10 ms·

While the scope of the article is confined to manufacturing, which impacts less-specialized labor, I felt a sense of dread reading it for what it means for peop

While the scope of the article is confined to manufacturing, which impacts less-specialized labor, I felt a sense of dread reading it for what it means for people losing their jobs to software. Fresh out of college in the late 1990s, one of my first "high tech" jobs was manually building HTML pages for job listings, copying-and-pasting advertisements from word documents all day long. One day, I recommended the company contract a programmer-friend of mine to automate the process and two weeks later I was looking for work--my job replaced by a script that ran a few minutes every morning. Over the years I've watched various professions devalued to search engines and spreadsheets, from paralegals to accountants. I don't think it's a bad thing. It's progress and it's freeing up time. The bad part is that we live in a society with an antiquated work-ethic, where your value is measured in capital and the number of hours you put in each week at your job. Automation isn't the problem, living is a culture incapable of valuing leisure time is what needs to change.

paulpauper 9y ago
that's kinda like the fallacy of composition: what is good for the individual, is not always so good for the economy
- ThomPete 9y ago
  And vice versa
YPCrumble 9y ago
Your first job sounds similar to that of the worker in the pin factory in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Later on he describes the "torpor of the mind"[1] that you must have felt doing all that copy/pasting. Smith's argument at the end of the same passage and throughout the WoN is that government intervention and regulation is necessary to avoid the societal decay that the invisible hand of capitalism can produce. Specifically he suggests government-sponsored education as the best solution to the problem. [1] http://www.pitt.edu/~syd/ASIND.html http://www.pitt.edu/~syd/ASIND.html
grecy 9y ago
> Automation isn't the problem, living is a culture incapable of valuing leisure time is what needs to change Leave North America, it's a whole new world(TM) I recently read "A Year of Living Danishly"[1] - an amazing account of two early-30s brits who move to Denmark and learn how life works there. After an adjustment period, they are floored, and I mean absolutely floored how good the work/life balance is. They are shocked their old life they loved can seem so horrible in comparison. I asked my Danish friend about it, and he said "Yeah, I like living in a country that focuses on being happy rather than focusing on getting money." [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/1785780239/?tag=roadchoseme-20 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1785780239/?tag=roadchoseme-20
- drzaiusapelord 9y ago
  The biggest workaholics I know are from the UK and EU. Its not really cultural outside of edge cases like Nordic economies, which will probably slide back to the norm after the oil money runs out or after they have a major economic event which means less capital to spread across the population. Capitalism more or less demands workaholism and people conform to it often thinking they don't have a choice or do have a choice but need to settle to never being promoted. Its not like everyone agreed to live poorly. The system itself is problematic as the guys at the top call the shots and they themselves are workaholics because it takes a workaholic to get to the top. Then that culture peters down to everyone. The real issue is why doesn't later stages capitalism just create wealth for all? Why does my boss's ideas of work, which he learned from his boss, eventually trickle down to my idea of work and when I push back I open myself up to punishment? Why does his greed normalize work life? I imagine a maximum income/net wealth cap on individuals would stop that but short of a revolution I don't see that happening anytime soon.
  - tankenmate 9y ago
    In Norway they have two things limiting the "oil money" from just running out. Firstly they are limited by legislation from spending the capital amount in their sovereign fund. And secondly all changes to the system have to reported on by the sovereign fund's philosopher. Going by recent run rates it would take about 50~100 years for the sovereign fund to be depleted.
s73ver 9y ago
"Over the years I've watched various professions devalued to search engines and spreadsheets, from paralegals to accountants. I don't think it's a bad thing. It's progress and it's freeing up time." I absolutely despise this argument, because it usually forgets that you can have all the time in the world, and it won't matter if you can't pay your rent or buy food.
- mikepurvis 9y ago
  Right, but that's the core of the Basic Income argument.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    Which is orthogonal to this discussion. Mainly because I don't believe Basic Income would gain any traction in the US. So we need to find other solutions.
    - mikepurvis 9y ago
      It's a matter of correctly framing the discussion. Lots of basic income forms already exist in the US, including: - Pensions - Alaska Permanent Fund - Child tax credits - Stimulus cheques - Social Security - Welfare I just don't think it's a huge stretch to jump from these kinds of payments to an expectation that the government of a wealthy nation would supply all citizens with a stipend. Maybe the phrase "basic income" is too closely associated with socialism... in that case, call it an automation tax credit or something. Once people start receiving the cheques, they'll realize that it's a pretty good deal— kind of like the ACA.
    - jganetsk 9y ago
      > I don't believe Basic Income would gain any traction in the US. The United States House of Representatives passed a Basic Income bill written by Richard Nixon in 1969. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vHYFzYvCak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vHYFzYvCak
      - 9y ago
zxcvvcxz 9y ago
> The bad part is that we live in a society with an antiquated work-ethic, where your value is measured in capital and the number of hours you put in each week at your job. Automation isn't the problem, living is a culture incapable of valuing leisure time is what needs to change. Why should we value leisure time over work, and by proxy, acquisition of capital? These are the activities that gave us the great comforts of modern living, from electric light, to heating, to plumbing, electronic entertainment, vaccines from diseases, you name it. We're not 'done' with hard work, or technological evolution. We never will be, and that's a good thing. If you want to push for more leisure time than is currently available fine - but most people won't, because they instintively feel bad for not keeping up with others. And perhaps they should. Or at least they should admire and deeply respect those who put in the work to make our world go round. You can't shame away diligence.

paulpauper 9y ago

that's kinda like the fallacy of composition: what is good for the individual, is not always so good for the economy

ThomPete 9y ago
And vice versa

YPCrumble 9y ago

Your first job sounds similar to that of the worker in the pin factory in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Later on he describes the "torpor of the mind"[1] that you must have felt doing all that copy/pasting. Smith's argument at the end of the same passage and throughout the WoN is that government intervention and regulation is necessary to avoid the societal decay that the invisible hand of capitalism can produce. Specifically he suggests government-sponsored education as the best solution to the problem. [1] http://www.pitt.edu/~syd/ASIND.html http://www.pitt.edu/~syd/ASIND.html

grecy 9y ago

> Automation isn't the problem, living is a culture incapable of valuing leisure time is what needs to change Leave North America, it's a whole new world(TM) I recently read "A Year of Living Danishly"[1] - an amazing account of two early-30s brits who move to Denmark and learn how life works there. After an adjustment period, they are floored, and I mean absolutely floored how good the work/life balance is. They are shocked their old life they loved can seem so horrible in comparison. I asked my Danish friend about it, and he said "Yeah, I like living in a country that focuses on being happy rather than focusing on getting money." [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/1785780239/?tag=roadchoseme-20 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1785780239/?tag=roadchoseme-20

drzaiusapelord 9y ago
The biggest workaholics I know are from the UK and EU. Its not really cultural outside of edge cases like Nordic economies, which will probably slide back to the norm after the oil money runs out or after they have a major economic event which means less capital to spread across the population. Capitalism more or less demands workaholism and people conform to it often thinking they don't have a choice or do have a choice but need to settle to never being promoted. Its not like everyone agreed to live poorly. The system itself is problematic as the guys at the top call the shots and they themselves are workaholics because it takes a workaholic to get to the top. Then that culture peters down to everyone. The real issue is why doesn't later stages capitalism just create wealth for all? Why does my boss's ideas of work, which he learned from his boss, eventually trickle down to my idea of work and when I push back I open myself up to punishment? Why does his greed normalize work life? I imagine a maximum income/net wealth cap on individuals would stop that but short of a revolution I don't see that happening anytime soon.
- tankenmate 9y ago
  In Norway they have two things limiting the "oil money" from just running out. Firstly they are limited by legislation from spending the capital amount in their sovereign fund. And secondly all changes to the system have to reported on by the sovereign fund's philosopher. Going by recent run rates it would take about 50~100 years for the sovereign fund to be depleted.

s73ver 9y ago

"Over the years I've watched various professions devalued to search engines and spreadsheets, from paralegals to accountants. I don't think it's a bad thing. It's progress and it's freeing up time." I absolutely despise this argument, because it usually forgets that you can have all the time in the world, and it won't matter if you can't pay your rent or buy food.

mikepurvis 9y ago
Right, but that's the core of the Basic Income argument.
- s73ver 9y ago
  Which is orthogonal to this discussion. Mainly because I don't believe Basic Income would gain any traction in the US. So we need to find other solutions.
  - mikepurvis 9y ago
    It's a matter of correctly framing the discussion. Lots of basic income forms already exist in the US, including: - Pensions - Alaska Permanent Fund - Child tax credits - Stimulus cheques - Social Security - Welfare I just don't think it's a huge stretch to jump from these kinds of payments to an expectation that the government of a wealthy nation would supply all citizens with a stipend. Maybe the phrase "basic income" is too closely associated with socialism... in that case, call it an automation tax credit or something. Once people start receiving the cheques, they'll realize that it's a pretty good deal— kind of like the ACA.
  - jganetsk 9y ago
    > I don't believe Basic Income would gain any traction in the US. The United States House of Representatives passed a Basic Income bill written by Richard Nixon in 1969. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vHYFzYvCak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vHYFzYvCak
    - 9y ago

zxcvvcxz 9y ago

> The bad part is that we live in a society with an antiquated work-ethic, where your value is measured in capital and the number of hours you put in each week at your job. Automation isn't the problem, living is a culture incapable of valuing leisure time is what needs to change. Why should we value leisure time over work, and by proxy, acquisition of capital? These are the activities that gave us the great comforts of modern living, from electric light, to heating, to plumbing, electronic entertainment, vaccines from diseases, you name it. We're not 'done' with hard work, or technological evolution. We never will be, and that's a good thing. If you want to push for more leisure time than is currently available fine - but most people won't, because they instintively feel bad for not keeping up with others. And perhaps they should. Or at least they should admire and deeply respect those who put in the work to make our world go round. You can't shame away diligence.