3 ms·

Knee jerk "oh no, what will the workers do?!" reactions are understandable, but in the long term society is best served by leveraging technology to get the mos

• pasbesoin 13y ago
  I see such claims made, but I don't often see them backed up by a corresponding argument. For a portion of society (restricting scope to the U.S.), things have gotten better. For another, very significant portion of society, they have not. For society overall...? Well, the freedom I had as a child to play outside unsupervised is largely gone. Education is increasingly again a crapshoot of which school you get to / are forced to attend and in that vein and from an economical perspective, who your parents are. Police are increasingly viewed as "the opposition" and "their own team". A lot of people wonder how the hell they're ever going to retire. A lot of sick people are simply staying sick. So, "efficiency" is "improving" society? For whom? And if that benefit is not being spread around to some degree, are you simply going to build walls to keep the misery out of your community? Or are you actually going to consent to live within its midst? I favor helping the people around me and throughout this country (living in the U.S., that is of particular although not exclusive interest to me) because I want to be able to enjoy the community and the country I live in. To enjoy walking down the street, and to not have to worry overly whether or not I should or can safely talk to this person or that. "Efficiency" on its own is not enough. "Trickle down", also in this regard, does not appear to be an assured method of distributing the positive results. I'll add that people have a finite work lifespan and finite opportunity to accrue assets including and particularly through investment returns. "Temporary" displacements can disrupt individual lives to an extent where they never recover. And this is happening to many people, families, and communities, these days. Also, building into new roles often requires considerable assets including but not only available time. I think some -- many -- of the people making simplistic arguments that "the workforce will adjust" -- and thereupon simply washing their hands of the matter -- have never had to dig themselves out of a significantly deep and challenging hole. Even personal illness and injury may not compare, when one has considerable resources and support at their disposal. Poverty is not an individual, often limited term challenge to overcome. It is a relentless, draining trap that can create a desert of resources. Some people do overcome it. But I don't think that's an excuse to just toss them into it, assuming that they'll somehow come out all right on the other end. -- P.S. I'll add that I did not vote the parent down. Rather, I think this is a conversation we need to and are going to have to have. The alternative as I see it is violence and oppression -- things I would rather avoid. Also, I do not begrudge the "rest of the world" a rising standard of living. But I do oppose the hollowing out of our own society that current policies and practices have promoted. (And, per some arguments, perhaps also limitations on those other societies. Distortions including political and socio-economic. Brain drain. Etc.) As members of a society, I think we have responsibility for that society as a whole. And we've been shirking our duty. In my case, I also find that is to my -- and, I think, our mutual -- detriment.
  • stephen 13y ago
    Well, your reply echos a lot of Occupy sentiment, but I'll side step that, and just say: > I think some -- many -- of the people making simplistic arguments that "the workforce will adjust" -- and thereupon simply washing their hands of the matter 1) Saying we shouldn't actively avoid technology improvements (which was my point, because it really does pay off in the long run), doesn't mean we can't help those adversely affected in the short run--it just means we should help them directly, vs. trying to indirectly "help" them, and hurt the majority of us, by ignoring technological progress (which is what politicians/commentators, like the comment I was replying to, frequently propose). 2) I believe we (society/tax payers) already do this, what with unemployment/etc. I'm not going to assert it's all roses and puppies, but it's much more than displaced workers would have traditionally got.
    • pasbesoin 13y ago
      Ok, looking at my condensed reply in lieu of working further on my initial draft, I see that I'm still not making a good, coherent argument, myself. So, I'll revise by thanking you for your reply and saying that I do take your points. I'm not in favor of avoiding technological development. I do tend to disapprove of large controlling interests that work to inhibit or control its deployment to their exclusive benefit. I think part of the problem in the U.S. is that such activity aided in the disenfranchisement of many who are now struggling here.
• knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  <late> Unlike manual laborers, to my knowledge there is no precedent for knowledge workers being obsoleted.