[pmg101]

Let's say you could automate your job and go on a hike. Great! You can have a fun hike. But you wouldn't get paid for that.

I think it's broadly reasonable that you would only be paid for doing something someone else needs doing.

[thewebguyd]

> But you wouldn't get paid for that.f

Maybe you wouldn't, but you definitely should. Knowledge workers aren't paid for their labor (in the form of me trading my time and effort for wages), knowledge workers are paid for impact. I'm trading my ability to reason, decide, and create value for the company.

I'm valuable not because I sit at a desk and type for 8 hours. I'm valuable because the outputs of my thinking help move the company forward. My employer isn't buying 8 hours of my time , they're buying the outputs that come from expertise and judgement.

So if I automate something, the company still receives the same value the pay me for whether I perform the task manually or build something that automates it. I work in ops, so if I use ansible and a script to automate patching 100 servers instead of doing it by hand, my employers gets the same result: patched systems. The automation didn't diminish my contribution, it proved it. I get paid the same either way.

In essence, my salary is a retainer. It's payment to keep my expertise availalbe, and working for my employers instead of someone else. It's not payment for activity or time.

[lotsofpulp]

These are contradictory claims:

>In essence, my salary is a retainer. It's payment to keep my expertise availalbe, and working for my employers instead of someone else.

>It's not payment for activity or time.

If the latter statement is true, then you must not have any mandatory hours to be present.

If you do have mandatory hours to be present, then the latter statement is not true.

[ponector]

>> My employer isn't buying 8 hours of my time , they're buying the outputs that come from expertise and judgement

I'm pretty sure your typical managers don't think so.

[anigbrowl]

There are a few managers who think the same way, but not that many.

[throwaway0123_5]

I think the problem is if/when AGI enables "someone else" to not need human employees for ~anything. The people that own physical capital (land, farms, mines, etc.) would have robots and GPT-N to extract value from it. The people who survive based on their labor are SOL. I think it is reasonable that many people won't be excited about that kind of automation.

[nahuel0x]

The problem is capitalism, not automation.

[throwaway0123_5]

I don't disagree.

Social/economic stratification (to a certain degree) makes sense as long as there is a reasonable amount of social mobility. AGI paired with advanced robotics seems as though it would all but eliminate social mobility. What would your options be? Politics, celebrity, or a small number of jobs where the human element is essential? I think the economic system needs to dramatically change if/when we reach that point (and ideally before, so people don't suffer in the transition).

[everdrive]

Of course, but then why would I be excited about automation? I can imagine that the executives and shareholders could be excited for automation, but I'm not sure that it benefits me whatsoever.

[lotsofpulp]

Automation reduces cost of goods sold, so in a market with multiple sellers, it leads to lower prices.

Also, almost everyone is a shareholder, directly or indirectly by being a taxpayer and shouldering the cost of pensions, which are invested in businesses.

[Coffeewine]

The only advantage is that if the company is more efficient they'll be less likely to fire you because the business is failing. They'll just be firing you to eliminate a cost.

[lotsofpulp]

When a buyer shops at a lower priced store, they are also eliminating a cost. No one seems to bemoan that, but for some reason a buyer of labor qualified as “employee” eliminating costs is different than a buyer of say, a new roof shopping around or going to Costco to spend less than the full service grocery business.

[bcrosby95]

I get that they're connected, but it isn't hard to see why people bemoan classifying humans as a cost and eliminating their ability to receive food and shelter.

[lotsofpulp]

The person shopping at Costco or choosing a cheaper roof installer who can work more efficiently with fewer humans is doing the same thing - “classifying humans as a cost”.

Choosing to clean your own house instead of hiring a house cleaner, cooking your own food, doing your own landscaping, driving your own car, all of these are “classifying humans as a cost”.

I probably could afford a maid and landscaper, but I don’t because I would rather keep the money. When an employer does that, it is somehow different.

[nemomarx]

people complain all the time that Walmart and dollar tree drive local groceries out of business though

[immibis]

Distilling everything to pure numbers in a spreadsheet is one of the problems of this type of economy.

[bcrosby95]

The executives and shareholders will only be excited about the first order effects of widespread automation like this.

They will be less excited about the second order - a steady loss of revenue as whole professions are automated and people can't find a well paying job.

The third order will be even worse when no one has a job or money to buy anything.

People always point to the industrial revolution. But that created millions of jobs before it obsoleted millions of jobs - you needed workers to create tractors. This wave seems to be shaping up much more like what happened to the rust belt in the late 20th century, regions which still haven't recovered. However this time it'll hit pretty much everyone, everywhere.

Good luck with that capitalism.

[pmg101]

I concur capitalism has it's problems but if this means we move back to feudalism I think we can safely say that will be worse.

[ponector]

>> you would only be paid for doing something someone else needs doing

Right, like drinking coffee at the kitchen in the office.