1) In the case of programmers, it couldn't happen to more appropriate people. - At-will employment, - Manpower/Kelly-ization of jobs and its culmination in th

1) In the case of programmers, it couldn't happen to more appropriate people. - At-will employment, - Manpower/Kelly-ization of jobs and its culmination in the revival of piecework-by-app, - infinite outsourcing, and - infinite immigration, illegal and otherwise, are all supported by programmers in general. This is because they are wealthy and because they are "libertarians" i.e. substitute learning about politics and power with yelling about how they should be left alone to do what they like when they like, and pretending that this is politics. ----- 2) There's an obsession with calling the products of new technologies mediocre when, exactly like the four processes above that caused wage destruction on the low end of the income scale, mediocre products have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with allowing people with capital to squeeze the last drop of profit out of every process they can get in the middle of. You can have a shop full of people making mediocre products as quickly as they can. You can have a shop full of high-tech machines getting pieces to a point where they can be polished, joined and detailed by experts using high-tech tools. This is largely a matter of what people want at what cost - the level of decoration and permanence that you're going for may not be worth it to me as a customer. It also has to do with the atomization of people and the disappearance of second-hand markets: relationships between people are where middlemen interpose themselves to extract value. They do this by making it difficult for people to interact, not easy. We have infinitely fast and distant communications, and worldwide cheap logistics, but somehow I can't sell used books without splitting the profit in half with a middleman. But related, a major reason products are mediocre is because they are sold to you by the people who will sell you their replacements. There is little competition, because although the means of production are cheaper than ever, the lords simply took over the means of distribution through vertical integration (which was once taught as the primary indication of monopoly.) Somehow, the monopolies got larger when it became easier to do things independently, because to do things independently, you were forced to become a vendor to a monopolist distributor who was also selling their own lines. So with this monopolization comes forced obsolescence. There is absolutely no motivation for an Amazon who sells you everything to allow things to last for any period of time. There's no reason for them to allow those things to work well if they have a more expensive line of the same thing they can suggest you move to. ----- 3) None of any of this has anything to do with technology. It's a moral failure. It's a consequence of a complete absence of democracy. There is no restraint on anyone's behavior that voters can impose, and no system that they can dislodge. Government in the west has ceased to exist. And this moral failure makes it obvious that any gains from AI (of which there will be many, if not as many as people think) will not be shared. You don't share yourself, you feel moral righteousness in not sharing; a sort of greed as heroism, and mistaken for efficiency. When you deign to share, you want to choose who you share with, and you want to be praised. We have more than enough now, and we still have homeless children. We scream about poor people shoplifting, and lament about why people committing multi-billion dollar frauds have to go to prison for a non-violent crime. The reason we believe that people in control of technology will use that control selfishly is because we defend their right to use it selfishly unless it disturbs our lifestyles in any way, which is when we suddenly become activists. Technology is good. Automation is good. Productivity (denominated in effort, not in dollars) is good. Anything that can be made easier should be made easier. But the Luddites were still right. Not because they were breaking the frames that made weaving cheap and unskilled, but because they were breaking the lord's frames, a parasite whose job was to relax and live from their labor, and fire them when there was no value left to extract. This is not a technological problem. In a morally corrupted world, where the blessed prey on the cursed, any blessing is a curse. Never trust a guy who pretends that owning things is a job; it is a title. People with titles can hire people to run the things they own; if they don't, it's because they are emotional holes who not only need everything you have, but need you to praise them as deserving of it.