4 ms·
Are you asking what can be centrally designed/planned to soften the blow of technological progress for those whose professions become obsolete? To that questio
by djschnei 9y ago
Are you asking what can be centrally designed/planned to soften the blow of technological progress for those whose professions become obsolete? To that question, I would say nothing. And this isn't from a philosophical POV; it's from a very pragmatic/logical POV (which admittedly seems cold at first glance).
Pragmatically, these kinds of questions have to be weighed by net-harm vs net-good. By stifling innovation or subsidizing bad ways of doing things you are choosing a (relatively) small amount of good (preserving some obsolete job so that people don't lose those specific jobs) over the much larger net-good that increase economic output provides for the entire system.
If you have an open mind; I would suggest reading the chapter "The Curse of Machinery" from Henry Hazlitt's 1946 work "Economics in One Lesson". It can be read here for free: https://fee.org/articles/the-curse-of-machinery/ https://fee.org/articles/the-curse-of-machinery/
Would never suggest this will change your world, but it might help you understand the opposing POV.
- s73ver 9y agoI'm going to have to completely disagree with the idea that we can't do anything to soften the blow. And note that nowhere have I called for progress to be halted or regulations preserving "obsolete" jobs to be enacted. However, we must do something to help these people either retrain or otherwise supporting their families. In terms of net-good vs net-bad, I would consider it to be enormously net-bad to simply cast these people aside, and not help them at all.
- djschnei 9y agoNot being able to centrally plan/organize the economy to help those "victimized" by progress is very different than not being able to help at all. What do you propose that wouldn't act as a handicap on the economy overall? Also, interested if you took a look at that chapter I posted. Interested in your take.
- s73ver 9y agoI didn't have time. But, as I've said many, many, many times, I'm not trying to stop automation and machinery from advancing. So please stop insinuating that. I am saying that we MUST, absolutely MUST find some way to assist those who are displaced because of automation. Those people still need to support families, pay rent, buy food. If we decide that "increased productivity" (read: increased profits for owners) is more important, then we need some way for these people to be able to remain in their homes. If we don't, then we might as well shoot them all as soon as their job becomes obsolete. It would be less cruel.
- djschnei 9y agoI gave a vital piece of criteria for the assistance you're too busy to discuss; I didn't insinuate anything. Also, you clearly didn't read the passage I posted, which is cool, but lots of the points your making are addressed there (and I believe, shown to be faulty logic). Have a good one! 'profits for owners'... yawn... 'shoot them the second their job is obsolete'... your inner communist is showing ;)
- s73ver 9y agoSaid the guy who said we shouldn't do a thing for people displaced by automation. If that's the case, and they're unable to get jobs elsewhere, what else should we do with them? Just leave them to starve on their own?
- djschnei 9y agoI almost feel like you aren't responding to my comments... The questions you're asking have been addressed, and I have even posted an extremely famous piece of literature which can explain your missteps better than I ever could. If you don't want to acknowledge my points, not sure what the point of discussion with you is...