Slashdot Mirror
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says Labor Shouldn't Have To Fear Automation (techcrunch.com)
Munky101 tipped us off to some interesting comments from New York's activist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. TechCrunch reports:
It's impossible to discuss the seismic shift toward automation without a conversation about job loss. Opponents of these technologies criticize a displacement that could someday result in wide-scale unemployment among what is often considered "unskilled" roles. Advocates, meanwhile, tend to suggest that reports of that nature tend to be overstated. Workforces shift, as they have done for time immemorial. During a conversation at SXSW this week, New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez offered another take entirely.
"We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work," she said in an answer reported by The Verge. "We should be excited by that. But the reason we're not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don't have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem... We should be excited about automation, because what it could potentially mean is more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing in and investigating the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in," The Verge quoted Ocasio-Cortez as saying. "Because not all creativity needs to be bonded by wage."
And Ocasio-Cortez cited Bill Gates' suggestion (first floated in a presentation on Quartz) that a robot tax might be a way to make that vision real. "What [Gates is] really talking about is taxing corporations," she reportedly said. "But it's easier to say: 'tax a robot.' "
Science fiction writer William Gibson called her comments "shockingly intelligent" for a politician. Fast Company adds that robots "have put half a million people out of work in the United States, and researchers estimate that bots could take 800 million jobs by 2030" -- then quotes Ocasio-Cortez's assessment of the unfair state of labor today.
"We should be working the least amount we've ever worked, if we were actually paid based on how much wealth we were producing, but we're not," she said. "We're paid by how little we're desperate enough to accept. And then the rest is skimmed off and given to a billionaire."
"We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work," she said in an answer reported by The Verge. "We should be excited by that. But the reason we're not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don't have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem... We should be excited about automation, because what it could potentially mean is more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing in and investigating the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in," The Verge quoted Ocasio-Cortez as saying. "Because not all creativity needs to be bonded by wage."
And Ocasio-Cortez cited Bill Gates' suggestion (first floated in a presentation on Quartz) that a robot tax might be a way to make that vision real. "What [Gates is] really talking about is taxing corporations," she reportedly said. "But it's easier to say: 'tax a robot.' "
Science fiction writer William Gibson called her comments "shockingly intelligent" for a politician. Fast Company adds that robots "have put half a million people out of work in the United States, and researchers estimate that bots could take 800 million jobs by 2030" -- then quotes Ocasio-Cortez's assessment of the unfair state of labor today.
"We should be working the least amount we've ever worked, if we were actually paid based on how much wealth we were producing, but we're not," she said. "We're paid by how little we're desperate enough to accept. And then the rest is skimmed off and given to a billionaire."
My friend owns a bar, pays workers minimum wage, last time I checked heâ(TM)s not a billionaire....
The US has people dying because they can't afford basic necessities such as insulin - your welfare programs suck.
What do you think is wrong with it, exactly? Why do you think it's "absurd"? Wells-Fargo financed the companies who cage children. That's a fact.
Except that it isn't. The companies Wells Fargo funded never caged children, but the Obama Administration did.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Practically all of of the 27 EU countries would disagree with you but what are facts?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Ocasio Cortez followed up: "You were financingâ"involved with debt financing CoreCivic and GeoGroup, correct?
The follow up link I posted has responses from both CoreCivic & GeoGroup, both of whom claim that they don't engage in caging children. That's the one you didn't read.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
right now a major problem we have is people are forced to cram into big cities where the jobs are in the hopes of landing one. This drives up costs and puts downward pressure on effective wages. Work from home isn't an option for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is that companies like to see what they're paying for).
UBI would let people take lower pay, spending their UBI on necessities and using their job income for luxuries. The cost of living would drop considerably overall as we could spread out into the land we have now (yes, shipping costs would go up a bit, but not as much as you think. Most folks are just going to move to smaller cities, not the boondocks).
The other thing people would spend UBI on is freedom. Remember, you're not free so long as somebody controls your access to food, shelter, medicine and education. Until you secure those things you're one paycheck away from doing anything the people in charge tell you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
While it's not UBI many European countries have something like a "last resort" social security. That is to say we're capable of sustaining a population without anyone starving, freezing etc. but it doesn't imply we want more of them.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
None of those countries are socialist. The Prime Minister of Denmark had to explain that to the very intelligent kids at Harvard not all that long ago. All of the Scandinavian countries are capitalist countries with high income tax rates that are paid for by a larger percentage of population as well as a VAT. Also, up until recently, they all had much lower corporate income tax rates than the U.S. They didn't raise theirs either, we just cut ours to a similar level that they have.
Those countries also have several various other factors that are distinct to each, but also not socialist. For example, Sweden has a voucher system for schools and as a result a large number of charter schools. Norway doesn't have a government mandated minimum wage. I wonder if you'd like to see the U.S. implement those socialist policies?
I suppose if you want to relabel free market capitalism as socialism I can't really stop you, but you may want to wrap some copper wire around Marx and put a magnet on his tombstone so that you can generate electricity while he spins in his grave.