this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
447 points (97.7% liked)
BrainWorms
1226 readers
80 users here now
Hey, welcome to BrainWorms.
This is a place where I post interesting things that I find and cant categorize into one of the main subs I follow. Enjoy a front seat as i descend into madness
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It makes sense if all the jobs are that way and there's a universal basic income associated with that society.
The reason this post is stupid though is because the position being automated is not yours once it's automated. So a machine now flips your burgers, what does that mean? The employer you had now has to track which burgers you would have flipped and pay you for them? For how long? Until you "retire" and they have to "hire" someone else the robot flips the burgers for?
It doesn't make any sense. You stop getting money when you stop providing value unless society as a whole decides to support all it's people. That is a great aspiration but hard to do fairly.
I think you're misunderstanding. I've always heard this in the context of a UBI, never that an employer should pay an ex-employee for the work that a robot does.
With this setup, nobody is forced to do menial labor. Those that are willing and able can pursue higher education and pick up more skilled jobs, increasing potential for technological advancement. Those that can't or don't want to can pursue their own interests and hopefully create some cultural significance. Essentially, the automation will allow people to leave their shitty jobs and pursue something more fulfilling without worrying about going bankrupt, all while society still has its basic needs met.
I've always thought this was an ideal scenario. Whenever I hear people talking about how automation is taking jobs and needs to be stopped, I think about how automation should really be encouraged to allow people to contribute more meaningfully, but this can only be done after we've established a UBI and other social programs to ensure that these people can get by without the income they get from their current jobs.
It's absolutely the ideal scenario that automation proliferates to all the jobs people dont care to do. To be utopian it requires societal shifts toward the collective instead of individual capitalism. It would be decidedly dystopian if automation became pervasive and a handful of people got even-ultra-wealthier and the lower class became totally unable to work to provide for themselves.
I guess I am confused, because on one hand you say the post is stupid, but in the other hand you seem to agree with it but think that the "correct" way would be very challenging.
So it sounds like your only problem is with the implementation details. Am I understanding your point?
Yeah you got it. I take issue with the fact that it's an individual in the comic. In reality, automation comes first, then (probably) job loss at scale, then UBI, then a more idealized society that isn't focused on individual labor.
This graphic as it is looks like some dumb oversimplification from anti-work.
I see. I see the comic as pointing the interesting problem that arises from automation today.
A tool like automation should be a boon to humanity and therefore a boon to all individuals. Instead, in the current reality, automation is causing a lot of problems because our system wasn't designed for the level of automation we have today.
I think the comic is stating that the system should work for us, not the other way around. You seem to agree with this point and I do as well.
I don't see the comic prescribing any order of changing policy to arrive at the "correct" panel. I also don't see any specific anti-work themes.
There is an assumption that more time to do what you want is better than more time at a job, but I don't see this as anti-work as I think most people would agree with it.