8 ms·

"We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required" Yes we do. The industrial revolution had far grea

"We currently don't have a social understanding for navigating a world where little human labor is required" Yes we do. The industrial revolution had far greater impact on labour than any of this mysterious AI will ever have. The first 'machines' powered by coal etc. instantly 'unemployed' hundreds of people per unit. Go ahead and look at the productivity/capita charts for the early 19th century - UK citizens were multiple times more productive than citizens of any other nation. It was an astonishing explosion. Imagine how many people a single train unemployed? Or the weaving machines that did the work of hundreds. The impact on labour was definite, direct and measurable - unlike a lot of the 'soft' impact that today's technology has (did MS Word really unemploy 'secretaries' - or was it a host of factors?) But what happened during the industrial revolution? Unemployment went down, wages went up. In fact the cost of human labour rose dramatically. The surpluses from the machines went into the economy, basically providing the foundation for the modern consumer economy. 95% of folks back then worked on farms, mines - or did manual labour/service. The industrial revolution created the middle class: lawyers, entertainers, restaurants, mass market clothing, design etc.. Electricity created massive new industries (think of what you could not do without electricity!). The economy has been diversifying rapidly since the start of the 19th century in the UK, and everywhere else about 50 years later. We will continue to do this. In 1960 there were 3 channels. In the 1990's 50. Now it's 100's + online offerings. There were no 'pro athletes' in 1930. Now we have massive industries around pro sports. Working/middle class people did not travel much back in the day. Now they can travel around the world. There were no consumer electronics past the radio in 1940. Now the are zillions of devices. In the 1920's cars were made by people - now automated assembly lines. And FYI - for the last 25 years and for at least the next little while - China (or rather, Mexico, China, India and other low-cost places) are by far and away bigger job killers than automation. 'Automation' as we understand it is not as fast a process as we think it is and the days of 'robot replaces x people' are long gone, it's a more complex and nuanced equation. Try this one: tell me which people you know, in which industries, have outright 'lost their jobs' due to some AI or machine? Not so many. Customer service? Possibly. Some banker analysts? Possibly. But even in the later, there are other things for them to do, and the bulk of the staff on both sides have more to fear form India than Microsoft. In fact, this is happening right now all over North America: people training dudes in India to do their jobs, after they've been told they've been outsourced ... (train your replacement if you want your severance!) ... Also - since 1900 - the size of government has expanded dramatically. I'm not 'against government' or anything, but many gov. agencies are abhorrently inefficient. I have a distant family member who's friend, a low-level thug dealer who was recently arrested. The RCMP (Can. police) spent zillions tracking, investigating this guy. Two years of surveillance, bureaucratic justice issues, lawyers - yada yada. So it's not so nice, but we find ways to 'distribute the surpluses' of the new economy in ways, even if they are not very efficient. The trick is to 'find things for people to do' in a manner that is reasonably efficient and fair. Check out GDP/capita during 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence#/media/File:Biaroch_European_GDP_per_capita_1830-1890.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence#/media/File:B... Were there was more automation, wealth exploded. (This chart does not address wages, but there are others that do :) )

flukus 10y ago
Machines took a long time to build and replace people. Software can be instantly copied. >In 1960 there were 3 channels. In the 1990's 50. Now it's 100's + online offerings. Exactly, we're already beyond the limits of what we can consume. There won't be jobs producing more stuff when there is no one to consume it.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Exactly, we're already beyond the limits of what we can consume. " No, because in 1960 everyone had the same thing. Now - you get programming for your niche, which is different than that of the dude next door. Take clothing: even in the year 2000 people did not really wear fashion. We had 'the Gap' and not much more. Everything else was expensive. 'Fast fashion' has changed the world. Young people can now afford an absurd variety in fashion. Nobody 50+ ever thought you needed a 'new pair of pants' every season. Now it's normal. Clothes are almost disposable. That's a consequence of increased productivity and adapting demand.
  - astronautjones 10y ago
    But a lot of that is subsidized through globalization, which nearly every colonizing country is eschewing. Without it, 80℅ of your users and customers can't afford clothes or phones or apps. It's all subsidized through foreigners plights and profited upon wildly. Watch what happens if that goes away. The neoliberal idea of the world was born to stop a revolution in the western world - instead of paying people fairly, they just exploited other countries through capitalist guises instead of barbaric colonisation. If the new answer is that everything has to be made in the nation, no one can afford anything without some sort of basic income/welfare, which the masses will vote against because they've been trained to hate recipients of such social programs for the last half century
    - edblarney 10y ago
      "But a lot of that is subsidized through globalization, which nearly every colonizing country is eschewing." "It's all subsidized through foreigners plights and profited upon wildly" This is highly speculative, and I don't think in any way substantiated. "they just exploited other countries through capitalist guises instead of barbaric colonisation." Borderline racist. American consumers are fuelling a massive wealth creation boom in places like China and India, where 100's of millions are coming out of poverty. Trade is generally good for both sides, and it has benefited China/India etc. massively. It's funny what you call 'exploitation' is 100's of millions of people with massively increasing wealth. If you want to see China and India desperately poor again, we can 'turn off globalization'. A few more Americans will have jobs, but it will be back to the dark ages for many economies.

flukus 10y ago

Machines took a long time to build and replace people. Software can be instantly copied. >In 1960 there were 3 channels. In the 1990's 50. Now it's 100's + online offerings. Exactly, we're already beyond the limits of what we can consume. There won't be jobs producing more stuff when there is no one to consume it.

edblarney 10y ago
"Exactly, we're already beyond the limits of what we can consume. " No, because in 1960 everyone had the same thing. Now - you get programming for your niche, which is different than that of the dude next door. Take clothing: even in the year 2000 people did not really wear fashion. We had 'the Gap' and not much more. Everything else was expensive. 'Fast fashion' has changed the world. Young people can now afford an absurd variety in fashion. Nobody 50+ ever thought you needed a 'new pair of pants' every season. Now it's normal. Clothes are almost disposable. That's a consequence of increased productivity and adapting demand.
- astronautjones 10y ago
  But a lot of that is subsidized through globalization, which nearly every colonizing country is eschewing. Without it, 80℅ of your users and customers can't afford clothes or phones or apps. It's all subsidized through foreigners plights and profited upon wildly. Watch what happens if that goes away. The neoliberal idea of the world was born to stop a revolution in the western world - instead of paying people fairly, they just exploited other countries through capitalist guises instead of barbaric colonisation. If the new answer is that everything has to be made in the nation, no one can afford anything without some sort of basic income/welfare, which the masses will vote against because they've been trained to hate recipients of such social programs for the last half century
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "But a lot of that is subsidized through globalization, which nearly every colonizing country is eschewing." "It's all subsidized through foreigners plights and profited upon wildly" This is highly speculative, and I don't think in any way substantiated. "they just exploited other countries through capitalist guises instead of barbaric colonisation." Borderline racist. American consumers are fuelling a massive wealth creation boom in places like China and India, where 100's of millions are coming out of poverty. Trade is generally good for both sides, and it has benefited China/India etc. massively. It's funny what you call 'exploitation' is 100's of millions of people with massively increasing wealth. If you want to see China and India desperately poor again, we can 'turn off globalization'. A few more Americans will have jobs, but it will be back to the dark ages for many economies.