3 ms·

I agree. It all seems so obvious to me that I feel like I must be the fool in the room, but that can't be. Technology and progress in science changes the kinds

by cryptoz 10y ago

I agree. It all seems so obvious to me that I feel like I must be the fool in the room, but that can't be. Technology and progress in science changes the kinds of work we do. The processes are accelerating, and we're reaching a point where work is better done by machines. I can see no viable future for humans other than Universal Basic Income, with options for additional creativity and work unbounded by time spent doing menial tasks to earn wages for shelter and food and clothing. Yes that all sounds utopian, but what other futures are there? The masses won't have jobs - the machines will. What will people do when there are no jobs? We'll have UBI and we'll have the strongest entrepreneurship and artistic discovery we've ever had. It doesn't matter what side of the politics you're on - UBI is going to be the future simply because it has to be. "Job creator" is the most intense insult I can think of to call a politician but everyone else seems to love it. Aren't we supposed to be destroying jobs as fast as possible so that automation can make our lives easier and provide higher quality of life to all? Creating jobs sounds like the worst possible path for people to take - and for CEOs like Rometty to encourage the idea that jobs are here to stay seems dangerous. Jobs are not here to stay, even as the work changes and some new jobs are created along the way, the numbers of jobs will decline to 0.

kbenson 10y ago
I think part of what drives your view on this is a particular idea of what a "job" is. It's likely that the meaning, in aggregate, will shift somewhat over time. Another way to look at it is that some people like working, and find having a job fulfilling, regardless of whether it pays the bills or not (many senior people get simple jobs after retiring because they like it). If we think of a "job" as a means for acquiring the resources for happiness (all too often money for basic needs, but also often a feeling of advancement and status among peers), then it's not something we necessarily want to do away with. It may be that it's less based on money and more on some other capital (social?) instead though.
nine_k 10y ago
So the only future you see for humans if something like Ian Banks' Culture universe, where machines completely run the world, but are benevolent enough to harbor, nourish, and otherwise care for humans?
josho 10y ago
> Aren't we supposed to be destroying jobs I've never actually thought of it this way. That's potentially a revolutionary thought that we should be seeking to destroy jobs, not create them.
knodi123 10y ago
> so that automation can make our lives easier and provide higher quality of life to all? No one has explained to me how this is supposed to occur. I agree that if you were building a civilization from scratch and had this sort of automation available, you'd probably come up with a nice idealistic solution. But as it is, starting from the world we live in today, these sorts of efficiency savings just seem to concentrate wealth in the hands of the robot owners. I feel like companies would say "Oh, look at this, our production went up 10x at no increased cost. Now, should we use that increase to maximize our profits, or should we just raise wages and cut working hours in order to selflessly do our part towards creating a utopia?"
knodi123 10y ago
> UBI is going to be the future simply because it has to be. I can think of an alternative. Ahem, cough cough dystopia cough cough.

by cryptoz 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

I think part of what drives your view on this is a particular idea of what a "job" is. It's likely that the meaning, in aggregate, will shift somewhat over time. Another way to look at it is that some people like working, and find having a job fulfilling, regardless of whether it pays the bills or not (many senior people get simple jobs after retiring because they like it). If we think of a "job" as a means for acquiring the resources for happiness (all too often money for basic needs, but also often a feeling of advancement and status among peers), then it's not something we necessarily want to do away with. It may be that it's less based on money and more on some other capital (social?) instead though.

nine_k 10y ago

So the only future you see for humans if something like Ian Banks' Culture universe, where machines completely run the world, but are benevolent enough to harbor, nourish, and otherwise care for humans?

josho 10y ago

> Aren't we supposed to be destroying jobs I've never actually thought of it this way. That's potentially a revolutionary thought that we should be seeking to destroy jobs, not create them.

knodi123 10y ago

> so that automation can make our lives easier and provide higher quality of life to all? No one has explained to me how this is supposed to occur. I agree that if you were building a civilization from scratch and had this sort of automation available, you'd probably come up with a nice idealistic solution. But as it is, starting from the world we live in today, these sorts of efficiency savings just seem to concentrate wealth in the hands of the robot owners. I feel like companies would say "Oh, look at this, our production went up 10x at no increased cost. Now, should we use that increase to maximize our profits, or should we just raise wages and cut working hours in order to selflessly do our part towards creating a utopia?"

knodi123 10y ago

> UBI is going to be the future simply because it has to be. I can think of an alternative. Ahem, cough cough dystopia cough cough.