It should free up individuals to do more rewarding jobs, but unfortunately we still live in a capitalist society. The only individuals that benefit from increased automation are the capitalists that own the robots, not the members of the working class that are losing their jobs.
looking at it from the perspective of the working class automation is scary in the short term, just like the invention of automated farming equipment was scary in 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture
Now approximately 2-3 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture, is flipping burgers really that different?
I know the perfect way to gain 100% employment outlaw all farming machines, but you can see the flaws in that solution. Everyone is hurt by higher cost food and the opportunity cost of all the work that is more complex
True the people that put up the money and took the risk of engineering innovative ways of doing things better see the largest benefits, but the person that gets the innovation wrong many times goes broke.
The "working class" needs to realize that the nature of work is changing and the assembly line education we were all feed is not going to cut it in a fast pace economy we are living in today.
> I know the perfect way to gain 100% employment outlaw all farming machines, but you can see the flaws in that solution.
The capitalist system requires a reserve army of labor so 100% employment cannot coexist with the capitalist mode of production. The only reason outlawing farming machines could allow for 100% unemployment is that it would replace the capitalist mode of production with the foraging mode of production.
> True the people that put up the money and took the risk of engineering innovative ways of doing things better see the largest benefits.
The people that receive the most benefits are the capitalists who control the means of production. Our most talented engineers are being exploited by the capitalists, so they aren't the ones receiving the benefits of production. Some capitalists might just so happen to be engineers but that is not the basis of their social relationship to the means of production.
> The "working class" needs to realize that the nature of work is changing and the assembly line education we were all feed is not going to cut it in a fast pace economy we are living in today.
With this statement you are taking the elitist position that us workers need to be told what we need to "realize" and that we deserve to suffer because what we are doing "is not going to cut it." Workers are in this precarious position entirely because the capitalist class has undeserved control over the means of production. The workers should take control of the means of production and use it to satisfy human needs rather then profit. With communal ownership of the means of production, automation technology will benefit the entire race rather then a minority of greedy capitalists.
It seems like you listen to a lot of the propaganda used to separate people into classes that keep them believing that they shouldn't even try. We're living in an age where anyone with an Idea and a little bit of savings can bring a project to fruition.
Stop watching Americana Idol, learn from all the free resources online and lift yourself up from the bootstraps. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and do something about it!
Stop listening to the self-defeating prophecy feed to you by people trying to separate society for political gain. It's easy to write yourself off, give up, and take the drone job.
Solution: Open Source Everything - Pure Free Market Competition - Less Government Interference.
> It seems like you listen to a lot of the propaganda used to separate people into classes that keep them believing that they shouldn't even try.
In the earliest human societies nobody was more entitled to the worlds natural resources then anybody else. According to Heckewelder in Iroquios society "whatever liveth on the land, whatever groweth out of the earth, and all that is in the rivers and waters, was given jointly to all".
Classes emerged when one group of people decided that they were more entitled to the Earth's natural resources then everyone else. These people made these natural resources into their private property and in order to get wealth out of those natural resources they made human workers into their private property as well. These owners became the ruling class and their subjects became the slave class.
Slavery existed in human society for several millennia until it was partially replaced by feudalism. In feudal societies, there was still a ruling class that controlled the natural resources and violently suppressed anyone who opposed them, except that their serfs had a little bit more autonomy and they were tied to the land rather then their masters.
The industrial revolution changed everything. In industrial societies people were able to work in other sectors of the economy besides the primary sector, which allowed some people to live free of the tyranny of the landlords. However, new forms of private property emerged corresponding to the new sectors of the economy. In the manufacturing sector, there was private property in the means of production and the instruments of labor, and in the knowledge sector there was intellectual private property.
The private ownership of our natural resources also still exists. As an example, Gina Rinehart, the world's richest woman, is a mining tycoon who inherited her control of Australia's natural mining resources. Classes have existed throughout written history and with people like Gina Rinehart they apply today as much as ever before.
> Open Source Everything
You want to eliminate the form of private property that exists in your sector of the economy: intellectual property. This is good, but what are you going to do for people working in the primary and secondary sectors of the economy? Do you want farmers to continue to subjected to the tyranny of the landlords and do you want for manufacturing workers to continue to be completely alienated from their workplace?
> Stop watching Americana Idol, learn from all the free resources online and lift yourself up from the bootstraps.
What is with this ad hominem attack? I don't even know what "Americana Idol" is. I spend most of my time studying mathematics and writing computer programs.
Dude, it's not a matter of "workers against capitalists". We are all both workers and capitalists. When we rent out our apartments because we're abroad for a semester we're capitalists. No one has a monopoly on the means of production. If you think you can do better then give it a try. No one is forcing you to work for them. Employers and workers are in a symbiotic relationship, whether they realize it or not.
The "working class" has absolutely no choice in this matter, so blaming it on them by saying 'they need to realize x or y' is quite besides the point.
Skill sets and education are largely besides the point too. While it is nice to shuffle around people's skill sets and adapt them to other professions in the short term, in the long run many of those 'skilled' professions will largely be automated too. Even if those workers were capable of acquiring the fabled 'transversal skills' necessary to do the surviving jobs (which many of them most definitely are not), the increase in labor surplus will mean more people will stay permanently jobless.
Hence, a more collective ownership of the (automated) means of production is what counts. That sounds awfully marxist though, so good luck trying to convince people of that.
I personally would love to believe we're going to end up in a leisure society with a guaranteed minimum income supplemented by some tradeable activities we personally find meaningful (utopia, hooray), it seems more likely we're set for rentier capitalism with a large underclass of jobless vagrants though.
> Even if those workers were capable of acquiring the fabled 'transversal skills' necessary to do the surviving jobs (which many of them most definitely are not), the increase in labor surplus will mean more people will stay permanently jobless.
Great! Jobs are a means to an end for many people. The more jobs that get replaced by automation the more prices will fall, and the less you have to work to buy the things you want.
All the resources can never get into the hands of the producers without resorting to violence. Because if it did they would have no one to sell to and they would no longer be producers.
> The more jobs that get replaced by automation the more prices will fall.
I am not as concerned with cheapening junk food as you are. I want to satisfy human needs through tasks like feeding the poor, healing the sick, sheltering the homeless, and educating the illiterate that aren't getting done today because they aren't profitable enough.
The ruling class owns the means of production and the robots that are replacing people's jobs are using these productive forces entirely for their own benefit. In a system whereby the means of production are owned by the poor and working classes, workers can scientifically manage production to satisfy human needs rather then personal profit.
While I completely agree that we can't stop progress and automation, our economy is built on the fact that most people work and make money. Unless we move towards socialism for the basic needs like food and shelter (which I personally am ok with), we're looking at a huge population of unemployed starving angry idiots, very very soon.
The capitalists wouldn't benefit unless we benefited. We would have no incentive to buy their products unless they are cheaper than the products of the other companies. So we benefit too, through lower prices.
> The capitalists wouldn't benefit unless we benefited.
That is why there are periodic crises of capitalism, such as the current crisis that first started in 2008. The capitalists are cutting wages so low to undercut their competitors that consumers aren't getting enough money in wages to buy those same products.
