I never understand the logic of this argument. If everything is automated and everyone is provided for (this is a utopia, after all), why would people need an income? By definition, if people do not need to work, then they do not need an income. The need to work and the need for an income are the same thing, just worded differently.
Nothing happens overnight, and confusing the challenges of the transition with the endgame, or that the challenges that existed during the transition will still exist after the endgame is achieved, presents a position that the endgame isn't worth it because the transition disturbs the status quo.
> It’s beginning to look like we might have entered a two-track economy, in which a small minority reaps most of the benefits of technology that destroys more jobs than it creates. As my friend Simon Law says, “First we automated menial jobs, now we’re automating middle-class jobs. Unfortunately, we still demand that people have a job soon after becoming adults. This trend is going to be a big problem…”
And this is of course true, the only thing that makes software cheaper is the one resource it can actually save on : people. I would even argue that, generally, when software replaces a person, it is actually less efficient in all but one metric : it generally uses more resources than a person would use for the same work.
So I'm arguing that mostly the efficiency gains from technology are negative, but you're trading expensive resources (people) for cheap ones (power, computers, robots ...).
A few more arguments for this : 1) machines are more precise, but require better inputs, which require more resources, and what they can't deal with is generally not recycled, as that would destroy the value of those machines. 2) the human body is surprisingly efficient (especially knowing how general it is in function. Usually the more generally useful something, the less efficient. Humans are among the most efficient animals and are vastly more general). Our body beats oil based energy, and beats coal based energy by a large margin (input in watts versus output in work). 3) saving the expense of keeping the human alive is useless ... unless, of course you intend to kill/starve/ignore till they're dead/... said human. You're just creating a negative externality. 4) as the past centuries have pointed out, saving human labor is completely useless if they're your market. The last French king had a much less comfortable life than a homeless man has today, with few exceptions : servants and available space. But seriously, even the food that was served to that king, I wouldn't touch it (I shudder to think what medieval kings ate). His toilet is only slightly better than a hole in the ground. Sheets, beds, ... all are cleaner, more functional and a LOT softer today. And about cleaning ... well people actually clean themselves today. I shudder to think of the smell of Versailles in the 19th century.
The argument "but life never gets worse in history" has plenty of counterexamples, the biggest one (imho) the end of the Roman Empire, which took half a millennium to recover from. But there were plenty, say, the muslim conquests of Northern Africa would be another example. Started out with >50% of the population pretty comfortable (e.g. running water, heating, public fountains, roads, working medical infrastructure, surgical procedures available to middle class and even a significant part of the slave class), working travel infrastructure, life expectancy at ~57 years and ended with tribes who effectively lived in the stone age (average life expectancy at one point under 20), and a few lords who lived at a comfort level that was at best what it was at the beginning of the iron age. They would remain locked in this situation for more than a millennium. Some pockets of technology remained, like Cairo, which retained it's Christian institutions up to this day. But technology can't compete with free labor, so it couldn't expand despite many, many tries.
The fact that you believe it could be a person's "IQ" which dictates what job they may have really shows how little regard you have for people.
That's not an agreed upon fact.
For example, a cursory googling of "correlation between iq and job" brings up a lot of articles with language like "This is why hundreds of studies have found that IQ predicts job performance best (though not all that well) at the start of a person’s career, and progressively weakens over the course of that career."[1] or subtitles like "Intelligence wins out over socio-economic status when it comes to career advancement"[2]. (But maybe that search term is biased. I just entered the most obvious thing.)
As another example, wikipedia says "The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6. The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods was controlled for."[3]
> really shows how little regard you have for people.
Inappropriate.
1. http://danielgoleman.info/the-trouble-with-iq/
2. http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=1637...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Job_perf...
The fact that you believe a persons "height" dictates their chance of competing in the NBA really shows how little regard you have for people.
You might be willing to respond with "New forms of work will open up that will allow for the employ of those people with low IQs". However, I am asking you to consider the hypothetical where every such form of work is eventually automated by machines that have sufficiently advanced AI.
Between 1850 and 1973 there were immense improvements in labor productivity that completely transformed the world, and for a long time the rising productivity created more new jobs, rather than less. But going forward, we face a situation where increasing automation will still create new wealth, and it will still create huge improvements in labor productivity, but the improvements will only be available for those who have enough IQ to understand the technologies in use.
And much of this scenario might come to pass during the next 50 years. But imagine even further afield -- imagine 200 years now. Do you think the period 1850 to 1973 offers a reasonable model to think about, say for instance, economic growth between 2100 and 2200?
What happens if there comes a day when absolutely everything is automated and humans no longer need to work? We have reached utopia, yes? But you can probably see where I am going with this: eventually there needs to be some way to provide an income to people, when the day eventually comes when no one needs to work.