A push mower is like $50, you can also get them used for $10 or free as well.

The whole point is that those technologies don't save the workers time at all, because the time saved just gets filled up with more work. The business owners are the one who benefit from the increased productivity, not the workers.

The workers don't get more free time as a result of the technology. In many cases, they take a pay cut because the technology makes their job "easier" or "less skilled." So they still work 8 or more hours a day, and they still make barely enough to get by on (if they even make that much), while their boss only gets richer for their efforts.

This is the entire point that seems to be going over your head.

[Edit: "easier" and "less skilled" were in scare-quotes because they don't represent my personal point of view, but it's how the employers justify it. Thought that would be obvious.]

Capitalism is already a caste system. UBI would just ensure the lowest rungs don't starve or lack housing/healthcare/other essentials.

Not sure how you're connecting "UBI → caste system," so you'll need to show your work on that one.

If we can fix our government so that it actually works for the people instead of the corporations, then I'd say we should nationalize every publicly-traded company, install price controls, use the revenue to fund UBI, civic infrastructure, and social assistance programs; and then balance the sheets so that each company barely breaks even without extracting any profits. That can all be done without violence.

Your "violent nationalization" sounds poorly thought out. How do you go from "violence → nationalization"? I don't really see a logical progression from A to B.

And what about C, as in, what comes after that? Okay, you nationalized the companies. Now what, who controls it? The government? What happens if people keep electing corrupt officials? And what benefit will nationalization do if you're against UBI anyway?

And that's all without even touching on the vagueness of "any company with more than a handful of employees." How do you define that? An LLC with 6 or more employees? That could include most mom&pop shops. So you just want to murder old people and take their livelihoods, entrust it to the state, and what, profit?

No I get that, but both topics can happen at once.

Sorry this need to be explained that your view isn’t the only one ;)

We have all these things to use at home because they originally started at work, can’t have one without the other. But you would need to look at this objectively for that, but clearly you are biased and just want to whinge that capitalism is bad! Even though that wasn’t brought up by anyone in this chain. But bloviate if you want!

Nah

Lol. Who washed the cloths?

I mean violent both because violence would probably be needed and because it would need to be done at great speed.

Currently, there's a clear path to go from poverty to middle class. It's easier for some depending right now but not an impossibility. If jobs become a luxury, there won't be a middle class.

Rapid job loss + UBI doesn't lead to anything except rich people lording over the rest of us. Granted that's already the case, but UBI doesn't solve much currently. We have welfare to take care of the bottom rungs, we need to level the playing field so there isn't much rungs about it.

No, clearly, I don't mean mom&pop shops. It would be more apt to go with profits I guess, past a certain level, you get a medal and your company gets nationalized.

I'd say we should nationalize every publicly-traded company, install price controls, use the revenue to fund UBI, civic infrastructure, and social assistance programs; and then balance the sheets so that each company barely breaks even without extracting any profits.

That's basically what I'm trying to say, but UBI alone is basically a bandage that hides the wound and stops a minimum of bleeding. Imo, it's more of a trap then anything else. Something to pacify the masses once it gets bad so the rich can keep their game going.

You first. You lazy ass, talentless moron.

Back in the day, half of jobs were literally death sentences lol. Weird to see this amalgamation of technophobia and historical honey moon syndrome.

You're loading so much strawman and ad hominem into that comment that I can only assume you're not arguing in good faith. Did you use your alts to upvote yourself? Cause I can't imagine anyone on this sub would go for that drivel

Even though that wasn’t brought up by anyone in this chain.

This entire post is about "AI taking over jobs," and now you want to pretend the topic isn't about work life (i.e., under capitalism)?

Sorry this need to be explained that your view isn’t the only one

What are you even trying to insinuate? Did I ever claim that my viewpoint is the only one? No, I just said you're wrong. I can do that without claiming some sort of monopoly on facts.

Besides, you're the one who seems to be having trouble admitting that you've been mistaken. Instead of saying "Oh, that makes sense, yeah I get it now" you're launching into this tirade of personal attacks? Not rational behavior. And yet you want to preach to me about "looking at it objectively"?

Objectively, the topic of this conversation was about whether technology saves workers time, and the fact is, it doesn't, as can be demonstrably proven.

Nobody was talking about whether or not washing machines save you time on your chores. A person who works at an industrial laundromat facility isn't getting a 4-hour workday with UBI just because somebody invented a more efficient machine. He'll be doing the same amount of work, not getting paid more for the increased productivity. Only difference is his boss will get richer. Do you want to continue denying that reality?

As an analogy for AI in the workplace, which is where this conversation started, the pattern holds true. It doesn't save the workers time. It doesn't make them more money. They get worked just as hard for just as long, sometimes even moreso as the expected output increases. And their bosses reap the benefits of any increase in productivity.

Any attempt by you to retreat behind a motte-and-bailey by trying to subtly change the topic to basic housekeeping tasks (which again, is not the topic of this discussion), is doing nothing more than obfuscating the situation for the benefit of the owner-class. So what is your goal here?

The post was about jobs, so we are...

Rapid job loss + UBI doesn't lead to anything except rich people lording over the rest of us.

Rapid job loss with no UBI leads to the same thing but worse. I'm not saying we should rely on their generosity. The government should tax the fuck out of them and find an equitable way to distribute the UBI, because ultimately those funds are just what the wealthy oligarchs extracted from society to begin with.

We have welfare to take care of the bottom rungs

We do? Where do you live, the Nordics? My country doesn't currently take care of the bottom rungs at all...

we need to level the playing field so there isn't much rungs about it.

And UBI would be one piece of that, I'm not saying it alone would solve everything. But if the job market shrinks because corpos automate everything and lay off the majority of their employees, then UBI will become not only necessary but also feasible in a way that it wasn't pre-automation.

Imo, it's more of a trap then anything else. Something to pacify the masses once it gets bad so the rich can keep their game going.

I'm not suggesting it as a standalone stopgap measure. It should certainly be one part of a more comprehensive reformation of how the economy is structured. But if they're going to replace all the jobs with machines, then they're going to need to guarantee everyone a livelihood or else "pacifying the masses" will be the least of our worries, unless you mean it in the more euphemistic and gruesome sense...

Ya I get you and all. It's mostly that UBI can be used by the mega rich to stay in power and keep pilfering. It's much harder to do with the other options. The state owning all big businesses would naturally lead to UBI if major job losses occur but the same isn't true the other way around. There's a very real chance UBI leads straight to dystopia.

Welfare isn't working because it was never protected and never tied to inflation. The same will most likely be done with UBI. They just have to wait and cause inflation to turn UBI into "barely enough", just so they can buy bigger boats. I see it as a trap is all.

It's so easy for people to take the check and thank them, just to find themselves subsisting 10 years later. I legit think there is danger in it.

But bloviate if you want!

I see you went and did exactly that! Lmfao.

You apparently have no concept about how much technology saves for manual labor, yes it doesn’t always mean less work, but you’re working less in a lot of cases. Take that however you want, but you’ve already shown your view is apparantly the only valid one.

Would you rather use a scythe and blow your back out, use a push mower and be dead at the end of the day, or use a ride on and be comfortable all day? I know which one I would prefer, but go ahead and use your sciccors so you get less done, do a worse job, and be too sore and have no energy for you own shit.

Universal basic income will never happen under current trend.
What will happen is more like oligarchs setting up charities for the commoners: they keep you alive, and in exchange, they can do whatever the hell they want, including abusing kids they'll force you to have and raise.

Have you seriously never heard of jobs that pay by the sq/ft or piece…?

Drywall mudding with the right tools you can mud a house in a day instead of 5 and make the same money. Lawns are typically by the house as well, so the better the mower, the faster you can earn, or the sooner you can go home in the same day.

So how does that not save someone time? They could do the same amount of jobs and make the same money if the want, or make more, it’s entirely their choice.

Don’t have such a narrow and ignorant view of the world.

I've taken that position at work. Since nobody's telling me otherwise, I'm taking some of that efficiency gain for myself. Tickets are still resolved quicker, but I profit despite the job sucking now, being nothing but code review. If I don't get some of the benefits, I'm going back to doing things by hand.

But they'd be unemployed, and therefore wouldn't have money for shit. So nice, you can starve to death with your family

We'd all be unemployed. No jobs.

Before washing machines, people would hand off washing to professionals.

Uh, maybe for rich people...

Let me introduce you to the washboard and the bucket.

We need to stop AI now. My family drive me up the wall it's why I don't live with them, crazy nutcases.

See the pandemic if you're interested in knowing how much people want to spend time with their families.

They're probably not saying that because they are too busy asking the far more important question of "If Ai takes all the jobs, how can I afford to feed and shelter the family and children I love"

You do understand why people work right? Very few people work just for funsies. They work so they can afford to eat, pay rent, pay for utilities, and be able to afford essentials like clothing, health insurance, transportation.

Almost everything we need to actually live and function costs money. You primarily get money by having a job. So if someone gets laid off, they're probably very busy trying to find another source of income so they can actually keep their children alive and healthy.

Kiss them goodnight and make sure they drink enough water?

its primarly currently used an excuse to lay people off, and hire less people back if at all.

The ai won't take all the jobs! There will be at least a few thousand prompt engineers!

They already have people for that

We tried that at my job, who are pushing AI down our throats.

I'm not sure how they can say with a straight face that they now expect us to do 300-700% more work (their estimate) for the same pay and the same hours as before, but they apparently can... Just capitalism things I guess.

They also ridiculed the person who asked in front of the whole company.

The oldest profession might just be the longest lasting one

There has never been a case of capitalism using improvements in efficiency to let people work less, use fewer resources, etc.

It's always more, more, more.

As some wise boys said 40 years ago, "you gotta fight, for your right, to party".

But why do we need to work to earn money? Because if those jobs didn’t get done we couldn’t survive. What OP is asking, I think, is if those essential jobs were automated, nobody would need to work, so why aren’t we talking about that?

Greed, greed ruins everything.

Ill grant you all those things but what youre describing is the exact chains the oppressor use to keep you enslaved.

4 real

My person!

Someone has never heard of flat rate or piece rate work.

Except piecework and flat rate jobs still exist. You don’t have to work for someone else especially with how affordable most of these tools are.

Most jobs give you the training, most jobs aren’t that physical, and you get paid to learn and work. None of those are obstacles at all, you’re just ignorant.

I don't know where you are but they don't do that in my southern state. Maybe you're just privileged.

The USA really is a shit hole, most countries have government trade programs. The USA does, but they allow the states to just do what they want regardless, so it’s useless.

And even in those southern states, the companies pay for the training. You really have no clue about how trades work do you?

Just Google your state, a random trade, and you can learn a whole hell of a lot your ignorant about I guess, but also look federal too.

And most trades just need a high school diploma to apply, you’re seriously not suggesting that’s an obstacle are you….?

Because I've never done that. 🙄

Is that how most jobs that use AI work? Because that's what this analogy is about

Than why are you saying those are obstacles? Anyone who would look up how to apply for a trade would see that’s bullshit lmfao. Education? High school diploma. Physical? There’s tools and there people doing trades in a fucking wheelchair. Finances? Trades pay well and you don’t have debt from schooling, AND they pay for your schooling going forward.

That’s ignorance, your clearly haven’t looked anything up, and now you’re gonna claim you have?

What about working for a job in your state makes any of those 3 claims of yours obstacles? I thought I explained pretty well why your 3 specific claims aren’t.

? The topic is about all jobs.

And what specific jobs have ai taken over that you’re talking about?

Op literally said “if” in their post, you may be off about what the topic is about here dude.

You are an over confident jackass.

Don’t make bold ignorant claims like they’re fact *shrug*

And don’t double down when called out.

Software engineering for one, and most white collar jobs for another.

If industry follows the example of China's car factories, then manufacturing jobs too.

"But what about gig work?" isn't a very good pro-AI argument to be honest

Gig work is something entirely different. Stop being ignorant.

There’s also salary workers too, they can go home when their expected work is done.

There’s far more jobs than the ones at your own desk dude. You can’t ignore a good portion of the world to make your points, which aren’t even that great anyways.

And none of those jobs have been taken by ai, it’s like saying a carpenters jobs been taken by a wheelbarrow. There’s still gonna be carpenters needed, yes a small portion of that work may be different. But the entire work section isn’t suddenly gone. That’s not what you think happens is it…? There will always be software engineers, they’re not gone are they?