15 ms·

>Might perhaps there be something else to consider here? If I'm wrong, and the world is indeed a fixed lump of labor, can you help me understand why these peopl

>Might perhaps there be something else to consider here? If I'm wrong, and the world is indeed a fixed lump of labor, can you help me understand why these people are wrong? I don’t think the world is a fixed lump of labor. Eventually there will be enough automation that people won’t have any work to do. Not everybody has the capacity to be a doctor or an engineer or a lawyer. We are just not wired that way, the brain simply works in unique ways. So how do we take away labor intensive work and still expect people to live happily while not providing them with means of living. I think there are two ways: (i) provide people with social services so they live above the standard of poverty. (ii) split automation so only so much work will be automated. This is a good compromise as we find out what automation does to our economy as years go on. For example(don’t shoot me, these are just examples), Mc Donald’s must have people working for the same amount of automatic kiosks in their restaurant. Or half of amazon warehouse must be people and half must be robots. Half of automatic Ubers must be driven by real people. There are ways to do automation and still take care of people. I just don’t see that conversation and it’s bothersome because soon it will too late.

Kalium 8y ago
That's very intersting! Thank you very much for sharing. You might think about pausing to consider that you have described what economists call the lump of labor. This is the idea that there's a finite amount of work to go around, and it can only be distributed among various people or machines. Some might opine that there could be something to be gained by investigating writings and studies on this exact subject from the past century or more. Wikipedia can be a great starting point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy I have had a very different experience. I see the conversation you call for going on constantly. I see it among dozens of people I know personally, of many different ages and races and education levels and careers. This is enough to lead me to think that your idea is so good and so wise that it's already been adopted en masse!
all2 8y ago
I think one important alternative you missed was allowing people to create businesses easily. Given the opportunity, many people find problems to solve and build businesses around that solution. By simplifying the process of starting a business to "just do it" and simplifying the tax implications of hiring and firing people, I don't think we would see a need to "create" or "preserve" jobs.
- iscrewyou 8y ago
  Oh definitely! I missed that one. That could be a solution. See, this is what I want. Have the conversation and the policy changes that come with the industry shifts. It only helps everyone.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    In this particular case, the conversation you want happened over a century ago when economists figured out that automation tends to create (and enable the creation of) more jobs than it permanently removes. Economists figured out that the idea of the lump of labor is possessed of bountiful opportunities to come into greater alignment with observed reality. The whole industrial revolution involved a lot of people who shared your fears - that their jobs would be permanently removed by automation! And you know what? They were right! Their jobs were permanently removed by automation. It's just that the story didn't end there, and the jobs created and enabled by automation far outstripped the jobs removed. It might be worth considering that government intervention might not always be the solution. Choosing not to act is always an option, and is always worth considering. The first question should not be "How can we solve this problem with policy?", but instead should be "Should we solve this problem with policy?".
    - iscrewyou 8y ago
      So we are back to square one. If automation makes whole populations jobless, then we should be ready to take care of them. If it doesn’t, we are good as we were. Therefore, if automation makes unemployment go up, those unemployed should have a plan waiting for them that makes sure they live above the poverty line.
      - Kalium 8y ago
        Are we back to square one? The plan so far is that history suggests pretty strongly that automation creates more jobs than it destroys. Actively choosing not to intervene is a plan, although it can easily be mistaken not having one.

Kalium 8y ago

That's very intersting! Thank you very much for sharing. You might think about pausing to consider that you have described what economists call the lump of labor. This is the idea that there's a finite amount of work to go around, and it can only be distributed among various people or machines. Some might opine that there could be something to be gained by investigating writings and studies on this exact subject from the past century or more. Wikipedia can be a great starting point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy I have had a very different experience. I see the conversation you call for going on constantly. I see it among dozens of people I know personally, of many different ages and races and education levels and careers. This is enough to lead me to think that your idea is so good and so wise that it's already been adopted en masse!

all2 8y ago

I think one important alternative you missed was allowing people to create businesses easily. Given the opportunity, many people find problems to solve and build businesses around that solution. By simplifying the process of starting a business to "just do it" and simplifying the tax implications of hiring and firing people, I don't think we would see a need to "create" or "preserve" jobs.

iscrewyou 8y ago
Oh definitely! I missed that one. That could be a solution. See, this is what I want. Have the conversation and the policy changes that come with the industry shifts. It only helps everyone.
- Kalium 8y ago
  In this particular case, the conversation you want happened over a century ago when economists figured out that automation tends to create (and enable the creation of) more jobs than it permanently removes. Economists figured out that the idea of the lump of labor is possessed of bountiful opportunities to come into greater alignment with observed reality. The whole industrial revolution involved a lot of people who shared your fears - that their jobs would be permanently removed by automation! And you know what? They were right! Their jobs were permanently removed by automation. It's just that the story didn't end there, and the jobs created and enabled by automation far outstripped the jobs removed. It might be worth considering that government intervention might not always be the solution. Choosing not to act is always an option, and is always worth considering. The first question should not be "How can we solve this problem with policy?", but instead should be "Should we solve this problem with policy?".
  - iscrewyou 8y ago
    So we are back to square one. If automation makes whole populations jobless, then we should be ready to take care of them. If it doesn’t, we are good as we were. Therefore, if automation makes unemployment go up, those unemployed should have a plan waiting for them that makes sure they live above the poverty line.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      Are we back to square one? The plan so far is that history suggests pretty strongly that automation creates more jobs than it destroys. Actively choosing not to intervene is a plan, although it can easily be mistaken not having one.