I don’t see how the companies trying to save money by replacing workers with AI expect to still have someone to sell their goods and services to when no one has any money because all the jobs have been replaced by AI.
Jobs and money are not natural laws; we could change our entire socioeconomic system to account for a new reality. But I just don’t see that happening…
I wonder what about a system where work is cycled between people. So instead of one person working 5 days a week, we have two people working 3 days a week?
That’s a stocker at Kroger. It’s a fry cook at McDonald’s. You have to have work where the individual doing it is entirely irrelevant. And society has a lot of jobs like that. But most jobs require a degree of expertise that comes from education or experience or raw natural talent. These are the qualities that make an individual uniquely valuable to a business and their time is in demand for more than 24 hours a week, and they are better compensated in return.
We hit that threshold even before AI. Productivity per worker has gone up and up for 100 years. We should all be working 15 hours a week right now. Today.
Historically, when a workload that used to take 20 people to do now only takes 10 people due to productivity gains, do you think the businesses let the workers start working 20 hours a week instead of 40? It’s the same amount of product. Nope. They lay off 10 people, the 10 remaining workers still work 40 hours a week, and the owners or shareholders pocket the extra money from the productivity gains.
Same thing will happen with AI productivity gains. They’ll lay off anyone they can.
We should all be working 15 hours a week right now.
I don’t agree with that at all, given the fact that it neglects scarcity currently. There are a lot of necessary jobs that require full time employment to do successfully. If you need a hard real world example look at the price of oil right now.
I think over time though, with the proliferation of AI, the idea that someone could work 3 or 4 days a week could become more plausible. So you effectively have two people working “part-time” but earning a living wage, more time to do other things. If many job positions become less necessary, “job sharing” may become more necessary.
I get what you’re saying and I agree. If humanity were really working towards a utopian society that’s exactly what should happen.
Unfortunately our current socioeconomic system is quite literally built to harness human greed. Productivity gains from AI will be reaped by the employers and not the employees. The 5 day work week will continue for those who haven’t been laid off until the system crashes down upon itself.
Humans always learn things the hard way. This will be no different.
I think because we have knowledge of the New Deal and the Great Depression, things don’t need to be that hard. We already have many politicians who see what’s happening. Drump is basically like Herbert Hoover right now.
If we forget history then we’re fucked. Always fear those who want you to not learn.
I too would like to know.
I don’t see how the companies trying to save money by replacing workers with AI expect to still have someone to sell their goods and services to when no one has any money because all the jobs have been replaced by AI.
Jobs and money are not natural laws; we could change our entire socioeconomic system to account for a new reality. But I just don’t see that happening…
I wonder what about a system where work is cycled between people. So instead of one person working 5 days a week, we have two people working 3 days a week?
That’s a stocker at Kroger. It’s a fry cook at McDonald’s. You have to have work where the individual doing it is entirely irrelevant. And society has a lot of jobs like that. But most jobs require a degree of expertise that comes from education or experience or raw natural talent. These are the qualities that make an individual uniquely valuable to a business and their time is in demand for more than 24 hours a week, and they are better compensated in return.
We hit that threshold even before AI. Productivity per worker has gone up and up for 100 years. We should all be working 15 hours a week right now. Today.
Historically, when a workload that used to take 20 people to do now only takes 10 people due to productivity gains, do you think the businesses let the workers start working 20 hours a week instead of 40? It’s the same amount of product. Nope. They lay off 10 people, the 10 remaining workers still work 40 hours a week, and the owners or shareholders pocket the extra money from the productivity gains.
Same thing will happen with AI productivity gains. They’ll lay off anyone they can.
I don’t agree with that at all, given the fact that it neglects scarcity currently. There are a lot of necessary jobs that require full time employment to do successfully. If you need a hard real world example look at the price of oil right now.
I think over time though, with the proliferation of AI, the idea that someone could work 3 or 4 days a week could become more plausible. So you effectively have two people working “part-time” but earning a living wage, more time to do other things. If many job positions become less necessary, “job sharing” may become more necessary.
I get what you’re saying and I agree. If humanity were really working towards a utopian society that’s exactly what should happen.
Unfortunately our current socioeconomic system is quite literally built to harness human greed. Productivity gains from AI will be reaped by the employers and not the employees. The 5 day work week will continue for those who haven’t been laid off until the system crashes down upon itself.
Humans always learn things the hard way. This will be no different.
I think because we have knowledge of the New Deal and the Great Depression, things don’t need to be that hard. We already have many politicians who see what’s happening. Drump is basically like Herbert Hoover right now.
If we forget history then we’re fucked. Always fear those who want you to not learn.