Facebook Co-Founder Says Technology Will Continue Destroying Jobs

[tetris42]

For "the government" to give a stipend to everyone making below a certain amount (50k is what was posited in the OP), would be destructive beyond all belief. Government cannot give something unless they've taken it from someone else. Deficit spending? That means future generations are enslaved. You know, they HAVE to work to pay off that debt. And they never got to vote on it.

Let's say everyone makes 50k. Every burger flipper, every waitress, etc. Now, how much do you think a six-pack of bud would cost? Etc. No surer way to devalue your currency than to dictate a high wage for all workers.

If you have any doubts, look to Venezuela. Or any other communist/socialist experiment in the last 100 years.

This doesn't work.

What does work? Allowing the citizen to offer labor in exchange for pay. If the citizen does not think it is a "living wage", then get an additional job or a different job or better training.

It hurts, but it's the truth.

Two problems with what you're saying:

1. He's not talking about paying everyone 50k. I don't even know where you got that proposal from. I don't think anyone's advocating that.
2. We're talking about a scenario coming where there's not enough work to go around for everyone who needs a job. "Get an additional job, or a different job" only works on a micro level, not macro. It's just as much a non-solution as what Hughes is proposing.

 

[viscountalpha]

Paying a fair wage for a day's work will go along way to solving this issue. As it stands, it's not been fair for awhile.

 

[nilepez]

Well, that is a reiteration of the underlying point here. We already know that a supplanted workforce does not transition well, and that's why this 'forerunner' is grooming the tax collection entities for intervention. I'll explain why in a little more depth: When a significant population takes a major financial dive, so do tax yields. That piques the interest of the collection entity (government) who can then be coerced into providing support to simulate stability and maintain transaction rates by injecting fluid cash. We see these subsidies as bailouts, stimulation packages, welfare, basic income, employment insurance, and federal capital investment. Due to the way all transactions are taxed, and the intentionally lengthened production and distribution chains, any federal 'stimulation' is nearly returned in full within a few years (remainder subtracted through resource extraction and growth). With this case in particular, not only are income taxes in trouble due to a very significant population losing employment, but it will in turn reduce the potential profits of the massive tech industry as well. Tech giants thrive on an enormous number of low income consumers. For example, a reasonably high wage earner doesn't necessarily buy more smart phones than a low wage earner. Only raw numbers count here. So if up to 0.2% of the population could lose their jobs to tech, year on year, this ramps up quickly and reduces sales of frivolous tech products. It's in their interest to encourage the feds to throw money at the problem -- and the tech giants will continue to clean house.

I think they'll extract the taxes from the companies (not just tech, because this is going to affect everything from farming to manufacturing to tech. Due to low wages, there will be no way for tech companies to pass on that expense, but it won't matter, because their labor costs will be dramatically reduced.

For "the government" to give a stipend to everyone making below a certain amount (50k is what was posited in the OP), would be destructive beyond all belief. Government cannot give something unless they've taken it from someone else. Deficit spending? That means future generations are enslaved. You know, they HAVE to work to pay off that debt. And they never got to vote on it.
Let's say everyone makes 50k. Every burger flipper, every waitress, etc. Now, how much do you think a six-pack of bud would cost? Etc. No surer way to devalue your currency than to dictate a high wage for all workers.
If you have any doubts, look to Venezuela. Or any other communist/socialist experiment in the last 100 years.
This doesn't work.
What does work? Allowing the citizen to offer labor in exchange for pay. If the citizen does not think it is a "living wage", then get an additional job or a different job or better training.
It hurts, but it's the truth.

Yeah, man. those Scandinavian socialists are all starving and there's violence in the street...oh wait there isn't. And most of Europe has a fair amount of socialism and aside from a few countries, most are doing alright. Oh well, you'll always have Venezuela and Russia (though honestly their economy ain't great and they gave up communism 25 years ago.

As for deficit spending, that's unnecessary if you tax the fuck out of the companies that need you to have money to buy their shit that's made by robots.

Finally, I think you missed the part about jobs mostly being automated. I don't know what you do, but even if you're writing code, if I have a program that can do it better and faster, you're out of a job. If you drive a truck, you can't work for less than a truck that drives itself.

If you flip burgers, you can't do it for less than a fully automated store. If you're a cashier, you can't do it for less than a store that requires no cashier.
Do you drive for Uber? Too bad, they're going to use self-driving cars, but those cars are cheaper than you.

Maybe you're a genius. Maybe you're in the top 5% of your field and you can't be replaced before you retire. Most jobs will be automated at some point. Maybe new jobs will replace them, but my guess is that will only apply to highly skilled jobs and half the population of the world is below average intelligence. They're not going to get that type of job nor will they be able to work for a wage low enough to justify not automating their job and be able to live off that wage.

 

[tetris42]

Finally, I think you missed the part about jobs mostly being automated. I don't know what you do, but even if you're writing code, if I have a program that can do it better and faster, you're out of a job.

For many jobs, it doesn't even have to be better and faster. It just has to be "good enough" and cheaper. The quality of service will vary depending on the field, but in about all cases you'll be competing against a worker who works for free 24 hours a day.

 

[JokerCPoC]

For "the government" to give a stipend to everyone making below a certain amount (50k is what was posited in the OP), would be destructive beyond all belief. Government cannot give something unless they've taken it from someone else. Deficit spending? That means future generations are enslaved. You know, they HAVE to work to pay off that debt. And they never got to vote on it.

Let's say everyone makes 50k. Every burger flipper, every waitress, etc. Now, how much do you think a six-pack of bud would cost? Etc. No surer way to devalue your currency than to dictate a high wage for all workers.

If you have any doubts, look to Venezuela. Or any other communist/socialist experiment in the last 100 years.

This doesn't work.

What does work? Allowing the citizen to offer labor in exchange for pay. If the citizen does not think it is a "living wage", then get an additional job or a different job or better training.

It hurts, but it's the truth.

So the Rich and Wall Street get taxed. so what?

The Rich and Wall Street can withstand this, they have half the income in the US at $26 Trillion, and they just got a nice fat $1.5 Trillion tax cut, and since 1896 Trickle Down Economics has never worked, Trickle Down did not work in 1929 either...

 

[JokerCPoC]

For many jobs, it doesn't even have to be better and faster. It just has to be "good enough" and cheaper. The quality of service will vary depending on the field, but in about all cases you'll be competing against a worker who works for free 24 hours a day.

And that would be a machine, which never sleeps, does not get paid, never asks for a raise, and never complains about anything, every job a human does can be automated, computers and AI can do that, it's only a matter of time, and humans will be obsolete...

 

[daglesj]

I think they'll extract the taxes from the companies (not just tech, because this is going to affect everything from farming to manufacturing to tech. Due to low wages, there will be no way for tech companies to pass on that expense, but it won't matter, because their labor costs will be dramatically reduced.



Yeah, man. those Scandinavian socialists are all starving and there's violence in the street...oh wait there isn't. And most of Europe has a fair amount of socialism and aside from a few countries, most are doing alright. Oh well, you'll always have Venezuela and Russia (though honestly their economy ain't great and they gave up communism 25 years ago.

As for deficit spending, that's unnecessary if you tax the fuck out of the companies that need you to have money to buy their shit that's made by robots.

Finally, I think you missed the part about jobs mostly being automated. I don't know what you do, but even if you're writing code, if I have a program that can do it better and faster, you're out of a job. If you drive a truck, you can't work for less than a truck that drives itself.

If you flip burgers, you can't do it for less than a fully automated store. If you're a cashier, you can't do it for less than a store that requires no cashier.
Do you drive for Uber? Too bad, they're going to use self-driving cars, but those cars are cheaper than you.

Maybe you're a genius. Maybe you're in the top 5% of your field and you can't be replaced before you retire. Most jobs will be automated at some point. Maybe new jobs will replace them, but my guess is that will only apply to highly skilled jobs and half the population of the world is below average intelligence. They're not going to get that type of job nor will they be able to work for a wage low enough to justify not automating their job and be able to live off that wage.

Yeah here in Europe with our employment laws, health services, reasonable social security, 6 weeks paid holiday, sick pay, maternity leave etc. etc.

It's almost like the way we live is designed to actually help us and make our lives better. It's like facilities are in place to make living in our modern 21st century society just a little easier. How do those poor corporations survive when they are so oppressed from their no 1 priority, making money by exploitation at all costs?

A bit of 'socialism' isn't a bad thing. Too many have swallowed the corporate/1% propaganda that allows them to work you guys into the ground. The American Dream is a lie. The vast majority of those millionaires/billionaires that push that crap actually inherited their wealth. Remember the 1% are very good at keeping hold of their money.

As for paying the stipend not being able to work. Well the current economic model the world works on doesn't really work anymore. We are moving into a new era or work, production and therefore, how the world works.

It's already apparent that having huge debt/deficits etc. mean jack when the USA with its massive debt is still classed the 'richest nation'. When 96% of the worlds wealth is 'debt' then the old principles no longer apply.

Money/wealth/debt is slowly becoming redundant. Just doesn't make sense anymore.

The only alternative is put a contraceptive in the water supply and reduce the world population by 4 billion. Oh or have a world war...

 

[tetris42]

The vast majority of those millionaires/billionaires that push that crap actually inherited their wealth.

It's a little more complex than that. The majority of billionaires actually didn't just inherit their wealth, they grew it. The vast majority already came from upper class backgrounds already, and worked to create even more wealth. The actual "rags to riches" stories are exceedingly rare, however the "born on 3rd base" stories describe most of the wealthy that didn't inherit most of their wealth already.

 

[daglesj]

It's a little more complex than that. The majority of billionaires actually didn't just inherit their wealth, they grew it. The vast majority already came from upper class backgrounds already, and worked to create even more wealth. The actual "rags to riches" stories are exceedingly rare, however the "born on 3rd base" stories describe most of the wealthy that didn't inherit most of their wealth already.

Yeah its difficult to make a billion when you only have $100 million to start with.

 

[nilepez]

Yeah here in Europe with our employment laws, health services, reasonable social security, 6 weeks paid holiday, sick pay, maternity leave etc. etc.

It's almost like the way we live is designed to actually help us and make our lives better. It's like facilities are in place to make living in our modern 21st century society just a little easier. How do those poor corporations survive when they are so oppressed from their no 1 priority, making money by exploitation at all costs?

A bit of 'socialism' isn't a bad thing. Too many have swallowed the corporate/1% propaganda that allows them to work you guys into the ground. The American Dream is a lie. The vast majority of those millionaires/billionaires that push that crap actually inherited their wealth. Remember the 1% are very good at keeping hold of their money.

As for paying the stipend not being able to work. Well the current economic model the world works on doesn't really work anymore. We are moving into a new era or work, production and therefore, how the world works.

It's already apparent that having huge debt/deficits etc. mean jack when the USA with its massive debt is still classed the 'richest nation'. When 96% of the worlds wealth is 'debt' then the old principles no longer apply.

Money/wealth/debt is slowly becoming redundant. Just doesn't make sense anymore.

The only alternative is put a contraceptive in the water supply and reduce the world population by 4 billion. Oh or have a world war...

Obviously it varies, but for the US, if you have 5 million (and aren't stupid about spending it all), you can invest 3 or 4 million, keep a million or so to live off of and as a back up incase the market goes to hell and you will, more than likely, have more money at the end of every year, even if you do a fair amount of traveling and what not.

The S&P has average just under 10% returns over the last 90 years, but lets say 7%...4 million 1.07 is 280 grand. Taxes are roughly 20%, so 224 grand free and clear. Since you've got a million to live off of, the next year you'll go from 4.28 to 4.58 million. Doesn't take long to end up with 5 million in your stock account along with whatever you haven't spent of your million, which should be less than 300 grand for 2 years (this is money after taxes, after all...but some win hundreds of millions and go broke in a few years, so YMMV)

 

[Todd Walter]

Yeah here in Europe with our employment laws, health services, reasonable social security, 6 weeks paid holiday, sick pay, maternity leave etc. etc.

It's almost like the way we live is designed to actually help us and make our lives better. It's like facilities are in place to make living in our modern 21st century society just a little easier. How do those poor corporations survive when they are so oppressed from their no 1 priority, making money by exploitation at all costs?

A bit of 'socialism' isn't a bad thing. Too many have swallowed the corporate/1% propaganda that allows them to work you guys into the ground. The American Dream is a lie. The vast majority of those millionaires/billionaires that push that crap actually inherited their wealth. Remember the 1% are very good at keeping hold of their money.

As for paying the stipend not being able to work. Well the current economic model the world works on doesn't really work anymore. We are moving into a new era or work, production and therefore, how the world works.

It's already apparent that having huge debt/deficits etc. mean jack when the USA with its massive debt is still classed the 'richest nation'. When 96% of the worlds wealth is 'debt' then the old principles no longer apply.

Money/wealth/debt is slowly becoming redundant. Just doesn't make sense anymore.

The only alternative is put a contraceptive in the water supply and reduce the world population by 4 billion. Oh or have a world war...

You there, in Europe, are like we here, in Canada, in that we can afford to pay for our socialist programs because we hide behind the US Army's protection. If we actually had to pay for the size army it would take to defend our home and native land we would be fucked. Look at the reaction our politicians had when that US General went on record saying that they wouldn't necessarily intercept an ICBM from NK heading to Vancouver. They shit a ton of bricks and started pouring over the NORAD agreements that they've been ignoring since Glasnost. He was just disturbing la merde but a large number of people started asking about missile defense, the majority of which is out of date and in the Yukon. The American dream may be a lie to you, but it's paying for that bubble we live in.

 

[daglesj]

You there, in Europe, are like we here, in Canada, in that we can afford to pay for our socialist programs because we hide behind the US Army's protection. If we actually had to pay for the size army it would take to defend our home and native land we would be fucked. Look at the reaction our politicians had when that US General went on record saying that they wouldn't necessarily intercept an ICBM from NK heading to Vancouver. They shit a ton of bricks and started pouring over the NORAD agreements that they've been ignoring since Glasnost. He was just disturbing la merde but a large number of people started asking about missile defense, the majority of which is out of date and in the Yukon. The American dream may be a lie to you, but it's paying for that bubble we live in.

Yeah just trying to wonder which threat that is. The US doesn't have to spend $600 billion. They only do that because the powers that be love soaking up that money. I bet $450 billion of that just 'vanishes'.

Sorry I don't buy it.

 

[nilepez]

Yeah just trying to wonder which threat that is. The US doesn't have to spend $600 billion. They only do that because the powers that be love soaking up that money. I bet $450 billion of that just 'vanishes'.

Sorry I don't buy it.

some of it is that there are defense hawks in government. Some of it is because the Military Industrial complex has jobs in virtually every state so spending more on defense = more jobs for congressmen to say the brought home. And yes, there's waste.

There's little doubt, IMO, that we don't need to increase defense spending when it's almost double what it was in 2001 (more than double 2000) as a % of GDP it's higher than 2001 and if you adjust for inflation, our defense budget in 2016 was 50% higher 2001.

 

[daglesj]

Well it's also about protecting the petro-dollar.

Any oil country that says "Hey we are dumping the US dollar for oil trades!" gets a very swift invasion or overthrow/occupation.

 

[Todd Walter]

Yeah just trying to wonder which threat that is. The US doesn't have to spend $600 billion. They only do that because the powers that be love soaking up that money. I bet $450 billion of that just 'vanishes'.

Sorry I don't buy it.

Ask the Ukrainians.

 

[daglesj]

Ask the Ukrainians.

Oh yeah those guys who spend like $69 billion a year (half of which probably goes missing or propping up a rusting nuclear arsenal) on defence to invade a country spending $35.00 a year on defence.

Big tough guys. We should be sooo scared. Bullies never go up against anyone who can fight back.

 

[JokerCPoC]

Well I work from home and only have a $20000 mortgage. So costs are pretty low. I have plenty of savings but here in the UK rates are so low its better to just keep re-mortgaging (its due in 3 years time when I will owe $16800). I can pay it off tomorrow but its cheaper to keep it on mortgage.

Bixzzare but true. I'll keep my shares and savings for now.

I live in California, everything is expensive, as almost everything is imported, and My current home is paid for already, no mortgage, I spent almost $176 on food last month, rent $416.47 which includes everything except sewer which is still free(for the moment), car insurance($16.33-16.35, liability only, not full coverage which costs about 7-10 times more a month), internet access $44.99(in August $64.99), TV is free and limited to what I can receive, any repairs or replacements have to be paid for by borrowing via credit cards or a credit line, gasoline was $10.00 for the month, all on an income of $910.72 a month, which is not generous, and to which some object to people getting, since I have not worked for it, the income is a government grant, that if it was determined that I was over paid, has to be paid back until I have paid back the overage.

I'd love to live in a civilized area, here there are non human carnivores on the loose, and My relatives live 100 miles away, which means twice a year spend maybe $25-$30 a month on gasoline to drive 100 miles to their location, and then drive 100 miles home.

 

[JokerCPoC]

Paying a fair wage for a day's work will go along way to solving this issue. As it stands, it's not been fair for awhile.

If one works, if one is not able to work anymore, what then?
I could use $20,000.00 a year, it would help a lot of people to have a Universal Basic Income of this amount, and the US could do this, it just lacks the political will to do this, raising the minimum wage can be done at the same time as helping out those who are less fortunate, one bill at a time in Congress is not how government works, anyone who thinks only one thing can be done there at one time is ignorant. That's why government has multiple committees, which are run by the party in power, the party who has a majority has the power, not the minority, the current majority is the GOP/Republican Party.

 

[viscountalpha]

If one works, if one is not able to work anymore, what then?
I could use $20,000.00 a year, it would help a lot of people to have a Universal Basic Income of this amount, and the US could do this, it just lacks the political will to do this, raising the minimum wage can be done at the same time as helping out those who are less fortunate, one bill at a time in Congress is not how government works, anyone who thinks only one thing can be done there at one time is ignorant. That's why government has multiple committees, which are run by the party in power, the party who has a majority has the power, not the minority, the current majority is the GOP/Republican Party.

It's all about power. Money is just a visible form of it. Those who have it essentially make the rules. A basic pay increase is the last thing people in power want because they lose theirs.

We have enough food and water and shelter and yet people still go hungry. People are still homeless.

It's aaddressing the critical issues of whats important. I'm afraid we will have to learn a hard lesson or two before we give up our greedy days.

Here's to hoping some of you survive the hard lessons, they are coming soon.

 

[spaceman]

Soylent green is people!

Yeah. Just trying to enjoy these last few years of plenty.