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."
Taxing isn't really a solution. The problem is the concentration of money flows to a few. The government getting their hands on it after the fact is too late. We need a better distribution of how income is made.
To be clear: I don't totally agree with everything she says. In this particular case, she sounds like she's going to start talking about so-called 'UBI' -- which I don't believe is a good idea in any way, shape, or form. People who have the motivation to work taken away from them just plain won't work at all, in spite of what UBI proponents claim about people 'finding their purpose', or 'being creative', or stuff like that: most people will just fritter away their lives and do essentially nothing of value for it. Meanwhile, go right ahead and try taking away the trillions that The Rich have accumulated, and see how far you get with that idea. If there was ever anything that would start Civil War 2, that's near the top of the list. You think The Rich won't fight back? Hell yes, they'll fight tooth and nail to keep their money and their power, and they'll buy armies and topple governments to keep what's theirs. You think the world is fucked right now? It's playtime compared to what the world would be like once The Rich are threatened and go on the attack with their trillions.
What we really need is a way to make all that money worthless that's been accumulated by The Rich, nullifying their power along with it. Your best guess as to how to accomplish that.
The economics are hard to wrap our heads around, for sure. I honestly don't know how they will work out. But one thing that seems missing is that people near the bottom of the poverty rung spend most of their money. Giving them more means they will just spend more. And the more they spend, the more goods and services they need, and the more jobs those things require.
The economy runs on monetary velocity, not absolute used. One dude buying a $1b island doesn't fire the economy like 500m people spending $2 on something. UBI means more people buying more stuff, and needing more people to provide that stuff. All that means more sales and income taxes, which helps fund UBI.
All the "UBI experiments" have been limited in funds and scope, and don't look at the broader economic impacts of people with more free cash to spend. We're not going to really have an answer of how well UBI works until it's fully implemented for the first time. That's a terrifying proposition, but one I really hope some country is brave enough to try in the near future. It's the answer to whether we get a star-trek no-scarcity future, or if we continue to fund the rich on the suffering of the poor.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Trust me, none of those countries are socialist. I grew up in some of them, I’ve lived for the majority of my life there, I emigrated to the US partially because growing socialist policies were making work-life unsustainable.
Yes, they have plenty of socialist policies, partially due to the EU but they’re also some of the highest taxed countries and you still have to work a lot to pay taxes that support those that don’t.
What they don’t have: guaranteed income (which is a basic tenet of socialism/communism), guaranteed jobs, guaranteed housing. They do have those for immigrants and professional victims but not for their own population. They have government funded healthcare, except they don’t pay for the majority of your healthcare costs and you still are required to get private insurance.
However socialist movements in those countries have led to unstable economies and a growing tension over the last 2 decades between immigrants and natives to the point that the only reason local governments in Belgium, France and the Netherlands aren’t currently extreme-right (yes, Nazi-style parties) are huge coalitions between every other party to prevent them coming to power. Those coalitions however make the government, especially in Belgium and the Netherlands but also in France extremely volatile and unstable.
But keep dreaming about your socialist countries.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I was a pipelayer until 1999 when I tore up my knee. In the southeast, the guy running the tractor would make between $18/hr and $25/hr, white guys in the ditch were maybe $12-$15/hr, hispanic or black were maybe $9-$13, somewhere in there (yes, it was straight rascist. Don't bitch at me about it, I was one of the guys standing in the ditch with a shovel). There would typically be about 3 or 4 labor guys for each tractor guy, although I saw one crew with about 10 laborers paired with one tractor operator.
I would guess that crews are the same or smaller now. I am sure they make a little more money. I doubt many of them make a lot in any context that includes software engineers. People (or businesses) that own tractors can make a lot of money.
The issue with the benefits of automation is similar, I think, with the issue with the benefits of the tractor. The benefits accrue to the owner of the automation, same as the benefits of the tractor. If factory laborers bought the robots that replaced their jobs, it would be natural to agree that they should keep those profits while relaxing at home. Unfortunately, it's the factory/shop/store owners that are buying them and the laborers might be in trouble.
It seems morally straightforward that the people who took the risk of investing in automation should receive the rewards, but that results in a seriously fubared society. So here I sit waiting for some insightful commentary, 'cause damned if I know the answer.
What they don’t have: guaranteed income (which is a basic tenet of socialism/communism), guaranteed jobs, guaranteed housing. They do have those for immigrants and professional victims but not for their own population.
Stop your lying. Nothing of that is true.
However socialist movements in those countries have led to unstable economies and a growing tension over the last 2 decades between immigrants and natives to the point that the only reason local governments in Belgium, France and the Netherlands aren’t currently extreme-right (yes, Nazi-style parties) are huge coalitions between every other party to prevent them coming to power. Those coalitions however make the government, especially in Belgium and the Netherlands but also in France extremely volatile and unstable.
Again, lies. The economies of the 'socialist' countries you mention are extremely stable in comparison to other countries in the world, just look at the growth rates in recent years. The governments as well. In fact, in the Netherlands, the coalitions have been slightly right leaning for decades now.
The rise of populism is a worldwide phenomenon fueled by sensationalism and geopolitical strife and is clearly not a result of 'socialist movements'.
Freedom Dividend from Yang's platform directly addresses this automation job loss concern. I have never supported a candidate before now because of this man's well-spoken platform. It caters to data and tech nerds while reaching middle America. Vote Yang in 2020 Democratic Primary