maybe this isn't a great topic for covers but i see this as possibly the most important issue going forward. so, i'm going to post articles, stats and videos in this thread until further notice to see if anyone gets it and/or is interested in it.
maybe this isn't a great topic for covers but i see this as possibly the most important issue going forward. so, i'm going to post articles, stats and videos in this thread until further notice to see if anyone gets it and/or is interested in it.
How come I'm still not traveling in a flying space car like George Jetson did in 1962?
Seriously though, it's weird. My son is a pilot and convinced his job will be obsolete within 20 years. I'd say 50 years but he insists on 20.
He says "At least I'll have paid off my loans to you and the bank by then."
It's a bit overwhelming for a middle aged guy like me, but the future is clearly going to take a different mindset than what the older generation is used to. Hard work is often a waste of time. Smart work is better.
How come I'm still not traveling in a flying space car like George Jetson did in 1962?
Seriously though, it's weird. My son is a pilot and convinced his job will be obsolete within 20 years. I'd say 50 years but he insists on 20.
He says "At least I'll have paid off my loans to you and the bank by then."
It's a bit overwhelming for a middle aged guy like me, but the future is clearly going to take a different mindset than what the older generation is used to. Hard work is often a waste of time. Smart work is better.
How come I'm still not traveling in a flying space car like George Jetson did in 1962?
Seriously though, it's weird. My son is a pilot and convinced his job will be obsolete within 20 years. I'd say 50 years but he insists on 20.
He says "At least I'll have paid off my loans to you and the bank by then."
It's a bit overwhelming for a middle aged guy like me, but the future is clearly going to take a different mindset than what the older generation is used to. Hard work is often a waste of time. Smart work is better.
a pilot's job will definitely be automated. i think your estimation of 50 years is probably more accurate than 20. automated cars are moving along but there's still a way to go. i'd say that will need another 10-20 years before you start seeing massive job losses, although the transportation sector might be the most vulnerable to automation.
people have been talking about UBI for a long time, but usually in the context of it being a better system than the bureaucratic welfare disaster we have now and just general equality, i was never interested in it for those purposes since i think that's a pipe dream and i'm not sure it makes tha much sense.
but the automation angle changes the discussion entirely in my opinion. it doesn't eliminate the inequality angle but transforms it from, you guys aren't working and you should be (if you can) to: you guys aren't working because there's nowhere for you to work.
anyway, it's interesting to read about all of the jobs that will be automated. when you see what they are creating robots and software to do, it's crazy. doctors are in trouble. many lawyer jobs are going to be gone, but that will take longer. and the list goes on.
anyway, i'll keep posting interesting articles as i see them. one of these days, this is going to get a lot more attention.
Quote Originally Posted by Getty3:
How come I'm still not traveling in a flying space car like George Jetson did in 1962?
Seriously though, it's weird. My son is a pilot and convinced his job will be obsolete within 20 years. I'd say 50 years but he insists on 20.
He says "At least I'll have paid off my loans to you and the bank by then."
It's a bit overwhelming for a middle aged guy like me, but the future is clearly going to take a different mindset than what the older generation is used to. Hard work is often a waste of time. Smart work is better.
a pilot's job will definitely be automated. i think your estimation of 50 years is probably more accurate than 20. automated cars are moving along but there's still a way to go. i'd say that will need another 10-20 years before you start seeing massive job losses, although the transportation sector might be the most vulnerable to automation.
people have been talking about UBI for a long time, but usually in the context of it being a better system than the bureaucratic welfare disaster we have now and just general equality, i was never interested in it for those purposes since i think that's a pipe dream and i'm not sure it makes tha much sense.
but the automation angle changes the discussion entirely in my opinion. it doesn't eliminate the inequality angle but transforms it from, you guys aren't working and you should be (if you can) to: you guys aren't working because there's nowhere for you to work.
anyway, it's interesting to read about all of the jobs that will be automated. when you see what they are creating robots and software to do, it's crazy. doctors are in trouble. many lawyer jobs are going to be gone, but that will take longer. and the list goes on.
anyway, i'll keep posting interesting articles as i see them. one of these days, this is going to get a lot more attention.
Corporate Fukks will sell it if the people are dumb enough to buy.
some of the articles talk about sports and the arts. they will be fine, but there aren't many jobs in sports and the arts and those can't sustain a labor market.
Quote Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:
What happens to professional sports?
Teams of robots battling each other?
Corporate Fukks will sell it if the people are dumb enough to buy.
some of the articles talk about sports and the arts. they will be fine, but there aren't many jobs in sports and the arts and those can't sustain a labor market.
alaska has been experimenting with it on a very small scale as well. i think that's it for america but there are other studies and experiments in other parts of the world.
alaska has been experimenting with it on a very small scale as well. i think that's it for america but there are other studies and experiments in other parts of the world.
usatoday has an article about job losses from automation. the numbers are pretty significant. what this article does, like many articles, is assume that some of these jobs will be made up some other way. this seems to be a flawed assumption which is why you never see the argument backed up with details.
usatoday has an article about job losses from automation. the numbers are pretty significant. what this article does, like many articles, is assume that some of these jobs will be made up some other way. this seems to be a flawed assumption which is why you never see the argument backed up with details.
It's a nasty reality that's closing in on us. People, for whatever their reason, keep having more kids when they can't afford it. Corporate fukks* keep finding ways (through automation.....AI next) to NOT employ people in their efforts to "streamline productivity" &, in turn, increase profits to make their company look attractive to investors. More people/less jobs= mass poverty.
What these corp. fukks* can't seem to comprehend is that if no one has an income, how are they going to consume their product or invest in their company, while trying to keep a roof over their heads? A pittance of $10k/year isn't going to keep anyone afloat.
"The Terminator" & "Soylent Green" concepts may not be science fiction much longer.
*trademark GG
It's a nasty reality that's closing in on us. People, for whatever their reason, keep having more kids when they can't afford it. Corporate fukks* keep finding ways (through automation.....AI next) to NOT employ people in their efforts to "streamline productivity" &, in turn, increase profits to make their company look attractive to investors. More people/less jobs= mass poverty.
What these corp. fukks* can't seem to comprehend is that if no one has an income, how are they going to consume their product or invest in their company, while trying to keep a roof over their heads? A pittance of $10k/year isn't going to keep anyone afloat.
"The Terminator" & "Soylent Green" concepts may not be science fiction much longer.
If you are given an income, where is the satisfaction of having earned it? Government Assistance should always aim to be temporary.
I'd rather see the government open homeless shelters and soup kitchens that anyone can use.
I also disagree with the assertion that the employer should keep people employed that aren't needed. The employee needs to make the employer money or else there is no reason for him to be employed.
If you are given an income, where is the satisfaction of having earned it? Government Assistance should always aim to be temporary.
I'd rather see the government open homeless shelters and soup kitchens that anyone can use.
I also disagree with the assertion that the employer should keep people employed that aren't needed. The employee needs to make the employer money or else there is no reason for him to be employed.
If you are given an income, where is the satisfaction of having earned it? Government Assistance should always aim to be temporary.
I'd rather see the government open homeless shelters and soup kitchens that anyone can use.
I also disagree with the assertion that the employer should keep people employed that aren't needed. The employee needs to make the employer money or else there is no reason for him to be employed.
you are thinking of this in terms of governbment assistance and welfare, which it isn't.
there are many articles discussing the difference. also, there are good articles discussing the fallacy of equating a job with self worth (which addresses your point about the satisfaction of earning money). people will need to get over that concept in the age of automation, which is already here.
this isn't a homeless shelter/soup kitchen kind of discussion, not that that would be a solution for the loss of tens of millions of jobs anyway.
there is no assertion that the employer should keep people employed that aren't needed. the idea is actually the opposite. society should welcome the idea that they aren't needed to do work that a machine can do better and more efficiently. that's a good thing. why should people be doing work that something else can do better? the good thing, is, they won't have a choice at some point. the difficult part is, how will we take care of those people (you and me at some point) when it makes no sense for us to do our jobs anymore. that's going to be a difficult transition, particularly given the morons that we are electing to government these days.
Quote Originally Posted by thorpe:
If you are given an income, where is the satisfaction of having earned it? Government Assistance should always aim to be temporary.
I'd rather see the government open homeless shelters and soup kitchens that anyone can use.
I also disagree with the assertion that the employer should keep people employed that aren't needed. The employee needs to make the employer money or else there is no reason for him to be employed.
you are thinking of this in terms of governbment assistance and welfare, which it isn't.
there are many articles discussing the difference. also, there are good articles discussing the fallacy of equating a job with self worth (which addresses your point about the satisfaction of earning money). people will need to get over that concept in the age of automation, which is already here.
this isn't a homeless shelter/soup kitchen kind of discussion, not that that would be a solution for the loss of tens of millions of jobs anyway.
there is no assertion that the employer should keep people employed that aren't needed. the idea is actually the opposite. society should welcome the idea that they aren't needed to do work that a machine can do better and more efficiently. that's a good thing. why should people be doing work that something else can do better? the good thing, is, they won't have a choice at some point. the difficult part is, how will we take care of those people (you and me at some point) when it makes no sense for us to do our jobs anymore. that's going to be a difficult transition, particularly given the morons that we are electing to government these days.
It's a nasty reality that's closing in on us. People, for whatever their reason, keep having more kids when they can't afford it. Corporate fukks* keep finding ways (through automation.....AI next) to NOT employ people in their efforts to "streamline productivity" &, in turn, increase profits to make their company look attractive to investors. More people/less jobs= mass poverty.
What these corp. fukks* can't seem to comprehend is that if no one has an income, how are they going to consume their product or invest in their company, while trying to keep a roof over their heads? A pittance of $10k/year isn't going to keep anyone afloat.
"The Terminator" & "Soylent Green" concepts may not be science fiction much longer.
*trademark GG
as to your first paragraph, automation is actually a good thing, ultimately. why should humans do work for someone else when a machine can do it faster, better, longer, with fewer (or no) mistakes without needing time off or vacations or sick days or insurance, etc. it makes no sense.
think how much better society would be if people were free to pursue their own ideas, inventions, new businesses, art, etc. because they were spending all day doing a job that isn't necessary and they were properly compensated with a universal income that is made possible by the efficiencies and greater production that comes from having machines do just about everything, which they will at some point.
and your second paragraph of curse identifies the problem. how do we transition into a society where people's ability to live and provide for themselves isn't tied to a job it makes no sense for them to have and it makes no sense for the employer to hire them to do? that transition is going to be rough because we have a lot of stupid and greedy people in this country, and out government is full of them.
Quote Originally Posted by THEMUGG:
It's a nasty reality that's closing in on us. People, for whatever their reason, keep having more kids when they can't afford it. Corporate fukks* keep finding ways (through automation.....AI next) to NOT employ people in their efforts to "streamline productivity" &, in turn, increase profits to make their company look attractive to investors. More people/less jobs= mass poverty.
What these corp. fukks* can't seem to comprehend is that if no one has an income, how are they going to consume their product or invest in their company, while trying to keep a roof over their heads? A pittance of $10k/year isn't going to keep anyone afloat.
"The Terminator" & "Soylent Green" concepts may not be science fiction much longer.
*trademark GG
as to your first paragraph, automation is actually a good thing, ultimately. why should humans do work for someone else when a machine can do it faster, better, longer, with fewer (or no) mistakes without needing time off or vacations or sick days or insurance, etc. it makes no sense.
think how much better society would be if people were free to pursue their own ideas, inventions, new businesses, art, etc. because they were spending all day doing a job that isn't necessary and they were properly compensated with a universal income that is made possible by the efficiencies and greater production that comes from having machines do just about everything, which they will at some point.
and your second paragraph of curse identifies the problem. how do we transition into a society where people's ability to live and provide for themselves isn't tied to a job it makes no sense for them to have and it makes no sense for the employer to hire them to do? that transition is going to be rough because we have a lot of stupid and greedy people in this country, and out government is full of them.
Hot Forum Topics
