2 ms·

I guess the problem comes when the tool is so good that it no longer requires the worker who uses it, i.e. automation. When all jobs that can be automated are

by mfoy_ 9y ago

I guess the problem comes when the tool is so good that it no longer requires the worker who uses it, i.e. automation. When all jobs that can be automated are automated, where are we left? As a society? Do we argue against automation because it destroys jobs? Then you're into government-paying-people-to-dig-holes-then-refill-them land. Do we just let the majority languish in poverty while the owners of the capital continuously concentrate their wealth? That's no way to build a future, or a healthy nation. Do we say everyone gets "mincome"? That's pretty-darn socialist, which is something many Americans have... extremely strong feelings about.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
I think of this differently. I think in terms of "spending" people instead of "employing" them. As a society, you've only got so many people. What are you going to spend them on? Well, traditionally, the answer was that you had to spend a lot of them on your food supply. But we found that, with better tools, we could spend only something like 3% of our people on food supply, and the rest could do something else. Some of them had to make the tools that the farmers used. Some could make a whole range of other new things. And we - the whole society - got richer as a result. Now we're finding that, with newer tools, we don't have to spend as many people in factories. We can do something else with them. The whole society can become richer as a result - if we can find something useful for them to do. I'm optimistic, but I must admit that I see the problems. We seem to be losing a lot of people into despair and poverty and feelings of uselessness. (I don't know if the same was true at the start of the industrial revolution, so I don't know if this is something to kind of expect at a transition, or whether this is something new.) I see that the income distribution is way out of whack. (I'm pretty sure that was true at the start of the industrial revolution, and it got corrected, but it took unionisation to do it.) Do we spend most of our people on space exploration? On better medical care? On herding robots? I don't know. But I'm optimistic that there will be something useful for them to do, which will improve our society as a whole. I don't know what it will be, though. (If you wish to maintain pessimism, there's your opening...)
- marnett 9y ago
  > Now we're finding that, with newer tools, we don't have to spend as many people in factories. actually, at least in the US, we found out that we could take massive amounts of manufacturing jobs and move it somewhere else, with more lenient labor laws and cheaper labor. bonuses all around for the everyone involved with that strategic initiative. > (If you wish to maintain pessimism, there's your opening...) with history as my evidence, eventually purposelessness will get worse and inequality so massive with no answers from State or Business that a revolution will take place. unfortunately all of the municipal police have military grade weaponry now, so that day will be an interesting one.

by mfoy_ 9y ago

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

I think of this differently. I think in terms of "spending" people instead of "employing" them. As a society, you've only got so many people. What are you going to spend them on? Well, traditionally, the answer was that you had to spend a lot of them on your food supply. But we found that, with better tools, we could spend only something like 3% of our people on food supply, and the rest could do something else. Some of them had to make the tools that the farmers used. Some could make a whole range of other new things. And we - the whole society - got richer as a result. Now we're finding that, with newer tools, we don't have to spend as many people in factories. We can do something else with them. The whole society can become richer as a result - if we can find something useful for them to do. I'm optimistic, but I must admit that I see the problems. We seem to be losing a lot of people into despair and poverty and feelings of uselessness. (I don't know if the same was true at the start of the industrial revolution, so I don't know if this is something to kind of expect at a transition, or whether this is something new.) I see that the income distribution is way out of whack. (I'm pretty sure that was true at the start of the industrial revolution, and it got corrected, but it took unionisation to do it.) Do we spend most of our people on space exploration? On better medical care? On herding robots? I don't know. But I'm optimistic that there will be something useful for them to do, which will improve our society as a whole. I don't know what it will be, though. (If you wish to maintain pessimism, there's your opening...)

marnett 9y ago
> Now we're finding that, with newer tools, we don't have to spend as many people in factories. actually, at least in the US, we found out that we could take massive amounts of manufacturing jobs and move it somewhere else, with more lenient labor laws and cheaper labor. bonuses all around for the everyone involved with that strategic initiative. > (If you wish to maintain pessimism, there's your opening...) with history as my evidence, eventually purposelessness will get worse and inequality so massive with no answers from State or Business that a revolution will take place. unfortunately all of the municipal police have military grade weaponry now, so that day will be an interesting one.