Comment on Difference between first and third world countries.
Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
While Bill is right that AI could offload a lot of work off humans, it will never be used for the good of workers. EVER.
Companies will use AI to replace workers, not make the lives of their employees better.
This is what every technological advancement, from electricity to automation, has resulted in, and I expect nothing less from a capitalist society. Companies always win, CEOs always get richer, and everyone else loses.
This isn’t necessarily true. Our company is leveraging AI to take a process that currently takes 18 months down to a few weeks.
Yes, the people who do the 18 month process think it’s going to replace them, but it’s actually going to let them do all of the other things that get shoved on the back burner and never get done.
You’ve just said the same thing but you don’t understand.
Reducing that job from 18 months to a few weeks frees up workeder for other tasks. That means nobody gets hired to do those other tasks and people who would otherwise have good jobs have nothing.
It also means the people Stoll there can be easily coerced into working for lower wages because there’s a line of people at the door who will happily work for less since they’re currently unemployed.
That’s what replacing workers means and that’s the effect of labour reduction. It puts power into the hands of the owner of the tool instead of the people who use the tool to generate cashflow.
This is capitalism - the one with capital exploits the many without, all backed up by the exclusive right to violence of the state which is owned and run by the capital owning class.
Do you think farmers should not use any tractors and pick their crops using manual labour?
That would also create a lot of jobs.
The problem is that better wages, better working conditions and fewer hours were never a result of technology freeing up workers, but strong labor movements. The technology only allows capitalists to keep increasing productivity without letting it cost them more.
So tech isn’t bad. Farmers produce more food, which is good as we need that. But yeah, as a farmer you’re not looking at a growing labor market.
Yeah I think that industrial agriculture is a horrifically destructive activity for the environment and humans, and less tractors and more small scale local sustainable agriculture would be great. The UN agrees with me on that one too BTW.
Yeah I think that industrial agriculture is a horrifically destructive activity for the environment and humans, and less tractors and more small scale local sustainable agriculture would be great. The UN agrees with me on that one too BTW.
I think you just proved my point.
18 months down to a few weeks. That’s great, for the company.
But, did anyone get 17 months off or get paid 17 extra months for doing the same work that would have taken 18 months? I don’t think so.
You got extra work but didn’t get paid for the extra time it would have normally taken to complete the task.
See, what Bill said can’t actually happen, because people are paid for the time or work they produce.
How would an employee be paid for something that AI did? Capitalism won’t let this happen.
I did not prove your point at all.
I’m not sure why you think employees should be compensated for the productivity increase that’s created by products the employer is paying for. AI is just a tool, like Excel.
Also reduced pay, cuz “AI is doing all the work”. They’ll hold that over your head every time you mess up.
Mister_Rogers@kbin.social 11 months ago
People far too often argue "Communism/Socialism/Capitalism/etc. is the best economic system, because blah blah blah". Anyone that has played Civilization and has half a brain cell can tell you that there is no single best economic system, as it's so heavily dependent on the structure of a country, current levels of development, and many other factors.
I have always said, that capitalism is very probably the best economic system for rapidly developing countries in a state of industrialization (there was obvious horrific cons to this, but the complexity of discussing the use of slavery, child labour, land repossession, genocide, etc., is a conversation beyond the scope of this simple remark on economics. Consider the dominance of France, Britain, and Spain in 1800 and compare it to the juggernaut that the US became in the next 100 years by 1900, and the benefits of relatively unfettered capitalism during industrializing periods, should be readily apparent given that colossal level of growth from a sparsely populated and undeveloped country in it's infancy in the late 1700s-early 1800s) and is probably the best economic system for this, BUUUUUUT commensurate with the level of automation, and computerized work roles within a society, a more and more heavily socialized economic system makes sense to stymie the accumulation and sole ownership of the automated systems by the wealthy few who profit off of it, while job opportunities dwindle for the rest.
The world needs to socialize more heavily, and fast, the US is in a particularly precarious spot. The number 1 job in nearly every state is truck driver, and there are already autonomous trucks on the road today. Between AI, and autonomous vehicles, we will see what happened to jobs in the automotive sector from 1950-2000, in industries like taxis, truck driving, coding, graphic design, journalism, and much much MUCH more in the next 50 years, and the US is not ready for it's job market to do country wide, what happened in Detroit. The wealthy owners of these automated machines, and AI systems filling these job roles will become richer off of them, while the rest of the country struggles. Heavy socialization, alongside reduced work weeks and either subsequent massive increases in minimum wages, or guaranteed basic income will be a necessity for coming generations to not exist in poverty.