upvote

points

by bluefirebrand8 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby vidarh7 hours ago|
next
[-]
If the number of jobs automated approaches 100%, then either what small proportion that is left is still sufficient to pay people, whether because the number of jobs in absolute terms is still large, say by the creation of new types of work, or because of reduction in working hours, or mass unemployment eventually forces some form of redistribution.

Large scale automation is only a problem if society allows it to become a problem.

reply
upvoteby visarga3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Unfortunately the gains of automation will not become our post scarcity utopia, instead they will be consumed by the new AI overhead and we remain in a regime of scarcity. AI will reshape all our processes and societies, that is where the gains will go.
reply
upvoteby bluefirebrand7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Large scale automation is only a problem if society allows it to become a problem.

When I look around me I see a society that I think would happily have jackboots round up excess labor and execute us rather than redistribute money fairly

So I wish I had your optimism

reply
upvoteby vidarh3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Well, I didn't say I'm confident that society won't allow it to become a problem. But I don't think a society that triggers mass unemployment and poverty at the same time will remain like that for long before it'd face uprisings. A society like that would also face the problem that without people having money they have no customers.
reply
upvoteby throwawaytea6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If you redistribute money evenly, how would you get anyone to do anything?

If you gave everyone $10k a month UBI, who is going to change your tire? How much you have to pay them to go to work if they get $10k while sitting at home?

If a town has a lack of apartments, how much will an apartment cost if a young couple has $20k a month to spend?

reply
upvoteby vidarh3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The scenario we are discussing is one where "the number of jobs automated approaches 100%", so the point would be that it is explicitly a situation where most people are not needed in the job market.
reply
upvoteby bluefirebrand3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> If you redistribute money evenly, how would you get anyone to do anything

Currently, people need money to pay for necessities like food and shelter. Therefore either money is redistributed somehow or people have jobs to earn money, or we change the paradigm entirely to something else

We cannot have both no wealth redistribution AND replace all labour with automation without really messing this system up

This seems pretty obvious to me?

reply
upvoteby jryle707 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> When Number of Jobs automated approaches 100% then what?

When was that? Or hypothetical? Why would that be and not that new jobs being created?

reply
upvoteby 2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply