4 ms·

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.

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.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    It hasn't always been the case though. It's only been the case for around 200 years. Before that the progress was so slow that there was no issues transitioning as most kind of work took generations to change. The problem is that now things changes so fast that lots of people simply can't re-educate them selves and the market doesn't really need that many people, yet we have no plan what so ever for this issue besides UBI and a hope that technology will allow us to create a post scarcity society. Hourly wages rarely even make sense since thats exactly the kind of jobs that normally could be calculated that way which are going away. I would really urge anyone who think that technology creates more jobs than it removes to show where those new jobs are besides to the countries we've been outsourcing them too. But jobs moving to China and India isn't solving the underlying issue and I simply don't understand why people don't take it more seriously and why Luddite fallacy keeps coming up. It's not that good an explanation (not saying you talked about luddite fallacy just in general)
    - nartsbtaa 10y ago
      > But jobs moving to China and India isn't solving the underlying issue I thought we were talking about automation and technology? What do China and India have to do with this? I never said it's good for a society when their jobs are displaced to another region. > I would really urge anyone who think that technology creates more jobs than it removes to show where those new jobs are I would really urge people to think of "jobs" and "productivity" as separate metrics, since productivity will likely continue to climb as the number of jobs continues to fall. The challenge will be reacting to that effectively; trying to reverse the hands of time to bring back jobs is futile. If jobs are moving from one region to another, that's mostly unrelated to technological progress. Instead, it's because low skill labor has moved to low cost markets with low standards of living. We'll get these jobs back when we have a lower standard of living then rural China and India. In the meantime, our scientific and technological edge has been one of the few things keeping our economy semi-competitive. Can you imagine if we lost the low wage jobs and the highly skilled jobs? We probably won't have to wait much longer.
      - 10y ago
- soundwave106 10y ago
  The last time there was a huge technological upheaval -- the automation of farming -- there was a huge push for education that correlated with this, and that's what made a lot of the difference. Many of the state leaders in the high school movement of the 1910s and 1920s were farm belt states like Iowa and Nebraska. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/the-triumph-of-the-family-farm/308998/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/the-triu...). That really made the transition from agrarian society to manufacturing a heck of a lot smoother. Unfortunately I really don't see anything near the push for education and training today. And that's an issue. I'm sure there was plenty of pains in the agrarian transition, but education gave an out that allowed the next generation to prosper. Without a good education or vocational training type system, it's not just the current generation of adults that might have pains with the automation transition, it's their kids as well.
rubicon33 10y ago
How does "basic income" work? I have never heard it explained in a way that made any sense. Starting with a premise that resources are finite, you will always have power brokers who oppose the idea of spreading resources thin across the population. To think that would ever happen on a global scale seems as likely as us populating mars. It could happen, but certainly not in my lifetime.
- thomyorkie 10y ago
  I admit I haven't given it a whole lot of thought, but, for the US at least, I see it happening slowly over time as a smooth extension of welfare, not as some piece of landmark legislation. As automation increases and jobs become more scarce, more people will need welfare assistance. With strained resources the government will look for solutions such as an automation tax for corporations, perhaps less defense/military spending, etc. Taken to it's logical conclusion, I think you end up with something like a basic universal income.
  - rubicon33 10y ago
    I see. That makes sense. I was attempting to understand it as some sort of, as you say, "landmark legislation". But picturing it more as an extension / evolution of welfare, definitely makes it seem more plausible. Though, welfare is something that you have to qualify for, and my understanding of basic income was that even the richest of the rich, would be able to collect their basic income.
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  Power brokers oppose all sorts of redistribution but public movements can demand it. A minimum wage is already part way to a basic income. The other half, a minumum wage for just being human and alive, would require similar political support.
serge2k 10y ago
> hopefully the world gets basic income and then a full leisure society sorted out Your job is gone? Here just have money. Dignity? Oh no see you don't need that. Just have money. What will you do all day in a world where people derive a lot of purpose from jobs and your basic income isn't enough to just do what you want? ummm... we could legalize pot.
- thomyorkie 10y ago
  I'm a huge believer in the power of the individual, and under today's conditions I wouldn't support a universal basic income. But in a possible future where AI is sufficiently advanced to handle the majority of 'jobs' and where corporations dont employ people at the scale they do today, I would support a universal basic income. What would your solution be?
- a_t48 10y ago
  You think working two fast food jobs just to live is dignified?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  Dignity? So you think economic coercion and slavery-with-a-choice-of-masters (or the non-choice of none, and starvation) is somehow dignified? A leisure society is being able to do your vocation. It's about hackers being able to hack without needing a "day job" and without trying to squeeze what you want to do into the leftover energy after spending your day on makework.

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.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  It hasn't always been the case though. It's only been the case for around 200 years. Before that the progress was so slow that there was no issues transitioning as most kind of work took generations to change. The problem is that now things changes so fast that lots of people simply can't re-educate them selves and the market doesn't really need that many people, yet we have no plan what so ever for this issue besides UBI and a hope that technology will allow us to create a post scarcity society. Hourly wages rarely even make sense since thats exactly the kind of jobs that normally could be calculated that way which are going away. I would really urge anyone who think that technology creates more jobs than it removes to show where those new jobs are besides to the countries we've been outsourcing them too. But jobs moving to China and India isn't solving the underlying issue and I simply don't understand why people don't take it more seriously and why Luddite fallacy keeps coming up. It's not that good an explanation (not saying you talked about luddite fallacy just in general)
  - nartsbtaa 10y ago
    > But jobs moving to China and India isn't solving the underlying issue I thought we were talking about automation and technology? What do China and India have to do with this? I never said it's good for a society when their jobs are displaced to another region. > I would really urge anyone who think that technology creates more jobs than it removes to show where those new jobs are I would really urge people to think of "jobs" and "productivity" as separate metrics, since productivity will likely continue to climb as the number of jobs continues to fall. The challenge will be reacting to that effectively; trying to reverse the hands of time to bring back jobs is futile. If jobs are moving from one region to another, that's mostly unrelated to technological progress. Instead, it's because low skill labor has moved to low cost markets with low standards of living. We'll get these jobs back when we have a lower standard of living then rural China and India. In the meantime, our scientific and technological edge has been one of the few things keeping our economy semi-competitive. Can you imagine if we lost the low wage jobs and the highly skilled jobs? We probably won't have to wait much longer.
    - 10y ago
soundwave106 10y ago
The last time there was a huge technological upheaval -- the automation of farming -- there was a huge push for education that correlated with this, and that's what made a lot of the difference. Many of the state leaders in the high school movement of the 1910s and 1920s were farm belt states like Iowa and Nebraska. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/the-triumph-of-the-family-farm/308998/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/the-triu...). That really made the transition from agrarian society to manufacturing a heck of a lot smoother. Unfortunately I really don't see anything near the push for education and training today. And that's an issue. I'm sure there was plenty of pains in the agrarian transition, but education gave an out that allowed the next generation to prosper. Without a good education or vocational training type system, it's not just the current generation of adults that might have pains with the automation transition, it's their kids as well.

rubicon33 10y ago

How does "basic income" work? I have never heard it explained in a way that made any sense. Starting with a premise that resources are finite, you will always have power brokers who oppose the idea of spreading resources thin across the population. To think that would ever happen on a global scale seems as likely as us populating mars. It could happen, but certainly not in my lifetime.

thomyorkie 10y ago
I admit I haven't given it a whole lot of thought, but, for the US at least, I see it happening slowly over time as a smooth extension of welfare, not as some piece of landmark legislation. As automation increases and jobs become more scarce, more people will need welfare assistance. With strained resources the government will look for solutions such as an automation tax for corporations, perhaps less defense/military spending, etc. Taken to it's logical conclusion, I think you end up with something like a basic universal income.
- rubicon33 10y ago
  I see. That makes sense. I was attempting to understand it as some sort of, as you say, "landmark legislation". But picturing it more as an extension / evolution of welfare, definitely makes it seem more plausible. Though, welfare is something that you have to qualify for, and my understanding of basic income was that even the richest of the rich, would be able to collect their basic income.
JulianMorrison 10y ago
Power brokers oppose all sorts of redistribution but public movements can demand it. A minimum wage is already part way to a basic income. The other half, a minumum wage for just being human and alive, would require similar political support.

serge2k 10y ago

> hopefully the world gets basic income and then a full leisure society sorted out Your job is gone? Here just have money. Dignity? Oh no see you don't need that. Just have money. What will you do all day in a world where people derive a lot of purpose from jobs and your basic income isn't enough to just do what you want? ummm... we could legalize pot.

thomyorkie 10y ago
I'm a huge believer in the power of the individual, and under today's conditions I wouldn't support a universal basic income. But in a possible future where AI is sufficiently advanced to handle the majority of 'jobs' and where corporations dont employ people at the scale they do today, I would support a universal basic income. What would your solution be?
a_t48 10y ago
You think working two fast food jobs just to live is dignified?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
JulianMorrison 10y ago
Dignity? So you think economic coercion and slavery-with-a-choice-of-masters (or the non-choice of none, and starvation) is somehow dignified? A leisure society is being able to do your vocation. It's about hackers being able to hack without needing a "day job" and without trying to squeeze what you want to do into the leftover energy after spending your day on makework.