3 ms·
It is save to say that in no point in time have so many people worked so little while being so rich. That contradicts that automation creates as many jobs as it
by rjprins 15y ago
It is save to say that in no point in time have so many people worked so little while being so rich. That contradicts that automation creates as many jobs as it destroys.
We are not talking about a 'point' where the 40 hour week stops. It is a gradual decline in the amount of human labor, which has been going on for centuries. Automation means just that.
Thinking that work can forever shift towards other areas is stated on the assumptions that:
1. Not everything can be automated.
2. Human need will always grow to accommodate supply.
Now more than ever, you should question nr. 1. And in the areas that prove difficult to automate (e.g. education, law, healthcare, design..) there really is only so much work. (Except for law, maybe.)
Regarding the second assumption, when I look at highly educated people (which in my eyes, represent what in the future modal educated people will be like), they recognize desire as something that should be limited. They know that more money does not make you happier. Some even find a lot of joy in living simple and frugal.
- neutronicus 15y ago2. Human need will always grow to accommodate supply. It's been doing a good job so far. If there's enough of something, we tend to multiply until there isn't. You also seem to take it as given that "supply" is constrained by available human labor (and the efficiency of its application) and not by the power output of the Planet Earth. (You may, of course, be correct. I have absolutely no idea how one would even go about refining such an assertion enough to test it).
- pg 15y ago1 and 2 are true now and it seems they'll remain true for the foreseeable future. There may be bottomless demand in healthcare alone.
- groby_b 15y agoThe cynic in me supplies that with "if there's bottomless money for health care, which there isn't".