the_6th_dimension t1_ja3z1rb wrote on February 26, 2023 at 5:53 PM

I think the real question is, once we automate enough tasks such that there won't be enough "good jobs" for people to build a career out of, are we going to support them so that they may thrive without the need for income generated by their work or will we treat them like we do anyone else who is no longer able to generate a profit?

You really only need to be worried about automation in one of those scenarios.

rileyoneill t1_ja4hde7 wrote on February 26, 2023 at 7:53 PM

Depending on where you live, a lot of markets already have a minority of jobs that are "good jobs". We have a very high cost of living right now. The majority of jobs in my city do not pay well enough for a person to afford their own 1 bedroom apartment at today's prices.

Like AI is not going to touch janitorial work. We need janitorial work as a society, allowing buildings to fall apart is not an option. However, janitorial work is not a well paying job. Its hardly a good career. People look down upon people who do it, even though it has to get done. We want janitors, we just don't want them living in our community.

I think we need to see a future where this technology can do to drastically reduce our cost of living. We need automated food systems, automated transportation, AI/Robo built urban housing. We need to leverage this technology to bring down expenses.

the_6th_dimension t1_ja4ua2h wrote on February 26, 2023 at 9:19 PM

There you go.

Either use it to bring down expenses for everyone

use it to maximize profits for a select few.

It's only a threat in one of those situations. In the other it's a blessing. People argue about which outcome goes with which option, which is confusing to me but not surprising.

rileyoneill t1_ja6esx2 wrote on February 27, 2023 at 4:30 AM

The general trend to go from something human made to machine made is a massive reduction in cost. While the companies that do this for a while, eventually competition shows up and drives the cost down. Markets become flooded.

Gutenberg did this with books. His original goal was just to use the printing press to sell printed bibles at hand written prices. But once others figured out how the technology worked the price of books plummets. Once people start mass producing books it becomes very hard to keep them as expensive items.

The big profits don't come from high prices, the big profits come from an enormous volume of sales.

Difference. A landlord owns 3 rental properties. The way they maximize their income is by having the rent as high as it can possibly be. They don't have 4 properties or 5 properties. They want the absolute highest rent per property.

As where some sort of AI Architect/Engineer/Builder company could be going in a city and building not 3-5 units, but building 50,000 units, or in a place like Los Angeles, 2 million units. The goal isn't to become a landlord but get them all sold, even if at a modest profit of $20,000 per unit, that would be billions of dollars in profit.

Then figure they are going to do this in Orange County, and San Diego, and San Jose, and San Francisco, and Sydney, and Portland, and Vancouver, and Chicago, and Miami, and Austin, and Denver. Instead of trying to maximize profit off a few units, the goal will be to maximize profit by building enormous quantities of housing in city centers.

There is far more money in building millions of units, giving the real estate market total shock and awe by collapsing local prices. Sucking up all the renters as buyers and then expanding into other markets. Flood a market like Greater Los Angeles with 4 million units of housing and the price on all housing will crash.

The rush of buyers will have the all time deal of the century on a new condo in LA and then the existing home sellers will find themselves in an impossible to win situation.