4 ms·

By this logic, any technology is a threat. Its only a matter of how the technology is used. We could be celebrating that we can all work less for the same pay,

by r14c 3y ago

By this logic, any technology is a threat. Its only a matter of how the technology is used. We could be celebrating that we can all work less for the same pay, but that's not how we're choosing to have it play out.

wazoox 3y ago
That's the wonder of capitalism. Power is in the hands of those owning the capital; from their point of view, everything goes really great and according to plan. There is no democracy, as everything is done so that as much as possible the economy is out of reach of politics (because supposedly magically the market God knows what is best).
- caesil 3y ago
  And yet under capitalism the working class is far better off than it has ever been under any other economic system in human history.
  - r14c 3y ago
    Its astounding that this talking point is so sticky. I would recommend reading US history again, including the redacted sections. You don't even have to go back to the inception of capitalism in the colonial era to demonstrate that this idea is false.
  - wazoox 3y ago
    I pretend that capitalism hasn't much to do with it, but energy availability is key. Basically (contrary to the nonsense professed by neoclassical economics of all stripes, from Solow to Krugman and Hayek to Nordhaus) the economy is a machinery to transform energy into goods and services. Capitalism is somewhat better at it than other systems in a period of sustained growth, because the wasted energy of people competing for almost the same market doing almost the same thing (basically duplicating work in vain) is compensated by the overall growth in energy consumption. However in the coming age of restricted energy availability, capitalism will become obsolete and disappear. It's already happening, we're contemplating a new form of techno-feudalism growing upon us. I'll add this aside : some of these people with "Nobel prizes" in economics go as far as saying things like "+4°C will only marginally affect the economy as only outdoors activities like agriculture, which represents a couple percent of GDP, will be impacted". Because as you know, agriculture as part of GDP perfectly represents its actual importance in our lives: economists don't eat I suppose :) A joke I like is "the brain is only 2% of the weight of an economist, therefore its ablation will only have a marginal impact on this economist's ability to function".
digging 3y ago
> We could be celebrating that we can all work less for the same pay Overall, Americans have been increasingly working more for less pay for decades, all while productivity (and profits) have risen. Even at the SWE engineer, we should never expect innovations to ease our labor burdens unless we fight for that to be the case. By default, we'll do one of two things: 1. Be expected to do a lot more work, since AI makes it easier 2. Get laid off, because 1 person is now doing what a team did with AI (even if they're doing it worse)
- hattmall 3y ago
  It's because many jobs aren't producing anything. That's almost all of professional services and it's exactly the kind of thing that gets whittled down as much as possible.
- r14c 3y ago
  > we should never expect innovations to ease our labor burdens unless we fight for that to be the case this is the kind of society you want to live in?
  - timeon 3y ago
    Obviously not but it is where we are now.
    - r14c 3y ago
      By this logic, any technology is a threat. Its only a matter of how the technology is used. We could be celebrating that we can all work less for the same pay, but that's not how we're choosing to have it play out.

by r14c 3y ago

wazoox 3y ago

That's the wonder of capitalism. Power is in the hands of those owning the capital; from their point of view, everything goes really great and according to plan. There is no democracy, as everything is done so that as much as possible the economy is out of reach of politics (because supposedly magically the market God knows what is best).

caesil 3y ago
And yet under capitalism the working class is far better off than it has ever been under any other economic system in human history.
- r14c 3y ago
  Its astounding that this talking point is so sticky. I would recommend reading US history again, including the redacted sections. You don't even have to go back to the inception of capitalism in the colonial era to demonstrate that this idea is false.
- wazoox 3y ago
  I pretend that capitalism hasn't much to do with it, but energy availability is key. Basically (contrary to the nonsense professed by neoclassical economics of all stripes, from Solow to Krugman and Hayek to Nordhaus) the economy is a machinery to transform energy into goods and services. Capitalism is somewhat better at it than other systems in a period of sustained growth, because the wasted energy of people competing for almost the same market doing almost the same thing (basically duplicating work in vain) is compensated by the overall growth in energy consumption. However in the coming age of restricted energy availability, capitalism will become obsolete and disappear. It's already happening, we're contemplating a new form of techno-feudalism growing upon us. I'll add this aside : some of these people with "Nobel prizes" in economics go as far as saying things like "+4°C will only marginally affect the economy as only outdoors activities like agriculture, which represents a couple percent of GDP, will be impacted". Because as you know, agriculture as part of GDP perfectly represents its actual importance in our lives: economists don't eat I suppose :) A joke I like is "the brain is only 2% of the weight of an economist, therefore its ablation will only have a marginal impact on this economist's ability to function".

digging 3y ago

> We could be celebrating that we can all work less for the same pay Overall, Americans have been increasingly working more for less pay for decades, all while productivity (and profits) have risen. Even at the SWE engineer, we should never expect innovations to ease our labor burdens unless we fight for that to be the case. By default, we'll do one of two things: 1. Be expected to do a lot more work, since AI makes it easier 2. Get laid off, because 1 person is now doing what a team did with AI (even if they're doing it worse)

hattmall 3y ago
It's because many jobs aren't producing anything. That's almost all of professional services and it's exactly the kind of thing that gets whittled down as much as possible.
r14c 3y ago
> we should never expect innovations to ease our labor burdens unless we fight for that to be the case this is the kind of society you want to live in?
- timeon 3y ago
  Obviously not but it is where we are now.
  - r14c 3y ago
    By this logic, any technology is a threat. Its only a matter of how the technology is used. We could be celebrating that we can all work less for the same pay, but that's not how we're choosing to have it play out.