4 ms·

As I read this kind of stuff, I can't help but feel guilty of how our profession is so cavalier in being an allied of capital against labor.

sacrosancty 4y ago
Labor doesn't want to be laboring. It's better in the long term to remove the need for labor than to have people trapped in labor but "ally" with them. We get to enjoy being programmers instead of farm laborers because previous generations succeeded in using capital to win against labor.
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  What do you expect to happen to these laborers? Will they get to retire in comfort because our society is so rich? Heck, no. America's philosophy is if you don't work, you don't eat. The people investing the capital to replace the workers are doing this so they can capture the money that used to go to the workers. And that's what will continue to happen.
  - int0x2e 4y ago
    You may be assuming that the ones benefiting from automation are happy to live in a world where they are hated by almost everyone, and at best kept safe by using some private army. Imagine living in a world where "eat the rich" is not a fringe idea but a campaign promise... I would argue the rich would much prefer to let everyone live at some <low but "okay"> standard of living than have a few more zeros on their bank totals and live in constant fear. I think the world shown in the movie Elysium portrays this reality and its possible outcomes better than I can do. Not the be the best movie ever, but it got this part pretty well in my mind...
    - jfk13 4y ago
      > I would argue the rich would much prefer to let everyone live at some <low but "okay"> standard of living than have a few more zeros on their bank totals and live in constant fear. I suspect many of the rich don't feel they are yet rich enough for this reasoning to be applicable to them.... and each year as they get richer, their subconscious goalposts move a little further.
    - ElevenLathe 4y ago
      Empirically, this may be true of other elites, but it is not true of enough American elites to make a difference.
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    At some point, obsolete workers have to stop working. Do you want to phase them out slowly at retirement age or something? Keeping them forever is worse for their more numerous successors.
int0x2e 4y ago
On an emotional level, I certainly sympathize strongly with this idea. I can see how tech often helps widen the gap between the haves and have nots. At the same time, tech advancements have often improved humanity's standard of living - providing clean water, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, etc. The basic thesis is while tech makes some jobs obsolete, but they will be replaced by newer jobs, and everyone benefits from the better, cheaper world created by the tech advancement(s). The main critique for this notion is asking how many of these new jobs are really created, and whether they offer the same stability and benefits. If this thesis is valid however, the other big issue that remains is the widening wealth gap. The solution for that is probably not banning automation - but rather progressive taxation based on one's wealth. I know some people find this idea evil, but it's a fantastic solution to the issue of extreme inequality.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Tech makes jobs obsolete, but the new jobs introduced in the last few hundred years only add up to a small part of the overall workforce (programmers excluded). CGP Grey went in depth on human replacement automation, and almost a decade later it still holds up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU The bottom line is that automating a job is obviously a net positive because it frees up a human to do something else elsewhere, while still providing the same added value as before. There will always be something for that human to do, even if not a traditional style job. The gap, as you point out, is making sure that newly created value gets taxed and provided to that freed up person as UBI, so that they can continue to live and consume those products that the machine makes in the first place, otherwise there is no demand for them and capitalism doesn't work. There is no point in having an army of robots making hats if there's nobody to wear them.
hcks 4y ago
The exemple at hand is literally about allowing truckers to work from their homes and increasing their hourly rates

sacrosancty 4y ago

Labor doesn't want to be laboring. It's better in the long term to remove the need for labor than to have people trapped in labor but "ally" with them. We get to enjoy being programmers instead of farm laborers because previous generations succeeded in using capital to win against labor.

TomSwirly 4y ago
What do you expect to happen to these laborers? Will they get to retire in comfort because our society is so rich? Heck, no. America's philosophy is if you don't work, you don't eat. The people investing the capital to replace the workers are doing this so they can capture the money that used to go to the workers. And that's what will continue to happen.
- int0x2e 4y ago
  You may be assuming that the ones benefiting from automation are happy to live in a world where they are hated by almost everyone, and at best kept safe by using some private army. Imagine living in a world where "eat the rich" is not a fringe idea but a campaign promise... I would argue the rich would much prefer to let everyone live at some <low but "okay"> standard of living than have a few more zeros on their bank totals and live in constant fear. I think the world shown in the movie Elysium portrays this reality and its possible outcomes better than I can do. Not the be the best movie ever, but it got this part pretty well in my mind...
  - jfk13 4y ago
    > I would argue the rich would much prefer to let everyone live at some <low but "okay"> standard of living than have a few more zeros on their bank totals and live in constant fear. I suspect many of the rich don't feel they are yet rich enough for this reasoning to be applicable to them.... and each year as they get richer, their subconscious goalposts move a little further.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    Empirically, this may be true of other elites, but it is not true of enough American elites to make a difference.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  At some point, obsolete workers have to stop working. Do you want to phase them out slowly at retirement age or something? Keeping them forever is worse for their more numerous successors.

int0x2e 4y ago

On an emotional level, I certainly sympathize strongly with this idea. I can see how tech often helps widen the gap between the haves and have nots. At the same time, tech advancements have often improved humanity's standard of living - providing clean water, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, etc. The basic thesis is while tech makes some jobs obsolete, but they will be replaced by newer jobs, and everyone benefits from the better, cheaper world created by the tech advancement(s). The main critique for this notion is asking how many of these new jobs are really created, and whether they offer the same stability and benefits. If this thesis is valid however, the other big issue that remains is the widening wealth gap. The solution for that is probably not banning automation - but rather progressive taxation based on one's wealth. I know some people find this idea evil, but it's a fantastic solution to the issue of extreme inequality.

moffkalast 4y ago
Tech makes jobs obsolete, but the new jobs introduced in the last few hundred years only add up to a small part of the overall workforce (programmers excluded). CGP Grey went in depth on human replacement automation, and almost a decade later it still holds up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU The bottom line is that automating a job is obviously a net positive because it frees up a human to do something else elsewhere, while still providing the same added value as before. There will always be something for that human to do, even if not a traditional style job. The gap, as you point out, is making sure that newly created value gets taxed and provided to that freed up person as UBI, so that they can continue to live and consume those products that the machine makes in the first place, otherwise there is no demand for them and capitalism doesn't work. There is no point in having an army of robots making hats if there's nobody to wear them.

hcks 4y ago

The exemple at hand is literally about allowing truckers to work from their homes and increasing their hourly rates