What should be done with the unemployable people?
-
And the same goes for all the freeloading animals. They say there are species still left undiscovered in the rain forest, if that is true then surely the fact we dont know they exist means they are not contributing and don’t deserve those trees they live in that could provide real tangable profit. Getting rich by cutting them down that is real value /s
Seriously the notion you need to earn to live, especially in the context where that only means economic labor is toxic and the true negative.
I will remind you that “the economy” itself is increasingly negative towards society, destroying the future for a profit. And that people without jobs still provide plenty of positives if not, less negatives then “successfull” people like board directors and ceo
people without jobs still provide plenty of positives if not, less negatives then “successfull” people like board directors and ceo
...
How so?
-
people without jobs still provide plenty of positives if not, less negatives then “successfull” people like board directors and ceo
...
How so?
For one by being family and friends supporting those that do have official roles in society. Like a grandma tanking care for grandkids. Or a disabled men always being there to cheer people on at the local sport field.
In another by having freedom to do what they find valuable for their communities, like creating a shared community garden, helping
to organize free local events.And even if they do decide to just sit on the coach and do absolutely fuck all and wait for others to prepare their food, which is scientificaly known to not be what anyone wants to do and cause depression, they still aint doing as much evil and damaging as Bezos is right this moment.
Go watch some star trek, it will help you understand.
-
It's not necessary about their "value" to society. People need to eat in order to survive. That means having a way of supporting themselves. Having no way of supporting themselves means a lot of people are going to die.
I'd say that's a net negative to society.
And the problem runs deeper than "retraining" or "upskilling". With the emergence of technologies that replace human workers...there will simply be a massive excess of unemployed workers hitting the market. Period. Skills or not. Where are they going to work, when there are now ten people applying for every available job?
Why do they need to work, though? If AI can replace so many people that there aren't jobs for them all, wouldn't that also mean AI is producing enough to sustain those people, jobs or not? At that point, why must society continue to expect everyone to support themselves if society's developments as a whole make that unnecessary?
OP's question seemingly indicated that they felt someone who couldn't earn money was immediately a net negative to society. I don't believe that's true now (stay at home parents are a good, but far from only, example), and I can't see me believing it's any more true in a future where AI can replace large segments of the workforce.
-
Agreed, honestly. Because if you eliminate 60% of the workforce you also eliminate 60% of your customers. And if people aren't spending money the economy isn't moving.
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.
-
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?
Tax the rich people so the unemployable people can live the comfortable lives they deserve
-
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.
Nope, they will eventually eat each other because there is always someone you can remove and pick his fortune. There isn't an equilibrium in this game.
-
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]deleted by creator
-
Tax the rich people so the unemployable people can live the comfortable lives they deserve
UBI needs to happen at some point.
-
UBI needs to happen at some point.
It's basically that or communism. Nothing else deals halfway serviceably with a large population of people who can't be employed.
-
Why do they need to work, though? If AI can replace so many people that there aren't jobs for them all, wouldn't that also mean AI is producing enough to sustain those people, jobs or not? At that point, why must society continue to expect everyone to support themselves if society's developments as a whole make that unnecessary?
OP's question seemingly indicated that they felt someone who couldn't earn money was immediately a net negative to society. I don't believe that's true now (stay at home parents are a good, but far from only, example), and I can't see me believing it's any more true in a future where AI can replace large segments of the workforce.
If AI can replace so many people that there aren't jobs for them all, wouldn't that also mean AI is producing enough to sustain those people, jobs or not?
Unfortunately, that isn't what's happening. AI isn't "producing" anything that people need to survive. It's just replacing people. We aren't seeing any net gains to society that would be able to support so many people no longer being needed in the workforce.
If they were training AI to produce food, build housing or anything that people actually need more of right now, I would say you are absolutely correct to assume that people would be just fine with this transition. But that's not what they're using AI for.
Optimistically, AI could and definitely should be used for those things...and the logical conclusion would be to implement a form of UBI so that we can all benefit from this. But do you honestly see that happening?
I don't. And I think that's what OP is also seeing. We aren't ready, as a species, to make that transition yet. There isn't even the slightest intention on behalf of our current leadership, of providing for an entire population of jobless people. They will ultimately be left to fend for themselves. And as it stands right now, society isn't equipped to function with that kind of excess population.
-
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.
