Comments by "Brenda Rua" (@brendarua01) on "3 myths about the future of work (and why they're not true) | Daniel Susskind" video.

  1. No. This is a shill or a naive dreamer talking. The relevant model is Uber. They fully plan to replace human drivers with driverless cars. There is nothing in the plan to accommodate the displaced workers/drivers. They have no incentive to do so. In fact, they have a responsibility to maximize profit so they would be wrong, under the current model, to spend a nickle they don't have to. It is exactly the same for all the other companies that will be automating. The end result will make the degradation and de-humanization of humans during the industrial revolution look like a warm up. But as with capitalism in general, there is an inherent contradiction that will lead to the collapse of the AI model in a consumer driven economy. People will have no money to buy anything. The end result will be upheaval and a rise of the masses, who will demand a guaranteed basic income and universal health care. The elites will have to agree to this new distribution or come up with an economic model not based on rampant, unquenched consumption.
    5
  2. Peter, thanks for the detailed comment. It makes a lot of sense. However, I note that your model is set in our current economy, not the future in which a large portion of the population is unemployed. It would be interesting to see how the pay out and cost varies with the size of the employed/unemployed segmentation. On another note, I don't know of any place in the U.S. where a person can live on $800 a month. We can cut expenses substantially by assuming universal health care and education, no need for private transportation or other "luxury" expenses like home ownership. But you still have a problem meeting rent, at least as it is priced today.
    1
  3. Rbo Fowler That would make for a very interesting turn of events.
    1