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?
Ignoring the odd idea that this hypothetical person is somehow completely unemployable regardless of industry or upskilling, why do you assume that that immediately makes them a negative to society? Is a person's entire value predicated on their ability to earn money?
-
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?
Ideally, transition away from determining the value of a human life based on whether they can perform labor.
Realistically, slow degradation of quality of life while increasing stress to a boiling point until either some form of revolution is attempted, or Orwellian "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever."
-
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?
Wtf is this question??? You about to drop your own rendition of A Modest Proposal? The answer is the same as we should do with anyone else: they should be housed, fed, clothed and provided with any other practical necessities to participating in modern society. What they do with that is their own fucking business??
Useless eaters rhetoric has no place on the fediverse.
-
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?
Why do humans have to have a job to be useful?
Post scarcity we can just live.
The AI job crash is not going to be handled well so I assume we all will starve.
-
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]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
-
Ignoring the odd idea that this hypothetical person is somehow completely unemployable regardless of industry or upskilling, why do you assume that that immediately makes them a negative to society? Is a person's entire value predicated on their ability to earn money?
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?
-
Ignoring the odd idea that this hypothetical person is somehow completely unemployable regardless of industry or upskilling, why do you assume that that immediately makes them a negative to society? Is a person's entire value predicated on their ability to earn money?
Ignoring the odd idea that this hypothetical person is somehow completely unemployable regardless of industry or upskilling
You're so stuck in a capitalist mindset that you view people being "unemployable" as a personal failure on their part, rather than a success of society as a whole....
Were you out there screaming "think of the children" and "they can do anything they put their mind to" when people banded together to say maybe 7 year old children don't have to work in the fucking coal mines anymore?
-
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?
