4 ms·

This makes me wonder what a world without jobs will look like. Will a good quality life, food, shelter, money, etc just be human rights?

by dgunn 14y ago

joshAg 14y ago
It'd probably looks quite a bit like pure communism.
- zanny 14y ago
  Which means we are going to destroy ourselves before admitting we don't need people without drive or motivation in creative pursuits working menial tasks. I imagine when we get there, we are going to have an absurd concentration of wealth as the automated means of production are in the hands of very few ultra-wealthy, and everyone else is destitute because their factories and robots make everything for effectively free. That sounds like bloody revolution.
  - busyant 14y ago
    Krugman says precisely what you have said: "Ah, you ask, but what about the people? Very good question. Smart machines may make higher GDP possible, but also reduce the demand for people — including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/is-growth-over/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/is-growth-over/
  - olefoo 14y ago
    Not necessarily, you could end up with a sort of Walmart Feudalism, where basic material goods and essential services are low-priced enough that you can afford them on the little that is accorded to you from the generosity of the aristocracy.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    The problem is that opening a furniture factory or expanding a grocery chain were far more commonsense propositions than starting a social-media company, pitching a new videogame idea on Kickstarter, on even just opening a trendy bubble-tea cafe. As the business serves a need further up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it becomes riskier, both due to possible disruptions further down the pyramid (larger, higher-priority line-items of the household budget) and also due to increased variability of consumer preferences. Or, on the other hand, the creative economy could turn into a huge engine of bespoke design and manufacturing, so that real people start to own mostly customized items. I can definitely see Etsy, crowdfunding, and merchandising sites heading this way. I guess "we are all My Little Pony dolls now".
    - zanny 14y ago
      My mother is currently unemployed after Wells Fargo went on a shutdown spree of old Wachovia locations, and spends her time knitting and sewing. I told her she should seriously consider making custom pony plushes full time because they sell at such an absurd scarcity markup. I've heard of them selling for over a thousand dollars for $10 worth of materials and 4 hours of time.
      - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
        Similar things happened with Pokemon dolls in the '90s, but I think it's a bit more "intense" this time because the buyer demographic includes a lot more teens and 20-somethings with actual disposable income. But rather than toy fads, I was more referring to how each character or doll has accessories paired to them and only them. So rather than buying 2 dolls and 5 generic dresses and swapping pieces between the dolls, they're now selling 6 dolls with 6 dresses, plus more stupid little accessories and such. My hypothesis was that as manufacturing of consumer goods gets cheaper and processes get better, real people are going to stop consuming mass-manufactured goods entirely and start to become more like the dolls. Instead of my buying clothes at a department store (for instance), and thus wearing much the same stuff as my friends, family and coworkers, it will start to become economical for me to go to a neo-clothier and purchase items specifically measured, designed, cut, manufactured and adjusted for me. Quality and uniqueness start to become emphasized in consumer goods over mass-production quantities. Basically, "The Diamond Age". As people say, "the future is here, it's just unevenly distributed."
mjolk 14y ago
Don't confuse a reduced number of jobs that can be replaced by machines or algorithms with total capacity or demand for human labor.
- dgunn 14y ago
  I'm not sure anyone would confuse those things. I just think eventually, employable people will be greater than the number of jobs to perform. In a world where you've always received money, food, etc as a result of your contributions, how do you get these things without a means of contributing?
  - groby_b 14y ago
    Well, we've been there before - more people than needed to do all the work available. As a result, we instituted the idea of servants. So get used to a future where you either have a personal entourage, or will be busy doing errands for people who actually have money. And chances are much higher for the latter.
LDale 14y ago
A guy named Peter Frase considered this question in Jacobin magazine a while back (link below). His answer pivots around resources availability and social construction. Based on these constructs he developed "Four Futures" as follows: -Egalitarianism and abundance: communism -Hierarchy and abundance: rentism -Egalitarianism and scarcity: socialism -Hierarchy and scarcity: exterminism Frase definitely swings from one side of the fence, so it may not be your kind of thing - but it's one take on the idea. http://jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/ http://jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/

This makes me wonder what a world without jobs will look like. Will a good quality life, food, shelter, money, etc just be human rights?

by dgunn 14y ago

This makes me wonder what a world without jobs will look like. Will a good quality life, food, shelter, money, etc just be human rights?

joshAg 14y ago

It'd probably looks quite a bit like pure communism.

zanny 14y ago
Which means we are going to destroy ourselves before admitting we don't need people without drive or motivation in creative pursuits working menial tasks. I imagine when we get there, we are going to have an absurd concentration of wealth as the automated means of production are in the hands of very few ultra-wealthy, and everyone else is destitute because their factories and robots make everything for effectively free. That sounds like bloody revolution.
- busyant 14y ago
  Krugman says precisely what you have said: "Ah, you ask, but what about the people? Very good question. Smart machines may make higher GDP possible, but also reduce the demand for people — including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/is-growth-over/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/is-growth-over/
- olefoo 14y ago
  Not necessarily, you could end up with a sort of Walmart Feudalism, where basic material goods and essential services are low-priced enough that you can afford them on the little that is accorded to you from the generosity of the aristocracy.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  The problem is that opening a furniture factory or expanding a grocery chain were far more commonsense propositions than starting a social-media company, pitching a new videogame idea on Kickstarter, on even just opening a trendy bubble-tea cafe. As the business serves a need further up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it becomes riskier, both due to possible disruptions further down the pyramid (larger, higher-priority line-items of the household budget) and also due to increased variability of consumer preferences. Or, on the other hand, the creative economy could turn into a huge engine of bespoke design and manufacturing, so that real people start to own mostly customized items. I can definitely see Etsy, crowdfunding, and merchandising sites heading this way. I guess "we are all My Little Pony dolls now".
  - zanny 14y ago
    My mother is currently unemployed after Wells Fargo went on a shutdown spree of old Wachovia locations, and spends her time knitting and sewing. I told her she should seriously consider making custom pony plushes full time because they sell at such an absurd scarcity markup. I've heard of them selling for over a thousand dollars for $10 worth of materials and 4 hours of time.
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Similar things happened with Pokemon dolls in the '90s, but I think it's a bit more "intense" this time because the buyer demographic includes a lot more teens and 20-somethings with actual disposable income. But rather than toy fads, I was more referring to how each character or doll has accessories paired to them and only them. So rather than buying 2 dolls and 5 generic dresses and swapping pieces between the dolls, they're now selling 6 dolls with 6 dresses, plus more stupid little accessories and such. My hypothesis was that as manufacturing of consumer goods gets cheaper and processes get better, real people are going to stop consuming mass-manufactured goods entirely and start to become more like the dolls. Instead of my buying clothes at a department store (for instance), and thus wearing much the same stuff as my friends, family and coworkers, it will start to become economical for me to go to a neo-clothier and purchase items specifically measured, designed, cut, manufactured and adjusted for me. Quality and uniqueness start to become emphasized in consumer goods over mass-production quantities. Basically, "The Diamond Age". As people say, "the future is here, it's just unevenly distributed."

mjolk 14y ago

Don't confuse a reduced number of jobs that can be replaced by machines or algorithms with total capacity or demand for human labor.

dgunn 14y ago
I'm not sure anyone would confuse those things. I just think eventually, employable people will be greater than the number of jobs to perform. In a world where you've always received money, food, etc as a result of your contributions, how do you get these things without a means of contributing?
- groby_b 14y ago
  Well, we've been there before - more people than needed to do all the work available. As a result, we instituted the idea of servants. So get used to a future where you either have a personal entourage, or will be busy doing errands for people who actually have money. And chances are much higher for the latter.

LDale 14y ago

A guy named Peter Frase considered this question in Jacobin magazine a while back (link below). His answer pivots around resources availability and social construction. Based on these constructs he developed "Four Futures" as follows: -Egalitarianism and abundance: communism -Hierarchy and abundance: rentism -Egalitarianism and scarcity: socialism -Hierarchy and scarcity: exterminism Frase definitely swings from one side of the fence, so it may not be your kind of thing - but it's one take on the idea. http://jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/ http://jacobinmag.com/2011/12/four-futures/