|
Malcolm XML posted:Hmm yea just like the automobile destroyed civilization when it put the buggy whip makers out of work I look forward to mad max but every thing is done by kiosk ordering The new era of automatization destroy more jobs that it create. And the new jobs created required high specialization.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
I haven't seen any kiosks at a fast-food place around here so far, but supermarkets are continuing to get more and more automated. A few stores have had self-checkouts for a while, and now more are getting little barcode scanners that you take around with you and use to scan the items. But for restaurants, I have no idea how app ordering isn't a bigger thing yet. Having your table reserved and food almost ready as you arrive would be a huge qualitative improvement in experience vs the usual bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Uh dude its a pure roi thing its still cheaper to deal with humans than kiosks and the human quote:The tech isn't new its old as heck and the cheap cost of labor has kept it from spreading. Look at automated checkouts -- they are barely functional and usually need a human to kick them into shape My point is that it's weirdly common here for people to pooh-pooh new technology because it sucks, then pooh-pooh it when it becomes mature and useful because it's already been around a long time. edit: also I agree that self-checkout tech is still mostly in the 'suck phase' Cicero fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I'm too lazy to verify but I could have sworn there were a couple goons who didn't think this was happening. When self-driving tech becomes stronger in the next few years the same skeptic crowd will be equally as silent or just move the goalposts further.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Tei posted:The new era of automatization destroy more jobs that it create. And the new jobs created required high specialization. We didn't run out of jobs a hundred years ago how could we run out now! : woot:
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Eventually we're run out of jobs, I think it's impossible to predict exactly when though. We won't know it until it's already been happening for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:We didn't run out of jobs a hundred years ago how could we run out now! : woot: I don't have a useful answer for you, but I offer you this approximate of my opinion: Society them: A lot of jobs where created, because society changed. Society did not had has much theachers, doctors and other people. Machines where a lineal enhancement o(n). The more work you wanted to do, the more machines you need. The more machines you have, the more maintenance jobs you need. versus society now: Our society is not changing. Machines are near a o(1) enhancement. A single program can infinitely copied to different machines. Write Once, use Infinite times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Everyone's gonna be a vlogger or play the synth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Tei posted:The new era of automatization destroy more jobs that it create. And the new jobs created required high specialization. The automobile put saddlemakers (except Hermes) out of business, a job that requires a lot of skill and training but let millions become truck drivers -- a job that requires at most a few weeks of training I suspect there will be another job for anyone who has the will and means to train for it The problem is ensuring that anyone who is fit and able to work is trained in the new skills rather than being left behind and those who can't are at least protected from destitution
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
What's the new job gonna be? Robo-wrangler?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Eventually we're run out of jobs, I think it's impossible to predict exactly when though. We won't know it until it's already been happening for a while. Hell Keynes predicted a 15hr workweek and yet we toil longer than that Unfortunately capital consumes all benefit so unless the means of production are seized I don't think we're all gonna be sunning ourselves everyday
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:What's the new job gonna be? Robo-wrangler? Depending on your caste it could even be robo oiler!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Hell Keynes predicted a 15hr workweek and yet we toil longer than that Keynes was wrong because he failed to realize that people have an infinite desire for consumption. If we wanted to live a 40s life style we could be working 15 hours a week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Lol @ the idea that the super rich aren't chomping at the bit to slaughter the poor once we've become useless to them Elysium is real, but instead of a floating donut they'll just wipe out everyone else on Earth & turn it into a giant park
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Depending on your caste it could even be robo oiler! Why wouldn't the robots oil themselves or be oiled by other robots? Kulkasha posted:Lol @ the idea that the super rich aren't chomping at the bit to slaughter the poor once we've become useless to them Poor plus not as rich frankly
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Xae posted:Keynes was wrong because he failed to realize that people have an infinite desire for consumption. Nfcknblvbl posted:Everyone's gonna be a vlogger or play the synth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVmmYMwFj1I
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:What's the new job gonna be? Robo-wrangler? Youporn model
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:The automobile put saddlemakers (except Hermes) out of business, a job that requires a lot of skill and training but let millions become truck drivers -- a job that requires at most a few weeks of training This is part of the problem, for what it's worth. Replace high skill jobs with low skill jobs and you end up depressing overall wages, because nobody pays as much for work that doesn't require as much skill or training. It's not going to be good for delivery drivers if their job description is reduced to babysitting an autopilot and helping to unload things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
I'm sorry but if you've never had to eat lunch in a non-Tier 1 city downtown, you don't know how awesome Panera's app ordering is. The entire store is designed around autistics, you can easily order, pay, and consume *from your own phone* and even choose whether to have someone bring it to the table, or pick it up on a shelf yourself. Kiosks are DOA, this will be the way you order ~in the future~
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:What's the new job gonna be? Robo-wrangler? Expert who points out when automated systems are being dumb or physically verify thier results in the field , good luck getting that job. It does pay well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Youporn model I expect servants to become a thing again. An example is nanny-ing in tech areas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Why wouldn't the robots oil themselves or be oiled by other robots? The robot masters will be benevolent and those who aren't used for the matrix may oil them
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I expect servants to become a thing again. For a little while maybe. But would you trust a poor with YOUR baby? Use our automated remote monitor s instead . ..
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Eventually we're run out of jobs, I think it's impossible to predict exactly when though. We won't know it until it's already been happening for a while. I don't think there will ever be a lack of things to do, I know the "everyone will be vloggers" thing was a joke but I honestly believe more people will move to the arts or research as traditional jobs become less popular. It's already happening, with the rise of youtube and other social platforms people are making a living just loving around online and that's pretty great. I still think there is a large portion of the population that isn't as outgoing or interested in becoming a youtube star so there's going to have to be some other avenue for that type of person. Personally I'm in favor of a mincome in addition to basic shelter and food for all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I don't think there will ever be a lack of things to do, I know the "everyone will be vloggers" thing was a joke but I honestly believe more people will move to the arts or research as traditional jobs become less popular. Those things require popularity to generate even a pittance of an income, and it's fundamentally impossible to have an economy based on arts and entertainment popularity, because even in an ideal scenario only a tiny fraction will succeed. It would be great to have a society where people were able to pursue those kinds of interests freely, but that could only be possible with something like UBI where they wouldn't have to generate a livable income from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:It's already happening, with the rise of youtube and other social platforms people are making a living just loving around online and that's pretty great. This really isn't happening. Yes, there are people who do stuff like this full time, but the reality is that the vast, vast majority are unable to make anything close to a decent living off of it. It's really a very small cadre of superstars that are able to actually make a living off of "loving around online." And that's a poor description of the ones who do as well, since most of them are working far more than full time when you consider the time needed to record, edit, market, deal with their community, etc. The same goes for things like podcasts. The best podcasters have professional level quality because they are professionals with professional skillsets. What I'm getting at is that there's no way this kind of thing would ever be sustainable for most people, because it isn't even close to sustainable for the number of people who do it now. There are a huge number of people who stream games, makes podcasts, do vlogs, or whatever at an essentially professional level without getting anywhere near minimum wage for their work. It's not good and if this is the future then it's a very bleak one. You'd need something like a UBI or incredibly generous and freely available art grants to make something like this work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This really isn't happening. Yes, there are people who do stuff like this full time, but the reality is that the vast, vast majority are unable to make anything close to a decent living off of it. It's really a very small cadre of superstars that are able to actually make a living off of "loving around online." And that's a poor description of the ones who do as well, since most of them are working far more than full time when you consider the time needed to record, edit, market, deal with their community, etc. The same goes for things like podcasts. The best podcasters have professional level quality because they are professionals with professional skillsets. I'm not saying it isn't work, I'm saying people have other options for work if they want it. I'm not implying that the solution to the problem is youtube. I don't know why you people keep quoting me but cut out the part where I say mincome, housing and food should be the standard. I'm just saying in a post work society people can still have their capitalist dream by doing things like becoming a youtube star, or inventing something, or going into academia, or countless other options that right now aren't really feasible as normal paid work. I'm saying it's already happening, people are being paid to do what might be considered by some not worthy of pay. The only reason I say this is because people are pretending like there won't be anything to do once automation eliminates the vast majority of jobs, as a society we will just shift to things like entertainment, the US already owes a pretty massive portion of its GDP to entertainment. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Uh dude its a pure roi thing its still cheaper to deal with humans than kiosks and the human Not really. After all, a kiosk is essentially what the cashier uses to punch in your order these days. It's more likely that the technology, process, and interface simply aren't quite there yet - a cashier is trained to use their POS machine, but letting customers enter in their own orders means it has to be designed to be easy and quick for someone who just walked in off the street who's never been to a McDonalds before and has three screaming children who have no idea what they want. That's not an insurmountable issue, especially for places with simple menus, but the problem can take some time to get a grip on. It's not particularly expensive anymore, even compared to a minimum wage employee - they just haven't quite gotten it right yet. As others have pointed out, they'll probably end up on app ordering, which takes a lot of the problematic factors out of the picture. Malcolm XML posted:Hmm yea just like the automobile destroyed civilization when it put the buggy whip makers out of work I look forward to mad max but every thing is done by kiosk ordering A hundred years ago, industrialization was causing vast improvements in resource extraction, production, and shipping, leading to massive expansions in demand and enormous growth in the economy as it sought to supply the global middle class. The same steam engines that eliminated so many manual labor jobs also made made it possible to ship goods across the US and across the ocean far faster and more efficiently, for example, revolutionizing global trade and making national-scale business far easier. Today, on the other hand, there's no economic expansion. Computers and the internet have revolutionized entertainment and logistics, which has largely served to streamline companies' operations rather than generating large amounts of consumer-level demand - and most of the demand has been for infinitely-reproducible data rather than physical goods that need people to create them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Ormi posted:My parochial anecdote might have obscured the fact that I do believe automation here will reduce labor costs in certain areas (McDonald's themselves are presenting this as a way to free up labor to focus on other areas of their restaurants), and that I understand the mechanisms involved. My point is more that in the arena of fast food, conceiving of these kiosks (and not necessarily apps, or pre-delivered food e.g. automats) as a direct and absolute efficiency gain in service delivery over human interaction seems to involve a significant degree of wishful thinking, or being sold a bill of goods by corporate PR. They merely have a different cost profile, in that they often take longer, have upkeep costs, are unable to be flexibly replaced when they malfunction, are quite expensive up-front, but do work around the clock without a wage. So they work best in tandem with humans for delivering the whole package: a meal that takes as little as time as possible between ordering, receiving, eating, and leaving for as many people as can be serviced. They can be and are profitable investments for franchisees to make. But the idea that they're suddenly going to reduce McDonald's total labor costs by whatever ridiculous percentage by downsizing the front-end to a skeleton crew or eliminating it entirely is a fiction which makes certain people who know a little but not enough of the internal economics involved very excited and loose with their praise and money. This post reminds of the young kid version of themselves that all my old grizzled co-workers lament were so dumb. You're seeing hurdles but you think they are walls. I'll give you an example. I work in machining. Back in the early 90's, this new type of machine came out that was supposed to be the new hotness. Everyone wanted one. It marketed itself as the first machine center that could take raw material, and turn it into a finished part, without any intervention from people. Hypothetically, you could load this thing up, turn off the lights, head home, and come in to a tub full of good parts in the morning. What people started figuring out though was that the machine had no way of knowing when it was loving up. If a drill or something broke, it would just keep spitting out parts that were missing the hole. If tool wear caused the cut to change dimensions so much that the resulting part was nonfunctional, it had no way of being able to inspect and find that, and it would run junk all night. It was too expensive to regularly come in to a tub of hosed up parts, so the machines went out of style. The message everyone took from it was that at the end of the day, a human has to be operating machines directly, or bad poo poo is gonna happen. That's not the end of the story though. Since then, tool eyes were integrated, which allow a machine to check itself to see if a drill or something is broken. CMM technology has expanded to the point that machines can not only check parts, but can do so better and more efficiently than any human ever could. Robot arms have improved a machines capability to load its own parts. And suddenly, we're right back into a phase where machines that can run themselves are suddenly back on the table, and this time, they work. And 20 years after those are integrated, you'll be able to buy the loving things on Craigslist. Technology doesn't stop. Tying this back in with McDonald's, the fast food industry has 2 major advantages over machining when it comes to resistance against automation. The first is that the product can only hold for so long. It's perishable. This eliminates any sort of opportunity to have 5 big mac 3000's pumping out all the burgers for a tri state area, which makes distribution more difficult. The second is that people expect their food as they ordered it in a matter of minutes. In machining, if a machine breaks down, it's not a big deal. It can sit all night and get fixed in the morning, because the order isn't due for another two months. For McDonald's, it's not really viable for them to tell customers that the burger machine is down so we can only make salads tonight. Aside from that, it's the exact same process. An order is taken, you manufacture it, and then you have the supply chain logistics in getting raw materials in and out the door as finished products. Anything that involves that kind of process is very vulnerable to automation. You can already see the effects of this taking place in McDonald's. Take someone who worked in one 20 years ago, and show them the back line of a McDonald's today, and it'll probably blow their mind. It's so much easier today, because so much has been taken out of the hands of the employees. From the ease of taking an order, to the ease of dealing with the cooking of the products. Everything is substantially more automated than it used to be. And all of these will continue to be refined and integrated in future processes that are meant to allow less or no actual employees to be involved in the process. That's because the automation that kiosks are becoming a part of does not simply present a different "cost profile." When these sorts of systems are refined, you are able to make a better quality product more efficiently, with less waste, more speed, and with more consistency. All for much cheaper. There's a reason companies put so much time in research and development with this stuff. Most problems in a production environment are based in human error. The more you can reduce the need for human input, the more you reduce error. RandomPauI posted:Hmm. Walmart has patents on self-collecting shopping carts. Are there any dead-end jobs that aren't being automated? Your day will come, bud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm not saying it isn't work, I'm saying people have other options for work if they want it. I'm not implying that the solution to the problem is youtube. I don't know why you people keep quoting me but cut out the part where I say mincome, housing and food should be the standard. I'm just saying in a post work society people can still have their capitalist dream by doing things like becoming a youtube star, or inventing something, or going into academia, or countless other options that right now aren't really feasible as normal paid work. I'm saying it's already happening, people are being paid to do what might be considered by some not worthy of pay. The only reason I say this is because people are pretending like there won't be anything to do once automation eliminates the vast majority of jobs, as a society we will just shift to things like entertainment, the US already owes a pretty massive portion of its GDP to entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
There are no dead end jobs, only dead end employers
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:everything Totally agree with your point of view, people treat technology like it's static but it just takes time and incremental change. Automation doesn't happen over night, it's more like a river just slowly eroding the soil until the resulting canyon seems like it was always there. I think certain industries are more automation proof than others as well, certainly food production is one of them but it'll get there eventually. Dead Reckoning posted:A few people can make a living as a YouTube Superstar. Do you think all the people driving port trucks and scrubbing toilets are doing it because they don't have access to a webcam or lack hustle? Right now we live in a narrow window where a few artists can sell their wares to the entire global middle class at once, but as well paying middle class jobs continue to get squeezed out of existence, that window is going to close. We can't all be tipping each other for amusing listicles or fast talking youtube vids. UBI isn't going to happen because there is no reason for the wealthy to go along with it. I do believe that people scrubbing toilets don't know that they could make money in other more creative ways, yes. Though I'm not saying it's because they aren't good workers or whatever, they just lack the freedom to peruse skills and entertain ideas that aren't related to making money (they would be at risk homelessness or starvation if they did otherwise). Do you think your parents would even consider being a "youtube star" as a viable career path? How many kids growing up today see it as viable? My whole point is that right now you can see way more people than ever before earning money this way, and I think it'll continue to grow. Hollywood used to just be this small thing that only a select few could be a part of, now anyone with a webcam or microphone could potentially be signing production deals with Netflix or whoever shows up next. There is really no limit to the number of people that can find a niche and earn money catering to that niche. I don't disagree with your point about the window closing, we are definitely in a time where even casual artists are able to make money with few barriers. However, I was just using youtube etc. as just an example of what the future might look like if we were to continue down this path. I can't predict the future so I can only assume we'll continue the trend of moving towards a more service and entertainment driven society, I think at least for the time being humans excel at that. I don't agree that the wealthy have no reason to be in favor of UBI, regardless of a rich person's tax contribution the buying power of a population with only disposable income still vastly outweighs the actual contribution that would be required by that individual. Companies will grow but just like today most will fail, those remaining companies will still earn way more than they pay out. The alternative is no consumption or growth at all and I don't think the average corporation would be in favor of that. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You're seeing hurdles but you think they are walls. Well, no. I'm explicitly pointing out that they are hurdles. I don't have access to enough detailed data to confidently say when and where those hurdles will be jumped, but I do recognize based on the technology that is currently being implemented, the statements of intent by the fast food industry, and the overarching business aims they claim to be implementing, that the kiosks do not (currently) represent an absolute advantage over human labor in producing fast food service delivery. They're migrating to a business model that more closely resembles the way fast food has been handled in places like Japan for decades, with a deeper focus on somewhat higher-end specialty products and improved service. Kiosks are a part of achieving that aim, and true to form, you see a much higher degree of automation in Japanese food services, but also very little market share owned by what we can think of as the traditional American fast food approach. Eventually they'll improve in every respect, and you'll be able to successfully navigate them purely by voice, they'll have the infrastructure to support wide-area app ordering, joints with less preparatory labor and time constraints involved will move towards automat-style presentation, and so on. However, claiming a victory over rising wages is extremely premature, for many reasons, but most directly because that's not what this rollout is really meant to achieve in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I don't agree that the wealthy have no reason to be in favor of UBI, regardless of a rich person's tax contribution the buying power of a population with only disposable income still vastly outweighs the actual contribution that would be required by that individual. Companies will grow but just like today most will fail, those remaining companies will still earn way more than they pay out. The alternative is no consumption or growth at all and I don't think the average corporation would be in favor of that. Assuming we're heading towards a situation where a large fraction of the population are NEETs, or worse, LP superstars, and contribute nothing of inherent value to society that others are willing to pay for, why would corporations and their shareholders have any interest in a system wherein the government expropriates their money via taxation, then turns around and gives it to said useless lumps so that they can buy things from said corporations? I'm sure the wealthy can come up with more amusing means of lighting money on fire. If paying people to consume in exchange for nothing was beneficial to corporations, there is no reason they wouldn't be doing it right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
There's a point where the cost of throwing table scraps at people is less than the social consequences of having a massive, starving underclass. Extremely high levels of unemployment are a characteristic of failed states, and it's not in the interests of the wealthy for the social order to break down entirely. I really doubt there's any risk of something like this happening in the near future, in part because I think things would reach a crisis point much sooner (ie, at like 10-15% long-term unemployment). A less cynical (and apocalyptic) view is that everyone is capable of contributing to society, but the labor market as it exists is just really inefficient at helping people to do that. Something like a UBI theoretically frees people up to do volunteer/community work that traditionally wouldn't be enough to live off of, but that's still socially valuable. The same goes for artistic endeavors. A government that's actually interested in the welfare of its citizens should support policies that improve lives and help people to contribute in ways that they find meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Legal sector facing disruption from 40 AI companies, new report finds
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Assuming we're heading towards a situation where a large fraction of the population are NEETs, or worse, LP superstars, and contribute nothing of inherent value to society that others are willing to pay for, why would corporations and their shareholders have any interest in a system wherein the government expropriates their money via taxation, then turns around and gives it to said useless lumps so that they can buy things from said corporations? I'm sure the wealthy can come up with more amusing means of lighting money on fire. What I described isn't any different than normal taxation, so if you want to think of it that way... yes, corporations are currently paying "useless lumps" to consume. In the simplest terms wealth is only built by moving money around plus steady inflation, so I'm failing to see how a UBI would impact that process negatively. If anything it allows for more growth since all individual income would be disposable instead of going to necessities like food and housing. I think the thing you're misunderstanding is how the the investment actually works out, it's not like company A is paying customer A 10 dollars to buy a widget for 10 dollars. It's more like Companies A-Z are paying $10 per widget and they sell it to N customers for $20 per widget. Companies F-Z go under after investment dries up and Companies A-E are now rich and they earned more than they individually contributed. You also have to remember that companies A-Z are also in constant rotation and they're paying each other and employees (aka. customers) so the money doesn't just go away when they fail. Plus there are many ways that wealth is injected into the cycle other than inflation, foreign investment, improvements in efficiency, discovery of new methods or resources, licensing, etc., all essentially create money out of nothing and I don't see how a UBI would stop any of that. Paradoxish posted:A less cynical (and apocalyptic) view is that everyone is capable of contributing to society, but the labor market as it exists is just really inefficient at helping people to do that. Something like a UBI theoretically frees people up to do volunteer/community work that traditionally wouldn't be enough to live off of, but that's still socially valuable. The same goes for artistic endeavors. A government that's actually interested in the welfare of its citizens should support policies that improve lives and help people to contribute in ways that they find meaningful. Exactly, and lots of countries are actually moving in that direction. America is seemingly moving further from that at the moment, so we'll see how it pans out for us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Exactly, and lots of countries are actually moving in that direction. America is seemingly moving further from that at the moment, so we'll see how it pans out for us. To be fair, there are pretty major issues with a lot of these Utopian visions built around UBI or similar policies. If you give everyone the equivalent of a minimum wage salary then you still have a large portion of population living in poverty, they just no longer have to be employed. That's an improvement, but you've still created an underclass that's probably now permanently unemployable. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:What I described isn't any different than normal taxation, so if you want to think of it that way... yes, corporations are currently paying "useless lumps" to consume. In the simplest terms wealth is only built by moving money around plus steady inflation, so I'm failing to see how a UBI would impact that process negatively. If anything it allows for more growth since all individual income would be disposable instead of going to necessities like food and housing. If the economy can function without cutting the unproductive in right now, why should the powers that be do so in the future? If the upper classes are able to maintain their lifestyles by trading between themselves and their retainers, like they do/did in every current and historic society with massive wealth inequality, why wouldn't they? The threat of social unrest has been getting called for the last three decades, during which the rich have gotten richer, and organized labor has been squeezed out of existence. I see no reason to believe that the poor and organized labor will somehow get their poo poo together and take on the globally wealthy, given their abysmal track record. Also, how would people not be spending their UBI on housing and food?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
I Am A Robot posted:This misconception won't go away until Machine Learning becomes better communicated to the public. there are huge efficiency gains available to most organisations without going anywhere near machine learning
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:54
|
|
