4 ms·

(making numbers up here for the sake of an example) My take on the employment situation is that if currently ~10% of people are employed in the food industry,

(making numbers up here for the sake of an example) My take on the employment situation is that if currently ~10% of people are employed in the food industry, and we replace 20% of those with robots (so 2% of the whole population) then that should be an unequivocally good thing. If there's not enough jobs to go around, but we're still producing the same amount of value then we should be supporting those who don't have work (in this case, probably by everyone in other industries doing 2% less work but getting paid the same as they are currently, and employing the people replaced by robots to take up the slack, along with some sort of subsidy). The problem here isn't that we're working out ways to do things without human labor, it's that we're still stuck in this mindset of people having to work, even though there's plenty of resources to go around (and there should be even more with automation, not less).

imtringued 6y ago
In principle automation is always a good thing. Think of a society where there is a collective bank account and everyone shares their wealth. There are 100 people and there is 800 hours of work to be done. 100 hours of work in fast food. If you automate fast food then only 700 hours of work have to be done for an economy of the same size. The real problem is fairness. Now that there is enough work for 88 people it would be unfair for the working people if those 12 people simply get to stop working. The remaining working members would go on strike. So we expect those 12 unemployed people to work regardless of whether there is enough work for everyone. Globalization is another productivity booster that has the same effect. The answer is to give people work, even if the work has to be created through artificial means. Infrastructure is a common example. You can just let these unemployed people build roads or houses and lay fiber for internet and so on. Infrastructure doesn't discriminate and tends to benefit everyone so ultimately even those who didn't lose their job will benefit. If that infrastructure results in a greater tax income in the future you can even finance it through debt.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  > In principle automation is always a good thing I don't agree with this, but even if I did, we all know that in practice automation leads to a transfer of wealth from the working class to the very richest, that own the automated companies.

imtringued 6y ago

In principle automation is always a good thing. Think of a society where there is a collective bank account and everyone shares their wealth. There are 100 people and there is 800 hours of work to be done. 100 hours of work in fast food. If you automate fast food then only 700 hours of work have to be done for an economy of the same size. The real problem is fairness. Now that there is enough work for 88 people it would be unfair for the working people if those 12 people simply get to stop working. The remaining working members would go on strike. So we expect those 12 unemployed people to work regardless of whether there is enough work for everyone. Globalization is another productivity booster that has the same effect. The answer is to give people work, even if the work has to be created through artificial means. Infrastructure is a common example. You can just let these unemployed people build roads or houses and lay fiber for internet and so on. Infrastructure doesn't discriminate and tends to benefit everyone so ultimately even those who didn't lose their job will benefit. If that infrastructure results in a greater tax income in the future you can even finance it through debt.

Grustaf 6y ago
> In principle automation is always a good thing I don't agree with this, but even if I did, we all know that in practice automation leads to a transfer of wealth from the working class to the very richest, that own the automated companies.