Hacker News
points by roenxi 1 day ago | 0 comments
This is similar to complaining that we don't all have the opportunity to spend 8 hours a day doing backbreaking farm labour after the agricultural revolution - it is only important to have people labouring if the labour is achieving something useful.

Labouring for the sake of doing labour is stupid. If robots can do it cost effectively, they should.

[–] samus 23 hours ago
Industrialization did not occur to make people's lives more comfortable; it was introduced to make investors more wealthy, and it is not a given that the wealth will be distributed to society at large. Also, after each disruptive innovation people's existing skills and experience might very well be worthless in the new environment. These two factors together mean that it might take a long time to adapt to the new situation and reach a similar level of wealth again, and that is the main concern at the core of Luddism.
[–] roenxi 21 hours ago
I mean sure. The paint isn't dry on China's economy, they built most of it in the last 20 years. They're probably not feeling overwhelmed at the thought of that sort of change - they won't have jobs they never used to have, but there will be all this stuff available assembled by machines.
[–] bigstrat2003 1 day ago
For one, people need to feel like they have something meaningful to contribute. Work is an important part of that. For two, people need to be able to make a living, and work is an important part of that.

It's all well and good to say that people shouldn't have to do menial labor. But unless you have something to fill the void, it's going to be a bad time for everyone involved.

[–] bruce511 1 day ago
How much of the "need" is intrinsic to humanity, and how much is it a product of the culture you live in?

Western culture ties the value of people to their work. The unemployed are "lazy" (itself a pejorative). The first question you ask someone you meet is "what do you do?" A lawyer is naturally more valuable than a postal clerk. (Despite an obvious example to the contrary. )

A lot of western jobs now are menial, or worse, useless. Lots of office jobs are, frankly, meaningless. Endlessly generating reports that no-one needs, or reads, isn't a path to massive self-worth.

In the US no job means no income. No health care. Your worth as a human approaches zero. In Europe, post war, there are far more social supports for the unemployed. That's a fundamental cultural difference. Asia is also culturally different in ways which are hard for US folk to comprehend.

For example there are 3 major political viewpoints; US capitalism, European socialism, and Chinese communism. Each appears to function well, and yet the US vilifies the others, while barely being able to tell them apart.

So, to return to your hypothesis of what "humans need", it may be less of that and more of "my culture needs". Which is perhaps going to come into play when predicting a post-labor economy in other cultures.

[–] guai888 1 day ago
Totally agree but it is difficult to retrain people even when it is possible. Technology can replace certain work faster than society can adjust. How to use socialist policy to help with transition is still a work in progress. What happen in France and rest of Europe will become a textbook case and we do not know how it end.