21–30 of 245 posts
What if people with jobs worked less ?
1) Why would you pay them the same for less work? 2) Once a machine can do the job, why would you hire a human at all?
Because we need a point in our lives, otherwise we will make up some gods and start killing each other. Jobs keep us busy, keep revolts down. Most frustrated and aggressive people are those without jobs and daily schedules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what does he think that having high living standard is about, other than burning resources? By his definition of efficiency, a dead planet is the most efficient.
The burning of resources by robots doesn't by itself contribute to a higher living standard, unless you're measuring the living standard of robots :-)
Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…
Take a robot truck. The difference in energy consumption per mile will be nil, but the auto truck can easily and safely drive 168 hours a week, compared to the death march legal limit for humans, 70 hours.
The per mile cost of the automation system will also likely be close to nil (a few tens of thousands of dollars amortized over a million miles).
So a system that isn't really more expensive (compare the up front cost of the automation to several years of labor) is more than twice as effective.
Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…
I think the decision to automate is usually based on the capital cost of the automation, with the productivity/consumption ratio of the automation usually being higher than the displaced workers. Take a robot truck. The difference in energy consumption per mile will be nil, but the auto truck can easily and safely drive 168 hours a week, compared to the death march legal limit for humans, 70 hours. The per mile cost…
Obama's message to the kids about learning to code: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XvmhE1J9PY
What if people with jobs worked less ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think through the eyes of idealism. Consider this You are the owner of a fortune 500 company You need to hire enough people to fullfill 1600 hours a day, 14 days per paycheck. You want to hire the people as cheaply as possible. If the individual knows they only have to work 20 hrs per week to survive, they have the power to negotiate. If the individual believes that they have to work two jobs for 60 hrs per week…
One may also pay pennies for bullets, likely better to move both you AND your money overseas while you still can.
Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…
(edit:typo)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't all of the money that was going into the operating cost of the robot still end up in human pockets? Instead of going to the worker it goes to robot developers, robot maintainers, and energy companies. Then the argument it increases inequality, but that's been the case since industrial machinery happened, as Piketty showed.
Don't think about money, that only confuses things. Think about resources instead. Imagine that the worker burns oil to survive, and the robot also burns oil to function. Now replacing the worker with the robot makes the economy burn twice as much oil for the same amount of production (assuming the worker goes on welfare). If you think in terms of money and pockets, the picture will be more complicated, but the end r…