8 ms·

How? How do the uneducated in the rust belt benefit? And perhaps more importantly when? I agree that technology for society in general make us better of over t

How? How do the uneducated in the rust belt benefit? And perhaps more importantly when? I agree that technology for society in general make us better of over time, but society consists of individuals who don't necessarily benefit from this. In fact 12 million jobs are in danger of being lost to automated cars. How are they going to benefit from that?

chrischen 10y ago
Well the current generation will suffer, but the next generation and future ones will benefit from self driving cars.
- perfmode 10y ago
  Who owns the future though? While I am not a nationalist and I think it's commendable that the human race is making progress, I'm concerned that advances in technology are causing troubling concentrations of wealth among those who operate and control the technology.
  - bertomartin 10y ago
    luddites thought the same ;)
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      The luddite fallacy is in itself a fallacy as we are today not just talking about replacing physical labour with technology we are also replacing jobs that require mental abilities and at higher and higher levels of abstraction in an environment thats exponentially progressing. The cold hard reality is that a lot of the jobs that's been created in the US are wallmart jobs or part time jobs and that the cost of living is going up. So those who keep mentioning luddite fallacy owe it to explain what new jobs it is they see replacing the current jobs. Because if it's just a hope that it will be all right in the future some day it's not really an argument for anything.
    - Zigurd 10y ago
      Luddism was about a privileged caste defending their way of life. That has little to do with thinking about a post labor world and what happens to everyone who gets stranded outside the cash economy, never mind having any capital. If coders formed a guild and smashed automatic coding machines, now THAT would be more like Luddism.
  - CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
    What do you suggest though? Should we intentionally hold back technology so that factory workers and bus drivers have jobs? Especially as these automation schemes generally have the promise of drastically increased safety. I agree it is a problem that people will be put out of work, but that is kind of an inevitability. Which is why a lot of people are arguing that basic income needs to be investigated much more closely.
    - perfmode 10y ago
      Thomas Piketty has articulated a path forward. I support his view that governments ought to step in and institute a global tax on wealth.
      - CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
        Except that doesn't solve this problem (mostly: Read all the way through) The issue isn't The Wealthy having all the money. The issue is technology that will actively remove jobs. It doesn't matter if minimum wage is 90 pounds an hour if you don't have a job. An automated train isn't The Wealthy stealing money. It is a conductor out of work because their job could be handled by a raspberry pi. Basic Income is a theoretical concept (been implemented in small, borderline meaningless, experiments) to combat that. Everyone gets a bare minimum "salary" regardless of if they work. That covers cost of living (how much more varies). Then, those with jobs have the potential to earn a lot more (incentive to work) on top of that. What Thomas Piketty proposes wouldn't address the lack of income to those put out of work by technology but could, possibly, help to pay for solutions that would.
        croon 10y ago
        I would say that the issue is The Wealthy having all the money. Take it a few steps forward. At some point the factory owner (whether local or conglomerate) holds all the money and has 0 workers. The only thing he can buy is new resources to produce more stuff, but no one can buy that stuff because no one works anymore. At some point it's just a machine making stuff that no one can afford to use other than the very few owning the machine. Money is useless unless it's spread around and in rotation through the system. The unemployment of uneducated is the one thing I really sympethize with in this election, but the solution isn't going backwards, because there's nothing there anymore. I understand that the solution isn't one step forward, but maybe 5, and people will suffer in the interim, but that only means it's ever more important to swiftly move in the right direction.
  - chrischen 10y ago
    Well if that happens, then the population would shrink to accommodate (and it sort of is happening as people are having fewer children).
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> In fact 12 million jobs are in danger of being lost to automated cars. How are they going to benefit from that? Jobs are going to be lost anyways, whether from cars or from a different technology. Are you arguing the problem is that people aren't able to continue to do trivial things which technology can easily replace them at? Or that they will not have a relevant skill / source of income? If the former than we should give hoes and scythes back to 90% of the population and get rid of agricultural machinery. If the later - it's a problem that needs to be addressed one way or another, self-driving cars are really a minor detail here..
- ThomPete 10y ago
  I was responding to the OP who said it wasn't a zero zum game. Not sure why we are suddenly discussing what I propose instead. All I am saying is that it's easy to forget that real people are effected by progress and that the narrative that we all benefit is kind of disingenuous from that perspective and I believe we need to think harder on what to do about that because it's only going to increase.
  - cushychicken 10y ago
    That was a quick backpedal. :)
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      In what way?
  - it_learnses 10y ago
    Yep, agreed. Universal basic income is one solution that keeps coming back as a silver bullet. Not sure what the downsides are yet, but I'm pretty certain that there's still going to be haves and have nots: just a few rich that own all the automation and resources vs the rest of us just surviving on basic income. Maybe we'll all be ok immersed in VR adventures as long as we're fed and clothed...
JulianMorrison 10y ago
People used to have jobs walking behind horses in fields, while the horses pulled ploughs and so forth. Pretty stultifying, dawn to dusk staring at horse's ass. A generation from now, manual driving will be viewed as maddeningly dull makework for human drones. Hours of staring at roads with instant death the punishment for dozing off? Wouldn't do it if you paid me. I'd have said, hopefully the world gets basic income and then a full leisure society sorted out. But honestly, not feeling optimistic right now. The Trumpoids and Brexiteers voted to get their makework back. They won't get it, the economics will make sure of that. But they probably will get unemployed.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  How many of the horses have jobs today though? :) But sure I agree. That doesen't change that for some people their job is all they have. If you take that away they have no realistic future unless it's some post scarcity society.
  - JulianMorrison 10y ago
    "Canned horse meat was introduced in the United States under the Ken-L Ration brand after WWI as a means to dispose of deceased horses" -- Wikipedia Are you suggesting a Soylent solution?
  - nartsbtaa 10y ago
    > That doesen't change that for some people their job is all they have. If you take that away they have no realistic future unless it's some post scarcity society. This has always been the case throughout history: new technology makes some jobs irrelevant, and humans adapt by doing new jobs. It's unfortunate for people who cannot or will not adapt, but historically people have been resilient to such changes. It's a legitimate issue when there aren't enough jobs to employ a significant portion of the population, and perhaps we're starting to reach that point now. We're seeing a decoupling in our economy: job growth is slowing while corporate growth and profits continue to rise. On one hand, this indicates that we are heading towards post-scarcity conditions. On the other hand, the current arrangement is that an increasing amount of wealth is being distributed to a decreasing number of people, leading to greater wealth inequality. What can be done? We might increase wage/salary while cutting the number of hours worked per week, allowing more people to work while still providing a livable income. A basic income is another option, but that seems extreme; things would have to get much worse (or better, depending on your long-term view of automation) before that's taken seriously on a large scale.
Zigurd 10y ago
I'd guess you got downvoted because that's irrelevant. The benefits come in the form of fewer road deaths, which is potentially as significant as curing malaria, which only in the abstract benefits the people you are talking about, but it nevertheless does benefit them.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Did you read the parent I am replying too? How is road safety relevant to a discussion about zero sum games?
  - Zigurd 10y ago
    For one, it makes it a non-zero-sum game.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      The claim was that we will all benefit. So I am asking how is that benefitting those who loos their jobs. Sure you can cherry pick your perspective and make OPs statement true, but whats the point of that.
      - Zigurd 10y ago
        About a million people die on the roads each year. Even though the US has a relatively low rate of road fatalities, there are still tens of thousands of people killed each year and hundreds of thousands injured on the roads. Even the poor and jobless benefit from not getting mangled in a car wreck or run down while cycling, and the health care money saved can go to directly aid them.
        ThomPete 10y ago
        What does that help them if they can't feed their family because they have no jobs.
      - hx87 10y ago
wnevets 10y ago
Sounds like it's time to leave the rust belt then.
serge2k 10y ago
Well step 1 is accept that the jobs are gone/will be gone and they aren't coming back. Step 2 is on the TBD. We'll let you know when we promise. Just around the corner really. We promise. I'm serious about step 1 though. Should be preparing now.

chrischen 10y ago

Well the current generation will suffer, but the next generation and future ones will benefit from self driving cars.

perfmode 10y ago
Who owns the future though? While I am not a nationalist and I think it's commendable that the human race is making progress, I'm concerned that advances in technology are causing troubling concentrations of wealth among those who operate and control the technology.
- bertomartin 10y ago
  luddites thought the same ;)
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    The luddite fallacy is in itself a fallacy as we are today not just talking about replacing physical labour with technology we are also replacing jobs that require mental abilities and at higher and higher levels of abstraction in an environment thats exponentially progressing. The cold hard reality is that a lot of the jobs that's been created in the US are wallmart jobs or part time jobs and that the cost of living is going up. So those who keep mentioning luddite fallacy owe it to explain what new jobs it is they see replacing the current jobs. Because if it's just a hope that it will be all right in the future some day it's not really an argument for anything.
  - Zigurd 10y ago
    Luddism was about a privileged caste defending their way of life. That has little to do with thinking about a post labor world and what happens to everyone who gets stranded outside the cash economy, never mind having any capital. If coders formed a guild and smashed automatic coding machines, now THAT would be more like Luddism.
- CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
  What do you suggest though? Should we intentionally hold back technology so that factory workers and bus drivers have jobs? Especially as these automation schemes generally have the promise of drastically increased safety. I agree it is a problem that people will be put out of work, but that is kind of an inevitability. Which is why a lot of people are arguing that basic income needs to be investigated much more closely.
  - perfmode 10y ago
    Thomas Piketty has articulated a path forward. I support his view that governments ought to step in and institute a global tax on wealth.
    - CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
      Except that doesn't solve this problem (mostly: Read all the way through) The issue isn't The Wealthy having all the money. The issue is technology that will actively remove jobs. It doesn't matter if minimum wage is 90 pounds an hour if you don't have a job. An automated train isn't The Wealthy stealing money. It is a conductor out of work because their job could be handled by a raspberry pi. Basic Income is a theoretical concept (been implemented in small, borderline meaningless, experiments) to combat that. Everyone gets a bare minimum "salary" regardless of if they work. That covers cost of living (how much more varies). Then, those with jobs have the potential to earn a lot more (incentive to work) on top of that. What Thomas Piketty proposes wouldn't address the lack of income to those put out of work by technology but could, possibly, help to pay for solutions that would.
      - croon 10y ago
        I would say that the issue is The Wealthy having all the money. Take it a few steps forward. At some point the factory owner (whether local or conglomerate) holds all the money and has 0 workers. The only thing he can buy is new resources to produce more stuff, but no one can buy that stuff because no one works anymore. At some point it's just a machine making stuff that no one can afford to use other than the very few owning the machine. Money is useless unless it's spread around and in rotation through the system. The unemployment of uneducated is the one thing I really sympethize with in this election, but the solution isn't going backwards, because there's nothing there anymore. I understand that the solution isn't one step forward, but maybe 5, and people will suffer in the interim, but that only means it's ever more important to swiftly move in the right direction.
- chrischen 10y ago
  Well if that happens, then the population would shrink to accommodate (and it sort of is happening as people are having fewer children).

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

> In fact 12 million jobs are in danger of being lost to automated cars. How are they going to benefit from that? Jobs are going to be lost anyways, whether from cars or from a different technology. Are you arguing the problem is that people aren't able to continue to do trivial things which technology can easily replace them at? Or that they will not have a relevant skill / source of income? If the former than we should give hoes and scythes back to 90% of the population and get rid of agricultural machinery. If the later - it's a problem that needs to be addressed one way or another, self-driving cars are really a minor detail here..

ThomPete 10y ago
I was responding to the OP who said it wasn't a zero zum game. Not sure why we are suddenly discussing what I propose instead. All I am saying is that it's easy to forget that real people are effected by progress and that the narrative that we all benefit is kind of disingenuous from that perspective and I believe we need to think harder on what to do about that because it's only going to increase.
- cushychicken 10y ago
  That was a quick backpedal. :)
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    In what way?
- it_learnses 10y ago
  Yep, agreed. Universal basic income is one solution that keeps coming back as a silver bullet. Not sure what the downsides are yet, but I'm pretty certain that there's still going to be haves and have nots: just a few rich that own all the automation and resources vs the rest of us just surviving on basic income. Maybe we'll all be ok immersed in VR adventures as long as we're fed and clothed...

JulianMorrison 10y ago

People used to have jobs walking behind horses in fields, while the horses pulled ploughs and so forth. Pretty stultifying, dawn to dusk staring at horse's ass. A generation from now, manual driving will be viewed as maddeningly dull makework for human drones. Hours of staring at roads with instant death the punishment for dozing off? Wouldn't do it if you paid me. I'd have said, hopefully the world gets basic income and then a full leisure society sorted out. But honestly, not feeling optimistic right now. The Trumpoids and Brexiteers voted to get their makework back. They won't get it, the economics will make sure of that. But they probably will get unemployed.

ThomPete 10y ago
How many of the horses have jobs today though? :) But sure I agree. That doesen't change that for some people their job is all they have. If you take that away they have no realistic future unless it's some post scarcity society.
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  "Canned horse meat was introduced in the United States under the Ken-L Ration brand after WWI as a means to dispose of deceased horses" -- Wikipedia Are you suggesting a Soylent solution?
- nartsbtaa 10y ago
  > That doesen't change that for some people their job is all they have. If you take that away they have no realistic future unless it's some post scarcity society. This has always been the case throughout history: new technology makes some jobs irrelevant, and humans adapt by doing new jobs. It's unfortunate for people who cannot or will not adapt, but historically people have been resilient to such changes. It's a legitimate issue when there aren't enough jobs to employ a significant portion of the population, and perhaps we're starting to reach that point now. We're seeing a decoupling in our economy: job growth is slowing while corporate growth and profits continue to rise. On one hand, this indicates that we are heading towards post-scarcity conditions. On the other hand, the current arrangement is that an increasing amount of wealth is being distributed to a decreasing number of people, leading to greater wealth inequality. What can be done? We might increase wage/salary while cutting the number of hours worked per week, allowing more people to work while still providing a livable income. A basic income is another option, but that seems extreme; things would have to get much worse (or better, depending on your long-term view of automation) before that's taken seriously on a large scale.

Zigurd 10y ago

I'd guess you got downvoted because that's irrelevant. The benefits come in the form of fewer road deaths, which is potentially as significant as curing malaria, which only in the abstract benefits the people you are talking about, but it nevertheless does benefit them.

ThomPete 10y ago
Did you read the parent I am replying too? How is road safety relevant to a discussion about zero sum games?
- Zigurd 10y ago
  For one, it makes it a non-zero-sum game.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    The claim was that we will all benefit. So I am asking how is that benefitting those who loos their jobs. Sure you can cherry pick your perspective and make OPs statement true, but whats the point of that.
    - Zigurd 10y ago
      About a million people die on the roads each year. Even though the US has a relatively low rate of road fatalities, there are still tens of thousands of people killed each year and hundreds of thousands injured on the roads. Even the poor and jobless benefit from not getting mangled in a car wreck or run down while cycling, and the health care money saved can go to directly aid them.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        What does that help them if they can't feed their family because they have no jobs.
    - hx87 10y ago

wnevets 10y ago

Sounds like it's time to leave the rust belt then.

serge2k 10y ago

Well step 1 is accept that the jobs are gone/will be gone and they aren't coming back. Step 2 is on the TBD. We'll let you know when we promise. Just around the corner really. We promise. I'm serious about step 1 though. Should be preparing now.