Not all jobs will be automated which is what you are really talking about. As technology improves some jobs will go away and automation by computers and robots will accelerate this change faster than we have ever experienced in history.
Knockers used to be people who walked around and knocked on peoples windows when it was time to get up, replaced by alarmclocks. Lamp lighters would walk around the city and light gas lamps at dusk, replaced by electric lights.
In both cases new jobs that did not exist were created to support the two replacement industry/products.
I do think we will have to find some form of basic income or reverse income tax because we are approaching a point where everyone working does not make sense. Also working 40h work weeks with only 10 days of vacation does not make sense. The United States in particular is going to have to make some radical changes because we cannot keep wages so low and make working a requirement to live.
I doubt it will be a utopia, I expect it will be a huge fight between the aristocracy/plutocracy, and the rest of us (of which we nearly all are).
Most first world countries already have a functional reverse income tax. All it does is discourage people on the bottom rungs of the income ladder to get a job. Iāve seen it happen with my friends in socal who were making min wage but given the option to be laid off and take unemployment last June. They made more money on unemployment.
So nothing will change lol
This brings up the other concerns of intelligence.
In the 50s an auto technician didnāt need to know how to work a computer. Now itās required.
Even with AGI, there will be a load of jobs it would not be able to do for a long time yet, but a few jobs covering a lot of people will get automated.
Perhaps AI/robotics Never replaces All jobs, but there may a be a point where billions of unemployed humans decide they would rather do something than just exist?
I am ok with this. Think of the worst person you have ever had to work with or interact with in a professional capacity. Think about how much work they created because they did not care or put in minimum effort. Think about how bad for clients or customers any interaction was with this person.
Now imagine if for say it costs you $0.0001 a year to never have to work with that person ever again. Is that worth paying for? I think it is.
They dont want to work anyway, and I dont want to work with them, and I sure as hell dont want them doing a job where their negligence can put me at risk like food handling, or construction.
Edit: Also higher unemployment payments have an interesting effect. The extra money makes it easier for working parents to find childcare while looking for a new job. The increase in unemployment benefits due to Covid has shown in the data that people getting it are more likely to find new employment and faster. Where as in states where they are cutting people off, more people are dropping out of the workforce rather than finding jobs, which costs the economy and tax payers more than the unemployment did/would.
Reverse income tax or basic income also increase the number of new buissness that are created and small buissness hire more people over all than large coporations. They spend more money in their region and overall improve economies more than large multi nationals.
Also we should be more generous to people willing to risk their life to come to the US. Study after study shows that immigration creates more Americans and improves our economy.
I happen to live in one of the more conservative areas of the country, and while I am not as conservative as many of my neighbours I am rather far to the right of most people in a place like Connecticut or Massachusetts. I like small government, and I like data. I would like to see all current forms of welfare gone, all the tax loopholes gone, shut down medicare/medicaid, remove all taxable deductions for charity. We should not be wasting money propping up all these generally useless organizations when the best thing to do is just give people money. They know what they need to spend it on so why have strings attached.
Yes some will do drugs, some people will cheat, some people will never move out of their parents basement. Generally we spend more on enforcement of stupid regulation than it just costs to give these people what they want. Like drug testing for welfare, such a waste of moneyā¦
This was an interesting thing. I saw people complaining on reddit the other day about losing their unemployment after turning down jobs, because the company that made them an offer reported it to the agency in charge of handing it out.
In the article the part I should have specifically highlighted is the nuance of the challenge.
āHORSLEY: The Chamber of Commerce estimates about 1 in 4 unemployed workers is getting more in unemployment than they did when they were working, so itās not unreasonable to think some people would rather not go back to work. But it doesnāt seem to be that simple. For example, lots of people went back to work last summer, even though the government was paying twice as much in extra jobless benefits at that time. Benefits in Alabama are more generous than those in Louisiana, but more people have gone back to work in Alabama, so the picture is really complicated. And finally, worker advocates say if extra benefits do give workers a little more breathing room, a little more time to wait for the right job to go back to, well, that, they say, is a good thing not a bad thing.ā
You can ignore the Biden thing, the law requiring people offered a job to take it is the norm in most states already and has been.
This is the problem with a one-size-fits-all bill for this sort of thing. Cost of living in San Francisco is different from Huntsville, AL and unemployment benefits should reflect that.
I think we would see less issues if that were the case.
100% and this is why a good and robust debate with both good faith and evidence needs to happen because its going to be a challenge to figure out how to make it work for most people if not everyone.
I do think that we could save the hart of rural America with reverse income tax or basic income. I would love to move back to the country but to do so I need fast reliable internet and enough people to sustain local business so I have places to shop.
I donāt think AI taking over Jobs is exactly a problem. We have done it before with other kinds of machines and factories that also did ātake over jobsā. Yet here we are. Still plenty of jobs around I think. Not like this is gonna happen overnight either most of the time.
I think if you took a human from a few hundred years ago then yes whatever he did. In many cases it will be obsolete today. Not really a problem for him anymore. Not a problem for me either since I never even learned that whatever job he did existed in the first place.
So itās not really a problem in general, except for a group of people that happened to have bad luck. Or that is at least what I believe.
Currently watching āTravelersā. I think people reading threads like these would like it too.
In it an AI from the future sends people back into the past to fix the world (that we deteriorated). Known as wellā¦ āTravelersā.
At one time they sent back a virus from the future and cause a pandemic that would eliminate exactly 30% of the world. No more, no less. If anyone is desperately looking for a covid conspiracy theory. Go with that one!
Not much in terms of AI replacing Jobs there. There are hints that for instance surgants are basically obsolete and replaced by medical nanobots. Or programmers just reprogram your brain to somehow make your broken body work for you. Suddenly you can walk even though it would be medically impossible for you to move your foot.
I like it. Although, they killed Season 4ā¦ So donāt expect an actual end to it.
EDIT: Ok, just finished watching 3rd season. Seems itĀ“s actually all things considered a surprisingly satisfying end. Event though they didnĀ“t officially say in the last episode that its the end. They might as well have.
Ironically we (as in humanity) might very well end up having to scale down the size of our agricultural firms if we want to keep our agriculture from imploding, resulting in much larger employment in that sector again, despite ever increasing automation.
The massive sized monoculture that we tend to have currently is, per the experts, unsustainable. And in fact, is already barely able to sustain itself even with (or, arguably, because of) the massive amounts of chemicals we are currently using.
EDIT: reply function is just messed up, and forum whines about ātoo similar contentā. Giving up.
I looked at this extensively in a somewhat different light. It was in a political science class, BUT I will try to leave that part out.
Iāll give and example then some history behind it.
My local Wmart store (Dont know if I should name names) recently re-did itās checkout layout. This removed about 20 human checkout lines with a bunch of self checkouts. Integrating this new technology removed those 20 lower tier jobs (IE less skilled labor) BUT it also created jobs for the service and repair of those stations as well as the security oversight (IE people watching cameras/more automated tech support). It shifted the labor pool from un skilled to skilled jobs. Then also created the less skilled assembly jobs, most of which Iām sure automation played a role in so there are more technical jobs there.
So while it seems jobs are being lost I think of it more as a shift from unskilled labor to skilled labor. I do not doubt some jobs are lost in some areas, but I think the net is a zero sum. That is just my thoughts.
We went through the same thing as a nation (being the United States) as we shifted from agricultural to industrial and are now making a shift to be more theretical and technical in nature.
This also relates to time being money. The more money you make the more free time you have to think and be creative, that is how class systems used to operate and it still has hold in society today from the days of roman times.
I dont know if that makes sense, it does in my head as things to consider. I think that AI will mean another shiftā¦ maybe to another Renaissance where people are more free to be creative, maybe not all of us but some. I would hope that it would help all of mankind, but Iām not sure altruism would play a factor from those who would benefit from AIās use and implementation.
Then again maybe I think too muchā¦lol
On a side note this also changed our working culture from one of mutual support in agricultural periods to people are cogs to be replaced if not doing things properly in the industrial eraā¦
Slightly OT, but the problem is likely just how I go about reading, and replying to threads.
In an ongoing thread Iāll just multiquote the things I might want to reply to while Iām reading the thread (who does that? Reading all of the thread, I mean ). Later I then remove all the stuff I end up not replying to (eg. because my point was already made by someone else). Discourse doesnāt appear to like me doing that, resulting in the āreplyā being to whoever the last person was I selected to quote, regardless of whose quotes are actually in the reply.
I tried to fix it by deleting and just re-posting the same thing, but now with only the one post selected, so the reply would be to the correct user. Aside from it not having picked up the correct post to reply to anyway it also complains about similar content because the deleted post and the ānewā one are, content-wise, the same.
ārobots will be able to do everything better than us. I mean all of us ā¦ when I say everything ā the robots will be able to do everything, bar nothing. ā¦ I am not sure exactly what to do about this. This is really the scariest problem to me, actually. ā¦ AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of Human civilisation.ā
