8 ms·

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time with comments like these. Society doesn't require you to work to keep living on this planet, real world does. Society got so

by jfabre 9y ago

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time with comments like these. Society doesn't require you to work to keep living on this planet, real world does. Society got so good at winning at the game that people now think everything should be free. People still have to work to earn a living and it's not western society's fault.

mcv 9y ago
In a way it is. We could design our society so people have to work much less than they currently do. That would require the super rich to share more of their profit, however. They do not have to work to earn a living, but they do need other people to work for them so they can actually live. Less inequality would mean they'd have to work more, and others would have to work less.
sillysaurus3 9y ago
Your view is at odds with the fact that many humans will be unemployable a century from now, and probably sooner. You'll either give them money or they'll take to the streets. There's no third option -- the jobs won't materialize.
- Aron 9y ago
  Don't assume that's true.
  - daxfohl 9y ago
    Can't be true. If they take to the streets then that creates a new societal need. With new societal needs comes new opportunities. With new opportunities comes new jobs. They may not be jobs as we know them. The jobs may be based on barter, and may be somewhat criminal, but people aren't just going to sit around doing nothing while they starve. Besides, if humans have no jobs, no organization, no motivation for anything, then the AI that's replacing them has nothing to do, so why will it even continue to exist?
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      Horses became unemployable. There are no tasks that a horse can perform better than machines, except for nostalgic reasons. Their population peaked around 1900 and it's been nothing but down. There's no law of nature that says "New technology makes new jobs for horses." It sounds shockingly dumb to even say this out loud. But swap "horses" for "humans" and everyone thinks it sounds about right.
      - daxfohl 9y ago
        Horses as a population can't seek out new opportunities or create new industries for themselves. The horse industry was created by humans for horses, not by horses for themselves. Our entire economy however was created organically by humans responding to needs of humans. So as long as humans have needs, and assets to trade to meet those needs, an economy will continue to exist.
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        Where this breaks down is the massive difference in those humans, both intellectually and economically. A human without means to create any industry -- an ivy league pedigree (which still matters, no matter how much we'd like to believe otherwise), a VC connection, a rich uncle -- they're not going to create shit. At most, they're going to invent a product for themselves to sell that will hopefully get them out of their financial situation and into a better one. That's economics, but it's also not responsible for the massive job growth associated with industry. On the flipside, you have the unintelligent people that make up most of the world. It's not too politically correct to point this out, but most people are pretty dumb. I'm no exception, having acted in some dumb ways myself. But if you're not capable of being smart when it counts, then you're again not going to be creating very much. Not when it comes to job growth. So what does that leave? Ah yes, the thing we've all been dancing around. Classism. There are already three distinct castes of people: those that create jobs, those that work, and those that have no jobs. That middle class is going to dwindle as automation renders them useless. And it's naive to think that the latter caste will become the former. I think this idea meets with so much resistance because we'd all like to believe that everything will be ok. Everything will work out, right? It always has. Let's put it this way: Things will work out one way or another. But that "other" route is not a pleasant one.
jikeo 9y ago
I don't really see you point. When you pay "NYC rent" that money of course ends up somewhere. Some of your work hours becomes their margin. It's pretty obvious if you manage to find cheap accommodations or work remotely. Suddenly your income to expense ratio might be something like 6 to 1. Meaning you only _have to_ work two months a year. The whole idea of the "real world" in contrast to "everything should be free" seem more like an example of western society than reality.

by jfabre 9y ago

mcv 9y ago

In a way it is. We could design our society so people have to work much less than they currently do. That would require the super rich to share more of their profit, however. They do not have to work to earn a living, but they do need other people to work for them so they can actually live. Less inequality would mean they'd have to work more, and others would have to work less.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

Your view is at odds with the fact that many humans will be unemployable a century from now, and probably sooner. You'll either give them money or they'll take to the streets. There's no third option -- the jobs won't materialize.

Aron 9y ago
Don't assume that's true.
- daxfohl 9y ago
  Can't be true. If they take to the streets then that creates a new societal need. With new societal needs comes new opportunities. With new opportunities comes new jobs. They may not be jobs as we know them. The jobs may be based on barter, and may be somewhat criminal, but people aren't just going to sit around doing nothing while they starve. Besides, if humans have no jobs, no organization, no motivation for anything, then the AI that's replacing them has nothing to do, so why will it even continue to exist?
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Horses became unemployable. There are no tasks that a horse can perform better than machines, except for nostalgic reasons. Their population peaked around 1900 and it's been nothing but down. There's no law of nature that says "New technology makes new jobs for horses." It sounds shockingly dumb to even say this out loud. But swap "horses" for "humans" and everyone thinks it sounds about right.
    - daxfohl 9y ago
      Horses as a population can't seek out new opportunities or create new industries for themselves. The horse industry was created by humans for horses, not by horses for themselves. Our entire economy however was created organically by humans responding to needs of humans. So as long as humans have needs, and assets to trade to meet those needs, an economy will continue to exist.
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        Where this breaks down is the massive difference in those humans, both intellectually and economically. A human without means to create any industry -- an ivy league pedigree (which still matters, no matter how much we'd like to believe otherwise), a VC connection, a rich uncle -- they're not going to create shit. At most, they're going to invent a product for themselves to sell that will hopefully get them out of their financial situation and into a better one. That's economics, but it's also not responsible for the massive job growth associated with industry. On the flipside, you have the unintelligent people that make up most of the world. It's not too politically correct to point this out, but most people are pretty dumb. I'm no exception, having acted in some dumb ways myself. But if you're not capable of being smart when it counts, then you're again not going to be creating very much. Not when it comes to job growth. So what does that leave? Ah yes, the thing we've all been dancing around. Classism. There are already three distinct castes of people: those that create jobs, those that work, and those that have no jobs. That middle class is going to dwindle as automation renders them useless. And it's naive to think that the latter caste will become the former. I think this idea meets with so much resistance because we'd all like to believe that everything will be ok. Everything will work out, right? It always has. Let's put it this way: Things will work out one way or another. But that "other" route is not a pleasant one.

jikeo 9y ago

I don't really see you point. When you pay "NYC rent" that money of course ends up somewhere. Some of your work hours becomes their margin. It's pretty obvious if you manage to find cheap accommodations or work remotely. Suddenly your income to expense ratio might be something like 6 to 1. Meaning you only _have to_ work two months a year. The whole idea of the "real world" in contrast to "everything should be free" seem more like an example of western society than reality.