3 ms·

This. The issue isn’t about productivity. It’s about the constructed emergent reality we’ve constructed where the moral life is the life of toil, and that labor

This. The issue isn’t about productivity. It’s about the constructed emergent reality we’ve constructed where the moral life is the life of toil, and that labor in any form is next to godliness. It doesn’t seem necessary that pushing a button all day for someone else’s benefit is more moral than building a realm in Minecraft all day, but our culture is replete with admonishments that time spent laboring is the only time well spent. People say it’s “the man” that encourages this out of their own avarice and greed, but my observation (partially by having been the man for some time now) is “the man” is a product of the system of beliefs, and is more subsumed by the delusion than most people. They certainly do encourage the belief in labor for labors sake - but more so because they do whole heartily believe in it themselves to the core of their being that they can’t see a functional society without everyone emulating the life they’ve led and that has rewarded them so heartily. There was a time up until about the 70’s that universal basic income and a dream of a post labor oriented society was vibrant and fairly mainstream, with even presidents advocating for it. It got lost, particularly (IMO) in the conservative backlash against social programs that equated “welfare,” racism, and a bunch of other touch points, to drive out the notion we can function without an overwhelming need to toil. We firmly tied health care and housing and any form of security to a life of unending toil. Retirement has been eaten away to ensure people toil long after they would have. As productivity improved, we demanded more toil. What our feckless leaders diverted away can be regained, and I hope that AI ushers in an era of human toil that’s so utterly pointless we finally can see the fnords en masse.

glitchc 3y ago
In the history of humanity, we have observed, time and time again, the discord and misery sown by men of means with too much idle time on their hands. I agree with you that, in the absence of guidance, most people would waste their idle time on activities that bring them pleasure. But if only takes one, or a few, usually the intelligent ones, to find a flaw or chink in the system and exploit that flaw for their own personal gains, and the intelligent individual can maximize the scope and scale of the exploit. It's important to guide smart, intelligent people towards meaningful work for the betterment of society. There isn't much separating a clever scientist from a clever criminal, beyond ethics and discipline. To produce for the betterment of society is ultimately a moral goal. The notion that work is its own reward is not poisonous to society in and of itself, rather it's beneficial. When taken to excess, of course it is harmful as are most things taken to excess. But the complete absence thereof would be equally harmful to society.
- flangola7 3y ago
  What about the wealthy people who are smart and intelligent? They have all the time (and resources) in the world. Who is guiding them?
  - burnished 3y ago
    That is the group they are talking about- that is what "of means" refers to.
    - flangola7 3y ago
      That's rather out of place with the rest of the thread then. The wealthy are personally unaffected by employment rates because they never have to compete in the labor market.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >It's important to guide smart It is important for whom to guide these people? What are their motivations?
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Yet despite full employment we still see criminals exploiting chinks. See: SBF arguably smart dude, took the guise of meaningful work for the betterment of society. Was a criminal. I think the paternalistic view that people need jobs pushing a pointless button to keep them from degenerating into Lex Luthor assumes evil is the natural state of man, and we need a constructed hamster wheel of society to keep the bad guys at bay. It hasn’t kept the bad guys at bay so far, and I believe the bad guys are very visible but a stark minority. We all have to spin wheels just in case there’s a bad guy that is stuck in a wheel somewhere too? As we move to an era where, potentially, production improves without human input, maybe the betterment of society can be achieved in other ways than toiling in pointless corporate salt mines. Maybe artists can have health insurance? Maybe people can pursue labors of love for their lifetime, not laboring a lifetime in jokes they have enough money, health, lifespan, and soul left to do what they love briefly before they die. Some people already do what they love. Great! Do it. But look around you more carefully and look at the culture of derision about modern work life. Almost no one loves modern work life across all callings. It burns us out. And when its done it casts us into a public retirement home or worse and hopes we die faster for actuarial efficiency. If we can’t fit into the corporate mold, it relegates us to poverty, disenfranchisement, food and shelter insecurity, and lack of basic medical care. So, as a post scarcity society is possible, will we construct fake work to keep people chasing health care and other basics, or will we move beyond that? Will we open the door to full autonomy? Or will we do a PPP/WPA style guided employment by the state model? Or will we just turn a blind eye and let massive segments of society rot unaided until it falls apart? I suspect in 20 years we will know the answer.
simonh 3y ago
"It doesn’t seem necessary that pushing a button all day for someone else’s benefit is more moral than building a realm in Minecraft all day, but our culture is replete with admonishments that time spent laboring is the only time well spent." It depends what happens when you push the button. Is all that happens really that you boss makes a profit, what is your company's business? Does it not have customers? Does it not do anything of benefit to anyone other than your boss? How could that even work, where does the revenue come for your salary? It's called productivity because it's about producing. Somebody somewhere is paying for that. There's no mystery here, we know how this works. If productivity goes up, the product gets cheaper and demand goes up. The customer benefits, the company benefits and your society is now better off. That means in aggregate it can afford more stuff, including services, which generates jobs. That's how progress works. It's why we don't have thousands of unemployed horse drawn buggy drivers on every street corner because people can drive their own cars.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  That’s how it’s worked when production scaled with human labor input. As we potentially enter an age where that’s not true, will we make fake buttons to keep the charade going?
  - simonh 3y ago
    Production does scale with human labour input. At small increments it scales linearly, but you get scale efficiencies as you ramp up. Then you satisfy demand at a certain price point and reach equilibrium. But if you can dramatically increase productivity per worker and for a given capital investment, your costs stay the same but your production is now higher and you can cut prices. That stimulates demand which mops up the available supply. Now very broadly several things can happen, it's more than the below but this isn't an essay. One effect is the price of production drops, you raise margins a bit and cut prices which increases demand. The company makes more money and society gets more stuff at a cheaper price. If your product is itself productive, like it's a tool, then your customers can produce more with it more cheaply. Your company is more profitable, your society gets even more stuff. Your customers are better off, so they can hire more people, buy more products, pay people more. It's great all round. Another possibility is demand goes up so much that in addition to the above your company can expand, increasing production further with more scaling effects, hiring more people, maybe also developing new products because it can invest more. So productivity increases can wash through the economy raising all boats. That's partly what GDP growth is, and it's one reason why for example the lowest 10% by income in the UK now earns twice as much in purchasing power parity than they did in the early 80s. That sounds great, and it is, but middle incomes have stagnated the most and inequality has risen. Fairness matters, but raising all boats is worth doing. Let's not let the real social issues we do have blind us to economic reality.

glitchc 3y ago

In the history of humanity, we have observed, time and time again, the discord and misery sown by men of means with too much idle time on their hands. I agree with you that, in the absence of guidance, most people would waste their idle time on activities that bring them pleasure. But if only takes one, or a few, usually the intelligent ones, to find a flaw or chink in the system and exploit that flaw for their own personal gains, and the intelligent individual can maximize the scope and scale of the exploit. It's important to guide smart, intelligent people towards meaningful work for the betterment of society. There isn't much separating a clever scientist from a clever criminal, beyond ethics and discipline. To produce for the betterment of society is ultimately a moral goal. The notion that work is its own reward is not poisonous to society in and of itself, rather it's beneficial. When taken to excess, of course it is harmful as are most things taken to excess. But the complete absence thereof would be equally harmful to society.

flangola7 3y ago
What about the wealthy people who are smart and intelligent? They have all the time (and resources) in the world. Who is guiding them?
- burnished 3y ago
  That is the group they are talking about- that is what "of means" refers to.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    That's rather out of place with the rest of the thread then. The wealthy are personally unaffected by employment rates because they never have to compete in the labor market.
pixl97 3y ago
>It's important to guide smart It is important for whom to guide these people? What are their motivations?
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Yet despite full employment we still see criminals exploiting chinks. See: SBF arguably smart dude, took the guise of meaningful work for the betterment of society. Was a criminal. I think the paternalistic view that people need jobs pushing a pointless button to keep them from degenerating into Lex Luthor assumes evil is the natural state of man, and we need a constructed hamster wheel of society to keep the bad guys at bay. It hasn’t kept the bad guys at bay so far, and I believe the bad guys are very visible but a stark minority. We all have to spin wheels just in case there’s a bad guy that is stuck in a wheel somewhere too? As we move to an era where, potentially, production improves without human input, maybe the betterment of society can be achieved in other ways than toiling in pointless corporate salt mines. Maybe artists can have health insurance? Maybe people can pursue labors of love for their lifetime, not laboring a lifetime in jokes they have enough money, health, lifespan, and soul left to do what they love briefly before they die. Some people already do what they love. Great! Do it. But look around you more carefully and look at the culture of derision about modern work life. Almost no one loves modern work life across all callings. It burns us out. And when its done it casts us into a public retirement home or worse and hopes we die faster for actuarial efficiency. If we can’t fit into the corporate mold, it relegates us to poverty, disenfranchisement, food and shelter insecurity, and lack of basic medical care. So, as a post scarcity society is possible, will we construct fake work to keep people chasing health care and other basics, or will we move beyond that? Will we open the door to full autonomy? Or will we do a PPP/WPA style guided employment by the state model? Or will we just turn a blind eye and let massive segments of society rot unaided until it falls apart? I suspect in 20 years we will know the answer.

simonh 3y ago

"It doesn’t seem necessary that pushing a button all day for someone else’s benefit is more moral than building a realm in Minecraft all day, but our culture is replete with admonishments that time spent laboring is the only time well spent." It depends what happens when you push the button. Is all that happens really that you boss makes a profit, what is your company's business? Does it not have customers? Does it not do anything of benefit to anyone other than your boss? How could that even work, where does the revenue come for your salary? It's called productivity because it's about producing. Somebody somewhere is paying for that. There's no mystery here, we know how this works. If productivity goes up, the product gets cheaper and demand goes up. The customer benefits, the company benefits and your society is now better off. That means in aggregate it can afford more stuff, including services, which generates jobs. That's how progress works. It's why we don't have thousands of unemployed horse drawn buggy drivers on every street corner because people can drive their own cars.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
That’s how it’s worked when production scaled with human labor input. As we potentially enter an age where that’s not true, will we make fake buttons to keep the charade going?
- simonh 3y ago
  Production does scale with human labour input. At small increments it scales linearly, but you get scale efficiencies as you ramp up. Then you satisfy demand at a certain price point and reach equilibrium. But if you can dramatically increase productivity per worker and for a given capital investment, your costs stay the same but your production is now higher and you can cut prices. That stimulates demand which mops up the available supply. Now very broadly several things can happen, it's more than the below but this isn't an essay. One effect is the price of production drops, you raise margins a bit and cut prices which increases demand. The company makes more money and society gets more stuff at a cheaper price. If your product is itself productive, like it's a tool, then your customers can produce more with it more cheaply. Your company is more profitable, your society gets even more stuff. Your customers are better off, so they can hire more people, buy more products, pay people more. It's great all round. Another possibility is demand goes up so much that in addition to the above your company can expand, increasing production further with more scaling effects, hiring more people, maybe also developing new products because it can invest more. So productivity increases can wash through the economy raising all boats. That's partly what GDP growth is, and it's one reason why for example the lowest 10% by income in the UK now earns twice as much in purchasing power parity than they did in the early 80s. That sounds great, and it is, but middle incomes have stagnated the most and inequality has risen. Fairness matters, but raising all boats is worth doing. Let's not let the real social issues we do have blind us to economic reality.