You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
No, more progress = different employment. If we're going to protect all jobs eliminated by progress, then we'd better be prepared to become subsistence farmers. After all, advances in farming such as crop rotation and irrigation produced higher crop yields. This meant that fewer farmers were needed. The printing press eliminated scribe positions.
And you're ignoring the fact that progress creates jobs. Unless you think that Microsoft, Apple, Google, and everything Elon Musk touches hasn't resulted in any jobs. You know- producing their goods and services. Goods and services that weren't available 50 years ago.
So.... Do we all starve and die because capitalism?
How are you not seeing that you just illustrated how a large number of jobs were replaced by a small number of different jobs? Automation wouldn't be profitable if it didn't eliminate jobs.
Because of automation. I don't personally see it myself, but it makes sense in a way. Before the industrial revolution we needed essentially everyone to work agriculture until they died. After we had machines to do a bulk of the work for the US we were able use the surplus to have children study for 8, and then eventually 12 years as a standard instead of working the fields, we could also allow the elderly to spend the last 5 and now 10-15ish years of their lives not working. (This standard of living obviously varies through the world. Developed nations afford their population 16 or more years of education, healthcare, and a longer retirement. Africa/developing nations/the US it's less.)
Automation is predicted to be as big of a shift or larger than industrialization, so Basic Income is seen by some as a way to address that surplus. I'm not personally a big fan of it yet, but it's definitely something to keep in mind.
I've liked it since reading Friedrich Hayek. While I'm an anarchist, I recognize there's probably going to be a state for now. I think to keep people from overthrowing said state (and probably replacing it with something worse) when they get upset about their own bad decisions, you need some social safety net. A basic income appears to be the cheapest way to provide a safety net with the fewest market distortions. That last point is the most important in my opinion. Messing with the price system is very damaging to our economy because prices signal what we should be producing/consuming more of based on scarcity and desire. When you screw that up you can get over consumption of scare resources, overproduction of things we don't need so much of, or shortages.
Basically, it does one of the things a government probably has to do nowadays in the least destructive way possible and is fairly low in bureaucratic overhead.
You need 4 things to survive: food, water, air, and shelter
Now lets imagine air is of good enough quality and free. Now lets imagine that water is provided for free because huge treatment plants are all automated and maintenance is done by robots and negligible costs. Food should be close to free with basic grain based foods made easily and cheaply by robots harvesting wheat. Basic homes can be in the form of government housing serviced and maintained by robots. We have the minimal stuff required to live. The luxury items can be bought/traded for by learning skills that robots can't do. With enough automation we can get to this point.
Sort: Top
[–] Medicroger 1 point 6 points 7 points (+7|-1) ago
More progress = less employment.
Every food order taker, shelf stocker and truck driverjob could be replaced in 50ish years.
So.... Do we all starve and die because capitalism?
Or try to crush robots before they are born?
[–] SteelKidney 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
No, more progress = different employment. If we're going to protect all jobs eliminated by progress, then we'd better be prepared to become subsistence farmers. After all, advances in farming such as crop rotation and irrigation produced higher crop yields. This meant that fewer farmers were needed. The printing press eliminated scribe positions.
And you're ignoring the fact that progress creates jobs. Unless you think that Microsoft, Apple, Google, and everything Elon Musk touches hasn't resulted in any jobs. You know- producing their goods and services. Goods and services that weren't available 50 years ago.
No- we adapt.
[–] TheBrokenWorld 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
How are you not seeing that you just illustrated how a large number of jobs were replaced by a small number of different jobs? Automation wouldn't be profitable if it didn't eliminate jobs.
[–] Medicroger 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Your not thinking macro enough bro.
It's not going to take the same amount of people working at MCdonalds to fix the MCdonalds robots.
That's the whole point. EVERYTHING will be automated and controlled with computers.
The future is one where people are obsolete.
Basic income is one of many ideas people have been debating about to adapt to the change.
Progress, more efficient means to produce, litteraly means less people will be needed to produce the same amount, so yeah.
New jobs with progress, but only a fraction of the ones that new technology, what ever it is, replaced.
[–] flimflamedthezimzam 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Because of automation. I don't personally see it myself, but it makes sense in a way. Before the industrial revolution we needed essentially everyone to work agriculture until they died. After we had machines to do a bulk of the work for the US we were able use the surplus to have children study for 8, and then eventually 12 years as a standard instead of working the fields, we could also allow the elderly to spend the last 5 and now 10-15ish years of their lives not working. (This standard of living obviously varies through the world. Developed nations afford their population 16 or more years of education, healthcare, and a longer retirement. Africa/developing nations/the US it's less.)
Automation is predicted to be as big of a shift or larger than industrialization, so Basic Income is seen by some as a way to address that surplus. I'm not personally a big fan of it yet, but it's definitely something to keep in mind.
[–] libby 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I've liked it since reading Friedrich Hayek. While I'm an anarchist, I recognize there's probably going to be a state for now. I think to keep people from overthrowing said state (and probably replacing it with something worse) when they get upset about their own bad decisions, you need some social safety net. A basic income appears to be the cheapest way to provide a safety net with the fewest market distortions. That last point is the most important in my opinion. Messing with the price system is very damaging to our economy because prices signal what we should be producing/consuming more of based on scarcity and desire. When you screw that up you can get over consumption of scare resources, overproduction of things we don't need so much of, or shortages.
Basically, it does one of the things a government probably has to do nowadays in the least destructive way possible and is fairly low in bureaucratic overhead.
[–] menstreusel 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
End Of Middle Class: 51% Of US Workers Earn Under $30,000 Annually - https://voat.co/v/news/comments/614261
[–] alalzia 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Basic income = capitalists demanding from the government to finance the poor/unemployed so they can keep buying capitalist shit.
[–] Dantalian ago
Because people have become disempowered and entitled.
[–] pray_the_gay_away 3 points -2 points 1 point (+1|-3) ago
Because robots are making fat people useless but we need their beetus dollars to fuel our economy.