3 ms·

I mean there is an argument that the robber-barons during the Gilded Age were a net negative, in that they exerted way too much control and a lot of people need

I mean there is an argument that the robber-barons during the Gilded Age were a net negative, in that they exerted way too much control and a lot of people needlessly suffered in the process. Generally, though, I'm against the arguments of "automation is bad cuz less jobs". I think that might be true in the very short term, but we're never going to have a case where "all possible work is done", because that's a completely malformed premise. There's pretty much an infinite amount of potential work to do.

bigstrat2003 1y ago
> I think that might be true in the very short term... The short term matters. It's zero comfort to a factory worker who has lost his job if there will be another, better job for him in a year or two. He still needs to eat between now and then, and he can't buy food with pie in the sky promises of future employment.
- seadan83 1y ago
  AFAIK it would be more fitting to say it is of little comfort to a factory worker who lost their job, that there are now 1.5 more jobs, better jobs, now available to other people. The reason for AFAIK, my understanding is it is more common for people to be left behind than to transition entirely to a new industry. (That is my memory of seeing some data around that, not saying I'm correct, but that I find it just as plausible to speculate that industrial transitions don't always transition with the same workers.) Perhaps we should talk farming? That is the biggest example pethaps. Some 80% plus of all populations used to do agriculture. The Grapes of Wraith were all about this very topic.
  - bigstrat2003 1y ago
    That's true as well. Also, the timeframe for those new jobs probably won't be just 1-2 years. But I was trying to use the most favorable scenario for tombert's argument to show that, even in that case, it still isn't enough.
    - tombert 1y ago
      I mean, as someone who has been laid off a bunch of times (more than most people I think), I do sympathize with them. It sucks to have your income source cut off, it sucks to lose health insurance (or have to pay full freight with COBRA), it’s demoralizing to have to grovel at the feet of a bunch of potential employers for months at a time, it’s depressing to wake up to dozens of rejection emails, and it’s scary to not see an end in sight. I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to forcing companies to pay some amount per month to people whose jobs were automated away for N years, and/or providing job training for a new career.

bigstrat2003 1y ago

> I think that might be true in the very short term... The short term matters. It's zero comfort to a factory worker who has lost his job if there will be another, better job for him in a year or two. He still needs to eat between now and then, and he can't buy food with pie in the sky promises of future employment.

seadan83 1y ago
AFAIK it would be more fitting to say it is of little comfort to a factory worker who lost their job, that there are now 1.5 more jobs, better jobs, now available to other people. The reason for AFAIK, my understanding is it is more common for people to be left behind than to transition entirely to a new industry. (That is my memory of seeing some data around that, not saying I'm correct, but that I find it just as plausible to speculate that industrial transitions don't always transition with the same workers.) Perhaps we should talk farming? That is the biggest example pethaps. Some 80% plus of all populations used to do agriculture. The Grapes of Wraith were all about this very topic.
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  That's true as well. Also, the timeframe for those new jobs probably won't be just 1-2 years. But I was trying to use the most favorable scenario for tombert's argument to show that, even in that case, it still isn't enough.
  - tombert 1y ago
    I mean, as someone who has been laid off a bunch of times (more than most people I think), I do sympathize with them. It sucks to have your income source cut off, it sucks to lose health insurance (or have to pay full freight with COBRA), it’s demoralizing to have to grovel at the feet of a bunch of potential employers for months at a time, it’s depressing to wake up to dozens of rejection emails, and it’s scary to not see an end in sight. I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to forcing companies to pay some amount per month to people whose jobs were automated away for N years, and/or providing job training for a new career.