5 ms·

Sure, in the long term, employment may drop to zero. But humans have an almost infinite ability to create, and they definitely have an infinite ability to want.

Sure, in the long term, employment may drop to zero. But humans have an almost infinite ability to create, and they definitely have an infinite ability to want. If computers and robots do all the grunt work, and humans have sufficiently advanced economic systems to be able to benefit as a society, what is the harm in 0% employment? People will create when they want to create, and consume when they want to consume. Then, humans will do what they do best: enjoy life.

normloman 13y ago
You said it yourself. Do we have sufficiently advanced economic systems to handle this thing? Ideally, everyone would benefit from robotic efficiency. But the way things are going, only the rich will enjoy the benefits. The poor will be at their mercy.
- saosebastiao 13y ago
  I think it will be like this for a while, with only token changes. But change in that direction isn't impossible...in fact, at some point it will be inevitable. The problem with those types of changes right now is that the world is still highly meritocratic. I know a lot of people would scoff at that idea, but they end up riding the bus to work in the morning thinking that the bus driver might be worth a comfortable living wage but definitely doesn't deserve their college-educated salary because they worked harder for it. And they think that they are better at their job than Joe CubicleMate, and they think they can run the company better than Director Jim, and they think that their friend's step son is a worthless piece of garbage that shouldn't be allowed to collect welfare unless he checks himself into rehab first. And as such, the people who fight for reduced inequality may have a point about billionaires and such, but they don't want so much equality that they can't think they are better than their neighbor. If they want sweeping change, they have to change themselves. Until then, the only meaningful change can be targeted at the extremes.
  - ScottBurson 13y ago
    All your hypothetical example people are male.
    - saosebastiao 13y ago
      So are you, and half the world.
- yardie 13y ago
  > everyone would benefit from robotic efficiency. I think we are just seeing the start of everyone enjoying robotic efficiency. 10-15 years ago a rapid prototype machine cost in $30-60k, for small objects. Last year the news was filled with 3D-printers in the range of $500+.
  - normloman 13y ago
    I'm sure the unemployed people made obsolete by robots will be able to afford that.
    - tadfisher 13y ago
      Given time, we can change the meaning of "afford".
jarrett 13y ago
Intrinsically, there is no harm in 0% employment. One can certainly imagine a society in which nobody works, and the fruits of automations are enjoyed by all. Alternatively, one can imagine an extremely hierarchical society where the fruits of automation are enjoyed only be a few, and the rest of the population is treated as a burden or a threat. My hypothesis implies no value judgment about the future of human labor. Maybe 0% employment will be good, maybe it will be bad. I'm merely imagining how we could get to 0%, not what that will mean for us.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Nitpicky language question - it seems to me there is a difference between "intrinsically, there is no harm in X" and "there is no intrinsic harm in X," where the former would strictly be "it is intrinsic to X that no harm in it." I assume you mean the latter?
  - jarrett 13y ago
    Excellent catch! I quite agree.
ThomPete 13y ago
Once that plateau is reached no problem, it's the way toward it thats the problem for a lot of people.
Tiktaalik 13y ago
We could be closer to the ideals of Star Trek Federation society than we think, where accumulating money is not that necessary and work could be for the sole purpose of self fufilment. A notion of a minimum guaranteed income would be necessary in addition to all the robotic automation.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I don't know that "minimum guaranteed income" has a precise meaning, but it's worth noting that "Guaranteed Minimum Income" and "Basic Income" are different things, and that the Canadian experiment called "Mincome" was a Basic Income program.
  - Tiktaalik 13y ago
    Thanks I didn't realize these were two different concepts. I feel like I've heard Minimum Guaranteed Income described as Basic Income before. I meant Basic Income.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      "I feel like I've heard Minimum Guaranteed Income described as Basic Income before." You probably have. There's certainly some confusion about, which is why I make a habit of noting the distinction - so we are at least clear which we're talking about.

normloman 13y ago

You said it yourself. Do we have sufficiently advanced economic systems to handle this thing? Ideally, everyone would benefit from robotic efficiency. But the way things are going, only the rich will enjoy the benefits. The poor will be at their mercy.

saosebastiao 13y ago
I think it will be like this for a while, with only token changes. But change in that direction isn't impossible...in fact, at some point it will be inevitable. The problem with those types of changes right now is that the world is still highly meritocratic. I know a lot of people would scoff at that idea, but they end up riding the bus to work in the morning thinking that the bus driver might be worth a comfortable living wage but definitely doesn't deserve their college-educated salary because they worked harder for it. And they think that they are better at their job than Joe CubicleMate, and they think they can run the company better than Director Jim, and they think that their friend's step son is a worthless piece of garbage that shouldn't be allowed to collect welfare unless he checks himself into rehab first. And as such, the people who fight for reduced inequality may have a point about billionaires and such, but they don't want so much equality that they can't think they are better than their neighbor. If they want sweeping change, they have to change themselves. Until then, the only meaningful change can be targeted at the extremes.
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  All your hypothetical example people are male.
  - saosebastiao 13y ago
    So are you, and half the world.
yardie 13y ago
> everyone would benefit from robotic efficiency. I think we are just seeing the start of everyone enjoying robotic efficiency. 10-15 years ago a rapid prototype machine cost in $30-60k, for small objects. Last year the news was filled with 3D-printers in the range of $500+.
- normloman 13y ago
  I'm sure the unemployed people made obsolete by robots will be able to afford that.
  - tadfisher 13y ago
    Given time, we can change the meaning of "afford".

jarrett 13y ago

Intrinsically, there is no harm in 0% employment. One can certainly imagine a society in which nobody works, and the fruits of automations are enjoyed by all. Alternatively, one can imagine an extremely hierarchical society where the fruits of automation are enjoyed only be a few, and the rest of the population is treated as a burden or a threat. My hypothesis implies no value judgment about the future of human labor. Maybe 0% employment will be good, maybe it will be bad. I'm merely imagining how we could get to 0%, not what that will mean for us.

dllthomas 13y ago
Nitpicky language question - it seems to me there is a difference between "intrinsically, there is no harm in X" and "there is no intrinsic harm in X," where the former would strictly be "it is intrinsic to X that no harm in it." I assume you mean the latter?
- jarrett 13y ago
  Excellent catch! I quite agree.

ThomPete 13y ago

Once that plateau is reached no problem, it's the way toward it thats the problem for a lot of people.

Tiktaalik 13y ago

We could be closer to the ideals of Star Trek Federation society than we think, where accumulating money is not that necessary and work could be for the sole purpose of self fufilment. A notion of a minimum guaranteed income would be necessary in addition to all the robotic automation.

dllthomas 13y ago
I don't know that "minimum guaranteed income" has a precise meaning, but it's worth noting that "Guaranteed Minimum Income" and "Basic Income" are different things, and that the Canadian experiment called "Mincome" was a Basic Income program.
- Tiktaalik 13y ago
  Thanks I didn't realize these were two different concepts. I feel like I've heard Minimum Guaranteed Income described as Basic Income before. I meant Basic Income.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "I feel like I've heard Minimum Guaranteed Income described as Basic Income before." You probably have. There's certainly some confusion about, which is why I make a habit of noting the distinction - so we are at least clear which we're talking about.