3 ms·

The machines are creating wealth for the owners of the machines which isn't being (re)distributed to the former workers at all. That's the crux of the problem.

by malyk 12y ago

The machines are creating wealth for the owners of the machines which isn't being (re)distributed to the former workers at all. That's the crux of the problem. Maybe there will be another revolution in jobs that need to be done that these people will be able to take up, but until that time we are sentencing a huge number of people to live in poverty. We need to find a way to help those people until this new class of jobs people imagine will appear actually become reality.

lucb1e 12y ago
> The machines are creating wealth for the owners of the machines which isn't being (re)distributed to the former workers at all. Isn't it? You're right in that I have yet to hear someone laying off staff and then paying them because machines do all the work, but on the whole I do think everyone profits. At least in the Netherlands you get money during the time that you are looking for employment. > we are sentencing a huge number of people to live in poverty Last I heard we are still free to start our own farms and live off of those, but it seems people rather like having things like cars, power, the Internet and other luxuries of the past few decades. And most people living in "poverty", as you say, have all of the above. Those won't be the best cars or the fastest connections to the Internet, but I never heard about a "huge" number of people being laid off and then having to go without all of that. You'd think they'd be in the streets rioting against the machines if it was that bad.
- davidcbc 12y ago
  "Free" to start our own farms? Where are they getting the land? Where are they getting the crops and equipment needed? Where are they getting the general knowledge of how to even grow a farm that can sustain a family?
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  > Last I heard we are still free to start our own farms and live off of those, but it seems people rather like having things like cars, power, the Internet and other luxuries of the past few decades. And most people living in "poverty", as you say, have all of the above. This is an enormously common fallacy. There are certain things that have their costs driven down very easily by technological innovation (consumer goods, electronics, transport, etc) and certain things that are very resistant, at least on short and medium time scales (healthcare, education, land for obvious reasons). Being increasingly able to afford things like Internet and cars may make it seem like someone CAN'T be "poor" because rich people 40 years ago didn't have it, but that's a lot less significant than their relative ability to access the (much more important) things in the second category. (Inasmuch as Maslow's pyramid is a good heuristic for priorities, you can think of these as things further down the pyramid). This phenomenon is clearly common-sense after a moment's thought, but I found an article that goes into this phenomenon in more detail: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expensive-to-be-poor/361533/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expe...
dllthomas 12y ago
"We need to find a way to help those people until this new class of jobs people imagine will appear actually become reality." Without overly discouraging them from looking for those new jobs, because that's an important part of how we create new classes of jobs. Personally, I think a low basic income is our best bet, but I'm eager to hear other suggestions.
- malyk 12y ago
  I agree with the low(ish) basic income for a variety of reasons. But I think expecting the people who are automated out of jobs to go and create entirely new categories of job on there own is being extremely over optimistic. So, between the time that they are replaced and the time that new categories of jobs become available something /more/ than just a basic income is necessary. As more and more automate-able jobs become automated there will be less and less employment opportunities available for the displaced workers until these new categories of job become available.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "But I think expecting the people who are automated out of jobs to go and create entirely new categories of job on there own is being extremely over optimistic." To be clear, I (most emphatically) do not mean "Ths ese people should just go create new jobs - lazy bums, jeeze!" People looking for ways to help others, in order to get ahead, is an important part of how we find new jobs - but until they're found most people will be failing and we don't want them suffering to be sure.

by malyk 12y ago

lucb1e 12y ago

> The machines are creating wealth for the owners of the machines which isn't being (re)distributed to the former workers at all. Isn't it? You're right in that I have yet to hear someone laying off staff and then paying them because machines do all the work, but on the whole I do think everyone profits. At least in the Netherlands you get money during the time that you are looking for employment. > we are sentencing a huge number of people to live in poverty Last I heard we are still free to start our own farms and live off of those, but it seems people rather like having things like cars, power, the Internet and other luxuries of the past few decades. And most people living in "poverty", as you say, have all of the above. Those won't be the best cars or the fastest connections to the Internet, but I never heard about a "huge" number of people being laid off and then having to go without all of that. You'd think they'd be in the streets rioting against the machines if it was that bad.

davidcbc 12y ago
"Free" to start our own farms? Where are they getting the land? Where are they getting the crops and equipment needed? Where are they getting the general knowledge of how to even grow a farm that can sustain a family?
wutbrodo 12y ago
> Last I heard we are still free to start our own farms and live off of those, but it seems people rather like having things like cars, power, the Internet and other luxuries of the past few decades. And most people living in "poverty", as you say, have all of the above. This is an enormously common fallacy. There are certain things that have their costs driven down very easily by technological innovation (consumer goods, electronics, transport, etc) and certain things that are very resistant, at least on short and medium time scales (healthcare, education, land for obvious reasons). Being increasingly able to afford things like Internet and cars may make it seem like someone CAN'T be "poor" because rich people 40 years ago didn't have it, but that's a lot less significant than their relative ability to access the (much more important) things in the second category. (Inasmuch as Maslow's pyramid is a good heuristic for priorities, you can think of these as things further down the pyramid). This phenomenon is clearly common-sense after a moment's thought, but I found an article that goes into this phenomenon in more detail: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expensive-to-be-poor/361533/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expe...

dllthomas 12y ago

"We need to find a way to help those people until this new class of jobs people imagine will appear actually become reality." Without overly discouraging them from looking for those new jobs, because that's an important part of how we create new classes of jobs. Personally, I think a low basic income is our best bet, but I'm eager to hear other suggestions.

malyk 12y ago
I agree with the low(ish) basic income for a variety of reasons. But I think expecting the people who are automated out of jobs to go and create entirely new categories of job on there own is being extremely over optimistic. So, between the time that they are replaced and the time that new categories of jobs become available something /more/ than just a basic income is necessary. As more and more automate-able jobs become automated there will be less and less employment opportunities available for the displaced workers until these new categories of job become available.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "But I think expecting the people who are automated out of jobs to go and create entirely new categories of job on there own is being extremely over optimistic." To be clear, I (most emphatically) do not mean "Ths ese people should just go create new jobs - lazy bums, jeeze!" People looking for ways to help others, in order to get ahead, is an important part of how we find new jobs - but until they're found most people will be failing and we don't want them suffering to be sure.