How will we deal with job scarcity in an automated world?

Lol @ subsidizing lazy, retarded people. It'll be slavery or war.

All jobs requiring a high level of intelligence are a problem for the simple reason that intelligent people are necessarily a minority.

I wouldn't say that the future paper pushers graduating with various random degrees today qualify as intelligent. All these people will be unemployed or underemployed one day soon.

>slavery or war
Neither of the outcomes will end well for anyone. I guess we're just fucked and there is nothing we can do short of smashing all machines.

That's what the next revolution will look like. It won't be people getting guillotined but machines. This could be a cool movie: coming to a reality near you.

I think this kind of revolution will definitely occur at some point in the future, but it definitely won't solve anything.

The robots will be built again, and people in the revolt will be jailed or killed. Nothing will be solved, except loss on all sides, and full automation would only have been delayed, not stopped.

I know what the solution is. It can only be a sharp decline in population, by whatever means. Whether excruciatingly slow and painful, or basically a mass culling.

At the end of it, everyone left still standing will inherit paradise.

A UBI won't help, society will collapse even if such a program was implemented. Read up on Universe 25 and the behavioral sink because it looks like we are already there. Without some sort of purpose, the 'beautiful ones' rise and suffer spirit death. Then wait around for physical death. Hard to say if this will strike the entire planet of just pockets of civilization but the carnage shall be epic.

This thread is somehow sobering.

left to die. The rich have no desire to share the planet with the poor and they will get rid of them at the first opportunity.

>Universe 25
I didn't know about this before, thanks for pointing it out.

How would a government deal with a fully automated economy, then?

If a UBI will make people unsatisfied with their lives and push people towards the effects as shown in that study you mentioned, what could be done?

Maybe restructure the educational system to focus more on philosophy, arts and outdoorsy stuff, to give people a purpose to strive for outside of work?
Maybe make television and videogames illegal to never reach that scenario?
Maybe force people to socialize to receive their UBI check?

I just don't know, man. I'm certainly not an expert on anything, but it really seems to me that we're headed towards an unrecoverable downfall.

The problem with Universe 25.
Human beings aren't fucking rats you dumb ass.

Yeah I don't buy the behavioral sink business. Especially since I hear so many freshmen talking about it like it makes them smart because they've heard of it.

>Consumerism will be on the decline.
And? When you have robots to take care of manufacturing and services you only need a relatively small team of human experts to maintain the mostly automated chain of production. You'll have the literal slaves doing whatever physical labor machines can't and the super-elite who use automation to directly produce luxury goods for themselves. There will be no such thing as a middle class, or working class, or bureucrats or public sector or anything like that.

It'll be 'castles and mines'.

No machine could ever do my job.

>Thinking about death is therapeutic.

zOMFG SO DEEP.

They're tryhard edgelords, dingus. Wussies who watch Chad always get the girl trend that way.

Unless you're a hooker an A.I. can do any job you can do.

I find it interesting how welfare went from being seen as human parasitism to slowly becoming a possible viable solution to encroaching automation.

I don't really have much to say other than that just interested in how the history books centuries later will us on the matter.

Why would anyone who's not contributing to society continue to live in it?

>>All jobs requiring a high level of intelligence
It's not going to require a high level of intelligence, just a high level of "education" and cocksucking, just like now.

>Do you guys think it will be a hard transition?
No. See parliament votes on universal income in Europe.

It switches from parasiting on other people to shared parasiting on machine labor, so people are more okay with it.

>Unless you're a hooker an A.I. can do any job you can do.

Not true. A.I.s can replace hookers as well. Just put an A.I. in an android or gynoid and let it go to work.

But why be left to die when there are so many resources available, maybe only a portion of them be allowed to have kids

Do you not?

communist revolution.

Reclaim capital, institute an inheritance cap, curb the poor birth rate, and stop low skilled immigration.

Except Philosophy.
Checkmate, scientists.

Flipping the board isn't the same as checkmate.

But can we really flip the board? Or has it already been flipped?

Demand for things is unlimited, so that's not a problem.

However, the robot revolution will only be possible insofar as there are people to buy the things they make, ie. if the robots displace all the workers then there wouldn't be a revolution in the first place. Lrn2 economics. Luddites are dumb.

Also, robots aren't an excuse for socialism. Markets will always be most efficient at allocating resources. That said, the socialists are right when they say economic efficiency isn't everything. They are dead wrong thinking that we should put everyone on the dole though. That is beyond retarded. Human nature enjoys working, so the most humane policy would be giving robots to people to use as tools, so they could start their own businesses.

Subsidizing a lower class is only asking for over breeding and more stupid people.

FULLY

AUTOMATED

LUXURY

COMMUNISM

Also, people complaining about unemployment: there are always jobs to do. See >Demand for things is unlimited
The causes unemployment are (1) barrier to entry, ie. I can't set up a lemonade stand because intervention in the marketplace, and (2) not taking available jobs due to a sense of entitlement, ie. we are all special snowflakes that deserve something for nothing. If you can't perform work and you don't deserve the basic decency of charity, then you should not be given resources to breed more of your kind.

So many """socialists""" are brainlets with anti-social, anti-human-nature, disgenic attitudes about humanity.

If we have so much wealth that we can give it away, the best course is distributism.

>Give everyone three acres and a *robot*.

I swear you guys are fucking morons. Automation is not as close as the media wants you to believe

Giving what away? Man must be entitled to the product of his labor, and once labor has been rendered obsolete there is, of necessity, no longer scarcity.
Socially necessary labor time is a very real thing. As technology and automation increase, so too does time productivity of labor. In one mode of production you are rewarded, and the other, penalized, for this increased labor value. Capitalism is deeply contradictory, in this and many other ways.
Ultimately automation will bring the revolution.

The guy who did the study was very worried about that and started coming up with ideas, like more space exploration and the hopes of colonizing other planets and what not. I'm not much for that because of the distances involved looks unpractical but we could launch people into space voluntarily heading towards distant galaxies and turn it into a reality TV show?

Obviously, the point is the same symptoms are already showing up in societies. Japs already have a serious problem with what they call the parasites, children who never move out and some never even leave the house anymore, they have for all intensive purposes given up on life. The scariest part of the experiment was when he took some 'beautiful ones' and plopped them into a brand new universe. They were permanently fucked and just carried on doing nothing so his conclusion was that when society reaches that point it's already over.

>Giving what away?
Wealth. Learn to read.
>Man must be entitled to the product of his labor
The only thing you're entitled to is a helicopter ride.
>once labor has been rendered obsolete there is, of necessity, no longer scarcity.
>labor obsolete
How does improving productivity make labor obsolete?
>no longer scarcity
Improving productivity increases efficiency, but it does not make resources infinite. You will still need to allocate resources based on price, ie. markets.
>Capitalism is deeply contradictory, in this and many other ways.
And yet no one can offer a better system.
>Ultimately automation will bring the revolution.
lol

Fear of death

spite

>LUXURY
It's actually funny that you have to qualify communism with *LUXURY*. Never change, commie scum.

>Wealth. Learn to read.
That was kind of an indirect way for me to tell you that both FALC and communism in general do not hinge on "giving away free shit" and that you have misunderstood.
>The only thing you're entitled to is a helicopter ride.
>Theft and violence are literally always ok. Might makes right
KEK
>How does improving productivity make labor obsolete?
It doesn't. Automation spurs a rise in time productivity of labor, which decreases socially necessary labor time. You're viewing it backwards, for some reason
>Improving productivity increases efficiency, but it does not make resources infinite.
Resource recycling and reuse is itself a function of labor. Its being worthwhile hinges on a higher-than-current productivity in such endeavors, which automation and improved technology may or may not provide
>And yet no one can offer a better system.
Worker control of the means of production and the abolition of the material conditions that give rise to class rule
We're objectively better off not being fed on by parasites

>do not hinge on "giving away free shit"
See below:
>Theft and violence are literally always ok.
Yeah, and redefining the meaning of theft totally makes it okay. /s
>Might makes right
Cry more, commie.
>>How does improving productivity make labor obsolete?
>It doesn't
Exactly, and it never will be. Did you forget that you said:
>once labor has been rendered obsolete
Am I arguing with the same person?
>which automation and improved technology may or may not provide
Nice backpedaling. I can tell you: it won't.
>Worker control of the means of production
This is pure retardation.

>muh labor theory of value
"All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart..."

>can't parse what I'm saying
>mudpie fallacy
ok

ban it

put a high tax on it and use that money to fund a social net to support the retards who'll lose their job to a fucking robot

cap margins

strengthen the education system so we stop shitting out worthless shits

replicators

>Changing definitions of words to suit your worldview
>Not being able to rebut any of my arguments
Pick both, commie loser.

Look, see: and for reasons why automation isn't a problem.

>mudpie fallacy
It's not a fallacy, you nigger. The point is that your labor/product's value is exactly what someone else is willing to give you for it.

>Wow, the Ricardian-Marxian term "value," which doesn't have the same meaning as the modern usage of the term "value," doesn't have the same meaning as the modern usage of the term "value!" Marxism refuted; God 1 Atheists 0

The actual theory is that -based around- this concept of abstract labor power. It's not an attempt to argue that working on something for 5 hours gives it +5 hours of utility and +5 hours of demand. How stupid are you?

What you have to realize too is that it clearly refers to socially useful labor and the concept of socially necessary labor time. Otherwise you could define literally every human activity as "labor" and have a theory of everyone producing the same exact value per 24 hours entirely independent of their actions. This is quite obviously incompatible with historical materialism. So it demonstrates either your dishonesty or sheer unfamiliarity with the work you're critiquing quite clearly.

Such a cavalier attitude towards definitions doesn't speak highly of you here. When Kolmogorov-Formin includes "separable" in its definition of "Hilbert space" and proceeds to prove that there exists precisely one Hilbert space to within isomorphism, you don't scream about how [math] C^2_{[a,b]} [/math] IS A HILBERT SPACE BUT NOT SEPARABLE K&F ARE HACKS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, you mentally record that their definition refers to a different concept and remember to append "separable" to the assumptions of the proof when "Hilbert space" means what you usually see it mean. The actual elements of the definition and argument are literally the only important things. The labels you attach to them are a matter of convenience and efficiency in presenting your argument.
Fucks sake, look at Spivak's Calculus and its inelegant epsilon-pushing in the three hard theorems chapter. He doesn't paper over it with the words "compact" and "connected" because he's so wary of students substituting informal intuition for rigor.

>rebut any of my arguments
You're the one who didn't respond to any of the substance of what I said. You haven't made an argument

>Yeah, and redefining the meaning of theft totally makes it okay. /s
...
>The only thing you're entitled to is a helicopter ride.
i.e.
>you're not entitled to property in any sense
>property rights don't exist
>theft is ok
It was more polemic around how silly you're being than actual theory desu

Communism is incompatible with capitalism. Therefore, instituting your theory of value would be changing the definition in practice. If your intent is revolution, then yes, the only thing you're entitled to is physical removal. Go starve somewhere else.

>Therefore, instituting your theory of value would be changing the definition in practice.
You're not quite coherent here. What is "instituting" my theory of value supposed to mean?

Stop being obtuse. You know exactly what it means to institute something, you Marxist nigger. This is what people like you always do, you play semantics and deconstruct ideas with your nihilist bullshit. Fuck off.

I literally don't. I don't know what it means to "institute" Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, I don't know what it means to "institute" vector space theory, I don't know what it means to "institute" the laws of thermodynamics, because none of those phrases are well-defined you fucking mong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

LTV is not a public policy.

You're waving around naked intuition as a cudgel to cover your reasoning, or lack thereof, and actual conclusions. You can be specific, or not, whatever.

>play semantics
Yes, me calling you out on hiding your argument, if it exists, behind semantics is "playing semantics."
>deconstruct ideas
Deconstruction is due to Derrida. Both he and this method of criticism are best described as postmodern, which is firmly, first, and foremost anti-Marxist. It's also not what I'm doing
>nihilist bullshit
I mean, I'm not convinced nihilism is -entirely- incompatible with Marxist thought, but those of its aspects which aren't are at the very least orthogonal to it. Tell me how much of this you actually find in historical materialism, much less not rejected outright by it en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Forms_of_nihilism

B T F O

Farming is automated food gathering.
Paper and writing automated information archiving.
The horse carriage automated transportation before being replaced with the steam engine.
The Internet replacing traditional media is the most obvious automation of information transmission, but that has been well on its way since the telegraph started replacing human messengers.

Throughout history, technology has created new employment opportunities while displacing other jobs.

Ideally, the workers 'threatened' by automation would embrace the new tools as force multipliers to help them do their job better.
But this presupposes that they are educated enough to learn to use these tools, so something will have to be done for those who are intellectually inferior.
This would include (in order of social desirability) support from their familial and social networks, charity, welfare by taxing the employed, or income redistribution. The latter two are particularly socially undesirable as they divert capital towards unproductive ends.
Killing people -- poor or rich -- would be the last option on the table, only to be taken up as a last resort. Unfortunately, in practice it will fall to governments and politicians to deal with the problem, for whom their ideal policy would be to kill (or less dramatically, tax/rob) rich people in other countries and distribute their wealth among the unemployed in their own country. This is why rich people tend to be globalists.

Our boards are being invaded.

Be advised that denizens of /Leftypol/ are conducting a comprehensive raid across many boards on Veeky Forums, including this one. This thread has been linked to specifically.

"Porky" is an attempt at forcing a meme of a "greedy capitalist bourgeois pig".

>human nature enjoys working
sounds like bullshit, I hate working.

The difference now is that cognitive ability is being automated. Previous technological change moved the vast majority of workers from one form of manual labor in to another, now we are looking at a future in which a large percentage of people under 120 IQ are so are not employable because a machine can do whatever job they could do better and jobs requiring higher cognitive skills are impossible for them no matter how much effort they put in. This doesn't leave many options except prostitution and elder care.

let them all die, those filthy luddites

without capitalism i will be a slave too

is going amish the only solution?

I've been thinking about this for a while. Here's my solution:

>One birth policy. We've got to reduce our redundant population.
>Everyone is issued ETFs of the global economy so they can survive off the dividends.
>If you commit a crime, your share of the economy is reduced. If you have more than one birth, you will also be neutered and your children be taken from you and given to childless couples.

why would you need a job if robots do the work for you dumbass?

>cognitive ability is being automated
No, reading and writing used to be the exclusive domain of the educated (a terribly dangerous situation, now that we know better).

>requiring higher cognitive skills are impossible for them no matter how much effort they put in
And humans will never have the physical skills to plough fields better than oxen, no matter how much they effort they put in
What this means is that society will place less value on raw cognitive skills and more value on higher-order skills that we don't know how to program machines to do yet, like making dank memes

>This doesn't leave many options except prostitution and elder care.
In the future more people will be artists.
And don't give me that bullshit about robots creating paintings or writing songs or whatever, their "creations" are simply elements picked out from some pre-defined, human-imposed constraint set. "Solutions" would be a better word for describing what they do.

True that

>their "creations" are simply elements picked out from some pre-defined, human-imposed constraint set.
That's what art is though.

>our
>we
yeah ok

Governments become much more socialistic.

>now we are looking at a future in which a large percentage of people under 120 IQ are so are not employable because a machine can do whatever job they could do better
Bullshit, it'll take hundreds of years of technological progress for a general AI capable of creative problem solving to be built, if not more. The only people that need to be worried are minimum wage monkeys.
>jobs requiring higher cognitive skills are impossible for them no matter how much effort they put in.
Also bullshit. I'm not saying everyone can be Einstein or Laplace tier but an engineering degree is not out of reach of anyone with at least average IQ. All it takes is motivation and hard work.

Imagine that fashion with people having so much free time...

"an engineering degree is not out of reach of anyone with at least average IQ. All it takes is motivation and hard work."
THIS! I am going back for an engineering degree at the moment and i am pissed that everytime someone hears about it they are like "oh you so smart i could never do that." I am actually a pretty dumb person and make stupid mistakes all the time. I just put in some hard ass work. it's not about inborn "IQ" its about dedication and perseverance and not giving up.

Same, I was never anything but average in high school and I'll graduate next year with a 3.8 GPA.

> Without some sort of purpose, the 'beautiful ones' rise and suffer spirit death. Then wait around for physical death.
Haunting words.

Learn something that is not viable for automation.

>inb4 the govment be takin our jobs, whats next out guns? our babies?
sure thing

>8527550
>They were permanently fucked and just carried on doing nothing so his conclusion was that when society reaches that point it's already over.
This is how humanity ends. It had to anyway of course, but how disgusting, how vile and hopeless.
I wish life never started in the first place.

Decrease the surplus population. A lot of people will die in WW3 anyway.

Someone will have to clean the gynoid after each use so the next guy won't catch a disease. Or is the gynoid self-cleaning?

Why shouldn't computers be able to make art better than humans?
Genuinely interested.
Technology beats evolution in everything else, ie making things big, or go fast, or go far from the surface of the earth, or adding numbers etc. Why not creating beauty, or thinking too?
Possibly because art is dependent on the people who consume it being able to relate to it, and not strictly objective.
So one could say that nothing will understand "the human condition" better than humans themselves. I'm not too sure about that though.

the concept of ownership will eventually die out once machines are self-servicing, because the only thing that those who control the machines need are people who can maintain and operate those machines and the end products of other machines. Cooperation between owners will be mutually beneficial because all owners will have an extreme excess of one thing and be deprived of another. Then enforcing ownership laws will eventually become more expensive (not only economically but in terms of effort) than the profit an owner makes off of owning things, because once you and your buddies own everything, and more importantly the ability to make everything, you have nothing to gain by trading what you own with those who own nothing and can't make anything. Depriving the rest of the world of what you have in vast excess will only piss them off and create conflict that poses a greater threat to your stability than just sharing shit. Either that or they'll all be killed, or controlled strictly to enforce an ideology, not because you benefit materially from their labor.

So it'll boil down to nobody doing anything and everyone just taking what they need, an elite conglomerate of owners devising some method of purging non-owners and greatly reducing the population, or non-owners will be made to dance for their lunch at food terminals for the luls and the luls alone and pray to the owners like deities and promise not to touch themselves at night because the owners don't like it when you fap.

>So it'll boil down to nobody doing anything and everyone just taking what they need, an elite conglomerate of owners devising some method of purging non-owners and greatly reducing the population, or non-owners will be made to dance for their lunch at food terminals for the luls and the luls alone and pray to the owners like deities and promise not to touch themselves at night because the owners don't like it when you fap.
The dialectic is in motion.

>the concept of ownership will eventually die out once machines are self-servicing
The concept of ownership is one of humanity's core beliefs, it'll never die out.

>wall of text
>can't figure out what "instituting" an abstract idea means in the context his commie revolution fantasies
Have you tried being less autistic?

Alright genius, how do you "institute" Arrow's Impossibility Theorem?

Commie nigger, we were talking about the labor theory of value. Instituting that is how I imagine you get your commie fantasy to become reality. Come on, it's not the current year anymore, you have to agree with me.

>Instituting that
Nigger what the fuck does this mean
For the third time
Can you answer my question or are you just blowing shit out your ass?