4 ms·

It's not sexy talking about how we have the potential to put millions of Americans out of jobs, and would rather handwave the discussion with a "Oh they said th

It's not sexy talking about how we have the potential to put millions of Americans out of jobs, and would rather handwave the discussion with a "Oh they said the same thing during the industrial revolution."

zlynx 9y ago
Present your argument that we'd be better off with 500,000 people employed as farmers and ditch diggers working by hand without automation and equipment.
- lobotryas 9y ago
  Yes, of course. How is this even a question? If we had the resources to give 500,000 people a living wage, a home, health care, in exchange for performing a completely meaningless task then that would be a pretty good deal (that many would also be happy to take).
  - traek 9y ago
    Anything society has the resources to do now, we’ll have the resources to do after the advent of driverless cars. Driverless cars will strictly increase productivity—they let us produce more output with the same input of labor and capital. So no, it is not better to give people resources for performing a completely meaningless task. If the task were completely meaningless then we could provide them the same resources without requiring the labor. Neo-Luddites arguing against driverless cars are fighting the wrong thing. Their fight should be distribution of wealth created, not against innovation that increases productivity and makes our lives collectively easier.
  - ryandvm 9y ago
    You're basically suggesting the broken window fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window Basically, it's foolish to have people do unnecessary work because in doing so you have squandered time and resources that could have been spent creating additional value.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      The broken windows fallacy is not apt in terms of what lobotryas wrote. If we had enough resources so that everyone had a home, health care, and access to a livable amount of money each month then that would be good. Wouldn’t it? Lobotryas did not state how to accomplish this. Just said it’d be great if we lived in such a world.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    >in exchange for a completely meaningless task Why don't we just give them the money and care instead? Then they can actually do something useful with their time.

zlynx 9y ago

Present your argument that we'd be better off with 500,000 people employed as farmers and ditch diggers working by hand without automation and equipment.

lobotryas 9y ago
Yes, of course. How is this even a question? If we had the resources to give 500,000 people a living wage, a home, health care, in exchange for performing a completely meaningless task then that would be a pretty good deal (that many would also be happy to take).
- traek 9y ago
  Anything society has the resources to do now, we’ll have the resources to do after the advent of driverless cars. Driverless cars will strictly increase productivity—they let us produce more output with the same input of labor and capital. So no, it is not better to give people resources for performing a completely meaningless task. If the task were completely meaningless then we could provide them the same resources without requiring the labor. Neo-Luddites arguing against driverless cars are fighting the wrong thing. Their fight should be distribution of wealth created, not against innovation that increases productivity and makes our lives collectively easier.
- ryandvm 9y ago
  You're basically suggesting the broken window fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window Basically, it's foolish to have people do unnecessary work because in doing so you have squandered time and resources that could have been spent creating additional value.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    The broken windows fallacy is not apt in terms of what lobotryas wrote. If we had enough resources so that everyone had a home, health care, and access to a livable amount of money each month then that would be good. Wouldn’t it? Lobotryas did not state how to accomplish this. Just said it’d be great if we lived in such a world.
- uoaei 9y ago
  >in exchange for a completely meaningless task Why don't we just give them the money and care instead? Then they can actually do something useful with their time.