Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   47% of U.S. jobs are "at risk" of being automated in the next 20 years   (slate.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, Undercover Boss, U.S., Tyler Cowen, theorems  
•       •       •

1605 clicks; posted to Business » on 28 Sep 2013 at 1:40 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-09-28 12:27:49 PM  
Good. Destroy the protestant work ethic. End work.
 
2013-09-28 01:26:06 PM  
I find this idea fascinating, from an academic perspective. We are increasingly creating a world where people have no necessary function. In the future, money will be made by machines and institutions (like corporations). Society will have to adapt somehow. Maybe a society where people work for pleasure instead of for money.
 
2013-09-28 01:29:47 PM  

t3knomanser: End work.


Now this is an idea I can get behind. Goes nicely with your login name as well.
 
2013-09-28 01:36:14 PM  
Good. We should talk more about this and see what we can do to bring it about gracefully.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-28 01:51:27 PM  

Ambivalence: I find this idea fascinating, from an academic perspective. We are increasingly creating a world where people have no necessary function. In the future, money will be made by machines and institutions (like corporations). Society will have to adapt somehow. Maybe a society where people work for pleasure instead of for money.




No jobs are really necessary.
 
2013-09-28 01:51:58 PM  

Ambivalence: I find this idea fascinating, from an academic perspective. We are increasingly creating a world where people have no necessary function. In the future, money will be made by machines and institutions (like corporations). Society will have to adapt somehow. Maybe a society where people work for pleasure instead of for money.


So we'll have a bunch of moochers?

Just kidding of course.  It'd be nice if human existance wasn't driven by the desire to acquire currency (farking will always be a driving force for humanity).
 //Works putting people out of work through automation...

///Has a sad a lot.
 
2013-09-28 01:55:18 PM  
Oh, and have we solved the energy problem yet?
 
2013-09-28 01:57:32 PM  

t3knomanser: Good. Destroy the protestant work ethic. End work.


Doesn't mean there won't be different types of jobs created. Like the # of travel agents declined while app developers increased.
 
2013-09-28 01:58:38 PM  

meat0918: Oh, and have we solved the energy problem yet?


Yep.  Solar and wind can cover more than 80% of humanity's energy needs, with no further technological breakthroughs, it's only political will that's stopping us at this point.
 
2013-09-28 02:02:22 PM  
So we will be halfway to Fartbama's stated goal of 100% unemployment?
 
2013-09-28 02:02:24 PM  
I guess my prodestant work ethic is too strong, because my first thought was " I'm glad I'm one of the guys that fixes the robots!"
 
2013-09-28 02:03:25 PM  
Then they won't pay any taxes being unemployed and the GOP will have to blame them again.
 
2013-09-28 02:03:30 PM  

Ambivalence: I find this idea fascinating, from an academic perspective. We are increasingly creating a world where people have no necessary function. In the future, money will be made by machines and institutions (like corporations). Society will have to adapt somehow. Maybe a society where people work for pleasure instead of for money.


Every new task people want to do has to be done manually for a little while until it is automated. There are always new things that haven't been automated yet.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-28 02:03:50 PM  

Ambivalence: I find this idea fascinating, from an academic perspective. We are increasingly creating a world where people have no necessary function. In the future, money will be made by machines and institutions (like corporations). Society will have to adapt somehow. Maybe a society where people work for pleasure instead of for money.


Maybe, if the people who own the machines decide they want to have them produce the necessities of life for people who are useless to them.

The means of production will be used for the benefit of those who own them and if that is a small group of people then we will have an Elysium type situation.
 
2013-09-28 02:05:03 PM  
There's no problem in automation, but at the pace of job replacement due to it.  If it's too fast and for too long, things get worse.

That said, how much of this automation is happening as a result of contempt for legally employing someone in the First World in good faith?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-28 02:06:39 PM  

itcamefromschenectady: Every new task people want to do has to be done manually for a little while until it is automated. There are always new things that haven't been automated yet.


Yes, but not enough to employ everyone.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-28 02:07:24 PM  

whipbambucket: I guess my prodestant work ethic is too strong, because my first thought was " I'm glad I'm one of the guys that fixes the robots!"


What makes you think that that can't be automated?
 
2013-09-28 02:07:41 PM  

t3knomanser: Good. Destroy the protestant work ethic. End work.


Or certainly work toward sharing what work is necessary and productive.

When I see the Pope (it's not just a protestant thing) and many others praying, not for plenty, not for happiness, not for contentment, but begging for more work?  I tend to think we're a bunch of flipping loonies.
 
2013-09-28 02:07:58 PM  
Sad to say I know how this will turn out. When there is no more use for certain types of people those people will be eliminated.
 
2013-09-28 02:10:07 PM  
blog.jugnoo.com
 
2013-09-28 02:10:37 PM  

vpb: whipbambucket: I guess my prodestant work ethic is too strong, because my first thought was " I'm glad I'm one of the guys that fixes the robots!"

What makes you think that that can't be automated?


Well, somebody will have to fix those...
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-28 02:12:57 PM  
As long as automation improves, we will reach a point where there is nothing that a human can do that a machine can't.  It's just a matter of time.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-28 02:15:46 PM  

whipbambucket: vpb: whipbambucket: I guess my prodestant work ethic is too strong, because my first thought was " I'm glad I'm one of the guys that fixes the robots!"

What makes you think that that can't be automated?

Well, somebody will have to fix those...


Or some-thing?
 
2013-09-28 02:20:30 PM  

vpb: As long as automation improves, we will reach a point where there is nothing that a human can do that a machine can't.  It's just a matter of time.


The big ones are transportation and food service.  Once cars are self-driving and McDonald's is fully automated, half the jobs in the country disappear.
 
2013-09-28 02:22:47 PM  
I say this as often as there is an opportunity to do so: With automation ever ascending, we MUST choose one of the following as a society:

1) Lower our population
2) Reduce the amount of time spent working (either through shorter work weeks or through earlier retirement)
3) Tolerate permanent extremely high unemployment

If we do nothing, 3 is automatically chosen for us. There is no 4. Unfortunately 3 is the worst of the choices. The benefit of 1 is that everyone has an extremely high standard of living. Imagine a world where GDP is the same, but with 1/3 of the population. Every single person on earth could have a massive, beautiful house with granite counters and a Porsche in the driveway! The benefit of 2 is also easy to see, as we'd all be in pretty much the same financial situation, except that we'd have more time to spend pursuing hobbies and relationships. 3 has no real benefit to anyone. Everyone spends all of their time either working just to get by while paying taxes to support people on welfare, or else being on welfare and feeling stigmatized and stressed. Yet 3 appears to be the one we've chosen as a society.
 
2013-09-28 02:26:27 PM  

meat0918: It'd be nice if human existance wasn't driven by the desire to acquire currency (farking will always be a driving force for humanity).


Well, then it seems as though most people in the Midwest will only be able to sit on their couches, eat bonbons and read their bibles.  Why are there people in the Midwest who aren't farming our food?

That being said, this is a repeat from every decade for the last 200 years.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-28 02:26:57 PM  

Tommy Moo: I say this as often as there is an opportunity to do so: With automation ever ascending, we MUST choose one of the following as a society:

1) Lower our population
2) Reduce the amount of time spent working (either through shorter work weeks or through earlier retirement)
3) Tolerate permanent extremely high unemployment

If we do nothing, 3 is automatically chosen for us. There is no 4. Unfortunately 3 is the worst of the choices. The benefit of 1 is that everyone has an extremely high standard of living. Imagine a world where GDP is the same, but with 1/3 of the population. Every single person on earth could have a massive, beautiful house with granite counters and a Porsche in the driveway! The benefit of 2 is also easy to see, as we'd all be in pretty much the same financial situation, except that we'd have more time to spend pursuing hobbies and relationships. 3 has no real benefit to anyone. Everyone spends all of their time either working just to get by while paying taxes to support people on welfare, or else being on welfare and feeling stigmatized and stressed. Yet 3 appears to be the one we've chosen as a society.


4) Would be make-work jobs or some sort of right to work that reserves jobs for people even if it is less efficient than using automation.
 
2013-09-28 02:31:38 PM  

vpb: whipbambucket: vpb: whipbambucket: I guess my prodestant work ethic is too strong, because my first thought was " I'm glad I'm one of the guys that fixes the robots!"

What makes you think that that can't be automated?

Well, somebody will have to fix those...

Or some-thing?


Right!

And if that doesn't work, I'll fix the machine that fixes the machine that fixes the machine!
 
2013-09-28 02:37:16 PM  

HempHead: Ambivalence: I find this idea fascinating, from an academic perspective. We are increasingly creating a world where people have no necessary function. In the future, money will be made by machines and institutions (like corporations). Society will have to adapt somehow. Maybe a society where people work for pleasure instead of for money.

No jobs are really necessary.


Once we reach such a state, the per capita income becomes inversely proportional to the population. We can either have 10 billion people barely surviving, or 1 billion people driving around in luxury sedans, wearing designer suits, drinking top shelf brandy. Every time I point this out people pounce on me, but we really should be looking for opportunities to reduce our population. By rounding up people and killing them? Of course not! This is an asinine strawman that I always have to fend off every time I make this argument. We can do it naturally, by reducing subsidies for child care and tax breaks for dependents, and by educating women and increasing access to birth control and abortion. The population will naturally decrease through attrition as the death rate overtakes the birth rate. It's completely insane for people to talk about how there won't be enough workers in the future because we're having some kind of crisis because people aren't having enough babies. That's corporate propaganda. They want more babies because more babies = more consumers, not necessarily more workers.
 
2013-09-28 02:40:04 PM  

vpb: Tommy Moo: I say this as often as there is an opportunity to do so: With automation ever ascending, we MUST choose one of the following as a society:

1) Lower our population
2) Reduce the amount of time spent working (either through shorter work weeks or through earlier retirement)
3) Tolerate permanent extremely high unemployment

If we do nothing, 3 is automatically chosen for us. There is no 4. Unfortunately 3 is the worst of the choices. The benefit of 1 is that everyone has an extremely high standard of living. Imagine a world where GDP is the same, but with 1/3 of the population. Every single person on earth could have a massive, beautiful house with granite counters and a Porsche in the driveway! The benefit of 2 is also easy to see, as we'd all be in pretty much the same financial situation, except that we'd have more time to spend pursuing hobbies and relationships. 3 has no real benefit to anyone. Everyone spends all of their time either working just to get by while paying taxes to support people on welfare, or else being on welfare and feeling stigmatized and stressed. Yet 3 appears to be the one we've chosen as a society.

4) Would be make-work jobs or some sort of right to work that reserves jobs for people even if it is less efficient than using automation.


This is actually a disguised version of 3. Make-work jobs aren't real, as they add no value to society and have to be paid for by taxing the people who have real jobs. Every person with a Keynesian job is effectively on welfare, except that they get to imagine that they go to work every day and hold the false sense of pride that comes with it.
 
2013-09-28 02:45:39 PM  
I'm a GIS professional so I'm wondering how long before waves of people in my industry are shiatcanned and replaced with AI. It's all part of a plan to turn this nation into wasteland of serfs.
 
2013-09-28 03:06:07 PM  

Tommy Moo: I say this as often as there is an opportunity to do so: With automation ever ascending, we MUST choose one of the following as a society:

1) Lower our population
2) Reduce the amount of time spent working (either through shorter work weeks or through earlier retirement)
3) Tolerate permanent extremely high unemployment

If we do nothing, 3 is automatically chosen for us. There is no 4. Unfortunately 3 is the worst of the choices. The benefit of 1 is that everyone has an extremely high standard of living. Imagine a world where GDP is the same, but with 1/3 of the population. Every single person on earth could have a massive, beautiful house with granite counters and a Porsche in the driveway! The benefit of 2 is also easy to see, as we'd all be in pretty much the same financial situation, except that we'd have more time to spend pursuing hobbies and relationships. 3 has no real benefit to anyone. Everyone spends all of their time either working just to get by while paying taxes to support people on welfare, or else being on welfare and feeling stigmatized and stressed. Yet 3 appears to be the one we've chosen as a society.


3a) Yell at the unemployed for being lazy and shiftless.

/I'm creating a business where you get to yell at me for being lazy and shiftless. I've got a Kickstarter and everything! People will love it because I can cry on demand.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-28 03:08:56 PM  

Tommy Moo: This is actually a disguised version of 3. Make-work jobs aren't real, as they add no value to society and have to be paid for by taxing the people who have real jobs. Every person with a Keynesian job is effectively on welfare, except that they get to imagine that they go to work every day and hold the false sense of pride that comes with it.


No, banning automation of certain jobs would require that they be done by humans.  There is no reason that they couldn't be something productive.

The problem is that #1 and #2 are temporary solutions.  Reducing the population would eventually reduce it to zero, and it would require mass euthanasia unless you slowed the pace of technology to match natural population decline.

Working fewer hours only works until the hours of work needed hit zero and it assumes that non-automated jobs aren't too technical can be done by anyone.  Not everyone can be an astro-physicist.


It's either some form of the dole or a limit on automation.
 
2013-09-28 03:22:17 PM  

whipbambucket: I guess my prodestant work ethic is too strong, because my first thought was " I'm glad I'm one of the guys that fixes the robots!"


Because there are lots of jobs for robot-fixers that can't spell "protestant".
 
2013-09-28 03:30:09 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: vpb: As long as automation improves, we will reach a point where there is nothing that a human can do that a machine can't.  It's just a matter of time.

The big ones are transportation and food service.  Once cars are self-driving and McDonald's is fully automated, half the jobs in the country disappear.


Yep. And we're closer to that than you may think too. 

/school bus driver
//they'll keep someone on to watch the kids, but it'll be a min wage babysitting job.
 
2013-09-28 03:30:17 PM  

Tommy Moo: HempHead: Ambivalence: I find this idea fascinating, from an academic perspective. We are increasingly creating a world where people have no necessary function. In the future, money will be made by machines and institutions (like corporations). Society will have to adapt somehow. Maybe a society where people work for pleasure instead of for money.

No jobs are really necessary.

Once we reach such a state, the per capita income becomes inversely proportional to the population. We can either have 10 billion people barely surviving, or 1 billion people driving around in luxury sedans, wearing designer suits, drinking top shelf brandy. Every time I point this out people pounce on me, but we really should be looking for opportunities to reduce our population. By rounding up people and killing them? Of course not! This is an asinine strawman that I always have to fend off every time I make this argument. We can do it naturally, by reducing subsidies for child care and tax breaks for dependents, and by educating women and increasing access to birth control and abortion. The population will naturally decrease through attrition as the death rate overtakes the birth rate. It's completely insane for people to talk about how there won't be enough workers in the future because we're having some kind of crisis because people aren't having enough babies. That's corporate propaganda. They want more babies because more babies = more consumers, not necessarily more workers.


Prosperity is the best population control. Virtually every highly developed country has a below-replacement birth rate within its native population (i.e. non-immigrants). If you want to reduce the population of the planet, do whatever it takes to raise the living standards as high as possible.
 
2013-09-28 03:33:50 PM  
That would cause a man to drink....

i291.photobucket.com
YOU WANT SOME MORE?
 
2013-09-28 03:34:10 PM  
Well, once we get rid of work and need, boredom will set in and then, and only then, we will be able to get down to business: war, war, and more war, all televised for those not currently fighting.

/Star Trek is  not the future.
 
2013-09-28 03:35:06 PM  

jjorsett: Prosperity is the best population control. Virtually every highly developed country has a below-replacement birth rate within its native population (i.e. non-immigrants). If you want to reduce the population of the planet, do whatever it takes to raise the living standards as high as possible.


The direct link is to women's education.  The higher the level of education a women has, the fewer children she has.  It's true globally, if you want to reduce population, teach young girls to read.
 
2013-09-28 03:35:13 PM  

Tommy Moo: vpb: Tommy Moo: I say this as often as there is an opportunity to do so: With automation ever ascending, we MUST choose one of the following as a society:

1) Lower our population
2) Reduce the amount of time spent working (either through shorter work weeks or through earlier retirement)
3) Tolerate permanent extremely high unemployment

If we do nothing, 3 is automatically chosen for us. There is no 4. Unfortunately 3 is the worst of the choices. The benefit of 1 is that everyone has an extremely high standard of living. Imagine a world where GDP is the same, but with 1/3 of the population. Every single person on earth could have a massive, beautiful house with granite counters and a Porsche in the driveway! The benefit of 2 is also easy to see, as we'd all be in pretty much the same financial situation, except that we'd have more time to spend pursuing hobbies and relationships. 3 has no real benefit to anyone. Everyone spends all of their time either working just to get by while paying taxes to support people on welfare, or else being on welfare and feeling stigmatized and stressed. Yet 3 appears to be the one we've chosen as a society.

4) Would be make-work jobs or some sort of right to work that reserves jobs for people even if it is less efficient than using automation.

This is actually a disguised version of 3. Make-work jobs aren't real, as they add no value to society and have to be paid for by taxing the people who have real jobs. Every person with a Keynesian job is effectively on welfare, except that they get to imagine that they go to work every day and hold the false sense of pride that comes with it.


Yes, all those bridges and roads into the back country that we've enjoyed for the past 70+ years offered no real value to society.

I'm not saying every job was useful. That would be silly. But there were a number of things produced in the 30's as far as infrastructure goes that were very useful (although many/most need to be replaced now). And given how craptacular our infrastructure is now (see that bridge in WI that just buckled? How many does that make in last couple of years?) we could actually do with rounding up some un/under employed folks to start working on it again.
 
2013-09-28 04:09:10 PM  

Tommy Moo: I say this as often as there is an opportunity to do so: With automation ever ascending, we MUST choose one of the following as a society:

1) Lower our population
2) Reduce the amount of time spent working (either through shorter work weeks or through earlier retirement)
3) Tolerate permanent extremely high unemployment

If we do nothing, 3 is automatically chosen for us. There is no 4. Unfortunately 3 is the worst of the choices. The benefit of 1 is that everyone has an extremely high standard of living. Imagine a world where GDP is the same, but with 1/3 of the population. Every single person on earth could have a massive, beautiful house with granite counters and a Porsche in the driveway! The benefit of 2 is also easy to see, as we'd all be in pretty much the same financial situation, except that we'd have more time to spend pursuing hobbies and relationships. 3 has no real benefit to anyone. Everyone spends all of their time either working just to get by while paying taxes to support people on welfare, or else being on welfare and feeling stigmatized and stressed. Yet 3 appears to be the one we've chosen as a society.


4) transition away from a work-based economy.

It's not unemployment if you don't need to work.
 
2013-09-28 04:16:50 PM  
47%? What does Mit have to say about this?
 
2013-09-28 04:16:52 PM  

cuzsis: Tommy Moo: vpb: Tommy Moo: I say this as often as there is an opportunity to do so: With automation ever ascending, we MUST choose one of the following as a society:

1) Lower our population
2) Reduce the amount of time spent working (either through shorter work weeks or through earlier retirement)
3) Tolerate permanent extremely high unemployment

If we do nothing, 3 is automatically chosen for us. There is no 4. Unfortunately 3 is the worst of the choices. The benefit of 1 is that everyone has an extremely high standard of living. Imagine a world where GDP is the same, but with 1/3 of the population. Every single person on earth could have a massive, beautiful house with granite counters and a Porsche in the driveway! The benefit of 2 is also easy to see, as we'd all be in pretty much the same financial situation, except that we'd have more time to spend pursuing hobbies and relationships. 3 has no real benefit to anyone. Everyone spends all of their time either working just to get by while paying taxes to support people on welfare, or else being on welfare and feeling stigmatized and stressed. Yet 3 appears to be the one we've chosen as a society.

4) Would be make-work jobs or some sort of right to work that reserves jobs for people even if it is less efficient than using automation.

This is actually a disguised version of 3. Make-work jobs aren't real, as they add no value to society and have to be paid for by taxing the people who have real jobs. Every person with a Keynesian job is effectively on welfare, except that they get to imagine that they go to work every day and hold the false sense of pride that comes with it.

Yes, all those bridges and roads into the back country that we've enjoyed for the past 70+ years offered no real value to society.

I'm not saying every job was useful. That would be silly. But there were a number of things produced in the 30's as far as infrastructure goes that were very useful (although many/most need to be replaced now). And given how craptacular our infrastructure is now (see that bridge in WI that just buckled? How many does that make in last couple of years?) we could actually do with rounding up some un/under employed folks to start working on it again.


I'd think that bridge building, road paving, and the like would be easily automated.

In the future, construction workers could ALL stand around with crossed arms and look at whatever hole is being dug, instead of just 9/10ths of them.
 
2013-09-28 04:32:09 PM  
We are doomed to #3 because it is what we, as a species, are.

And that sucks.
 
2013-09-28 04:37:40 PM  

vpb: Tommy Moo: This is actually a disguised version of 3. Make-work jobs aren't real, as they add no value to society and have to be paid for by taxing the people who have real jobs. Every person with a Keynesian job is effectively on welfare, except that they get to imagine that they go to work every day and hold the false sense of pride that comes with it.

No, banning automation of certain jobs would require that they be done by humans.  There is no reason that they couldn't be something productive.

The problem is that #1 and #2 are temporary solutions.  Reducing the population would eventually reduce it to zero, and it would require mass euthanasia unless you slowed the pace of technology to match natural population decline.

Working fewer hours only works until the hours of work needed hit zero and it assumes that non-automated jobs aren't too technical can be done by anyone.  Not everyone can be an astro-physicist.


It's either some form of the dole or a limit on automation.


You don't see how artificially limiting the rate of automation via government regulation is effectively a form of taxation? The government is causing the price to produce whatever the protected sector produces to increase. This increased labor cost will be passed onto consumer. It might go vis a vis the "free market," but it is effectively a tax, as all of society pays $5 instead of $4 for that product, and the $1 goes to the workers. This is no different that allowing the product to be produced automatically and sold for $4, then taxing all of society $1 and giving welfare to the people who now aren't working.

The demand for labor will never actually hit zero; it will only asymptotically approach it. And yes, there's no reason that the ideal population couldn't also approach zero at the same rate. Even if we don't actually get to the ideal population, getting halfway there is still beneficial. It would be best to have 4 billion people on the planet right now, but to get down to 5 billion would still be better than up to 9.
 
2013-09-28 04:41:18 PM  
fireden.net
 
2013-09-28 04:41:54 PM  
usa thinks everything should be done for bottom dollar

and consequently most americans will be farked over

by the system they hold dear.

/capatilism run amok does not equal democracy
//sowwy
 
2013-09-28 04:42:29 PM  

cuzsis: Yes, all those bridges and roads into the back country that we've enjoyed for the past 70+ years offered no real value to society.

I'm not saying every job was useful. That would be silly. But there were a number of things produced in the 30's as far as infrastructure goes that were very useful (although many/most need to be replaced now). And given how craptacular our infrastructure is now (see that bridge in WI that just buckled? How many does that make in last couple of years?) we could actually do with rounding up some un/under employed folks to start working on it again.


I would not include infrastructure jobs in what I'm using "Keynesian" to mean in this case. I'm referring more to the idea that the government should literally hire people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them with dirt, just so unemployment is low. As silly as this sounds, we actually do practice this, and politicians defend it. It's called the military industrial complex. Millions of people are employed building tanks and submarines that the military doesn't even want and can't possibly use. The Navy literally says to congress every year "STOP GIVING US THIS CRAP. WE HAVE TOO MANY HELICOPTERS!!!" and whichever congressman represents the district where the factory is located says "Tough shiat, sailors. You're getting some new helicopters."
 
2013-09-28 04:44:53 PM  

sendtodave: Tommy Moo: I say this as often as there is an opportunity to do so: With automation ever ascending, we MUST choose one of the following as a society:

1) Lower our population
2) Reduce the amount of time spent working (either through shorter work weeks or through earlier retirement)
3) Tolerate permanent extremely high unemployment

If we do nothing, 3 is automatically chosen for us. There is no 4. Unfortunately 3 is the worst of the choices. The benefit of 1 is that everyone has an extremely high standard of living. Imagine a world where GDP is the same, but with 1/3 of the population. Every single person on earth could have a massive, beautiful house with granite counters and a Porsche in the driveway! The benefit of 2 is also easy to see, as we'd all be in pretty much the same financial situation, except that we'd have more time to spend pursuing hobbies and relationships. 3 has no real benefit to anyone. Everyone spends all of their time either working just to get by while paying taxes to support people on welfare, or else being on welfare and feeling stigmatized and stressed. Yet 3 appears to be the one we've chosen as a society.

4) transition away from a work-based economy.

It's not unemployment if you don't need to work.


That is the same thing as 2 or 3. How is it substantively different? To get away from a work based economy means either everyone only works for a small chunk of their life (2) or that many/most people never work at all (3). You can semantically call it a "national dividend," but it's still unemployment welfare, and it still has to come from taxing the wealth that is generated. In such a society, no matter what, the total wealth must be divided by the total population, and everyone will enjoy a higher standard of living the fewer people there are.
 
2013-09-28 04:51:39 PM  

Tommy Moo: We can do it naturally, by reducing subsidies for child care and tax breaks for dependents, and by educating women and increasing access to birth control and abortion.


Even in a first-world country like the US, 50% of pregnancies are unintended. Any improvement at all in birth-control technology would go a long way here.
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report