool. I am curious - why do you think that "half of economic growth" is the right number? (And, don't you really mean "half of economic output", or rather "profit"?)
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  I mean half of (real) economic growth because no one gets poorer that way. If we redistributed 50% of all current income, a lot of people would get much poorer. Whereas here, if the current pool (GDP) is $100 and grows by $4 in a year, there will be $102 non-redistributed and $2 distributed evenly. If it grows by 4% ($4.16) the next year to $108.16, then $104.08 is non-redistributed and $4.08 is redistributed. At 4%, you'll double every 18 years. So after 90 years, the pool is $3200 of which $1650 is not redistributed and $1550 is. What this gives you is: 1. the nonredistributed pool is growing, so you don't have anyone complaining about income loss. 2. Asymptotically, you get to a society where everyone has at least a 1/2N share of the pie. Also, as the "share" increases (in absolute terms), the number of people who say "hey, I can live on that - why work?" also goes up, which reduces the size of the pool. If GDP declines, the basic income would decline and people would have to work again, but I don't think this style of economy would be any more recession-prone than the one we have now. Honestly, I think the danger of this (people not working) is overstated. Most people would rather work than not work; the reason people hate retail jobs is not that they want to be unproductive, but because everyone treats them like shit at such jobs (because they can, and they can because the people in those jobs are stuck there). If we liberated humanity from the necessity of work, people still would work, but they'd be a lot more creative and self-directed in how they go about it. This would be good for everyone. As for those, who would laze about and not work, they're most likely people who are not very productive anyway.