Millions of jobs to dissapear as robotics advance

These problems sound like they will be tough. How do you propose people feed and shelter themselves while attempting to find and solve such problems?

-Meta

 

I agree with the first part of what you wrote,...but to suggest no one has come up with a pragmatic solution?....

1. The government first needs to step up and provide or hire some of those unemployed people to provide what the poor lack.
Build houses for the homeless, provide more food for the hungry, ensure everyone's health and education are tended to,
and while you're at it, fix up the infrastructure. Pay for it by taxing those at the top who most benefit from the automation.

2. At some point the standard work week should be shortened, especially for employees who's duties can easily be split between multiple workers.
And keep shortening it as more jobs become automated. Increase vacation time, paternity leave, and generally just let people have more time off
without reducing their yearly pay.

3. When people aren't working as much and their basic needs are taken care, the government should shift to higher order needs.
Build, maintain, and operate more community centers, public tennis courts, parks etc.

-Meta

 

The biggest problem though, is that if all of the people needing problems solved have none of the resources,
people wont be paid for solving problems, they wont be feed, they wont be housed, and any problem requiring resources,
which is most of them, will not even get solved. Problems without the resources needed to solve them are just that,....problems.

-Meta

 

I'll tell you what'll happen,...

Those who own the machines and the raw natural resources will live completely self-sufficiently.
And if we haven't changed the system by then, such that the benefits of the resources and machines flow down to everyone,
those without natural resources or machines will find themselves in a world of hurt. It will probably lead to a not very pretty revolution.

-Meta

 

A problem which you can't expect the average person to be able to solve,
for not even the greatest minds among us can today figure out how to create something from nothing.
And starving people is not going to change that, in fact, it just gives them less time to think.

-Meta

 

That's what I'm saying, no one has, and not for lack of trying.
Starving people isn't going to change that. It just leads to people starving to death and or rising up against those hoarding the food..

All of which will be owned by a small percentage of folks if we continue to allow all the benefits of machines and natural resource flow up to the top.

-Meta

 

What causes poverty (as in an absolute lack of money/purchasing power)?.....a lack of opportunity. And what does it take to create opportunity?....
Access to resources (via a job, or otherwise) and the skills and education necessary to use those resources to create new wealth....
and then hopefully getting to keep at least some significant portion of that wealth. Therefor, if we see to it that folks are educated
as needed and that their basic needs are met,...instead of spending all their time and effort just trying to stay afloat,
they can spend it and the resources they'll save pursuing opportunities for recreation or to get ahead if that's what they desire.
But absolute poverty will not exist as we know it.

There is sure to always be some poverty (as in a relative difference in money/purchasing power) relatively speaking (and that's not necessarily a bad thing)
but if peoples' needs are all taken care of, again such poverty will not be what we currently think of as poverty.
Why do we consider poverty bad?.....because one who is poor cannot afford to obtain the things he or she needs and or wants.
If people can obtain those things, then relative poverty becomes largely inconsequential (though I will say there are still dangers if it becomes too extreme).

Furthermore, while things are not yet fully automated, the jobs I suggest hiring the currently unemployed to do would have two effects (in addition to providing the people hired with incomes).
1. By reducing the surplus workforce, it will lead to wages and other compensation increasing for all those who have jobs in the private sector.
2. If they are building things like houses, the price of all houses will decrease for everyone. Making it more affordable for the poor to buy one, satisfying one of their major needs.
The same can be said of healthcare services, food production, and various infrastructure improvements.

And as wages increase and needs are satisfied, the currently poor naturally find themselves with both more time and resources with which they can then dedicate to recreation.
And once everything does become fully automated,...there's nothing stopping the government from providing people with tennis balls, or even rackets.
Heck, they actually already do that now (at least in Fort Worth), you just have to go to a community center, and it'll only be easier once the production
of the balls and the rackets becomes fully automated. They could put a court out in the middle of nowhere and set up a racket and tennis ball dispenser...

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here^....I'm not suggesting we stop automation from eliminating jobs,
nor am I suggesting that work weeks, or anything else be based on which jobs are getting cut,
rather such things ought to be based on what's needed by the needy, and how broadly
we can spread out our joint responsibilities without severely compromising production.

There's not going to be a single silver bullet to solve this problem. It will instead be a culmination of things which we will have to implement in order to address it.

Yes, many of the things I suggested, such as construction infrastructure improvement and maintenance may become fully automated in the future,
but they aren't fully automated now, and I don't believe they will be any time soon. In the meantime, we have an outdated crumbling infrastructure, a surplus labor force, many of which willing and able to do the job, and certainly needing the money, and an extremely wealthy upper class who ultimately reaps the most benefit from infrastructure and society in general, and who currently is not paying taxes in proportion to what society grants them exclusive control over, and who is more than able to fund such endeavors. That's not to say I'm suggesting the government just start handing over houses to poor people for free, for things like that, there should be a charge to offset the costs of making it, but the price would undoubtedly be more affordable than a house made for the sole purpose of seeking profit.

Admittedly though I should have added a step 4 to that list. Once everything truly is fully automated, then what needs to happen is that everyone must be provided with continual access to that automation, the resources required to operate it, and or the resulting goods and services. That's really all it takes at a high level and while I think there are multiple things that need to be done along the way and not one silver bullet I also believe that neither the problem nor its solution are all as complicated as folks are making it out to be. It is not a natural or physical problem at core, its origins are purely social in nature, so the solutions must simply be changes to the social structure.

< Automation leads to more production and more wealth in society. Woe be to a foolish people that let such a good thing be its downfall >​

While I'm at it, I might as well also add that some sort of wealth or net worth tax wouldn't hurt either, although personally I don't think its necessary to fundamentally change our current tax structure. Even if the tax is still collected primarily through income, the effective rates can still be representative of wealth shares. In fact, we're really not that far off right now, at least amongst the lower and middle classes. We just need to tweak the effective tax structure at the top a bit, and we'll be all set. Such will help with improving social mobility.

We don't have to eliminate the incentive to produce or to create technology for any of these things to happen.
We just have to ensure that the benefits of such tech (and the natural resources) are split between the employee (or former employee) and the enterprise owner...
as opposed to that benefit going entirely to one or the other.

Like I said, first off their needs would be met through government. This would be done by hiring some of those folks who would otherwise be stuck at home with no money.
Second, the workweek would be reduced, spreading out the existing work across an increased number of people. And freeing up time for those who worked in the past.
Third, The government would hire folks to provide for recreational needs. Art, music, etc. could be included here as well.
Fourth, once everything was fully automated, the government would need to ensure that the perpetual benefits of that automation and the resources reached everyone.
In such a scenario, work itself might become a luxury of recreational nature. It might even be the case that some begin to pay others for the opportunity to work,
not because they needed to, or as an intermediate step to get something they wanted, but because work itself was what they wanted.
Tell me, does that really sound like such a bad life?

-Meta

 

Yup, its like I said....such a thing really shouldn't be a problem at all. It is but extreme greed which turns a good thing, into a bad thing.

< Automation leads to more production and more wealth in society. Woe be to a foolish people that let such a good thing be its downfall >​

-Meta

 

What do you think?