What should be done with the unemployable people?
-
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?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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?
edit: typos + my usual poor English
-
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?
edit: typos + my usual poor English
Just bookmarking this for when OP answers
-
If you're a sociopath, let them suffer and die slowly, homeless.
If you're not a sociopath, and decent, tax the rich and give them a good UBI so they can play and do art or music or video games or what the hell ever.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
If you make them comfortable how do you recruit people for the army?
-
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.
-
If you make them comfortable how do you recruit people for the army?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]deleted by creator
-
deleted by creator
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.
-
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?
edit: typos + my usual poor English
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.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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
-
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
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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. -
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?
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.
-
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?
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?
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
In theory, the rich can just continue paying off each other spending money on rich people stuff. 80% of the economy consisting of activities like robot-staffed billionaire-owned construction companies making and selling super-yachts to oil billionaires, who made their fortune selling fuel to space tourism companies ferrying billionaire designer bag heiresses to the Moon. The rest of us can starve to death and the economy won't even blink.
Your statement is mostly false, despite your valid examples. Wealth/income requires people/consumers. Phones/computers are cheap because billions can afford it. Food profits is a function of people. Autos definitely require scale, that is far more efficient than a humanoid robot doing flexible "manual" labour.
At the same time, however, not requiring slaves does motivate genocide instead of just sharing wealth with the slaves. It's better to exterminate humanity than to deal with slave class uppitiness.
-
If you're a sociopath, let them suffer and die slowly, homeless.
If you're not a sociopath, and decent, tax the rich and give them a good UBI so they can play and do art or music or video games or what the hell ever.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Suffer and die slowly? Where's the profit in that? Now organ farms, THERES a moneymaker!
-
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.
There is no world in which legislation will pass mandating companies pay you your salary for the rest of your life for simply replacing your role with automation/AI/etc lol. And if they somehow pulled off that miracle, lobbyists would just get them to change the definition of what it means to “replace someone with automation.”
-
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?
-
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?
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 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?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Take out back and sh--
--own a great time with a BBQ cookout and given a big plate of delicious food while friends brainstorm how to help get them back on their feet!
-
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.
