|
Future jobs prospects; Kapo (prisoner with a position over other prisoners), living furniture, living artwork, living test material, spare parts, soylent green, professional snitch, gladiator, indentured servant, majordomo, bellhop (the rich will not stand for being waited on hand and foot by something they can't degrade, like a machine), butler, maid, courtesean, uterus rental, cuckoldry specialist. More will come to me I'm sure.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'm a little surprised by some conservative economists calling for a minimum income in order to combat automation, but then I realise they mean bare minimum, like "just enough so you won't die."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The solution certainly isn't that we need to hold some sort of eternal empire of people driving trucks and working at arby's because it just happens that the technology from before I was born was good and the technology made since all happened to be devil magic. I'm not advocating that at all, merely pointing out that "just ride it out, new jobs will pop up" isn't working now and can't really be expected to work better for no particular reason. Major structural changes need to happen to allow people to make living wages while doing less work, and less technical work, such as shortening the work week while massively increasing wages, job creation through major infrastructure projects, mincome, and that's assuming the general population doesn't start questioning capitalism as a whole due to it holding us back in these regards
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'm a little surprised by some conservative economists calling for a minimum income in order to combat automation, but then I realise they mean bare minimum, like "just enough so you won't die." Talmonis posted:Future jobs prospects; Kapo (prisoner with a position over other prisoners), living furniture, living artwork, living test material, spare parts, soylent green, professional snitch, gladiator, indentured servant, majordomo, bellhop (the rich will not stand for being waited on hand and foot by something they can't degrade, like a machine), butler, maid, courtesean, uterus rental, cuckoldry specialist. More will come to me I'm sure. Already on it! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Death Bot posted:I'm not advocating that at all, merely pointing out that "just ride it out, new jobs will pop up" isn't working now and can't really be expected to work better for no particular reason. I am certainly not opposed to things like stronger safety nets and a better more liberal government. I think living and working can suck or be good in any age depending on the society they live in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I am certainly not opposed to things like stronger safety nets and a better more liberal government. I think living and working can suck or be good in any age depending on the society they live in. The bolded is the hard part. Conservatives aren't going anywhere, and will fight making people able to take care of themselves and family without a job to the death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The bolded is the hard part. Conservatives aren't going anywhere, and will fight making people able to take care of themselves and family without a job to the death. Why? What could possibly be their reasoning?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The bolded is the hard part. Conservatives aren't going anywhere, and will fight making people able to take care of themselves and family without a job to the death. Yeah, if we all end up in the gutter dying and gasping for food it's not going to be because robots TOOK OUR JEERBS any more than it is because mexicans did. It's going to be because republicans killed safety nets and programs that help people transition between life stages or recover from setbacks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
... compounded by the new millions of unemployable people. Seriously, it's not an either-or situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Why? What could possibly be their reasoning? It's deeply ingrained in our ideas of fairness. It's incredibly easy to convince those who still have work that the safety nets for those unemployable are literal theft. The poorer the work force the easier it is to convince them that what little they have is being taken by the lazy shiftless Other who lives a life of glut on the backs of those who work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Why? What could possibly be their reasoning? There's a long-standing belief that a decent lifestyle should be earned, not given. There's also an associated belief that someone who is diligent and works hard is guaranteed to get that decent lifestyle in the end, and that any economic problems they have are just short-term periods of bad luck or misfortune that they'll surely overcome in the long run as long as they're truly hard-working. There's another aasociated belief that help for those who don't work (regardless of the reason) is unfair and an insult to the virtues of the people who do work. It's like the just world fallacy, but applied to economic outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's a long-standing belief that a decent lifestyle should be earned, not given. There's also an associated belief that someone who is diligent and works hard is guaranteed to get that decent lifestyle in the end, and that any economic problems they have are just short-term periods of bad luck or misfortune that they'll surely overcome in the long run as long as they're truly hard-working. There's another aasociated belief that help for those who don't work (regardless of the reason) is unfair and an insult to the virtues of the people who do work. It's like the just world fallacy, but applied to economic outcomes. Also bear in mind that the rich and powerful have a vested interest in keeping those beliefs rolling. Put simply, if you're a greedy bastard sitting on a pile of food while people are starving in the streets, wouldn't you do everything you could to reinforce the idea that they're all poor because they're not working hard enough, or because that foreigner took their job away? And in a near future where bots take the jobs from millions of people, the massive increased profits from not needing to pay for frail human workers any more is going to flow right into the coffers of the already rich business owners. Are they going to share? Before the starving masses come sniffing around your swimming pool full of gold and asking why exactly you should have all the money, you'd better get your army of lobbyists to work ensuring that no social safety net gets funded by increasing your taxes. Better call up your fellow rich buddies who own media companies and remind them to keep pumping out those 'look at this welfare queen who wastes your tax money on a TV and a refrigerator' news stories. Of course a consumerist society doesn't work too well without, you know, consumers. So maybe some businesses are smart enough to realize that it's actually better to share the wealth so that people can trade said wealth back to them for their products. But how many corporations are really forward thinking enough to do this? By design, they don't look beyond the next quarter's profits. Seems more likely that they just keep desperately squeezing for short-term gain until there's nothing left. I'd like to be convinced that the outlook for the future isn't terribly grim, but I can't really think of a plausible scenario for that. Long term, sure, the survivors probably end up with a nice post-scarcity golden age. Short term? Eh...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Mozi posted:... compounded by the new millions of unemployable people. People probably aren't going to become unemployable because of automation. Low-end jobs are always going to be around unless we start seriously raising the minimum wage, so what's more likely is a constant downward pressure on middle- and lower-end wages as the share of people qualified to work "good" jobs shrinks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
I lust for my first bionic implant op.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:People probably aren't going to become unemployable because of automation. Low-end jobs are always going to be around unless we start seriously raising the minimum wage, so what's more likely is a constant downward pressure on middle- and lower-end wages as the share of people qualified to work "good" jobs shrinks. This is pretty well covered in that video in the OP. The whole point is basically, no, low-end jobs really aren't going to need humans. There are already bots that are nearly good enough to do any physical labor job, without complex programming. They just 'learn' by watching someone do it or are even capable of being told 'these are the materials, this is the output we need' and then essentially figure it out on their own (which they only need to do once and then all of your bots know it forever). While it may not be immediately cost effective to trade out every burger-flipper for a robot, it's not exactly a distant science fiction idea either. Minimum wage plus social security taxes, medicare taxes, unemployment taxes and so on all add up. A bot doesn't have to be all that cheap to compete, especially over the long term. And once you get some early adoption and economies of scale kick in the price starts to go down, it gets even cheaper to make, more business can afford more bots and it snowballs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:I lust for my first bionic implant op. The full range of medical care is only available to Citizens, not recipients of state income. Maybe try contributing to society???
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
I have a question for when you encounter someone who smugly congratulates people fighting for 15 on causing fast food automation to come and replace them. You know, as though the automation is a punishment invented for them having the greed of wanting a living wage, rather than the automation having been unavoidable and the workers have always been completely and totally hosed. When you encounter that person, when you break their body and begin openly feasting on the flesh as is the natural and civil response, should you include some grain or starch to balance your diet? Or just some root veggies, add light salt and save the blood for a gravy for later? I mean I'm kind of joking but this might be a good thread to workshop on concise ways to tell these people they are wrong and/or why they should take their opinions, fold it 3x, roll it into a cone and jam it up their rear end until nobody has to ever see it again. Social media has been a complete poo poo show especially post election but nothing is more infuriating to argue against than people punching down on the poor harder than ever
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Off the top of my head, I'm thinking, "No matter how low your wages are, sooner or later you'll still be more expensive than a robot." e: I guess you should follow that up with something. Maybe "And that's why market forces plus the traditional 'He who does not work, let his children not eat' attitude is going to get more and more ineffective." Ragnar34 fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Yeah something along the lines of asking how large of a pay cut they'd be willing to take to outcompete a robot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Or you can sing one of the "John Henry" ballads for the benefit of any survivors (but do not sing with your mouth full).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:I have a question for when you encounter someone who smugly congratulates people fighting for 15 on causing fast food automation to come and replace them. You know, as though the automation is a punishment invented for them having the greed of wanting a living wage, rather than the automation having been unavoidable and the workers have always been completely and totally hosed. ask them why it makes them feel good to imagine someone working hard but getting paid less also fast food won't be automated any time soon because exactly this kind of person likes to pull petty scams like claiming their order was wrong or that the customer service was bad in order to cadge free food
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
cut, print, that's a wrap. excellent job everyone
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:ask them why it makes them feel good to imagine someone working hard but getting paid less
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
The only job left will be customer service. Yet more evidence for the "darkest timeline" hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You only need one person for the job of "Customer Relations Professional" though. two people can't yell at one person at the same time, they will fight
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:two people can't yell at one person at the same time, they will fight
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:The ideal solution is to support free college education and a guaranteed minimum income. Automation can be allowed to happen if we focus the workforce into jobs that are much less likely to be automated. Many of these non-vulnerable jobs won't be automated for at least 20 years. If for some reason someone still can't find a job, it is necessary for a person to participate in the economy in order for automated companies to still be able to sell product. A basic income or guaranteed minimum income would provide enough to live on at the very least. I don't believe in re-schooling at all. The same solution was given to the unemployment caused by globalisation leading to the moving of certain sectors to low-wage countries en masse. It sounds nice in a political debate, but in practice the burden falls on the soon-to-be-unemployed workers both financially and intellectually while having to deal with all the poo poo that comes from either still working in a sector under heavy pressure but still barely hanging on or becoming unemployed. Even if government were to provide generous means of re-schooling, I'm working in logistics right now and I see a lot of colleagues I just don't see becoming software engineers or whatever no matter what. They're great people and exactly the ones at high risk of their jobs being automated but with the best intentions I just don't see what great new jobs are going to be right for these people in 20 or 30 years. Further there's the market to consider. For the limited number of non-automated jobs that will exist, why would I hire a 40+ year old who went through a re-schooling programme and thus has little if any relevant experience in the field when I could also hire a 20 year old straight out of college? Guarantee you the latter is going to be cheaper and with less risk of complications like long-term illness or suddenly having to take care of children etc. This is also exactly what's been happening over the last 30 years. Seriously, how many ex-coal miners or whatever are working solid middle class jobs right now? Re-schooling is an intellectual fig leaf used to wave away the actual underlying issue. It's why at the same time as unemployment is up, and productivity is up, the average workweek is somehow increasing and pension ages are rising. If re-schooling was effective that simply would not happen. The biggest question in economics of the next decades is going to be "why must everyone work?". And the answer is, except for outdated morality bullshit, we really, really don't need everyone to work. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
So, talking about basic income schemes: what if instead of implementing the basic income through taxes, the government would instead force all companies to provide a fraction of their shares/ownership to a "basic income fond", from which profits would be distributed equally among the entire population? It would basically be a partial nationalisation of the entire economy. And it would also be coupled with a reduction in the tax burden due to abolishment of welfare, state pensions, etc. Yeah, it's still a form of taxation, but a form that would avoid the "welfare queen stigma". I mean, in my entire life I've never heard someone refer to a trust fund kid (who has never worked a single day in his life) as a welfare queen. Being a trust fund kid is a very noble and respect profession in our society. Can someone criticize my half-baked idea?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Can someone criticize my half-baked idea? At least without a complete change in the 'deserving and undeserving poor'/'strivers vs. skivers'/'poverty of aspiration' bullshit that has been going around in some form for at least the last century and a half.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
They are doubling the size and production flow of my warehouse, but only adding less than 5% more jobs because they are automating a bunch of the work. I'm just making it my number one goal to retire before the next building revision in 20-30ish years because I can see the writing on the wall. Just from who I work with, the idea of retraining a bunch of middle-aged broken down manual laborers to do new technical jobs seems pretty laughable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
B B posted:I am about to become an automation engineer at a software company. How long will it be until my job is automated? 90% safe, I say. I don't think we will see software writting software. Not if the humans are the ones writting the specs. 90% of the jobs of software people is to understand paradoxical, contradictory, chaotic and ambiguous staments. If management roles are replaced by algorithms, then these AI-management algorithms will standardize on existing software, so if you job is "rewrite the wheel", it will be at risk. Only these writing the standarized software will have a job. ---- My solution to this is to create a new type of money. "Softmoney". With Softmoney you would be able to buy garantee by society housing and food. Then if we choose to give people a minimal income, pay them in softmoney. If they want to buy stuff that can't be paid with softmoney, they will need a job or somebody that take their softmoney. Capitalism is too rooted on what we know, and what we are, how we imagine the world, etcetera, etcetera... so only a solution that copy how capitalism works may solve the problem. Softmoney is not real money, and things that are now free would require it. Life for people with a job will have them exchanging periodically some hardmoney for a bunch of softmoney. This will be a society of haves and haves-not, but I don't think we can avoid that. Since we can't avoid that,at least we can try to create a system that Works and is has humane has possible and still continue to be Capitalist. Tei fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
To change the conversation a bit: This conversation keeps talking about one half of the equation but not the other. LIke it seems like people can accept a robot surgeon will put a real surgeon out of work because the robot can run for less money than a surgeon is willing to work. But this sci-fi scenario is also one where someone has an autodoc that costs less than 90,000 a year to run. And the big loving deal that is. Or like conversation that all manufacturing will be done by machines and these machines will cost well below minimum wage to run per year but totally ignores what that means otherwise. Like I get the urge to say the rich will own the factory, fire all the workers and pocket the difference to become richer. But like, by definition the factory now only costs a minimal amount to run. And surgery by definition costs a tiny amount to do and lawyers are a software package and whatever. Like, if I need a service and a robot is so cheap, why don't I just buy that? and yeah, don't take that literal, I do understand that our jobs aren't being replaced by a single android that I could just have in my home, I'm trying to say that if a job gets replaced by automation that makes that job cost an extremely low amount it seems hard to imagine a realistic situation where I am forever locked out of being able to acquire that good or service for a low price. If the rich guy can make a car for 15 bucks and pocket the difference then sell it to me for 20,000 dollars maybe someone else can start a factory and make the car for 15 bucks and sell it for 2000. If everything is automated why are my expenses also not going down a huge amount? only my income?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The biggest question in economics of the next decades is going to be "why must everyone work?". And the answer is, except for outdated morality bullshit, we really, really don't need everyone to work. Clearly, appealing to their conscience isn't and won't work. The only solution will be for some of the desperate people to finally stop blaming themselves and fighting each other, and go after the ones actually causing all of the needless misery. Guillotines are an excellent investment for poor people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Why? What could possibly be their reasoning?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Cancer and capital investors are both adherents to the growth at any cost ideology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
When we start getting into organic technology in a big way I'm going to give every 'android' a big swirly in some motor oil with my new super human limbs after defeating their pathetic attempts to defend themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:and yeah, don't take that literal, I do understand that our jobs aren't being replaced by a single android that I could just have in my home, I'm trying to say that if a job gets replaced by automation that makes that job cost an extremely low amount it seems hard to imagine a realistic situation where I am forever locked out of being able to acquire that good or service for a low price. I am not sure If I understand your logic. The way our societies work now if you are unemployed you have expenses but not income. You may have some money saved but it will not last forever. Once your bank account is empty, you will have expenses that you can't pay, and thats the problem. If everything is cheap, thats something that will benefit people with money, you will be money-less. Things like a flat TV or a phone will be easy to buy, but buying a house will be a imposible dream. Living in a house will be too expensive. One way or another you will live out of wellfare. I say having a smartphone will be doable because you may get (1) paycheck somewhere one. So instant buys are possible, is maintenance cost like food or rent that will be imposible. Tei fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
"wasteful meatbag, wasteful meatbag" it vainly cries out as I easily trip it and begin precisely disassembling it with a exquisitely crafted war hammer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:The other big question will be to determine what incentive those with money and power will have for not letting the economically unnecessary masses starve and die of preventable diseases and exposure to toxic environmental conditions. Guillotines are bougie French poo poo. Machetes are all you need. Hatians had the right idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:29
|
|