The Future of Work

So Sup Forums explain yourself: if population is rising and human jobs are getting obsolete by technological advancements at the fastest rates in history, what will happen to the stupid peoples?
Will there be any incentive to produce stuff for the stupid peoples if they're flat out broke and useless?
What will freaking happen to billions of peoples when there will be complete automated lines of production/building?

Other urls found in this thread:

alrenous.blogspot.ca/2016/05/basic-income-impossibility-theorem.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

bum

A penny for your thought?!
The Future of Work doc:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:6253c3aeed5c18a46489e7ce6e2051f953cda775

Luckily I'll be fine.

Research jobs can never be replaced by machines until AI reaches the point where nobody needs to work

Eugenics, Agenda 23, sustainable development , people =CO2,CO2= BAD!
Sup Sup Forums?

Nobody triggered in here? :(

If trump is elected he will put capitalism on life support for another 4 years or so but it's on its way out. Capitalism cannot contract. That's not the way it works. It must grow continuously or it dies.

A new system is coming but the transition may be painful.

Why the robo-purge of course!

what is the new system?

she

Lol.
Capitalism doesn't need growth. It does though require that competition continue. This is what we are encountering in alot of industry now. It has gotten to the point where most industry is taken over and controlled by the companies that throw huge amounts of money at r & d. This is good because we have many companies working towards higher technology. The bad part is that most competition can't reach that level. This is on fact the reason capitalism won't work. Competition is what capitalism needs but technology prohibits competition from reaching the same level.

BTW I'm a capitalist fag.

Basic income.

Will it be a eugenics transition since most of people work to sustain(feed/clothe/shelter) other people ?!
In that case billions will be wiped from the face of the Earth.

Techonology will never adequately replace manual labour; it'll always be more cost effective to retain an army of minimum wage slaves than replace absolutely all of them with robots.

Also: the singularity wil never happen. AI is a dead end. All humanity will be dead in a cloud of atomic dust within a century.

Capitalism can't be sustained without enough people to buy the goods, and without jobs those people won't be making enough money to be buying the goods. Universal income is the short term solution, the long term solution is a complete revolution of the economic system itself.

Can we start with the middle east? Pretty please?

> Implying you can stop the free market system.

There is a free market in fucking supermax prisons. The currency may be cigarettes and anal sex but it will still emerge naturally. Capitalism doesn't need anything to support it, it is self regulating.

> gubmint gib free shit pls

Fuck off commie.

>Basic income.
I might add:into basic sustainability and outright misery.
>It does though require that competition continue.
The thing is : the capitalist machine will produce but the people won't have the jobs to pay, who has the money to pay?! The 1%.
And they'll pay for whatever the fuck they want(they'll probably buy every land and building), certainly not handouts for the poor as we 've seen in the economic crisis where they profited more than in other times while the middle class and the poor struggled.
>Techonology will never adequately replace manual labour;
Already happened.
>Capitalism can't be sustained without enough people to buy the goods
It can if it has the cashflow.Capitalism at it's core it's just money transactions.
Some small countries gain a lot because they're a cashflow transit zone, producing mostly nothing.
>Can we start with the middle east
If that happened it'll be Syria on a bigger scale and wild Muslims at your doorstep.

Hopefully the U.S. government completes its project on ethnic bioweapons and implements population control measures on India and China.

Why are Mexicans still cleaning pools and picking fruit? Show me a robot that does either of those things cheaper.

Most of the world's problems stem from poverty. You can point fingers, call people lazy, say they are failures and don't deserve anything, etc. But it doesn't change the fact they're poor and turn to crime, and will mug you while you're walking home from the expensive restaurant you like. Just throw them in prison? Look how that's working out. We have the highest prison population on the planet and it's turned into a fucking industry of its own. I shudder to think of how much money the government spends on the prison population. It might actually be cheaper in some states to implement basic income. I'm sure problems won't disappear overnight, but it'll be a step in the right direction.

And for fuck's sake, legalize weed. I don't even smoke it but come on. We're throwing people in prison for something as innocent as getting stoned when it has less effect on you than drinking alcohol?

Actually my mom bought a pool cleaning robot a while ago, we haven't had to do anything for a long time. I was surprised how well it worked.

I'm guessing you still had to lift the robot in and out of the pool, switch it on, clean it, etc, never mind pay $1000+ for it. The Mexican is still better than the robot.

>supermax prison capitalism
>barter
Yea, the plebs will probably be left out of the modern market economy, now being done by supercomputer's ultra fast exchanges and they'll just have to deal with some sort of slum subeconomy since the elite won't be interested into mass producing food and clothes.
>Why are Mexicans still cleaning pools and picking fruit
Doorman and elevator attendant and many other jobs?

can you upload this somewhere else or something, its too slow

>$1000= one month's salary
The only benefit from illegal mex is the sexual harassment and the drama, if you're into that

It just stays in the pool until someone has to swim in it. Flip a switch once every couple of days and it starts driving around cleaning the scum off the bottom; only cost a few hundred. Mexicans might be better in the short term, but considering I don't have to deal with them, I'll take the robot any day.

Fine by me as long as I get a cyberpunk waifu

Best case scenario: Things like food, water, housing become a government right and you only work if you want to and are capable of doing something computers have not replaced YET.

Worst case scenario: The elite use tech to fuck the majority of humans on earth over. Mass famine and civil wars erupt only to be stopped within days by drones and robots controlled by the elite. People start committing suicide en masse and the elite laugh as the world burns.


It's probably gonna be a mix of these two scenarios.

>only cost a few hundred. Mexicans might be better in the short term,
A month's salary is 1000$ and let's say you pay for service, it'll get you at 200-300/month, how's that better?!
Why do you think those robots even sell and the companies don't go bankrupt in the next year?

There are people here, right now, who believe money is the only incentive for productivity and getting people out of the couch.

They walk among us.

What's your incentive food/grass?

>There are people here, right now, who believe money is the only incentive for productivity and getting people out of the couch.
It literally is, it has been this way for thousands of years and isn't going away.

Wanna eat, have a roof over your head, or have something nice for you loved ones or yourself? Go work for that dough my man.

Won't happen until the entire world is on the brink of collapse, and even then it won't happen until the absolute last second.

The working poor are defending the current system using propaganda from the rich. In the last election cycle, the poor were defending giving more money to the rich by repeating stuff like "they're JOB CREATORS!", as if the rich are creating jobs out of charity and should therefore be worshiped.

We live in a world where people fought better health care because "the JOB CREATORS can't afford it!". The very idea of basic income is laughed at because we don't want our precious job creators to pay more taxes. The poor would rather pay the tax themselves instead of making the wealthy pay it.

Nobody even realizes how deep the divide actually is. The amount of wealth that the people on top actually have is beyond comprehension for most people. Most of us live on budgets, some live paycheck to paycheck, some dream about home ownership but know it will probably never happen. The wealthiest people can purchase private jets and entire islands with the same consideration that we would have when buying a roll of toilet paper.

But to most people, that's the way it should be. They earned it, and we all deserve to starve. When we're all replaced by automation, we'll cry tears of joy because our job creators can reap more profits and pay lower taxes.

>Things like food, water, housing become a government right and you only work if you want to and are capable of doing something computers have not replaced YET.
Venus project= fantasy done by enthusiasts of the Zeitgeist movement
> The elite use tech to fuck the majority of humans on earth over.
Agenda 21,2 done by ONU

Billionaires can live in luxury for the rest of their lives without lifting a finger.

What's their incentive? More money? What does that mean to them other than dopamine release?

Use your brain.

I think itd greatly reduce the amount of years needed to retire but not outright banish work. I bet not working would have a huge psycological effect on people.

>Won't happen until the entire world is on the brink of collapse
It's already being implemented almost everywhere.
>basic income
can become very small if it's not corrected by inflation and/or other price fluctuations
In my country qualified or not if you're on the lower class job you'll get basic income and even if it's a free market, all employers push for the minimum income and in the end the worker has to work somewhere.

>Billionaires can live in luxury for the rest of their lives without lifting a finger.
Most people aren't Billionaires you fuck. In fact like 90% of people on earth live on less than $2,000 a month.

>More money?
Yea since more money, in their case=more power and influence.

>Most people aren't Billionaires you fuck
>Yea since more money, in their case=more power and influence.

>greatly reduce the amount of years needed to retire but not outright banish work
Age of retirement has been raised throughout Europe.

more money:
Pleb=more food and/or services/goods
Elite=more power/influence
What didn't you understand?

What did you not understand about money not being the only incentive?

>What did you not understand about money not being the only incentive?
Not him but for most people it is. Why are you even mentioning billionaires when they only make up less than 1% of the human population?

>money not being the only incentive
>money being most of the incentives directly/indirectly

>Why are you even mentioning the 1%
Because they have most of the money i.e. the future of the world.

I'm struggling to understand how you can't see the elephant standing right in front of you blowing water at your faces.

>b-but money is involved therefore it's the only incentive!

I know there are things that money can't factor but my point is that most things in a human's life are influenced by money.
>money being most of the...

In an ideal world, we'd either be working less for the same pay, or be getting paid more. Technology and automation has allowed for massive productivity gains for the average worker.

In reality, business owners have absorbed those productivity gains, which has led to the increasing income disparity we see today. Workers are expected to maintain the same hours and pay, while the productivity increase has led to jobs being cut, since the same performance can be had out of less workers.

I believe that this will continue until we reach a critical point of unemployed people, not able to feed/house themselves. At some point there will be a big angry mass of hungry people, which has historically shown to be dangerous to the wealthy. At that time there will probably be some sort of basic income implemented to pacify the population.

I suppose we understand each other then, but I question how much incentive is driven by money alone. If anything it's an intermediary, rarely the true incentive.

>critical point of unemployed people, not able to feed/house themselves.
While the employers already bought everything and most of the plebs are on rent.
>will be a big angry mass of hungry people,
Like the French/Russian revolution.
A very powerful indirect incentive.

This shows the root of the issue. Unless there's basic income at some point (or something along those lines), who will buy the products? At some point the products need to be either given away for free or stolen by mobs of people who can't afford it.

The very way our economic system works right now it's not adapted for what the future inevitably brings. The cycle grinds to a halt when wealth accumulates to the few, and before you know it you have a French Revolution, or maybe even something worse.

I'm hypothesizing that the wealthy have learned that big hungry mobs are traditionally dangerous to them.

My guess is that they will implement some sort of handouts/basic employment, where people don't feel like it would be worth it to start a revolution. If your family has a roof over their head, food in their bellies, and entertainment, is it worth risking death and destruction?

IngSoc will save us all!

The rich won't have any incentive to make the products in the first place cause they won't be interested in PEOPLE.
Why make food/clothes for people that make food/clothes or construction equipment that has a fully automated line of production?Why even bother making FOOD for people that can't get a foot in the door of the automated economy ie are completely useless?
Stock prices for making food/clothes etc will drop cause the money is in the hands of the rich anyway and being that worthless they'll go bankrupt in the new economic ecosystem and people will starve.

Weeeeell, uhhh ahem so it's like when you make a product and then sell it for money and we'll call it capi- errr socialism or something like that.

>will implement some sort of handouts/basic employment, where people don't feel like it would be worth it
If a revolution will be occurring the politicians' heads will roll as per usual.
The rich never made their fortunes doing that instead they did it by being a bunch of cut-throats.
And even if they give handouts that would be to buy some time to figure out how to get rid of the RISK.

I wouldn't doubt that those in power know the earth is becoming overpopulated, and aren't actively searching for a method of population control.

A massive war would serve well, but it carries the risk of total nuclear destruction. A biological weapon may work.

Yeah but thats because yuros are literal brainwashed retards that dont have kids at all

it's already replacing manual labour

To be honest our entire lives depend on money that will become more and more untill indeed a revolution happens my guess we are not far from that actually if you look around.
I assume they will adopt population control rules before it actually happens but that could stir up also a revolution.

But what if I fell like burning hella DVDs? :^(

>what will happen to the stupid peoples?
Hopefully? Natural selection

>uneducated?
>it has been replacing manual labor since the invention of the steam engine

Democracy will make sure that stupid people don't die out. Democracy is based on the majority opinion, which is predominantly made up of people of intelligence that is average or below.

This majority opinion will vote in its favor, so as a result, a democracy favors the stupid man - and if the stupid man wants jobs, democracy will give it to him.

One way I see of stopping this negative cycle is by introducing corruption. Corruption allows people with power (i.e. the world's elite) to influence the democracy's decisions in ways beyond their raw numerical quantity. In essence, corruption multiplies a social class's population by its power, thus equalizing the scales.

So if you want the idiots to die out and technology to replace them, embrace corruption.

Look at the ultimate democratic country, the US, 2 major parties all bought out at every move, whether campaigns or legislation.

The US is an oligarchy though, with tough controls to prevent the people from getting too much power. The militia is one of the last resort controls (contrary to popular belief, the 2nd amendment isn't there to make sure that people can overthrow their government, but so that they can't).

An actual democracy would be a better example, although most today are heading towards some sort of corporatocracy.

>actual democracy
When did that lasted a long time in human history?

There are actual democracies everywhere today with their own faults. "Actual democracy" sounds like I'm being reductive, but I was trying to generalize. Direct democracy for example isn't ideal either. 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting over what's for dinner.

>ultimate democratic country, the US
Not even close

Well they started this modern democracy, if it weren't for them we probably have some monarchic republic with the rich being the only voters AT BEST.

>Direct democracy for example isn't ideal either. 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting over what's for dinner.
This. The only purpose of laws is to counteract our natural inclination towards egoistic choice and force us to adhere to a system that has a better collective gain (at the cost of worse individual gain).

In the absence of laws, a society becomes evolutionarily unstable and regresses towards a chaotic anarchy, which prevents progress and will eventually cause it to be wiped out by more developed nations.

In the wolf/sheep example, the majority would be happy for a day and then starve out because sheep no longer exist. Laws that humans choose for themselves (i.e. egoistically) have the exact opposite effect of what a law is supposed to have.

For example, if everybody votes to abolish taxes (egoistic choice), the entire population would suffer as a result (since taxes are the binding mechanism that force us to care about the whole). This is why democracy is fundamentally flawed. If people knew what was good for them, governments wouldn't be required.

>laws is to counteract our natural inclination...
But the laws convey the most general wish of the whole population e.g. look at the US population, the majority is christian and the laws were designed in such a way.

Yeah we would all be happy and fulfilled persons. Crazy evil shit right?

What is secularism of which the States are founded?

We'd still work though. Just on our hobbies.

Humans can't generally sit still doing nothing.

this. I'm basically a NEET (*) and spend most of my free time contributing to free software.

(*) Technically enrolled at university but I don't really give a shit about it

While job is gonna die sooner than research, it's still gonna be after the ex-wageslave uprising.

I wonder if some people are even capable of doing nothing all day, especially if they spent decades following instructions.

>it'll always be more cost effective to retain an army of minimum wage slaves than replace absolutely all of them with robots
It's not my argument, but:
>it'll always be more cost effective to breed an army of horses than to replace absolutely all of them with cars

>Humans can't generally sit still doing nothing.

>It's not my argument, but:
>>it'll always be more cost effective to breed an army of horses than to replace absolutely all of them with cars
Wrong! To buy and maintain horse for the same power output as cars is probably hundreds of times more inefficient regarding cost.

>I don't understand scale
>The word "general" confuses me
Let me help you a little. Most but not all.

my year long experience in being NEET will sure come in handy then!

>Eugenics

good goy

>What will freaking happen to billions of peoples
Let's be real, the only immediate problem is the white people. The chinks and poo2loo's are already starving, to them it's not gonna be much worse, and might be countered by the extra amount of food available from the west.
That leaves us with 500 million white people. Lets strike 150 million off that, the people in countries falling because of non-robot issues (Mass immigration in europe), plus people already living on welfare. So that's about 350 million.
Lets go all out and say 90% are now not only useless, but unable to even contribute, even in giving them slave labour they only hinder work as a robot could have been in their place.

270 million people, fed, housed and watered. Mass suicides for all those brought up to think without contributing to society they'd be not useless, but that uselessness was inherently negative.
Many drugged up beyond reason just to keep happy. Some content with their own creativity, many more content with nothing more than the content of the creative (See what I did there I'm so fucking clever).
Throw in VR to the mix. I for one sat down once and played viscera cleanup detail for six hours straight.
That's a start.
Again with the (all those brought up to think without contributing to society they'd be not useless, but that uselessness was inherently negative.) thing, mr poster man is just an example of this.

THIS!

They're called gibmedats, and for the better part basic income would start off as free utilities and soylent, constructing free housing for the renters and paying off the property of those on home loans. After that, so long as the gubmint builds their own soylent factories (Read: NOT nationalisation of farms and shit) "Basic income" is sustainable. Sure, start talking about traded currencies and you're fucked.

Everyone is going to encounter extended periods of unemployment at some point in their life. it is a standard passage even in successful careers. We have to stop blaming the individuals for this and tackle the problem as a society.

Your literally smoking crack

You're taking a microeconomy where anal rape is exchanged for addictive substances as an example that free capitalism works.

I think this says a lot about the sociopathic nature of libertarianism.

Programmers will be obsoleted last by definition. (Because once software can write software, it's singularity time; job security shouldn't be your greatest concern at that point. If you survive, you'll probably enjoy some form of postscarcity.)

>soylent
well memed

alrenous.blogspot.ca/2016/05/basic-income-impossibility-theorem.html

being a bunch of skynet bitches is what you tech freaks want anyway.

why do conservatards always break down basic economic theorems as if they were the only person in the room who understood them?

everybody knows that basic income is liable to make the value of money drop. that is not a big enough obstacle to stop considering it as a solution

eventually, underemployment will become such a widespread issue that it will become the only way for society to be humane. the benefits outweight the consequences, unless you only consider its effects from the point of view of a middle class office worker who went to college on daddy's wallet and who never encountered adversity in their life

>tech freaks
Where do you think you are?

>based Alrenous
>conservatard
Oh, how you are mistaken.
>as if they were the only person in the room who understood them?
Because apparently it's necessary. His claim is not just that
>basic income is liable to make the value of money drop
but rather that it will always drop the value of money enough to defeat its function - to provide a minimal standard of living for everyone - unless there is a cost to it. Sterilization could be that cost. You get the income as long as you can provably no longer have children. It's simple to verify and permanent, so no large bureaucracy is needed. What's there not to like?

>tech freaks
I'm sorry, I thought this was the technology board.