Slashdot Mirror
The Software Revolution
An anonymous reader writes: Y Combinator president Sam Altman writes about how the third great technological revolution — which he calls the software revolution — is affecting the world economy. He says, "It appears that the software revolution will do what technology usually does—create wealth but destroy jobs. Of course, we will probably find new things to do to satisfy limitless human demand. But we should stop pretending that the software revolution, by itself, is going to be good for median wages.
Trying to hold on to worthless jobs is a terrible but popular idea. Trying to find new jobs for billions of people is a good idea but obviously very hard because whatever the new jobs are, they will probably be so fundamentally different from anything that exists today that meaningful planning is almost impossible. ... The second major challenge of the software revolution is the concentration of power in small groups. ... I think the best strategy is to try to legislate sensible safeguards but work very hard to make sure the edge we get from technology on the good side is stronger than the edge that bad actors get."
Trying to hold on to worthless jobs is a terrible but popular idea. Trying to find new jobs for billions of people is a good idea but obviously very hard because whatever the new jobs are, they will probably be so fundamentally different from anything that exists today that meaningful planning is almost impossible. ... The second major challenge of the software revolution is the concentration of power in small groups. ... I think the best strategy is to try to legislate sensible safeguards but work very hard to make sure the edge we get from technology on the good side is stronger than the edge that bad actors get."
The assumption that "we will probably find new things to do to satisfy limitless human demand" has no substantiation. In fact, the rate of job replacement is now higher than the rate of job creation. Unemployment will be rising inexorably and at an increasing rate.
Actually... the industrial revolution resulted in a severe disruption for workers with many dying homeless, of starvation or exposure.
Then the generation AFTER them did okay and we simply forgot about those who literally died of effects of the industrial revolution.
This could be very similar. A generation of misery and then the one after that has different expectations and training.
The trend has been pretty ugly- lower share of societies benefits for most- higher share of societies benefits for the very few- often related more to their parents success (50%) than their own ability. I mean- a lot of the better jobs are practically inherited these days.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It appears that the banking sector will do what they usually do—extract wealth and destroy jobs.
The most serious problem our economy faces is the mountain of private debt we have accumulated in the past 50 years. And the huge wealth imbalance this has caused.
The banking sector has successfully transformed most asset markets into heavily leveraged ponzi-like schemes. Each new entrant to the market pushing up prices with borrowed money, so that other people can cash out. This borrowed money caused asset prices to rise, giving the appearance of creating wealth. But debt levels end up rising faster. When the market runs out of greater fools, the bubble collapses, leaving the mountain of accumulated debt mostly intact.
While the bubble is rising, the economy begins to depend on the creation of new debt just to continue functioning. Once the debt gravy train slows down, it doesn't even need to stop, the flow of spending money in the economy dries up. Companies that were pretty much already insolvent go bust, others survive by tightening their belts. It is the workers losing their jobs that suffer the most for the problems that the financial sector created.
We can't repay the debts the financial sector lent out. The only question left is how we choose not to pay them.
We need a huge shift in how we create and manage money. We need to drastically shrink the parasitic financial sector, wipe out the loans that represent most of our money supply. And replace the money created with credit cards and home loans with government fiat currency, given directly to the people.
Managing the flow of money is essential to keeping people employed.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
We need to make full time 32 hours a week or less with forced ot pay maybe at 40 hours and X2 ot at 60+.
Capitalism is not the 'temporary use of another class's capital.' It is a system where property is freely bought and sold.
You're conflating capitalism with a free market. They are not synonyms.
A free market is a system where property is freely bought and sold.
Capitalism is a system where the shape of the market is determined primarily by the prior distribution of capital; loosely put, where having wealth makes it easier to keep and obtain wealth, and lacking it makes it harder to keep or obtain it, automatically perpetuating that wealth disparity and leaving the less-wealthy perpetually subservient to the more-wealthy.
For a trivial example of a free market which is not capitalist, consider any market that deals exclusively in labor services, such as an virtual market online (without copyright interfering to create artificial scarcity) or a hypothetical post-scarcity market in the future; anywhere that capital is either freely and infinitely replicable or else just irrelevant. Because capital is not involved, the market is not shaped by capital distribution, and is thus not capitalist. But it can nevertheless still be a free market, with the prices of the services being traded determined entirely by voluntary agreement with no redistribution of profits or anything.
Less trivially, a real-world market, dealing with goods and services both, that had an even distribution of capital would not, at least initially, be capitalist, as nobody would have a capital advantage over anyone else to exploit. The open question is whether such non-capitalist freedom is sustainable, or whether we're forced to choose between either sacrificing freedom or accepting capitalism.
Free markets are the kind of thing that early liberals (what would now be called "libertarians") like Adam Smith and John Locke advocated.
Capitalism is something that was first identified and named by Marx, who in turn claimed that it was an inevitable consequence of free markets, a claim that the state socialists who followed in his wake accepted and spread further.
Even more distressingly though, their opponents in defense of free markets also tacitly accepted that claim (that free markets inevitably lead to capitalism), and just disagreed on which side of the resulting fork to choose: reject free markets to avoid capitalism, or embrace capitalism to preserve free markets.
Meanwhile, nobody noticed (and today most people can barely even conceive) the libertarian socialists who disagreed with Marx's claim that you can't have free markets without capitalism, who have been to this day discussing (not that anybody else is listening) possible ways to prevent capitalism without sacrificing the free market.
Just thought you'd like to know that when you say things like "[capitalism] is a system where property is freely bought and sold", you are tacitly buying into Marxist rhetoric.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
To make people jobs back in the industrial revolution we had to fight for the rights of workers. Very hard. And with a lot of bloodshed. As the industrial revolution had also destroyed old family structures where the young cared for the old, and the healthy cared for the sick, we had to invent retirement funds and health care systems. We also required to develop an unemployment protection. Furthermore, an education system was required to educate the people. In addition we got higher output from farms and industry. As we had a real demand gap, as not all people had sufficient clothes and food, an massive increase in production was a good thing to support them.
Now in the next step we will eradicate a lot of jobs which were suitable for present day humans. The new jobs which are created are all for higher education or caring jobs. However, most of present day workers could not be educated in a way to reach higher education. This is impossible. Furthermore, we have now no gap in demand of important resources in the Western world. Therefore, the workforce will be reduced. As the state is normally funded based on income tax of workers, this has also an impact on state finances. A solution would be to tax profit, but present govenrments try to avoid that.
Therefore, time does not repeat. The preconditions are quite different. The effects are different. And the outcome will be different. However, to stay in your picture. We will have to fight for our rights again. Including unconditional basic income, education towards self-improvement rather than wealth. Taxing profit, finance transactions etc. and it will cause a lot of bloodshed.