Robotics is taking over production lines. Where I live, illegal immigrants are all around me working on farms and many legal now on their 3rd/4th generations immigrant levels. [I live next to Immokalee FL in a part of Naples that got Hurricane Irma’s eye over us last week].
But beyond the picking level, once they go into the factories, robotics takes over there too.
If you’re looking to restructure society, you can’t start from 1800.
80% of the work is done by 20% of the people. It’s a natural part of the stability of systems. Those other 80% of “dead wood” provide economic stability. Yet, if they were to go due to automation taking over the jobs and there is literally nothing for them to do? The companies that replaced the jobs will have to contribute to help maintain society if they want to keep reaping the financial rewards of that society.
The route of “go to school, get a degree, find a career” route is going to continue to be less and less viable as time goes on and production lines get more efficient on common items.
People are still going to have babies. Those babies are going to grow up, go to school, get educated. But then what? What’s waiting for them at the other end of schooling?
There’s a good chance there won’t be a good job with upward mobility leading to a gold watch for retirement, unless we go the route of mega corps providing jobs for everybody, which just amounts to welfare-by-the-corporation… and lots of busy work. The 80% doing the 20%.
If that 80% is in those corps or at home while robots do it instead, it won’t make a whole lot of difference to how the companies run.
I just realized the smallest 80/20: You probably see it at your job. 3 people stand around talking while 1 person is working. What’s the math on that?
Gulag isn’t a solution to be taken seriously in a realistic assessment of the future of a society.
“Who hear wants to a sanitation worker?”
I would. I like cleaning up.
From age 13-18 I was the custodian of the church I belonged to. It had a full time nursery school (not religious) 5 days a week, and rented rooms for the community constantly.
So I was there after school every day from 6th grade to 12th grade.
I got paid very little but it was nice to have pocket money. I’d have done it for free as well because I felt needed.
Do you know that people who are “volunteer minded” actually *like* pitching in to help?
Ever heard of “sense of duty”?
When you have a sense of duty, you don’t parcel out who deserves what.
You just ‘do it’ regardless of your feelings.
Not everybody is going to be sit-around lazy. Are you saying that *you* would be if you could?
If there’s work to be done, *someone* will be compelled to do it. Not everybody will be compelled to do it. But some will.
I don’t feel compelled to make this chair I’m sitting on. But someone else would be compelled to make chairs because maybe they have a bad back and ergonomics matters to them so they make it their duty to make chairs.
Others get inspired to help maybe because of their bad backs.
Sound ridiculous? I don’t think so.
Money is not the only motivator.
Take away the obligation. Lessen the hours. Have other incentives. There’s nothing enshrined in the 30 hr work week.
You leave them be and make sure they don’t cause trouble. (law enforcement). I’d be honored to work in a society that allowed the majority the freedom to pursue whatever interests them.
I’m not evening claiming to be a socialist/anarchist/communist/whatever. I still don’t know what my political stance really is. But if it helps the majority, I’d jump in and participate.
Other systems of currency are possible though. That’s my point. I’m fine with money as base currency. But here’s something worth money:
good will. Kindness. A listening ear.
These are things people give away free of charge without recompense. Yet some professions make money off of these things as well.
Or even in same professions: the one with the better customer service often gets more customers and on a more loyal basis at a higher rate than rate cutting companies with poor customer service but similar products.
Hence: good will, kindness, a listening ear converts to currency.
Would I take care of people who were kind, had good will, a listening ear, etc if they otherwise sat on their asses?
Yes I would and already do. There’s currency there. Intangibles are a line item in accounting for a reason.
Why does anybody raise children?
Why does anybody take care of the sick?
Why does anybody take care of the elderly?
Why does anybody take care of the impoverished?
They’re not productive are they? What do they produce?
Theoretically? Gratitude. If they don’t produce gratitude?
You do it in spite of themselves and more importantly, in spite of one’s OWN jealousies and envies. Again, it’s duty. Duty of care.
That’s always going to be a percentage though. What do you do with them? You take care of them. There’s clearly something mentally wrong with them if they lack the empathy to jump in or if normal sense of civic duty or if even regular passive-aggressive (guilt) doesn’t motivate.
So you pity them and provide basic care.
Someone who can’t see beyond the mirror, or beyond themselves, or beyond their own gain, is mentally unbalanced. Selfishness is abnormal, either an abnormality of the surrounding environment or an abnormality in the individual.
Poverty of environment (such as public school and the training we receive there that some carry through to adulthood) is one cause (I believe) of a common ailment of selfishness.
‘ve been working from home for the past 15 years so it’s hard for me to say.
Given a choice between my nice paying job at big Pharma and running a small family business for my brother, I’ll take my current option.
It affords me time. But we just went through Hurricane Irma. 6 days without power at our house, 10,000 STILL don’t have power in my county (Collier). People cooperate. People share. People work together.
That’s our natural state.
But when we put up walls and live segmented lives separate from the community we reside in then maybe you’re right.
Yet, it wouldn’t matter much in a mostly automated future. Machines already do a lot of previously manual work and that trend is continuing.
If we have a future where it takes a smaller percentage of people to provide for the majority (who would live at a lesser level but comfortably enough), what would the problem be?
I run my business the way I’d want to see society run. I take 10% for myself + business operations (taxes, licenses, fees, advertising), and he gets 90% because he does most of the hard labor.
Since we all live together (12 of us here) in the house, most of his money ends up being fed back into the house as does most of whatever my owner draw is, but enough of it stays his where he can provide for his family, many of whom are non-working adults.
It’s not ideal but it works so far. 15 years.
Some people naturally have a work ethic – a sense of duty to provide. Some people don’t. I suspect it follows the 80/20 rule pretty well.
In short, no, I’m not convinced that most people are fundamentally selfish to the point of being detrimental because I know far too much to the contrary. Some are. But those who aren’t, even if they make the smaller %, can easily cover the needs of those who provide little or anything.
Pain leads to invention. We’re far away from any kind of fully automated future but let’s go through the levels: Assume a pleasure/pain situation (which is what this seems to lead to)
On the creative levels, that can be purely pleasure.
On the engineering levels, that can be purely pleasure. [I see engineering on your biocard – you must know the satisfaction (pleasure) of a product working well for its own sake of working well].
On the programming side, there’s great pleasure in tackling a problem for its own sake. [while I never had a degree (couldn’t afford to finish college), I *did* temp my way into a well paying Systems Analyst position at Schering Plough. Paid well for ’99-2002, enough for me to get a mortgage and build a house etc. I enjoyed the work. Would I have done it for free? If the industry was one that I believed was important, yes].
Transportation: I know many people who love driving for driving’s sake. It’s freedom to them. Might they haul trucks across country just for fun? Sure would. I have two friends that do. Happiest jobs they ever had.
Marketing: Some people love convincing other people for the sake of convincing other people. Rhetoric + logic is fun. I’m doing it now for free. Fun. Right here in this message. Pleasure.
So, white collar and blue collar needs would not be hard to find people to fill – just out of boredom or civic duty.
But let’s get to drudge work: Mining.
Is it drudge work for everybody?
There’s mystery, adventure, comrades, explosives, dirt, satisfaction.
Would there be enough people willing to put down the PornHub if there was a local mine needing people to show up and do these things? Yup, especially if their friends are all doing it.
Coordination: You must know micromanagers. They LOVE any opportunity to organize… — for them a well funning ship is satisfying. Or then you have those who love jumping in at the last second to get credit in the case of the political types. All for the accolades.
For functioning examples look at volunteerism. Look at what non-profits do.
Is it possible that the “pace of progress” will slow? Sure it’s possible.
But let me shift gears a little: Imagine a world where people are in the correct careers for them. A world where they aren’t forced to show up indefinitely but there might be required lengths of stay at which case they can choose to repeat a stay or go.
What jobs would be missing?
Imagine the current system but everybody is in a job that’s right for them *but* they’re not straightjacketed to that job.
[the US has a rather free system in the way, but I’ll give a contrast:
Egypt in the 80s for example (my mother’s 2nd husband was Egyptian) and likely similarly today, lower education was similar to what we know.
But when final testing comes, they test for facts memorization, not higher order thinking skills. The results of the test restrict the direction you can go into next, limiting your choices of further education or employment, leading many people to get training in careers they don’t want.
That’s a case of being stuck in a job you don’t want that’s more extreme.
Now, in the USA, college degrees like vocational schools serve to limit employment choices (it’s possible to be turned down for being “overeduated” (you might leave). Some people it’s a family choice what you do, others have more individual choice.
So for some people, their career is pretty fixed from graduation.
Socially in the USA, we have restrictions. What is the most common question people ask new people they meed?
“So, what do you do for a living?”
[meaning: how do you make your money?]
Some cultures find that a very rude question indeed. In the USA, it’s commonplace.
This is a social shackle that keeps many people wedded to a type of work.
So, this is why I mention the changing of jobs being voluntary. Not just who you work for, but what type of work you do.
This doesn’t answer your whole question, but it answers an important part of it.