20 ms·

The radical idea of a world without jobs

178 points by kawera 9y ago

gaius 9y ago
In 1845, Karl Marx wrote that in a communist society workers would be freed from the monotony of a single draining job to “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner” Starve in the morning, starve in the afternoon, starve in the evening, self-criticise instead of dinner. FTFY.
- fredley 9y ago
  Even if we do build fully-automated and autonomous means to grow/build/create everything we need, identity in this era is still overwhelmingly rooted in our jobs. I am a Developer, she is a farmer, he is a doctor. If all the jobs go to robots, what are we? Ask any jobless person for whom no job exists how they feel about life.
  - aalleavitch 9y ago
    You can still be a developer, a farmer, or a doctor even if you find that you don't require those activities in order to eat.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Agreed. However, if you drive a tractor and write code to drive tractors, say, are you a coder or a farmer (or a software engineering or a soil scientist ...). Perhaps you see yourself primarily as a mother, or an artist, or ...
      - TomMarius 9y ago
        I see myself as a human. What I do for money or for hobby doesn't define me all by itself. I'm interested in music production as well as in B2B sales. I'm a software engineer as well as someone who spends weeks at a time in the nature without any electronics at all. You can't say that I'm a software engineer or a DJ or a salesman. I'm all of these.
  - new2424141 9y ago
    Thats because ur the product of your generation. your son and son's will not have the same perspective
  - SherlockeHolmes 9y ago
    this is assuming that new industries shall not develop once complete automation (of those possible) is achieved. engineering jobs - for example - should branch out to many more folds of specializations compared to where they are now.
    - ddnb 9y ago
      Won't those, once complete automation is achieved, be automated?
      - SherlockeHolmes 9y ago
        you are being restricted by - I am making assumptions here - a lack of creativity and a desire to be sarcastic. We may also differ in our interpretation of what "engineering" is. There are numerous jobs already in existence that are likely a thousand years away from being able to reach automation. However, should economy proceed normally after achieving full automation of what is possible within this century - my statement may become clearer. Distance between our respective positions on this topic is enough that I have to spend considerably more effort to communicate using words a more complete explanation. p.s. I love to edit as much as I am able to, and dislike those that are prejudiced otherwise.
        ddnb 9y ago
        This is my thought: once true AI is achieved, everything we know can be automated, because true AI will be able to do all things humans can do. I believe true AI will be achieved this century. These claims are my personal thoughts and due to the unpredictable nature inventions occurn these thoughts are not based on any research.
        SherlockeHolmes 9y ago
        that is quite a pessimistic view on human capability (justified in current context because of shitbags) while equally bullish on human-developed AI capabilities. Sure, machine learning — blah — self-improving machines — blah - but I say, improving within bounds but cannot provide mathematical proof of the necessity of existence of such bounds blah. machines have us beat on speed. however, let us not be blinded by this singularly awesome edge machines provide.
  - encrystation 9y ago
    In Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota series, set in the 2400's, most people work 20 hour weeks with the rest of their time spent on hobbies. A minority of people, whose jobs are their passions, work significantly more than 20 hours, this is termed Voking (as in, to be a vocateur) and is considered kinda unusual. Reading between the lines, I think full automation is entirely possible in the setting but the world naturally settled on a 20 hour week to give everyone the benefits of purpose etc.
    - SturgeonsLaw 9y ago
      I'd also like to plug Iain M Banks' Culture series as an example of post-scarcity living. There is no shortage of ways to spend one's time or define one's identity without it being coupled to income generation.
  - _pdp_ 9y ago
    I supposed limited to owns imagination. While I agree it will be a fundamental shift in thinking, especially for current and older generations, kids who are born and grow with this mindset will have no problem finding something else to do. How about doing science for fun - trying to discover new things. The drive for money and power can be replaced with the drive of prestige and recognition? It is not so hard to imagine. I am by all means as capitalist as I would imagine are the majority of the audience on this forum but I cannot deny the fact that there are disadvantages to our way of life and without exploring other ways it is hard to conclude which one is better. Here is another provoking thought. Imagine that we expand the human lifespan well over 500 years. Would you be still doing what you are doing today at the same age? While there will be certainly wealthy people if we live in a capitalistic society, we can also imagine that some people may decide to do a lot of different things in their first 100 years and many other things in the second 100 years and so on. But that system may not be viable. What if 1 in 5 people get to be rich and live wealthy? I would not say that this will work but in your 500 years, you will have 100 that the society will allow you just "because" to be very wealthy and live a wealthy lifestyle. These ideas sound crazy for sure but who knows.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Jobless people, eg retirees, who have their needs met but choose to "work" seem often happy. My father was a teacher, his pension is sufficient, he spends his days working with a teaching union. A friend who was a construction engineer builds extensions and does building work for relatives. My mother when she was able lent her extensive knowledge of countryside planning to the local council, helped on patients fora for hospitals, cared for more elderly members of the community. They all do "jobs" that can be paid for, none of them needed to financially. They all seem content in their roles. Being penniless and being jobless are different things. Moreover, not all people choose to find identity in the jobs they do for survival.
  - kowdermeister 9y ago
    The question will change. In your scenario, it will be an outdated thing to ask. Language change all the time following social changes. It might be like: - What's your recent? - How's your hobjob? - How's your AI farm?
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    I've been jobless for a bit. It's really depressing. That's because I'm supposed to have a job. Socially and financially, I am less of a person for not having a job. If I wasn't required to have a job? If I could live a full life without one? I wouldn't mind on bit.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  Did you just skip over the entire article to get a shallow dig in at communism?
  - countessRostov 9y ago
    Is that even a dig at Communism? I read it more that OP was commenting on how Marx's dream hasn't come to fruition at all...
- mseebach 9y ago
  He, and Keynes' prediction of 15 hour work weeks, were largely right. We spend quite few hours in the week doing the work we need for basic shelter, food and security, at least to a 1845/1930 standard. You could theoretically live in a simple house in a non-congested corner of countryside and feed a small family simple food on perhaps a days average wages a week (there are some logistics around actually getting someone to hire you for a day a week). What they got wrong is that the things we ended up prioritizing for the rest of the time are luxuries, that costs money and that we thus need to work to afford, rather than merely leisure time. This then pushes us to want to live in (expensive) cities, to be near better jobs and luxury spending opportunities, which again means we have to earn more to afford this.
  - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
    Not really - you can't choose to work 15 hour weeks at most places, even if that is all the money you need. I know if I could CHOOSE to work 20hrs/week and get paid half the salary I definitely would, but that's not an option for 99% of us. I prioritize time over luxuries, but employers still dictate the terms.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      3 employees doing 20hrs costs more than one doing 60hrs even if the pay is the same. That said I'd expect 3 employees to also bring more value and have greater productivity.
    - yoz-y 9y ago
      This case would probably be easier as self-employed, but then the income is not guaranteed.
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      You can't choose 15 hour work weeks over a 45 year career, but you can choose to work 45 hour weeks over a 15 year career and retire. It's doable, but it helps if you adopt a 1950s-esque lifestyle and standard of living.
    - wastedhours 9y ago
- andrepd 9y ago
  Nice, I've never heard that one before. What a stunning contribution to the discussion. /s
konschubert 9y ago
In general, I think this world will benefit from more radical humanistic ideas, even if they aren't ever realized. Let's not leave the radical alternatives to the racists and nationalists.
fergie 9y ago
"Work is badly distributed. People have too much, or too little, or both in the same month. And away from our unpredictable, all-consuming workplaces, vital human activities are increasingly neglected. Workers lack the time or energy to raise children attentively, or to look after elderly relations. “The crisis of work is also a crisis of home,” ... This neglect will only get worse as the population grows and ages." This is the real message of the article. Its not about giving everybody a robot butler, its about reorganising society to allow us to do all of the things that need to be done. We don't need to have lots of people working long poorly paid shifts at Wallmart, but we do need people to look after the young and the elderly. At the moment we have a tendency to look at working class people who dont work as morally lacking, when often they have quite a lot of useful (non-paid) things to be getting on with. We need to change the way we think about what makes somebody a useful member of society
- aalleavitch 9y ago
  Our success at combating strict gender roles that kept women out of the workplace hasn't been matched with a social embrace of stay-at-home dads or other family members who don't work in order to focus on helping care for their loved ones. Unfortunately, instead we've ended up with a society where everyone is just expected to work all the time. There needs to be less stigma against people without jobs. We need to stop assuming that everything of value is always done for a profit.
  - Radim 9y ago
    Do you mean to say "for a short-term, monetary profit"? Because there are other types of profit, more subjective ones, like feeling good, emotional well-being, long-term sustainability etc, which are more elusive by definition but nevertheless super important. Because if you're really talking about a lack "profit" in the very general (aka inviting a straight loss), then the question simply becomes: Who will pay for this loss, and why?
    - aalleavitch 9y ago
      I think you answered this question yourself: some forms of value are subjective. Some vitally important benefits to the people around you don't show up on a balance sheet. People will gladly pay to be a patron of the arts, or just to make someone they like happy, and it doesn't have to involve a quantifiable return on investment.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
time_invarient 9y ago
I’m stuck in a dead end job right now. I will never be granted a shred of decision making capacity or autonomy. It is a waiting game. Waiting for more assignments. Waiting until 5PM. Waiting for my paycheck. Waiting to get fired. Waiting to retire. Waiting to die. (n * (Commute. Sit. Wait. Commute. Eat. Sleep.)) Die. Where n == the days I have left in this world. The things I work on feel like absurd, meaningless boondoggles with no head and no tail. So here I am spinning my wheels as I hurtle toward a grave. That I know this is my reality forces me to deeply question the society I participate in. If I am so bound, restricted, constrained in my actions and daily routines, why not just cut to the chase as die already. The repetitive script for how my invarient pattern of living shall progress is obvious. Do I really need to live through it 10,000 more times?
- zimzim 9y ago
  what do you mean stuck? what do you do after 5 that is so meaningless?
  - ThePadawan 9y ago
    not OP, but can relate: The less meaningful work I get done during the day, the less energy I have after 5. Most days, I'll make quick dinner, turn on YouTube, watch videos for 10 minutes, and suddenly it's 11pm.
    - Joe-Z 9y ago
      You just described my life for the past 3 months. It's winter though, so I just attributed it to that. Also I'll be quitting my job soon and then go somewhere where I don't have to deal with dark, cold winters anymore. I guess there's an upside to being a long-time single with no attachments.
- ransom1538 9y ago
  Free time will turn to violence. I don't see a system of robots doing the work --- since it will be destroyed by the masses of media controlled unemployed workers. In the middle ages religion was used to tame the masses -- robots will need something similar.
amelius 9y ago
I want a world where it is more clear what we should work on. Most startups come up with solutions looking for a problem. Yet if people or companies formulated their problems more directly, we wouldn't have to guess at them. As a consequence, work would be more meaningful and more effective.
- zimzim 9y ago
  I think its clear, in our world, you should work on what earns you the most.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    That's not at all clear to me, I'll never work for an arms manufacturer or casino because those activities don't align with my values.
- clarry 9y ago
  I don't think there's enough meaningful work to do. Or, whatever meaningful work there is can't be done because it doesn't pay the bills. The reality is that people work for money. Companies exist to make money. Startups do what they do because they hope to find gold.
- svantana 9y ago
  What people want, say they want, and how they act are separate things. For example, no one has ever said "I want to spend hundreds of dollars on a pointless mobile game", yet that is what a lot of people end up doing. Conversely, people have plenty of problems that they are not willing to spend (enough) money on solving, at least not until it is socially common to do so. However, I think you're on to something here -- something like a reversed kickstarter; anyone could post something they would want to have and how much they would spend on it, more people could join the campaign and creators could get to work on solving it. Probably people already tried it, but off the top of my head I can think of about 10 reasons why it won't work...
  - wastedhours 9y ago
sirmoveon 9y ago
The world will never be without jobs; work will just become detached from financial productivity and wellbeing
- mseebach 9y ago
  It already it. Most people middle class and up work way more than they strictly need to for simple wellbeing. It's just that our standards and expectation for wellbeing shifts, and shifts quickly.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    I'd say "are in the workplace way more" ... >"Now, the workday is ripe for another disruption. Research suggests that in an eight-hour day, the average worker is only productive for two hours and 53 minutes." https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/in-an-8-hour-day-the-average-worker-is-productive-for-this-many-hours.html https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/in-an-8-hour-day-the-aver... // Other studies show the most productive workers take long breaks (~25% of working time).
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      I feel that's more a symptom of people doing work they loathe. When there's intrinsic motivation for doing work, people are productive for the overwhelming majority of the time spent working, and breaks magically evaporate.
      - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
        The trouble is when you start doing something for money it always seems to drain any intrinsic motivation you had.
        phil21 9y ago
        Not at all. I think too many technologists (including myself these days) sit behind far too many layers of abstractions. Coding a quick Perl script to solve a real world problem on a factory floor and watching a dozen machinists start grinning and get way more productive is something I've been paid to do, and I never got unmotivated by. One of those jobs where you simply stay until the job is done, and don't feel put out in the least you got home at 11pm. It's when you're slogging away 12 factors removed on some crap you know is utterly meaningless to anyone - even if it's in tooling you like - that's when I get severe motivational problems. I'd rather work as a cashier at a gas station where at least I can see the effect I have on society with my labor.
Helmet 9y ago
Am I the only one who likes work? And I don’t mean my job, just work in general.
- nkozyra 9y ago
  Part of the problem, I think, is that most people like work. When people sense their hours are spent on fruitless or simple tasks, or they're not valued for it ("low skill" jobs) it's frustrating. Accomplishing things, making progress, solving problems ... these are very satisfying aspects to "work.". But how many jobs offer that regularly? I have a more aggressive timeline than most on the spread of automation (a catch-all for job replacement, obsolescence, changing labor market). I'm of the opinion there will be a significant shift on our lifetime with whatever social repercussions and accommodations follow. But I don't think people will ever stop "working."
- agumonkey 9y ago
  After long unemployment period and bad times, I need work, not the social thing, just the activity. I guess to some, the fact to be doing something is better than the job being interesting, a career, well paying .. (as long as it's not to extreme of course) btw, I believe that we're wired to like work as a basis for social bonding (if you believe that social bonding was selected to help for survival, and work is basically mutualized survival). So doing something in group is probably always good as long as the group factor is good enough (aka not being slaves)
- bfsg 9y ago
  There is nothing wrong with working and liking your work. I have a passion for music and coding, working all day. Problem is that most people need to work for another reason; $$$ instead of passion, to avoid ending up in the streets. That's more like slavery.
- Allvitende 9y ago
  No. Work is a hobby for me. I enjoy the process of working, progressing, doing something. I don't really have any other hobbies that I wish I could be doing all day. We have to have something to wake up and do everyday, otherwise life is very boring and just a waiting game until the end of our days. If people don't enjoy their work, their mission should be to keep looking until they find something that suits them. It's worth the effort finding something that you enjoy doing everyday.
crdoconnor 9y ago
>And finally, beyond all these dysfunctions, loom the most-discussed, most existential threats to work as we know it: automation, and the state of the environment. Some recent estimates suggest that between a third and a half of all jobs could be taken over by artificial intelligence in the next two decades. I've yet to read any research without crippling flaws that suggests this kind of prediction isn't rooted in fantasy. To take one example, look at https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Fut... section on call centers and imagine that Comcast applies ML to the next call you make with them. How well would that work?
ffwacom 9y ago
Comes down to urban planning, the west is depressing because you move from box to box in your mobile box. If the systems were less efficient we would rely on each other more and perhaps feel useful, a third world city is a great place to live, mentally.
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago
  A former Turkish colleague who moved from Turkey to Germany told me the same. The material side of things is covered well in Germany. And because of this, because basically everyone has all their needs covered by the system, people do not need to rely on each other – and they don’t. The vast majority has the means to help themselves and never have to ask anyone else for help. My colleague felt alone, even though he lived with his girlfriend. I think our material abundance fosters isolation. There is no reason go to your neighbor and knock on their door. You live isolated in your home, you move anonymously through traffic, you work in a closed environment, you go home, and the cycle repeats. There is little room for accidentally making friends or even just having conversations.
jaldhar 9y ago
This glorious utopia will last for all of five minutes until the last surviving SJW decides robots need rights. And honestly, would xir be wrong? If we ever get to the point where robots can fully take over most human jobs even intellectual ones, we will have had to reach a level of artificial intelligence where even many not so radical religions and philosophies will wonder whether we are exploiting them. When Tesla delved and Google span, who was then the gentleman?
- indigochill 9y ago
  This gets into how you identify a human (I'm saying for the sake of simplicity that humans are the only things eligible for rights, and ignoring animal rights and such) Is there something inherently human about humans? How about coma patients whose functions are limited? Is there some necessary set of functions a thing must have to qualify as a human? That seems to get into dangerous territory for some handicapped people. The reason this matters is it's conceivable that an AI in a robotic frame could emulate practically all the behaviors we associate with a human (including behavior to display artifacts humans interpret as emotions, like smiling or crying). At that point, is such a thing a human? Or is it merely a fully-realized model of one? Does it make a difference? This is the subject of tons of speculative science fiction. From a strictly computer science perspective, though, you can easily define a "square" class that fully implements all the behaviors of the geometric concept of a square. That doesn't make instances of it a square, though. They're merely digital models of squares. This is also the significance of the famous "There is no spoon" scene in The Matrix, when Neo has a realization that everything in the Matrix is a model which he can reach into and alter the properties of. Therefore, there's a strong argument to be made that from an objective perspective, even an AI that perfectly mimics human behavior is just a perfect model and not a human. However, humans being emotional creatures the objective argument will almost certainly not matter in that scenario. This also has implications for the science fiction concept of "copied personalities", which Black Mirror loves playing with. If you make a digital copy of someone's mind, do they still have rights? I'd argue no for the above reasons, but again, there's an emotional angle which will usually override the scientific angle.
  - 9y ago
tw1010 9y ago
I don't see how a jobless steady state is compatible with the zero-sum game that is the natural desire, in all of us, for power and sex.
- 110011 9y ago
  Yes that is in essence all that needs to be said. Work is just one manifestation of competition between individuals driving us to outdo others. Of course if we weren't occupied by work all day then we'll find something else to compete in and "stress" ourselves about. And don't we already do this to some extent through innumerable athletic/mental feats like climbing mountains, and other ways that are essentially displays of wealth like a vacation in Haiti and so on. This is a simplification, one can successfully argue that many of these activities have "inherent" benefit besides signaling but that aspect is usually not spoken of at all so I emphasize it more here. So the stressors of everyday life (whether they come from work or other means of competition) are an inescapable fact of human life. Too bad if you don't like it.
- rainingmonkey 9y ago
  Just because jobs are no longer mandatory, doesn't mean we won't have hierarchies of power and, if anything, probably allows for even more sex.
gumby 9y ago
It is interesting that the article’s discussion of the history of work begins with Marx, as the modern conception of work lies in the industrial revolution, of which he was a crucial byproduct. His entire Weltanschauung presumed that organized work was the default activity of humans, and with that as a given, proceeded from there. Modern economics, including neoliberal economics, uses his vocabulary by default, making discussions of alternatives, in a weirdly Whorfian way, hard to have. This article also correctly places the roots of the conception of work as the core of human identity as side effects of Europe’s Protestant movement. Amazingly, given that this is the Guardian, they failed to invoke the lazy trope of “colonialism” for the spread of this culture worldwide — for in this case it is accurate. The British empire, in particular, once it became run by the government, spread this model to the “lazy natives” as part of a cultural package. (It is no coincidence that the standard worldwide business attire — as with military uniforms — is based on 19th century British aristocratic fashion). The final piece of course is the cultural reform required for UBI. Just as our conception of work is modern, our conception of money as a reserve of wealth is modern. Even back when Augustus personally paid off he national debt, the conceptions of money and power were backwards to where they are today (“Plutocrat” is another Industrial Age idea). Money was a way to show off your power, not a way to acquire it. But money also serves a more much more important function as a signalling mechanism (a change in price indicates that there is more demand for T-shirts and less for TV sets) — one of the many fatal flaws in communism was a failure to understand this, and the current obsession with banking in the western economies demonstrates a related misunderstanding. When we have a robotic economy with a marginal cost of production close to zero, why should “wealth” reflect a bank balance? What would be the point of accumulating one?
- gaius 9y ago
  The final piece of course is the cultural reform required for UBI. What will you spend your UBI on if the goods and services are not being produced, because no one is being paid to do them?
  - TuringTest 9y ago
    Why do you assume that not being paid means that no goods and services will be produced?
nukeop 9y ago
Forceful reorganization of society inevitably turns into bloodshed in 100% of cases, and that rarely improves standards of living. The human civilization is in a state of constant chaos and nobody can tell or influence where it will be taken next. Accidental discoveries and pointless inventions have shaped our culture, and with it our minds and way of life with nobody being able to predict or control them. It's like a childhood fantasy - when I'm the king I'll make you all... Society cannot be ruled in a top-down manner, period.
- aalleavitch 9y ago
  Reorganization of society need not be implemented in a top-down manner. Encouraging small changes in the activities of individuals can gradually sum to major changes over time. We have the brainpower to enact a project of this type, not every revolution has to be at gunpoint.
NiklasMort 9y ago
Unpopular opinion: It is easy to work less or nearly work nothing and still get by fine (in the context of the modern western world!), the issue is more that people spend their money in bad ways and make bad long term decisions. If you live reasonable and don't spend money on things you don't need you also don't need to work so much...And I often heard from people now "I don't even know why I work so much, I don't need the money". I am sure most people would prefer to work less if the system would allow it.
- don_draper 9y ago
  In America rent and healthcare are two big expenses that you can't escape from. You could live in rural areas and then you don't have a job or you do but you're spending most of your income on car expenses.
- ndh2 9y ago
  This depends a lot on what country you live in and whether or not you have children.
  - NiklasMort 9y ago
    If you have children you can't complain if you have to work more. It is a decision, kids cost money, everybody knows that. Same goes for location to live in, what you eat, if you want a car...my point is : you don't NEED much. Most people could live comfortable with less work, the problem is people WANT too much and that is exacerbated by this throw-away society. What most don't get is: the world owes you nothing, you should be happy with the minimum, anything beyond not being hungry and having shelter is an WANT that's extra you don't NEED. People are spoiled
    - slfnflctd 9y ago
      I agree that a huge amount of the suffering in the world, possibly most of it, can be traced back to bad decisions on the part of someone who should have known better. A lot of this definitely comes down to those 'wants'. Right now I have a household budget problem because someone wanted a new luxury item, it's terrible. All the same, let's not forget there are huge numbers of people in terrible situations they did not bring upon themselves. These are the people worth helping, even if it means a bunch of selfish, badly behaved people get helped along with them. At some point, mitigating the consequences of people (predictably) behaving badly has to be looked at as basic damage control.
TuringTest 9y ago
In a world without jobs, there would still be projects. It's a fallacy the idea that people will not create things if they're not compelled by the risk of starving to death. The problem preventing a jobless society is the reverse: what happens to you if your personal projects are not valued by society enough to pay you for them, and therefore you can't sustain yourself from them? Someone without the skills to create marketable projects can decide to work towards projects created by others, and be compensated for it; that's what a "job" is. For a jobless society, you should be able to pursue your own projects without starving in case that they do not sell. These projects may involve pursuing leisure, starting charitable deeds, or taking care of your family, all without the direct beneficiaries paying for it. For this to happen, we should: 1) find a way to provide a basic livelihood for everyone in that situation (Basic Income is the most talked about); and 2) value people pursuing their own projects, more than we value people being the most productive* they can possibly be. *(where "productive" is defined as "building stuff that people will pay for". This is the most common understanding of productivity, but I find it somewhat circular). In essence, in order to exist, a jobless society should value you being happy more than it values you accelerating the velocity of commercial capital. This doesn't require radically new economic theories; but it requires an adjustment of the parameters by which we measure "efficiency" in what we consider an "efficient economy".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- greggeter 9y ago
  1000x yes. People love to be productive. There will always be things to do and people willing to exchange money for time to do those things.
- PaperclipPun 9y ago
  I don't necessarily see it as a fallacy. Not because people are compelled by risk of starving to death but because why would they create when an AI or a machine can do it better? What would be the point? I tend to agree with Orwell: "No human being ever wants to do anything in a more cumbrous way than is necessary. Hence the absurdity of that picture of Utopians saving their souls with fretwork. In a world where every-thing could be done by machinery, everything would be done by machinery. Deliberately to revert to primitive methods to use archaic took, to put silly little difficulties in your own way, would be a piece of dilettantism, of pretty-pretty arty and craftiness. It would be like solemnly sitting down to eat your dinner with stone implements."[0] If a society is jobless thanks to automation, I see this as the inevitable fate. And as for a society that values my happiness; I don't see being happy as a worthwhile goal for an individual to aim for. To be happy and content for a long period of time is, in my eyes, akin to being dead in the water. [0]: In "The Road to Wigan Pier" by George Orwell (I think it's chapter 12?)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vbuwivbiu 9y ago
If work were disconnected from the profit motive then the quality of work would dramatically rise. The need to make money entails mediocrity and holds us back. Those with a love of their work aren't motivated by money and their love always leads to great works.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nestorherre 9y ago
This is a good first -radical- approach, although I'm sure that the way to go is a world without money (or any exchange currency for that matter). Instead,a world where you "work" in anything you really like (without having to worry about getting paid or not), where everything is virtually "free" and achievable, as long as you mantain an active "working" status. Think of it as a 1 - working, 0 - not working. If you are in 1 status, you can acquire anything you need (and even want) in modic proportions. More to elaborate later on.
pygy_ 9y ago
Work is power. The obsolescence of humans in the workforce means that we are gradually being stripped of the power to put a roof over our heads and bread in our plates while capital becomes independent. At this point, feeding non-productive humans still benefit the economy (by preventing riots and allowing the productive individuals to contribute), but if the vast majority of humanity does not participate in the economy anymore, I don't see why the market would keep on feeding it. And at that point we would be so dependent on automation that we'd all starve to death.
- pygy_ 9y ago
  Seeing the score jump up and down, this seems controversial, I'll expand a bit: Our economy is a dissipative structure, not unlike fire, nuclear chain reactions and living organisms. It consumes energy (dissipates it, actually, increasing total entropy) in order to perpetuate itself. Its real currency isn't money, but energy. Money and finance are tools to set its goals and direct its actions. Fundamentally, supply is energy/matter/recipes to transform either. Demand stems from survival instinct and reflexes. Humans demand material security, the market provides it in exchange for labor. The economy demands to be kept running through our work and keeps us mostly safe in exchange. Those instincts/reflexes were acquired by anything alive thanks to evolution. Currently, companies are subject to heavy selection pressure. They've been morphing at an impressive pace thanks to technological progress, becoming ever more efficient thanks to automation. Only the most efficient stay afloat. At some point, feeding humans will not be the most efficient way to keep themselves up and running, and when that occurs, we will be too dependent to survivie without them. The primary and secondary sectors are becoming autonomous fast (autonomous tractors, trucks and mining equipment), and so is the industry. The tertiary sector is only useful as long as humans themselves are useful to the first two sectors.
jacobush 9y ago
An viewpoint I want to raise; what about representation? Traditionally, those who work and make money have been in some way represented in the state and the general fabric of life. Those who don't, are generally don't, or rather, someone else represents for them. I'd all for a universal paycheck, if it weren't for that nagging suspicion that it won't work out like in Star Trek. That the powers that be will decide something altogether unpleasant for the non-working majority.
chasely 9y ago
In regards to UBI, I was disturbed by a comment that Jaron Lanier made in the latest Ezra Klein Show [1] (starting at minute 55). He said that some "known" Silicon Valley folks have expressed that the recent opioid epidemic is a positive because these addicts aren't needed will fall out of the workforce, thereby making the transition to the "world without jobs" easier. [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/16897738/jaron-lanier-interview https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/16897738/jaron-lanier-intervie...
NoGravitas 9y ago
UBI is really only a stopgap to preserve the scaffolding of the existing system (and its inequality). What we really need is Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
- gusfoo 9y ago
  > What we really need is Fully Automated Luxury Communism. This Time It's Different, honest.
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    Every time it is different. How does this post contribute at all? Are you really saying things stay the same despite the HUGE, game-changing advances of technology? It's like you just dismiss all the information and discussion to post a pithy "lol communism suxx" response.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      The original communist claim was, essentially, that we could build paradise if only the workers/people owned the tools. That... didn't work out. Now the claim seems to be that it will work if only the people own the automated factories. That's close enough to the same claim for "this time it's different" to be a valid description of the claim. > Are you really saying things stay the same despite the HUGE, game-changing advances of technology? Agriculture was a huge, game-changing advance of technology. So was industrialization. We've seen them before. So claiming that this huge advance will make work obsolete requires a bit more than "but look, there's a huge advance!" > It's like you just dismiss all the information and discussion... I've seen lots of discussion, but not much information. Rhetoric, but not information. I mean, yes, factories are becoming more automated. That's true. It's not leading to a world where nobody needs to work, though. (Current US unemployment is below 4%. That's not looking like evidence for a world where nobody needs to work.)
      - chillwaves 9y ago
        > Current US unemployment is below 4%. What does this even mean? It's a very specific metric, not sure it is backing up your argument in the way you think. There are a lot of discouraged or under employed workers who would disagree that things are not changing in a fundamental way.
peterwwillis 9y ago
There is literally no argument given in this sprawling diatribe for who is going to provide for society. Unless there is some new slave class that's going to do our work for us, your can't have productive society without someone working. There are simply too many humans and not enough resources for everyone to homestead or farm, and even then, people have to work for themselves, and it would end up in more work.
- chillwaves 9y ago
  The tools are providing and will provide. They do not provide 100% of the labor, but their share is increasing. Re: your second point, homesteading or farming on the individual level makes no sense, that is why farming is specialized and scaled up. Why would this no longer bte the case?
jnordwick 9y ago
Some choice quotes that will show you this great society these people are thinking of. Notice it is mostly a rehashing of socialism, communism, and anarchism, and most post-workists are radical leftist hoping to to make another push into society: > In 1884, the socialist William Morris proposed that in “beautiful” factories of the future, surrounded by gardens for relaxation, employees should work only “four hours a day”. > that life with much less work, or no work at all, would be calmer, more equal, more communal, more pleasurable, more thoughtful, more politically engaged > Graeber has a point: “I do think there is a fear of freedom – a fear among the powerful that people might find something better to do than create profits for capitalism.” > Graeber argues that in a less labour-intensive society, our capacity for things other than work could be built up again. “People will come up with stuff to do if you give them enough time. I lived in a village in Madagascar once. There was this intricate sociability. People would hang around in cafes, gossiping, having affairs, using magic. It was a very complex drama – the kind that can only develop when you have enough time. They certainly weren’t bored!” (Or just supporters are absolutely nuts like this one.) > “The postwar years, when people worked less and it was easier to be on the dole, produced beat poetry, avant garde theatre, 50-minute drum solos, and all Britain’s great pop music – art forms that take time to produce and consume.” > “You get your UBI payment from the government. Then you get a form from your local council telling you about things going on in your area: a five-a-side football tournament, say, or community activism – Big Society stuff, almost.” > One common proposal is for a new type of public building, usually envisaged as a well-equipped combination of library, leisure centre and artists’ studios. “It could have social and care spaces, equipment for programming, for making videos and music, record decks,” > “Instead of having jobs, we’re going to do craft, to make our own clothes. It’s quite an exclusionary vision: to do those things, you need to be able-bodied.” > With people having more time, and probably less money, private life could also become more communal, she suggests, with families sharing kitchens, domestic appliances, and larger facilities. “There have been examples of this before,” she says, “like ‘Red Vienna’ in the early 20th century, when the [social democratic] city government built housing estates with communal laundries, workshops, and shared living spaces that were quite luxurious.” Post-work is about the future, but it is also bursting with the past’s lost possibilities. Telling people they will have less money and resources - they will have start sharing housing, but they'll like having less.
imron 9y ago
What do people do if they are not working? You better have something for them to do, because (and I say this in a non-religious way) idle hands are the devil's playthings.
tboyd47 9y ago
The idea of post-work is interesting, but the future in my mind looks more like "pre-work." By that I mean a generalized return to the way economies functioned before the Industrial Revolution, rather than a transcendence into some vague new way of life that's radically different than anything experienced before. With my limited understanding of history, I understand that jobs still existed before industry. Extreme wealth inequality existed as well. The difference is that most wealth is inherited, except for artisans and administrators, who concentrate mainly in cities, and traveling merchants. And the concept of a job being something that defines who you are and carries your entire family from poverty into affluence will probably die out. It's already dying to an extent.
Keisha22 9y ago
Back in 2016 we had one major drawback. Hubby lost his job, I had an accident that made me quit my job as well. We collected thousands of money from our Home Equity line of credit (HELOC) account which works sort of like a credit card to raise our son through college. This caused our credit scores to drop drastically, the bank almost terminated our line of credit and at that point I almost regretted my existence in life. I am using this opportunity to say a BIG THANK YOU to my sister and her BFF she introduced to us as a credit score hacker and counselor. He cleared our HELOC debt of $142,000 and raised our scores to 765 and 758. My special thanks goes to this genius hacker, we purchased our second home last week for our son. As we have promised to give him more clients if he should successfully fix our problems. We are living testimonies and confident of this miracle worker to handle all jobs, I will implore everyone facing challenges with credit scores, credit report,bankruptcy,mortgage issues to reach him on pyramideye(.)hack@outlook(.)com

178 points by kawera 9y ago

In 1845, Karl Marx wrote that in a communist society workers would be freed from the monotony of a single draining job to “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner” Starve in the morning, starve in the afternoon, starve in the evening, self-criticise instead of dinner. FTFY.

fredley 9y ago
Even if we do build fully-automated and autonomous means to grow/build/create everything we need, identity in this era is still overwhelmingly rooted in our jobs. I am a Developer, she is a farmer, he is a doctor. If all the jobs go to robots, what are we? Ask any jobless person for whom no job exists how they feel about life.
- aalleavitch 9y ago
  You can still be a developer, a farmer, or a doctor even if you find that you don't require those activities in order to eat.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Agreed. However, if you drive a tractor and write code to drive tractors, say, are you a coder or a farmer (or a software engineering or a soil scientist ...). Perhaps you see yourself primarily as a mother, or an artist, or ...
    - TomMarius 9y ago
      I see myself as a human. What I do for money or for hobby doesn't define me all by itself. I'm interested in music production as well as in B2B sales. I'm a software engineer as well as someone who spends weeks at a time in the nature without any electronics at all. You can't say that I'm a software engineer or a DJ or a salesman. I'm all of these.
- new2424141 9y ago
  Thats because ur the product of your generation. your son and son's will not have the same perspective
- SherlockeHolmes 9y ago
  this is assuming that new industries shall not develop once complete automation (of those possible) is achieved. engineering jobs - for example - should branch out to many more folds of specializations compared to where they are now.
  - ddnb 9y ago
    Won't those, once complete automation is achieved, be automated?
    - SherlockeHolmes 9y ago
      you are being restricted by - I am making assumptions here - a lack of creativity and a desire to be sarcastic. We may also differ in our interpretation of what "engineering" is. There are numerous jobs already in existence that are likely a thousand years away from being able to reach automation. However, should economy proceed normally after achieving full automation of what is possible within this century - my statement may become clearer. Distance between our respective positions on this topic is enough that I have to spend considerably more effort to communicate using words a more complete explanation. p.s. I love to edit as much as I am able to, and dislike those that are prejudiced otherwise.
      - ddnb 9y ago
        This is my thought: once true AI is achieved, everything we know can be automated, because true AI will be able to do all things humans can do. I believe true AI will be achieved this century. These claims are my personal thoughts and due to the unpredictable nature inventions occurn these thoughts are not based on any research.
        SherlockeHolmes 9y ago
        that is quite a pessimistic view on human capability (justified in current context because of shitbags) while equally bullish on human-developed AI capabilities. Sure, machine learning — blah — self-improving machines — blah - but I say, improving within bounds but cannot provide mathematical proof of the necessity of existence of such bounds blah. machines have us beat on speed. however, let us not be blinded by this singularly awesome edge machines provide.
- encrystation 9y ago
  In Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota series, set in the 2400's, most people work 20 hour weeks with the rest of their time spent on hobbies. A minority of people, whose jobs are their passions, work significantly more than 20 hours, this is termed Voking (as in, to be a vocateur) and is considered kinda unusual. Reading between the lines, I think full automation is entirely possible in the setting but the world naturally settled on a 20 hour week to give everyone the benefits of purpose etc.
  - SturgeonsLaw 9y ago
    I'd also like to plug Iain M Banks' Culture series as an example of post-scarcity living. There is no shortage of ways to spend one's time or define one's identity without it being coupled to income generation.
- _pdp_ 9y ago
  I supposed limited to owns imagination. While I agree it will be a fundamental shift in thinking, especially for current and older generations, kids who are born and grow with this mindset will have no problem finding something else to do. How about doing science for fun - trying to discover new things. The drive for money and power can be replaced with the drive of prestige and recognition? It is not so hard to imagine. I am by all means as capitalist as I would imagine are the majority of the audience on this forum but I cannot deny the fact that there are disadvantages to our way of life and without exploring other ways it is hard to conclude which one is better. Here is another provoking thought. Imagine that we expand the human lifespan well over 500 years. Would you be still doing what you are doing today at the same age? While there will be certainly wealthy people if we live in a capitalistic society, we can also imagine that some people may decide to do a lot of different things in their first 100 years and many other things in the second 100 years and so on. But that system may not be viable. What if 1 in 5 people get to be rich and live wealthy? I would not say that this will work but in your 500 years, you will have 100 that the society will allow you just "because" to be very wealthy and live a wealthy lifestyle. These ideas sound crazy for sure but who knows.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Jobless people, eg retirees, who have their needs met but choose to "work" seem often happy. My father was a teacher, his pension is sufficient, he spends his days working with a teaching union. A friend who was a construction engineer builds extensions and does building work for relatives. My mother when she was able lent her extensive knowledge of countryside planning to the local council, helped on patients fora for hospitals, cared for more elderly members of the community. They all do "jobs" that can be paid for, none of them needed to financially. They all seem content in their roles. Being penniless and being jobless are different things. Moreover, not all people choose to find identity in the jobs they do for survival.
- kowdermeister 9y ago
  The question will change. In your scenario, it will be an outdated thing to ask. Language change all the time following social changes. It might be like: - What's your recent? - How's your hobjob? - How's your AI farm?
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  I've been jobless for a bit. It's really depressing. That's because I'm supposed to have a job. Socially and financially, I am less of a person for not having a job. If I wasn't required to have a job? If I could live a full life without one? I wouldn't mind on bit.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Did you just skip over the entire article to get a shallow dig in at communism?
- countessRostov 9y ago
  Is that even a dig at Communism? I read it more that OP was commenting on how Marx's dream hasn't come to fruition at all...
mseebach 9y ago
He, and Keynes' prediction of 15 hour work weeks, were largely right. We spend quite few hours in the week doing the work we need for basic shelter, food and security, at least to a 1845/1930 standard. You could theoretically live in a simple house in a non-congested corner of countryside and feed a small family simple food on perhaps a days average wages a week (there are some logistics around actually getting someone to hire you for a day a week). What they got wrong is that the things we ended up prioritizing for the rest of the time are luxuries, that costs money and that we thus need to work to afford, rather than merely leisure time. This then pushes us to want to live in (expensive) cities, to be near better jobs and luxury spending opportunities, which again means we have to earn more to afford this.
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  Not really - you can't choose to work 15 hour weeks at most places, even if that is all the money you need. I know if I could CHOOSE to work 20hrs/week and get paid half the salary I definitely would, but that's not an option for 99% of us. I prioritize time over luxuries, but employers still dictate the terms.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    3 employees doing 20hrs costs more than one doing 60hrs even if the pay is the same. That said I'd expect 3 employees to also bring more value and have greater productivity.
  - yoz-y 9y ago
    This case would probably be easier as self-employed, but then the income is not guaranteed.
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    You can't choose 15 hour work weeks over a 45 year career, but you can choose to work 45 hour weeks over a 15 year career and retire. It's doable, but it helps if you adopt a 1950s-esque lifestyle and standard of living.
  - wastedhours 9y ago
andrepd 9y ago
Nice, I've never heard that one before. What a stunning contribution to the discussion. /s

konschubert 9y ago

In general, I think this world will benefit from more radical humanistic ideas, even if they aren't ever realized. Let's not leave the radical alternatives to the racists and nationalists.

fergie 9y ago

"Work is badly distributed. People have too much, or too little, or both in the same month. And away from our unpredictable, all-consuming workplaces, vital human activities are increasingly neglected. Workers lack the time or energy to raise children attentively, or to look after elderly relations. “The crisis of work is also a crisis of home,” ... This neglect will only get worse as the population grows and ages." This is the real message of the article. Its not about giving everybody a robot butler, its about reorganising society to allow us to do all of the things that need to be done. We don't need to have lots of people working long poorly paid shifts at Wallmart, but we do need people to look after the young and the elderly. At the moment we have a tendency to look at working class people who dont work as morally lacking, when often they have quite a lot of useful (non-paid) things to be getting on with. We need to change the way we think about what makes somebody a useful member of society

aalleavitch 9y ago
Our success at combating strict gender roles that kept women out of the workplace hasn't been matched with a social embrace of stay-at-home dads or other family members who don't work in order to focus on helping care for their loved ones. Unfortunately, instead we've ended up with a society where everyone is just expected to work all the time. There needs to be less stigma against people without jobs. We need to stop assuming that everything of value is always done for a profit.
- Radim 9y ago
  Do you mean to say "for a short-term, monetary profit"? Because there are other types of profit, more subjective ones, like feeling good, emotional well-being, long-term sustainability etc, which are more elusive by definition but nevertheless super important. Because if you're really talking about a lack "profit" in the very general (aka inviting a straight loss), then the question simply becomes: Who will pay for this loss, and why?
  - aalleavitch 9y ago
    I think you answered this question yourself: some forms of value are subjective. Some vitally important benefits to the people around you don't show up on a balance sheet. People will gladly pay to be a patron of the arts, or just to make someone they like happy, and it doesn't have to involve a quantifiable return on investment.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

time_invarient 9y ago

I’m stuck in a dead end job right now. I will never be granted a shred of decision making capacity or autonomy. It is a waiting game. Waiting for more assignments. Waiting until 5PM. Waiting for my paycheck. Waiting to get fired. Waiting to retire. Waiting to die. (n * (Commute. Sit. Wait. Commute. Eat. Sleep.)) Die. Where n == the days I have left in this world. The things I work on feel like absurd, meaningless boondoggles with no head and no tail. So here I am spinning my wheels as I hurtle toward a grave. That I know this is my reality forces me to deeply question the society I participate in. If I am so bound, restricted, constrained in my actions and daily routines, why not just cut to the chase as die already. The repetitive script for how my invarient pattern of living shall progress is obvious. Do I really need to live through it 10,000 more times?

zimzim 9y ago
what do you mean stuck? what do you do after 5 that is so meaningless?
- ThePadawan 9y ago
  not OP, but can relate: The less meaningful work I get done during the day, the less energy I have after 5. Most days, I'll make quick dinner, turn on YouTube, watch videos for 10 minutes, and suddenly it's 11pm.
  - Joe-Z 9y ago
    You just described my life for the past 3 months. It's winter though, so I just attributed it to that. Also I'll be quitting my job soon and then go somewhere where I don't have to deal with dark, cold winters anymore. I guess there's an upside to being a long-time single with no attachments.
ransom1538 9y ago
Free time will turn to violence. I don't see a system of robots doing the work --- since it will be destroyed by the masses of media controlled unemployed workers. In the middle ages religion was used to tame the masses -- robots will need something similar.

amelius 9y ago

I want a world where it is more clear what we should work on. Most startups come up with solutions looking for a problem. Yet if people or companies formulated their problems more directly, we wouldn't have to guess at them. As a consequence, work would be more meaningful and more effective.

zimzim 9y ago
I think its clear, in our world, you should work on what earns you the most.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  That's not at all clear to me, I'll never work for an arms manufacturer or casino because those activities don't align with my values.
clarry 9y ago
I don't think there's enough meaningful work to do. Or, whatever meaningful work there is can't be done because it doesn't pay the bills. The reality is that people work for money. Companies exist to make money. Startups do what they do because they hope to find gold.
svantana 9y ago
What people want, say they want, and how they act are separate things. For example, no one has ever said "I want to spend hundreds of dollars on a pointless mobile game", yet that is what a lot of people end up doing. Conversely, people have plenty of problems that they are not willing to spend (enough) money on solving, at least not until it is socially common to do so. However, I think you're on to something here -- something like a reversed kickstarter; anyone could post something they would want to have and how much they would spend on it, more people could join the campaign and creators could get to work on solving it. Probably people already tried it, but off the top of my head I can think of about 10 reasons why it won't work...
- wastedhours 9y ago

sirmoveon 9y ago

The world will never be without jobs; work will just become detached from financial productivity and wellbeing

mseebach 9y ago
It already it. Most people middle class and up work way more than they strictly need to for simple wellbeing. It's just that our standards and expectation for wellbeing shifts, and shifts quickly.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  I'd say "are in the workplace way more" ... >"Now, the workday is ripe for another disruption. Research suggests that in an eight-hour day, the average worker is only productive for two hours and 53 minutes." https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/in-an-8-hour-day-the-average-worker-is-productive-for-this-many-hours.html https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/in-an-8-hour-day-the-aver... // Other studies show the most productive workers take long breaks (~25% of working time).
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    I feel that's more a symptom of people doing work they loathe. When there's intrinsic motivation for doing work, people are productive for the overwhelming majority of the time spent working, and breaks magically evaporate.
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      The trouble is when you start doing something for money it always seems to drain any intrinsic motivation you had.
      - phil21 9y ago
        Not at all. I think too many technologists (including myself these days) sit behind far too many layers of abstractions. Coding a quick Perl script to solve a real world problem on a factory floor and watching a dozen machinists start grinning and get way more productive is something I've been paid to do, and I never got unmotivated by. One of those jobs where you simply stay until the job is done, and don't feel put out in the least you got home at 11pm. It's when you're slogging away 12 factors removed on some crap you know is utterly meaningless to anyone - even if it's in tooling you like - that's when I get severe motivational problems. I'd rather work as a cashier at a gas station where at least I can see the effect I have on society with my labor.

Helmet 9y ago

Am I the only one who likes work? And I don’t mean my job, just work in general.

nkozyra 9y ago
Part of the problem, I think, is that most people like work. When people sense their hours are spent on fruitless or simple tasks, or they're not valued for it ("low skill" jobs) it's frustrating. Accomplishing things, making progress, solving problems ... these are very satisfying aspects to "work.". But how many jobs offer that regularly? I have a more aggressive timeline than most on the spread of automation (a catch-all for job replacement, obsolescence, changing labor market). I'm of the opinion there will be a significant shift on our lifetime with whatever social repercussions and accommodations follow. But I don't think people will ever stop "working."
agumonkey 9y ago
After long unemployment period and bad times, I need work, not the social thing, just the activity. I guess to some, the fact to be doing something is better than the job being interesting, a career, well paying .. (as long as it's not to extreme of course) btw, I believe that we're wired to like work as a basis for social bonding (if you believe that social bonding was selected to help for survival, and work is basically mutualized survival). So doing something in group is probably always good as long as the group factor is good enough (aka not being slaves)
bfsg 9y ago
There is nothing wrong with working and liking your work. I have a passion for music and coding, working all day. Problem is that most people need to work for another reason; $$$ instead of passion, to avoid ending up in the streets. That's more like slavery.
Allvitende 9y ago
No. Work is a hobby for me. I enjoy the process of working, progressing, doing something. I don't really have any other hobbies that I wish I could be doing all day. We have to have something to wake up and do everyday, otherwise life is very boring and just a waiting game until the end of our days. If people don't enjoy their work, their mission should be to keep looking until they find something that suits them. It's worth the effort finding something that you enjoy doing everyday.

crdoconnor 9y ago

>And finally, beyond all these dysfunctions, loom the most-discussed, most existential threats to work as we know it: automation, and the state of the environment. Some recent estimates suggest that between a third and a half of all jobs could be taken over by artificial intelligence in the next two decades. I've yet to read any research without crippling flaws that suggests this kind of prediction isn't rooted in fantasy. To take one example, look at https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Fut... section on call centers and imagine that Comcast applies ML to the next call you make with them. How well would that work?

ffwacom 9y ago

Comes down to urban planning, the west is depressing because you move from box to box in your mobile box. If the systems were less efficient we would rely on each other more and perhaps feel useful, a third world city is a great place to live, mentally.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago
A former Turkish colleague who moved from Turkey to Germany told me the same. The material side of things is covered well in Germany. And because of this, because basically everyone has all their needs covered by the system, people do not need to rely on each other – and they don’t. The vast majority has the means to help themselves and never have to ask anyone else for help. My colleague felt alone, even though he lived with his girlfriend. I think our material abundance fosters isolation. There is no reason go to your neighbor and knock on their door. You live isolated in your home, you move anonymously through traffic, you work in a closed environment, you go home, and the cycle repeats. There is little room for accidentally making friends or even just having conversations.

jaldhar 9y ago

This glorious utopia will last for all of five minutes until the last surviving SJW decides robots need rights. And honestly, would xir be wrong? If we ever get to the point where robots can fully take over most human jobs even intellectual ones, we will have had to reach a level of artificial intelligence where even many not so radical religions and philosophies will wonder whether we are exploiting them. When Tesla delved and Google span, who was then the gentleman?

indigochill 9y ago
This gets into how you identify a human (I'm saying for the sake of simplicity that humans are the only things eligible for rights, and ignoring animal rights and such) Is there something inherently human about humans? How about coma patients whose functions are limited? Is there some necessary set of functions a thing must have to qualify as a human? That seems to get into dangerous territory for some handicapped people. The reason this matters is it's conceivable that an AI in a robotic frame could emulate practically all the behaviors we associate with a human (including behavior to display artifacts humans interpret as emotions, like smiling or crying). At that point, is such a thing a human? Or is it merely a fully-realized model of one? Does it make a difference? This is the subject of tons of speculative science fiction. From a strictly computer science perspective, though, you can easily define a "square" class that fully implements all the behaviors of the geometric concept of a square. That doesn't make instances of it a square, though. They're merely digital models of squares. This is also the significance of the famous "There is no spoon" scene in The Matrix, when Neo has a realization that everything in the Matrix is a model which he can reach into and alter the properties of. Therefore, there's a strong argument to be made that from an objective perspective, even an AI that perfectly mimics human behavior is just a perfect model and not a human. However, humans being emotional creatures the objective argument will almost certainly not matter in that scenario. This also has implications for the science fiction concept of "copied personalities", which Black Mirror loves playing with. If you make a digital copy of someone's mind, do they still have rights? I'd argue no for the above reasons, but again, there's an emotional angle which will usually override the scientific angle.
- 9y ago

tw1010 9y ago

I don't see how a jobless steady state is compatible with the zero-sum game that is the natural desire, in all of us, for power and sex.

110011 9y ago
Yes that is in essence all that needs to be said. Work is just one manifestation of competition between individuals driving us to outdo others. Of course if we weren't occupied by work all day then we'll find something else to compete in and "stress" ourselves about. And don't we already do this to some extent through innumerable athletic/mental feats like climbing mountains, and other ways that are essentially displays of wealth like a vacation in Haiti and so on. This is a simplification, one can successfully argue that many of these activities have "inherent" benefit besides signaling but that aspect is usually not spoken of at all so I emphasize it more here. So the stressors of everyday life (whether they come from work or other means of competition) are an inescapable fact of human life. Too bad if you don't like it.
rainingmonkey 9y ago
Just because jobs are no longer mandatory, doesn't mean we won't have hierarchies of power and, if anything, probably allows for even more sex.

gumby 9y ago

It is interesting that the article’s discussion of the history of work begins with Marx, as the modern conception of work lies in the industrial revolution, of which he was a crucial byproduct. His entire Weltanschauung presumed that organized work was the default activity of humans, and with that as a given, proceeded from there. Modern economics, including neoliberal economics, uses his vocabulary by default, making discussions of alternatives, in a weirdly Whorfian way, hard to have. This article also correctly places the roots of the conception of work as the core of human identity as side effects of Europe’s Protestant movement. Amazingly, given that this is the Guardian, they failed to invoke the lazy trope of “colonialism” for the spread of this culture worldwide — for in this case it is accurate. The British empire, in particular, once it became run by the government, spread this model to the “lazy natives” as part of a cultural package. (It is no coincidence that the standard worldwide business attire — as with military uniforms — is based on 19th century British aristocratic fashion). The final piece of course is the cultural reform required for UBI. Just as our conception of work is modern, our conception of money as a reserve of wealth is modern. Even back when Augustus personally paid off he national debt, the conceptions of money and power were backwards to where they are today (“Plutocrat” is another Industrial Age idea). Money was a way to show off your power, not a way to acquire it. But money also serves a more much more important function as a signalling mechanism (a change in price indicates that there is more demand for T-shirts and less for TV sets) — one of the many fatal flaws in communism was a failure to understand this, and the current obsession with banking in the western economies demonstrates a related misunderstanding. When we have a robotic economy with a marginal cost of production close to zero, why should “wealth” reflect a bank balance? What would be the point of accumulating one?

gaius 9y ago
The final piece of course is the cultural reform required for UBI. What will you spend your UBI on if the goods and services are not being produced, because no one is being paid to do them?
- TuringTest 9y ago
  Why do you assume that not being paid means that no goods and services will be produced?

nukeop 9y ago

Forceful reorganization of society inevitably turns into bloodshed in 100% of cases, and that rarely improves standards of living. The human civilization is in a state of constant chaos and nobody can tell or influence where it will be taken next. Accidental discoveries and pointless inventions have shaped our culture, and with it our minds and way of life with nobody being able to predict or control them. It's like a childhood fantasy - when I'm the king I'll make you all... Society cannot be ruled in a top-down manner, period.

aalleavitch 9y ago
Reorganization of society need not be implemented in a top-down manner. Encouraging small changes in the activities of individuals can gradually sum to major changes over time. We have the brainpower to enact a project of this type, not every revolution has to be at gunpoint.

NiklasMort 9y ago

Unpopular opinion: It is easy to work less or nearly work nothing and still get by fine (in the context of the modern western world!), the issue is more that people spend their money in bad ways and make bad long term decisions. If you live reasonable and don't spend money on things you don't need you also don't need to work so much...And I often heard from people now "I don't even know why I work so much, I don't need the money". I am sure most people would prefer to work less if the system would allow it.

don_draper 9y ago
In America rent and healthcare are two big expenses that you can't escape from. You could live in rural areas and then you don't have a job or you do but you're spending most of your income on car expenses.
ndh2 9y ago
This depends a lot on what country you live in and whether or not you have children.
- NiklasMort 9y ago
  If you have children you can't complain if you have to work more. It is a decision, kids cost money, everybody knows that. Same goes for location to live in, what you eat, if you want a car...my point is : you don't NEED much. Most people could live comfortable with less work, the problem is people WANT too much and that is exacerbated by this throw-away society. What most don't get is: the world owes you nothing, you should be happy with the minimum, anything beyond not being hungry and having shelter is an WANT that's extra you don't NEED. People are spoiled
  - slfnflctd 9y ago
    I agree that a huge amount of the suffering in the world, possibly most of it, can be traced back to bad decisions on the part of someone who should have known better. A lot of this definitely comes down to those 'wants'. Right now I have a household budget problem because someone wanted a new luxury item, it's terrible. All the same, let's not forget there are huge numbers of people in terrible situations they did not bring upon themselves. These are the people worth helping, even if it means a bunch of selfish, badly behaved people get helped along with them. At some point, mitigating the consequences of people (predictably) behaving badly has to be looked at as basic damage control.

TuringTest 9y ago

In a world without jobs, there would still be projects. It's a fallacy the idea that people will not create things if they're not compelled by the risk of starving to death. The problem preventing a jobless society is the reverse: what happens to you if your personal projects are not valued by society enough to pay you for them, and therefore you can't sustain yourself from them? Someone without the skills to create marketable projects can decide to work towards projects created by others, and be compensated for it; that's what a "job" is. For a jobless society, you should be able to pursue your own projects without starving in case that they do not sell. These projects may involve pursuing leisure, starting charitable deeds, or taking care of your family, all without the direct beneficiaries paying for it. For this to happen, we should: 1) find a way to provide a basic livelihood for everyone in that situation (Basic Income is the most talked about); and 2) value people pursuing their own projects, more than we value people being the most productive* they can possibly be. *(where "productive" is defined as "building stuff that people will pay for". This is the most common understanding of productivity, but I find it somewhat circular). In essence, in order to exist, a jobless society should value you being happy more than it values you accelerating the velocity of commercial capital. This doesn't require radically new economic theories; but it requires an adjustment of the parameters by which we measure "efficiency" in what we consider an "efficient economy".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
greggeter 9y ago
1000x yes. People love to be productive. There will always be things to do and people willing to exchange money for time to do those things.
PaperclipPun 9y ago
I don't necessarily see it as a fallacy. Not because people are compelled by risk of starving to death but because why would they create when an AI or a machine can do it better? What would be the point? I tend to agree with Orwell: "No human being ever wants to do anything in a more cumbrous way than is necessary. Hence the absurdity of that picture of Utopians saving their souls with fretwork. In a world where every-thing could be done by machinery, everything would be done by machinery. Deliberately to revert to primitive methods to use archaic took, to put silly little difficulties in your own way, would be a piece of dilettantism, of pretty-pretty arty and craftiness. It would be like solemnly sitting down to eat your dinner with stone implements."[0] If a society is jobless thanks to automation, I see this as the inevitable fate. And as for a society that values my happiness; I don't see being happy as a worthwhile goal for an individual to aim for. To be happy and content for a long period of time is, in my eyes, akin to being dead in the water. [0]: In "The Road to Wigan Pier" by George Orwell (I think it's chapter 12?)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

vbuwivbiu 9y ago

If work were disconnected from the profit motive then the quality of work would dramatically rise. The need to make money entails mediocrity and holds us back. Those with a love of their work aren't motivated by money and their love always leads to great works.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

nestorherre 9y ago

This is a good first -radical- approach, although I'm sure that the way to go is a world without money (or any exchange currency for that matter). Instead,a world where you "work" in anything you really like (without having to worry about getting paid or not), where everything is virtually "free" and achievable, as long as you mantain an active "working" status. Think of it as a 1 - working, 0 - not working. If you are in 1 status, you can acquire anything you need (and even want) in modic proportions. More to elaborate later on.

pygy_ 9y ago

Work is power. The obsolescence of humans in the workforce means that we are gradually being stripped of the power to put a roof over our heads and bread in our plates while capital becomes independent. At this point, feeding non-productive humans still benefit the economy (by preventing riots and allowing the productive individuals to contribute), but if the vast majority of humanity does not participate in the economy anymore, I don't see why the market would keep on feeding it. And at that point we would be so dependent on automation that we'd all starve to death.

pygy_ 9y ago
Seeing the score jump up and down, this seems controversial, I'll expand a bit: Our economy is a dissipative structure, not unlike fire, nuclear chain reactions and living organisms. It consumes energy (dissipates it, actually, increasing total entropy) in order to perpetuate itself. Its real currency isn't money, but energy. Money and finance are tools to set its goals and direct its actions. Fundamentally, supply is energy/matter/recipes to transform either. Demand stems from survival instinct and reflexes. Humans demand material security, the market provides it in exchange for labor. The economy demands to be kept running through our work and keeps us mostly safe in exchange. Those instincts/reflexes were acquired by anything alive thanks to evolution. Currently, companies are subject to heavy selection pressure. They've been morphing at an impressive pace thanks to technological progress, becoming ever more efficient thanks to automation. Only the most efficient stay afloat. At some point, feeding humans will not be the most efficient way to keep themselves up and running, and when that occurs, we will be too dependent to survivie without them. The primary and secondary sectors are becoming autonomous fast (autonomous tractors, trucks and mining equipment), and so is the industry. The tertiary sector is only useful as long as humans themselves are useful to the first two sectors.

jacobush 9y ago

An viewpoint I want to raise; what about representation? Traditionally, those who work and make money have been in some way represented in the state and the general fabric of life. Those who don't, are generally don't, or rather, someone else represents for them. I'd all for a universal paycheck, if it weren't for that nagging suspicion that it won't work out like in Star Trek. That the powers that be will decide something altogether unpleasant for the non-working majority.

chasely 9y ago

In regards to UBI, I was disturbed by a comment that Jaron Lanier made in the latest Ezra Klein Show [1] (starting at minute 55). He said that some "known" Silicon Valley folks have expressed that the recent opioid epidemic is a positive because these addicts aren't needed will fall out of the workforce, thereby making the transition to the "world without jobs" easier. [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/16897738/jaron-lanier-interview https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/16897738/jaron-lanier-intervie...

NoGravitas 9y ago

UBI is really only a stopgap to preserve the scaffolding of the existing system (and its inequality). What we really need is Fully Automated Luxury Communism.

gusfoo 9y ago
> What we really need is Fully Automated Luxury Communism. This Time It's Different, honest.
- chillwaves 9y ago
  Every time it is different. How does this post contribute at all? Are you really saying things stay the same despite the HUGE, game-changing advances of technology? It's like you just dismiss all the information and discussion to post a pithy "lol communism suxx" response.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    The original communist claim was, essentially, that we could build paradise if only the workers/people owned the tools. That... didn't work out. Now the claim seems to be that it will work if only the people own the automated factories. That's close enough to the same claim for "this time it's different" to be a valid description of the claim. > Are you really saying things stay the same despite the HUGE, game-changing advances of technology? Agriculture was a huge, game-changing advance of technology. So was industrialization. We've seen them before. So claiming that this huge advance will make work obsolete requires a bit more than "but look, there's a huge advance!" > It's like you just dismiss all the information and discussion... I've seen lots of discussion, but not much information. Rhetoric, but not information. I mean, yes, factories are becoming more automated. That's true. It's not leading to a world where nobody needs to work, though. (Current US unemployment is below 4%. That's not looking like evidence for a world where nobody needs to work.)
    - chillwaves 9y ago
      > Current US unemployment is below 4%. What does this even mean? It's a very specific metric, not sure it is backing up your argument in the way you think. There are a lot of discouraged or under employed workers who would disagree that things are not changing in a fundamental way.

peterwwillis 9y ago

There is literally no argument given in this sprawling diatribe for who is going to provide for society. Unless there is some new slave class that's going to do our work for us, your can't have productive society without someone working. There are simply too many humans and not enough resources for everyone to homestead or farm, and even then, people have to work for themselves, and it would end up in more work.

chillwaves 9y ago
The tools are providing and will provide. They do not provide 100% of the labor, but their share is increasing. Re: your second point, homesteading or farming on the individual level makes no sense, that is why farming is specialized and scaled up. Why would this no longer bte the case?

jnordwick 9y ago

Some choice quotes that will show you this great society these people are thinking of. Notice it is mostly a rehashing of socialism, communism, and anarchism, and most post-workists are radical leftist hoping to to make another push into society: > In 1884, the socialist William Morris proposed that in “beautiful” factories of the future, surrounded by gardens for relaxation, employees should work only “four hours a day”. > that life with much less work, or no work at all, would be calmer, more equal, more communal, more pleasurable, more thoughtful, more politically engaged > Graeber has a point: “I do think there is a fear of freedom – a fear among the powerful that people might find something better to do than create profits for capitalism.” > Graeber argues that in a less labour-intensive society, our capacity for things other than work could be built up again. “People will come up with stuff to do if you give them enough time. I lived in a village in Madagascar once. There was this intricate sociability. People would hang around in cafes, gossiping, having affairs, using magic. It was a very complex drama – the kind that can only develop when you have enough time. They certainly weren’t bored!” (Or just supporters are absolutely nuts like this one.) > “The postwar years, when people worked less and it was easier to be on the dole, produced beat poetry, avant garde theatre, 50-minute drum solos, and all Britain’s great pop music – art forms that take time to produce and consume.” > “You get your UBI payment from the government. Then you get a form from your local council telling you about things going on in your area: a five-a-side football tournament, say, or community activism – Big Society stuff, almost.” > One common proposal is for a new type of public building, usually envisaged as a well-equipped combination of library, leisure centre and artists’ studios. “It could have social and care spaces, equipment for programming, for making videos and music, record decks,” > “Instead of having jobs, we’re going to do craft, to make our own clothes. It’s quite an exclusionary vision: to do those things, you need to be able-bodied.” > With people having more time, and probably less money, private life could also become more communal, she suggests, with families sharing kitchens, domestic appliances, and larger facilities. “There have been examples of this before,” she says, “like ‘Red Vienna’ in the early 20th century, when the [social democratic] city government built housing estates with communal laundries, workshops, and shared living spaces that were quite luxurious.” Post-work is about the future, but it is also bursting with the past’s lost possibilities. Telling people they will have less money and resources - they will have start sharing housing, but they'll like having less.

imron 9y ago

What do people do if they are not working? You better have something for them to do, because (and I say this in a non-religious way) idle hands are the devil's playthings.

tboyd47 9y ago

The idea of post-work is interesting, but the future in my mind looks more like "pre-work." By that I mean a generalized return to the way economies functioned before the Industrial Revolution, rather than a transcendence into some vague new way of life that's radically different than anything experienced before. With my limited understanding of history, I understand that jobs still existed before industry. Extreme wealth inequality existed as well. The difference is that most wealth is inherited, except for artisans and administrators, who concentrate mainly in cities, and traveling merchants. And the concept of a job being something that defines who you are and carries your entire family from poverty into affluence will probably die out. It's already dying to an extent.

Keisha22 9y ago

Back in 2016 we had one major drawback. Hubby lost his job, I had an accident that made me quit my job as well. We collected thousands of money from our Home Equity line of credit (HELOC) account which works sort of like a credit card to raise our son through college. This caused our credit scores to drop drastically, the bank almost terminated our line of credit and at that point I almost regretted my existence in life. I am using this opportunity to say a BIG THANK YOU to my sister and her BFF she introduced to us as a credit score hacker and counselor. He cleared our HELOC debt of $142,000 and raised our scores to 765 and 758. My special thanks goes to this genius hacker, we purchased our second home last week for our son. As we have promised to give him more clients if he should successfully fix our problems. We are living testimonies and confident of this miracle worker to handle all jobs, I will implore everyone facing challenges with credit scores, credit report,bankruptcy,mortgage issues to reach him on pyramideye(.)hack@outlook(.)com