Poland to launch shorter working week pilot programme

[Landon Caeli]

It may sound too ideal today. But for example today's Scandinavian model or Swiss model would sound too ideal before, too.

I think certain types of people can handle that level of freedom. Unfortunately, some also cannot.

As they say, idle hands are the devil's workshop (for some).

 

[wing2000]

...a few local city governments in Arizona have adopted the 4 day work week.

 

[trophy33]

I think certain types of people can handle that level of freedom. Unfortunately, some also cannot.

As they say, idle hands are the devil's workshop (for some).

I honestly think that the majority of people do not have a problem with having a lot of free time.

And that only few would use it for evil things. But these few are doing evil things even today, probably.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I honestly think that the majority of people do not have a problem with having a lot of free time.

And that only few would use it for evil things. But these few are doing evil things even today, probably.

Hopefully. One day we will be at that point, and hopefully I am wrong and you are right.

 

[Desk trauma]

The basic question is still the same: how will the wealth created by labor and capital be shared?

As little as possible in the US. Anything else is communism.

 

[Landon Caeli]

As little as possible in the US. Anything else is communism.

Maybe the potential difference between possible growth and human capability will peak and then decline. At which point, communism will become inevitable... In the future.

...Perhaps, we've already peaked.

 

[bèlla]

I do not know what you think is motivated by greed, if workers can work less hours and keep or even grow the standard of living.

How will your standard of living increase if your job is replaced by Ai? UBI is unlikely to provide the same. I wouldn’t expect 1:1 coverage nor was it suggested thus far. In respect to greed, the reduction of staff due to technology is a win/win for companies. It increases their profits and reduces expenses. No salary, benefits or pension.

Did you see the same when they started hiring employees overseas where the currency was less? Were the positions that went to those nations replaced with others? I can’t speak for other countries but that wasn’t the case in America nor do our companies pay foreigners the same salary we receive.

~bella

 

[bèlla]

In the ideal world, hard, repetitive, boring work will be automated and humans can spend their time in creative, exploratory and similar jobs or hobbies.

What percentage of the market is devoted to those positions? Now consider the answer in light of the jobs replaced. I don’t have the number but my work is creative and most jobs are not. Which means the majority won’t be able to do that and they’ll have to create their own opportunities or be retrained. And there’s still an imbalance. We’ll need less workers as technology improves and there’s no getting around it. Everyone won’t be employed.

As for the hobby angle, how will they support themselves financially?

~bella

 

[trophy33]

How will your standard of living increase if your job is replaced by Ai?

So far, jobs are not being massively replaced by AI. Rather enhanced by AI. But if the situation got into a point in which automation makes people unemployed, then the state may tax the companies and redistribute the GDP created by automation among the citizens of the country.

This is one way in which it could work.

Did you see the same when they started hiring employees overseas where the currency was less? Were the positions that went to those nations replaced with others? I can’t speak for other countries but that wasn’t the case in America nor do our companies pay foreigners the same salary we receive.

There was some transformation of economy here, for example the textile industry ceased being local and it created a problem for a decade or two. But the market simply accommodated and today's generation does not even think about having a job in a textile industry, they are not interested. The similar situation was in coal mining etc.
And there are few local textile producers who make high quality but more expensive shoes and clothes and they can find their customers, too.

 

[bèlla]

Right. The effect of automation is to increase worker productivity. You are suggesting that the increased profit from from that increase in productivity should go to the company and not be shared with the workers.

Why would the profits be shared with employees? Shareholders are first followed by venture capitalists and the company. Employees will never see the bulk of it.

~bella

 

[trophy33]

What percentage of the market is devoted to those positions? Now consider the answer in light of the jobs replaced. I don’t have the number but my work is creative and most jobs are not. Which means the majority won’t be able to do that and they’ll have to create their own opportunities or be retrained. And there’s still an imbalance. We’ll need less workers as technology improves and there’s no getting around it. Everyone won’t be employed.

As for the hobby angle, how will they support themselves financially?

~bella

Redistribution. Even today, unemployed people do not die, but are supported by the social insurance. A similar system would need to be implemented regarding the AI.

And I guess there will probably be a significant segment of the market preferring "made by hands" or "made by humans", which will be more expensive, but may be sought as something precious. Like a real music is still something more than a generated music.

 

[bèlla]

So far, jobs are not being massively replaced by AI. Rather enhanced by AI. But if the situation got into a point in which automation makes people unemployed, then the state may tax the companies and redistribute the GDP created by automation among the citizens of the country.

I don’t see that happening for us. We’ve never had the mindset to fully support a person or household due to hardship. The government provides a morsel but it isn’t plentiful. For example, if you lose your job there’s a benefit available but it doesn’t equal your salary. You get a percentage instead.

~bella

 

[trophy33]

I don’t see that happening for us. We’ve never had the mindset to fully support a person or household due to hardship. The government provides a morsel but it isn’t plentiful. For example, if you lose your job there’s a benefit available but it doesn’t equal your salary. You get a percentage instead.

~bella

I think this will have to change in time. As the need for a change will arise enough for enough people to vote for a party that will make it happen.

Some better governments can even be pro-active and come with some social solution before people will get into a lot of trouble.

 

[bèlla]

Redistribution. Even today, unemployed people do not die, but are supported by the social insurance. A similar system would need to be implemented regarding the AI.

Prolonged unemployment in America at present will result in homelessness if you don’t have familial support or friends. The government doesn’t make up the difference or provide enough to keep you afloat. Socialism is a divisive topic and many are opposed. Even if something cataclysmic happened that required assistance like universal basic income there would still be complaints and allegations of people being paid to stay at home. We heard it during the pandemic frequently.

Everyone must do their part in our culture barring those who can’t and that number is small. There’s obviously many who feel otherwise but our political leaders and corporations would say the same. We just had cuts to resources for the poor and people cheered.

And I guess there will probably be a significant segment of the market preferring "made by hands" or "made by humans", which will be more expensive, but may be sought as something precious. Like a real music is still something more than a generated music.

There will be a market for that of course with a requisite price tag. But once again, that isn’t the majority. Most people don’t have the skills to do the same. There may be possibilities in certain trades but we’ll still have a gap.

~bella

 

[bèlla]

I think this will have to change in time. As the need for a change will arise enough for enough people to vote for a party that will make it happen.

We’ll have a universal basic income. I have no doubt about that. But I think it will be just enough as the same implies. You’re not going to be traveling the world or living comfortably. And that angle will be addressed when it’s introduced. Americans don’t make decisions based on the greater good as a rule. Many view social helps as necessary in some instances and unfair in others.

~bella

 

[trophy33]

Prolonged unemployment in America at present will result in homelessness if you don’t have familial support or friends. The government doesn’t make up the difference or provide enough to keep you afloat. Socialism is a divisive topic and many are opposed. Even if something cataclysmic happened that required assistance like universal basic income there would still be complaints and allegations of people being paid to stay at home. We heard it during the pandemic frequently.

Everyone must do their part in our culture barring those who can’t and that number is small. There’s obviously many who feel otherwise but our political leaders and corporations would say the same. We just had cuts to resources for the poor and people cheered.

Well, you simply need to hope in democracy and in the power of elections. And in the wisdom of the people to not fall for something that is not good for them.

 

[trophy33]

There will be a market for that of course with a requisite price tag. But once again, that isn’t the majority. Most people don’t have the skills to do the same. There may be possibilities in certain trades but we’ll still have a gap.

I do not claim it happens tomorrow. Of course the transformation of society, of the social systems and of the market will take years or even decades.

I agree that people can lose their job in a year or two and not be ready or the government may not be ready to support them. I am thinking more long term.

 

[bèlla]

Well, you simply need to hope in democracy and in the power of elections. And in the wisdom of the people to not fall for something that is not good for them.

Why would I do that? From my perspective it’s foolish and the best response is proactive. Create additional income streams before you lose your job or things worsen and expand them. Why would you wait on the government to solve a problem you have the ability to offset earlier? You should be planning now not later. This is the lesson of fairytales, nursery rhymes and proverbs too. Planning and industry yields the best results.

~bella

 

[bèlla]

I do not claim it happens tomorrow. Of course the transformation of society, of the social systems and of the market will take years or even decades.

I agree that people can lose their job in a year or two and not be ready or the government may not be ready to support them. I am thinking more long term.

I don’t expect you to predict that and I’ve been following it for sometime and making adjustments. Nothing I’ve heard thus far is benevolent. Which isn’t a reason for panic but a motivation to double your efforts and put safeguards in place to cover you. But that‘s my bend and I’m not a fan of dependency. I’d rather have a surplus and financial freedom than live with constraints.

~bella

 

[BCP1928]

Why would the profits be shared with employees? Shareholders are first followed by venture capitalists and the company. Employees will never see the bulk of it.

~bella

Yes, workers'pay should stay flat while their productivity rises. MAGA!