Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says Labor Shouldn't Have To Fear Automation (techcrunch.com) 470
Munky101 tipped us off to some interesting comments from New York's activist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. TechCrunch reports:
It's impossible to discuss the seismic shift toward automation without a conversation about job loss. Opponents of these technologies criticize a displacement that could someday result in wide-scale unemployment among what is often considered "unskilled" roles. Advocates, meanwhile, tend to suggest that reports of that nature tend to be overstated. Workforces shift, as they have done for time immemorial. During a conversation at SXSW this week, New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez offered another take entirely.
"We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work," she said in an answer reported by The Verge. "We should be excited by that. But the reason we're not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don't have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem... We should be excited about automation, because what it could potentially mean is more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing in and investigating the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in," The Verge quoted Ocasio-Cortez as saying. "Because not all creativity needs to be bonded by wage."
And Ocasio-Cortez cited Bill Gates' suggestion (first floated in a presentation on Quartz) that a robot tax might be a way to make that vision real. "What [Gates is] really talking about is taxing corporations," she reportedly said. "But it's easier to say: 'tax a robot.' "
Science fiction writer William Gibson called her comments "shockingly intelligent" for a politician. Fast Company adds that robots "have put half a million people out of work in the United States, and researchers estimate that bots could take 800 million jobs by 2030" -- then quotes Ocasio-Cortez's assessment of the unfair state of labor today.
"We should be working the least amount we've ever worked, if we were actually paid based on how much wealth we were producing, but we're not," she said. "We're paid by how little we're desperate enough to accept. And then the rest is skimmed off and given to a billionaire."
"We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work," she said in an answer reported by The Verge. "We should be excited by that. But the reason we're not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don't have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem... We should be excited about automation, because what it could potentially mean is more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing in and investigating the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in," The Verge quoted Ocasio-Cortez as saying. "Because not all creativity needs to be bonded by wage."
And Ocasio-Cortez cited Bill Gates' suggestion (first floated in a presentation on Quartz) that a robot tax might be a way to make that vision real. "What [Gates is] really talking about is taxing corporations," she reportedly said. "But it's easier to say: 'tax a robot.' "
Science fiction writer William Gibson called her comments "shockingly intelligent" for a politician. Fast Company adds that robots "have put half a million people out of work in the United States, and researchers estimate that bots could take 800 million jobs by 2030" -- then quotes Ocasio-Cortez's assessment of the unfair state of labor today.
"We should be working the least amount we've ever worked, if we were actually paid based on how much wealth we were producing, but we're not," she said. "We're paid by how little we're desperate enough to accept. And then the rest is skimmed off and given to a billionaire."
Benefits not shared with workforce (Score:2)
Re:Benefits not shared with workforce (Score:4, Insightful)
Automation vastly improved the lives of people who were previously toiling manually outdoors all day all year round, for example. At least, eventually. There was a difficult transition for them.
Re: (Score:2)
To other nations with low tax and workers who got paid much less.
To nations who invested in robot productions lines.
To the service sector.
Now robots and computer systems can do more of that service work too.
Time to consider the needs of citizens and their education, jobs, living standards.
The amount and quality of social security after working for decades.
,br> Citizens need good paying, productive private sector jobs. Thats what makes the USA great.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a myth, the reality is that peasants in ye olden dayes had enormous amounts of free time a majority of the year.
Re:Benefits not shared with workforce (Score:5, Insightful)
Never tried farming for a living, have you? No, it's not a matter of "work during planting season, goof off till harvest, work for a few weeks at harvest, goof off all winter, lather, rinse, repeat"....
Re: (Score:3)
Economics has a concept called "revealed preferences". What this means, is that instead of theorizing about what people prefer, you look at what they actually choose in reality.
When given a choice between migrating to urban factory life, or remaining on the farm to endure rural poverty, people have historically overwhelmingly chose to migrate to the cities.
Re: (Score:3)
Why?
Firstly, if you're 2x more productive, and need to make 2.5x as much product, then you only need to work 25% more, not 50% (2.5/2 = 1.25)
Meanwhile, if you have 2.5x the population your production is providing, you should also have 2.5x as many people available to hire to produce it. Do so, and each person only has to work (1.25x the work / 2.5x the workers) = 50% as much, while producing the same amount of value per-capita.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ditch diggers (Score:5, Interesting)
I was a pipelayer until 1999 when I tore up my knee. In the southeast, the guy running the tractor would make between $18/hr and $25/hr, white guys in the ditch were maybe $12-$15/hr, hispanic or black were maybe $9-$13, somewhere in there (yes, it was straight rascist. Don't bitch at me about it, I was one of the guys standing in the ditch with a shovel). There would typically be about 3 or 4 labor guys for each tractor guy, although I saw one crew with about 10 laborers paired with one tractor operator.
I would guess that crews are the same or smaller now. I am sure they make a little more money. I doubt many of them make a lot in any context that includes software engineers. People (or businesses) that own tractors can make a lot of money.
The issue with the benefits of automation is similar, I think, with the issue with the benefits of the tractor. The benefits accrue to the owner of the automation, same as the benefits of the tractor. If factory laborers bought the robots that replaced their jobs, it would be natural to agree that they should keep those profits while relaxing at home. Unfortunately, it's the factory/shop/store owners that are buying them and the laborers might be in trouble.
It seems morally straightforward that the people who took the risk of investing in automation should receive the rewards, but that results in a seriously fubared society. So here I sit waiting for some insightful commentary, 'cause damned if I know the answer.
That would be fine if they took any risk (Score:3)
The world does not operate on fairness. The sooner you accept that the sooner we can start actually fixing things.
Re:Benefits not shared with workforce (Score:5, Insightful)
If they supplied their own tool, i.e. the digger, then yes they could get paid 50x more than what they were.
But the vast majority of them didn't supply their own tool - the employer did.
The employees job improved significantly, however, in that they no longer had to carry out back breaking manual labour, they could work in better comfort as most diggers have enclosed cabs, they can work longer hours due to less physical fatigue and they can do the same work at older ages.
My brother in law started his working life as a hod carrier at 16. He is completely screwed now physically as a result, and it's only automation that has allowed him to continue working in the building industry and earning a wage the only way he knows how.
But let's ignore all that, because "automation is bad".
Re:Benefits not shared with workforce (Score:4, Insightful)
Automation is never going to significantly improve the wages of the people employing it in and of itself. The only possible way that can happen is if they are the only ones in possession of the improvements and no one else is capable of replicating those techniques and the workers can't be replaced by someone else who will accept less pay. As soon as anyone else figures out how to get the same improvements, competition drives prices back down. There's additional money to be made in the short term while that process occurs, but a rank and file worker isn't going to become extremely wealthy unless they own their own their own business.
Some people like to call this process a race to the bottom, but they only look at it from the perspective of the people racing downward. Everyone who's not involved in that particular race is the beneficiary of less expensive goods and services. As all industries undergo this continually (everyone is busy running in their own separate race) it produces more wealth. You can grumble that it isn't equally shared, but it's largely inconsequential.
Re:Benefits not shared with workforce (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite all of the people claiming the middle class is being destroyed, real median income [multpl.com] has been slowly rising.
If the distribution of wealth wasn't so skewed in favor of the rich, median income should be dramatically rising instead of slowly rising. Compare it to GDP, which has more than doubled since 1990 [google.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Automation doesn't make things cheaper anymore. It increases profits, and that's the biggest reason any company invests in it...
Re: (Score:3)
Ok but when a ditch digger could do 50x time ditches, did they get 50x the pay? That's my point.
Ditch diggers earned a lot more as backhoe operators, though nothing like 50x more. That differential between the new pay of all machine operators taken together plus profit to the backhoe manufacturer and the pay of all ditch diggers taken together represents the incremental productivity that the machine has gifted into the economy, to be shared by all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the job truly easier, though?
Used to be you turned up at the same place each day, used a shovel and toiled for 8 hours. Eventually the ditch was dug, but your actual duties while monotonous were pretty simple.
Now operating a backhoe is much more complex - less manual toiling required, but more skilled knowledge. Have to know how to safely operate the backhoe, make sure you don't get it stuck, etc. You'll also be going around to many more sites more often, and thus dealing with more clients (or at least w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mules ---> Tractors. I'll let you pick which one you'd like to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
You couldn't be more wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
The trend throughout the history of humanity has been towards less work. We've gone from small groups that had to keep watch 24/7, to tribes that had to leave their encampments for days on end hunting and gathering, to villagers having to work 7 days a week, 16 hours a day, to towns that work 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, to cities that work 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, and we're already seeing the rise of flexible working, home working, and talk of 4 day weeks.
It seems pretty clear that automation by rob
cut full time down to 30-32 hours and Medicare all (Score:2)
cut full time down to 30-32 hours and add Medicare for all
Re: (Score:3)
No, we wouldn't, because virtually every other country on earth pays for full universal healthcare for HALF of what we already spend on just medicare/medicaid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:cut full time down to 30-32 hours and Medicare (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the problem is that the current Medicare spending rates are ridiculous - thats the point that is trying to be made.
You don't just need to increase Medicare spending, you need to reform the entire thing.
You already spend more per head of *population* (and not per person actually covered) on Medicare and Medicaid than many western countries spend on socialised medicine for their entire populations - that signifies a problem that you aren't going to spend your way out of, and it also signifies a fundamental issue with the way healthcare is provided in your country.
And *thats* the fundamental problem - you are expecting for-profit entities to supply healthcare at reasonable cost, and they aren't. We have all read and heard about the ridiculous discussions that go on between care providers and insurance providers about costs and billing.
The government should run its own healthcare providers, and its own hospitals, and employ its own doctors, nurses and other staff.
But thats pretty unacceptable to Americans for some reason - apparently, only the military are allowed to be a massive government employer in such a manner.
Marshall Brain's Manna (Score:3)
Marshal Brain wrote a short sci fi story out lining the two path society can do as automation reduces the amount of labor required for daily sustenance. It's not the world's best writing but it's succinct and insightful
Re: Marshall Brain's Manna (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the fact I can get two hours of my day back by not commuting and instead work at home thanks to the internet is kind of a big deal.
I even get to spend my lunch time doing things I want to do, so there's yet another hour of my life back. Three hours of my life back per day I work at home, technology never made it easier to be a worker? Really? Are you fucking kidding?
Re: Benefits not shared with workforce (Score:5, Insightful)
The workforce gets indirect benefits by affordable goods. Imagine what good would cost if there was no automation. Most people would never own a car if all cars were manufactured without any automation. Your t-shirts would cost $100 each, because it would cost that much to collect and process cotton manually, then saw the t-shirt by hand with a needle and thread.
Billionaire (Score:2, Informative)
My friend owns a bar, pays workers minimum wage, last time I checked heâ(TM)s not a billionaire....
"Shockingly intelligent"? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Shockingly intelligent"? (Score:4, Insightful)
If that was true, then somebody should post the original exchange, instead of some sort of Facebook Russian troll garbage.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: "Shockingly intelligent"? (Score:4, Informative)
Ocasio Cortez followed up: "You were financingâ"involved with debt financing CoreCivic and GeoGroup, correct?
The follow up link I posted has responses from both CoreCivic & GeoGroup, both of whom claim that they don't engage in caging children. That's the one you didn't read.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]: "The T. Don Hutto Residential Center is a former medium-security prison in Taylor, Williamson County, Texas, which, from 2006 to 2009, held accompanied immigrant detainees ages 2 and up under a pass-through contract with Immigration an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer "Ostensibly Coherent".
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite inaccurate, in fact the Jews in the 1930s were armed and it didn't really help them.
https://youtu.be/gfHXJRqq-qo [youtu.be]
Not true (Score:3)
"But the reason we're not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don't have a job, you are left to die."
We do have welfare programs and even housing programs that pay as much as some basic income proposals. So while it is true your life can suck horribly if you don't have a job, you won't be left to die.
Re:Not true (Score:4, Informative)
The US has people dying because they can't afford basic necessities such as insulin - your welfare programs suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, doctors fuck up, but that's medical malpractice in whatever country you want to use as an example.
Not providing basic medicine for those who can't afford it because "socialism is bad" is just the government wantonly murdering its citizens for political points.
You know how much a months worth of insulin costs a patient in the UK? About $15. And that's if it's deemed they can afford to pay $15 - if they can't, it's free.
In the US, life saving medical attention can bankrupt you - in the UK, it's free.
Re: (Score:3)
And in the UK, doctors are amputating the wrong leg of patients. Medicine sucks and we don't have a solution for it.
Just write WRONG LEG! on it with a red sharpie.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes food, air, water or housing basic necessities but not medicine? Sounds like you are making arbitrary distinctions there...
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the NHS has homeopathic hospitals, but as you can note from the link you provide, they are all historic entities, all founded well over a hundred years ago, and all are scheduled for closure. None of them are newly created entities, none of them are reactions to modern upticks in belief in pseudoscience.
Half the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok we get it. She thinks tax/redistribution is the answer. That just feels like half the solution. The other half is what will the people DO with their UBI or similar style income?
Oh and of course taxing the robots will slow down the inovation which seems to contradict her first point about welcoming the automation.
Re:Half the solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Taxing isn't really a solution. The problem is the concentration of money flows to a few. The government getting their hands on it after the fact is too late. We need a better distribution of how income is made.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax the robot on production? Import a new robot and face a huge new robot use tax?
Tax the robot on its work everyday along the production line once in the USA?
Tax the export product the robot produced in the USA?
Thats going to add to costs of any product made in the USA. The USA needs lower tax rates on products and services to become more competitive and allow more US citizens to get jobs.
A tax on robots, using robots, what a production line makes just adds to costs. Why
Re: (Score:2)
The other half is what will the people DO with their UBI or similar style income?
Maybe you didn't actually read what was written?
more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing in and investigating the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in
Re: (Score:3)
Ok we get it. She thinks tax/redistribution is the answer. That just feels like half the solution. The other half is what will the people DO with their UBI or similar style income?
That is indeed the question. Of course, that average backwards-looking moron is still fighting hard against the very idea of an UBI, despite it being extremely obvious that there will not be another choice to keep society functioning. But an UBI is only part of the solution and not enough. Most people need work to have meaning in their lives. Sure, there are those that will find this very easy to handle, but it will probably be restricted to the 10-15% of independent thinkers. The rest will find it really h
Re: (Score:2)
Do what Europe did when the efficiencies of the renaissance created excess labor. Ship them off to a New World. Dont tax the rich to pay for UBI. Tax the rich till they squeal to fund a Mars colony and ship off the excess labor to Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
She definitely needs to work on communication, but she has no intention of actually placing a tax on robots or replacing labor with robots. She's using robots as a proxy for the rich. The rich have most of the capital generating robots, so it sort of works, but yeah, it makes it sound like she wants to destroy innovation.
That's pretty well known (Score:2, Informative)
UBI would let people take lower pay, spending their UBI on necessities and using their job income for luxuries. The cost of living would drop considerably overall as we could spr
Re: (Score:3)
The other thing people would spend UBI on is freedom. Remember, you're not free so long as somebody controls your access to food, shelter, medicine and education. Until you secure those things you're one paycheck away from doing anything the people in charge tell you.
The people willing to listen to that argument will probably be the first to point out that now you're completely dependent on the government. The US mindset is built around the idea that you create value, so you get paid and you pay for the services you want/need. And that this holds true whether you're the village smith or a software developer working for Apple / Google / Microsoft / Amazon / Facebook. The rest of the world figured out long ago that against a large corporation the deck is heavily stacked a
"But it's easier to say: 'tax a robot.' " (Score:3)
What she means, of course, is "it's easier to sell: 'tax a robot.' " "Don't tax you and don't tax me, tax that robot behind the tree."
Re: (Score:2)
What she means, of course, is "it's easier to sell: 'tax a robot.' " "Don't tax you and don't tax me, tax that robot behind the tree."
"...because what it could potentially mean is more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing in and investigating the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in..."
I guess that's easier to say (or sell, if you prefer) than "what it could potentially mean is more time sitting on the couch, watching "Ow! My Balls!" on teevee.
Re: (Score:2)
Every product for a robot its a new tax?
Who can afford a new tax on every US product and service?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to look up the word "feudal" because you apparently have no idea what it means. A feudal system is one in which nobles are granted land by the those above them and have to render military service in return for holding that land. The whole point of the system was that it was supposed to get the central government a high-quality army without that
Very Impressed - this woman has done her homework! (Score:2, Insightful)
AOC impresses me more and more every day.
She has clearly done her homework and understands Socialist theory (as taught by the DSA).
Not only that -- she sticks to those principles and does not adapt to the popular wind direction of the day.
I have less confidence in the DSA and the Democrats, but so far, AOC is solid!
Now let the trolls pile on -- it does not change the fact that Capitalism is failing (and threatening to take the world with it).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, she does seem to get what is happening. I am less sure she understands how extremely difficult it will be to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is failing
Capitalism has been failing for hundreds of years. Every decade of that failure, fewer and fewer people go hungry — so few now that new metrics like "food anxiety " (i.e. having to consider you might miss a meal) have been created to replace statistics that involve actual hunger.
Where do people genuinely go hungry? Venezuela. North Korea. Some places in Africa, but less and less there. It's amazing that the failures of capitalism seem to always be borne by people where capitalism is practiced lea
Re: (Score:3)
And the people in Venezuela and North Korea only go hungry because of the sanctions of the US ... seems like a failure of capitalism to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which country in Europe has a socialist economy? Scandinavia is unabashedly capitalist [wikipedia.org] in economic models. They have a strong social safety net on which they spend their taxes, but their economic systems are capitalist, full-stop.
China started to grow when Deng Xiaoping implemented capitalist reforms into the socialist economic model, but it's since stalled and is on the cusp of collapse because of centralized command-and-control (as required by socialism) of the banks, telecom, and others. Laos and Viet
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Trust me, none of those countries are socialist. I grew up in some of them, I’ve lived for the majority of my life there, I emigrated to the US partially because growing socialist policies were making work-life unsustainable.
Yes, they have plenty of socialist policies, partially due to the EU but they’re also some of the highest taxed countries and you still have to work a lot to pay taxes that support those that don’t.
What they don’t have: guaranteed income (which is a basic tenet o
Re: (Score:3)
So when people call healthcare and free education ideas socialist of AOC, do you correct them and explain that these countries have them too. Or do you join them?
Re:Very Impressed - this woman has done her homewo (Score:4, Interesting)
What they don’t have: guaranteed income (which is a basic tenet of socialism/communism), guaranteed jobs, guaranteed housing. They do have those for immigrants and professional victims but not for their own population.
Stop your lying. Nothing of that is true.
However socialist movements in those countries have led to unstable economies and a growing tension over the last 2 decades between immigrants and natives to the point that the only reason local governments in Belgium, France and the Netherlands aren’t currently extreme-right (yes, Nazi-style parties) are huge coalitions between every other party to prevent them coming to power. Those coalitions however make the government, especially in Belgium and the Netherlands but also in France extremely volatile and unstable.
Again, lies. The economies of the 'socialist' countries you mention are extremely stable in comparison to other countries in the world, just look at the growth rates in recent years. The governments as well. In fact, in the Netherlands, the coalitions have been slightly right leaning for decades now.
The rise of populism is a worldwide phenomenon fueled by sensationalism and geopolitical strife and is clearly not a result of 'socialist movements'.
Re: (Score:3)
Trust me, none of those countries are socialist.
Here's a problem we're having in the US. A Policy Proposer will propose a policy idea which will then be rebutted by a Trump Supporter. And then Trump Supporter ends up resolving their own problem with the policy, but not realizing that they did. They do so because they had a rebuttal to every point the Policy Proposer made, so they think that they won the debate. The Trump Supporters act like the other side is trying to get the US to be a socialist state regardless of the details, they just want the label
Re:Very Impressed - this woman has done her homewo (Score:5, Informative)
Those countries also have several various other factors that are distinct to each, but also not socialist. For example, Sweden has a voucher system for schools and as a result a large number of charter schools. Norway doesn't have a government mandated minimum wage. I wonder if you'd like to see the U.S. implement those socialist policies?
I suppose if you want to relabel free market capitalism as socialism I can't really stop you, but you may want to wrap some copper wire around Marx and put a magnet on his tombstone so that you can generate electricity while he spins in his grave.
Re: (Score:3)
That’s not what he said either. He said “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.
The Nordic model relies on high taxes which funds a cradle to grave system. Most capitalists would scoff at that kind of wealth redistribution. For example healthcare and education is free for everyone. People call those same ideas of AOC and Bernie Sanders “socialist.” But when they describe the Nordic model they are not “socialist”
Re:Very Impressed - this woman has done her homewo (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternate approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... won't automation and Weak AI/AI bring down the costs of goods and services? What would people absolutely have to spend that money on? Housing? Food? Child care? Education? Healthcare? Access to information? Given the lower future costs it may be best to give out 500 dollars today's equivelant per month and offer free basic housing around the nation, free basic food, free child care, free education, free healthcare, and free basic internet access. The costs of all of these could go quite low in the future and a regulated non profit market like Germany has health insurance or a government run solution could be quite efficient with low overhead if done right. That way the most needy benefit the most with the basic services, and everyone is lifted by the basic income while reasonably well off people will forgo their basic services and pay for better ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope. VAT is regressive. And as soon as there's a budget crisis, the handout would get cut, and we'd be left with a tax on the poor.
Re:Alternate approach (Score:5, Interesting)
The economics are hard to wrap our heads around, for sure. I honestly don't know how they will work out. But one thing that seems missing is that people near the bottom of the poverty rung spend most of their money. Giving them more means they will just spend more. And the more they spend, the more goods and services they need, and the more jobs those things require.
The economy runs on monetary velocity, not absolute used. One dude buying a $1b island doesn't fire the economy like 500m people spending $2 on something. UBI means more people buying more stuff, and needing more people to provide that stuff. All that means more sales and income taxes, which helps fund UBI.
All the "UBI experiments" have been limited in funds and scope, and don't look at the broader economic impacts of people with more free cash to spend. We're not going to really have an answer of how well UBI works until it's fully implemented for the first time. That's a terrifying proposition, but one I really hope some country is brave enough to try in the near future. It's the answer to whether we get a star-trek no-scarcity future, or if we continue to fund the rich on the suffering of the poor.
Re:Alternate approach (Score:4, Informative)
While it's not UBI many European countries have something like a "last resort" social security. That is to say we're capable of sustaining a population without anyone starving, freezing etc. but it doesn't imply we want more of them.
Re: (Score:3)
While it's not UBI many European countries have something like a "last resort" social security.
The US has that, too.
Re:Alternate approach (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a huge portion of the population (IQ would suggest ~20%) that cannot manage money. Giving them money does not help them get food, hence why we don’t just have welfare programs that give money, but food stamps, housing assistance etc.
Just because the cost of goods lowers in the future, which is why we’re comparatively a lot richer than ever before in history, doesn’t mean there will be no value to work. You get money-for-work because that’s an indication of your contribution to society and you accumulate wealth accordingly, if you take big risks and start your own enterprise, you have the potential for huge rewards; that’s not evil, that’s how capitalism works. If you take that balance away, you end up with USSR-style conditions where nobody wants to take the risk to invest in the growth of the economy or the production of new goods, nobody wants to take the risk to lower costs etc. so things never get lower cost but administrative accumulation keeps the costs rising.
Re: (Score:3)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has little understanding? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like "learn to code" to me. (Score:3)
The crap that rolls out of this woman's head is...I just have no words to convey the level of dumb.
Another politico that does not get it (Score:3)
These morons think they define reality and they can make it whatever they want. In actual reality, that is of course not how things work at all.
I do agree that it is not a good idea to fear having your job automated away. It will happen, but fearing it will just make things even worse. And there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it, except some temporary stop-gaps that will make things even worse though.
Re: (Score:2)
Please ignore comment. In good old /. tradition I only read the headline.
I'd argue that's more a right wing thing then left (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH I've got folks on the right who tell me they'll be new jobs but nobody'll say what those jobs are. Occasionally somebody will say "Bio-Tech", which is what I heard in the 90s. Or they list a bunch of service jobs nobody will be able to afford when they lose their jobs. Meanwhile the President of the United States is a climate change denier. And one way we know climate change is real is that it's been called out in SEC filings. You can lie to Congress, you can lie to your Priest, hell, you can even lie to yourself, but you do not lie to the SEC...
And don't get me started on the Evangelicals that make up the second wing of the GOP (the first being the wealthy plutocrats). There's a lot that wouldn't know reality if it bit 'em on the rear. They're still arguing that Evolution isn't a thing and that The Flood happened. I know it's not nice to call folks out for religious beliefs, but wrong is wrong, and I draw the line when they start trying to sneak it into schools and into laws, which they've been doing for ages (Abortion bans anyone?)
Fearing a bad thing doesn't make it worse if you stop it from happening. We're not animals at the whims of nature. We're thinking, reasoning beings.
I'm a Democrat and I don't totally agree with her (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What we really need is a way to make all that money worthless that's been accumulated by The Rich
Inflation is the answer to that, but "The Rich" have been keeping it artificially low.
Inflation is how you pay for UBI. You just print the money and hand it out. Any money which the wealthy people have stashed is devalued. This encourages investment.
She needs to work on communication (Score:2)
I heard her claiming she wanted to "tax the robots" which sounds like a fucking horrible idea. What she meant was "tax the rich" who are benefiting from robotics, but when she says "tax the robots" it sounds like she's trying to destroy innovation. Stick with "tax the rich".
Socialism still doesn't work (Score:3)
Occasional Cortex may be cuter than Bernie, but that doesn't make socialism work any better. Just like it's close se cousin, communism, the ideas sound great right up until the smash head first into reality. Human nature does not work that way.
In Bernie's case, though, he can at least debate and defend his ideas. Have you ever heard AOC trying to answer real questions? Not puff pieces where she gets to use answers written by someone else, but questions that reveal what she, herself, actually knows?
The woman is an idiot. She's a puppet, playing a role. Her handlers mostly manage to keep her out of situations where she can screw up the script, but it's obvious if you're paying attention.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing is the same for any job. You trade your time for money. It's up to the organization to use those hours well to determine whether or not wealth is generated. There's no need to shit on jobs that you don't deem as worthy as whatever it is you do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're just showing up for a McJob, you're not producing wealth and you're not paid to produce wealth.
Bullshit! If you weren't producing wealth then why would the corporation pay you to show up.
The corporation is generating wealth and they're trading a portion of that wealth with you for your time and labor.
Bullshit! The corporation is not trading wealth for your time out of the badness of their hearts. They are paying you because you are generating more wealth for them than they are paying you.
Re: (Score:3)
Automation has been freeing up more spare time for people since roughly 1800. The sky is yet to fall. Those who can't figure out what to do with their newest imcrements of spare time are welcome to use fentanyl or whatever as an exit from this cruel world. The rest of us have new things to do.
Robots just represent the latest batch of automated jobs.