4 ms·

In the long term, I would rather start thinking about whether we really want to keep driver-type jobs around. I think people have to start to accept that certai

by jwr 12y ago

In the long term, I would rather start thinking about whether we really want to keep driver-type jobs around. I think people have to start to accept that certain types of mindless jobs will be gone sooner or later, and that (as hard as it might seem) everyone needs to educate themselves and work towards jobs that cannot be automated.

smacktoward 12y ago
This is the sort of thing you generally hear from people who assume their job is not among those that can be automated. Many of those people are going to be unpleasantly surprised.
- vdaniuk 12y ago
  And that changes exactly what? Yes, most people whose jobs will be automated think they are safe. However, it is very likely that automation of jobs is a Nash equilibrium outcome and fighting against it without global consensus is useless. We should channel our efforts to other ventures that would provide food, housing and health security for those losing their jobs due to automation.
  - Ygg2 12y ago
    That was grandparent's point. As long as software keeps automating tasks, there are very few jobs that are safe and most of them are in developing or maintaining software that automates the jobs. Software can automate a really huge swath of jobs. From research (performing experiments) to art to physical checkup, it's a list that keeps growing. While I essentially agree that such programs should lead to extremely high taxes followed by redistribution of tax money to people, right now it's not the model most western countries are moving towards.
- ewzimm 12y ago
  On the contrary, I think anyone who is thinking seriously about automation acknowledges that their job is on the list, especially for a lot of software work like debugging, updating libraries, refactoring code, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. Automation means more free time to do things people actually enjoy, but only if we properly distribute the benefits. The challenge is not to prevent automation of any kind of work but rather to ensure that people are fairly compensated for that automation and all the benefits don't go to the people at the top.
  - abakker 12y ago
    This. I'm glad some people see this as a problem. We can only automate so far without providing credits, or redistributing wealth to some degree. If we decrease the number of jobs, and don't make any attempt to provide those "left out" of the economy with a reasonable income, we're going to systematically lower Aggregate Demand in our economy. There is no stimulus package that can effectively combat consistently falling Aggregate Demand.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  You also hear this from people who know their job will be automated as well, but understand that this is good for humanity.
- yxhuvud 12y ago
  Letting people artificially keep jobs that could be automated cheaper and safer is not giving the people a job. It is giving the people daycare. I do not relish the thought of a kindergarten society. Note: I have nothing against spending on unemployed people (education etc) or welfare spending in other ways, I just don't like keep-busy kinds of activities.
Zigurd 12y ago
There won't be enough jobs. Not even close. What's needed is a different path to remuneration. Or a different way of allocation. A market failure that cannot be patched has already arrived in Europe and will come here, too.

by jwr 12y ago

smacktoward 12y ago

This is the sort of thing you generally hear from people who assume their job is not among those that can be automated. Many of those people are going to be unpleasantly surprised.

vdaniuk 12y ago
And that changes exactly what? Yes, most people whose jobs will be automated think they are safe. However, it is very likely that automation of jobs is a Nash equilibrium outcome and fighting against it without global consensus is useless. We should channel our efforts to other ventures that would provide food, housing and health security for those losing their jobs due to automation.
- Ygg2 12y ago
  That was grandparent's point. As long as software keeps automating tasks, there are very few jobs that are safe and most of them are in developing or maintaining software that automates the jobs. Software can automate a really huge swath of jobs. From research (performing experiments) to art to physical checkup, it's a list that keeps growing. While I essentially agree that such programs should lead to extremely high taxes followed by redistribution of tax money to people, right now it's not the model most western countries are moving towards.
ewzimm 12y ago
On the contrary, I think anyone who is thinking seriously about automation acknowledges that their job is on the list, especially for a lot of software work like debugging, updating libraries, refactoring code, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. Automation means more free time to do things people actually enjoy, but only if we properly distribute the benefits. The challenge is not to prevent automation of any kind of work but rather to ensure that people are fairly compensated for that automation and all the benefits don't go to the people at the top.
- abakker 12y ago
  This. I'm glad some people see this as a problem. We can only automate so far without providing credits, or redistributing wealth to some degree. If we decrease the number of jobs, and don't make any attempt to provide those "left out" of the economy with a reasonable income, we're going to systematically lower Aggregate Demand in our economy. There is no stimulus package that can effectively combat consistently falling Aggregate Demand.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
TeMPOraL 12y ago
You also hear this from people who know their job will be automated as well, but understand that this is good for humanity.
yxhuvud 12y ago
Letting people artificially keep jobs that could be automated cheaper and safer is not giving the people a job. It is giving the people daycare. I do not relish the thought of a kindergarten society. Note: I have nothing against spending on unemployed people (education etc) or welfare spending in other ways, I just don't like keep-busy kinds of activities.

Zigurd 12y ago

There won't be enough jobs. Not even close. What's needed is a different path to remuneration. Or a different way of allocation. A market failure that cannot be patched has already arrived in Europe and will come here, too.