Azalin Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 It begs the question whether society should provide only for those deemed capable. It's not a question of society providing anything except opportunity. It's up to the individual to develop a marketable skill. Key words there. Coal Miners and screw turners can't be taught to code. I apparently have more confidence in people than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I apparently have more confidence in people than you do. They're not bad people. But just like everyone can't cook, or paint a picture, or dance, or whatever...not everyone can code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 They're not bad people. But just like everyone can't cook, or paint a picture, or dance, or whatever...not everyone can code. Why the fixation on code? You do realize that tech involves literally everything that involves electronics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 It's not a question of society providing anything except opportunity. It's up to the individual to develop a marketable skill. If such marketable skills are in an extremely specialized field such as robotics maintenance, and both the individual's capacity to learn the skills and the employment opportunities are similarly limited, does that count as opportunity? I would say no. The issue is largely 'government-as-employer', in which your assessment would undoubtedly hold true. I often argue that there are responsibilities inherent to any complex society that extend beyond simply providing an outlet for its selective constituents' skillset. Conceptually, responsibilities like personal fulfillment, creative expression, and more concretely 'the pursuit of happiness'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Why the fixation on code? You do realize that tech involves literally everything that involves electronics? Right. And you have faith that Harvey Average, aged 54, former coal miner can be retrained to repair robots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Right. And you have faith that Harvey Average, aged 54, former coal miner can be retrained to repair robots? Sure. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 If such marketable skills are in an extremely specialized field such as robotics maintenance, and both the individual's capacity to learn the skills and the employment opportunities are similarly limited, does that count as opportunity? I would say no. The issue is largely 'government-as-employer', in which your assessment would undoubtedly hold true. I often argue that there are responsibilities inherent to any complex society that extend beyond simply providing an outlet for its selective constituents' skillset. Conceptually, responsibilities like personal fulfillment, creative expression, and more concretely 'the pursuit of happiness'. Look around whatever room you happen to be in at the moment. Chances are that you're literally surrounded by electronics. It does not have to be robotics or an extremely specialized area of the tech field. Tech is not a limited field by any stretch. And I think you miss my point completely if your takeaway is "government-as-employer". The only responsibility a society has to it's citizens is to provide public service (police, schools, local infrastructure, etc). It's an individual's responsibility in a free society to pull their own weight. Right. And you have faith that Harvey Average, aged 54, former coal miner can be retrained to repair robots? Robots? At least you've moved past "writing code". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Sure. Why not? Ok, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Ok, then. You obviously disagree. Make your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Right. And you have faith that Harvey Average, aged 54, former coal miner can be retrained to repair robots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 You obviously disagree. Make your argument. My argument is that while some fraction of these people dispossessed may be able to be retrained into some new skill, a good majority of them won't. And you'll have to do something with those people. Also, there will be fewer jobs overall with the increase in AI and automation, so even IF you could retrain say half of them, you'll never get them all back to working, ESPECIALLY those closer to the end of their careers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) It's an individual's responsibility in a free society to pull their own weight. I agree completely. It's not as simple as a cliche though, and 'free society' and 'pulling your own weight' need to be defined in order to have a meaningful discussion. Is a society free in which an individual can only earn a living wage in selective fields of the government/industrial complex's choosing? Does pulling your own weight involve placing people ill suited for the tasks in which society has placed value into, rather than expanding the economic base to accommodate the various talents and skills inherent to a diverse population? Edited June 6, 2017 by GoBills808 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 As an addendum: Could there be some miracle technology out there that would allow lesser-intelligent and lesser-educated people to be able to cope with an ever-changing environment? Sure. I just don't like to predict things that are generally unpredictable, and would prefer to use history as a guide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 As an addendum: Could there be some miracle technology out there that would allow lesser-intelligent and lesser-educated people to be able to cope with an ever-changing environment? Pot isn't really a technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I agree completely. It's not as simple as a cliche though, and 'free society' and 'pulling your own weight' need to be defined in order to have a meaningful discussion. Is a society free in which an individual can only earn a living wage in selective fields of the government/industrial complex's choosing? Does pulling your own weight involve placing people ill suited for the tasks in which society has placed value into, rather than expanding the economic base to accommodate the various talents and skills inherent to a diverse population? In a society where people are afforded the freedom to attempt to choose their own career path, preoccupations, and quality of life, it is incumbent upon them to obtain, as they can, the wherewithal to do so. There are no guarantees of outcome, no guarantees of success. It may take many attempts for an individual to succeed, however they choose to define success. The concept of a living wage is to my mind, anathema to an individual's success. We all possess talents and abilities in unique measure, and some will need to work much harder to achieve success than others will. Attempting to set an equality of outcome is foolish in my mind as it requires holding achievers back, not improving the output of underachievers. We don't need government or a helping hand from society for that - people just need to accept the responsibility for taking care of themselves. There's nothing selfish in that. A person should be paid their worth, and that worth should be based on the value of the work they perform, as well as the quality of that work. In other words, the wage of a marketable skill. A person must be prepared to move to another city, sometimes frequently. They may have to change professions or go back to school. That's probably more true now than ever before, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 As an addendum: Could there be some miracle technology out there that would allow lesser-intelligent and lesser-educated people to be able to cope with an ever-changing environment? Sure. I just don't like to predict things that are generally unpredictable, and would prefer to use history as a guide. Using history as your guide have jobs ever become obsolete before? I think the buggy whip makers survived right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Using history as your guide have jobs ever become obsolete before? I think the buggy whip makers survived right? I was thinking about all those blacksmiths who lost their jobs with the advent of the horseless carriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Using history as your guide have jobs ever become obsolete before? I think the buggy whip makers survived right? Yes, and usually within three generations things normalize. Usually. But what is different now is the absolute disruption of so many occupations all at once. Between globalization and technological change, we've gone from industry to services to a post services economy in 20 years. There is no parallel to this pace of change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 They're not bad people. But just like everyone can't cook, or paint a picture, or dance, or whatever...not everyone can code. This is very true. In fact, even people who CAN code can't always code in all languages. It's weird, it takes a certain brain to write advanced code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 This is very true. In fact, even people who CAN code can't always code in all languages. It's weird, it takes a certain brain to write advanced code. Specifically, you have to not be a halfwit. Any halfwit can write code. Things like C++ pointer management or XSLT optimization are what separates the men from the halfwits. But of course, I just failed an IQ test, so what the !@#$ do I know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts