[pyrale]

> I have sympathy for people worried about losing their livelihoods. But at the same time I struggle to sympathise with the idea that jobs themselves are something sacred we should be fighting for.

I can agree with the author's point, but they seem oblivious to the fact that people lamenting the loss of their job is usually the politically correct way for them to lament the loss of their paycheck.

[k1m]

I understand that, and that's what I was trying to get at with the post. That an AI future which can take away jobs, doesn't have to be a bad one if the paycheck is replaced with something else. The Rutger Bergman piece I linked to argues for Universal Basic Income. Many people assume jobs are the only way.

[pyrale]

What I was getting at, is that people argue about jobs rather than about money, is that society values work, not paying "bums". They may be more or less self-conscious about it. If you offer to pay them for not working, they are likely going to be suspicious, and for good reason: for all of their lives, and for all of society's life, paying people for existing has been, essentially, frowned upon.

And that's the issue with UBI: no one in their right minds can believe that UBI won't be (or quickly become) the bare minimum needed for people not to riot. And those of us that are pessimistic or have read history books know that, at some point, there is also the risk that people on UBI may get deported/castrated/sent to work camps/killed (or, in modern parlance, transformed into biodiesel). That's not necessarily the agenda of people arguing for UBI, but that's an inevitable risk that comes with it.

[k1m]

On your first point, I agree with you that it's a deeply held belief. But that doesn't make it reasonable. That's why I think it's worth the effort trying to question it, especially at a time when there's so much discussion and fear around job loss.

Regarding UBI, I've also read a lot of different opinions on it, and all the ways it can be implemented to do more harm than good. My own view is that the only reason we even see it proposed from the very wealthy is that they're looking ahead at the direction all this is heading and see it as inevitable (to stave off riots and mass protests that could affect their wealth more than UBI would), so they want their version of UBI to be the one that wins out. That doesn't make UBI as a concept a bad idea, it just means it's going to be a struggle to get a version of it that actually lets us live a decent life. But to even get to that point in the discussion, we have to win more people over to the idea that not having a job isn't such a bad thing, and doesn't say anything about your worth as a human being.

[skeledrew]

Would be even better if there wasn't need to be paid at all. I find it somewhat funny/ironic/strange that I've never encountered the argument "members of families - especially the young - don't pay each other for services". That's a core, universal, functional economy. Also works/worked for "villagers" in some parts of the world. People should be able to get what they need, and shouldn't have to provide anything in return. Now AI is moving us in that natural direction and people are fighting tooth and nail to keep things unnatural.

[FromTheFirstIn]

No one is confused by this, though. “Work sucks” might be the most universally agreed to statement. It seems like you take talk of jobs too literally when most of the time people are excited not to starve, not excited to have their job.

[k1m]

Believe it or not, many people genuinely don't see an alternative to having a job. So when AI threatens jobs, rather than call for measures to ensure people can live without jobs, they call for jobs to be protected.

[FromTheFirstIn]

If you write something for public consumption and get criticism, take the criticism.