4 ms·
We've done this dozens of times before. In the short term some people suffer and that is bad for them. In the long term everyone is much better off due to incre
by jstanley 5mo ago
We've done this dozens of times before. In the short term some people suffer and that is bad for them. In the long term everyone is much better off due to increased productivity.
- littlexsparkee 5mo agoeveryone? this is pure conjecture and cold comfort for anyone early/mid career
- dmbche 5mo agoWhen is the productivity showing up?
- jstanley 5mo agoIf productivity doesn't increase then you don't need to worry about displaced workers.
- throwaway27448 5mo agoAnd if productivity does increase, how are we supposed to force the recipients of this productivity to care about the rest of us? It's not like investment has panned out with its promises of general return in any of our lifetimes
- happytoexplain 5mo agoBusiness leaders are not perfectly rational beings.
- throwaway27448 5mo agoOnly if you view productivity as likely to distribute results to society. This has been proven false again and again over the last fifty years, and the k-shaped economic trend seems to be accelerating.
- yoyohello13 5mo agoWhat’s really baffling is the people in charge seem to just expect the suffering people to sit down and take it. That’s probably why they are pushing so hard for the surveillance state.
- booleandilemma 5mo agoIt's been too long since a revolution and they've gotten comfortable.
- toasty228 5mo ago> In the long term everyone is much better off due to increased productivity. reply Do people still believe in these fairy tales lmao? Most of the productivity gains don't go to the workers, pretty much everywhere in the developed world working hours and retirement age are going up, housing affordability is going down. You're not "much better off" https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcXp-6EsuSBkSyHpSbm0.png https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcX... Politicians were selling us the 3 days workweek like 40+ years ago, while shilling for more automated factories, it never happened, it didn't happen with computers, it won't happen with AI
- jstanley 5mo ago[flagged]
- happytoexplain 5mo agoExaggerated assumptions of this magnitude are a red flag against the honesty of the position from which you are arguing.
- toasty228 5mo agoAs if these were the only choices: submit to your AI overlords or become a peasant. What a lack of imagination...
- seanw444 5mo agoThere's a lot to appreciate about the middle ages. It wasn't all bad.
- rybosworld 5mo ago> We've done this dozens of times before. No, we really haven't. Every previous wave of automation has targeted human labor. The thing that makes human's unique in the animal kingdom is our intelligence. From an economic stand point, that's the thing that makes people valuable. When that's automated, what is there left? Onlyfans?
- monknomo 5mo agohardly, onlyfans is going to have loads of competitions from ai waifus
- pesus 5mo agoI'd love for everyone justifying and hand waving the suffering of others to quit their jobs, give up their assets, and join in on the suffering. If it's really worth it for the "increased productivity", they should have no problem doing so. After all, they'll be much better off in the end, right?
- hello_moto 5mo agoshort-term? how about 100 years? > Beginning in Great Britain around 1760, the Industrial Revolution had spread to continental Europe and the United States by about 1840 You know what else happened during that 100-200 years time frame? 2 Wars + Governments decided to step in and rebuild post-war. Governments tax the rich/elite by 90%. You know what else happened? workers being punished physically and mentally until the formation of Unions. You skipped a big chunk of The Ruling Class always exploit everybody else like what we're seeing right now: Tech CEOs laying off and not hiring. History repeats again. Are our productivity increase for the better? People are still working overtime because of reduced worker's protection today.
- amanaplanacanal 5mo agoWe have a lot more cheap plastic toys now though!
- happytoexplain 5mo agoEvery time, the people suffering are correct to revolt, and the people trying to repress them are incorrect to repress them, from the perspective of human beings. Every time, the "increased productivity" is inevitable, but that is not the same as better off. None of these changes has been 100% positive, even in the long run, and this one is shaping up to be the most disappointing of them all in that dimension. Inevitable != purely good. You can be pragmatic and give a shit about humans at the same time. It's not a puzzle.
- bawolff 5mo ago> None of these changes has been 100% positive, even in the long run, Personally i do in fact think we are better off (in the long term) because of e.g. the industrial revolution. Short term, it was horrific, but i'd still rather live now than as a peasent in the mid-1700s. I'd be intersted in hearing a counter argument from anyone who disagrees, as its hard for me to imagine.
- happytoexplain 5mo agoI said 100%. Not on average. Billions of humans are more complicated than that. We can be elevated in some ways while being degraded in others. I.e. progress is not free, and some costs last forever, they are not only up-front. Ignoring the costs is deadly.
- bawolff 5mo agoThis view seems morally rephrensible. Basically everything you just said could be used to justify slavery or any atrocity you want.
- happytoexplain 5mo agoAnything can be used to endorse anything if you twist the underlying implications enough. Good news: I promise I don't endorse those things. I don't think you're coming at this from a place of thoughtfulness (it's a tough, broad topic). Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions, it just means that people are correct to resist against things that harm their lives and their children's lives, even if it theoretically makes life easier for their grandchildren (which isn't even clearly true in this case, making my point even more valid). I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own. This can be a really tough point with complicated implications, but it's fundamentally unassailable.
- dakiol 5mo agoWho cares about productivity? Your CEO. Not you, not me. We all cannot be CEOs.
- pesus 5mo agoRelated: productivity has greatly increased over the last ~75 years, but wages have not increased anywhere near the same amount[0]. There is no reason for anyone besides CEOs (or similar positions) to care about productivity. [0]: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
- jstanley 5mo agoProductivity is why we have hot and cold running water and electricity piped to our houses and internet connections and cars and waterproof clothing.
- harimau777 5mo agoYa, fuck those people suffering in the short term! I got mine!
- JohnFen 5mo agoHistorically, this is not always true. It's a gamble. Right now, a small group of ultra-wealthy tech guys who have a clear disdain for everyone else is trying to gamble the future of us all. That's infuriating right there. Also, > In the short term some people suffer and that is bad for them. The casual way that the well-being and survival of people in the here-and-now is disregarded doubles how infuriating this all is.
- leptons 5mo agoThe last time something like this happened, we got the great depression. Do you want another great depression? The next one will likely be far worse than the last one.