3 ms·

I don't believe it is, history has this repeated this playbook over and over, from horse power, steam power, electric power - labour intensive repetitive works

by tommoor 12y ago

I don't believe it is, history has this repeated this playbook over and over, from horse power, steam power, electric power - labour intensive repetitive works have been slowly replaced by automation for hundreds of years now - driving is just the next in a long list. My personal long-term view (beyond just automated cars) is that we will automate away millions of jobs - but that's fantastic as it probably doesn't make sense for everyone to work anyway, a basic income guarantee can allow people to live lives with much more time for leisure, creativity and enjoyment.

potatolicious 12y ago
> " history has this repeated this playbook over and over, from horse power, steam power, electric power - labour intensive repetitive works have been slowly replaced by automation for hundreds of years now" Yes, and we've never suitably addressed the problem of displaced labor. You're mistaking aggregate, macro-scale changes in the economy for micro-scale effects on people. Bob the factory worker loses his job because of automation, the economy at the same time creates new jobs in other categories. From an aggregate scale the economy is still humming along - a contraction of labor demand on one side is offset by an expansion in labor demand on another side. But what about Bob? Is Bob qualified to take one of these newly created jobs? How will he gain the qualifications to work this new job? Are these new jobs in Bob's geographic area, or does Bob have the financial means to move to new job centers to pursue work? This is the problem - you've mistaken "there are new jobs" for "there are new jobs for the displaced workers". The assumption that there is even much of an intersection between these two things is pure supposition - supposition that gets trotted around a lot because we don't like to think about the notion that maybe Bob - who has 30-40 years left on his lifespan - may simply be chronically unemployed or underemployed for the entire rest of it. In reality there are going to be millions - if not tens of millions - like Bob, who have lost their jobs and are unable to retrain into a field that the economy has created. Others will take those new jobs, but Bob and his cohort are just plain fucked. The invention of new job categories does not remove the reality that Bob, and millions of others like him, are permanently out of work.
mrschwabe 12y ago
Was with you until basic income guarantee. Who guarantees that income and from whom will they take it to guarantee for you? I agree, it doesn't make sense for everyone to 'work' and with any luck the future holds for us more time for leisure, creativity and enjoyment - but when you consider my argument above, perhaps a more sustainable, morale route to achieve such a vision is by means of a healthy, fair and open economy - one that makes it easy for anyone to earn a living by pursuing their own interests, passions or hobbies.

by tommoor 12y ago

potatolicious 12y ago

> " history has this repeated this playbook over and over, from horse power, steam power, electric power - labour intensive repetitive works have been slowly replaced by automation for hundreds of years now" Yes, and we've never suitably addressed the problem of displaced labor. You're mistaking aggregate, macro-scale changes in the economy for micro-scale effects on people. Bob the factory worker loses his job because of automation, the economy at the same time creates new jobs in other categories. From an aggregate scale the economy is still humming along - a contraction of labor demand on one side is offset by an expansion in labor demand on another side. But what about Bob? Is Bob qualified to take one of these newly created jobs? How will he gain the qualifications to work this new job? Are these new jobs in Bob's geographic area, or does Bob have the financial means to move to new job centers to pursue work? This is the problem - you've mistaken "there are new jobs" for "there are new jobs for the displaced workers". The assumption that there is even much of an intersection between these two things is pure supposition - supposition that gets trotted around a lot because we don't like to think about the notion that maybe Bob - who has 30-40 years left on his lifespan - may simply be chronically unemployed or underemployed for the entire rest of it. In reality there are going to be millions - if not tens of millions - like Bob, who have lost their jobs and are unable to retrain into a field that the economy has created. Others will take those new jobs, but Bob and his cohort are just plain fucked. The invention of new job categories does not remove the reality that Bob, and millions of others like him, are permanently out of work.

mrschwabe 12y ago

Was with you until basic income guarantee. Who guarantees that income and from whom will they take it to guarantee for you? I agree, it doesn't make sense for everyone to 'work' and with any luck the future holds for us more time for leisure, creativity and enjoyment - but when you consider my argument above, perhaps a more sustainable, morale route to achieve such a vision is by means of a healthy, fair and open economy - one that makes it easy for anyone to earn a living by pursuing their own interests, passions or hobbies.