7 ms·

It is such a paradox in our society that a shortage of work is a problem! Should we then not relax? After automating a job, the burden of work should lessen on

It is such a paradox in our society that a shortage of work is a problem! Should we then not relax? After automating a job, the burden of work should lessen on the society as a whole. We should all be resting on laurel leaves, surrounded by our magnificent technology.

rjbwork 2y ago
But you didn't help create it. People with money did. So you must keep working 40 hours a week while they collect ever increasing sums of money with their capital proceeds. It's capitalism, not laborism, or humanism. Those with the capital are who the system serves.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- black_knight 2y ago
  As a human, I think I would like some more humanism in my society.
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    Apparently that’s controversial
- honestAbe22 2y ago
  [dead]
- Aerroon 2y ago
  >while they collect ever increasing sums of money with their capital proceeds. But in the process of doing so the rest of us benefit from all of the goods and services this capital use created. The economy is not about money, it's about stuff. I would much rather Ozempic exist and make somebody rich rather than it not exist, because there are millions of people that benefit from its existence.
da_chicken 2y ago
That would be fine if the workers owned the means, but they don't. Capitalism effectively requires labor-saving devices to cause maximum social harm. As always, it privatizes the gains and socializes the losses.
- black_knight 2y ago
  Indeed. Sounds like we have found the root of the problem. Let us then turn our minds to solving it. I’m sure we can think of something!
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    We tried looking into different solutions, turns out it didn't work quite so well as we predicted! Only capitalism has driven the single greatest increase in living standards in history, something that should be tamed, yes, but not extinguished outright. There is a reason why even the most ardent communist states have now reverted to capitalism in order to grow and prosper.
    - da_chicken 2y ago
      I would point out that we were the most successful and had the highest standard of living when unions were strongest. When tax laws and financial regulation made it unprofitable to try to hoard wealth to the degree of 19th or 21st century robber barons. Look what capitalism has done for tech. The general public now distrusts and is frustrated by silicon valley. Privacy and rights to repair have encouraged rent-seeking and fabrication of get-rich-quick schemes at the expense of natural resources and public health. User experiences and software quality trend downward. The primary purpose of new technology like AI is transparently to enrich the owners rather than to provide real benefits or services, and the first thing they all did was purge their ethics committees. Oh, yes, capitalism is doing great things for computers. Just look at the great advancements in the fields of wealth extraction, resource consumption, energy expenditure, and legislative capture. But don't worry, it's not their fault because "corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits," a phrase which is sure to be writ on the tombstone of the founding ideals of this country.
satvikpendem 2y ago
Work always increases. Consider the work from hunter gatherer days to the work present now. There are always new things to build and create, which is why new work always exists. Whether it will be done by humans versus machines is another story.
- OkayPhysicist 2y ago
  Generously assuming you're not being obtuse, the person you're replying to clearly meant "work" as "stuff people have to do", rather than "stuff that needs to be done".
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    Even with that definition, yes, work still always increases. People have to do things today that 10,000 years ago they never would have had to do. It is a long way until we can automate away every facet of work that needs to be done by humans, which is also what I was alluding to in my earlier comment.
    - consteval 2y ago
      The relative value does not increase at the same rate, however. And that's a big issue. Getting people food to eat is very important. Getting people slightly better software, not so much. The further we push up and up the less importance the jobs become. Knowledge work is great, but it's necessarily less valuable from a humanity perspective than laborious work. Of course this flaw isn't solved in a capitalist system, so we just ignore it. We just lie and pay knowledge workers more, because their work takes more human effort/investment, even if the product is less valuable. So we have a mismatch, where money value does not match real world value, and it's only getting worse. It's a bubble - eventually it will have to pop.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        > The relative value does not increase at the same rate, however. And that's a big issue. Where is the proof of this? How can you say that this is true? > The further we push up and up the less importance the jobs become. Knowledge work is great, but it's necessarily less valuable from a humanity perspective than laborious work. I reject this conclusion wholeheartedly. After food production and other such ventures, there really is only knowledge work. That you dismiss it so easily does not mean that it is not important. Indeed, the "slightly better software" of today can impact billions, billions who were not alive during the agricultural age. Even by that metric, yes, what we create today impacts many multitudes greater than us. We pay knowledge workers more because of this fact, which is matched in a capitalist system, which, need I remind you, is the single greatest contributor to the increasing of living standards in the world, something that is unmatched by any other system. You may have issues with it, but the facts are as they are.
from-nibly 2y ago
It cant though. Inflation keeps the treadmill rolling.

rjbwork 2y ago

But you didn't help create it. People with money did. So you must keep working 40 hours a week while they collect ever increasing sums of money with their capital proceeds. It's capitalism, not laborism, or humanism. Those with the capital are who the system serves.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
black_knight 2y ago
As a human, I think I would like some more humanism in my society.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  Apparently that’s controversial
honestAbe22 2y ago
[dead]
Aerroon 2y ago
>while they collect ever increasing sums of money with their capital proceeds. But in the process of doing so the rest of us benefit from all of the goods and services this capital use created. The economy is not about money, it's about stuff. I would much rather Ozempic exist and make somebody rich rather than it not exist, because there are millions of people that benefit from its existence.

da_chicken 2y ago

That would be fine if the workers owned the means, but they don't. Capitalism effectively requires labor-saving devices to cause maximum social harm. As always, it privatizes the gains and socializes the losses.

black_knight 2y ago
Indeed. Sounds like we have found the root of the problem. Let us then turn our minds to solving it. I’m sure we can think of something!
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  We tried looking into different solutions, turns out it didn't work quite so well as we predicted! Only capitalism has driven the single greatest increase in living standards in history, something that should be tamed, yes, but not extinguished outright. There is a reason why even the most ardent communist states have now reverted to capitalism in order to grow and prosper.
  - da_chicken 2y ago
    I would point out that we were the most successful and had the highest standard of living when unions were strongest. When tax laws and financial regulation made it unprofitable to try to hoard wealth to the degree of 19th or 21st century robber barons. Look what capitalism has done for tech. The general public now distrusts and is frustrated by silicon valley. Privacy and rights to repair have encouraged rent-seeking and fabrication of get-rich-quick schemes at the expense of natural resources and public health. User experiences and software quality trend downward. The primary purpose of new technology like AI is transparently to enrich the owners rather than to provide real benefits or services, and the first thing they all did was purge their ethics committees. Oh, yes, capitalism is doing great things for computers. Just look at the great advancements in the fields of wealth extraction, resource consumption, energy expenditure, and legislative capture. But don't worry, it's not their fault because "corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits," a phrase which is sure to be writ on the tombstone of the founding ideals of this country.

satvikpendem 2y ago

Work always increases. Consider the work from hunter gatherer days to the work present now. There are always new things to build and create, which is why new work always exists. Whether it will be done by humans versus machines is another story.

OkayPhysicist 2y ago
Generously assuming you're not being obtuse, the person you're replying to clearly meant "work" as "stuff people have to do", rather than "stuff that needs to be done".
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  Even with that definition, yes, work still always increases. People have to do things today that 10,000 years ago they never would have had to do. It is a long way until we can automate away every facet of work that needs to be done by humans, which is also what I was alluding to in my earlier comment.
  - consteval 2y ago
    The relative value does not increase at the same rate, however. And that's a big issue. Getting people food to eat is very important. Getting people slightly better software, not so much. The further we push up and up the less importance the jobs become. Knowledge work is great, but it's necessarily less valuable from a humanity perspective than laborious work. Of course this flaw isn't solved in a capitalist system, so we just ignore it. We just lie and pay knowledge workers more, because their work takes more human effort/investment, even if the product is less valuable. So we have a mismatch, where money value does not match real world value, and it's only getting worse. It's a bubble - eventually it will have to pop.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      > The relative value does not increase at the same rate, however. And that's a big issue. Where is the proof of this? How can you say that this is true? > The further we push up and up the less importance the jobs become. Knowledge work is great, but it's necessarily less valuable from a humanity perspective than laborious work. I reject this conclusion wholeheartedly. After food production and other such ventures, there really is only knowledge work. That you dismiss it so easily does not mean that it is not important. Indeed, the "slightly better software" of today can impact billions, billions who were not alive during the agricultural age. Even by that metric, yes, what we create today impacts many multitudes greater than us. We pay knowledge workers more because of this fact, which is matched in a capitalist system, which, need I remind you, is the single greatest contributor to the increasing of living standards in the world, something that is unmatched by any other system. You may have issues with it, but the facts are as they are.

from-nibly 2y ago

It cant though. Inflation keeps the treadmill rolling.