Frank Benefield wrote: Marcus Aurelius wrote in “Meditations” this gem about purpose in everything, “the human soul violates itself When it allows its action and impulse to be without purpose, to be random and disconnected. Even the smallest things ought to be directed toward a goal.” The point is a simple but profound one that is often forgotten, humans seek and need purpose in everything to include work.
Regardless, the future of world must be meaningful, if not, we are subject to be miserable and the quality of our work will suffer, and we by extension will suffer.”
Peter Dalle said: “There is some mention of jobs that could grow in importance but for clarity I think “relation based” jobs should be used because that is what they are. AI can never really replace human relation. It can when it comes to the social bit. You will not know if you talk to a human or a robot on your phone and the same when it comes to news articles. This might be okay when it comes to services that today are mostly administered via web and phone. A carer or nurse is quite different though. Here the personal contact is of upmost importance. There are multiple studies that show how important greeting and treatment is for quality of experience (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4064111/). Which affect how well a patient recover.”
You can expand this story
You can expand this storyEdit
Doug Goodwin said: “The Nerd/Economist productivity model of future work lacks discussion of a connected issue or two. An aphorism or two to clarify the point: Henry Ford (apologies) – the unemployed do not buy Model T’s Robots do not eat hamburgers and; AI’s are not known tourists To quote HF accurately – ‘It is not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the money. It is the customer who pays the wages.'”
Rob Wood said: “Perhaps another one to talk about is a “Job Guarantee” which is growing in popularity among center-left candidates (Bernie Sanders is the most prominent example). It’s one of the policy prescriptions of post-Keynesian “Modern Monetary Theory” academics.)”
Something missing? Say so
Something missing? Say soTalk
Leo C said: “Another point of view that could be relevant to include in this story is a counter point to “less working hours” — the idea that the economy will reorganize itself based on the human need to be occupied and employed full-time. British Anthropologist David Graeber is the main force behind popularizing this argument and has been making waves with his new book Bullshit Jobs.
While traditional economists believe that the economy is shaped by supply & demand for goods and services, and automation will replace much of the “supply” side, the need for a full-time occupation by humans should not be dismissed. An thesis relevant to this is the idea of “emotional economy”, that concepts like social media and dating apps are not crucial to the survival of human beings (unlike agriculture), but those jobs are created nonetheless to fulfill an emotional, rather than physical, desire.”
Add your own suggestions
Add your own suggestionsEdit
Richard Downing said: “The problem is not just the loss of work that Robots and AI can do. It also the move on income to those few who own and control those assets. This is the big issue, no one really cares if the jobs they do now go, provided there is some way to pay for their life and bring up their children. The historical issues the ‘Experts’ (and I hate that word) cite is not really comparable. Jobs on the land went, and people moved to the city and became wage slaves in the factories – starting the process of concentration of earned wealth in the hands of a few. The present issue in the end game, and that is why it will need drastic solutions. I put it to you that the ‘experts’ are all well invested, they are not going to be first in line, their opinion is not credible.”