3 ms·

Paying someone to idle is certainly harmful to society if you could pay them the same to do something productive.

by klipt 4y ago

bee_rider 4y ago
But it is strictly better than the pre-automation situation.
- klipt 4y ago
  Maybe if you ignore the effects of competition. If you're paying someone you no longer need and your competitors (who have access to the same automation) aren't, they'll outcompete you.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    This matters from the perspective of one specific competitor, but not from the perspective of society as a whole - the latter still has the same gross economic output and the same number of people to support it with. Therefore, the disconnect between the two is due to the way society is structured (i.e. who reaps the economic benefits and how), and not intrinsic.
    - klipt 4y ago
      > the latter still has the same gross economic output Well no, if we still had the same gross economic output as 1000 years ago quality of living would be much lower. The point of competition is that it drives up total economic output. Of course it sucks for the people who get outcompeted. Certainly getting them productive again in another capacity is good for society. Letting them simply idle is not.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        If we had the same gross economic output and the same population, quality of life would be the same, aside from environmental changes. And on the time scales we're looking at here (millions of people losing jobs within a decade or so), population growth is not a relevant concern, and does not explain why people are worse off despite more automation. Not to mention that population growth is already negative in most societies most affected by automation.
      - bee_rider 4y ago
        I haven’t responded because int_19h seems to have perfectly understood what I was trying to say and made similar arguments to what I would have. Just wanted to note that I didn’t propose a particular solution—you seem to have responded as if I’ve just said “we should have no automation,” which is not what I was proposing at all—it was just an observation about where things have ended up. We could imagine lots of ways to not throw people to the wolves when their jobs were automated away, the idea of just continuing to pay them is sort of a lower bound (in the sense that obviously the economy could bear it, because it had just been bearing it, right before the automation was implemented).

Paying someone to idle is certainly harmful to society if you could pay them the same to do something productive.

by klipt 4y ago

Paying someone to idle is certainly harmful to society if you could pay them the same to do something productive.

bee_rider 4y ago

But it is strictly better than the pre-automation situation.

klipt 4y ago
Maybe if you ignore the effects of competition. If you're paying someone you no longer need and your competitors (who have access to the same automation) aren't, they'll outcompete you.
- int_19h 4y ago
  This matters from the perspective of one specific competitor, but not from the perspective of society as a whole - the latter still has the same gross economic output and the same number of people to support it with. Therefore, the disconnect between the two is due to the way society is structured (i.e. who reaps the economic benefits and how), and not intrinsic.
  - klipt 4y ago
    > the latter still has the same gross economic output Well no, if we still had the same gross economic output as 1000 years ago quality of living would be much lower. The point of competition is that it drives up total economic output. Of course it sucks for the people who get outcompeted. Certainly getting them productive again in another capacity is good for society. Letting them simply idle is not.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      If we had the same gross economic output and the same population, quality of life would be the same, aside from environmental changes. And on the time scales we're looking at here (millions of people losing jobs within a decade or so), population growth is not a relevant concern, and does not explain why people are worse off despite more automation. Not to mention that population growth is already negative in most societies most affected by automation.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      I haven’t responded because int_19h seems to have perfectly understood what I was trying to say and made similar arguments to what I would have. Just wanted to note that I didn’t propose a particular solution—you seem to have responded as if I’ve just said “we should have no automation,” which is not what I was proposing at all—it was just an observation about where things have ended up. We could imagine lots of ways to not throw people to the wolves when their jobs were automated away, the idea of just continuing to pay them is sort of a lower bound (in the sense that obviously the economy could bear it, because it had just been bearing it, right before the automation was implemented).