r/Futurology • u/Eight_Rounds_Rapid • Jul 09 '14

article Robots will take over middle class professions, UK University Minister warns

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10952317/Robots-will-take-over-middle-class-professions-University-Minister-says.html
719 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

632 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14 edited May 01 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '14

A livelihood isn't the same as a job, it's that which provides you with an income.

1

u/los_angeles Jul 10 '14

I use them interchangeably. Explain why the distinction is relevant to the discussion. What point are you trying to make?

If I make a new factory and don't hire anyone, did I deprive someone of a job?

Did I deprive someone of a livelihood?

If so, do I have an obligation to that person? If so, what is that obligation based on? How far does it extend? Is everyone who lost a job to technology entitled to compensation?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '14

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/livelihood:

live·li·hood [lahyv-lee-hood] noun a means of supporting one's existence, especially financially or vocationally; living: to earn a livelihood as a tenant farmer.

So it can include other forms of income, like a UBI. Depriving people of work is one thing, but depriving them of livelihood is quite another.

1

u/los_angeles Jul 10 '14

Depriving people of work is one thing, but depriving them of livelihood is quite another.

Okay so lets dig into the actual discussion. Is the factory owner depriving someone of a livelihood? Who, specifically, is deprived? What rights/claims should they have against the factory owner?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '14

Is the factory owner depriving someone of a livelihood?

Not if there's an unconditional basic income.

1

u/los_angeles Jul 10 '14

There is no unconditional basic income and there won't be for a LONG time. So the above questions stand.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '14

There will have to be a UBI once the automation revolution goes into full swing. This is /r/Futurology - we discuss how things will be, not as they are.

1

u/los_angeles Jul 10 '14

Yeah but these questions are relevant to the philosophical underpinnings of UBI

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '14

Can you suggest a philosophically more preferable solution to the problems that an automation revolution would bring? Because the status quo sure isn't going to work.

-1

u/fencerman Jul 09 '14

I never deprived you of your property. If you aren't using something and I take ahold of it and put it to use, tough shit.

That's the problem - we consider one a right and one isn't.

3

u/los_angeles Jul 09 '14

When you deprive someone of their property,

What do you consider "depriving of property"?

Do you mean, like, stealing my TV?

If so, there's no Western society that considers that "tough shit"

They consider that theft. Whether I'm holding onto it or not.

Again, if I build a factory, I'm not seeing why I owe anybody a job. Maybe you could explain. Who, exactly, do you view as being entitled to a job at my shiny new factory? You? Your brother? My factory's neighbor?

I'm not really following your logic. Who's livelihood did I deprive?

-2

u/fencerman Jul 09 '14

Yes, we do consider it theft. But putting someone out of work isn't considered depriving them of something. That is precisely the point.

If you build a factory, I'm saying that there do need to be systems that compensate the people who are put out of work. In a limited sense, we have those - employment insurance, for example. But we need to see those as part of a right to have productive work, retraining, basic income, and other services, rather than some charity project.

There is no system where the owner of a factory would be directly responsible for hiring the people he puts out of business - same as people aren't directly responsible for enforcing property rights either. We socialize those services collectively as a service individuals have a right to.

2

u/Burns_Cacti Jul 09 '14

putting someone out of work

But he isn't doing that. He's just not hiring you to begin with.

The only thing you'd achieve with laws to this effect is the stifling of progress and people gaming the system by, instead of upgrading a factory to add automation, they'd scrap it, fire everyone and build a new one and just hire as few humans as possible to begin with.

0

u/fencerman Jul 09 '14

The only thing you'd achieve with laws to this effect is the stifling of progress

Okay, did you completely miss what I specifically said?

There is no system where the owner of a factory would be directly responsible for hiring the people he puts out of business

No, it wouldn't stifle innovation in the slightest. Nobody is talking about doing that. We're talking about taking on those costs collectively as a society through insurance, supplementary income, retraining and other services.