News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Five richest men double their money as poorest get poorer by roenxi on Monday January 15, 2024 @08:39PM (#39008350)
> No it doesn't. There are 2 million farms in the United States, and they don't just take care of themselves.

I'm not abreast of the stats for the US, but it would appear those 2 million farms employ order of magnitude 2 million farmers [0]. Which averages 1 farmer per farm, and while that seems a bit low it isn't inconceivable to me when considering the productivity of farmers in this day and age.

The population of the US is 333 million people. Factor in geography, there may well be people who have literally never talked to a farmer in person. There are not a lot of farmers out there, the industry has been eaten by capital.

That leaves around 99% of the population that may literally does not need to work to sustain a lifestyle that would be considered typical through most of human history. No intelligent robots required.

> The trucks don't just drive themselves yet.

They do drive themselves. Eg, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-19/autonomous-trucks-hit...

> Ruthless capitalists would have gotten rid of employees already if they could.

They have. Industries have been all but wiped out for employees by capitalists. The only thing keeping people employed is they refuse to be satisfied with what they have and keep finding new jobs. Although if they were a bit more savvy they'd invest in capital and stop wasting time working. Capital wins when it comes down to it.

This insistence that people should put the foundation of their lifestyle on work instead of capital accumulation is a habit that is sorta silly. The expectation should be that the average person owns capital and policies should be aimed at enabling that. Forcing successful capitalists to work is the opposite of clever.

[0] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor#size

Re:Five richest men double their money as poorest get poorer by lapcat on Monday January 15, 2024 @09:00PM (#39008491)
If you think 2 million is approximately 0, you should look at the stats from other professions. For example, there are actually more farmers than physicians.

This "conversation" is becoming ridiculous. Do you think we need no physicians? No nurses? No dentists? No hair stylists? No home builders? No plumbers? No chefs? I could go on and on and on, but I actually don't want to go on and on and on with you.

No TEACHERS. No librarians. No electricians. No sanitation workers. No engineers. No mail carriers. No maintenance or repair people. No sales people. No cashiers. No snow plowers. No architects. No SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS. No journalists. No writers. No actors. No musicians. No police. No lawyers. No airline pilots.

How in the world do you think the world works without people?

Perhpas you're putting a lot into "sustain a lifestyle that would be considered typical through most of human history", but why would we want to roll back the clock and live like it's the Dark Ages?

Re:Five richest men double their money as poorest get poorer by roenxi on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @12:18AM (#39009783)
Historically we'd be talking about 80-90% of people being farmers [0]; even putting aside the fact that "farmers" in this day and age, by productivity, are basically just minding big machines that work hard. Tell you what, how about I say 1%. So maybe it is a 98% reduction in farming employment instead of 100%. None of my arguments change though.

Now that is a long list, but a several the jobs you're listing there might be on the verge of extinction as a practical matter. Software developers in particular; it is clear that LLMs are about to do something big to the profession. It isn't clear if the job title will survive. Engineers more broadly I'd put in the same bucket, the category is at risk as an employer. ChatGPT is already outcompeting a lot of teachers I know in terms of being able to explain & tutor concepts. Airline pilots we should probably make illegal fairly soon; I wouldn't want to trust my life to human judgement when we could automate that away. We're on the edge of self driving cars and presumably self driving planes is either the same or easier difficulty because navigating the sky is easier than a street. I haven't talked to a cashier or salesperson in a long time because my local shopping centre has self-service or I buy things online. Etc, etc.

And I don't know why you think all those jobs are so important to preserve. If we can get rid of them we should, and as far as technology goes we're in spitting distance. The software is a matter of years, so really it is a question of where the economic limits are for robotics. I don't think we will; I imagine work will be found. But in terms of should we replace these people with capital, we should. And in many cases we will. And the goal should be to remove people from the workforce altogether through capital ownership because that is a much more comfortable lifestyle.

> but I actually don't want to go on and on and on with you.

As a style point, I'd recommend putting that at the end of the list, rather than the middle. I got a bit of a chuckle out of that, so if you did it for effect I thought it was a nice touch.

[0] https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they...