4 ms·

It's funny how two people can read the same article and come away with opposite impressions. I didn't see anything in the article mourning the loss of these job

It's funny how two people can read the same article and come away with opposite impressions. I didn't see anything in the article mourning the loss of these jobs. I won't mourn the displaced jobs either. They're physically demanding, don't offer steady employment, and don't pay very well. I didn't see anything like Luddism expressed or implied in the article. Is it Luddism if articles about labor saving technology don't always tack on a fairy tale ending that goes "...and the surplus workers lived happily ever after, assured that Lump of Labor is a fallacy and that there's no such thing as demand satiation."?

st3v3r 10y ago
But the thing is, it's not labor saving. It's labor displacing. That's not to say we shouldn't try to automate this kind of thing; as you said, it's terrible work. But it's still work that someone depends on to be able to support themselves and their families. And usually, with this kind of thing, there isn't much thought put into how to help those who are displaced by increased automation. Those people still need to be able to support their families.
- philipkglass 10y ago
  I'm a big fan of decoupling the historical relationship between having salable labor-power and having an income that can be exchanged for goods and services. If the productive economy can go Full Robot, I think that it should, and governments should start planning how their people can get goods and services as opposed to getting jobs. That said, I think it's fair to expect displaced workers' countries to take the lead on adaptation strategies for their own voters. Some displaced crop pickers are eligible to vote in the US but I think that the bulk of them are eligible only in countries outside the US. Undocumented immigrants don't bother me but neither do I feel like it's the responsibility of Americans to provide temporary foreign workers, documented or not, with jobs in the US.
- jimnotgym 10y ago
  Its reports like this that make me believe that Universal Basic Income will be a necessity in the next century as all the low skilled volume jobs are taken by machines

st3v3r 10y ago

But the thing is, it's not labor saving. It's labor displacing. That's not to say we shouldn't try to automate this kind of thing; as you said, it's terrible work. But it's still work that someone depends on to be able to support themselves and their families. And usually, with this kind of thing, there isn't much thought put into how to help those who are displaced by increased automation. Those people still need to be able to support their families.

philipkglass 10y ago
I'm a big fan of decoupling the historical relationship between having salable labor-power and having an income that can be exchanged for goods and services. If the productive economy can go Full Robot, I think that it should, and governments should start planning how their people can get goods and services as opposed to getting jobs. That said, I think it's fair to expect displaced workers' countries to take the lead on adaptation strategies for their own voters. Some displaced crop pickers are eligible to vote in the US but I think that the bulk of them are eligible only in countries outside the US. Undocumented immigrants don't bother me but neither do I feel like it's the responsibility of Americans to provide temporary foreign workers, documented or not, with jobs in the US.
jimnotgym 10y ago
Its reports like this that make me believe that Universal Basic Income will be a necessity in the next century as all the low skilled volume jobs are taken by machines