3 ms·

Efficiency isn't an absolute good. It can, in cases, be an unambiguous bad. If, for example, we're going to premise a society on "having jobs" then efficiency-

by rosser 9y ago

Efficiency isn't an absolute good. It can, in cases, be an unambiguous bad. If, for example, we're going to premise a society on "having jobs" then efficiency-ing those jobs out of existence might not be the wisest move, all in — especially if, to The Fine Article's point, we do so in a manner that adversely affects some regions disproportionately. (Yes, there are always alternative jobs. They may not be palatable, or the society in question may not offer meaningful forms of skills transitioning. Or people might be stuck where they are for reasons beyond their control. "But efficiency!" isn't very comforting to someone who's out of work and starving.) EDIT: phrasing.

bsder 9y ago
> Yes, there are always alternative jobs. We have no proof of this, and the "gig economy" suggests quite strongly to the contrary. Given that the "gig economy" generally represents jobs of last resort, what happens when we automate those away?
- rosser 9y ago
  You're right; I spoke hyperbolically, to fend off pointless counter-arguments of the "the invention of cars put buggy-whip manufacturers out of business, but look how many jobs that created!" sort. In the short-to-medium term, there aren't enough jobs to go around. Automation is only making that worse, and we haven't yet come up with a meaningful alternative for the folks who are being displaced. As for the long term, my crystal ball doesn't work too well, that far out. Maybe we will come up with something for them, but the alternatives I've seen tossed around suggest everyone will end up trying to market someone else's products, or services jobs. It doesn't strike me as readily apparent there will be enough of those jobs to go around, either. So, it's perhaps more accurate to say "there are always alternative jobs, but probably not for everyone", which really just reinforces the point that efficiency-ing away this thing we've predicated the functioning of our society upon doesn't ultimately serve us very well.

by rosser 9y ago

bsder 9y ago

> Yes, there are always alternative jobs. We have no proof of this, and the "gig economy" suggests quite strongly to the contrary. Given that the "gig economy" generally represents jobs of last resort, what happens when we automate those away?

rosser 9y ago
You're right; I spoke hyperbolically, to fend off pointless counter-arguments of the "the invention of cars put buggy-whip manufacturers out of business, but look how many jobs that created!" sort. In the short-to-medium term, there aren't enough jobs to go around. Automation is only making that worse, and we haven't yet come up with a meaningful alternative for the folks who are being displaced. As for the long term, my crystal ball doesn't work too well, that far out. Maybe we will come up with something for them, but the alternatives I've seen tossed around suggest everyone will end up trying to market someone else's products, or services jobs. It doesn't strike me as readily apparent there will be enough of those jobs to go around, either. So, it's perhaps more accurate to say "there are always alternative jobs, but probably not for everyone", which really just reinforces the point that efficiency-ing away this thing we've predicated the functioning of our society upon doesn't ultimately serve us very well.