I started to notice a intense automation and Artificial Intelligence Investments from companies and that made me wonder, what would happen or what should be done with the people who can’t be trained for a new job and can’t use his current skills to to get a job.
How would he live or what would he do in life? More importantly, what should be done with him to make him useful or at least neutral rather than being a negative on the society?
You must log in or register to comment.
Basic Income.
Now someone always has to ask how to pay for it.
Years ago a study was done about basic income in Canada. It was determined that the country would save billions by discontinuing most of the government handouts (there was 60+ at the time) and replacing those with a single payment. Consider how many offices are in each major city for welfare, employment insurance, etc. Save money with reduced wages, rent, power, insurance, so on and so forth.
Unemployed people are not a negative on society. People don’t have to be employed. That’s a capitalist misconception.
Assholes are a negative on society. They actively reduce the experience for everyone else. Even productive assholes are a negative on society.
I prefer someone who gets shit done and changes the world for the better while being impolite to courteous inhibitors of progress.
Take out back and sh–
–own a fun BBQ and given a big plate of delicious food while friends brainstorm how to help get them back on their feet!
UBI/freedom dividends is a solution well before mass AI driven unemployment. It disempowers rulerships/oligarchy towards empowering people. It eliminates crime. Gives people the opportunity/time for education and entrepreneurship.
It is far better than corrupt hierarchy that fights over centralized socialism vs corporatist supremacy.
to make him useful
Your question is horribly ugly and disgusting. Some people are unemployable due to dissatisfaction with society, or a tax structure that encourages investment instead of employment. When you consider “making people work” you are considering enslaving them/their time to eat this week without letting them use their time to contribute to their/social prosperity over their lifetimes. People need a money guarantee. Not a job guarantee. The former is even more productive for successful tax payers.
For me the big question is self-driving vehicles. No one seems to worry about job losses anymore, but that was one of my big takeaways from when that was hot. I seem to recall them giving 3million as the number of people who drive for a living in the us. Imagine 3 million people suddenly out of work, jobs gone. Where else could that many people go? Driving doesn’t require college, so I have to imagine that few of these people do, so where else can they even get hired?
If you’re a sociopath, let them suffer and die slowly, homeless.
If you’re not a sociopath, and decent, tax the rich and give them a good UBI so they can play and do art or music or video games or what the hell ever.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Suffer and die slowly? Where’s the profit in that? Now organ farms, THERES a moneymaker!
If you make them comfortable how do you recruit people for the army?
Make federal service required for anyone to obtain “full citizenship”.
"Would you like to know more?"
/s
RobotsTerminators
Tax the rich people so the unemployable people can live the comfortable lives they deserve
UBI needs to happen at some point.
I lean more on the Universal Maximum Income where everything above a threshold is taxed, and instead of a basic income make sure all basic needs are covered without the need of any money.
I lean more on the Universal Maximum Income where everything above a threshold is taxed
You literally just described the progressive tax system that every developed country has today
Yes and no, that progressive tax system needs a hard limit that says that you can’t earn more than that. I would want the people to know that they won’t be able to earn more than that hard limit and if they chose to keep working and generate more “riches” beyond that they’re doing it exclusively for the benefit of others.
You raise far more tax revenue able to redistribute as freedom dividends by incentivizing those who can earn $1m/hour to put in more hours.
You’re missing the point, the objective of that is not to collect more tax, objective is to desincentivise greed by making it kinda pointless beyond certain level.
Also once most of the basic stuff is free I wonder how many people will settle for less pay and less hours. So more jobs would be available.
Ignoring the odd idea that this hypothetical person is somehow completely unemployable regardless of industry or upskilling, why do you assume that that immediately makes them a negative to society? Is a person’s entire value predicated on their ability to earn money?
It’s not necessary about their “value” to society. People need to eat in order to survive. That means having a way of supporting themselves. Having no way of supporting themselves means a lot of people are going to die.
I’d say that’s a net negative to society.
And the problem runs deeper than “retraining” or “upskilling”. With the emergence of technologies that replace human workers…there will simply be a massive excess of unemployed workers hitting the market. Period. Skills or not. Where are they going to work, when there are now ten people applying for every available job?
Why do they need to work, though? If AI can replace so many people that there aren’t jobs for them all, wouldn’t that also mean AI is producing enough to sustain those people, jobs or not? At that point, why must society continue to expect everyone to support themselves if society’s developments as a whole make that unnecessary?
OP’s question seemingly indicated that they felt someone who couldn’t earn money was immediately a net negative to society. I don’t believe that’s true now (stay at home parents are a good, but far from only, example), and I can’t see me believing it’s any more true in a future where AI can replace large segments of the workforce.
If AI can replace so many people that there aren’t jobs for them all, wouldn’t that also mean AI is producing enough to sustain those people, jobs or not?
Unfortunately, that isn’t what’s happening. AI isn’t “producing” anything that people need to survive. It’s just replacing people. We aren’t seeing any net gains to society that would be able to support so many people no longer being needed in the workforce.
If they were training AI to produce food, build housing or anything that people actually need more of right now, I would say you are absolutely correct to assume that people would be just fine with this transition. But that’s not what they’re using AI for.
Optimistically, AI could and definitely should be used for those things…and the logical conclusion would be to implement a form of UBI so that we can all benefit from this. But do you honestly see that happening?
I don’t. And I think that’s what OP is also seeing. We aren’t ready, as a species, to make that transition yet. There isn’t even the slightest intention on behalf of our current leadership, of providing for an entire population of jobless people. They will ultimately be left to fend for themselves. And as it stands right now, society isn’t equipped to function with that kind of excess population.
Ignoring the odd idea that this hypothetical person is somehow completely unemployable regardless of industry or upskilling
You’re so stuck in a capitalist mindset that you view people being “unemployable” as a personal failure on their part, rather than a success of society as a whole…
Were you out there screaming “think of the children” and “they can do anything they put their mind to” when people banded together to say maybe 7 year old children don’t have to work in the fucking coal mines anymore?
Why do humans have to have a job to be useful?
Post scarcity we can just live.
The AI job crash is not going to be handled well so I assume we all will starve.
Ideally, transition away from determining the value of a human life based on whether they can perform labor.
Realistically, slow degradation of quality of life while increasing stress to a boiling point until either some form of revolution is attempted, or Orwellian “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”
Three Words:
Universal Basic Income.
Why: If this generation builds a machine that forever generate resources, then their decendant (meaning, all humans from this point forward) should deserve to have the results of the machine that their ancestors have built using their hard work.
Maybe if the machine break, people then take turns to fix the machines, but then everyone should just enjoy existence.
People under Capitalism dread automation.
People under (Democratic) Socialism will embrace automation.
If basic income is in the shape of money I don’t agree. Instead I would make all the basic stuff freely available and with time cover more stuff beyond the basic needs.
I feel that if I give money to people someone will find a way to scam them out of that money.
I guess that what I’m trying to say is that I would try to make people get used to not need money.
