SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Portentous changes to the work economies of India and the USA due to job automation by machines and robots continue to make headlines. Varieties of hardware and software automation are seeing implementation burgeon in both countries, as companies seek efficiency by replacing humans with machines. Wage erosion in areas previously unaffected by automation - including varieties of programming - is getting commoner while new, albeit highly specialized, engineering jobs are created. Both articles encourage educational changes mindful of these realities, though how colleges either side of the world can adapt to the blistering pace of automation is unclear.
The latest tranche of job automation news comes hot on the heels of Davos' prediction that machine automation will result in a net loss globally of over 5 million jobs prior to 2020.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Thursday February 11 2016, @07:55PM
I think both of you guys are far less apart on your solutions than you seem to think. And your motives are both obviously well intentioned.
Khallow is right in that capitalism is the only known effective means (short of gross restrictions of human rights) to promote the creation of the things that people want/need, but Azuma is also right in that the consolidation of power is a natural consequence of capitalism that must be controlled to prevent unchecked corruption. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts. There is a balance to be found if we can stay civil in the discussions and limit the questioning of motives to a minimum.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:34PM
Actually I'm very capitalist, but in the way one B. Sanders is: I believe there are some things that should not be left up to the invisible middle finger^W^Whand of the so-called free market. Not only because there isn't truly any such thing in reality as a free market any more than there is an analog signal with infinite bandwidth or an infinitely and perfectly-round sphere; because even if there was, it's a philosophy that puts money over people.
The whole POINT of any economic system, capitalist or otherwise, is to ensure progress and human flourishing. When a system becomes destructive of these ends (sound familiar...?) we should have the right to change or even abolish it.
Put another way: the current system pretends to be coolheaded, logical, and rational, but it is both purely dogmatic AND deliberately refuses to understand that the things it dismisses as "externalities" are in fact extremely important and central to the system's workings. "Nature has value too!" and "You can't put a price on human life!" aren't even scratching the surface of this.
And its partisans are, in my experience, precisely as bad about acknowledging this and taking criticism as the average Presuppositionalist is of his theology. THAT is why I get salty: ain't nobody got time fo' dat no mo', not when the fucking antarctic ice shelves are melting.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:40AM
Actually I'm very capitalist, but in the way one B. Sanders is: I believe there are some things that should not be left up to the invisible middle finger^W^Whand of the so-called free market.
Well, then you aren't very capitalist.
Not only because there isn't truly any such thing in reality as a free market any more than there is an analog signal with infinite bandwidth or an infinitely and perfectly-round sphere; because even if there was, it's a philosophy that puts money over people.
A free market is an asymptotic ideal. It still makes sense to discuss how close a market is to this ideal.
The whole POINT of any economic system, capitalist or otherwise, is to ensure progress and human flourishing. When a system becomes destructive of these ends (sound familiar...?) we should have the right to change or even abolish it.
The thing is, the current system doesn't qualify as destructive. First, we are witnessing the greatest elevation of humanity out of poverty and ignorance ever. Second, as I note, it works for what it does and we've already found that mild levels of regulation eliminate most of the problems of externalities and other well-known problems.
And its partisans are, in my experience, precisely as bad about acknowledging this and taking criticism as the average Presuppositionalist is of his theology. THAT is why I get salty: ain't nobody got time fo' dat no mo', not when the fucking antarctic ice shelves are melting.
OTOH, if you aren't dead in the biological sense, then you have plenty of time to pull your head out of your ass.
THAT is why I get salty: ain't nobody got time fo' dat no mo', not when the fucking antarctic ice shelves are melting.
Even if things are as bad as claimed, you'll be able to outrun the rise in sea level by walking a few hours a year.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:19PM
Everything you said in here just digs your own grave deeper. You're not even worth trying to reason with; this is the same shit Martin Shkreli would say and you can go to the same part of Hell as him as far as I'm concerned.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...