5 ms·

It's sad that any of us has to have jobs. Can't wait for the day all of the humans are served by Robots (Yes.. reading too many Asimov novels of late :) )

brian-armstrong 10y ago
The economic and societal forces that require having a job will not, on their own, magically change over upon the arrival of better robots. Without those changes, all you've done is taken away somebody's source of income.
- Iv 10y ago
  The question is will we iteratively destroy each job until 5% of the current workers still can afford an opulent living while the other 95% are crushed by misery and accusations of inadequacies, or will we, as a society, realize that we can suppress the need for work altogether and try to make the smoothest transition possible? This is not a technical question but a political one. Seeing how most politicians paint unemployed as subhumans that barely deserve to live, I am not that optimistic :-/
  - kuschku 10y ago
    And it's interesting how the social democracies seem to have more of a plan on how to proceed than the purely capitalist nations.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Which purely capitalist nations are you thinking of?
  - brian-armstrong 10y ago
    I think it's a question that this election (in the US) is addressing, but only on the periphery. We're more likely to address the symptoms and misattribute them to other forces.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - rootlocus 10y ago
    > The question is will we iteratively destroy each job until 5% of the current workers still can afford an opulent living while the other 95% are crushed by misery If 95% are crushed by misery, where will the 5% get their money from? I'm guessing money will only be exchanged between the 5%, meaning the economy will be a lot different. Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? That amount of people will surely form a formidable army. What will save the 5%? > Seeing how most politicians paint unemployed as subhumans that barely deserve to live, I am not that optimistic :-/ Changing the way we treat unemployed people is surely a necessary step forward, but it's not black and white. There are people who don't want to work because they're lazy or incompetent. There are people who want to work and are very competent, but can't find a suitable job. There are many types of people in between.
    - Iv 10y ago
      > If 95% are crushed by misery, where will the 5% get their money from? I am not sure I see the problem. The 95% need goods and food. They buy it from the 5%. The 5% decide of the amount of money they accept to redistribute to the 95%. That can go on for a while. > Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? Absolutely. But I am arguing that if your path toward a positive income has revolt as a necessary step, it is improvable. And even so, there is a risk: > What will save the 5%? What makes you think that soldiers will be sparred from automation? > There are people who don't want to work because they're lazy or incompetent. There are people who want to work and are very competent, but can't find a suitable job. It sounds to me that society would then benefit by having the lazy or incompetent people kept out of the work pool and paid to not work instead of having to make themselves absolutely necessary. If you have worked in any medium or big organization I am sure that you can think of people who would have actually saved their employer's money by receiving a salary and not come to work.
    - pythia__ 10y ago
      >Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? Security robots! More seriously, as robots do more and more, people will start to place a premium on having a human do the work where they notice the difference (so, not Amazon warehouses but probably the local Starbucks). With this factored in, 95% unemployment is unlikely until artificial general intelligence.
  - jbi 10y ago
    Right now western societies could easily go on with 30 hour workweeks. It would reduce unemployment and people who are working would have more time for their families or to do voluntary stuff. Another idea is a basic income which allows a simple and good life. White old men in suits are part of the problem why there's no real progress on these ideas and education is part of the solution.
    - Iv 10y ago
      My belief is that right now we give incentive to people to prevent the automation of their work. Were we to do the opposite (e.g. by promising a guaranteed life-time salary to every worker who got fired because of automation) it would not take 10 years to make the world work out of voluntary work alone.

brian-armstrong 10y ago

The economic and societal forces that require having a job will not, on their own, magically change over upon the arrival of better robots. Without those changes, all you've done is taken away somebody's source of income.

Iv 10y ago
The question is will we iteratively destroy each job until 5% of the current workers still can afford an opulent living while the other 95% are crushed by misery and accusations of inadequacies, or will we, as a society, realize that we can suppress the need for work altogether and try to make the smoothest transition possible? This is not a technical question but a political one. Seeing how most politicians paint unemployed as subhumans that barely deserve to live, I am not that optimistic :-/
- kuschku 10y ago
  And it's interesting how the social democracies seem to have more of a plan on how to proceed than the purely capitalist nations.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Which purely capitalist nations are you thinking of?
- brian-armstrong 10y ago
  I think it's a question that this election (in the US) is addressing, but only on the periphery. We're more likely to address the symptoms and misattribute them to other forces.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rootlocus 10y ago
  > The question is will we iteratively destroy each job until 5% of the current workers still can afford an opulent living while the other 95% are crushed by misery If 95% are crushed by misery, where will the 5% get their money from? I'm guessing money will only be exchanged between the 5%, meaning the economy will be a lot different. Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? That amount of people will surely form a formidable army. What will save the 5%? > Seeing how most politicians paint unemployed as subhumans that barely deserve to live, I am not that optimistic :-/ Changing the way we treat unemployed people is surely a necessary step forward, but it's not black and white. There are people who don't want to work because they're lazy or incompetent. There are people who want to work and are very competent, but can't find a suitable job. There are many types of people in between.
  - Iv 10y ago
    > If 95% are crushed by misery, where will the 5% get their money from? I am not sure I see the problem. The 95% need goods and food. They buy it from the 5%. The 5% decide of the amount of money they accept to redistribute to the 95%. That can go on for a while. > Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? Absolutely. But I am arguing that if your path toward a positive income has revolt as a necessary step, it is improvable. And even so, there is a risk: > What will save the 5%? What makes you think that soldiers will be sparred from automation? > There are people who don't want to work because they're lazy or incompetent. There are people who want to work and are very competent, but can't find a suitable job. It sounds to me that society would then benefit by having the lazy or incompetent people kept out of the work pool and paid to not work instead of having to make themselves absolutely necessary. If you have worked in any medium or big organization I am sure that you can think of people who would have actually saved their employer's money by receiving a salary and not come to work.
  - pythia__ 10y ago
    >Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? Security robots! More seriously, as robots do more and more, people will start to place a premium on having a human do the work where they notice the difference (so, not Amazon warehouses but probably the local Starbucks). With this factored in, 95% unemployment is unlikely until artificial general intelligence.
- jbi 10y ago
  Right now western societies could easily go on with 30 hour workweeks. It would reduce unemployment and people who are working would have more time for their families or to do voluntary stuff. Another idea is a basic income which allows a simple and good life. White old men in suits are part of the problem why there's no real progress on these ideas and education is part of the solution.
  - Iv 10y ago
    My belief is that right now we give incentive to people to prevent the automation of their work. Were we to do the opposite (e.g. by promising a guaranteed life-time salary to every worker who got fired because of automation) it would not take 10 years to make the world work out of voluntary work alone.