62 ms·

> The gap in training and social groups above and below could mean that new automation technology causes sudden, large-scale unemployment. This also scares me.

by dm8 12y ago

> The gap in training and social groups above and below could mean that new automation technology causes sudden, large-scale unemployment. This also scares me. I've often wondered, what will happen to people in a largely automated world (which could be reality in next 40-50 years). Will there be riots as employment will be unprecedented? Will it open new industries or entirely new period of creativity for humanity (e.g. industrial age giving birth to age of information)? When we transitioned to industrial age, I believe people had similar concerns but somehow things worked out well. Can we repeat that?

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Not sure full employment is any kind of worthy goal at all. How about: utopia, where we all have what we need and some of what we want, at no personal cost?
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Agreed. But this takes two steps: Step 1) Increase taxes on income above a certain level, create a floor that eliminates poverty (hunger, homelessness, etc). Continue to incentivize progress so that we continue on the path currently forged by science and technology (I don't believe this crowd requires me to expound on this) Step 2) Use renewable energy and technology to provide "what we need and some of what we want, at no personal cost" to everyone. Both transitions are going to be terribly painful.
eddievb 12y ago
I enjoy Keynes on this in 1930 -- http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf -- remembering, of course, that unforeseen economic shocks make predicting the course of implementation nearly impossible. In his case, it was WW2.
glesica 12y ago
The idea that "work" is somehow good and noble is outdated, and serves only to trap workers into undesirable situations for the profit of the capitalist class. Work isn't noble, it's just something we do so that we can do other stuff (and eat). So preserving work in the face of massive changes in the economy would be an incredibly unfortunate thing to do. Why not simply allocate social resources such that people who are not needed for work simply don't have to work? Allow them to have food, and shelter, and healthcare, and let them explore whatever it is that brings them happiness, without having to worry about spending their days performing some menial task because someone has decided that they must "work" for their meals.
- cantankerous 12y ago
  This. We are already living in a post-scarcity world, but we keep pretending that we aren't. Eventually the number of unemployed people will be so large that we won't be able to ignore the problem of excess labor.
  - chii 12y ago
    what evidence do you have that we are in a post scarcity world? Petroleum is running out, lots of places are being desertified, and arable land is shrinking, leading to places with food shortages. Until the day a very cheap, completely renewable (or effectively infinite) source of energy is found (such as cold fusion, or vacuum energy), there will be no post-scarcity.
    - falcor84 12y ago
      citation-needed for all the above claims. Peak oil predictions have been made since the 1880s. Technology and better ecological understanding keep providing us with better methods to fight against desertification. Food production capabilities are growing exponentially. etc. I think that the major evidence for our post scarcity world is that, in developed countries, a small fraction of the population is actually involved in agriculture and manufacturing (and that percentage is shrinking). To quote Gibson "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed". EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_secto...
- petercooper 12y ago
  Why not simply allocate social resources such that people who are not needed for work simply don't have to work? There's been quite some hand wringing over this issue in the UK in recent years with people on long term sickness welfare or other long term welfare programs. The populist view is that these people "should" be working and don't "deserve" to be subsidized full time because they haven't "contributed" to the system. But if they are genuinely of as little use to the workforce as it seems, does such a stigma to not working really make any sense?

by dm8 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Not sure full employment is any kind of worthy goal at all. How about: utopia, where we all have what we need and some of what we want, at no personal cost?

toomuchtodo 12y ago
Agreed. But this takes two steps: Step 1) Increase taxes on income above a certain level, create a floor that eliminates poverty (hunger, homelessness, etc). Continue to incentivize progress so that we continue on the path currently forged by science and technology (I don't believe this crowd requires me to expound on this) Step 2) Use renewable energy and technology to provide "what we need and some of what we want, at no personal cost" to everyone. Both transitions are going to be terribly painful.

eddievb 12y ago

I enjoy Keynes on this in 1930 -- http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf -- remembering, of course, that unforeseen economic shocks make predicting the course of implementation nearly impossible. In his case, it was WW2.

glesica 12y ago

The idea that "work" is somehow good and noble is outdated, and serves only to trap workers into undesirable situations for the profit of the capitalist class. Work isn't noble, it's just something we do so that we can do other stuff (and eat). So preserving work in the face of massive changes in the economy would be an incredibly unfortunate thing to do. Why not simply allocate social resources such that people who are not needed for work simply don't have to work? Allow them to have food, and shelter, and healthcare, and let them explore whatever it is that brings them happiness, without having to worry about spending their days performing some menial task because someone has decided that they must "work" for their meals.

cantankerous 12y ago
This. We are already living in a post-scarcity world, but we keep pretending that we aren't. Eventually the number of unemployed people will be so large that we won't be able to ignore the problem of excess labor.
- chii 12y ago
  what evidence do you have that we are in a post scarcity world? Petroleum is running out, lots of places are being desertified, and arable land is shrinking, leading to places with food shortages. Until the day a very cheap, completely renewable (or effectively infinite) source of energy is found (such as cold fusion, or vacuum energy), there will be no post-scarcity.
  - falcor84 12y ago
    citation-needed for all the above claims. Peak oil predictions have been made since the 1880s. Technology and better ecological understanding keep providing us with better methods to fight against desertification. Food production capabilities are growing exponentially. etc. I think that the major evidence for our post scarcity world is that, in developed countries, a small fraction of the population is actually involved in agriculture and manufacturing (and that percentage is shrinking). To quote Gibson "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed". EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_secto...
petercooper 12y ago
Why not simply allocate social resources such that people who are not needed for work simply don't have to work? There's been quite some hand wringing over this issue in the UK in recent years with people on long term sickness welfare or other long term welfare programs. The populist view is that these people "should" be working and don't "deserve" to be subsidized full time because they haven't "contributed" to the system. But if they are genuinely of as little use to the workforce as it seems, does such a stigma to not working really make any sense?