3 ms·

Isn't that the idea? At least in one sense, technology must destroy jobs, or at least it should. In theory, it frees us from drudgery and allows us to go on to

Isn't that the idea? At least in one sense, technology must destroy jobs, or at least it should. In theory, it frees us from drudgery and allows us to go on to do more productive tasks. In practice it isn't always so easy to find employment those who are displaced by machinery.

berkay 13y ago
"allows us to go on to do more productive tasks" The idea only works as long as there are sufficient number of jobs in "more productive tasks". If jobs are destroyed but there is no place to deploy the resources gained by the productivity increase, then there is not much value, and there are many negative side effects.
- tzs 13y ago
  That's true as long as people need jobs in order to have a decent life. Eventually, the productivity gains from technology should produce enough gain to allow for a guaranteed basic income [1] sufficient to allow displaced workers to effectively retire if they wish. You'll only need to find a job if you want more than the GBI can provide. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    Question is, at what point do you implement that? Any politician who stands up and says "We have given up on lowering unemployment, time to pay everyone to stay at home" is not going to be popular until the problem is of such a magnitude that you cannot ignore it. Even in such a situation, what incentive besides purely humanitarian does an individual with a job have to sacrifice income for those who do not? Currently you can justify subsidising a non productive person in the hopes that they will be productive later. What happens if that is highly unlikely and instead they devote their time to breeding more people who will also likely become unproductive and require subsidy?
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      tzs is right though, at some point we will automate most of the labor/service jobs away. We either need to dispense with the whole protestant-work-ethic sing-for-your-supper crap, or make damn sure that we have enough stuff to do, and that people have the resources (access to education) they need to do new jobs. " time to pay everyone to stay at home" There are various levels of "paying everyone to stay at home" There is moving to a part-time employment model. There are also possibilities for interesting good things to happen to the labor market once everyone is not trapped in "must always work" mode.
      - jiggy2011 13y ago
        Could you move to a part time employment model without legally imposing a maximum on the number of hours each person can work? I know I would certainly not willingly give up half my hours and income and have to put all of my work in a state where someone else can take over every few days.
        fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        >Could you move to a part time employment model without legally imposing a maximum on the number of hours each person can work? I think the taxman's bludgeon would be the weapon of choice here. >I know I would certainly not willingly give up half my hours and income and have to put all of my work in a state where someone else can take over every few days. What do you propose as an alternative? A worker-class and a loafer-class? Prisons? Eugenics? Population control isn't very warm and fuzzy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58&list=PL381A1925DC384937 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58&list=PL381A1925D...
        jiggy2011 13y ago
        Would you tax people based on the number of hours they worked? What about people who are not paid hourly, which would increase drastically unless you outlawed it. Then you have to define what counts as "work", does reading HN count towards your daily allowance since it is tangentially related to your work? What about reading documentation? Or is it only the hours you are typing code into an editor? All options seem undesirable when you take them to their logical conclusions.
  - sneak 13y ago
    You're not from around here, are you?

berkay 13y ago

"allows us to go on to do more productive tasks" The idea only works as long as there are sufficient number of jobs in "more productive tasks". If jobs are destroyed but there is no place to deploy the resources gained by the productivity increase, then there is not much value, and there are many negative side effects.

tzs 13y ago
That's true as long as people need jobs in order to have a decent life. Eventually, the productivity gains from technology should produce enough gain to allow for a guaranteed basic income [1] sufficient to allow displaced workers to effectively retire if they wish. You'll only need to find a job if you want more than the GBI can provide. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Question is, at what point do you implement that? Any politician who stands up and says "We have given up on lowering unemployment, time to pay everyone to stay at home" is not going to be popular until the problem is of such a magnitude that you cannot ignore it. Even in such a situation, what incentive besides purely humanitarian does an individual with a job have to sacrifice income for those who do not? Currently you can justify subsidising a non productive person in the hopes that they will be productive later. What happens if that is highly unlikely and instead they devote their time to breeding more people who will also likely become unproductive and require subsidy?
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    tzs is right though, at some point we will automate most of the labor/service jobs away. We either need to dispense with the whole protestant-work-ethic sing-for-your-supper crap, or make damn sure that we have enough stuff to do, and that people have the resources (access to education) they need to do new jobs. " time to pay everyone to stay at home" There are various levels of "paying everyone to stay at home" There is moving to a part-time employment model. There are also possibilities for interesting good things to happen to the labor market once everyone is not trapped in "must always work" mode.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      Could you move to a part time employment model without legally imposing a maximum on the number of hours each person can work? I know I would certainly not willingly give up half my hours and income and have to put all of my work in a state where someone else can take over every few days.
      - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        >Could you move to a part time employment model without legally imposing a maximum on the number of hours each person can work? I think the taxman's bludgeon would be the weapon of choice here. >I know I would certainly not willingly give up half my hours and income and have to put all of my work in a state where someone else can take over every few days. What do you propose as an alternative? A worker-class and a loafer-class? Prisons? Eugenics? Population control isn't very warm and fuzzy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58&list=PL381A1925DC384937 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58&list=PL381A1925D...
        jiggy2011 13y ago
        Would you tax people based on the number of hours they worked? What about people who are not paid hourly, which would increase drastically unless you outlawed it. Then you have to define what counts as "work", does reading HN count towards your daily allowance since it is tangentially related to your work? What about reading documentation? Or is it only the hours you are typing code into an editor? All options seem undesirable when you take them to their logical conclusions.
- sneak 13y ago
  You're not from around here, are you?