People simultaneously seem scared of AI automating jobs, and of there being too many old people for young people to look after as they'd be too busy with jobs. Wouldn't those cancel each other out?
See the problem isn't that robots might replace my job, it's that we live in a system where I need to work to eat.
You don't have to work to eat. Get a 12-gauge, a .22 rifle and some fishing gear. Oh, lots of seeds as well. Go find a homesteading program.
Oh! You meant you want all the benefits of society without contributing! Misunderstood there for a moment.
What nonsense are you going on about? I pay my taxes. I contribute to society.
Btw the local wildlife population CANT support all of us. Animals and fish will go extinct and people will starve to death and die you absolute goofball.
Oh and hunting and fishing on land our laws keep the wildlife population stable in WOULD be living off society while contributing nothing. Societies hunting and licensing laws are the only reason there's anything left to hunt or fish at all.
Enjoy jerking yourself off all day.
Edit: even native Americans nearly hunted all animals to extinction until European disease devastated their population. Native Americans had much smaller population and were far far less greedy with their hunting than your average billybob12-gauge. It's not a sustainable way to live.
Oh, lots of seeds as well.
In what world is farming not work?
want all the benefits of society without contributing
No, that would be what the rich want (and get)
Dude, how the fuck is one supposed to contribute to society when you're competing with a robot!? You're really missing the point.
Moreover, most countries I know have hunting and fishing laws.
AI isn't going to guarantee those young people the income the jobs it is replacing would. AI as a part of capitalism is about cutting costs, not to be beneficial to society. It may have that as a side effect, but not enough to account for the economic impact of job losses on hose impacted by those losses.
The issue isn't really "too busy with jobs", it's not having enough monetary resources to take care of a large non-working population. The fear with AI is that it will take the comfy, high paying office jobs and demote the non c-suites down to manual labor. Unless corporate taxes are increased dramatically (unlikely) many of the young working class will be stretched thin trying to pay for their parent's care.
It would be possible to build a society where automation is used to provide a better life for everybody. But that is not the society we live in. Right now we're moving towards neo-feudalism, where everything belongs to a tiny ruling class and everybody else fights for scraps.
Hmm, that sounds sus. A society suddenly experiencing less labour demand because of technological advancement is a society that is, overall, enjoying the same level of wealth without the cost. If those benefits can't be used to help those who are worse off due to the change, then it is some beneficiaries within the society that are causing the harm.
I for one cannot wait for robots to be able to do all the mundane tasks, like being a cashier or truck driver, så that people can work in sectors that produce more value per hour spent. This is just an opinion tho :)
If these jobs become automated, that doesn't automatically create more "high level" jobs. It just creates unemployment.
Some people can't handle a job any more complex. I worked at a payroll firm that had low paying clients. Before that, I never really understood how many stupid people there are.
Fuck me, we went to sign up a new client and most of the people there were unable to read, struggled like hell with the online paperwork. Not saying they weren't computer literate (they weren't), they couldn't make out the words on the screen.
I like doing jobs that leave me with cognitive surplus at the end of the day.
Jag också
They don't cancel out because any gains are eaten by the top 0.1%.
Losses are social; gains are private. It's all about reverting labor practices towards 1890 until we get labor riots again. This time maybe they can murder union people and laborers with tech and robots, and don't need to be as scared of the masses as they used to be.
They probably aren't the same people. I'm reminded of Rush Limbaugh's habit of pretending a group of individuals were like one illogical person - for example, "Why do women get mad when men look at them as sex objects, but they wear such revealing clothing? If you walk around practically naked, guess what - men are going to look at you! Make up your mind!!" The fallacy is when groups of people with their own individual ideas and attitudes, who don't necessarily agree with each other, are treated like they're one irrational person.
They wouldn't cancel each other out, because the number of young people able to take care of the aging population will still be too few. Add to that the fact that pay won't go up with automation, because it never does, and the problem is still Capitalism and its activists strangling us to death.
the fear depends on the job, I for once welcome our AI overlords to do most if not all my job for me.
People are afraid of their homes burning down, and of torrential rain flooding their homes. Wouldn't these cancel each other out?
I don't think anyone is worried about there being too many old people for young people to look after. I believe you're confusing that for the very serious issue, being that there won't be enough young people financially supporting social services to adequately fund them to meet the needs of the aging population. In that sense, AI automating jobs directly exacerbates the problem, because less young people working means less taxes funding things like social security and Medicare in the US.
Lol spoken from someone who has never worked in nursing homes. It's not a population issue it's a horrible job cleaning shit off old people ass. There is never enough people willing to fill that role. Source: worked as a CNA after highschool for 5 years. Used to get mandated double shifts every week because the following shift to whichever shift I would be working would be short staffed.
Of course there are enough people to fill that role-- there aren't enough people willing to fill that role for the shit pay. Increase the pay, eventually you'll hit the point where the jobs are filled
This is gonna blow your mind, but the staffing issue has very little to do with populations available, and significantly more to do with funding. I'm aware of the shitshow elderly care has already become in the United States, but people work dogshit jobs all the time. The problem is that CNA pay and benefits are ass, and the reason is because elderly care is often subsidized by the federal government, and the feds can only pay so much.