Discussion Of "the Concept Of Jobs And Money"

[Mariel33]

People deciding to be united and cooperative doesn’t eliminate the need for them to do jobs, because performing any task, or “piece of work” is by definition doing a job. Although we are often paid to do jobs or a job (which has a slightly different definition), even if we are not, what we do remains a job.

 

Most people, I think, have already decided to be united and cooperative. We have, many without being familiar with the phrase, entered into the social contract, by which we agree to give up some kinds of freedom, such as the freedom to attack one another, with the understanding that we all give up these freedoms. Not only do we agree to give up freedoms, and thus not do some things, we agree to do things we and our families don’t directly benefit from, with the understanding that others will do likewise. We agree to not be self-sufficient, and to over-produce.

 

As for “filling life’s void”, I think most people can do this whether employed or not, as evidenced by people too young, too old, or too disabled to be employed finding ways to occupy their time. In every country at every time, about 1/3rd of the population falls in this category.

 

Most of us are employed, I think, not for the “void-filling” routine it provides, but for the money, and for the good feeling that we are being of service to others.

What if there was no money, and no institutions to allow people to take jobs?

Edited November 24, 2016 by Mariel33

[CraigD]

What if there was no money, and no institutions to allow people to take jobs?

What do you intend “money” and “job” to mean in this sentence? That is, what is your definition of these two words as applies to this sentence?

[Mariel33]

What do you intend “money” and “job” to mean in this sentence? That is, what is your definition of these two words as applies to this sentence?

Doing the same thing in the same place. Being a bus driver, or a receptionist, or teacher or factory worker.

What if there isn't any of the institutions to allow people to do these jobs - doing work is one thing, but doing just the same something for years requires political establishment.

 

Money and jobs in the sense I've described means presumption. Having the necessary establishment for money and taxes means needing to presume to a massive degree.

What is the sensible way to allow people to express themselves (including work), but also experience change - because change is just as essential to the human psyche as the fact of activity.

[exchemist]

I do not believe that the IT revolution will make everyone unemployed, any more than the many previous technical revolutions in history have done. Why would the IT revolution be different?

 

I can see that it may do much to remove the most basic physical tasks, so we many end up with a subgroup of those with very low intellect, i.e. those who can only do this sort of work, who may become unemployable. But I do not see that this needs to be a large part of the population.  Society and its institutions will be needed just as today - and there will be plenty of jobs to do, just as there were after previous technology revolutions. The fact that we can't see what they will be does not mean there will not be any. 

 

As a matter of fact I think we can perhaps see one limit to the extent of future automation already: lack of human interaction. I would not be surprised if there were a reaction against automated service provision, due to the insensitivity, stupidity, inflexibility and impersonal coldness of computers. 

 

As for "filling life's void", that is one of the main purposes of education, surely? An educated person can occupy their intellects - and bodies - in a variety of ways, according to how they have been taught. Anybody who can read a book has access to a mind-stretching inner life. Same goes for anyone who has been taught to play a musical instrument, or to sing, or indeed someone who has learnt how to play football, or row a boat.  As a retired person, this is something I am very much aware of. 

[sanctus]

Exchemist, I see where you are coming from, but the fact that other such revolutions did not have unemployment results in the past does not imply that this is always the case.

The "lack of human interaction" is only a matter if people notice it; I mean if AI is good enough you won't notice.

The one big difference of this revolution is that it permits same productivity with less people, while previous technical revolutions were increasing productivity with less people (eg. Ford). The former does not change the status of people, the latter increases it. (Have to ponder this part a bit more I think).

Sure ther will be some new jobs appearing, but I the jobs becoming obsolete are so many more.

[exchemist]

Exchemist, I see where you are coming from, but the fact that other such revolutions did not have unemployment results in the past does not imply that this is always the case.

 

The "lack of human interaction" is only a matter if people notice it; I mean if AI is good enough you won't notice.

 

The one big difference of this revolution is that it permits same productivity with less people, while previous technical revolutions were increasing productivity with less people (eg. Ford). The former does not change the status of people, the latter increases it. (Have to ponder this part a bit more I think).

 

Sure ther will be some new jobs appearing, but I the jobs becoming obsolete are so many more.

I don't quite follow you. I thought productivity was economic output per employed person. If so, then the same productivity with fewer people means less economic output. I doubt this can be what you mean. 

 

What I would like to understand is whether it is alleged that this revolution is qualitatively different from previous industrial innovations and if so, in what way and why is it expected to create more permanent unemployment than previous waves of innovation.

 

History has many lessons for us, if people will just slow down and think for a moment, and I have the suspicion that there may be some hype about this change: there usually is. (Remember the dotcom bubble? ) But I freely admit I have not studied this robotic revolution in detail, so I may be missing something.

[OceanBreeze]

I think it is a bit premature to be worrying about a time when computers and robotics essentially put the vast majority of people out of work; except of course the computer scientists and robotics engineers.

My reasoning is based on the fact that computers, software and the Internet seems to have created more jobs than it has destroyed. For example, Google did not replace AT&T; AT&T is still going strong as the world’s largest telecommunications company and still employs several hundred thousand people. In fact, it would appear that Google created new jobs for over 50,000 of its own employees.

As for robots, just as todays cars need someone to change the oil now and then, all of these robots will require people to keep them well-maintained and repaired, creating a new job category of robot repairman.

Also, I expect the need for engineers of all kinds will increase exponentially to turn out more and more advanced robots. Jobs will still be there, just shifted up one or two levels in technical capability, and that will require more education and training for the work force, meaning there will be a need for more teachers as well.

As our elderly population grows, there will be a need for people to care for them. I doubt very much that robotic caretakers can ever achieve the “humanity” needed for such a task. We already see evidence of this trend as more and more people are travelling to places in Asia to get the kind of personal medical attention that is no longer available in their home countries. Plus, there is an influx of nurses and doctors into the USA from places such as Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Health care for senior citizens is one of the fastest growing industries in the world.

At some point, probably fairly soon, patching up the infrastructure in the old cities will no longer make financial sense. We will need to completely tear down our old infrastructure and build from scratch entirely new cities to accommodate our new technological way of life. That will be a tremendous effort and require an enormous amount of manpower and can probably only be accomplished as a government undertaking.

In the more distant future, by the time the robot age reaches its full potential, with artificial intelligence, to the point where they are building and repairing themselves, we should already be colonizing the moon, Venus and Mars and there will be no shortage of work for intrepid space explorers and colonists.

All of this is very speculative but I just don’t see the end of jobs and work in our future.

Then again, if we are not careful and some people get left behind in all these advances, there is a real possibility someone will employ the nuclear option and destroy civilization as we know it and we get to start over again.

 

[HydrogenBond]

Jobs and money help improve our collective way of life. The reason is, jobs create value added. Jobs help to transform basic resources into something with more intrinsic value. This value added can be either objective or subjective. For example, if we have a job that builds bridges, and the bridge save commuter time, this save fuel cost for everyone, therefore allows people to have more money in their pocket; objective value added. Or we work a job in a factory that makes pet rocks. This is not objective value added, but rather subjective value added, since it brings joy to some people. 

 

Jobs allows money to multiply, via value added, allowing us to hire more people, who create even more value added. Jobs and money is the human version of an eco-system, where the jobs of each aspect of the eco-system, adds value to itself and the whole, with the growing value of the whole, allowing a larger and healthier system. 

 

Theoretically, better paying jobs can be created with nothing but subjectivity and marketing. Trump might be able to pull this off. For example, say we could make everyone want to buy and possess cups of water from all the top 1000 rivers of world. Everyone is induced to want the entire1000 cup set, since it gives you prestige; social value. This is not objective value, but it could create jobs and value added. The next, year we rotate and now rocks from the world's mountains is important to everyone. This creates jobs and value added. In the rare places of the world where these samples are harder to come by, value added is higher. 

 

The subjective aspect of value added is also part of an ecosystem, in that the waste of one aspect of the system, can become the food of another; cow manure and grass. It does not require good for good; milk for grass, for an ecosystem to be healthy. In fact, the subjective factor allows a larger system to develop.

 

Conceptually you could add subjective value added and increase the minimum wage based on value. Like in an eco-system, even the smallest bug in the system, plays an important role. If they were not there, it could destabilize the entire system. This shows the power of the bug and just how valuable it is. 

Edited November 26, 2016 by HydrogenBond

[Mariel33]

Jobs and money help improve our collective way of life. The reason is, jobs create value added. Jobs help to transform basic resources into something with more intrinsic value. This value added can be either objective or subjective. For example, if we have a job that builds bridges, and the bridge save commuter time, this save fuel cost for everyone, therefore allows people to have more money in their pocket; objective value added. Or we work a job in a factory that makes pet rocks. This is not objective value added, but rather subjective value added, since it brings joy to some people. 

 

Jobs allows money to multiply, via value added, allowing us to hire more people, who create even more value added. Jobs and money is the human version of an eco-system, where the jobs of each aspect of the eco-system, adds value to itself and the whole, with the growing value of the whole, allowing a larger and healthier system. 

 

Theoretically, better paying jobs can be created with nothing but subjectivity and marketing. Trump might be able to pull this off. For example, say we could make everyone want to buy and possess cups of water from all the top 1000 rivers of world. Everyone is induced to want the entire1000 cup set, since it gives you prestige; social value. This is not objective value, but it could create jobs and value added. The next, year we rotate and now rocks from the world's mountains is important to everyone. This creates jobs and value added. In the rare places of the world where these samples are harder to come by, value added is higher. 

 

The subjective aspect of value added is also part of an ecosystem, in that the waste of one aspect of the system, can become the food of another; cow manure and grass. It does not require good for good; milk for grass, for an ecosystem to be healthy. In fact, the subjective factor allows a larger system to develop.

What is the right balance between work and change - should a healthy amount of the latter be sabotaged due to status?

[Maine farmer]

What is the right balance between work and change - should a healthy amount of the latter be sabotaged due to status?

That would all depend on the individual and the occupation, and how much the individual enjoys the occupation.  Also, work need not be absent change.  Your example of teaching is certainly not an occupation lacking change.  Just have a conversation with a teacher!

[Mariel33]

That would all depend on the individual and the occupation, and how much the individual enjoys the occupation.  Also, work need not be absent change.  Your example of teaching is certainly not an occupation lacking change.  Just have a conversation with a teacher!

What about individuals that don't enjoy an occupation - and the idea that occupations people do enjoy needing occupations that people don't enjoy?

Edited November 27, 2016 by Mariel33

[Maine farmer]

What about individuals that don't enjoy an occupation - and the idea that occupations people do enjoy needing occupations that people don't enjoy?

It might suck to be one of them!

 

Of course, some people may choose to do the minimum amount of work to live by.  The trouble is, most people seem to find themselves wanting more things that they may not actually need, and so they work more to attain more things, and the next thing you know, they have all the things, but no time to enjoy them!  The only escape from that vicious circle is to get back to the basics of what one really needs.

[Mariel33]

It might suck to be one of them!

 

Of course, some people may choose to do the minimum amount of work to live by.  The trouble is, most people seem to find themselves wanting more things that they may not actually need, and so they work more to attain more things, and the next thing you know, they have all the things, but no time to enjoy them!  The only escape from that vicious circle is to get back to the basics of what one really needs.

If all people just indulged the basics, would that be compatible with Wall Street and billionaire wealth?

[Maine farmer]

If all people just indulged the basics, would that be compatible with Wall Street and billionaire wealth?

The key word her is "all", and that would just never happen.  

 

I think where humanity gets into trouble is when we envy the wealthy instead of just trying to live our own  happy life.

[Mariel33]

The key word her is "all", and that would just never happen.  

 

I think where humanity gets into trouble is when we envy the wealthy instead of just trying to live our own  happy life.

Isn't it wealth though that prevents happy living for all?

[Maine farmer]

Happiness is different for different people.  One of the failures of Western thought is the confusion of material wealth with happiness.  

[billvon]

1) Income of given job inversely proportional to number of people wanting to do it; critics were saying "who will clean toilets then?", the reply was "this would be a job which is MOST payed". The cool thing resulting then is people no more study for a well-payed job, if yhou went to study you would only do it because you are really interested!

 

As today, salaries would be decided by supply and demand - and by the price of automating such tasks.  If no one wants to clean toilets until income hits $1 million a year, then companies will purchase $500,000 self-cleaning toilets.  But in reality people say "you know, I _am_ actually willing to clean toilets for $250,000 a year."  And then someone else says "OK, well, I'll do it for $200,000 a year."  And since such a job requires effectively no experience or talent, the potential supply pool includes everyone.

 

 

2) Innovation (I comletely disagree with the time machine thing someone here said), just think how often you had a cool idea and thought "some1 should make a company doing that, since I can't take the risk"? With minimal income you COULD take the risk.

That is more than counterbalanced by the number of people who would think "I could do the work to develop that and make some money, but on the other hand I can just watch TV and drink beer;  I don't really need the money.  And it's a lot of work developing ideas."