'I'm a Luddite - and Why You Should Be One Too' (stltoday.com) 211
Los Angeles Times technology columnist Brian Merchant has written a book about the 1811 Luddite rebellion against industrial technology, decrying "entrepreneurs and industrialists pushing for new, dubiously legal, highly automated and labor-saving modes of production."
In a new piece he applauds the spirit of the Luddites. "The kind of visionaries we need now are those who see precisely how certain technologies are causing harm and who resist them when necessary." The parallels to the modern day are everywhere. In the 1800s, entrepreneurs used technology to justify imposing a new mode of work: the factory system. In the 2000s, CEOs used technology to justify imposing a new mode of work: algorithmically organized gig labor, in which pay is lower and protections scarce. In the 1800s, hosiers and factory owners used automation less to overtly replace workers than to deskill them and drive down their wages. Digital media bosses, call center operators and studio executives are using AI in much the same way. Then, as now, the titans used technology both as a new mode of production and as an idea that allowed them to ignore long-standing laws and regulations. In the 1800s, this might have been a factory boss arguing that his mill exempted him from a statute governing apprentice labor. Today, it's a ride-hailing app that claims to be a software company so it doesn't have to play by the rules of a cab firm.
Then, as now, leaders dazzled by unregulated technologies ignored their potential downsides. Then, it might have been state-of-the-art water frames that could produce an incredible volume of yarn — but needed hundreds of vulnerable child laborers to operate. Today, it's a cellphone or a same-day delivery, made possible by thousands of human laborers toiling in often punishing conditions.
Then, as now, workers and critics sounded the alarm...
Resistance is gathering again, too. Amazon workers are joining union drives despite intense opposition. Actors and screenwriters are striking and artists and illustrators have called for a ban of generative AI in editorial outlets. Organizing, illegal in the Luddites' time, has historically proved the best bulwark against automation. But governments must also step up. They must offer robust protections and social services for those in precarious positions. They must enforce antitrust laws. Crucially, they must develop regulations to rein in the antidemocratic model of technological development wherein a handful of billionaires and venture capital firms determine the shape of the future — and who wins and loses in it.
The clothworkers of the 1800s had the right idea: They believed everyone should share in the bounty of the amazing technologies their work makes possible.
That's why I'm a Luddite — and why you should be one, too.
So whatever happened to the Luddites? The article reminds readers that the factory system "took root," and "brought prosperity for some, but it created an immiserated working class.
"The 200 years since have seen breathtaking technological innovation — but much less social innovation in how the benefits are shared."
In a new piece he applauds the spirit of the Luddites. "The kind of visionaries we need now are those who see precisely how certain technologies are causing harm and who resist them when necessary." The parallels to the modern day are everywhere. In the 1800s, entrepreneurs used technology to justify imposing a new mode of work: the factory system. In the 2000s, CEOs used technology to justify imposing a new mode of work: algorithmically organized gig labor, in which pay is lower and protections scarce. In the 1800s, hosiers and factory owners used automation less to overtly replace workers than to deskill them and drive down their wages. Digital media bosses, call center operators and studio executives are using AI in much the same way. Then, as now, the titans used technology both as a new mode of production and as an idea that allowed them to ignore long-standing laws and regulations. In the 1800s, this might have been a factory boss arguing that his mill exempted him from a statute governing apprentice labor. Today, it's a ride-hailing app that claims to be a software company so it doesn't have to play by the rules of a cab firm.
Then, as now, leaders dazzled by unregulated technologies ignored their potential downsides. Then, it might have been state-of-the-art water frames that could produce an incredible volume of yarn — but needed hundreds of vulnerable child laborers to operate. Today, it's a cellphone or a same-day delivery, made possible by thousands of human laborers toiling in often punishing conditions.
Then, as now, workers and critics sounded the alarm...
Resistance is gathering again, too. Amazon workers are joining union drives despite intense opposition. Actors and screenwriters are striking and artists and illustrators have called for a ban of generative AI in editorial outlets. Organizing, illegal in the Luddites' time, has historically proved the best bulwark against automation. But governments must also step up. They must offer robust protections and social services for those in precarious positions. They must enforce antitrust laws. Crucially, they must develop regulations to rein in the antidemocratic model of technological development wherein a handful of billionaires and venture capital firms determine the shape of the future — and who wins and loses in it.
The clothworkers of the 1800s had the right idea: They believed everyone should share in the bounty of the amazing technologies their work makes possible.
That's why I'm a Luddite — and why you should be one, too.
So whatever happened to the Luddites? The article reminds readers that the factory system "took root," and "brought prosperity for some, but it created an immiserated working class.
"The 200 years since have seen breathtaking technological innovation — but much less social innovation in how the benefits are shared."
Go join the copyists monks (Score:2, Troll)
Technology advances will make some jobs and even castes obsolete.
Before the printing press, people relied on monks to copy the written word. The biggest libraries in the world had less than a hundred books.
I won't even mention how people just died of benign illnesses or accidents before modern medicine.
Are you sure you want to go back to those times?
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:3, Informative)
Technology advances will make some jobs and even castes obsolete.
Before the printing press, people relied on monks to copy the written word. The biggest libraries in the world had less than a hundred books.
I won't even mention how people just died of benign illnesses or accidents before modern medicine.
Are you sure you want to go back to those times?
If you'd read even just the summary, you would know that they don't want to go back to those times. Instead, they are concerned that there's been "much less social innovation in how the benefits are shared.'
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:2)
If you'd read even just the summary, you would know that they don't want to go back to those times.
Isn’t not reading the summary is just what they would do if they wanted to go back to those times?
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:2)
If you'd read even just the summary, you would know that they don't want to go back to those times.
Isn't not reading the summary is just what they would do if they wanted to go back to those times?
More specifically, I imagine you mean "not able to read" (or not allowed to read) which, judging from the state of things, is where we seem to be heading anyway.
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:2)
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't think life has gotten better for the poor thanks to technology, I suggest you read more about life in pre-Industrial England.
When to get even basic clothes you have to pay a person for days of their time to weave them, and likewise pay humans for huge amounts of labour per calorie of food produced, miserable levels of poverty for the poor are guaranteed. It's not a structural issue, it's an issue of "things are just expensive because our rate of production per person-hour are so low."
If you want to go back to that, leave me out. I support the advancement of technology to make production more efficient.
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:4, Insightful)
As the old joke goes the statistician stuck his head in a freezer and feet in an oven because on average he was at the perfect temperature.
Oh, and hours worked per week peaked right around the time before automation really took off. In terms of looms, for example, the power loom overtook hand spinning in England around 1830. Note the work hours trend post-1830 vs. pre.
Yes? We're talking about the Luddites, which is significantly before 1830, at the point where your graph does NOT show a significant uptick. Sabotaging equipment had the death penalty 20 years before that. As it morphed into the union movement post-1830, that's when things started to improve for the masses.
And as I mentioned, individuals don't care if the population is doing slightly better on average if things are much worse for them.
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:3)
Well, basically if they weren't a wealthy tradesman like Ludd,
??? Ludd wasn't a wealthy tradesman. He was a fictional character like Mr. Peanut or Charlie Tuna.
Your glossing over a decades of social strife (Score:3, Interesting)
70% of middle-class jobs have been taken by automation since 1980. Google it.
That's created an oversupply of Labor that we've been hiding with the gig economy. As a result make houses affordable in America you'd have to raise wages 55%
The gig economy is almost entirely baby boomers blowing through their retirement. The combination of their medical expenses and their extravagant spending and retirement means they're not going to leave anything behind.
The next generation is going to be incredibly impoverished facing a massive oversupply of the only thing they have to sell, their labor.
If you want to tell me there's going to be all these new jobs, be specific. Exactly what new jobs? And if it's going to be service sector jobs who the hell is going to pay for those services on the meager wages they're going to be earning? Again be specific
Re:Your glossing over a decades of social strife (Score:2)
Think the Cold War and Space Race did more for advancements than WW1 and WW2.
That's 70% wasn't all at once (Score:3, Insightful)
And you do not know your history large numbers of impoverished people because there isn't enough work to go around is not a new thing. Why in the name of hell do you think so many people immigrated to other countries in the past when it was so brutal doing so? But I don't even have to go as far back as what's your probably thinking about when I mention that kind of immigration. The two industrial revolutions had massive unemployment and it took decades for other technologies to show up as well as those two world wars and bring us back to near full employment.
And hell yes I'm demanding someone think about the future. Solving problems before they start isn't something a fortune teller does it's something people with common fucking sense do. Some of us don't want to just pretend everything's going to be fine. When we see a problem coming we actually would like to do something about it.
So once again you dodge my question with a straw man and avoid answering what we're all going to do as our jobs are automated away. Like every single person I've challenged to explain to me what these magic jobs that are going to replace all the ones being automated or going to be you avoided the question.
I will give you credit accusing me of demanding a fortune teller as a form of misdirection from my question is a new one to me. So good job I guess?
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:2)
No, that's exactly the reason why we should fight it.
Never, in the history of mankind, has progress been driven forward when labor was easy to get, plentiful and cheap. Every single society that depended heavily on widespread slavery (or slavery-like employment systems) suffered from stagnation. Because why should you invent new and more efficient ways to get work done when you can sufficiently rely on slave labor?
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:2)
"Computer" use to be an actual job position...often occupied by women.
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:2)
And far beyond number crunching of yore, they automate a lot of stuff that we do in our daily lives that we used to rely on assistants for when we could afford them, who were also often women. Luddites hate automation only when they aren't using it. Otherwise they'd throw out their smartphones, laptops, etc. And for fine art entertainment they'd go to concerts, plays, etc. You know, shit that most people can't afford to do all the time.
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:2)
I think the premise is not the "advancement of technology" but the replacement of "handicraft" with "good enough"
200+ years ago, if you wanted a portrait of yourself or your family, you had to find someone who could do an oil painting, and it would cost the equivilent of a years salary, pretty much because that would be the work that artist works on, all year once they get the drawing down.
Fast forward today, when you can do the same thing in 10 seconds with your smartphone. Good enough, but your average smartphone image is not artistic choice, just "interesting subject" or "a moment in time", creative decisions yes, but not much thought.
So if everything was as complicated as an oil painting, the population would have crashed and died out already with the flu or covid or any other number of pandemics that would have been unchecked without modern manufacturing processes.
That said, something does have to be said if all "productivity gains" are equal. If I can take a pill and ignore my physical aches all day, I'm more productive, but I'm probably killing my kidneys or liver in the process. Many people in stock trading are basically hardcore drug addicts beause they abuse caffine, or speed, or some other drug so they have an "edge" over competition that doesn't. You use or you lose.
I'd say that AI aims to overthrow all human "productivity gains" at the cost of actual creative input. So I don't mind, and don't care if the restaurant replaces the human workers with AI, I will still go to a gourmet restaurant and buy the handmade burger or steak if that is what I want. Otherwise If McDonalds, KFC and Arbys decide to just let AI do everything, that means, at the minimum people get less sick, you get less utterly incompetent workers who work while sick, and food borne illnesses go away once the AI knows exactly how long food lasts and how much to order. Hell, cut out the restaurant itself and just do JIT (Just in Time) restaurant food, where the AI has all the fresh food and animals in stock locally, and the amount of animal suffering goes down because animal meat doesn't get wasted.
The amount of times I look at the meat section at a grocery or a 7-11 hotdog cooker, and think about how much of it is thrown away daily. Like 7-11 literately throws out an entire garbage bag every night of just "Fresh" food that has been on the shelf all day, that might still be good for another 3 days.
I'd like nothing more than AI to eliminate all food waste.
Now, in creative industries, I would, never (as in the steak example) buy a creative work that was produced entirely by AI. I might not give a shit if the AI is used for actual compositing, or back-filling actor's voices instead of re-takes (because this is what some studios do in ADR anyway, it's just a sound engineer re-dubbing it with their own voice) just to save time. But if the goal is to save money, well, let me tell you.
No AAA movie, film or game will ever be produced that people will buy, if they know it's produced without human input. How much is up for debate, but the Left-wing side of the political spectrum (which sides with actors and musicians) has already said they will boycott any production where the principle "talent" is replaced by AI.
Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:2)
IDK, have you seen the some of these Marvel movies they are putting out? Our standards are not really that high for movie entertainment.
Re: Go join the copyists monks (Score:2)
I'm for carefully considered progress, ideally with sone public discussion. Rather than allowing anyone with enough power and sway to decide for the rest of us when new technology is used and in what manner it is used. Because generally the manner is whatever brings the decider the most profit.
So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:2)
The LA Times says we should be like the Luddites, and oppose the new waves of technology that are sweeping over the world. The Luddites did this with force and violence. Is that what is being proposed? So how did that work out?
History tells us that factory owners and law enforcement fiercely defended the right of factories to exist. Luddites were suppressed, factories became the new way to build things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Whatever you think of the march of technology--love it or hate it--it's a tide that can't be reversed. Rather than fighting the inevitable, it might be more productive to find ways to adapt, and regulate, the new technologies.
Re:So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:2)
History also tells us that this led to widespread impoverishment of the middle and lower classes.
I think we should try to avoid repeating history.
Re:So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:2)
I agree, we should try to avoid repeating history. The author of the book and article appears to be advocating *for* repeating history.
Re:So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:2)
By warning us of the impending impoverishment of the lower and middle classes?
Re:So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:2)
So we warn everybody. Then what?
And I don't agree that this impoverishment is a foregone conclusion. The one major depression in the 1800s was caused by the US switch to the gold standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], not the mechanization of labor. In any case, that depression lasted a few years, but soon gave way to a long period of economic expansion, leading up to the "Roaring 20's". And then the Great Depression began, again not due to the invention of the assembly line or other inventions, but due to the over-exuberance of stock traders. Since the 1940's, we've seen ups and downs, but the general trend has been up, despite vast shifts in technology and the ability for workers to do far more per hour than ever before.
So will some call center workers lose their jobs to AI? Probably. Most of those people already hate their jobs, turnover is extremely high in that industry. The same is true for just about every other type of work that AI will be able to take over.
I personally see a better future as the result of AI, not a worse one.
Re:So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:2)
Ah yes, as long as the investors make great profit, who gives a fuck about the working population? There's plenty of them, just throw a few more cogs into the machine should they break...
Has it ever occurred to you that the economy doesn't even remotely represent how the average person is doing?
Re:So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:2)
You're making this "us against them." That's not how it is at all. It's not the "evil rich investors" against the "working stiffs." To see it that way is to deny reality. If all those "evil rich investors" stood down and decided not to pursue new technology, *new* inventors would rise up and take their places.
And I never said I don't care. I'm talking about recognizing reality. Guess what, life isn't fair. Some people have athletic skill, some have brains, some have beauty, some have wealth, some have health, some do not. If you're in the "not" category, it does no good to yell and scream, we all have a set of challenges that we face, the best we can do is make the best of what we have.
The march of technology has advanced for centuries, and it's moving faster than ever. You and I aren't going to stop it. Why make more pain for ourselves than we're already going to have to face?
Re:So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:2)
You're making this "us against them." That's not how it is at all. It's not the "evil rich investors" against the "working stiffs
I would like to believe that, but I've seen too many examples of evil rich investors who resemble cartoon supervillains. Take Elon Musk insisting that employees should sleep in the office. It's so incredibly twisted and yet people act like it's normal.
Anyway, my take is that we should definitely not try to stop the march of technology. Technology improving productivity and resource usage is something we vitally need. What we do need to do is make sure that the march of technology doesn't leave people behind. The whole point of that advancing technology should be to improve everyone's quality of life.
Re:So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're making this "us against them." That's not how it is at all. It's not the "evil rich investors" against the "working stiffs."
What? Yes, it is. It absolutely is. If it was not then investors would be held accountable for the actions of the companies they invest in, instead of the opposite world we actually live in where corporations are first and foremost legal fictions created for the explicit purpose of separating investors from responsibility for their actions.
If I knowingly fund someone's bank robbery with the expectation that I will share in the take, I'm partially responsible for their actions, and I can be imprisoned along with them. If I knowingly fund PGE's willful negligence e.g. a 99 year old hook wears through and causes a short which is not interrupted by any of the equipment PGE could have bought and installed but chose not to because it would reduce profits and causes a fire which burns down a shitload of homes and kills 85 people [abc10.com] then I just get to share in the profits they made with their willful negligence.
Corporations exist specifically to permit terrible people to do terrible things that they know are terrible and profit from them. Everyone who invests in PGE is a killer for profit, by proxy and the system is designed to permit them to profit from these killings.
The march of technology has advanced for centuries, and it's moving faster than ever. You and I aren't going to stop it. Why make more pain for ourselves than we're already going to have to face?
The technology isn't the problem. The legal structures that permit people to profit from its abuse are.
Re:So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:3)
The California government specifically shielded PG&E from the scrutiny it deserved. https://abc7news.com/pge-ca-wi [abc7news.com]... So what does that say about your "legal structures"?
It directly supports exactly what I was saying, duh. Thanks for the help I guess?
Re:So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:3)
Thats what the article is suggesting. The point about being a luddite is NOT to try and stop change but to slow it.
That's *not* what the Luddites did. They declared war on technology. They went around destroying factory equipment. So if the author wants to suggest that we should properly regulate AI and other new technologies, he used the wrong example from history.
Smashing stuff pisses people off (Score:5, Interesting)
It feels good, it might even be an effective way to punish guilty parties, but smashing stuff also makes other affected people mad at whoever smashed it, not necessarily at whoever is turning the screws and ultimately keeping them oppressed.
That doesn't mean it should never be done, but if it's not part of some bigger and yet still feasible plan for improving workers' situations or achieving some other immediate and concrete goal, it's probably doing more damage than good.
If we don't do something you will long for the day (Score:2, Offtopic)
And it will be you personally that those young armed angry men with nothing to lose or point it at. If you weren't the target you'd be more worried about automation destroying jobs
Re:Smashing stuff pisses people off (Score:5, Insightful)
The luddites got the wrong target. They thought the machines were the problem, but in fact it was the system that meant they didn't benefit from improvements in productivity, only the already wealthy did.
What did the Luddites achieve? (Score:2)
Did their violence and resistance achieve their goals? They had some good goals, like preserving human dignity. Did their tactics accomplish that, or *anything* useful? The march of the machines continued, and the Luddites disappeared. Why would we want to copy their utter failure?
Even if we were successful in slowing down the march of technology in our own country, other countries will fully adopt the new technologies we are trying to slow down. We will only put our own countries at a disadvantage in our increasingly global marketplace.
So remind me again, why would we want to replicate the utter failure of the Luddites?
Wars, social strife and a massive disruption (Score:3)
Now might be a good time to learn some history and try not to repeat it. Especially because we've got a whole bunch of firecrackers sitting in silos that if they go off literally anywhere end life on this planet
Re:Wars, social strife and a massive disruption (Score:2)
If we don't want to repeat history (and I agree with you on that point!) we probably shouldn't aim to repeat it, as the author of the book and article appears to be suggesting.
Re: Wars, social strife and a massive disruption (Score:2)
Re:Wars, social strife and a massive disruption (Score:2)
Re:Wars, social strife and a massive disruption (Score:2)
A huge part of why world War I and world War II happened is that automation was devouring jobs and there was a large amount of unemployment. Eventually those unemployed or given a gun and a cause by some strong man and they go off and blow up enough cities and kill enough working aged adults that we get back to a labor shortage.
That isn't even remotely true. World War I was basically a feud between nobility, primarily over who gets the right to colonize Africa and other regions. If anything, Germany was more democratic than France and England at the time, with France even de-facto enslaving their colonies. The outcome of that war was that France and England split up and then colonized the former Ottoman Empire and took over a lot of former colonies that belonged to the central powers. Basically a continuation of the same shit that had been happening for centuries since at least the
While WWII had democracy vs authoritarianism as a theme throughout, the actual motivation behind the Axis powers was in fact expansion of their territories. Your communist comrades in the USSR had the same goal in fact, and they were even allied with Hitler until Hitler wanted to expand his stupid little reich to them as well.
Unemployment had fuck all to do with either of them.
Re:Wars, social strife and a massive disruption (Score:2)
Bleh, editing mistake, since at least the end of the medieval period, longer if you count what the Romans did.
Re:Wars, social strife and a massive disruption (Score:2)
If you're dinging the WWI British and French democracies for their treatment of colonies, you should apply the same to German treatment of colonies. The only reason Britain and France had more colonies is that they were much more maritime nations than Prussia was, and got a big head start. If Germany had had the same chances, they would have done the same thing. As far as I can tell, Britain and France were significantly more democratic than Germany.
For WWII, as democratic capitalists we saw the fascist and communist countries as similar because they were totalitarian. Soviets saw the imperialist and fascist countries as similar because they were capitalist. Germans saw democracy and communism as similar because they were both materialistic. (I'm way oversimplifying here, of course.) The Soviets did try to ally with the Western democracies before the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, but failed partly because Britain and France didn't take the negotiations seriously. From their point of view, alliances with capitalists were for strategic purposes only, so they weren't as concerned about which capitalist side they were on, The Soviets were also expansionist, but working from a weaker position than Germany or Japan.
You are of course completely correct in your assessment of unemployment starting big wars.
Re:What did the Luddites achieve? (Score:2)
They had some good goals, like preserving human dignity.
They say that, but not really. Luddites were actually relatively wealthy. But their trade depended on a constant supply of thread and other material. No Luddite ever bothers to ask where those came from. Nor did they ever ask who could afford their services to begin with.
Luddites Literally Gave Birth to the Solution (Score:2)
So Mr Merchant should not try to be like a Luddite, he should try to be like a son of a Luddite.
Re:Luddites Literally Gave Birth to the Solution (Score:2)
Well said. And we do see some new union movements today, some of which aren't well organized (Walgreen's & CVS) but are true movements of people tired of putting up with private equity nonsense.
Re:What did the Luddites achieve? (Score:2)
They didn't "disappear" . Most died ugly.
I doubt your statement is based on actual data. If you have some, I'd love to see it! As with most movements, I suspect the fates of the members were distributed along a spectrum, something like a "normal curve." A few at the extreme end died violently, as you stated. But I'd guess most were motivated to stand down when some of their peers ran into legal problems.
In any case, whether it's government repression or violence or attrition, I'd ask again: Did the Luddites achieve their goals? That is ultimately the measure of success. And no, I don't buy the conspiracy theories that a few shadowy figures who drink blood are the ones who are really in charge.
Re:What did the Luddites achieve? (Score:2)
Re:What did the Luddites achieve? (Score:2)
Yes, that's my whole point, the Luddites made a lot of noise, but in the end they completely, utterly lost their fight.
They "vanished" probably in large part because they realized they were losing, and gave up. They weren't all killed off or spirited away, most of them probably died a natural death, disappointed in how the world was against them.
So we *can* take a lesson from them. Adapt, or be left behind. It's not that I don't care, it's that I believe it's hopeless to fight the tsunami. Might as well learn how to swim.
Re: What did the Luddites achieve? (Score:2)
It's likely we would be living in a different world if they had won, probably critizing the factory system. I don't know if it would be a better world, but at least different.
Re: What did the Luddites achieve? (Score:2)
The thing is, they couldn't win, their chances were always zero. The world is a big place, and if one country's Luddites succeed, another country's Luddites will fail. The countries that adopt the new technology will become the new world's leaders, while the Luddite nations will be the backwater countries that nobody cares about. Eventually, they all give in and adapt. The only difference is how long it takes them to adapt, and how much pain is inflicted along the way.
Re: What did the Luddites achieve? (Score:2)
We have nuclear weapons now and can enforce our will on multiple countries. Seems like the Luddites were simply premature.
Re: What did the Luddites achieve? (Score:2)
And you think we (or anyone else) would use those nuclear weapons on a country because they insist on using new technology? Only in a fantasy world. Any country that tried that move, would immediately find themselves the focus of the entire world's wrath and be ground into nuclear dust, and the march of technology would continue...elsewhere, in part because of the war. So even your nuclear enforcement doesn't work.
Base assumptions are demonstrably wrong (Score:2)
"In the 2000s, CEOs used technology to justify imposing a new mode of work: algorithmically organized gig labor, in which pay is lower and protections scarce."
Please demonstrate how CEOs used technology to justify anything. Cost savings and increased profits are what CEOs use to justify almost everything. "Technology" and "gig labor" (and the latter is certainly enabled by the former) are just the mechanisms used to increase those corporate profits.
One can certainly argue, though, about the societal cost versus those increased profits, and whether that should lead to intervention of some sort - boycotting products, forming labor unions, imposing government regulation.
Re:Base assumptions are demonstrably wrong (Score:3)
I think the way to reform this is to democratise the workplace. We already have successful models such as worker-owned business & cooperatives: Every worker owns 1 share in the company. There are no outside shareholders dictating to the executives or the workers how they should run the company. The workers vote to hire the executives so the executives effectively work for the workers. The profits don't go into offshore trusts or share dividends, they go back into the company as investments & into pensions & hardship funds for the workers.
I'm not anti-capitalist per se. I think there still is a place for capitalism but not to the extent that we now have. It can be useful for starting up new ideas quickly. But on the scale we now have it, it's impoverishing billions of people, degrading our environment, creating harsh living & working conditions, & this maniacal obsession with measuring success by how fast we can dig stuff up out of the ground & turn it into pollution means that there may well soon be far fewer of us.
If democracy can so well for government - It's the worst system we've tried, apart from all the others - maybe it can work well for working life too. It seems to work pretty well in many cases around the world... if you care to do a little background research & reading up on more democratic business practices.
Amish people have the right idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree (Score:2)
Instead of bending technology to society so that a handful of men can retain the power given to them by their granddads we should restructure our society so that no one is Left behind just because we don't personally like the cut of their job.
I don't think that's going to happen though so I'm hoping that we do enough massive government infrastructure programs to keep kids employed long enough for the Old guard to die off so that the kids can do sensible things we refuse to
Re:Amish people have the right idea (Score:2)
they're just circumspect about which technologies are worth employing when you consider all the factors
I've heard the Amish described in many ways, but never heard it justified in this way. The Amish most definitely are anti-technology. That is immediately obvious in the fact that when they consider the factors they universally reject it, and as a result they live a very frugal lifestyle compared to the rest of society which makes you really wonder if they actually considered the factors correctly at all.
Re:Amish people have the right idea (Score:3)
I've heard the Amish described in many ways, but never heard it justified in this way.
It is correct. The Amish will use some technology, but it's at arm's length. For example, you will see some Amish wth cell phones. In some cases it might be a requirement for whom they work, other times it's strictly for a business they run, but only limited use. However, that phone may or may not enter their house. I have heard in some cases there is a small location just outside the door where the phone is kept turned off until the following morning.
You won't see any Amish driving a car, but you will see them in vans/buses/trains taking them to some location. Not far from me is a location where you can easily see the Amish being taken to a store for shopping. They, almost always women, will do the shopping while the van waits outside. When they are done shopping the van picks them up, BUT the driver does not help the women load up. The driver is strictly for picking them up, taking them where they want, then taking them home.
You might see Amish men using nail guns on a construction site. Again, it might be a requirement of the job, and in construction it usually is, but they will use it. They just won't take it home with them.
In the end, they want to live their life as free from technology and automation as possible, but even they will make limited exceptions when needed. You think they don't go to hospitals?
Re:Amish people have the right idea (Score:3)
The traditional motivation of the Amish is to retain independence from the English (non-Amish society) and thus they are supposed to reject anything, like certain technology, that makes them dependent on non-Amish society. If they could build their own engines and produce their own fuel, they'd be free to use the technology. Of course, practicality and pragmatism lead to exceptions...
Re:Amish people have the right idea (Score:3)
Amish are not monolithic. There are several "tiers" of separation from the world (it's not rejection of tech, rather of being tied to "the world" by tech, itself a very broad category), and they don't agree on where that line should be. Schwartentruber Amish live in ill-maintained shacks straight out of 1830, don't even use buttons as being too modern, and won't even put a slow-moving vehicle triangle on their buggies. Beachy Amish live in lovely modern houses where the only difference between those and other upscale modern houses is that they're entirely off-grid, they often own cellphones for work purposes, and many also drive nice new pickup trucks for work. (Amish are often quite wealthy, too.)
There's a resort in Florida that's run by and caters to the Amish. It's generally indistinguishable from any other retirement vacation hangout, except that the folks on bicycles aren't all over 65, and a lot of them speak German as well as English.
Re:Amish people have the right idea (Score:2)
Really? Then why did Amish get in trouble for having cell phones? Apparently many were outed last week when the emergency broadcast went out.
Re:Amish people have the right idea (Score:2)
It's complicated (Score:4, Informative)
Communism often talk about fair share for everyone, while Democracy speaks for the individuals right to soar and have a chance of making it big.
The thing is, whatever you believe in, there will always be a bigger fish that eats the smaller ones, there will always be someone smarter that games the system and climbs the ranks while the masses obey the powers that be, whatever power that may be at any given time in history.
Humans in general are creatures of habit, they tend to settle into a pattern that seems comfortable and "functioning" to them, for as long as it does, until it doesn't, but then they are often too weak to fight back, it's kind of being tricked into a condition that seems fine, but gets slowly worse over time, usually due to greed and power.
I've seen it all, I'm old, so I kind of get it because I've been in both camps, seeing it from all sides, my strenghts and my weaknesses are the same as everyone else.
What do I mean by that? Well imagine this, you're an aspiring student, you don't really know what you want yet, everything you see around you inspire you in one way or the other, whether you hate the current status quo or love it. At some point you either find out what you're good at, or at least what you're interested in. In most cases you have to put in a lot of effort in it because your'e essentially competing with millions out there with the same vision as you, so it all depends on how much work you put in whatever you want to achieve, and that sets you appart from the rest that would rather be comfortable than fight.
Then you have the settlers, they will usually be content with growing a family, as long as theres enough to eat, a roof over their head, they're generally satisfied and don't mind a repetitive job, they often complain about it, and endure worse and worse working conditions. Eventually that model comes crashing down sooner or later when everyone had enough, but they're too weak to fight, they're happily taking the scraps they are being thrown, just to avoid confrontation and to cling on to whatever dream they had initially.
Today social media have changed the way we look at work, I have been a school teacher for some time as well, and during that time I observed (and asked) the kids what they wanted the most. An astonishing amount of them aspired to become youtube stars, sports stars or anything that doesn't require hard work or study, well sport does - and so does becoming a really good youtuber, but - they see only the glory part, not the millions that fail and never become anything.
We are constantly bombarded with videos about those that made it big, and on former facebook we only see likes, a place where everyone competes for looking their best, convincing everyone else they're miserable in comparison to them, it's all about the shallow lifestyle, my kingdom for your clicks and likes. It's a model doomed to fail.
And then we have the growing unrest, the increased distrust in media, the increased distrust in politicans. We simply experience our votes don't count anymore, because those in power don't care for which side you're on, as long as you vote - and they get their cushy lives with salaries most of us could only dream of, often with severance packages that will last their lifetime and their families too, while advocating for the small man on the street, it's all good - as long as they stay in power. You're the one that drew the short stick, and all the sticks where short.
Global warming, electricity prices soaring, gasoline prices soaring, food prices through the roof, extreme personal debt - everything making it harder and harder to chose the life that you want. Makes you ripe for the picking of anyone that offers you a lifeline, even under the worst of conditions, and you made that choice yourself.
Remember the animated movie "Antz" or "A bugs life"? Together we're strong, but individually we're weak. See? The thing is, as long as you're thinking that you can't do anything about it. As long as you're not listening to your brave buddy that WANTS to do something about it, alienating him because you want to be liked at work, liked by your friends, and chosing the "safer" immediate path - where your opinions will not land you in any trouble (but your future...slowly), you're taking the cowards way out, slowly losing all your individual rights.
See where I am going with this? Probably not - you'll wake up the next morning and think nothing of this, and slowly your every day will get a little worse.
Because you're a creature of comfort, you can't afford to risk anything, or can you?
Wake up and THINK, what are you really risking?
Re:It's complicated (Score:2)
I have been a school teacher for some time as well, and during that time I observed (and asked) the kids what they wanted the most. An astonishing amount of them aspired to become youtube stars, sports stars or anything that doesn't require hard work or study, well sport does - and so does becoming a really good youtuber, but - they see only the glory part, not the millions that fail and never become anything.
Trust me, this existed long before YouTube/Social Media. I know plenty of people who moved to New York or Hollywood to become famous--not necessarily to become actors or dancers or whatever. That's what they wanted to be--famous. Acting and performing were the means to an end.
They're supposedly not against new technology (Score:2)
Yeah, fuck the industrial revolution! (Score:2)
I am not (Score:2)
The problem is not technology. The problem is how it gets restricted, locked into Digital Restriction Management, monopolized by large companies, used to spy on people and manipulate them, and creates some super-rich people that did nothing except being lucky. That is all bad, no exception. But the problem is not the technology. The problem is with society and how it has failed and failed again to get the assholes in it under control. The Googles and Microsofts of the world would just be as bad without technology.
Most want cheap! (Score:2)
Most people want the cheapest goods not the responsibly sourced fair wage goods. Until that paradigm changes, resistance will be scarce
Re:Most want cheap! (Score:2)
Most people have no idea what product is long lasting and responsibly sources, most people can see if its if its cheap, and if its shiny.
Sure you may get some saying they they are those things to me that's more of a function of their marketing budget as opposed to their adherence to those principal.
It's human nature and culture (Score:2)
Most people are discontented by nature. Achieve your goals, and eventually you'll get bored and look for something 'better'. So many people are always looking for that new idea or loophole that will elevate them to the next strata of wealth and power.
Most people give zero thought to how our massively cooperative and interconnected social and economic systems enable modern prosperity - and how by extension everyone who does anything at all is part of that system and deserves a share of the common bounty.
So long as we're willing to tolerate billionaires while the median net wealth (in the US) is barely over 100K, wealth concentration will continue in a capitalist society without a forced wealth re-distribution scheme to put a cap on just how much of an advantage you can have over others.
It's a wealth tax or increasing misery for most progressing to mass slavery with a handful of masters, it's only a matter of time.
I'm pretty sure everyone here on this forum (Score:2, Interesting)
My question for you is does supply and demand apply to the value of your labor?
Because realistically even if your job isn't directly threatened do you really think all the people who are about to lose their jobs to various automated systems are just going to eat a bullet?
They're going to do one of two things. Either they're going to go back to school study hard and being half your age compete for your job, or they're going to do what happens in every other country with a large number of unemployed people and go find themselves somebody who will hand them a rifle and a cause. Usually that cause involves taking from the haves and giving to themselves...
Neither of those two outcomes are good for you.
For everyone saying they'll be new jobs tell me specifically what those jobs will be? If their service jobs who's going to be able to afford the service?
The website businessinsider has a article about a study that shows 70% of middle class jobs were taken by automation not outsourcing. And modern automation techniques are about to do another industrial revolution.
So again tell me what jobs are going to replace all the ones that are about to go away. And be specific. I've never once had anyone answer that question with specifics. It's always that the new jobs are going to be so futuristic we just can't imagine them... The same bullshit I was told when I was a kid and those 70% middle class jobs were being automated away
Re:I'm pretty sure everyone here on this forum (Score:3)
Well, I guess I'm the odd man out here since I highly doubt any young person would want to compete for my job. Mainframes, which is a big part of my job, will be replaced within 10 years with something else - and have been 10 years away from retirement and replacement at least since the 1990s. Nobody under 40 even wants to deal with that crap, so I guess my retirement is secure.
Aside of that snide side remark, you're right. The problem we're facing this time around is that the displaced workers will not be able to move to something else. And I'm not talking about a few people who just can't be skilled because they don't have the capacity to, that has always been the case, but I am talking about a considerable majority.
When farming became mechanized and farm hands were displaced, they could move to the cities because the emerging factories needed a workforce. When the factories automatized, the service industry needed people.
But who needs them today? Where do they want to go?
Re:I'm pretty sure everyone here on this forum (Score:2)
Re:I'm pretty sure everyone here on this forum (Score:2)
Mainframes, i.e. z/OS and its various service programs and tools are stuff you either love or hate. There isn't any room for "ok, if you pay me to do it...", because if you could do it, you could also easily do something else to get paid about as much. It's something you have to want.
I admit, I love the simplicity of mainframes. They're about as "old school" as computing can get, and at the same time they're the bleeding edge of computing. Yes, you have to specify a lot that people expect "the computer" to do for them today, like handing data structures and how and where to store data, and in what format and what access type and whatnot, but I like that level of control over my data. It's simple, direct, structured and dependable.
And, allow me to let you in on a secret: Security on a mainframe is easy. A lot of the shit that you can do to abuse a "normal" computer simply and plainly doesn't work here. If you take care of a few basic house keeping things, you're mostly set and from there on it's just code reviewing ancient Cobol code.
The only caveat: Pray that you don't find something. The person who wrote that code is certainly no longer at the company and very possibly no longer alive.
You do understand (Score:2)
Ignoring the fact that I've been hearing that mainframe is going away for 30 years yes young people will gun for your job. We have young people gunning to be coal miners for fuck sakes. People without any legitimate opportunities will jump at all sorts of things.
At 10 years will you probably make it to retirement? Yeah probably. But you never know..
Re:I'm pretty sure everyone here on this forum (Score:2)
No I saw that part (Score:2)
Oh, and biotech. Because we were all somehow supposed to be geniuses that could get Masters and doctorates. Or at least we were supposed to be dumb enough to think the economy would need that many people with a bachelor's in biotech or worse a high school education to work in the field...
So how about it oh great one. Elucidate me. Exactly which jobs are going to come along to replace the massive amount of work that is getting automated.
What if instead of becoming luddites (Score:2)
Oh and don't forget if you tax Bill Gates is enormous wealth the next step is to come and take your house and give it to somebody else. Especially whoever you dislike the most. Picture the person you hate the most and that's who the government is going to give your house to if you raise Bill gates's taxes and if you go after all the wealth and money he's got hidden away. Don't take everything your toothbrush, your car, your dog everything. It's the only logical explanation because the billions of dollars worth of assets commanded by the 1% are exactly analogous to your personal property. They're certainly not capital, nosiree.
I'm turning into a Luddite (Score:4, Funny)
We need a new society. (Score:2)
Re:We need a new society. (Score:2)
One where all basic needs like housing, education, healthcare, food is provided, and only luxury hand made items are produced by people, and the rest is done by robots.
That sounds fantastic. But we're not close to being there yet. We're at least another 50 years away from having the actual ability to do this. Maybe 100. But you are right, when we do achieve that level of tech, our overlords (politicians, mostly Republican) will work hard to keep you working.
Re:We need a new society. (Score:2, Insightful)
COVID was a dry run. The US gave $3200 to each person over the course of two years and encourged them not to work. The result was the supply chains upended and significant (but not ridiculous) inflation. The economy did not handle it in stride. For everyone to get a minimal living stipend in the US, that's what $20000 per person per year? So you're right, we'll probably get there eventually, and you're also right we're not close to being there yet. Need about 20x more cash to hand out and much less dependence on people's labor than we have today.
In addition to producers, the US economy needs consumers. I suspect that's the job that people would get if there aren't enough production jobs to go around: they'd be paid to consume, and their choosing what to consume would be valued.
Re:We need a new society. (Score:2)
Re:We need a new society. (Score:2)
Many economic theories have been tried and failed
Sure, like communism. But that's not going to stop people from trying again, is it. The cure is teaching people macro-econ. If you understand that, you won't fall for tankie propaganda anymore.
Re:We need a new society. (Score:2)
Sure, like communism. But that's not going to stop people from trying again, is it. The cure is teaching people macro-econ. If you understand that, you won't fall for tankie propaganda anymore.
The problem of Marxism isn't about macro-economy. It is about humanity. Monopoly or Oligarchy by the riches is of course bad. But replacing them by the more centralized and monopolized "government" will only be worse. Psychopaths won't gain sympathy to the poor just because they switch their names, hats and chairs.
WTF DID I JUST READ? (Score:4, Interesting)
This has to be the least well thought out pile of gibberish on Slashdot in 2023.
Not the only reason to be a Luddite (Score:2, Insightful)
Technology does not serve the people using it anymore. That's in a nutshell the problem with modern technology. Until about the 2000s, a new development, a new tool, a new technology was met with excitement. Something new! Something better! Something that makes my life easier, more productive, more entertaining or just happier.
That isn't really the case anymore, is it? More and more technology serves its maker rather than its user. TVs that spy on your viewing habits, cars that work according to their makers' ideas rather than yours, garage doors where you tell their maker to open and if they don't like you, they'll just refuse [slate.com] and lately I've seen fridges that are "always online", take a wild guess what they tell their maker. Of course, all of that under the guise of giving you some gimmicky phone app so you can get at least a fraction of the information that is siphoned away from you.
And of course you don't own any of these products. Don't you DARE to "hack" them. They are not your property. That you paid for them doesn't matter.
Why shouldn't I be a Luddite in these circumstances? Why should I want any piece of that shit cake?
Re:Not the only reason to be a Luddite (Score:2)
Well, I want a self driving vehicle. I'm not opposed to driving but it would be cool to only drive recreationally.
Wary (Score:3)
I don't want CTOs designing social policy - when they try to write our laws or just ignore them, that's a big problem (Musk being an obvious example), but I likewise want there to be a really good reason whenever we're voting to decide what technology exists; it shouldn't be a normal thing.
Social innovation (Score:2)
This is insanely incorrect. The 21st century was dominated by social innovation - first Nazism, then Communism. The total death toll being something like 100 million people.
Re:Social innovation (Score:2)
How will future AI post-scarcity society see us? (Score:2)
The problem is not technology, its capitalism (Score:2)
The problem is that capitalism inherently distills wealth to the people who are most willing to exploit it.
Technology is like steroids for capitalism.
Capitalism rewards the people with the lowest moral fiber. Always remember that the giants of industry, the billionaires, the elite... they're the problem. They are the people with the lowest moral fiber. They are the people willing to exploit anyone or anything for their own personal gain. And the wealthier they are, the more they are the problem. When the rest of us stop idolizing them, we'll be able to start figuring out how to distribute the wealth more equitably, whilst still being able to reward people who go above and beyond.
At that moment in time, technology will become our friend instead of our jailor.
It all depends. (Score:2)
Another name for them (Score:2)
"Technology Nimbys"
And rock & roll ... (Score:2)
... that newfangled music is the devil's handiwork and our teenagers are all going to hell.
Quite the statement (Score:5, Insightful)
That's quite the statement. During the time of the Luddites there were almost no labour laws, certainly nothing against child labour, no kind of minimum wage, working conditions, etc. Anything like a union was illegal, and breaking the law could get you sent to a work camp in Australia. Or executed. That's what happened to a lot of the Luddites, at least the ones that weren't just shot. Slavery in England itself had been abolished for a whole couple of years and was still perfectly normal most other places.
Now England has progressive taxation, healthcare for everyone, free primary and secondary education and heavily subsidized universities, a national pension plan and various other components of a modern social safety net.
Oh yeah, and more than 5% of men are entitled to vote. They even decided to let the women vote!
Re:Quite the statement (Score:2)
Instead the slavery and child labor got outsourced to poorer countries with no workers rights. Now instead of having poor english children make your knick knacks, you instead have poor Congolese child miners and overworked Vietnamese sweatshop workers doing it.
As for the healthcare and safety nets, we will see if England can afford to keep paying for those benefits. With the way population demographics are going, there may well have to be some belt tightening unfortunately. What France was doing with raising the retirement age may very well be a problem for many other countries in the coming decades.
Right Direction, Wrong Target (Score:2)
While it varies between individuals, the general feeling I have been getting is that people are more concerned that those in power will just leverage tech to further exploit the underclass and hoard more wealth. And looking back at what the outsourcing craze of the 90s-00s did to the Midwest, or the Industrial Revolution prior to the workplace reforms, this is not a wholly unjustified concern. Job losses, growing wealth disparity and wage stagnation, ecological/environmental destruction, unfair business practices between big and small enterprises, the list goes on. It took a public fed up with the abuse and a government willing to enact the proper laws required to straighten out the wrongs. And even then, much of those laws nowadays are either outdated or repealed, leading to the unregulated mess that is the modern neoliberal economy.
Throw in an increasingly invasive surveillance state and propaganda apparatus via IT and mass media respectively, and you have a further consolidation of power the likes of which is unheard of in human history.
Because at it's core, this is not just a tech issue. It's a cultural and social one. A.I., blockchain, or what have you won't fix decaying public infrastructure, stagnant wage growth, crime, homelessness, mediocre education systems, cultural/political divides, or an economy that looks more and more like the world's biggest pyramid scheme on the verge of collapse. You need a strong, competent government to lead people and a culture that emphasizes the best qualities of any given people. More importantly, you want an educated, responsible population that knows how to use these new technologies in a safe, responsible, and intelligent manner. So naturally, the status quo works to ensure the public is kept dumb, poor, and powerless to prevent this from happening.
This isn't to say humanity is completely doomed. But we can't afford to ignore the consequence any longer, because they're only going to get worse. Maybe a good chunk of this community could care less in part because they're either set for life or won't live long enough to see the real shit show coming. But we at least owe it to future generations to leave them with something rather then nothing. Otherwise this is going to end in a very violent and miserable fashion that frankly no sane individual wants to witness, let alone participate in.
Re:Pro-Luddite article on Slashdot? (Score:2)
You'll find that quite a few geeks have been seeing the writing on the wall for a while now and are not exactly very interested in where the technology train is heading.
Re:Pro-Luddite article on Slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:Pro-Luddite article on Slashdot? (Score:2)
And they sure also ain't no True Scotsmen.
Re:Pro-Luddite article on Slashdot? (Score:2)