5 ms·

The bigger issue is what will happen if our children don't need to work hard. A world where 95% of people don't need to work at all sounds great until we factor

by MRD85 8y ago

The bigger issue is what will happen if our children don't need to work hard. A world where 95% of people don't need to work at all sounds great until we factor in wealth inequality.

pygy_ 8y ago
A world where 95% don't need to work is a world where 95% of the people don't have any economic power and will be left to starve.
- Jill_the_Pill 8y ago
  That sounds like a collective choice, not a logical consequence. Would you ever want to be one of 5% working surrounded by starving people? Or would you work toward some sort of redistribution -- either of resources or hours? edit: on reflection, probably 95% starving people would accomplish that redistribution pretty efficiently with or without you!
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    "Would you ever want to be one of 5% working surrounded by starving people?" Just go to a third world country or even places like New York or San Francisco. You'll see super wealthy, shiny places right next to homeless people or slums and the wealthy people seem OK with this or don't feel enough discomfort to do anything. Or they just do enough to get these people out of sight.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Looking at history, redistribution does not hapen out of good heart. So yes, 5% will be surrounded by starving people and blame those people. Also, the 5% is likely to be selection biased for power hungry and ruthless (cause there will be struggle for those 5% positions).
  - burrows 8y ago
    My Musk-Samsung RoboServant (TM) discourages the ruffians quite effectively.
  - coding123 8y ago
    Clearly, the 5% would be slaughtered pretty quickly. This is one of the reasons (IMHO) that jobs suddenly open up after things like Occupy, even if there's no tangible or realistic reason why jobs are suddenly needed.
- JulianMorrison 8y ago
  No, that's only if it's capitalist. It doesn't have to be capitalist.
- Ma8ee 8y ago
  Only if the 95% is left without any political influence. (That political influence is the same thing as money in the US does not mean that that is necessarily so.)
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  It should console you that you're only getting downvoted because you don't have more prominence. If you did, you'd at least get ignored. > The frightening coincidence of the modern population explosion with the discovery of technical devices that, through automation, will make large sections of the population 'superfluous' even in terms of labor, and that, through nuclear energy, make it possible to deal with this twofold threat by the use of instruments beside which Hitler's gassing installations look like an evil child's fumbling toys, should be enough to make us tremble. -- Hannah Arendt > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. -- Stephen Hawking, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama...
  - pygy_ 8y ago
    Thanks, I know. I'm not too worried about HN karma. Also, I don't such a thing to happen. The minute a subset of the economy can work in an automated closed loop (because automation is cheaper than the cheapest human labor), it won't have any economic incentive to do commerce with us, and will instead compete for resources. Why would it compete? Survival bias. It will have grown in a capitalist framework where weaker, non-competitive players die or are absorbed, and will embody those principles. La pluie, ça nous mouille et la rouille, ça nous nuit Règlons, nom d'un ours, le problème à la source L'ennui c'est l'oxygène qui fait rouiller nos roues dentées, c'est l'oxygène qui fait rouiller nos clous Les tas de viande ils fontt peine à voir ils glandouillent du matin au soir et ils n'ont plus aucun pouvoir y'a plus à s'en soucier Les tas de viande ils sont moins malins que le robinet de la salle de bain du coup ils nous servent plus à rien on peut les oublier... L'ennui c'est l'oxygène qui fait rouiller nos roues dentées, c'est l'oxygène qui fait rouiller nos clous
smallgovt 8y ago
Is wealth inequality inherently bad? I've heard of numerous studies that point out that people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain point. Is that 'certain point' a moving goal post?
- gotocake 8y ago
  That sounds like a case against wealth inequality, since there’s no increase in happiness for the very rich.
  - kartan 8y ago
    > That sounds like a case against wealth inequality, since there’s no increase in happiness for the very rich. Not necessarily. Inequality seems to bring unhappiness independently of wealth. You may have more than others. But if you get way less for your work than others, most people will be unhappy. That is why millionaires want more when they see the billionaires. This video helps to illustrate my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
  - downrightmike 8y ago
    Past a certain point of success, it is only a numbers game. As in once you have achieved your goals and are successful, you are still driven to become successful and money is a tangible way to measure that success. Whether anyone really needs the points to survive is not the question. The question is do they equate money with success?
- emit_time 8y ago
  > I've heard of numerous studies that point out that people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain point That point is significantly above median person income, or a similar comparison to median household income.
- anoncake 8y ago
  That's one reason why wealth inequality is bad. If someone is already wealthy, additional wealth increases their happiness by less than if someone poorer would have received that wealth.
hrktb 8y ago
I’m intrigued how you see it going. Currently most employable people are working, and there’s huge wealth inequalities. Do you see people percieving it worse if they didn’t need to work ?
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  I think so. I mean yeah lot of people are poor now while working, but at least they have that. If tomorrow everything was automated, we have no structures in place to handle double digit % unemployment. That's now how welfare is designed. So a lot of people would have less than min wage workers.
- MRD85 8y ago
  I view it largely like I view how we currently treat our disadvantaged. Put them into ghettos, neglect them as much as humanly possible, etc.
  - hrktb 8y ago
    I think it all depends on how this happens: > don't need to work at all For instance some people currently don't need to work. They are primary care-givers or already retired to give a few. But we don't put them into ghettos because there is a consensus that we are better with them around than them out of the way, and also they get enough revenue to survive decently (they can get gov. help for that as well) I think it would be the same if that situation spread to 95% of people, there would be a moment where people will start wondering "is my neighbour a net positive to society ?". People will have a strong incentive to do something that is useful to the group, to keep a modicum of social status. In that sense I don't see society getting worse just because work is not a thing anymore, we'll still somewhat push people to do something, but it might genuinely be useful, for once.
downrightmike 8y ago
The same thing is happening today, People without the means have children that may grow up unwanted at a disadvantage, and those who do have the means, have children that they pass those advantages to. There is a reason why Smith and Miller are common surnames, because they had the means to survive and have a source of income and they passed those on. Feudal times are not an unreasonable outcome. We haven't progressed so far that we can't fall back to simpler times.

by MRD85 8y ago

The bigger issue is what will happen if our children don't need to work hard. A world where 95% of people don't need to work at all sounds great until we factor in wealth inequality.

pygy_ 8y ago

A world where 95% don't need to work is a world where 95% of the people don't have any economic power and will be left to starve.

Jill_the_Pill 8y ago
That sounds like a collective choice, not a logical consequence. Would you ever want to be one of 5% working surrounded by starving people? Or would you work toward some sort of redistribution -- either of resources or hours? edit: on reflection, probably 95% starving people would accomplish that redistribution pretty efficiently with or without you!
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "Would you ever want to be one of 5% working surrounded by starving people?" Just go to a third world country or even places like New York or San Francisco. You'll see super wealthy, shiny places right next to homeless people or slums and the wealthy people seem OK with this or don't feel enough discomfort to do anything. Or they just do enough to get these people out of sight.
- watwut 8y ago
  Looking at history, redistribution does not hapen out of good heart. So yes, 5% will be surrounded by starving people and blame those people. Also, the 5% is likely to be selection biased for power hungry and ruthless (cause there will be struggle for those 5% positions).
- burrows 8y ago
  My Musk-Samsung RoboServant (TM) discourages the ruffians quite effectively.
- coding123 8y ago
  Clearly, the 5% would be slaughtered pretty quickly. This is one of the reasons (IMHO) that jobs suddenly open up after things like Occupy, even if there's no tangible or realistic reason why jobs are suddenly needed.
JulianMorrison 8y ago
No, that's only if it's capitalist. It doesn't have to be capitalist.
Ma8ee 8y ago
Only if the 95% is left without any political influence. (That political influence is the same thing as money in the US does not mean that that is necessarily so.)
PavlovsCat 8y ago
It should console you that you're only getting downvoted because you don't have more prominence. If you did, you'd at least get ignored. > The frightening coincidence of the modern population explosion with the discovery of technical devices that, through automation, will make large sections of the population 'superfluous' even in terms of labor, and that, through nuclear energy, make it possible to deal with this twofold threat by the use of instruments beside which Hitler's gassing installations look like an evil child's fumbling toys, should be enough to make us tremble. -- Hannah Arendt > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. -- Stephen Hawking, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama...
- pygy_ 8y ago
  Thanks, I know. I'm not too worried about HN karma. Also, I don't such a thing to happen. The minute a subset of the economy can work in an automated closed loop (because automation is cheaper than the cheapest human labor), it won't have any economic incentive to do commerce with us, and will instead compete for resources. Why would it compete? Survival bias. It will have grown in a capitalist framework where weaker, non-competitive players die or are absorbed, and will embody those principles. La pluie, ça nous mouille et la rouille, ça nous nuit Règlons, nom d'un ours, le problème à la source L'ennui c'est l'oxygène qui fait rouiller nos roues dentées, c'est l'oxygène qui fait rouiller nos clous Les tas de viande ils fontt peine à voir ils glandouillent du matin au soir et ils n'ont plus aucun pouvoir y'a plus à s'en soucier Les tas de viande ils sont moins malins que le robinet de la salle de bain du coup ils nous servent plus à rien on peut les oublier... L'ennui c'est l'oxygène qui fait rouiller nos roues dentées, c'est l'oxygène qui fait rouiller nos clous

smallgovt 8y ago

Is wealth inequality inherently bad? I've heard of numerous studies that point out that people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain point. Is that 'certain point' a moving goal post?

gotocake 8y ago
That sounds like a case against wealth inequality, since there’s no increase in happiness for the very rich.
- kartan 8y ago
  > That sounds like a case against wealth inequality, since there’s no increase in happiness for the very rich. Not necessarily. Inequality seems to bring unhappiness independently of wealth. You may have more than others. But if you get way less for your work than others, most people will be unhappy. That is why millionaires want more when they see the billionaires. This video helps to illustrate my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
- downrightmike 8y ago
  Past a certain point of success, it is only a numbers game. As in once you have achieved your goals and are successful, you are still driven to become successful and money is a tangible way to measure that success. Whether anyone really needs the points to survive is not the question. The question is do they equate money with success?
emit_time 8y ago
> I've heard of numerous studies that point out that people's happiness and wealth don't correlate much past a certain point That point is significantly above median person income, or a similar comparison to median household income.
anoncake 8y ago
That's one reason why wealth inequality is bad. If someone is already wealthy, additional wealth increases their happiness by less than if someone poorer would have received that wealth.

hrktb 8y ago

I’m intrigued how you see it going. Currently most employable people are working, and there’s huge wealth inequalities. Do you see people percieving it worse if they didn’t need to work ?

thatoneuser 8y ago
I think so. I mean yeah lot of people are poor now while working, but at least they have that. If tomorrow everything was automated, we have no structures in place to handle double digit % unemployment. That's now how welfare is designed. So a lot of people would have less than min wage workers.
MRD85 8y ago
I view it largely like I view how we currently treat our disadvantaged. Put them into ghettos, neglect them as much as humanly possible, etc.
- hrktb 8y ago
  I think it all depends on how this happens: > don't need to work at all For instance some people currently don't need to work. They are primary care-givers or already retired to give a few. But we don't put them into ghettos because there is a consensus that we are better with them around than them out of the way, and also they get enough revenue to survive decently (they can get gov. help for that as well) I think it would be the same if that situation spread to 95% of people, there would be a moment where people will start wondering "is my neighbour a net positive to society ?". People will have a strong incentive to do something that is useful to the group, to keep a modicum of social status. In that sense I don't see society getting worse just because work is not a thing anymore, we'll still somewhat push people to do something, but it might genuinely be useful, for once.

downrightmike 8y ago

The same thing is happening today, People without the means have children that may grow up unwanted at a disadvantage, and those who do have the means, have children that they pass those advantages to. There is a reason why Smith and Miller are common surnames, because they had the means to survive and have a source of income and they passed those on. Feudal times are not an unreasonable outcome. We haven't progressed so far that we can't fall back to simpler times.