3 ms·

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

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.

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.