591–600 of 823 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But we should be seriously asking in our next all hands meetings if 10x’ing our productivity can get us some days off. Pretty sure if you ask this that they'll give you all your days off.
Standing up for yourself and your peers is a virtue, not a weakness. Yes, it’s easy to crack down on individual dissent — but only if you stay quiet.
Star Trek post-scarcity economy when?? https://rickwebb.medium.com/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab...
we are very well past post-scarcity. we definitely choose consumption over free time for the most part. people generally choose nicer home, starbucks, vacay, neflix over work hours or retirement. so this is a cultural issue
Another problem is housing and living environment. Although it is very much possible to live in a smaller space, nice neighborhoods (quiet, clean, green) are expensive.
But basic necessities are almost free in rich societies, if you have time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One possibility is once AI becomes profitable and wildly successful, and we all lose our jobs, we vote to nationalize the AI companies, and send some good vibes (but no money) to the VCs who paid for it, and remember that the AI was only built by breaking copyright law at an industrial scale and so it's fair to nationalize it.
Good thing all of the AI companies in the world operate only inside one country. I'm sure all of the other technology companies, AI ventures, and investors will continue putting their headquarters in a country that did this and gave the investors $0. Nothing bad would happen, of course.
If AI is really about to automate away a lot of labor, I have yet to hear even a hint of a plan to deal with the fallout of that which doesn’t involve consigning much of humanity to the dustbin of history.
Maynard Keynes posited a future 15 hour work week in 1930 based on the productivity gains after WW1, nearly 100 years ago now. http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf
This article is kind of playful, but I think there’s a serious point here that’s not discussed enough. We’re being asked to usher in huge productivity gains by introducing AI to our workflows, but we’re not asking how does it help us? Not a lot of us stand to directly gain from our employers becoming more productive. I know everybody is afraid of getting fired and replaced with AI or whatever right now. But we should…
Computers and the Internet ushered in huge productivity gains. Despite many people losing their jobs as a result, it's tough to argue society isn't better off. I think that's the key difference with AI, though. It's not like I'm losing my job, but at least I have a robot at home that cleans the house and does my laundry. People are having their livelihoods threatened while their utility bills go up because of datacen…
> Computers and the Internet ushered in huge productivity gains. Despite many people losing their jobs as a result
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's never been a good way to get things done, but when you block off every other venue for change people will be much more willing to take a chance on a high risk option. Violent revolutions aren't usually the first thing people try. Democracies that arise by nonviolent revolution, do so in part due to the threat of what comes next if the nonviolent revolution is crushed. Because if you make sure placards and petiti…
Yeah, I get that it's a useful threat to back up the nonviolent options. I just don't think Americans have tried the nonviolent options wrt economics with any amount of real effort yet, and it's worrying/annoying to see people jumping to the nuclear option as soon as they personally hit a rough patch or start getting scared of one. When I've gone to local government meetings, I've generally been one of only a few wit…
I feel like we're actually getting there with one of my clients. The business is very close to being constrained on the customer again. A lot of the paradox in productivity and labor may be attributable to a severe debt that needs to be paid down and now finally can be . Some of the 996 (or 007) working hour system stuff is coming from your peers feeling this new hope. The tone will continue to shift as backlogs get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Computers and the Internet ushered in huge productivity gains. Despite many people losing their jobs as a result, it's tough to argue society isn't better off. I think that's the key difference with AI, though. It's not like I'm losing my job, but at least I have a robot at home that cleans the house and does my laundry. People are having their livelihoods threatened while their utility bills go up because of datacen…
I think it's impossible to argue we are better off. This comment is so detached from reality it's almost offensive. Education is unaffordable, health care is unaffordable, homes are unaffordable, the rich have gotten massively richer, the middle class has been gutted, suicides are up, birth rates are down... I could go on and on. It's gotten better for the 1% but the rest of us are being boiled like frogs. To the poi…
> birth rates are down
Arguably this is what retirement is, no? Productivity gains did create extra leisure time. It's just we save all the leisure for retirement.
Effective working hours are not set by absolute productivity - they are set by an equilibrium between two forces: 1. Competitive market dynamics. If you only work four days a week, other employees and companies who are willing to work five days a week will do so and get ahead of you, and you are more likely to get fired or to go out of business. This force pushes us all to work longer (and harder) so we have more mon…