the68thdimension t1_j6m2b27 wrote

> Then what was the point of the comment?

Because it’s worthwhile to point out the nuance of the situation: it’s not that these jobs are lost and that’s it, but rather these jobs are lost but some others are opened up elsewhere.

It’s still a net negative loss of number of jobs, yes, but it’s not as bad as it’s made out by some.


the68thdimension t1_j6je7vf wrote

This is all true, and my comment was simplistic. In my defense, it's hard to cover such a massive topic in a few sentences. Yes we need UBS, but alongside it we also need a huge restructuring of our economic and political systems to reduce wealth (and power) inequality, and bring the tools of human and natural flourishing back within our direct (democratic) control. And this is still a simplistic and reductive comment.


the68thdimension t1_j6jcmk6 wrote

You wrote a whole lot of words for nothing, man, I agree with you. I never said the jobs were replaced 1:1, nor that the same people working at McDonalds would get those jobs. How about before taking the absence of words negating something as an argument for that thing, and then writing an essay about it ... you just ask for clarification?

In any case, nothing you said negates my point about UBS.


the68thdimension t1_j6hv7tp wrote

Ignoring the discussions around how many jobs this actually takes away (not many, and it creates other jobs elsewhere around machine design, installation and upkeep), if this 'automation' bothers people they should be pushing for Universal Basic Services (UBS).

People don't want these jobs, they want the (small amount of) money the job provides in order to purchase things to meet their basic needs. So provide UBS and nobody needs to do crap jobs like this in order to live.

I say bring on the automation; nobody should have to work at McDonalds. Let's just do jobs that help us live fulfilling lives and leave the drudgery to the robots.