7 ms·

Bill Gates really amazes me with his lack of vision. He thinks renewables are not a solution to sustainable energy and taxing robots makes sense. Bill,automati

by yessql 10y ago

Bill Gates really amazes me with his lack of vision. He thinks renewables are not a solution to sustainable energy and taxing robots makes sense. Bill,automating physical labor is not the issue, it's automating driving and white collar jobs that's really going to disrupt society. It should be a tax on the computer, not the robot, if you think taxing progress is a smart idea.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
RealityVoid 10y ago
Huh, interesting, I think he's right on both ends. 1) I think nuclear is superior to renewables. 2) I think taxing automation would work because it could kickstart some sort of measure such as UBI. Automate enough and you need to tax more per productivity instead of per worker, beause you'll eventually be forced to implement UBI. Something I wrote previously: "I tend to agree it would be a very good ideea. Initially, it would disincentivise automation a little longer and minimum wage could be raised a little more (and that's something I never thought I'd say, that is a good ideea to DISincentivize automation, I'be always been of the oppinion that automation is exceptionally usefull and be used asm much as possible, but the life-shock of people affected by it would be lowered somewhat, temporarily, by taxing it) and after a while, when it becomes standard norm and automations slowly takes over more jobs,it could be used to feed programs such as UBI. The ideea might have some merit."
- Fantastic_T 10y ago
  So basically you believe in the Luddite fallacy that automation hurts workers. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite-fallacy/ http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite... Welfare hurts incentives and misallocates capital from those who invest it most effectively to those who reproduce most quickly.
  - ska 10y ago
    "The Luddite Fallacy" is a terrible name for this observation, because the Luddites weren't wrong. They were concerned that automation was going to destroy their economic prospects and way of life, and it did. For multiple generations, typically (we really should have a corollary, something like "The re-employment fallacy") On the whole, it was still a net positive for the broader society, but you can't really blame the Luddites for not being concerned about that. [edit] It's also worth noting that the Luddites themselves were not really pushing an anti-technology stance, or arguing against "technological unemployment" - it was more the threat of skilled work being replaced by less skilled work, quality goods replace by inferior but cheaper ones, and societal impact of the change in work and working conditions. They weren't arguing that newer methods wouldn't be more productive, but that this increase productivity wasn't worth it's price. This could be referred to as "The Luddite Fallacy Fallacy", because the position attributed to the Luddites was never one they really held - their complaint was more nuanced than that, and one that nobody then or since has really come up with a good answer to.
    - Fantastic_T 10y ago
      I can't find anything to suggest that you are wrong. I can't find any evidence that the Luddites themselves believed in technological unemployment.
      - RealityVoid 10y ago
        But it did impovrish them. How big a percentage of the population needs to have it worse that automation becomes a burden on society? I think automation will happen no matter what, but in the meantime, sometimes it might make sense to slow it down. Saying there is no such reason for slowing it down is a simplistic point of view. EDIT: You edited your initial comment and I find it commendable you changed your stance based on new information. (relating to Luddites and technological unemployment)
        Fantastic_T 10y ago
        Yep I assumed they believed in tech unemployment but I checked my assumption and couldn't find any evidence for it. However I will say that in the long run it is very unlikely that the majority of Luddites were not far better off after the power loom than before. The quality of jobs available for the average person dramatically improved over the course industrialization, because automation increases human prosperity.
RubenSandwich 10y ago
I don't think we have to wait for white collar jobs to disappear before automation disrupt's society. Because if Trump and Brexit and their very pro working class messages are any indication then automation doesn't have to hit white collar jobs to disrupt society, it already has.

by yessql 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

RealityVoid 10y ago

Huh, interesting, I think he's right on both ends. 1) I think nuclear is superior to renewables. 2) I think taxing automation would work because it could kickstart some sort of measure such as UBI. Automate enough and you need to tax more per productivity instead of per worker, beause you'll eventually be forced to implement UBI. Something I wrote previously: "I tend to agree it would be a very good ideea. Initially, it would disincentivise automation a little longer and minimum wage could be raised a little more (and that's something I never thought I'd say, that is a good ideea to DISincentivize automation, I'be always been of the oppinion that automation is exceptionally usefull and be used asm much as possible, but the life-shock of people affected by it would be lowered somewhat, temporarily, by taxing it) and after a while, when it becomes standard norm and automations slowly takes over more jobs,it could be used to feed programs such as UBI. The ideea might have some merit."

Fantastic_T 10y ago
So basically you believe in the Luddite fallacy that automation hurts workers. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite-fallacy/ http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite... Welfare hurts incentives and misallocates capital from those who invest it most effectively to those who reproduce most quickly.
- ska 10y ago
  "The Luddite Fallacy" is a terrible name for this observation, because the Luddites weren't wrong. They were concerned that automation was going to destroy their economic prospects and way of life, and it did. For multiple generations, typically (we really should have a corollary, something like "The re-employment fallacy") On the whole, it was still a net positive for the broader society, but you can't really blame the Luddites for not being concerned about that. [edit] It's also worth noting that the Luddites themselves were not really pushing an anti-technology stance, or arguing against "technological unemployment" - it was more the threat of skilled work being replaced by less skilled work, quality goods replace by inferior but cheaper ones, and societal impact of the change in work and working conditions. They weren't arguing that newer methods wouldn't be more productive, but that this increase productivity wasn't worth it's price. This could be referred to as "The Luddite Fallacy Fallacy", because the position attributed to the Luddites was never one they really held - their complaint was more nuanced than that, and one that nobody then or since has really come up with a good answer to.
  - Fantastic_T 10y ago
    I can't find anything to suggest that you are wrong. I can't find any evidence that the Luddites themselves believed in technological unemployment.
    - RealityVoid 10y ago
      But it did impovrish them. How big a percentage of the population needs to have it worse that automation becomes a burden on society? I think automation will happen no matter what, but in the meantime, sometimes it might make sense to slow it down. Saying there is no such reason for slowing it down is a simplistic point of view. EDIT: You edited your initial comment and I find it commendable you changed your stance based on new information. (relating to Luddites and technological unemployment)
      - Fantastic_T 10y ago
        Yep I assumed they believed in tech unemployment but I checked my assumption and couldn't find any evidence for it. However I will say that in the long run it is very unlikely that the majority of Luddites were not far better off after the power loom than before. The quality of jobs available for the average person dramatically improved over the course industrialization, because automation increases human prosperity.

RubenSandwich 10y ago

I don't think we have to wait for white collar jobs to disappear before automation disrupt's society. Because if Trump and Brexit and their very pro working class messages are any indication then automation doesn't have to hit white collar jobs to disrupt society, it already has.