5 ms·

I'd bet many employees would be happy to work an hour or two per week. I'd be few employers would be happy to have employees work that little. It's not just a f

by imh 8y ago

I'd bet many employees would be happy to work an hour or two per week. I'd be few employers would be happy to have employees work that little. It's not just a fear of being fired. It's a fear of the managerial mindset of "if they can do more each week, they aren't being challenged enough."

cortesoft 8y ago
That is a larger societal question, though - how long should you be able to live off work you do? Is it fair for a worker to work for a few weeks, automating a job that used to be paid year after year, and then earn that money forever? Obviously there is a balance - a company shouldn't get ALL that savings (although in the long run, that savings would need to be passed on to customers, since competitors will also be able to automate the same tasks). At the same time, I don't think it is fair (or sustainable as a society), to expect to live forever off of work you did over a few weeks (no matter how valuable that work might be). If we allow people who automate things to live off the work of that automation FOREVER, then we are creating that sort of distopia that anti-technology people claim; that WOULD be taking jobs, because ALL of the benefit for the automation would be going to the automater and none to society. Society would still be paying the same amount for the resource, it would just all be going to the person who made it. Obviously, it shouldn't all go to a company either, but if ALL (or many) companies in the same field also automate, they will HAVE to pass on the savings to customers to compete. This will provide a net gain to society, since the resource is now cheaper for everyone (at the cost of the people who used to do the job). The cost decreasing with automation is REQUIRED to make it a net positive for society, and the automater taking all the rewards for the automation in perpetuity ruins that.
- tspike 8y ago
  Take the complexities of society out of the picture for a moment and reduce the scenario to a family unit living on subsistence farming with nobody else around: if the family is somehow able to automate their food, water, shelter and energy needs, are they entitled to live forever on that work?
  - falcor84 8y ago
    It's a great question a but obviously the catch is in "nobody else around" - morality only really comes into play when humans interact with one another. In perhaps the simplest possible example, they live on land that belongs to a country that defends and otherwise manages it. In that case, paying a basic land tax should be enough. If there are other interactions between the family unit and its society, then other arrangements might need to come into play to allow them to maintain the entitlement for that lifestyle.
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    Right, but that is not what is happening here. Other people are still working full time to provide the things he needs; food, energy, entertainment, etc. In return, he is giving the output of something he worked a few weeks on. In your example, it would be like the son invented a machine to do HIS chores for him, but then sat around while the rest of the family still did their work
    - tspike 8y ago
      That's a great example. At that point, it's up to the family and the son to negotiate what's acceptable. Ultimately, whatever arrangement they choose, the family unit benefits. I think where this analogy breaks down and becomes gray area in modern society is when the group unit that benefits gets too large to ascertain where the gains are accruing. We're biologically wired to optimally deal with groups of ~150 or fewer people.
- gdhbcc 8y ago
  Society already accepts that though. Look at copyright or patent law, if you tried to do away with it you'll have protests in the streets, regardless of the societal benefits to tearing down those rent-seeking laws

by imh 8y ago

cortesoft 8y ago

That is a larger societal question, though - how long should you be able to live off work you do? Is it fair for a worker to work for a few weeks, automating a job that used to be paid year after year, and then earn that money forever? Obviously there is a balance - a company shouldn't get ALL that savings (although in the long run, that savings would need to be passed on to customers, since competitors will also be able to automate the same tasks). At the same time, I don't think it is fair (or sustainable as a society), to expect to live forever off of work you did over a few weeks (no matter how valuable that work might be). If we allow people who automate things to live off the work of that automation FOREVER, then we are creating that sort of distopia that anti-technology people claim; that WOULD be taking jobs, because ALL of the benefit for the automation would be going to the automater and none to society. Society would still be paying the same amount for the resource, it would just all be going to the person who made it. Obviously, it shouldn't all go to a company either, but if ALL (or many) companies in the same field also automate, they will HAVE to pass on the savings to customers to compete. This will provide a net gain to society, since the resource is now cheaper for everyone (at the cost of the people who used to do the job). The cost decreasing with automation is REQUIRED to make it a net positive for society, and the automater taking all the rewards for the automation in perpetuity ruins that.

tspike 8y ago
Take the complexities of society out of the picture for a moment and reduce the scenario to a family unit living on subsistence farming with nobody else around: if the family is somehow able to automate their food, water, shelter and energy needs, are they entitled to live forever on that work?
- falcor84 8y ago
  It's a great question a but obviously the catch is in "nobody else around" - morality only really comes into play when humans interact with one another. In perhaps the simplest possible example, they live on land that belongs to a country that defends and otherwise manages it. In that case, paying a basic land tax should be enough. If there are other interactions between the family unit and its society, then other arrangements might need to come into play to allow them to maintain the entitlement for that lifestyle.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  Right, but that is not what is happening here. Other people are still working full time to provide the things he needs; food, energy, entertainment, etc. In return, he is giving the output of something he worked a few weeks on. In your example, it would be like the son invented a machine to do HIS chores for him, but then sat around while the rest of the family still did their work
  - tspike 8y ago
    That's a great example. At that point, it's up to the family and the son to negotiate what's acceptable. Ultimately, whatever arrangement they choose, the family unit benefits. I think where this analogy breaks down and becomes gray area in modern society is when the group unit that benefits gets too large to ascertain where the gains are accruing. We're biologically wired to optimally deal with groups of ~150 or fewer people.
gdhbcc 8y ago
Society already accepts that though. Look at copyright or patent law, if you tried to do away with it you'll have protests in the streets, regardless of the societal benefits to tearing down those rent-seeking laws