3 ms·

Wouldn't they be doing that now if they could? How does losing their jobs make their "hobbies" suddenly profitable?

ckannan90 13y ago
I think the argument about "hobbies" is a long term one, not one that applies to people who just got laid off. If there was no automation and everyone had to farm, nobody can pursue their "hobbies", because everyone has to work to meet their needs. At present, because of automation, less people have to farm. Because of that, people with a "hobby" of filmmaking can go make films, and other people with a "hobby" of watching films are able to spend their time (and money) watching those films. The argument is that automation eventually frees up society into doing less essential things and increases overall happiness. Also hobbies is definitely not the right word here.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >I think the argument about "hobbies" is a long term one, not one that applies to people who just got laid off. I think that's the reality, but I am not sure that people like White from the article really acknowledge this. That is, he trivializes it by kind of offhandedly suggesting that it is good for people to have these new options open up as a result of losing their jobs. But, in fact, what is required is a radical restructuring of our economy and society at large (including our ideas about work) in order to arrive at what he suggests. This is not a point that can simply be glossed over or assumed if he is being earnest or even remotely serious about addressing the automation issue. Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts. Step one is the automation of workers. Step three is this perfect utopian society, wherein we all just pursue our "hobbies".
Houshalter 13y ago
We would need something like a basic income or some other way for people to support themselves without working. It's not reasonable for everyone to survive only by the value of their labor. Especially if automation makes it nearly worthless.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Something like a basic income or other provision of basic needs will be unavoidable at some point. Automation is coming for virtually all of us, and we simply won't require nearly the number of people to produce what the world needs. We have to some degree offset this with rabid consumerism, debt, and globalization. The latter in the sense of both opening new markets and the appeal of low wage workers usurping the appeal/cost of automation. But as the wages in these countries rise and technology continues to evolve while growing ever cheaper, even this can't stem the tide forever.

I think the argument about "hobbies" is a long term one, not one that applies to people who just got laid off. If there was no automation and everyone had to farm, nobody can pursue their "hobbies", because everyone has to work to meet their needs. At present, because of automation, less people have to farm. Because of that, people with a "hobby" of filmmaking can go make films, and other people with a "hobby" of watching films are able to spend their time (and money) watching those films. The argument is that automation eventually frees up society into doing less essential things and increases overall happiness. Also hobbies is definitely not the right word here.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>I think the argument about "hobbies" is a long term one, not one that applies to people who just got laid off. I think that's the reality, but I am not sure that people like White from the article really acknowledge this. That is, he trivializes it by kind of offhandedly suggesting that it is good for people to have these new options open up as a result of losing their jobs. But, in fact, what is required is a radical restructuring of our economy and society at large (including our ideas about work) in order to arrive at what he suggests. This is not a point that can simply be glossed over or assumed if he is being earnest or even remotely serious about addressing the automation issue. Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts. Step one is the automation of workers. Step three is this perfect utopian society, wherein we all just pursue our "hobbies".

Houshalter 13y ago

We would need something like a basic income or some other way for people to support themselves without working. It's not reasonable for everyone to survive only by the value of their labor. Especially if automation makes it nearly worthless.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
Something like a basic income or other provision of basic needs will be unavoidable at some point. Automation is coming for virtually all of us, and we simply won't require nearly the number of people to produce what the world needs. We have to some degree offset this with rabid consumerism, debt, and globalization. The latter in the sense of both opening new markets and the appeal of low wage workers usurping the appeal/cost of automation. But as the wages in these countries rise and technology continues to evolve while growing ever cheaper, even this can't stem the tide forever.