8 ms·

His views on free software come from a very different idealized reality than what actually exists. From the GNU Manifesto: In the long run, making programs fre

by rdouble 15y ago

His views on free software come from a very different idealized reality than what actually exists. From the GNU Manifesto: In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming.

maigret 15y ago
Which has some truth in it. Our world is already struggling to keep people employed despite continuous productivity gains. As developers, we know the next 20 years will probably be low risk for us, but many professions are endangered. Who will be a truck or taxi driver when the Google car will work fine? Who will need secretaries when Siri will be evolved? New technologies are just not creating that much jobs. Note that I am not disagreeing with you, I just suppose that RMS may not be completely wrong.
- jerrya 15y ago
  1995, Jeremy Rifkin talked about the End of Work, saying we should plan for how to structure society as it was coming. He was ignored, and now we seem to be living the results of not planning for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era is a non-fiction book by American economist Jeremy Rifkin, published in 1995 by Putnam Publishing Group.[1] In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminates tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He traced the devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class continues to shrink and the workplace becomes ever more stressful. As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sector—voluntary and community-based service organizations—that will create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocated scaling down the military budget, enacting a value added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers.[1]
  - pmr_ 15y ago
    It's shocking that only a minority of people in technology know about post-scarcity concepts. Un-employing others is our main goal and when we cannot sustain an income from supporting an application, technology has done exactly that to us. Support has either been crowd-sourced or enough able people are able to add enhancements themselves. We should be the ones that are most aware of these consequences and simply move on to new technologies and projects instead of artificially limiting our products.
    - drivingmenuts 15y ago
      It's not the technology workers that are getting hurt the worst by this change, though. It's all the other people in businesses affected by and attached to the tech industry, who don't have the flexibility to pivot quickly or at all. Moving on to new technologies just puts more people out of work with nothing to replace their old jobs. Additionally, technology is neutral regarding human nature. As we grow older, we are less comfortable with shifting around and there are attachments that make it more difficult. Sure, it's great to be rootless and fancy-free when you're in your 20s, but when you hit 40 or 50, you have to start thinking about how it's all going to end.
      - pmr_ 15y ago
        So should we just stop developing technology because all those jobs have to be preserved? You seem to take jobs as something that is inherent to the existence of the individual. The book recommended by the parent (and some others) question that position and explore alternatives and the transition from a society rooted in that belief and one that doesn't require the existence of jobs. Technology is not about putting a few people out of "work", but about freeing people from it altogether.
        tree_of_item 15y ago
        Jobs are something inherent to the existence of individuals until we somehow trick the political class in to implementing basic income, which is absolutely not happening any time soon. All this talk of "post-scarcity" tomorrow ignores the fact that no jobs causes a lot problems for people today.
- joe_the_user 15y ago
  Our world is already struggling to keep people employed despite continuous productivity gains. In a rational world, that should be "because of... continuous productivity gains". I admit that the way you phrase the situation is how most people today view it but just as much it is a statement akin to "despite digging deeper and deeper, we keep getting closer to China"...
  - maigret 15y ago
    Can you elaborate on that? Are you thinking of a special theory, or a book explaining that? I know the work from Rifkin, who is arguing for "despite". I understand that the real picture may somehow be different... For example, gains in healthcare may keep more people at work who else wouldn't be able to work. And an elaborate society also allows women to work, increasing the workforce. So I see this is not a black/white issue.
    - joe_the_user 15y ago
      Since I'm commenting on what is or is not obvious, it would seem to me that the argument couldn't be strengthened by background material. The argument is simply that the more things X people can do, the less things there are for a remaining Y people to do. When workers are more productive, total societal demands can be met with fewer workers. Seems intuitively obvious. X factory produces N widgets. If it is can suddenly produce with half the workers, it will fire the others and get profit. It has been argued that in these situations, demand will magically double or jobs will be magically found for these laid-off widget makers. Whatever their long pedigree, it seems to me these arguments only seem plausible because we've trained to believe them. A look at the present world seems to indicate that "what you'd expect without the propaganda" is happening - the laid-off widget makers of all sorts are thrown on the scrap heap with crocodile tears from the finance managers running things.
      - maigret 15y ago
        Uh, where was my head? Of course you are right, this is because. I fully agree with you, and my word was obviously wrong. Somehow I still had my original meaning in mind, which was the same as you exposed, and thought you were opposing that. Sorry and thanks for the correction.
- omouse 15y ago
  Basically we need socialism. Everyone should be guaranteed a standard of living (including a house and food) at a certain level that will increase as our productivity increases. The freeloader "problem" won't be seen as a problem. We should actually be looking it as the model for the future...how can we increase productivity such that we can support as many people as possible who want to be lazy or who want to pursue what they love?
bct 15y ago
The key phrase being "In the long run". We won't get to that idealized reality if we make the wrong decisions in our current reality.
pessimizer 15y ago
And to a significant degree, he and people who used the concepts and structures that he originated have pushed reality in that direction.
bfrs 15y ago
I wonder when we will cross the post-scarcity point on housing. Considering that about 50% of my monthly expenses goes to rent, I think reducing the cost of housing is where most of my mental energies should be devoted, instead of yet another social/local CRUD app. My partial solution is Commodity Housing in urban areas, i.e., housing so abundant that what you pay is close to the maintainance costs, which I estimate would be on the order of $50-60/month (excluding electric/gas, water/sewage and garbage collection expenses which most of us already pay for separately). I can't seem to figure out why, when there is so much land in the U.S. [1], the rents are still so crushingly high [2]? I only have a partial answer in zoning laws and (ironically) rent controls [3]. [1] http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population.. http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population.... [2] http://shine.yahoo.com/green/simple-life-in-manhattan-a-90-s.. http://shine.yahoo.com/green/simple-life-in-manhattan-a-90-s.... http://financiallyfit.yahoo.com/finance/article-113345-10728.. http://financiallyfit.yahoo.com/finance/article-113345-10728.... [3] http://www.baycitizen.org/columns/elizabeth-lesly-stevens/sm.. http://www.baycitizen.org/columns/elizabeth-lesly-stevens/sm....
- jarek 15y ago
  As an expression of "a lot of land in the U.S.", you can buy a habitable dwelling in Nowhere Unincorporated, New Mexico for $100. Would you take this option?
  - bfrs 15y ago
    The availability of water is one of the limiting factors to the population density of a city. A lot of land implies large catchment areas over which to collect enough water to support a large city population. Location still matters, or else there would be no such thing as startup hubs like silicon valley. I'm thinking more along the lines of...why is that outside of downtown SFO, most buildings are at most 2 stories high? Is it just due to prevailing zoning laws and rent controls or is there something more? There is obviously great demand for housing as indicated by the extremely high rents in this area, so why not just replicate the downtown high rises further south? By the way this is what I found on a plaque next to the Golden Gate. The biggest faction opposed to building the bridge were the landlords in SFO, who feared that once the bridge was built, it would greatly lower the rents they could collect.

by rdouble 15y ago

maigret 15y ago

Which has some truth in it. Our world is already struggling to keep people employed despite continuous productivity gains. As developers, we know the next 20 years will probably be low risk for us, but many professions are endangered. Who will be a truck or taxi driver when the Google car will work fine? Who will need secretaries when Siri will be evolved? New technologies are just not creating that much jobs. Note that I am not disagreeing with you, I just suppose that RMS may not be completely wrong.

jerrya 15y ago
1995, Jeremy Rifkin talked about the End of Work, saying we should plan for how to structure society as it was coming. He was ignored, and now we seem to be living the results of not planning for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era is a non-fiction book by American economist Jeremy Rifkin, published in 1995 by Putnam Publishing Group.[1] In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminates tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He traced the devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class continues to shrink and the workplace becomes ever more stressful. As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sector—voluntary and community-based service organizations—that will create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocated scaling down the military budget, enacting a value added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers.[1]
- pmr_ 15y ago
  It's shocking that only a minority of people in technology know about post-scarcity concepts. Un-employing others is our main goal and when we cannot sustain an income from supporting an application, technology has done exactly that to us. Support has either been crowd-sourced or enough able people are able to add enhancements themselves. We should be the ones that are most aware of these consequences and simply move on to new technologies and projects instead of artificially limiting our products.
  - drivingmenuts 15y ago
    It's not the technology workers that are getting hurt the worst by this change, though. It's all the other people in businesses affected by and attached to the tech industry, who don't have the flexibility to pivot quickly or at all. Moving on to new technologies just puts more people out of work with nothing to replace their old jobs. Additionally, technology is neutral regarding human nature. As we grow older, we are less comfortable with shifting around and there are attachments that make it more difficult. Sure, it's great to be rootless and fancy-free when you're in your 20s, but when you hit 40 or 50, you have to start thinking about how it's all going to end.
    - pmr_ 15y ago
      So should we just stop developing technology because all those jobs have to be preserved? You seem to take jobs as something that is inherent to the existence of the individual. The book recommended by the parent (and some others) question that position and explore alternatives and the transition from a society rooted in that belief and one that doesn't require the existence of jobs. Technology is not about putting a few people out of "work", but about freeing people from it altogether.
      - tree_of_item 15y ago
        Jobs are something inherent to the existence of individuals until we somehow trick the political class in to implementing basic income, which is absolutely not happening any time soon. All this talk of "post-scarcity" tomorrow ignores the fact that no jobs causes a lot problems for people today.
joe_the_user 15y ago
Our world is already struggling to keep people employed despite continuous productivity gains. In a rational world, that should be "because of... continuous productivity gains". I admit that the way you phrase the situation is how most people today view it but just as much it is a statement akin to "despite digging deeper and deeper, we keep getting closer to China"...
- maigret 15y ago
  Can you elaborate on that? Are you thinking of a special theory, or a book explaining that? I know the work from Rifkin, who is arguing for "despite". I understand that the real picture may somehow be different... For example, gains in healthcare may keep more people at work who else wouldn't be able to work. And an elaborate society also allows women to work, increasing the workforce. So I see this is not a black/white issue.
  - joe_the_user 15y ago
    Since I'm commenting on what is or is not obvious, it would seem to me that the argument couldn't be strengthened by background material. The argument is simply that the more things X people can do, the less things there are for a remaining Y people to do. When workers are more productive, total societal demands can be met with fewer workers. Seems intuitively obvious. X factory produces N widgets. If it is can suddenly produce with half the workers, it will fire the others and get profit. It has been argued that in these situations, demand will magically double or jobs will be magically found for these laid-off widget makers. Whatever their long pedigree, it seems to me these arguments only seem plausible because we've trained to believe them. A look at the present world seems to indicate that "what you'd expect without the propaganda" is happening - the laid-off widget makers of all sorts are thrown on the scrap heap with crocodile tears from the finance managers running things.
    - maigret 15y ago
      Uh, where was my head? Of course you are right, this is because. I fully agree with you, and my word was obviously wrong. Somehow I still had my original meaning in mind, which was the same as you exposed, and thought you were opposing that. Sorry and thanks for the correction.
omouse 15y ago
Basically we need socialism. Everyone should be guaranteed a standard of living (including a house and food) at a certain level that will increase as our productivity increases. The freeloader "problem" won't be seen as a problem. We should actually be looking it as the model for the future...how can we increase productivity such that we can support as many people as possible who want to be lazy or who want to pursue what they love?

bct 15y ago

The key phrase being "In the long run". We won't get to that idealized reality if we make the wrong decisions in our current reality.

pessimizer 15y ago

And to a significant degree, he and people who used the concepts and structures that he originated have pushed reality in that direction.

bfrs 15y ago

I wonder when we will cross the post-scarcity point on housing. Considering that about 50% of my monthly expenses goes to rent, I think reducing the cost of housing is where most of my mental energies should be devoted, instead of yet another social/local CRUD app. My partial solution is Commodity Housing in urban areas, i.e., housing so abundant that what you pay is close to the maintainance costs, which I estimate would be on the order of $50-60/month (excluding electric/gas, water/sewage and garbage collection expenses which most of us already pay for separately). I can't seem to figure out why, when there is so much land in the U.S. [1], the rents are still so crushingly high [2]? I only have a partial answer in zoning laws and (ironically) rent controls [3]. [1] http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population.. http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population.... [2] http://shine.yahoo.com/green/simple-life-in-manhattan-a-90-s.. http://shine.yahoo.com/green/simple-life-in-manhattan-a-90-s.... http://financiallyfit.yahoo.com/finance/article-113345-10728.. http://financiallyfit.yahoo.com/finance/article-113345-10728.... [3] http://www.baycitizen.org/columns/elizabeth-lesly-stevens/sm.. http://www.baycitizen.org/columns/elizabeth-lesly-stevens/sm....

jarek 15y ago
As an expression of "a lot of land in the U.S.", you can buy a habitable dwelling in Nowhere Unincorporated, New Mexico for $100. Would you take this option?
- bfrs 15y ago
  The availability of water is one of the limiting factors to the population density of a city. A lot of land implies large catchment areas over which to collect enough water to support a large city population. Location still matters, or else there would be no such thing as startup hubs like silicon valley. I'm thinking more along the lines of...why is that outside of downtown SFO, most buildings are at most 2 stories high? Is it just due to prevailing zoning laws and rent controls or is there something more? There is obviously great demand for housing as indicated by the extremely high rents in this area, so why not just replicate the downtown high rises further south? By the way this is what I found on a plaque next to the Golden Gate. The biggest faction opposed to building the bridge were the landlords in SFO, who feared that once the bridge was built, it would greatly lower the rents they could collect.