Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:08 AM
Edited by Elus, 17 January 2014 - 11:10 AM.
Posted 17 January 2014 - 02:01 PM
A piece from the economist on jobs.
The future of jobs: The onrushing wave
Previous technological innovation has always delivered more long-run employment, not less. But things can change.
Posted 18 January 2014 - 05:46 AM
This Economist article seems much more optimistic for the longterm life-on-earth picture for human beings than much of the darker pop rhetoric surrounding these issues.
Posted 01 February 2014 - 01:53 PM
Posted 05 February 2014 - 01:19 AM
Thats why I always say "If a man can do it with his hands, it can't be taken away from him."
Crafting is a solid career.
Posted 18 March 2014 - 06:27 PM
In Germany we have long-year experience in exporting our joblessness. People earn and consume well in global comparison, and nevertheless the trade surplus is huge. But when others succeed in copying this we get a problem. An other thing one should worry about is that workers in Chinese factories don't get in a position where they become full consumers.The effect of today’s technology on tomorrow’s jobs will be immense—and no country is ready for it
Posted 07 May 2014 - 11:31 PM
Google Maps Now Integrates Uber: Are On-Demand Robotaxis Coming?
A new feature of IBMs Watson: The Debater - Watson can extract information from Wikipedia, "understand" it, and reason from that information
Demonstration at 45:27
Edited by Elus, 07 May 2014 - 11:37 PM.
Posted 07 May 2014 - 11:46 PM
How a Chinese Company Built 10 Homes in 24 Hours
"Within 5 Years" - Robot Replacement of Human Workers Predicted to Accelerate
CNN: What if the government guaranteed you an income?
Study indicates Robots could replace 80% of Jobs
Edited by Elus, 07 May 2014 - 11:53 PM.
Posted 18 May 2014 - 12:36 AM
Robots: Which Human Jobs Are Most at Risk?
Rethink Robotics Chairman and CEO Rodney Brooks and New York University Marketing Professor Scott Galloway discuss the future of robots in our lives on Bloomberg Television's "Market Makers."
It's no joke – the robots will really take over this time
If capitalism can outsource low-paid jobs, why can't it replace the middle classes with automatons?
Posted 17 December 2014 - 11:36 PM
That "Humans need not apply" video is amusing.
People should think about this. We are not prepared.
I think it's the other way around. People have thought about it. There is nothing that can be done to prepare society for this, that's why they've decided not to think about it further.
Posted 18 December 2014 - 02:25 AM
That "Humans need not apply" video is amusing.
People should think about this. We are not prepared.
I think it's the other way around. People have thought about it. There is nothing that can be done to prepare society for this, that's why they've decided not to think about it further.
I think a basic income would be a great solution to this problem.
Posted 18 December 2014 - 03:10 AM
Basic income might be the solution. Good luck getting that to happen in America... The topic of automation taking everyone's job made the cover of the print edition of the NYT the other day.
Posted 18 December 2014 - 05:33 PM
I think a basic income would be a great solution to this problem.
I honestly don't think that's possible.
Giving money to the homeless is one thing, most people aren't homeless, right now.
What happens when the working class becomes as small a group as the homeless and poor are right now.
I'm sure when enough people start losing their jobs we'll start hearing about communism again. And I don't think it's going to work better than the last time. Or if it's even possible to nationalize at this point, corporations aren't the bunch of entrepreneurs of the 40s. Though I guess that's one way to create job opportunities - scaring the corporations into thinking they need private armies.
Posted 18 December 2014 - 06:44 PM
Absolutely, compatriot! I was thinking about writing exactly that, about the communism, when I red the topic from the beginning to the end, but it was too political to write my oppinion that direct. The people from this topic don't even realize, that they are dreaming for communism at the moment.
Posted 18 December 2014 - 10:19 PM
I honestly don't think that's possible.
Giving money to the homeless is one thing, most people aren't homeless, right now.What happens when the working class becomes as small a group as the homeless and poor are right now.
I'm sure when enough people start losing their jobs we'll start hearing about communism again. And I don't think it's going to work better than the last time. Or if it's even possible to nationalize at this point, corporations aren't the bunch of entrepreneurs of the 40s. Though I guess that's one way to create job opportunities - scaring the corporations into thinking they need private armies.
The money for basic income would come from taxing the profits of the robot industries. The robots wuld gradually be made to work for the common good. It is only the transition that is really scary.
So where exactly was communism actually in place? Certainly not in the USSR... Communism failed to happen because it was hijacked by the higher powers. Communism also had a fatal flaw (at least in the minimal form that it was implemented), it required the workers to work without sufficient extra reward for exra effort. This resulted in lack of motivation causing the system to slowly crumble. The New Communism would be different since the work would be done by robots that do not require motivation. The wealth would then be spread out evenly and no extra effort would be required by the people since they are no longer required to work. The concept of communism just arrived a bit too early.
Posted 19 December 2014 - 12:38 AM
So where exactly was communism actually in place? Certainly not in the USSR... Communism failed to happen because it was hijacked by the higher powers. Communism also had a fatal flaw (at least in the minimal form that it was implemented), it required the workers to work without sufficient extra reward for exra effort. This resulted in lack of motivation causing the system to slowly crumble. The New Communism would be different since the work would be done by robots that do not require motivation. The wealth would then be spread out evenly and no extra effort would be required by the people since they are no longer required to work. The concept of communism just arrived a bit too early.
A basic income wouldn't be communism, because there is private ownership of productive resources. It's really no different than the modern "welfare state". The wealth certainly wouldn't be spread evenly. The people who own the robots would make way more money than the basic income. Thus a motivation to work, create, and be valuable to society is preserved without having hordes of desperately poor people with nothing to lose. In a world where there simply isn't enough work to go around, this is the cheapest way to have a society that wouldn't suck to live in. Anyone who's seen the ugliness of Soviet-style communism probably won't like the basic income idea, at least at first blush, but it's really something entirely different.
Posted 19 December 2014 - 12:38 AM
The New Communism would be different since the work would be done by robots that do not require motivation. The wealth would then be spread out evenly and no extra effort would be required by the people since they are no longer required to work.
The more you talk about it the more it sounds like a dystopian scenario.
This is why people don't like to think about this future.
There are more liberty friendly things that can be done instead of making 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 a reality.
If you want to make commodities free - that's fair enough - but there should always be something for people to strive for. In my opinion you're not solving the problem, you're intensifying it.
Instead of taxing corporate superstructure to the bone and in fact probably making the unemployment even greater - doubtful they'll agree to pay crazy taxes, but let's leave that for now - there are better ways to handle this. Make it easier for people to start their own business, promote the small, make it more appealing, teach designers and engineers to craft more specialized and personalized products. More importantly teach the young to appreciate divergence, instead of glorifying carbon copies - it will happen on it's own given enough time (already is), but no reason not to promote it while there is time.
Basically make a society of artificers and of individuals capable of appreciating art.
Everyone should have a profession even if they don't get to practice it often. That's my personal opinion.
Better than a society of NEETs at least, hope we can agree on that. That's just a nightmare from early sci fi literature however you look at it.
Posted 19 December 2014 - 12:58 AM
I can't comment from a US perspective but there are plenty of societys that are more altruistic and caring for their people. You can't have power when people no longer NEED you. It is really going to be up to the people to stand up and make demands to their governments and the remains of industry. The machines can be seized by the government and put in service for the people if need be. Seriously if you haven't read it, google Manna and read it, if you have read it, read it again. This to me is a very good idea of how things could play out.
Ultimately we put up with big gov and big business and big finance because overall it makes our lives better. When that truly stops being the case we will change it. I would never march against big business and the elites because they are providing my best option for maximum comfort BUT once there is a better alternative, I will do what is necessary to get that alternative in place.
Things are going to change is a very BIG way and talking about things being much like they are now execpt most people on so sort of welfare is nieve. As for life satisfaction through work, that is just something that has been drilled into everyone of us so that we will all take part in the machine. When it is no longer necessary, some will adjust quickly and others will take ages to adjust. Life satisfaction and happiness does not have to come from work, we have plenty of social, recreational and artistic persuits we can develop.It only seems dystopian to you because you are unfamilliar with it. Childhood is a wonderful time even though most of us don't work through our childhoods. We find other things to do.
Posted 19 December 2014 - 01:37 AM
I can't comment from a US perspective but there are plenty of societys that are more altruistic and caring for their people. You can't have power when people no longer NEED you. It is really going to be up to the people to stand up and make demands to their governments and the remains of industry. The machines can be seized by the government and put in service for the people if need be. Seriously if you haven't read it, google Manna and read it, if you have read it, read it again. This to me is a very good idea of how things could play out.
Ultimately we put up with big gov and big business and big finance because overall it makes our lives better. When that truly stops being the case we will change it. I would never march against big business and the elites because they are providing my best option for maximum comfort BUT once there is a better alternative, I will do what is necessary to get that alternative in place.
Things are going to change is a very BIG way and talking about things being much like they are now execpt most people on so sort of welfare is nieve. As for life satisfaction through work, that is just something that has been drilled into everyone of us so that we will all take part in the machine. When it is no longer necessary, some will adjust quickly and others will take ages to adjust. Life satisfaction and happiness does not have to come from work, we have plenty of social, recreational and artistic persuits we can develop.It only seems dystopian to you because you are unfamilliar with it. Childhood is a wonderful time even though most of us don't work through our childhoods. We find other things to do.
Posted 19 December 2014 - 02:13 AM
Machines being seized by the government sounds like you're promoting authoritarian communism. Manna is a great read- I recommend it highly.
Think of it more like revolution. The pesants and aristocracy was unbearable so eventually there was an uprising, a revolution to make things fairer and we ended up with a middle class which left all happy. That has begun to erode now. Putting the machines in the service of the entire population is the fairest option so that is what should be done if necessary.
There is a better alternative right now. Big Finance may have provided an economic service at one time, but now the investment banks are just sucking value out of society any way they can, and they don't care what kind of damage they cause. 2008 is a case in point. Big government would be a hell of a lot better if it wasn't owned by big business, and big business would be better if they paid the true cost of the damage they impose on society. (example: the coal industry) I would march against all three today if I thought anything would come from it. It's not a question of better alternatives, it's really that most people will not do anything about it until conditions are sufficiently bad that they feel forced to act.
But you see I don't agree with you and I strongly suspect that most people don't agree with you (which is why you cannot get critical mass). I would not join you on the streets now because I don't agree with your view point. For me, finance might be nasty but it is a necessary evil. Try build a multi billion dollar gas processing train, bridge, tunnel etc without finance work going on. Yes, they take big comissions, yes they act purely in self interest and yes they sometimes work contrary to the market but overall they are a benefit. Not saying a few regulations on their conduct would be a bad thing, just don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Why is the basic income naive? Whether we get satisfaction from work or from creating art or from getting high is irrelevant, but society will be best off when most people are being productive in some way. That could be traditional work, or it could be creating art or music or comedy, as long as someone finds it interesting. The thing I like about the basic income is that it preserves motivation to work, but it prevents desperation. It's not that expensive, either- it would be significantly less than the military budget(in the US, anyway), and we don't seem to have too much of a problem paying for that, other than the fraction of it that we put on the credit card...
Basic income per se is not naive, the belief that we will continue as business as usual for much longer after that is. We may for a while but that is just a transition period. There are no jobs done by humans cannot be done by a sufficiently avanced robot/machine. Completly replacing humans will probably require some form of AI but not necessarily singularity level AI. We have been programmed to think about the so called virtues of work much like we have been programmed to see death as inevitable and somehow a good thing. Think of us a bit like the people in North Korea, brainwashed to believe in a way of life. Once we are past this stage, we will look back and see how wrong we were.
FWIW I do support basic income as a transitional measure until it become the only income. I just don't think it will last as a supplement to work and that it will instead become the only income and we will have the oportunity to share the wealth created by the machines evenly. Sure while transitioning, those the work will get more but that will change as the need for their services wanes. Property rights are going to have to change as we move to a fairer system.
The idea of comparing the basic income to the cost of the US military is strange to me. Are you suggesting that it should be eliminated to pay for the cost of BI? Just because a country spends a lot in one area, does not automatically mean they can afford to take that much again for a new idea. The maths simply does not work.
Could you explain why you think "society will be best off when most people are being productive in some way"?
Posted 19 December 2014 - 02:55 AM
Machines being seized by the government sounds like you're promoting authoritarian communism. Manna is a great read- I recommend it highly.
Think of it more like revolution. The pesants and aristocracy was unbearable so eventually there was an uprising, a revolution to make things fairer and we ended up with a middle class which left all happy. That has begun to erode now. Putting the machines in the service of the entire population is the fairest option so that is what should be done if necessary.
There is a better alternative right now. Big Finance may have provided an economic service at one time, but now the investment banks are just sucking value out of society any way they can, and they don't care what kind of damage they cause. 2008 is a case in point. Big government would be a hell of a lot better if it wasn't owned by big business, and big business would be better if they paid the true cost of the damage they impose on society. (example: the coal industry) I would march against all three today if I thought anything would come from it. It's not a question of better alternatives, it's really that most people will not do anything about it until conditions are sufficiently bad that they feel forced to act.
But you see I don't agree with you and I strongly suspect that most people don't agree with you (which is why you cannot get critical mass). I would not join you on the streets now because I don't agree with your view point. For me, finance might be nasty but it is a necessary evil. Try build a multi billion dollar gas processing train, bridge, tunnel etc without finance work going on. Yes, they take big comissions, yes they act purely in self interest and yes they sometimes work contrary to the market but overall they are a benefit. Not saying a few regulations on their conduct would be a bad thing, just don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Why is the basic income naive? Whether we get satisfaction from work or from creating art or from getting high is irrelevant, but society will be best off when most people are being productive in some way. That could be traditional work, or it could be creating art or music or comedy, as long as someone finds it interesting. The thing I like about the basic income is that it preserves motivation to work, but it prevents desperation. It's not that expensive, either- it would be significantly less than the military budget(in the US, anyway), and we don't seem to have too much of a problem paying for that, other than the fraction of it that we put on the credit card...
Basic income per se is not naive, the belief that we will continue as business as usual for much longer after that is. We may for a while but that is just a transition period. There are no jobs done by humans cannot be done by a sufficiently avanced robot/machine. Completly replacing humans will probably require some form of AI but not necessarily singularity level AI. We have been programmed to think about the so called virtues of work much like we have been programmed to see death as inevitable and somehow a good thing. Think of us a bit like the people in North Korea, brainwashed to believe in a way of life. Once we are past this stage, we will look back and see how wrong we were.
FWIW I do support basic income as a transitional measure until it become the only income. I just don't think it will last as a supplement to work and that it will instead become the only income and we will have the oportunity to share the wealth created by the machines evenly. Sure while transitioning, those the work will get more but that will change as the need for their services wanes. Property rights are going to have to change as we move to a fairer system.
The idea of comparing the basic income to the cost of the US military is strange to me. Are you suggesting that it should be eliminated to pay for the cost of BI? Just because a country spends a lot in one area, does not automatically mean they can afford to take that much again for a new idea. The maths simply does not work.
Could you explain why you think "society will be best off when most people are being productive in some way"?
I'm certainly not arguing that we should get rid of finance altogether. Finance is necessary, and I don't have a problem with financiers making a fair profit commensurate with the risk they take on. HOWEVER, today's investment banking industry is a far cry from that. They are more like a den of thieves. It didn't used to be that way. Reasonable regulation would be a good start.
I guess you're talking about the far future, when machines can replace all of us entirely. That's really going to be a different world, and I'm not really addressing that. I'm thinking more about a transitional time When you talk about sharing the wealth evenly and changing the idea of property rights, that sounds kind of scary. It makes me think more of Nikita Khrushchev than of Manna. However, since you are talking about a far future post-scarcity world, it might well be the direction that we go. I think this is going to take a while, and will most likely require a singularity-level AI.
Yes, I'm proposing that we scale back military spending in general, because the amount we spend on it is ludicrous, compared to the amount we need to spend to "defend our freedom". (unless "freedom" means "freedom to rule the world"...) The reason that I bring it up as a comparison is to point out that a basic income isn't really all that expensive, relative to other societal expenses. It wouldn't require impossibly high taxes.
I think that societies do best when they are productive, and the overall productivity of society is a composite of individual productivity. This is only going to be the case in the transitional period when humans still engage in a lot of productive activity. If we imagine a future where there is no need, and indeed, no point in humans working, because they are so pitifully outclassed by machines, then we are really in uncharted territory. I guess we better start thinking about it, because we've taken control of our own evolution and we seem to be heading in this direction. It should be interesting.
Posted 19 December 2014 - 07:52 AM
Lol
It seems, that there will be a choice, after all.
Communism in which the machines work, people do nothing (or science only), and all the goods go (averagely evenly) for all of the people.
Or
Capitalism, in which a small number of people hold the production and all of the aspects of the economics through the machines, and all the other world live on a minimal life conditions, generously provided from the rich few.
"it has been announced, that the chocolate ration is to be increased to 25 grams per week" (the cited above movie "1984")
0 members, 13 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
