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”.
They’re probably not saying that because they are too busy asking the far more important question of “If Ai takes all the jobs, how can I afford to feed and shelter the family and children I love”
You do understand why people work right? Very few people work just for funsies. They work so they can afford to eat, pay rent, pay for utilities, and be able to afford essentials like clothing, health insurance, transportation.
Almost everything we need to actually live and function costs money. You primarily get money by having a job. So if someone gets laid off, they’re probably very busy trying to find another source of income so they can actually keep their children alive and healthy.
But why do we need to work to earn money? Because if those jobs didn’t get done we couldn’t survive. What OP is asking, I think, is if those essential jobs were automated, nobody would need to work, so why aren’t we talking about that?
The ai won’t take all the jobs! There will be at least a few thousand prompt engineers!
The oldest profession might just be the longest lasting one
We tried that at my job, who are pushing AI down our throats.
I’m not sure how they can say with a straight face that they now expect us to do 300-700% more work (their estimate) for the same pay and the same hours as before, but they apparently can… Just capitalism things I guess.
They also ridiculed the person who asked in front of the whole company.
We need to stop AI now. My family drive me up the wall it’s why I don’t live with them, crazy nutcases.
See the pandemic if you’re interested in knowing how much people want to spend time with their families.
I’ve taken that position at work. Since nobody’s telling me otherwise, I’m taking some of that efficiency gain for myself. Tickets are still resolved quicker, but I profit despite the job sucking now, being nothing but code review. If I don’t get some of the benefits, I’m going back to doing things by hand.
People have always asked that question about tech, my friend. You just weren’t listening.
But AI is snake oil. It won’t reduce work. It’ll just fuck up things that currently work and let the billionaires get richer. Vaporware. That’s it. That’s why nobody asks about newfound free time. Cuz it’s fake.
its primarly currently used an excuse to lay people off, and hire less people back if at all.
Nah
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.
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.
The catch is that you won’t be one of the few people that are still around.
but I was imagining I was rich in the other comment.
Ive been poor my whole life so I’m fairly certain it’s almost my turn to be a billionaire.
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.
No technology has ever resulted in lighter workloads for the average person. Different, and sometimes less strenuous, but never less time consuming.
Washing machine.
Also, lighter work loads and less time consuming are different arguments - unless you mean no technology has ever resulted in neither, which is a rather bold statement.
Counterpoint: The cotton gin. It was supposed to make slavery obsolete, but actually reinvigorated the practice of slavery by making slaves able to do more work.
Then everyone should be happy for the new job creators
I mean, this read sarcastic, but it seems Lemmy disagrees.
What new job creators?
The ai over lords
They haven’t created any jobs.
Sure
Whoosh
Before washing machines, people would hand off washing to professionals. Now the expectation is that the person who can afford it must wash things themselves. More time spent on that.
Before washing machines, people would hand off washing to professionals.
Uh, maybe for rich people…
Let me introduce you to the washboard and the bucket.
Lol. Who washed the cloths?
Then it takes more hours to pay for the machine.
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.
Pretty sure every piece of technology past the wheel can be considered to save humans time with their tasks.
No the tasks increase to fill the saved time.
Better technology frees more time for other tasks. Whether that’s work or leisure depends on the individual. Everyone has the same 24 hours a day independent of how you use them. Most people don’t just sit and do nothing. To even suggest that things like an electric stove, washing machine, lawnmower or a bicycle aren’t saving people real time on tasks they’d have to do either way is ridiculous.
In olden times before washing machines people were expected to change into clean (washed) underclothes daily, and an apron got washed when dirty, but their main clothing went a long time between cleanings. Even longer than the clothes on the chair, like months.
Similarly, expectations of manicured pool-table lawns with the advent of lawnmowers.
Better stoves/ovens I’ll totally grant you. I have enough trouble adjusting from my old “runs hot” oven to my new “runs cold” oven, I can’t imagine trying to bake a cake in a wood or coal oven.
And the horse that preceded the bicycle took more maintenance, not less.
👍🏻
Why constantly add more tasks? There’s only finite amount of maintenance on a house or things that need to get done.
I thought we were talking about capitalism. I misread the comments.
The post was about jobs, so we are…
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.
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.
That cost labor to buy.
Which is less labor than the original task? What’s your point? I can get a lawnmower for a few hours of work and it would save me hundreds compared to whatever they used before.
Tbh scythes are pretty fun to use.
can get a lawnmower for a few hours of work
Not everyone has such a magical job.
A push mower is like $50, you can also get them used for $10 or free as well.
Is there a piece of technology that doesn’t?
Even making your own wheel would cost your time first…
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!
_When you don’t actually read what the person your responding to said. _
oh feel free to fill me in instead of just being snarky
Different, and sometimes less strenuous, but never less time consuming
I can’t speak on their behalf but I do agree, what does actually improve things is labor laws because otherwise they’re just going to do more work at a higher efficiency.
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.
Nowadays I’m self-employed but back in my previous job I was paid by the hour. I earn exactly the same amount of money independent of whether I spend the whole day cutting steel with a hacksaw or an angle grinder but from my perspective as an employee, the angle grinder sure saves me a ton of effort. Same applies to other tools, better workwear and so on. Yeah, I don’t get to go home at 12pm because the better tools were so much faster but it sure made the 8 hours I spent at the jobsite that much less unpleasant. Naturally that is even more so the case now that I’m the beneficiary of the work that got done quicker.
I honestly can’t believe how cynical some people are here. I truly don’t envy you.
Back in the day, half of jobs were literally death sentences lol. Weird to see this amalgamation of technophobia and historical honey moon syndrome.
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.
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.
That world is gone.
No it isn’t. Go work a trade job like being an electrician. Start early enough and put it in a 401k and other such investments and you will retire a millionaire.
That presumes educational, physical, finances aren’t obstacles.
It is not. Don’t fall for that defeatist bullshit.
I would posit that rose-colored glasses serve the capitalist class, and that it serves the interest of labor to make realistic assessments and adjust behavior accordingly. That is a message of strategy and success.
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
That’s not it’s purpose. It’s purpose is to generate revenue for its owner. And to bastardize human culture. Nothing more.
That’s your purpose.
If AI is doing all the jobs, then those who used to do those jobs are now unemployed and broke, but at least they can spend more time with their family, outdoors, at the homeless camp.
but at least they can spend more time with their family, outdoors, at the homeless camp.
ended more wholesome than I thought.
what I thought,
but at least they can spend more time with their family, outdoors, in the mass grave after starving to death.
Its their reason for being, no?
OP sounds like an insufferable shill spouting “they are just looking for the criminals and illegals” while everyone is being lined up at gunpoint outside of the gas chambers of the concentration camp.
The thing i find most insufferable is your hyperbole.
My guy, if the AI did all the jobs, what are the people supposed to do?
I mean, it’d be amazing for a socialist society, but under capitalism it straight up sucks
Spend time with their family… like in the op
But they’d be unemployed, and therefore wouldn’t have money for shit. So nice, you can starve to death with your family
We’d all be unemployed. No jobs.
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
Same thing we do with a drunken sailor.
Kiss them goodnight and make sure they drink enough water?
They already have people for that
It turns out automating art and writing is a lot easier than automating robotics.
No it’s not. It’s a tool used by PEOPLE to help with those things. AI is not creating pictures for other AI to consume yet but I appreciate your enthusiasm
It’s a tool used by lazy and/or untalented people to take work from actual artists.
No it isn’t. Well it is but lazy and untalented people have been doodling for ever, actually creative and talented people are using it too. And no, I’m not going to “prove it” because whatever I post you will say it’s crap, even if it’s actually by Picasso.
Doodling isn’t lazy. You’re actively creating art whether it’s good or not. AI cannot create art, it can only copy art. If I copy Picasso, should my “art” be respected the same as Picasso’s?
I am an artist, went to school for it and everything. You wouldn’t be able to “prove it” because I actually know art. AI “art” isn’t creative, it’s just worse mimicking than a person could do.
You’re an imbecile. Shut up
You first. You lazy ass, talentless moron.
Sounds like someone hasn’t been on facebook in the last 4 years. AI posts nonsense, other AIs boost the nonsense.
You’re a tool.
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.
