7 ms·

Yuval Noah Harari argues the same [1]. Whereas the 20th century was a century of workers fighting exploitation, now the 21st century might be workers — or more

Yuval Noah Harari argues the same [1]. Whereas the 20th century was a century of workers fighting exploitation, now the 21st century might be workers — or more generally people — fighting irrelevance. When so much work can be performed by machines, human labor will not be necessary like it was before. 1: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuval-noah-harari-technology-tyranny/568330/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuval-n...

joelbluminator 5y ago
Many experts are predicting declining job rates. I do think we can create jobs though as a society. For example instead of one teacher handling 12 toddlers we can pay for 4 teachers to do it. Or improve the care old people get by increasing staff. These are jobs automation cant replace easily...but there needs to be a will to make the investment.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > we can pay The problem is when “we” wants lower taxes or regulations to enable more consumption of tropical island vacations or recreational vehicles, or any other individual consumption item. The political will is unfortunately not there. On this very forum, someone was claiming that a 1 adult to 4 infant ratio was too restrictive!
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    > On this very forum, someone was claiming that a 1 adult to 4 infant ratio was too restrictive! I mean... that sounds pretty extreme tbh. Literal infants, sure, but for any actual grade of school a 1:4 ratio sounds like too much to me.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      What sounds extreme? The person I responded to mentioned toddlers. I mentioned infants. No one suggested any ratios for actual “grade of school”.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        Sure, but they also mentioned "teachers". Do you call infant daycare staff teachers?
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Yes.
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      What if we raised our own children? 1(parent not working):(number of kids) seems like a pretty nice ratio. I mean now we're all too poor to do so, but wouldn't that be nice?
      - kwere 5y ago
        for a minority yes, but the majority would like to keep a career to get money/status/purpouse and being a "part time parent"
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    Not a problem if the schools are funded privately by parents.
    - oblio 5y ago
      What if some parents are poor?
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      This conversation is about care for infants and toddlers, which is only privately funded in the US (aka daycare). The conversation I was referring to was about the government restriction of 1 adult per 4 infants was causing daycare prices to be too high.
    - kalleboo 5y ago
      Then the costs have to be reduced even more, since the people with children aren't being subsidized by the people with no children.
      - reedjosh 5y ago
        I have children and don't want them in public schools. I personally feel I was only held back by public schools. What of my case? I pay taxes for schools like everyone else, but I won't even use the schools for my children.
        kalleboo 5y ago
        Many countries have voucher systems for education choice
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    > The problem is when “we” wants lower taxes or regulations to enable more consumption of tropical island vacations or recreational vehicles, or any other individual consumption item. "You" are always welcome to donate any amount of your money to the government. In the USA, its the Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt. You won't though.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Is there anything wrong with not sacrificing your own position unless the collective is also willing to sacrifice theirs?
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    Taxes are practically irrelevant in the US. The gov just goes to the Fed and and increases it's balance. The real issue is that those in power don't actually want to lift up those that are struggling. I'm not saying there aren't some good politicians--I'm saying politicians don't have the power. When the government isn't acting on behalf of the people, more taxes would only serve to harm.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >Taxes are practically irrelevant in the US. The gov just goes to the Fed and and increases it's balance. Even under MMT you need some sort of taxes to take back money, otherwise the money you print turns into inflation.
      - reedjosh 5y ago
        Sure, but in the spirit of the original argument, the taxes still aren't about regaining funds to help the little guy. It's not like paying more taxes is going to go to something beneficial to society. And in my opinion (not verified or anything) we're seeing such strong Cantillon effects that inflation is being regulated via soaring asset prices. So it's harder to buy a house and or a share of SPY, but everyday goods are inflating way below the increase in dollar supply atm. Edit: Lol, except lumber.
      - StandardFuture 5y ago
        Taxes are then paid back out by government spending (which exceeds taxes, btw, so inflation is doubly-inevitable). So, you did not actually negate the point of the comment you are replying to.
        gruez 5y ago
        >Taxes are then paid back out by government spending (which exceeds taxes, btw, so inflation is doubly-inevitable). You can certainly do that under MMT, but then that would be the equivalent of not having taxes at all.
- nanny 5y ago
  The New American Movement (a precursor to the Democratic Socialists of America) published a poster in the 70s that read: "If you’re unemployed it’s not because there isn’t any work "Just look around: A housing shortage, crime, pollution; we need better schools and parks. Whatever our needs, they all require work. And as long as we have unsatisfied needs, there’s work to be done. "So ask yourself, what kind of world has work but no jobs. It’s a world where work is not related to satisfying our needs, a world where work is only related to satisfying the profit needs of business. "This country was not built by the huge corporations or government bureaucracies. It was built by people who work. And, it is working people who should control the work to be done. Yet, as long as employment is tied to somebody else’s profits, the work won’t get done."
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    Adding to this, institutions make the work between free individuals all but impossible. If I just want someone to help me plumb a bathroom, they have to have license and insurance, they need to file to be a corporation themselves, they need to file a permit to start the work, they need to have a final inspection, and they have to pay taxes on what I pay them. On top of this supplies are becoming ever more expensive unless you're a big enough buyer, so the little company or one independent plumber can't even compete with larger companies on cost of materials and tools. I basically do all my household remodeling myself as the cost is extremely prohibitive.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Is being a barista work in this mindset? Or is the idea that we have barista‘s because that is profitable, but it is not profitable to improve infrastructure?
    - CleaveIt2Beaver 5y ago
      It is both work and a job, in this example. But it's an occupied job, where the poster is discussing communal job creation through joint bargaining power rather than a corporate monolith. Your second statement is right on the money.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  I see a lot of unrest coming up as AI replaces workers. The elites can keep the poors down for a while but eventually as we see all through history, they revolt. I suppose given better AI and drones the elites can eventually make AI robots to keep the rabble in line maybe(?) as tech gets better though, kind of like T1000s under the control of the Elon Musks and Peter Thiels of their time.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  Those are also usually low-paid jobs. Plans to increase employment like this feel more like a way to implement UBI while pretending to have a work requirement. “You pretend to work and we pretend to pay you” and all that.
  - joelbluminator 5y ago
    Them being low paid is a political decision.
StandardFuture 5y ago
> fighting exploitation > fighting irrelevance This is a false dichotomy generated by corporate propaganda. The system is designed to make you feel this way. Trust me, I was saying these say things online in 2012, and jobs have only increased in number since then. > When so much work can be performed by machines Then more people can buy a machine and have their own small automated business. Why not? Why would you think that this is not a valid idea? Because in your premises you are assuming that all the machines are wildly expensive and well out of the reach of a small business owner. But then that makes your premises an argument for the "inevitability" of consolidation of the economy into the hands of a few companies and not actually an argument against the number of possible jobs. Do you see how subtle that is? Do you see how sneaky that false equivalence is? Politicians and Wall street have been consolidating the economy into a few companies (via mergers, acquisitions, regulations, index funds, etc.) that can work at reduced losses and increased margins and f**ing over the younger generations primarily, but the middle class in general.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Then more people can buy a machine and have their own small automated business. But can they compete against a multinational corporation that has better economies of scale?
  - StandardFuture 5y ago
    Yes, because in this "machine automated society" your supply chain is also coming from "automated" production and thus you have equivalent access to the same-priced goods as any competitor. And before you scream about this being pedantic, perhaps first reconsider the original premise that you are proposing: automation taking over things and reducing job availability to nil. It's a fantastical premise to set. Your reaction is only validation of my argument: you are actually arguing for some sort of inevitability of consolidation of the economy as if it is absolutely unavoidable. This is literally the same argument as Marx, disguised. EDIT: you are also being profoundly intellectually dishonest when you do not acknowledge the plethora of existing SMBs that already compete against larger corporations (usually at local levels).

joelbluminator 5y ago

Many experts are predicting declining job rates. I do think we can create jobs though as a society. For example instead of one teacher handling 12 toddlers we can pay for 4 teachers to do it. Or improve the care old people get by increasing staff. These are jobs automation cant replace easily...but there needs to be a will to make the investment.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> we can pay The problem is when “we” wants lower taxes or regulations to enable more consumption of tropical island vacations or recreational vehicles, or any other individual consumption item. The political will is unfortunately not there. On this very forum, someone was claiming that a 1 adult to 4 infant ratio was too restrictive!
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  > On this very forum, someone was claiming that a 1 adult to 4 infant ratio was too restrictive! I mean... that sounds pretty extreme tbh. Literal infants, sure, but for any actual grade of school a 1:4 ratio sounds like too much to me.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    What sounds extreme? The person I responded to mentioned toddlers. I mentioned infants. No one suggested any ratios for actual “grade of school”.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      Sure, but they also mentioned "teachers". Do you call infant daycare staff teachers?
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Yes.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    What if we raised our own children? 1(parent not working):(number of kids) seems like a pretty nice ratio. I mean now we're all too poor to do so, but wouldn't that be nice?
    - kwere 5y ago
      for a minority yes, but the majority would like to keep a career to get money/status/purpouse and being a "part time parent"
- HPsquared 5y ago
  Not a problem if the schools are funded privately by parents.
  - oblio 5y ago
    What if some parents are poor?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    This conversation is about care for infants and toddlers, which is only privately funded in the US (aka daycare). The conversation I was referring to was about the government restriction of 1 adult per 4 infants was causing daycare prices to be too high.
  - kalleboo 5y ago
    Then the costs have to be reduced even more, since the people with children aren't being subsidized by the people with no children.
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      I have children and don't want them in public schools. I personally feel I was only held back by public schools. What of my case? I pay taxes for schools like everyone else, but I won't even use the schools for my children.
      - kalleboo 5y ago
        Many countries have voucher systems for education choice
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > The problem is when “we” wants lower taxes or regulations to enable more consumption of tropical island vacations or recreational vehicles, or any other individual consumption item. "You" are always welcome to donate any amount of your money to the government. In the USA, its the Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt. You won't though.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Is there anything wrong with not sacrificing your own position unless the collective is also willing to sacrifice theirs?
- reedjosh 5y ago
  Taxes are practically irrelevant in the US. The gov just goes to the Fed and and increases it's balance. The real issue is that those in power don't actually want to lift up those that are struggling. I'm not saying there aren't some good politicians--I'm saying politicians don't have the power. When the government isn't acting on behalf of the people, more taxes would only serve to harm.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Taxes are practically irrelevant in the US. The gov just goes to the Fed and and increases it's balance. Even under MMT you need some sort of taxes to take back money, otherwise the money you print turns into inflation.
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      Sure, but in the spirit of the original argument, the taxes still aren't about regaining funds to help the little guy. It's not like paying more taxes is going to go to something beneficial to society. And in my opinion (not verified or anything) we're seeing such strong Cantillon effects that inflation is being regulated via soaring asset prices. So it's harder to buy a house and or a share of SPY, but everyday goods are inflating way below the increase in dollar supply atm. Edit: Lol, except lumber.
    - StandardFuture 5y ago
      Taxes are then paid back out by government spending (which exceeds taxes, btw, so inflation is doubly-inevitable). So, you did not actually negate the point of the comment you are replying to.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >Taxes are then paid back out by government spending (which exceeds taxes, btw, so inflation is doubly-inevitable). You can certainly do that under MMT, but then that would be the equivalent of not having taxes at all.
nanny 5y ago
The New American Movement (a precursor to the Democratic Socialists of America) published a poster in the 70s that read: "If you’re unemployed it’s not because there isn’t any work "Just look around: A housing shortage, crime, pollution; we need better schools and parks. Whatever our needs, they all require work. And as long as we have unsatisfied needs, there’s work to be done. "So ask yourself, what kind of world has work but no jobs. It’s a world where work is not related to satisfying our needs, a world where work is only related to satisfying the profit needs of business. "This country was not built by the huge corporations or government bureaucracies. It was built by people who work. And, it is working people who should control the work to be done. Yet, as long as employment is tied to somebody else’s profits, the work won’t get done."
- reedjosh 5y ago
  Adding to this, institutions make the work between free individuals all but impossible. If I just want someone to help me plumb a bathroom, they have to have license and insurance, they need to file to be a corporation themselves, they need to file a permit to start the work, they need to have a final inspection, and they have to pay taxes on what I pay them. On top of this supplies are becoming ever more expensive unless you're a big enough buyer, so the little company or one independent plumber can't even compete with larger companies on cost of materials and tools. I basically do all my household remodeling myself as the cost is extremely prohibitive.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Is being a barista work in this mindset? Or is the idea that we have barista‘s because that is profitable, but it is not profitable to improve infrastructure?
  - CleaveIt2Beaver 5y ago
    It is both work and a job, in this example. But it's an occupied job, where the poster is discussing communal job creation through joint bargaining power rather than a corporate monolith. Your second statement is right on the money.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
I see a lot of unrest coming up as AI replaces workers. The elites can keep the poors down for a while but eventually as we see all through history, they revolt. I suppose given better AI and drones the elites can eventually make AI robots to keep the rabble in line maybe(?) as tech gets better though, kind of like T1000s under the control of the Elon Musks and Peter Thiels of their time.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
Those are also usually low-paid jobs. Plans to increase employment like this feel more like a way to implement UBI while pretending to have a work requirement. “You pretend to work and we pretend to pay you” and all that.
- joelbluminator 5y ago
  Them being low paid is a political decision.

StandardFuture 5y ago

> fighting exploitation > fighting irrelevance This is a false dichotomy generated by corporate propaganda. The system is designed to make you feel this way. Trust me, I was saying these say things online in 2012, and jobs have only increased in number since then. > When so much work can be performed by machines Then more people can buy a machine and have their own small automated business. Why not? Why would you think that this is not a valid idea? Because in your premises you are assuming that all the machines are wildly expensive and well out of the reach of a small business owner. But then that makes your premises an argument for the "inevitability" of consolidation of the economy into the hands of a few companies and not actually an argument against the number of possible jobs. Do you see how subtle that is? Do you see how sneaky that false equivalence is? Politicians and Wall street have been consolidating the economy into a few companies (via mergers, acquisitions, regulations, index funds, etc.) that can work at reduced losses and increased margins and f**ing over the younger generations primarily, but the middle class in general.

gruez 5y ago
>Then more people can buy a machine and have their own small automated business. But can they compete against a multinational corporation that has better economies of scale?
- StandardFuture 5y ago
  Yes, because in this "machine automated society" your supply chain is also coming from "automated" production and thus you have equivalent access to the same-priced goods as any competitor. And before you scream about this being pedantic, perhaps first reconsider the original premise that you are proposing: automation taking over things and reducing job availability to nil. It's a fantastical premise to set. Your reaction is only validation of my argument: you are actually arguing for some sort of inevitability of consolidation of the economy as if it is absolutely unavoidable. This is literally the same argument as Marx, disguised. EDIT: you are also being profoundly intellectually dishonest when you do not acknowledge the plethora of existing SMBs that already compete against larger corporations (usually at local levels).