I started to notice a intense automation and Artificial Intelligence Investments from companies and that made me wonder, what would happen or what should be done with the people who can’t be trained for a new job and can’t use his current skills to to get a job.
How would he live or what would he do in life? More importantly, what should be done with him to make him useful or at least neutral rather than being a negative on the society?
You must log in or register to comment.
Prepping a little bit of “undesirables” rhetoric.
Lemmy is fucking swimming in shit propaganda
This post is based on a false premise. These people aren’t unemployable, they’re being actively rejected so that the available labor pool remains sizeable and desperate. The automation hype is just that, hype. Just like the gig economy, it’s merely a way to devalue labor and exploit it while selling the idea as innovation. Some evidence: if automation was really going to make so many people unemployable, then why is the news freaking out over the declining birth rate? Surely if automation is going to take over so much work, we wouldn’t have to worry about who will take care of the elderly.
Life itself has value. We are not here to have the maximum value extracted from ourselves. Things can be discarded but people should never be. Universal Basic Income.
Build indexes on countries and allow the public to rate their accuracy based on how well they care for their elderly, children, temporarily and chronically sick, prisoners, minorities and social outsiders, etc comparing lifespan and medical outcomes and then shove it into politicians faces every time they try to talk to anyone with a microphone while also boycotting their own PR attempts. I want those old fashion press passes sticking out of hats but with the country’s rating and who is better. Or just go with some form of UBI.
High-protein slurry.
Basic Income.
Now someone always has to ask how to pay for it.
Years ago a study was done about basic income in Canada. It was determined that the country would save billions by discontinuing most of the government handouts (there was 60+ at the time) and replacing those with a single payment. Consider how many offices are in each major city for welfare, employment insurance, etc. Save money with reduced wages, rent, power, insurance, so on and so forth.
Statistics backing the value of socialism.
Take out back and sh–
–own a fun BBQ and given a big plate of delicious food while friends brainstorm how to help get them back on their feet!
Unemployed people are not a negative on society. People don’t have to be employed. That’s a capitalist misconception.
Assholes are a negative on society. They actively reduce the experience for everyone else. Even productive assholes are a negative on society.
I prefer someone who gets shit done and changes the world for the better while being impolite to courteous inhibitors of progress.
I don’t trust competent assholes. They’re less likely to consider they’re wrong. So when they do fuck up, they fuck up hard and refuse to listen.
Source: I work in IT and see it all the time
also competent assholes are less likely to change the world for the better
UBI/freedom dividends is a solution well before mass AI driven unemployment. It disempowers rulerships/oligarchy towards empowering people. It eliminates crime. Gives people the opportunity/time for education and entrepreneurship.
It is far better than corrupt hierarchy that fights over centralized socialism vs corporatist supremacy.
to make him useful
Your question is horribly ugly and disgusting. Some people are unemployable due to dissatisfaction with society, or a tax structure that encourages investment instead of employment. When you consider “making people work” you are considering enslaving them/their time to eat this week without letting them use their time to contribute to their/social prosperity over their lifetimes. People need a money guarantee. Not a job guarantee. The former is even more productive for successful tax payers.
For me the big question is self-driving vehicles. No one seems to worry about job losses anymore, but that was one of my big takeaways from when that was hot. I seem to recall them giving 3million as the number of people who drive for a living in the us. Imagine 3 million people suddenly out of work, jobs gone. Where else could that many people go? Driving doesn’t require college, so I have to imagine that few of these people do, so where else can they even get hired?
What’s if we look at it like a lottery,
If the job you go into as a trained professional is automated away after 10 years in industry, your wage is covered for the rest of your life by the company that replaced you.
Plenty of problems here with my idea, but it’s a great solution if the kinks are worked out.
That’s when the Soylent Green factories open. Are you hungry?? Mmmmm… crackers.
How would he live or what would he do in life? More importantly, what should be done with him to make him useful or at least neutral rather than being a negative on the society?
Are you a tool, or an object yourself? Can I throw you away because you’re broken, or because a newer version of yourself has been released, or because I don’t like the way you age?
Probably not, because at least in your own eyes you don’t consider yourself a tool or an object, you’re not something, right?
Why is that? Because you’re a person. You’re a human being.
Well, good for you and, also, nice to meet you my dear fellow human being.
The thing is that with or without skill, we all are human beings too. We’re persons, we’re not tools at the disposal of some ‘owner’ who is free to break it and throw it away when not needed.
Given that, one realize that the fact of being alive is not about being ‘employable’ or ‘useful’. It never was. Believers would say it’s a miracle or a gift, I’m not a believer myself but I kinda understand that idea: it’s… so much more than all we can understand.
Sure, each of us may need to be able to get food and shelter, true that, but then your question instantly stops being about ‘what should we do with unemployable people’ to become the, imho, much more interesting why is that civil society (aka, all of us) is allowing a handful of its own members, the billionaires and corporations, to decide they have the right to destroy the way society works for all of us and to render a lot of us unable to earn their living, just so that handful of billionaires and corporations can make more money? And why is that we should not object to their decision?
Now, since I answered your question, allow me to ask you mine.
Why do you think people should be categorized by their ‘usefulness’? And, if we were to accept your premise (which I obviously don’t want to), would you happen to consider yourself one of those ‘useful’ that would still deserve a place in that new AI and robotic-powered society?
Agreed wholeheartedly. We are a corporate dystopia waiting to happen if the younger people don’t find a way to push change soon. See The Twilight Zone “The Obsolete Man”. Luckily there are still governments that actually work for the people, so a blueprint is out there for rebuilding.
Just bookmarking this for when OP answers
Three Words:
Universal Basic Income.
Why: If this generation builds a machine that forever generate resources, then their decendant (meaning, all humans from this point forward) should deserve to have the results of the machine that their ancestors have built using their hard work.
Maybe if the machine break, people then take turns to fix the machines, but then everyone should just enjoy existence.
People under Capitalism dread automation.
People under (Democratic) Socialism will embrace automation.
If basic income is in the shape of money I don’t agree. Instead I would make all the basic stuff freely available and with time cover more stuff beyond the basic needs.
I feel that if I give money to people someone will find a way to scam them out of that money.
I guess that what I’m trying to say is that I would try to make people get used to not need money.
Tax the rich people so the unemployable people can live the comfortable lives they deserve
UBI needs to happen at some point.
I lean more on the Universal Maximum Income where everything above a threshold is taxed, and instead of a basic income make sure all basic needs are covered without the need of any money.
I lean more on the Universal Maximum Income where everything above a threshold is taxed
You literally just described the progressive tax system that every developed country has today
Yes and no, that progressive tax system needs a hard limit that says that you can’t earn more than that. I would want the people to know that they won’t be able to earn more than that hard limit and if they chose to keep working and generate more “riches” beyond that they’re doing it exclusively for the benefit of others.
You raise far more tax revenue able to redistribute as freedom dividends by incentivizing those who can earn $1m/hour to put in more hours.
You’re missing the point, the objective of that is not to collect more tax, objective is to desincentivise greed by making it kinda pointless beyond certain level.
Also once most of the basic stuff is free I wonder how many people will settle for less pay and less hours. So more jobs would be available.
It’s basically that or communism. Nothing else deals halfway serviceably with a large population of people who can’t be employed.
Like govt is obliged to give you a job?
Communism has never worked, and if we automate away most jobs, the whole idea it’s founded on becomes obsolete.
Or do you have some kind of “futuristic communism” idea?
You should look up what actual communists think instead of listening to capitalist propaganda on what communists think. In short, communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. The best well-known analogy is the Federation from Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Lol go read some Marx instead of inventing some morally okay dream flavour of authorianism lol.
“Look up what actual communists think”
I don’t even know where to start with that one, I guess the “right” communists “think” like you? And the “wrong” communists doesn’t?
