4 ms·
> Wouldn't there always be new jobs? There's no fundamental law of economics that demands there always be new jobs. There have been in the past, each wave of
by NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> Wouldn't there always be new jobs?
There's no fundamental law of economics that demands there always be new jobs.
There have been in the past, each wave of disruption created new job categories, even new industrial sectors. But that just means there will be new jobs until there aren't new jobs.
Science fiction authors have no trouble imagining scenarios where there are no new jobs for anyone. If that comes to pass, what then? Presumably the same economic forces that creates such a situation will also have allowed some small percentage of property owners to own the automation that makes everything. Depending on the details, this might not even be a Pyrrhic victory... why would they need your money anymore, if they had fleets of yacht-building automated shipyards and robots that kept the wine cellar stocked? If they can manage the transition from "we still need you to buy our products so I can live in luxury" to "the luxuries are produced in my automated factories directly"...
Then quite bluntly, you're fucked.
> Who knows, perhaps in the future everybody can be an artist
There is the cliche of the starving artist. Even today. And we live in a world which only supports less than 1% artists because that's the ceiling on that occupation. That is mostly the amount of art that the rich want in their lives.
Specialties rely on the idea that only a few do them. One specialty trades its goods and services for those produced by another.
If we all make art, then I could trade my art for yours. But neither of us can eat art.
- cafebeen 12y agoI think you're assuming that art requires a market for buying and selling. Most people mostly make art because it's fun and personally fulfilling, not so much for rich folks to enjoy.
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoIsn't that circular? We all do that, because there's no money in it. If there were, many folks would do it for a living.
- cafebeen 12y agoNot sure what you're getting at. Just pointing out that most art isn't for monetary profit, it's just people enjoying the process at home and with friends.
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoFolks HAVE to do it for fun, or not at all, because there's no money in it. Cause and effect were turned around.
- cafebeen 12y agoJust pointing out that there are a variety of motivations--community, fun, attention, money, etc.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago> I think you're assuming that art requires a market for buying and selling. I think that if "art" is a job that keeps you from starving, it requires a market for buying and selling.
- cafebeen 12y agoYeah, some people make art for money, but there are a lot of people who paint, dance, play music, etc. for fun.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y agoThey won't be having much fun.
- cafebeen 12y agoWhy's that?
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoThat's dark. How about, if automation is ubiquitous, we ALL have yachts and robots?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y agoYou're missing a piece here. If automation is ubiquitous, it doesn't mean you own it. And if you don't own it, you don't own what it produces. No yachts for you.
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoNot missing anything. If automation, nobody cares who gets what. Sure there's still a line for goods, but why turn the machine off at all? It doesn't 'cost' anybody anything to leave the yacht machine running all the time.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago> If automation, nobody cares who gets what. Humans are still monkeys. They won't magically shuck off human nature in time for you have it easy. And those who most ardently feel differently that everyone should share will use the rhetorical tactics that provoke the opposite of the desired reaction. We already see that with some of the wedge issues. > but why turn the machine off at all? Because they can. Because they want to. To prove that they can. To make you get off your mooching ass. To help you by forcing you to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. By reinventing racism and pretending that they are another species. For shits and giggles. To usher in the end times. To prevent the end times from ever occurring. To see what will happen. To see if anything will happen. Because they don't care. Because they never noticed. I could list hundreds of reasons, all of which will be at least partly true. You'll still starve, even if you die knowing the "whys".
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoVery dark. If we're all doomed by pointless selfishness, then I guess the discussion is over.