Leisure society

slant

slant

Capitalist pig
Donor
MBTI
None
I've been doing a lot of research on the future developments of society based on AI and automation.

It's estimated by some figures that by 2050 we will have lost 40-50% of all jobs to automation. This will have the effect of creating an unemployment crisis and congregation of wealth to silicon valley technocrats.

One solution that had been proposed and was taken and popularized by presidential candidate Andrew yang is the concept of universal income.

Some have argued given the pandemic the time to unroll this is now, and some even argue the checks that went out was a form of it.

The theory is this: tax the technocrats enough to give a meager base income for everyone nonetheless*. $12,000 I think was the suggested starting point. Obviously this is not enough to live on... The debate becomes if you hand people money if they will ever be motivated to find work. But with the jobs gone I'm not sure how that makes sense.

Anyway; regardless* of the starting income, some have gone even farther and said this is the start of what they call "leisure society". With AI doing the majority of the work and people not having to work jobs anymore, they will be free to pursue hobbies and side hustles full time.

One book I read made a fierce point against leisure society, stating that most people for centuries have derived a sense of self worth and purpose in work. If you take that away, people will feel they have lost meaning and it will result in an existential crisis.

Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this scenario being proposed. Would it be positive? Would you enjoy it? Thoughts, theories, objections, all welcome

*Grammar editing courtesy @Deleted member 16771 who prefers that I use real words
 
Last edited:
Slant, I like the optimism but I suspect that before getting to a post-work society, the rich are going to exterminate the poor and middle class.

Gutting welfare programs.
Gutting UBI.
Gutting public healthcare.

The people who can't hack the new era of Social Darwinism and Neoliberalism are goners.
 
Pin said:
Slant, I like the optimism but I suspect that before getting to a post-work society, the rich are going to exterminate the poor and middle class.

Gutting welfare programs.
Gutting UBI.
Gutting public healthcare.
Click to expand...
It's not that I think this is going to happen I'm more interested in the thoughts and feelings about if this did happen, if that makes sense.

I do feel that technocrats are smart enough to understand that you have to give the plebians a little to satisfy them. Pacify them so to speak. When too much is taken away you see never ending violence and chaos and nobody can make money without the consumer so you have to give them enough to keep the system functioning
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Of course!

Best to assume that my feelings don't get hurt and I'm always joking.
Click to expand...
Good.

it's hard to tell with you INTJs you love bottling things up. My bff was crying after I picked her up from her house because her sister tried to stab her and she apologized for crying and to this day still brings it up and I'm like girl, you almost got stabbed it's okay to cry about that. But she wants to be a stone cold robot I guess
 
I do think Universal Basic Income will be introduced eventually, as jobs are replaced by technology.
Because it would only cover basic living costs I expect the majority would still want to work - if they could find jobs at that stage.

I work part-time at the moment and feel like I put much more energy and enthusiasm into my job than if I was working full-time. I believe I'm much more productive. I think some countries are looking at a 4 day working week? Whether universal basic income is introduced or not I think we will be working less hours in the future.
 
slant said:
I've been doing a lot of research on the future developments of society based on AI and automation.

It's estimated by some figures that by 2050 we will have lost 40-50% of all jobs to automation. This will have the effect of creating an unemployment crisis and congregation of wealth to silicon valley technocrats.

One solution that had been proposed and was taken and popularized by presidential candidate Andrew yang is the concept of universal income.

True, true, but we'll have one hell of a maintenance department.

Some have argued given the pandemic the time to unroll this is now, and some even argue the checks that went out was a form of it.

The theory is this: tax the technocrats enough to give a meager base income for everyone nonetheless*. $12,000 I think was the suggested starting point. Obviously this is not enough to live on... The debate becomes if you hand people money if they will ever be motivated to find work. But with the jobs gone I'm not sure how that makes sense.

Anyway; regardless* of the starting income, some have gone even farther and said this is the start of what they call "leisure society". With AI doing the majority of the work and people not having to work jobs anymore, they will be free to pursue hobbies and side hustles full time.

One book I read made a fierce point against leisure society, stating that most people for centuries have derived a sense of self worth and purpose in work. If you take that away, people will feel they have lost meaning and it will result in an existential crisis.

Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this scenario being proposed. Would it be positive? Would you enjoy it? Thoughts, theories, objections, all welcome

*Grammar editing courtesy @Deleted member 16771 who prefers that I use real words
Click to expand...
 
Pin said:
Slant, I like the optimism but I suspect that before getting to a post-work society, the rich are going to exterminate the poor and middle class.

Gutting welfare programs.
Gutting UBI.
Gutting public healthcare.

The people who can't hack the new era of Social Darwinism and Neoliberalism are goners.
Click to expand...
Big problem with this is that the poor create most of the wealth. Get rid of them, and the rich are poor/dead.
 
I'd love to earn $12,000 (I'm in UK so £) lol. Many do live on this or less. I own my own house, have no kids, and am frugal, so it's doable.
UBI is an interesting concept. I have heard this argued from both the right and the left. Part of the reasoning is it allows people to do work which interests them and not the worst most exploitative crappy jobs. I think a good compromise is a fairer society where we all share some of the chores which tech can't do and alos do interesting work at other times.

This brings an interesting linked issue. Those old enough to remember will know the predictions of the past that were that technology would create a leisure economy on the future (ie. now). Clearly this hasn't happened except for a few rich people. They have made sure the poor are kept down. All the wealth we have now that we didn't have 30/50 years ago has mostly gone to the rich. AND it's mostly created by the poor/working class people. I keep emphasising this point because it's true and most just forget or don't realise it is. The few who create new technologies give a lot to society on their own, but they still need lots of people to realise their creations. But most rich are just leeches imo, relying on many poorly paid and hard working people. And no, I am not a communist. I believe people should be rewarded "in proportion to their contribution", not in proportion to their ability to exploit others.

Technology has already hollowed out many industries, further exacerbating the divide in our societies between poorer working people and the managerial/professional overclass. It's likely to carry on. The answer is usually/always to embrace trechnology, but we need a parallel change in societal structure to prevent inequality and poverty. We have in many ways gone back to victorian times. Maggie Thatcher would be proud.
 
My understanding is that automation also will create a lot of new jobs, at least in the near future, so this isn't a problem. There'll be upsets, but there won't be an absence of work for people.

If it ever got to the point where automation actually took jobs away, I strongly doubt that the elites would support letting people starve. First off because it's no skin off their back if they pay extra taxes (I think Bill Gates supported raising his own taxes even), second off because they need consumers of their products. So it's a question of whether the new class of people will find meaning in their lives post-automation, but I think most of them weren't deriving it from their work even when they were proleteriat, and they can still do freelance gigs.

On an emotional level, some part of me gets some sick glee at the bourgeosie outliving the proletariat. Or at least most of them.
 
Not a fan of mass produced stuff. Hopefully in the future, as now, some people will still participate in the high quality, low quantity economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top