This dystopian future is always predicted when a change comes to society, and yet it has yet to happen.
Did the Industrial Revolution, by putting weavers and other now automated professions out of work while the industrial elite grew fabulously wealthy, lead to an unemployed homeless underclass?
Do you cry a tear for the American horse, where displacement by the automobile lead to a population crash from 20M in 1915 to 4.5M in 1959? Do you wail for the carriage driver, whose profession disappeared? Or do you look at the idea of riding around in a horse'n'buggy as being archaic and unworkable in the modern world?
No amount of fighting against technology based on the argument of unemployment has ever stopped tech from moving forward.
You mention the current political climate and corporate interests along with some of the tools that they use to oppress society, but let's take a look at that in more detail.
Republicans are currently keeping Congress from passing any meaningful laws, which has caused the federal government to stagnate. Most major reforms start at the state level, and spread across the US before being adopted nationally. With the current Congress, this means that any meaningful implementation will come from the local level. And at a local level, Republicans refuse handouts because it conflicts with their "bootstrapper" position.
So, the states that are most likely to implement self-driving cars are also those that are most likely to support any displaced workers. I fully expect a state like California or Washington to lead the way on self-driving cars because they also support the companies that are driving this technology. They can also institute a Basic Living Income (BLI), expand welfare/medicare, or use other tools to insure that our citizens are cared for.
Once self-driving cars are proven, those corporations you mentioned will jump on the self-driving car bandwagon due to the savings in both wages and insurance. As more people in Republican states become unemployed and are poorly supported by the government, the fact that Republicans are acting against the best interests of their constituency will become apparent and they will lose more and more elections. Additionally, those that are able too will relocate to more progressive states that can better support them.
And if this peaceful political revolution doesn't occur, then eventually a violent one will. History has shown that when you have a very large downtrodden class and a very small ultra-wealthy class, the system collapses.
Do you cry a tear for the American horse, where displacement by the automobile lead to a population crash from 20M in 1915 to 4.5M in 1959?
I only have a moment, so I'm responding to the statement that stuck out the most to me.
Are you actually arguing in favor of a human population crash? The horse population crashed because we stopped breeding them; in the theoretical jobless robot future, human population crash would be from starvation.. Is this an outcome you are advocating?
I am not arguing against automaton. I accept it's inevitability. I simply don't trust us to transition smoothly into a post labor society.
Do you cry a tear for the American horse, where displacement by the automobile lead to a population crash from 20M in 1915 to 4.5M in 1959?
Are you actually arguing in favor of a human population crash?
That's, uh, certainly an interpretation.
Don't want to speak for him but I believe the TLDR version of that was supposed to be "we have always adapted to technological advances that make jobs obsolete and we will continue to adapt."
I'm surprised to see so many alarmist reactions on a video game forum. I figured we'd be more open to futuristic tech stuff here.
I love driving and I'm personally not a fan of the systems, but they're coming and I have no doubt we'll adapt to them. Replacing elevator operators with automated systems didn't crash the economy and I doubt driverless cars will either.
Most people here love the technology itself. It's society's ability to adapt that we're not sure of. Which is to say that it will adapt but that current views will probably make for some really shitty growing pains.
Houn, do you think more people derive a sense of purpose from their work than there are people for whom their job is drudgery at best, a soul-deadening grind at worst? I agree that the transition won't be smooth, and I think there will be major losses along the way, but I don't think work is what you suggest it is for that large a majority. Doesn't mean that losing those jobs will necessarily be a good thing for people in the short run.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Do you cry a tear for the American horse, where displacement by the automobile lead to a population crash from 20M in 1915 to 4.5M in 1959?
Are you actually arguing in favor of a human population crash?
That's, uh, certainly an interpretation.
Don't want to speak for him but I believe the TLDR version of that was supposed to be "we have always adapted to technological advances that make jobs obsolete and we will continue to adapt."
And last time it took decades of widespread poverty, abuse, protests, rioting, and economic crashes. No one doubts humanity will adapt and survive. There's just doubts America won't be dragged kicking and screaming determined to fight any change that would benefit those most affected by it.
Houn, do you think more people derive a sense of purpose from their work than there are people for whom their job is drudgery at best, a soul-deadening grind at worst? I agree that the transition won't be smooth, and I think there will be major losses along the way, but I don't think work is what you suggest it is for that large a majority. Doesn't mean that losing those jobs will necessarily be a good thing for people in the short run.
No, I don't think most people find "fulfillment" from their jobs. I think that most people go absolutely bonkers when they have nothing to do.
Fortunately there will always be stuff to do. The hard part will be convincing society at large that only a small part of that stuff will be necessary labor.
Do you cry a tear for the American horse, where displacement by the automobile lead to a population crash from 20M in 1915 to 4.5M in 1959?
I only have a moment, so I'm responding to the statement that stuck out the most to me.
Are you actually arguing in favor of a human population crash? The horse population crashed because we stopped breeding them; in the theoretical jobless robot future, human population crash would be from starvation.. Is this an outcome you are advocating?
I am not arguing against automaton. I accept it's inevitability. I simply don't trust us to transition smoothly into a post labor society.
I kindly urge you to read my entire post, and not just provide a knee jerk reaction to a single sound bite from it.
And a more appropriate thread for discussing what to do in a post-work world might be:
I might be a bit hyperbolic here, but not much. Self-Driving Cars are the first step in destroying one of the cornerstones of all civilization: the concept that one person can trade their time and labor to another in exchange of resources. If you think we're going to quietly convince everyone in Glorious Capitalist America (or your country here) to become Guaranteed Basic Income supported future-communists, you're gonna have a bad time over the next two decades.
No more than manufacturing robots have already done so, it just automates a more complex task. We are already far down the route of getting machines to do everything possible. We don't need ditch diggers anymore either because one backhoe can move an entire man-day's labor in a minute
Naturally. It was always the endpoint of being a tool-using species, even if we didn't fully grasp what we were building towards. We're just nearing that tipping point where significant portions of the population aren't just going to become unemployed by advancement, but unemployable. The ditch diggers found other jobs, but we're going to rapidly run out of things for people to do, and under the current paradigm, if they can't work, they'll turn increasingly to crime and/or revolution in order to secure survival.
Our science has advance far faster than our ethics or empathy.
The problem with that is that it comes from a very modern, very urban, very middle class, very first world viewpoint. There are places in the US that still don't have sustainable and reliable high speed internet, and dial up is one of the better options. There are astounding numbers of stores that don't use networked technology, or anything more advanced than a manual cash register and a networked card reader.
The idea is that at some point in the future the technology will be ubiquitous enough that it massively impacts the economy and society, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. The people who are going to adopt the technology are the big companies that can either afford the infrastructure needed for it or who already have it in place. Not every transportation company is going to have the infrastructure in place to handle autos, and that can't just be waved away. There are still going to be lots of companies that cannot afford or do not want the technology and who are not in competition with the larger companies that can and do.
Houn, do you think more people derive a sense of purpose from their work than there are people for whom their job is drudgery at best, a soul-deadening grind at worst? I agree that the transition won't be smooth, and I think there will be major losses along the way, but I don't think work is what you suggest it is for that large a majority. Doesn't mean that losing those jobs will necessarily be a good thing for people in the short run.
No, I don't think most people find "fulfillment" from their jobs. I think that most people go absolutely bonkers when they have nothing to do.
That says to me that we are already past the point of requiring the number of jobs we have for the wealth we produce. We will probably create some new bullshit to replace what we automate, at least in the near to middle term.
The real trick is going to be finding fulfillment outside your job, whether or not it exists. My hope is that we transcend into a race of philosopher kings!
The real trick is going to be finding fulfillment outside your job, whether or not it exists. My hope is that we transcend into a race of philosopher kings!
Prepare to disappointed.
Me, I've settled for "I desperately hope we transcend into a race with jobs that keep pace with the cost of living and inflation."
I might be a bit hyperbolic here, but not much. Self-Driving Cars are the first step in destroying one of the cornerstones of all civilization: the concept that one person can trade their time and labor to another in exchange of resources. If you think we're going to quietly convince everyone in Glorious Capitalist America (or your country here) to become Guaranteed Basic Income supported future-communists, you're gonna have a bad time over the next two decades.
No more than manufacturing robots have already done so, it just automates a more complex task. We are already far down the route of getting machines to do everything possible. We don't need ditch diggers anymore either because one backhoe can move an entire man-day's labor in a minute
Naturally. It was always the endpoint of being a tool-using species, even if we didn't fully grasp what we were building towards. We're just nearing that tipping point where significant portions of the population aren't just going to become unemployed by advancement, but unemployable. The ditch diggers found other jobs, but we're going to rapidly run out of things for people to do, and under the current paradigm, if they can't work, they'll turn increasingly to crime and/or revolution in order to secure survival.
Our science has advance far faster than our ethics or empathy.
The problem with that is that it comes from a very modern, very urban, very middle class, very first world viewpoint. There are places in the US that still don't have sustainable and reliable high speed internet, and dial up is one of the better options. There are astounding numbers of stores that don't use networked technology, or anything more advanced than a manual cash register and a networked card reader.
The idea is that at some point in the future the technology will be ubiquitous enough that it massively impacts the economy and society, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. The people who are going to adopt the technology are the big companies that can either afford the infrastructure needed for it or who already have it in place. Not every transportation company is going to have the infrastructure in place to handle autos, and that can't just be waved away. There are still going to be lots of companies that cannot afford or do not want the technology and who are not in competition with the larger companies that can and do.
You seem to be ignoring a fundamental aspect of capitalism. Not every company will have the capital or infrastructure to handle Autos, no, but those companies will slowly be forced to adapt or go out of business competing with those that do. I believe you're overestimating the number of potential "niche holdouts" who will be able to reasonably operate in an area or market without directly competing with the larger operations that do modernize. We already have plenty of data on the effects of things like Walmart and Amazon on smaller local economies.
It doesn't have to be every company: just enough of them to raise unemployment and spiral us into another depression.
*edit* And then, if we somehow manage to make it through all that and get GBI and other methods of wealth sharing, what do people actually do? Humans aren't wired to do nothing. In a world where all labor is increasingly moving to automated systems, what will humans do to justify their own personal existence? What will we strive for? What can we achieve on an individual level? Will we simply adapt into an idle species, no drive for achievement, no reason to bother with education, a vestigial biological precursor to the robots who now are our caretakers? Will we slowly die out, via increased suicide or simply lack of the will to live, when there is no reason to actually get up each morning? Just slowly fade away while our semi-intelligent machines continue doing their jobs for decades after we're gone, too smart for us to compete with, but too dumb to have achieved their own sentience?
You're saying that a cabbie, truck driver or bus driver needing to pull long shifts of basically minimum or near-minimum wage, incredibly dull work drives innovation and achievement? Allowing people the time to do what they want to will probably increase these things
The real trick is going to be finding fulfillment outside your job, whether or not it exists. My hope is that we transcend into a race of philosopher kings!
Prepare to disappointed.
Me, I've settled for "I desperately hope we transcend into a race with jobs that keep pace with the cost of living and inflation."
That's really the trick, though. We don't need any of those jobs, whether they have COL increases or not. They're just a stopgap until we come to grips with GBI.
I might be a bit hyperbolic here, but not much. Self-Driving Cars are the first step in destroying one of the cornerstones of all civilization: the concept that one person can trade their time and labor to another in exchange of resources. If you think we're going to quietly convince everyone in Glorious Capitalist America (or your country here) to become Guaranteed Basic Income supported future-communists, you're gonna have a bad time over the next two decades.
No more than manufacturing robots have already done so, it just automates a more complex task. We are already far down the route of getting machines to do everything possible. We don't need ditch diggers anymore either because one backhoe can move an entire man-day's labor in a minute
Naturally. It was always the endpoint of being a tool-using species, even if we didn't fully grasp what we were building towards. We're just nearing that tipping point where significant portions of the population aren't just going to become unemployed by advancement, but unemployable. The ditch diggers found other jobs, but we're going to rapidly run out of things for people to do, and under the current paradigm, if they can't work, they'll turn increasingly to crime and/or revolution in order to secure survival.
Our science has advance far faster than our ethics or empathy.
The problem with that is that it comes from a very modern, very urban, very middle class, very first world viewpoint. There are places in the US that still don't have sustainable and reliable high speed internet, and dial up is one of the better options. There are astounding numbers of stores that don't use networked technology, or anything more advanced than a manual cash register and a networked card reader.
The idea is that at some point in the future the technology will be ubiquitous enough that it massively impacts the economy and society, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. The people who are going to adopt the technology are the big companies that can either afford the infrastructure needed for it or who already have it in place. Not every transportation company is going to have the infrastructure in place to handle autos, and that can't just be waved away. There are still going to be lots of companies that cannot afford or do not want the technology and who are not in competition with the larger companies that can and do.
You seem to be ignoring a fundamental aspect of capitalism. Not every company will have the capital or infrastructure to handle Autos, no, but those companies will slowly be forced to adapt or go out of business competing with those that do. I believe you're overestimating the number of potential "niche holdouts" who will be able to reasonably operate in an area or market without directly competing with the larger operations that do modernize. We already have plenty of data on the effects of things like Walmart and Amazon on smaller local economies.
It doesn't have to be every company: just enough of them to raise unemployment and spiral us into another depression.
That simply isn't the case. I gave examples already of how technology is not ubiquitous and certainly not advanced equally throughout the economy.
Yes, in the case of two equal competitors competing for the same job, the job is more likely to go to the one with the technology that reduces cost. However, not everyone in the transportation industry is competing. The contractors who are hired by the beer companies to haul beer to fill the fridges at Walmart aren't going to be hurt by Walmart automating their shipping fleet, because they simply don't compete with one another. Long haul companies don't edge out shipping companies that solely work within a city because they aren't competing with one another.
There's a good reason to move the UPS shipping fleet to automation, but little reason to move their delivery fleet to automation. It's simply a matter of the technology not being as ubiquitous as the doomsaying implies.
Stores will not have any requirements to use automation for company fleets because the cost is prohibitive for the majority of the stores and the only ones likely to see a benefit from it will be larger corporations, and even then it causes problems because the majority of those fleets are for in-city delivery.
Even if you look at factory automation, the major competition for manufacturing isn't due to automation, it's due to cheaper human labor overseas.
Automation and the technological unemployability of people are just not as interlinked as CGPGrey makes it sound. It sounds bad, but then when you think about it you realize that there's a lot that automation cannot replicate currently or in the near future, and the additional cost of the infrastructure and investment in the technology makes it prohibitive in the same way that it has prevented information technology from becoming fully ubiquitous.
Yeah, you may have a phone that you can use to check the weather in a country across the globe, but most businesses work on technology that is considerably lower in technological capabilities.
+3
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Those bullshit jobs can't keep everyone employed now; why should we expect them to when even more people loose their jobs?
The trick to selling bullshit is that you can always sell more bullshit. the bullshit sector could probably grow by a lot provided the increase of unemployed is slow enough.
Ha ha ha capitalism
Really the real problem with automation is the concept of a Guaranteed minimum income how would we really pull it off?
Having people live in that staple of cyberpunk the Arcology would work since you give them a place to live and the items to live a life, But what if you wanted a bigger bed or a new gaming system? how would you earn the money to buy those items?
Really it's either going to be a corporate dystopia or a sci fi utopia either way we need to look into this social change. as it will be messy and rough no matter what we do but having a clear goal and ideas to reach it are the plan
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
Do you cry a tear for the American horse, where displacement by the automobile lead to a population crash from 20M in 1915 to 4.5M in 1959?
I only have a moment, so I'm responding to the statement that stuck out the most to me.
Are you actually arguing in favor of a human population crash? The horse population crashed because we stopped breeding them; in the theoretical jobless robot future, human population crash would be from starvation.. Is this an outcome you are advocating?
I am not arguing against automaton. I accept it's inevitability. I simply don't trust us to transition smoothly into a post labor society.
Yeah yeah yeah, soylent green is people.
Whatever.
None of your posts have done anything to actually support your unreasonably pessimistic alarmism.
+1
Options
Werewolf2000adSuckers, I know exactly what went wrong.Registered Userregular
Support? Support? Melvin! What... What if the machine that repairs the machine... breaks?
I think the future predictions are getting a bit farther afield. You don't need to worry about AI, you need to worry about Great Depression 2: Depression Harder. Think 25% unemployment sucked? Try 45%. A handful of new engineering jobs will not replace the entire transportation industry, and all those bus drivers and truckers likely aren't retraining into robotics. Robots can make burgers, brew coffee; we can automate most of the food service industry. Amazon is single-handedly trying to destroy retail.
Ha ha ha capitalism
Really the real problem with automation is the concept of a Guaranteed minimum income how would we really pull it off?
Having people live in that staple of cyberpunk the Arcology would work since you give them a place to live and the items to live a life, But what if you wanted a bigger bed or a new gaming system? how would you earn the money to buy those items?
Really it's either going to be a corporate dystopia or a sci fi utopia either way we need to look into this social change. as it will be messy and rough no matter what we do but having a clear goal and ideas to reach it are the plan
Stationary bike generating electricity. The more you work the more electricity you generate and the more dollars, or we could call them merits, you make. Using these merits you can decorate your space, or even buy a friend a ticket to a signing competition.
My preferred idea to implement a guaranteed minimum income is to have the first $X+$Y amount of income is tax free, and if you make less than $X the difference is refunded to you on a bi-weekly basis exactly like a paycheck. Income after the first $X+$Y would then be taxed similarly as it is today, and you can use the $Y amount to create an incentive to work over not working.
Ha ha ha capitalism
Really the real problem with automation is the concept of a Guaranteed minimum income how would we really pull it off?
Having people live in that staple of cyberpunk the Arcology would work since you give them a place to live and the items to live a life, But what if you wanted a bigger bed or a new gaming system? how would you earn the money to buy those items?
Really it's either going to be a corporate dystopia or a sci fi utopia either way we need to look into this social change. as it will be messy and rough no matter what we do but having a clear goal and ideas to reach it are the plan
Stationary bike generating electricity. The more you work the more electricity you generate and the more dollars, or we could call them merits, you make. Using these merits you can decorate your space, or even buy a friend a ticket to a signing competition.
My preferred idea to implement a guaranteed minimum income is to have the first $X+$Y amount of income is tax free, and if you make less than $X the difference is refunded to you on a bi-weekly basis exactly like a paycheck. Income after the first $X+$Y would then be taxed similarly as it is today, and you can use the $Y amount to create an incentive to work over not working.
Ehh... big fan of just providing the resources for folk to create stuff like art and experiences that improve the lives of those around them.
Learn a skill that makes you happy, and do it for others or teach them to do the same or create new things(or artisanal old things).
The bike thing is a huge waste of resources. Spend billions of calories, which are going to be a limited resource, to make electricity less efficiently than just burning the food.
I don't know if that was a serious proposal... but a fantastically in shape biker would produce about half a kW over any sustained period of time... which means earnings of a whole quarter a day, give or take
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Ha ha ha capitalism
Really the real problem with automation is the concept of a Guaranteed minimum income how would we really pull it off?
Having people live in that staple of cyberpunk the Arcology would work since you give them a place to live and the items to live a life, But what if you wanted a bigger bed or a new gaming system? how would you earn the money to buy those items?
Really it's either going to be a corporate dystopia or a sci fi utopia either way we need to look into this social change. as it will be messy and rough no matter what we do but having a clear goal and ideas to reach it are the plan
Stationary bike generating electricity. The more you work the more electricity you generate and the more dollars, or we could call them merits, you make. Using these merits you can decorate your space, or even buy a friend a ticket to a signing competition.
My preferred idea to implement a guaranteed minimum income is to have the first $X+$Y amount of income is tax free, and if you make less than $X the difference is refunded to you on a bi-weekly basis exactly like a paycheck. Income after the first $X+$Y would then be taxed similarly as it is today, and you can use the $Y amount to create an incentive to work over not working.
Ehh... big fan of just providing the resources for folk to create stuff like art and experiences that improve the lives of those around them.
Learn a skill that makes you happy, and do it for others or teach them to do the same or create new things(or artisanal old things).
The bike thing is a huge waste of resources. Spend billions of calories, which are going to be a limited resource, to make electricity less efficiently than just burning the food.
You're assuming the goal is to make electricity inefficiently, but the real goal is to keep people occupied all day.
Ha ha ha capitalism
Really the real problem with automation is the concept of a Guaranteed minimum income how would we really pull it off?
Having people live in that staple of cyberpunk the Arcology would work since you give them a place to live and the items to live a life, But what if you wanted a bigger bed or a new gaming system? how would you earn the money to buy those items?
Really it's either going to be a corporate dystopia or a sci fi utopia either way we need to look into this social change. as it will be messy and rough no matter what we do but having a clear goal and ideas to reach it are the plan
Stationary bike generating electricity. The more you work the more electricity you generate and the more dollars, or we could call them merits, you make. Using these merits you can decorate your space, or even buy a friend a ticket to a signing competition.
My preferred idea to implement a guaranteed minimum income is to have the first $X+$Y amount of income is tax free, and if you make less than $X the difference is refunded to you on a bi-weekly basis exactly like a paycheck. Income after the first $X+$Y would then be taxed similarly as it is today, and you can use the $Y amount to create an incentive to work over not working.
Ehh... big fan of just providing the resources for folk to create stuff like art and experiences that improve the lives of those around them.
Learn a skill that makes you happy, and do it for others or teach them to do the same or create new things(or artisanal old things).
The bike thing is a huge waste of resources. Spend billions of calories, which are going to be a limited resource, to make electricity less efficiently than just burning the food.
You're assuming the goal is to make electricity inefficiently, but the real goal is to keep people occupied all day.
No it is to make people labor for the sake of labor.
Which is dumb, when people pretty much will find things to do once they don't have to constantly be afraid of starving to death on the streets.
People are pretty good at finding stuff to do, unless they are really poor and don't have things to choose to do.
One possible solution comes about by the nature of removing labor costs: if the base cost behind some item boils down to just its material inputs, the energy required to construct it, and a portion to recoup development costs then the prices of even very complex goods may drop considerably. Back in the mid-20th century, car pricing usually worked like this: "How many pounds does it weigh? Ok, convert that to dollars and round it to a clean number." If something like a base-model car dropped in price by an order of magnitude because of automation advancements, it would not be as great of a struggle to pick up a little extra work on the side to afford all kinds of goods.
Ha ha ha capitalism
Really the real problem with automation is the concept of a Guaranteed minimum income how would we really pull it off?
Having people live in that staple of cyberpunk the Arcology would work since you give them a place to live and the items to live a life, But what if you wanted a bigger bed or a new gaming system? how would you earn the money to buy those items?
Really it's either going to be a corporate dystopia or a sci fi utopia either way we need to look into this social change. as it will be messy and rough no matter what we do but having a clear goal and ideas to reach it are the plan
Stationary bike generating electricity. The more you work the more electricity you generate and the more dollars, or we could call them merits, you make. Using these merits you can decorate your space, or even buy a friend a ticket to a signing competition.
My preferred idea to implement a guaranteed minimum income is to have the first $X+$Y amount of income is tax free, and if you make less than $X the difference is refunded to you on a bi-weekly basis exactly like a paycheck. Income after the first $X+$Y would then be taxed similarly as it is today, and you can use the $Y amount to create an incentive to work over not working.
Ehh... big fan of just providing the resources for folk to create stuff like art and experiences that improve the lives of those around them.
Learn a skill that makes you happy, and do it for others or teach them to do the same or create new things(or artisanal old things).
The bike thing is a huge waste of resources. Spend billions of calories, which are going to be a limited resource, to make electricity less efficiently than just burning the food.
You're assuming the goal is to make electricity inefficiently, but the real goal is to keep people occupied all day.
No it is to make people labor for the sake of labor.
Which is dumb, when people pretty much will find things to do once they don't have to constantly be afraid of starving to death on the streets.
People are pretty good at finding stuff to do, unless they are really poor and don't have things to choose to do.
The metaphor Black Mirror was laying down is basically the idea that as long as people are grinding away at meaningless, physically demandind tasks for which they are paid only enough money to live off of (and as long as they are distracted by a mix of entertainment and the fool's hope of a lottery), they're too tired/poor/struggling to revolt or question the system. It goes beyond the idea upthread that people need to have things to do to be happy; it says that governments need people to have things to do so they'll stay quiet.
Basically the show's answer to futuristic technology and automation is that impoverished underclasses are so useful that f we accidentally robot-ed our way out of them, governments would have to reinvent them. It's the same reason it became necessary for most families to have two incomes to get by right around the time women entered the workforce.
Ha ha ha capitalism
Really the real problem with automation is the concept of a Guaranteed minimum income how would we really pull it off?
Having people live in that staple of cyberpunk the Arcology would work since you give them a place to live and the items to live a life, But what if you wanted a bigger bed or a new gaming system? how would you earn the money to buy those items?
Really it's either going to be a corporate dystopia or a sci fi utopia either way we need to look into this social change. as it will be messy and rough no matter what we do but having a clear goal and ideas to reach it are the plan
Stationary bike generating electricity. The more you work the more electricity you generate and the more dollars, or we could call them merits, you make. Using these merits you can decorate your space, or even buy a friend a ticket to a signing competition.
My preferred idea to implement a guaranteed minimum income is to have the first $X+$Y amount of income is tax free, and if you make less than $X the difference is refunded to you on a bi-weekly basis exactly like a paycheck. Income after the first $X+$Y would then be taxed similarly as it is today, and you can use the $Y amount to create an incentive to work over not working.
Ehh... big fan of just providing the resources for folk to create stuff like art and experiences that improve the lives of those around them.
Learn a skill that makes you happy, and do it for others or teach them to do the same or create new things(or artisanal old things).
The bike thing is a huge waste of resources. Spend billions of calories, which are going to be a limited resource, to make electricity less efficiently than just burning the food.
You're assuming the goal is to make electricity inefficiently, but the real goal is to keep people occupied all day.
No it is to make people labor for the sake of labor.
Which is dumb, when people pretty much will find things to do once they don't have to constantly be afraid of starving to death on the streets.
People are pretty good at finding stuff to do, unless they are really poor and don't have things to choose to do.
The metaphor Black Mirror was laying down is basically the idea that as long as people are grinding away at meaningless, physically demandind tasks for which they are paid only enough money to live off of (and as long as they are distracted by a mix of entertainment and the fool's hope of a lottery), they're too tired/poor/struggling to revolt or question the system. It goes beyond the idea upthread that people need to have things to do to be happy; it says that governments need people to have things to do so they'll stay quiet.
Basically the show's answer to futuristic technology and automation is that impoverished underclasses are so useful that f we accidentally robot-ed our way out of them, governments would have to reinvent them. It's the same reason it became necessary for most families to have two incomes to get by right around the time women entered the workforce.
Not that it isn't a bad thing but I'm pretty sure there are more reasonable explanations for why two incomes required to support a family then the government wants people to be poor
Ha ha ha capitalism
Really the real problem with automation is the concept of a Guaranteed minimum income how would we really pull it off?
Having people live in that staple of cyberpunk the Arcology would work since you give them a place to live and the items to live a life, But what if you wanted a bigger bed or a new gaming system? how would you earn the money to buy those items?
Really it's either going to be a corporate dystopia or a sci fi utopia either way we need to look into this social change. as it will be messy and rough no matter what we do but having a clear goal and ideas to reach it are the plan
Stationary bike generating electricity. The more you work the more electricity you generate and the more dollars, or we could call them merits, you make. Using these merits you can decorate your space, or even buy a friend a ticket to a signing competition.
My preferred idea to implement a guaranteed minimum income is to have the first $X+$Y amount of income is tax free, and if you make less than $X the difference is refunded to you on a bi-weekly basis exactly like a paycheck. Income after the first $X+$Y would then be taxed similarly as it is today, and you can use the $Y amount to create an incentive to work over not working.
Ehh... big fan of just providing the resources for folk to create stuff like art and experiences that improve the lives of those around them.
Learn a skill that makes you happy, and do it for others or teach them to do the same or create new things(or artisanal old things).
The bike thing is a huge waste of resources. Spend billions of calories, which are going to be a limited resource, to make electricity less efficiently than just burning the food.
You're assuming the goal is to make electricity inefficiently, but the real goal is to keep people occupied all day.
No it is to make people labor for the sake of labor.
Which is dumb, when people pretty much will find things to do once they don't have to constantly be afraid of starving to death on the streets.
People are pretty good at finding stuff to do, unless they are really poor and don't have things to choose to do.
The metaphor Black Mirror was laying down is basically the idea that as long as people are grinding away at meaningless, physically demandind tasks for which they are paid only enough money to live off of (and as long as they are distracted by a mix of entertainment and the fool's hope of a lottery), they're too tired/poor/struggling to revolt or question the system. It goes beyond the idea upthread that people need to have things to do to be happy; it says that governments need people to have things to do so they'll stay quiet.
Basically the show's answer to futuristic technology and automation is that impoverished underclasses are so useful that f we accidentally robot-ed our way out of them, governments would have to reinvent them. It's the same reason it became necessary for most families to have two incomes to get by right around the time women entered the workforce.
Not that it isn't a bad thing but I'm pretty sure there are more reasonable explanations for why two incomes required to support a family then the government wants people to be poor
Not to get totally off topic, but a lot of it is likely due to the competition between single and double earner households for the same houses/stuff. Double earner will generally have more resources available, which necessitated others making the same choice. That said, there are a lot of people who would prefer NOT to stay home with the kids, as well as many positions that practically necessitate a stay-at-home parent - for example, it's rare that you'd see someone in the true executive tier of a fortune 100 with kids who didn't have a stay at home spouse. If they didn't, they'd have a nanny at a minimum based on travel and time requirements of the position.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Using public records laws, the Guardian obtained dozens of emails and documents submitted to Challenge cities by Sidewalk Labs, detailing many technologies and proposals that have not previously been made public.
Some will be controversial, including spending transport subsidies for low-income residents on ride-sharing services such as Uber, requiring cities to upgrade to Sidewalk’s mobile payments system, and modernizing public parking to boost city revenues.
as usual with Silicon Valley's pie-in-the-sky ideas, this will fuck over the poor and everyone without a smartphone
Ha ha ha capitalism
Really the real problem with automation is the concept of a Guaranteed minimum income how would we really pull it off?
Having people live in that staple of cyberpunk the Arcology would work since you give them a place to live and the items to live a life, But what if you wanted a bigger bed or a new gaming system? how would you earn the money to buy those items?
Really it's either going to be a corporate dystopia or a sci fi utopia either way we need to look into this social change. as it will be messy and rough no matter what we do but having a clear goal and ideas to reach it are the plan
Stationary bike generating electricity. The more you work the more electricity you generate and the more dollars, or we could call them merits, you make. Using these merits you can decorate your space, or even buy a friend a ticket to a signing competition.
My preferred idea to implement a guaranteed minimum income is to have the first $X+$Y amount of income is tax free, and if you make less than $X the difference is refunded to you on a bi-weekly basis exactly like a paycheck. Income after the first $X+$Y would then be taxed similarly as it is today, and you can use the $Y amount to create an incentive to work over not working.
Ehh... big fan of just providing the resources for folk to create stuff like art and experiences that improve the lives of those around them.
Learn a skill that makes you happy, and do it for others or teach them to do the same or create new things(or artisanal old things).
The bike thing is a huge waste of resources. Spend billions of calories, which are going to be a limited resource, to make electricity less efficiently than just burning the food.
You're assuming the goal is to make electricity inefficiently, but the real goal is to keep people occupied all day.
No it is to make people labor for the sake of labor.
Which is dumb, when people pretty much will find things to do once they don't have to constantly be afraid of starving to death on the streets.
People are pretty good at finding stuff to do, unless they are really poor and don't have things to choose to do.
The metaphor Black Mirror was laying down is basically the idea that as long as people are grinding away at meaningless, physically demandind tasks for which they are paid only enough money to live off of (and as long as they are distracted by a mix of entertainment and the fool's hope of a lottery), they're too tired/poor/struggling to revolt or question the system. It goes beyond the idea upthread that people need to have things to do to be happy; it says that governments need people to have things to do so they'll stay quiet.
Basically the show's answer to futuristic technology and automation is that impoverished underclasses are so useful that f we accidentally robot-ed our way out of them, governments would have to reinvent them. It's the same reason it became necessary for most families to have two incomes to get by right around the time women entered the workforce.
Not that it isn't a bad thing but I'm pretty sure there are more reasonable explanations for why two incomes required to support a family then the government wants people to be poor
Not to get totally off topic, but a lot of it is likely due to the competition between single and double earner households for the same houses/stuff. Double earner will generally have more resources available, which necessitated others making the same choice. That said, there are a lot of people who would prefer NOT to stay home with the kids, as well as many positions that practically necessitate a stay-at-home parent - for example, it's rare that you'd see someone in the true executive tier of a fortune 100 with kids who didn't have a stay at home spouse. If they didn't, they'd have a nanny at a minimum based on travel and time requirements of the position.
Also capitalism means that things generally cost whatever people can afford to pay unless there's an unexpected surplus. So if all of a sudden everybody has twice the income available to pay for goods and services, or could....
SV: "... wait, there are people without smartphones???"
I don't have one as I don't really see the point of having a phone when I rarely have to use it
Rarely is the term as I needed to use the phone 3 times last year other than that I just suffered and waited.
It's the cost as $45 a month is rather expensive for something I would not really use even the really cheap ones are still an expense that I really question.
I am not really poor as I am in that gray area that is ignored or used in other places as I am too poor yet I make to much to qualify for basic services
SV: "... wait, there are people without smartphones???"
I don't have one as I don't really see the point of having a phone when I rarely have to use it
Rarely is the term as I needed to use the phone 3 times last year other than that I just suffered and waited.
It's the cost as $45 a month is rather expensive for something I would not really use even the really cheap ones are still an expense that I really question.
I am not really poor as I am in that gray area that is ignored or used in other places as I am too poor yet I make to much to qualify for basic services
I mean, there's something to be said for having a decently powerful computer on you at all times.
There's also definitely things to be said against it as well but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.
But really the phone part of my smartphone is by far the least used service it provides.
( I also think we as consumers get boned cost-wise by most carriers but that's another discussion entirely)
+15
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
So I've been thinking about it for a while. I don't think the car programming should prioritize the passengers in the car over everything else as a general best practice, however I would buy a car with that "feature" over cars without it. So I feel like corporations will use that as the model, maybe even give it a catchy name like child safe.
Posts
Did the Industrial Revolution, by putting weavers and other now automated professions out of work while the industrial elite grew fabulously wealthy, lead to an unemployed homeless underclass?
Do you cry a tear for the American horse, where displacement by the automobile lead to a population crash from 20M in 1915 to 4.5M in 1959? Do you wail for the carriage driver, whose profession disappeared? Or do you look at the idea of riding around in a horse'n'buggy as being archaic and unworkable in the modern world?
No amount of fighting against technology based on the argument of unemployment has ever stopped tech from moving forward.
You mention the current political climate and corporate interests along with some of the tools that they use to oppress society, but let's take a look at that in more detail.
Republicans are currently keeping Congress from passing any meaningful laws, which has caused the federal government to stagnate. Most major reforms start at the state level, and spread across the US before being adopted nationally. With the current Congress, this means that any meaningful implementation will come from the local level. And at a local level, Republicans refuse handouts because it conflicts with their "bootstrapper" position.
So, the states that are most likely to implement self-driving cars are also those that are most likely to support any displaced workers. I fully expect a state like California or Washington to lead the way on self-driving cars because they also support the companies that are driving this technology. They can also institute a Basic Living Income (BLI), expand welfare/medicare, or use other tools to insure that our citizens are cared for.
Once self-driving cars are proven, those corporations you mentioned will jump on the self-driving car bandwagon due to the savings in both wages and insurance. As more people in Republican states become unemployed and are poorly supported by the government, the fact that Republicans are acting against the best interests of their constituency will become apparent and they will lose more and more elections. Additionally, those that are able too will relocate to more progressive states that can better support them.
And if this peaceful political revolution doesn't occur, then eventually a violent one will. History has shown that when you have a very large downtrodden class and a very small ultra-wealthy class, the system collapses.
I only have a moment, so I'm responding to the statement that stuck out the most to me.
Are you actually arguing in favor of a human population crash? The horse population crashed because we stopped breeding them; in the theoretical jobless robot future, human population crash would be from starvation.. Is this an outcome you are advocating?
I am not arguing against automaton. I accept it's inevitability. I simply don't trust us to transition smoothly into a post labor society.
That's, uh, certainly an interpretation.
Don't want to speak for him but I believe the TLDR version of that was supposed to be "we have always adapted to technological advances that make jobs obsolete and we will continue to adapt."
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
Most people here love the technology itself. It's society's ability to adapt that we're not sure of. Which is to say that it will adapt but that current views will probably make for some really shitty growing pains.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
And last time it took decades of widespread poverty, abuse, protests, rioting, and economic crashes. No one doubts humanity will adapt and survive. There's just doubts America won't be dragged kicking and screaming determined to fight any change that would benefit those most affected by it.
No, I don't think most people find "fulfillment" from their jobs. I think that most people go absolutely bonkers when they have nothing to do.
I kindly urge you to read my entire post, and not just provide a knee jerk reaction to a single sound bite from it.
And a more appropriate thread for discussing what to do in a post-work world might be:
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/199057/hey-yall-lets-talk-about-basic-income
Yes yes, we've seen Humans Need Not Apply.
The problem with that is that it comes from a very modern, very urban, very middle class, very first world viewpoint. There are places in the US that still don't have sustainable and reliable high speed internet, and dial up is one of the better options. There are astounding numbers of stores that don't use networked technology, or anything more advanced than a manual cash register and a networked card reader.
The idea is that at some point in the future the technology will be ubiquitous enough that it massively impacts the economy and society, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. The people who are going to adopt the technology are the big companies that can either afford the infrastructure needed for it or who already have it in place. Not every transportation company is going to have the infrastructure in place to handle autos, and that can't just be waved away. There are still going to be lots of companies that cannot afford or do not want the technology and who are not in competition with the larger companies that can and do.
Most of the office jobs we have now are "Bullshit jobs", according to Graeber. http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
That says to me that we are already past the point of requiring the number of jobs we have for the wealth we produce. We will probably create some new bullshit to replace what we automate, at least in the near to middle term.
The real trick is going to be finding fulfillment outside your job, whether or not it exists. My hope is that we transcend into a race of philosopher kings!
Prepare to disappointed.
Me, I've settled for "I desperately hope we transcend into a race with jobs that keep pace with the cost of living and inflation."
You seem to be ignoring a fundamental aspect of capitalism. Not every company will have the capital or infrastructure to handle Autos, no, but those companies will slowly be forced to adapt or go out of business competing with those that do. I believe you're overestimating the number of potential "niche holdouts" who will be able to reasonably operate in an area or market without directly competing with the larger operations that do modernize. We already have plenty of data on the effects of things like Walmart and Amazon on smaller local economies.
It doesn't have to be every company: just enough of them to raise unemployment and spiral us into another depression.
You're saying that a cabbie, truck driver or bus driver needing to pull long shifts of basically minimum or near-minimum wage, incredibly dull work drives innovation and achievement? Allowing people the time to do what they want to will probably increase these things
That's really the trick, though. We don't need any of those jobs, whether they have COL increases or not. They're just a stopgap until we come to grips with GBI.
That simply isn't the case. I gave examples already of how technology is not ubiquitous and certainly not advanced equally throughout the economy.
Yes, in the case of two equal competitors competing for the same job, the job is more likely to go to the one with the technology that reduces cost. However, not everyone in the transportation industry is competing. The contractors who are hired by the beer companies to haul beer to fill the fridges at Walmart aren't going to be hurt by Walmart automating their shipping fleet, because they simply don't compete with one another. Long haul companies don't edge out shipping companies that solely work within a city because they aren't competing with one another.
There's a good reason to move the UPS shipping fleet to automation, but little reason to move their delivery fleet to automation. It's simply a matter of the technology not being as ubiquitous as the doomsaying implies.
Stores will not have any requirements to use automation for company fleets because the cost is prohibitive for the majority of the stores and the only ones likely to see a benefit from it will be larger corporations, and even then it causes problems because the majority of those fleets are for in-city delivery.
Even if you look at factory automation, the major competition for manufacturing isn't due to automation, it's due to cheaper human labor overseas.
Automation and the technological unemployability of people are just not as interlinked as CGPGrey makes it sound. It sounds bad, but then when you think about it you realize that there's a lot that automation cannot replicate currently or in the near future, and the additional cost of the infrastructure and investment in the technology makes it prohibitive in the same way that it has prevented information technology from becoming fully ubiquitous.
Yeah, you may have a phone that you can use to check the weather in a country across the globe, but most businesses work on technology that is considerably lower in technological capabilities.
The trick to selling bullshit is that you can always sell more bullshit. the bullshit sector could probably grow by a lot provided the increase of unemployed is slow enough.
Really the real problem with automation is the concept of a Guaranteed minimum income how would we really pull it off?
Having people live in that staple of cyberpunk the Arcology would work since you give them a place to live and the items to live a life, But what if you wanted a bigger bed or a new gaming system? how would you earn the money to buy those items?
Really it's either going to be a corporate dystopia or a sci fi utopia either way we need to look into this social change. as it will be messy and rough no matter what we do but having a clear goal and ideas to reach it are the plan
Yeah yeah yeah, soylent green is people.
Whatever.
None of your posts have done anything to actually support your unreasonably pessimistic alarmism.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
Also, i think maybe the thread you are looking for is over there somewhere.
Stationary bike generating electricity. The more you work the more electricity you generate and the more dollars, or we could call them merits, you make. Using these merits you can decorate your space, or even buy a friend a ticket to a signing competition.
My preferred idea to implement a guaranteed minimum income is to have the first $X+$Y amount of income is tax free, and if you make less than $X the difference is refunded to you on a bi-weekly basis exactly like a paycheck. Income after the first $X+$Y would then be taxed similarly as it is today, and you can use the $Y amount to create an incentive to work over not working.
Ehh... big fan of just providing the resources for folk to create stuff like art and experiences that improve the lives of those around them.
Learn a skill that makes you happy, and do it for others or teach them to do the same or create new things(or artisanal old things).
The bike thing is a huge waste of resources. Spend billions of calories, which are going to be a limited resource, to make electricity less efficiently than just burning the food.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You're assuming the goal is to make electricity inefficiently, but the real goal is to keep people occupied all day.
No it is to make people labor for the sake of labor.
Which is dumb, when people pretty much will find things to do once they don't have to constantly be afraid of starving to death on the streets.
People are pretty good at finding stuff to do, unless they are really poor and don't have things to choose to do.
The metaphor Black Mirror was laying down is basically the idea that as long as people are grinding away at meaningless, physically demandind tasks for which they are paid only enough money to live off of (and as long as they are distracted by a mix of entertainment and the fool's hope of a lottery), they're too tired/poor/struggling to revolt or question the system. It goes beyond the idea upthread that people need to have things to do to be happy; it says that governments need people to have things to do so they'll stay quiet.
Basically the show's answer to futuristic technology and automation is that impoverished underclasses are so useful that f we accidentally robot-ed our way out of them, governments would have to reinvent them. It's the same reason it became necessary for most families to have two incomes to get by right around the time women entered the workforce.
Not that it isn't a bad thing but I'm pretty sure there are more reasonable explanations for why two incomes required to support a family then the government wants people to be poor
Not to get totally off topic, but a lot of it is likely due to the competition between single and double earner households for the same houses/stuff. Double earner will generally have more resources available, which necessitated others making the same choice. That said, there are a lot of people who would prefer NOT to stay home with the kids, as well as many positions that practically necessitate a stay-at-home parent - for example, it's rare that you'd see someone in the true executive tier of a fortune 100 with kids who didn't have a stay at home spouse. If they didn't, they'd have a nanny at a minimum based on travel and time requirements of the position.
as usual with Silicon Valley's pie-in-the-sky ideas, this will fuck over the poor and everyone without a smartphone
Also capitalism means that things generally cost whatever people can afford to pay unless there's an unexpected surplus. So if all of a sudden everybody has twice the income available to pay for goods and services, or could....
I don't have one as I don't really see the point of having a phone when I rarely have to use it
Rarely is the term as I needed to use the phone 3 times last year other than that I just suffered and waited.
It's the cost as $45 a month is rather expensive for something I would not really use even the really cheap ones are still an expense that I really question.
I am not really poor as I am in that gray area that is ignored or used in other places as I am too poor yet I make to much to qualify for basic services
I mean, there's something to be said for having a decently powerful computer on you at all times.
There's also definitely things to be said against it as well but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.
But really the phone part of my smartphone is by far the least used service it provides.
( I also think we as consumers get boned cost-wise by most carriers but that's another discussion entirely)