No technology has ever resulted in lighter workloads for the average person. Different, and sometimes less strenuous, but never less time consuming.
Pretty sure every piece of technology past the wheel can be considered to save humans time with their tasks.
Dish washer, laundry washer, laundry drier, lawn mower, a vehicle, there’s thousands dude.
All things that save time at home, not at work.
Do people not do laundry for work? Mow lawns? Drive? Anything you could use for personal use can also help with work… what about a restaurant? No washing machines there apparently….
Do you have any specific examples that are solely “home saving” pieces of technology? Or do other peoples jobs not exist past your desk?
The whole point is that those technologies don’t save the workers time at all, because the time saved just gets filled up with more work. The business owners are the one who benefit from the increased productivity, not the workers.
The workers don’t get more free time as a result of the technology. In many cases, they take a pay cut because the technology makes their job “easier” or “less skilled.” So they still work 8 or more hours a day, and they still make barely enough to get by on (if they even make that much), while their boss only gets richer for their efforts.
This is the entire point that seems to be going over your head.
[Edit: “easier” and “less skilled” were in scare-quotes because they don’t represent my personal point of view, but it’s how the employers justify it. Thought that would be obvious.]
No I get that, but both topics can happen at once.
Sorry this need to be explained that your view isn’t the only one ;)
We have all these things to use at home because they originally started at work, can’t have one without the other. But you would need to look at this objectively for that, but clearly you are biased and just want to whinge that capitalism is bad! Even though that wasn’t brought up by anyone in this chain. But bloviate if you want!
You’re loading so much strawman and ad hominem into that comment that I can only assume you’re not arguing in good faith. Did you use your alts to upvote yourself? Cause I can’t imagine anyone on this sub would go for that drivel
Even though that wasn’t brought up by anyone in this chain.
This entire post is about “AI taking over jobs,” and now you want to pretend the topic isn’t about work life (i.e., under capitalism)?
Sorry this need to be explained that your view isn’t the only one
What are you even trying to insinuate? Did I ever claim that my viewpoint is the only one? No, I just said you’re wrong. I can do that without claiming some sort of monopoly on facts.
Besides, you’re the one who seems to be having trouble admitting that you’ve been mistaken. Instead of saying “Oh, that makes sense, yeah I get it now” you’re launching into this tirade of personal attacks? Not rational behavior. And yet you want to preach to me about “looking at it objectively”?
Objectively, the topic of this conversation was about whether technology saves workers time, and the fact is, it doesn’t, as can be demonstrably proven.
Nobody was talking about whether or not washing machines save you time on your chores. A person who works at an industrial laundromat facility isn’t getting a 4-hour workday with UBI just because somebody invented a more efficient machine. He’ll be doing the same amount of work, not getting paid more for the increased productivity. Only difference is his boss will get richer. Do you want to continue denying that reality?
As an analogy for AI in the workplace, which is where this conversation started, the pattern holds true. It doesn’t save the workers time. It doesn’t make them more money. They get worked just as hard for just as long, sometimes even moreso as the expected output increases. And their bosses reap the benefits of any increase in productivity.
Any attempt by you to retreat behind a motte-and-bailey by trying to subtly change the topic to basic housekeeping tasks (which again, is not the topic of this discussion), is doing nothing more than obfuscating the situation for the benefit of the owner-class. So what is your goal here?
Have you seriously never heard of jobs that pay by the sq/ft or piece…?
Drywall mudding with the right tools you can mud a house in a day instead of 5 and make the same money. Lawns are typically by the house as well, so the better the mower, the faster you can earn, or the sooner you can go home in the same day.
So how does that not save someone time? They could do the same amount of jobs and make the same money if the want, or make more, it’s entirely their choice.
Don’t have such a narrow and ignorant view of the world.
Someone has never heard of flat rate or piece rate work.
But bloviate if you want!
I see you went and did exactly that! Lmfao.
You apparently have no concept about how much technology saves for manual labor, yes it doesn’t always mean less work, but you’re working less in a lot of cases. Take that however you want, but you’ve already shown your view is apparantly the only valid one.
Would you rather use a scythe and blow your back out, use a push mower and be dead at the end of the day, or use a ride on and be comfortable all day? I know which one I would prefer, but go ahead and use your sciccors so you get less done, do a worse job, and be too sore and have no energy for you own shit.
Yes in advanced economies we have weight problems because a significant amount of people sit around all day instead of toiling the field… but what has technology done for us lately!
This is a good point, and it’s often much longer workhours. People used to have to stop when it got dark, because candles and oil lamps were too expensive, but not with electric lights. Mules refuse to work more than about six hours a day, but trucks will keep going as long as you refuel them.
not even a neo-luddite. a good old fashioned luddite
So you really want to unpack that?
Labor competition prevents productivity gains from generating excess labor in capitalist systems.
Then supply and demand must follow.
Can I just cut you off at the pass and say its a myth that you can work your way out of poverty. The system isn’t set up like that.
Exactly. The system is set up so that people work for barely enough to survive. Introducing better tools doesn’t give labor more free time, it gives their bosses more money. We’ve seen this with every technology since the cotton gin now: that’s why no one imagines that AI will give people more time with their families.
Then then the argument isn’t about jobs and feeding that narrative is unproductive
You’re the one who asked “Why isn’t anyone saying that [great labor saving technology] will give us more free time?”
Its not my fault you havent accepted youre a wage slave yet and havent become the right amount of cynical that you can recognize dripping sarcasm when its right in front of you.
Except piecework and flat rate jobs still exist. You don’t have to work for someone else especially with how affordable most of these tools are.
Then supply and demand must follow.
Demand for human labor lowers. So they hire fewer people and capture the savings themselves.
It’s never about spending more time with the family. It’s all about paying less for labor.
Which they already optimize for. If we all make less we only widen the gap between the oligarchs and labor. Two classes that dont ever mingle anyway.
100%. We should be using AI as the catalyst for a new union movement
We should.
I had no intention of making the claim that work could lead to wealth, and honestly don’t see how my comment would lead to it.
I think OP simply has very poor reading comprehension.
You just havent followed that path enough.
I worked my way out of poverty so although I agree with you, I think the wording needs specificity.
You cannot work your way out of poverty by working harder at a poverty job. You have to switch jobs and grow your skill set until you become a valuable enough commodity to trigger competition for you.
That just gets you out of poverty.
Im saying, you can spend every day working very hard but that alone will not get you out of poverty. There are always political and social menuevrors you have to do or hit the lottery.
Yes, I am agreeing with you, and I figured that’s what you meant. I am just clarifying for anyone else reading.
No hate
AI is meant to automate the boring stuff so we can make art and write stories. Instead, it’s been used to make art and write stories so all we’re left with is the boring stuff
Isn’t ai art boring and ai stories insufferable?
The ruling class doesn’t care.
I know what to do with a ruling class that doesnt care
It turns out automating art and writing is a lot easier than automating robotics.
If somebody invented a machine that literally doubles worker productivity, do you think a company would just let everybody work half as much?
Greed, greed ruins everything.
Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins as before. But the world does not need twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacture of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?
–Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness
At my company
There has never been a case of capitalism using improvements in efficiency to let people work less, use fewer resources, etc.
It’s always more, more, more.
As some wise boys said 40 years ago, “you gotta fight, for your right, to party”.
This is about it. If you can produce 2x output per worker you’re not going to give each worker half days, you’re going to cut down your workforce until supply once again matches demand. As this cycle repeats jobs become more and more competitive as workers fight for placements at these more efficient firms. They’ll pursue advanced degrees and extra certifications to stand out. This produces a lot of stuff, but ultimately creates a warped standard of living. Higher productivity ironically makes time spent not working or pursuing prerequisites to work more expensive.
Why would “they” (the CEOs, tech bros, owners) be saying that?
They own the means of production. They seek to profit from it entirely. They fight tooth and nail to not be taxed for anything whatsoever. In what universe would they “give” us anything? If our current system demands 80 hours of work/week to afford to live a normal life then the world of AI will still demand that 80 hours of work/week, but now with new and improved Less Jobs!™©®
The future will not be a utopia. I’m thinking more cyberpunk with less technology. A lot of extremely poor people and a few megacorps.
Because they dont own you or your heart.
That would require that it come with UBI, which… seems doubtful at best…
I don’t even think UBI is a solution. It’s basically a cast system with extra steps. What we need is violent nationalization of any company with more than a handful of employees. We won’t get what we need though.
Capitalism is already a caste system. UBI would just ensure the lowest rungs don’t starve or lack housing/healthcare/other essentials.
Not sure how you’re connecting “UBI → caste system,” so you’ll need to show your work on that one.
If we can fix our government so that it actually works for the people instead of the corporations, then I’d say we should nationalize every publicly-traded company, install price controls, use the revenue to fund UBI, civic infrastructure, and social assistance programs; and then balance the sheets so that each company barely breaks even without extracting any profits. That can all be done without violence.
Your “violent nationalization” sounds poorly thought out. How do you go from “violence → nationalization”? I don’t really see a logical progression from A to B.
And what about C, as in, what comes after that? Okay, you nationalized the companies. Now what, who controls it? The government? What happens if people keep electing corrupt officials? And what benefit will nationalization do if you’re against UBI anyway?
And that’s all without even touching on the vagueness of “any company with more than a handful of employees.” How do you define that? An LLC with 6 or more employees? That could include most mom&pop shops. So you just want to murder old people and take their livelihoods, entrust it to the state, and what, profit?
I mean violent both because violence would probably be needed and because it would need to be done at great speed.
Currently, there’s a clear path to go from poverty to middle class. It’s easier for some depending right now but not an impossibility. If jobs become a luxury, there won’t be a middle class.
Rapid job loss + UBI doesn’t lead to anything except rich people lording over the rest of us. Granted that’s already the case, but UBI doesn’t solve much currently. We have welfare to take care of the bottom rungs, we need to level the playing field so there isn’t much rungs about it.
No, clearly, I don’t mean mom&pop shops. It would be more apt to go with profits I guess, past a certain level, you get a medal and your company gets nationalized.
I’d say we should nationalize every publicly-traded company, install price controls, use the revenue to fund UBI, civic infrastructure, and social assistance programs; and then balance the sheets so that each company barely breaks even without extracting any profits.
That’s basically what I’m trying to say, but UBI alone is basically a bandage that hides the wound and stops a minimum of bleeding. Imo, it’s more of a trap then anything else. Something to pacify the masses once it gets bad so the rich can keep their game going.
Rapid job loss + UBI doesn’t lead to anything except rich people lording over the rest of us.
Rapid job loss with no UBI leads to the same thing but worse. I’m not saying we should rely on their generosity. The government should tax the fuck out of them and find an equitable way to distribute the UBI, because ultimately those funds are just what the wealthy oligarchs extracted from society to begin with.
We have welfare to take care of the bottom rungs
We do? Where do you live, the Nordics? My country doesn’t currently take care of the bottom rungs at all…
we need to level the playing field so there isn’t much rungs about it.
And UBI would be one piece of that, I’m not saying it alone would solve everything. But if the job market shrinks because corpos automate everything and lay off the majority of their employees, then UBI will become not only necessary but also feasible in a way that it wasn’t pre-automation.
Imo, it’s more of a trap then anything else. Something to pacify the masses once it gets bad so the rich can keep their game going.
I’m not suggesting it as a standalone stopgap measure. It should certainly be one part of a more comprehensive reformation of how the economy is structured. But if they’re going to replace all the jobs with machines, then they’re going to need to guarantee everyone a livelihood or else “pacifying the masses” will be the least of our worries, unless you mean it in the more euphemistic and gruesome sense…
Ya I get you and all. It’s mostly that UBI can be used by the mega rich to stay in power and keep pilfering. It’s much harder to do with the other options. The state owning all big businesses would naturally lead to UBI if major job losses occur but the same isn’t true the other way around. There’s a very real chance UBI leads straight to dystopia.
Welfare isn’t working because it was never protected and never tied to inflation. The same will most likely be done with UBI. They just have to wait and cause inflation to turn UBI into “barely enough”, just so they can buy bigger boats. I see it as a trap is all.
It’s so easy for people to take the check and thank them, just to find themselves subsisting 10 years later. I legit think there is danger in it.
That will only happen if universal basic income is implemented. Currently, the worry is nobody will be able to afford to live
Universal basic income will never happen under current trend. What will happen is more like oligarchs setting up charities for the commoners: they keep you alive, and in exchange, they can do whatever the hell they want, including abusing kids they’ll force you to have and raise.
In order to work less (fewer hours or more time off), we need legislation that restricts work hours and requires companies to grant a minimum amount of time off. I agree with the sentiment that AI could free us up for more leisure, but in the absence of legislation, companies will just squeeze more productivity out of each worker without granting more leisure time.
Legislating capitalism is like cupping your hands under a tap and hoping the sink below never gets wet.
Very true
Blood from a stone.
Imagine you’re rich. You’re investing in AI, in robots. You’re not investing in people. Imagine a world without people, but machines that serve without complaining or expecting anything in return.
The rich are dangerous right now.
sounds beautiful, what’s the catch?
You’re not rich.
There’s two main reasons:
If the thing that takes the labour away from the workers is owned privately, it will not benefit the workers.
If we do not drastically change how the economy works, people not being able to work to exchange their labour for income means they starve and die
I just dont believe we will ever reach consensus until a certain class of people miss a few meals.
Well even under the current framework, we just need enough people to consistently vote for left wing (i.e. not liberal and obviously not conservative) candidates, who will seek to protect workers from this situation through a variety of ways (e.g. stronger social security to eliminate the need to labour for survival, nationalisation of the companies taking the labour so the public benefits, wealth redistribution from those who have already enriched themselves on the back of others’ work)
Failing that, history gives some examples of more extreme measures that can be employed
i have been , hell go all the way back to Bertrand Russel, he does as well, see his treatise “In Praise of Idleness”, famous economists like Maynard Keys projected we’d all be broking 15 hrs a week now for the same pay.
Productivity increases have gone to the very wealthy and we’ve voted for it, over decades, over and over and in the face of all that evidence ? we’d fuck in’ do it again, Leopards Eating My Face is full of examples. Solutions ? there arent any, the world has to many hateful and stupid people easily led by physcopaths and grifters . Not just the US, it’s near ubiquitous.
It’s just a tool, another piece of technology to increase efficiency with some liability.
But if such advances aren’t leading to quality of life advances for workers, that’s a societal issue sucking all the gained efficiency away, like how software uses more and more processing to do the same things as computers get faster.
It means the system is fucked up.
That’s not how the economy works. Unless there’s no human work to do at all, most will just be pushed out of their comfier thinking jobs into physical labor jobs.
Thats not how productivity works. We dont just stop at slave labor we industrialize everything.
‘supposedly love’… someone didn’t get enough hugs growing up.
How many hugs is enough hugs?
Another question, what was the appropriate amount of hugs that you obviously recieved?
If the AI is doing all the jobs we don’t need a large young workforce and thus there is no underpopulation crisis
