3 ms·
> Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out. If he's right about the automation part (I think he is), and if we're as stupid as we were in th
by loup-vaillant 12y ago
> Some classes of people will do well, and some will lose out.
If he's right about the automation part (I think he is), and if we're as stupid as we were in the 1930s, then the class of people who do well is likely to be quite smaller than the class of people who lose out big time.
Automation is wonderful. Destroying jobs is amazing. For most jobs, anyway. The only awful thing about that is the loss of revenue. And the stigmatization of the unemployed.
With technology that destroys more jobs than it creates, we don't have many solutions. We could generalise the 4 days work-week. Then 3 days… Or we could try unconditional basic income. Both, maybe? Or, we can wait until we're all deep in the poo, such that we get an increasing number of violent uprisings, leading to revolutions or fascism. Again.
- lstyls 12y ago> Automation is wonderful. Destroying jobs is amazing. For most jobs, anyway. Right. Increasing efficiency is a double edged sword, and we will have to walk a very fine line if we want to make this ongoing tech revolution work for the greater good.
- michaelochurch 12y agoI wish more people saw this the way that you do. You're right. Destroying "work", that is no longer needed, benefits society. It's a widespread loss of income that causes everything to go to hell. The two don't need to be correlated.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoOr as someone wrote on HN once, and which is also probably my favourite quote from here, "No job is the goal. No money is the problem.". EDIT: 'nostromo @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8987008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8987008
- loup-vaillant 12y agoI once searched for a catchy phrase to capture this. Something that could catch on even in a time where politician supposedly "fight unemployment". Something like "Systematic Annihilation of Unwanted Work".