5 ms·

This is just the reality of the impending job displacement. Trying to prevent technology from advancing is not possible, and even if it was, it would limit ever

by ITB 3y ago

This is just the reality of the impending job displacement. Trying to prevent technology from advancing is not possible, and even if it was, it would limit everyone’s standard of living, which is undesirable. We have two big problems to solve. First is figuring out if we’ll need a safety net for the first wave of automated workers, or if more jobs will be quickly created. Second, which is more difficult, we need to make sure most people still have the purpose they derive from work. No matter how shitty a job might look from the outside, I wager most people still borrow a strong sense of identity from them. And if they lose that, shit will get weird. The whole concept of paying UBI to everyone so they become artists is complete BS. A lot of people will just be depressed or behave in a way that negatively impacts society. Jobs are a good way to keep social order. But telling sob stories about workers about to lose their job doesn’t solve any of these problems. It just makes people feel afraid of the future, which is counter productive.

letrowekwel 3y ago
Nope, most people don't borrow a strong sense of identity from their jobs. They just do them so they can afford to eat. With UBI they could actually choose to do something which gives them a sense of purpose and identity. Doesn't even have to be art. Personally I enjoy gardening and growing food much more than my job. With UBI I could fully concentrate on that, instead of wasting my time on stuff I don't enjoy. In fact it would be much more healthy for call-center workers to spend their time outdoors growing potatoes, instead of sitting indoors just to afford said potatoes. Lots of underpaid jobs like this are inherently unhealthy for humans.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > most people don't borrow a strong sense of identity from their jobs Part of middle-class striver religion is that recognition for your labor is the only way to have an identity (or a "worth," both metaphorically and literally.) What you are in that worldview is exactly what the people who can pay think you are.
xjaeekakappy11 3y ago
[dead]
rideontime 3y ago
> First is figuring out if we’ll need a safety net for the first wave of automated workers, or if more jobs will be quickly created. You say "if more jobs will be quickly created" as though that's what determines whether we "need" a safety net. The reality is that those capable of providing that safety net will only decide it's "needed" if they risk facing any consequences for not providing one.
sgath92 3y ago
> First is figuring out if we’ll need a safety net for the first wave of automated workers, or if more jobs will be quickly created. Part of the problem is that people whose entire professions have ceased to exist, aren't always in a position to pivot to something else. If a skilled profession disappears entirely, those early in their careers can go back to school/training and switch to something else. But even if successful, they're usually on the hook for the cost of that education. Enter into the equation those within, say 10-15 years from retirement, and do we honestly expect them to pickup student loans at age 55 that still won't be paid off when they're in their 80s? Instead, they'll end up in a lower or un-skilled profession, their quality of life will permanently decrease, and our cultural response is to say "well, sucks to be you." And then we wonder why so many people have resentful, crab in a bucket mentalities.
hackinthebochs 3y ago
> Trying to prevent technology from advancing is not possible, and even if it was, it would limit everyone’s standard of living, which is undesirable. Technology doesn't immediately raise everyone's standard of living. Distribution of wealth from technology increases standards of living. But until we solve the distribution problem, technology will just exacerbate inequality and reduce standards of living for those not useful to the economy.

by ITB 3y ago

letrowekwel 3y ago

Nope, most people don't borrow a strong sense of identity from their jobs. They just do them so they can afford to eat. With UBI they could actually choose to do something which gives them a sense of purpose and identity. Doesn't even have to be art. Personally I enjoy gardening and growing food much more than my job. With UBI I could fully concentrate on that, instead of wasting my time on stuff I don't enjoy. In fact it would be much more healthy for call-center workers to spend their time outdoors growing potatoes, instead of sitting indoors just to afford said potatoes. Lots of underpaid jobs like this are inherently unhealthy for humans.

pessimizer 3y ago
> most people don't borrow a strong sense of identity from their jobs Part of middle-class striver religion is that recognition for your labor is the only way to have an identity (or a "worth," both metaphorically and literally.) What you are in that worldview is exactly what the people who can pay think you are.

xjaeekakappy11 3y ago

[dead]

rideontime 3y ago

> First is figuring out if we’ll need a safety net for the first wave of automated workers, or if more jobs will be quickly created. You say "if more jobs will be quickly created" as though that's what determines whether we "need" a safety net. The reality is that those capable of providing that safety net will only decide it's "needed" if they risk facing any consequences for not providing one.

sgath92 3y ago

> First is figuring out if we’ll need a safety net for the first wave of automated workers, or if more jobs will be quickly created. Part of the problem is that people whose entire professions have ceased to exist, aren't always in a position to pivot to something else. If a skilled profession disappears entirely, those early in their careers can go back to school/training and switch to something else. But even if successful, they're usually on the hook for the cost of that education. Enter into the equation those within, say 10-15 years from retirement, and do we honestly expect them to pickup student loans at age 55 that still won't be paid off when they're in their 80s? Instead, they'll end up in a lower or un-skilled profession, their quality of life will permanently decrease, and our cultural response is to say "well, sucks to be you." And then we wonder why so many people have resentful, crab in a bucket mentalities.

hackinthebochs 3y ago

> Trying to prevent technology from advancing is not possible, and even if it was, it would limit everyone’s standard of living, which is undesirable. Technology doesn't immediately raise everyone's standard of living. Distribution of wealth from technology increases standards of living. But until we solve the distribution problem, technology will just exacerbate inequality and reduce standards of living for those not useful to the economy.