Also, lighter work loads and less time consuming are different arguments - unless you mean no technology has ever resulted in neither, which is a rather bold statement.
Counterpoint: The cotton gin. It was supposed to make slavery obsolete, but actually reinvigorated the practice of slavery by making slaves able to do more work.
Before washing machines, people would hand off washing to professionals. Now the expectation is that the person who can afford it must wash things themselves. More time spent on that.
Better technology frees more time for other tasks. Whether that’s work or leisure depends on the individual. Everyone has the same 24 hours a day independent of how you use them. Most people don’t just sit and do nothing. To even suggest that things like an electric stove, washing machine, lawnmower or a bicycle aren’t saving people real time on tasks they’d have to do either way is ridiculous.
Seems like we still must work the same amount regardless of how much we’d “like” to do other things though. What you’re talking about happened, but happened a long time ago.
In most cases people get paid by the hour. The wage is compensation for your time, not effort. If a new technology comes along that increases your work productivity you’ll still end up working the same hours because that’s what you’re being paid for. I’d say that there’s still a real difference between spending 8 hours a day swinging an axe compared to running a chainsaw. Same amount of time is spent working but the effort needed goes down while productivity increases.
However, this isn’t always the case. I work in construction and it’s not untypical that someone has a fixed price for completing a job. There you are not compensated for your time per se but effort. If you’re quick you do get to “go home early.” However this doesn’t lead to people working less either - quite the opposite. They get greedy, hoard too much work, rush it, the quality suffers and they tend to get really stressed out and easily irritated.
In olden times before washing machines people were expected to change into clean (washed) underclothes daily, and an apron got washed when dirty, but their main clothing went a long time between cleanings. Even longer than the clothes on the chair, like months.
Similarly, expectations of manicured pool-table lawns with the advent of lawnmowers.
Better stoves/ovens I’ll totally grant you. I have enough trouble adjusting from my old “runs hot” oven to my new “runs cold” oven, I can’t imagine trying to bake a cake in a wood or coal oven.
And the horse that preceded the bicycle took more maintenance, not less.
Do people not do laundry for work? Mow lawns? Drive? Anything you could use for personal use can also help with work… what about a restaurant? No washing machines there apparently….
Do you have any specific examples that are solely “home saving” pieces of technology? Or do other peoples jobs not exist past your desk?
The whole point is that those technologies don’t save the workers time at all, because the time saved just gets filled up with more work. The business owners are the one who benefit from the increased productivity, not the workers.
The workers don’t get more free time as a result of the technology. In many cases, they take a pay cut because the technology makes their job “easier” or “less skilled.” So they still work 8 or more hours a day, and they still make barely enough to get by on (if they even make that much), while their boss only gets richer for their efforts.
This is the entire point that seems to be going over your head.
[Edit: “easier” and “less skilled” were in scare-quotes because they don’t represent my personal point of view, but it’s how the employers justify it. Thought that would be obvious.]
No I get that, but both topics can happen at once.
Sorry this need to be explained that your view isn’t the only one ;)
We have all these things to use at home because they originally started at work, can’t have one without the other. But you would need to look at this objectively for that, but clearly you are biased and just want to whinge that capitalism is bad! Even though that wasn’t brought up by anyone in this chain. But bloviate if you want!
You’re loading so much strawman and ad hominem into that comment that I can only assume you’re not arguing in good faith. Did you use your alts to upvote yourself? Cause I can’t imagine anyone on this sub would go for that drivel
Even though that wasn’t brought up by anyone in this chain.
This entire post is about “AI taking over jobs,” and now you want to pretend the topic isn’t about work life (i.e., under capitalism)?
Sorry this need to be explained that your view isn’t the only one
What are you even trying to insinuate? Did I ever claim that my viewpoint is the only one? No, I just said you’re wrong. I can do that without claiming some sort of monopoly on facts.
Besides, you’re the one who seems to be having trouble admitting that you’ve been mistaken. Instead of saying “Oh, that makes sense, yeah I get it now” you’re launching into this tirade of personal attacks? Not rational behavior. And yet you want to preach to me about “looking at it objectively”?
Objectively, the topic of this conversation was about whether technology saves workers time, and the fact is, it doesn’t, as can be demonstrably proven.
Nobody was talking about whether or not washing machines save you time on your chores. A person who works at an industrial laundromat facility isn’t getting a 4-hour workday with UBI just because somebody invented a more efficient machine. He’ll be doing the same amount of work, not getting paid more for the increased productivity. Only difference is his boss will get richer. Do you want to continue denying that reality?
As an analogy for AI in the workplace, which is where this conversation started, the pattern holds true. It doesn’t save the workers time. It doesn’t make them more money. They get worked just as hard for just as long, sometimes even moreso as the expected output increases. And their bosses reap the benefits of any increase in productivity.
Any attempt by you to retreat behind a motte-and-bailey by trying to subtly change the topic to basic housekeeping tasks (which again, is not the topic of this discussion), is doing nothing more than obfuscating the situation for the benefit of the owner-class. So what is your goal here?
Have you seriously never heard of jobs that pay by the sq/ft or piece…?
Drywall mudding with the right tools you can mud a house in a day instead of 5 and make the same money. Lawns are typically by the house as well, so the better the mower, the faster you can earn, or the sooner you can go home in the same day.
So how does that not save someone time? They could do the same amount of jobs and make the same money if the want, or make more, it’s entirely their choice.
Don’t have such a narrow and ignorant view of the world.
You apparently have no concept about how much technology saves for manual labor, yes it doesn’t always mean less work, but you’re working less in a lot of cases. Take that however you want, but you’ve already shown your view is apparantly the only valid one.
Would you rather use a scythe and blow your back out, use a push mower and be dead at the end of the day, or use a ride on and be comfortable all day? I know which one I would prefer, but go ahead and use your sciccors so you get less done, do a worse job, and be too sore and have no energy for you own shit.
Which is less labor than the original task? What’s your point? I can get a lawnmower for a few hours of work and it would save me hundreds compared to whatever they used before.
This is a good point, and it’s often much longer workhours. People used to have to stop when it got dark, because candles and oil lamps were too expensive, but not with electric lights. Mules refuse to work more than about six hours a day, but trucks will keep going as long as you refuel them.
Yes in advanced economies we have weight problems because a significant amount of people sit around all day instead of toiling the field… but what has technology done for us lately!
Different, and sometimes less strenuous, but never less time consuming
I can’t speak on their behalf but I do agree, what does actually improve things is labor laws because otherwise they’re just going to do more work at a higher efficiency.
Exactly. The system is set up so that people work for barely enough to survive. Introducing better tools doesn’t give labor more free time, it gives their bosses more money. We’ve seen this with every technology since the cotton gin now: that’s why no one imagines that AI will give people more time with their families.
Nowadays I’m self-employed but back in my previous job I was paid by the hour. I earn exactly the same amount of money independent of whether I spend the whole day cutting steel with a hacksaw or an angle grinder but from my perspective as an employee, the angle grinder sure saves me a ton of effort. Same applies to other tools, better workwear and so on. Yeah, I don’t get to go home at 12pm because the better tools were so much faster but it sure made the 8 hours I spent at the jobsite that much less unpleasant. Naturally that is even more so the case now that I’m the beneficiary of the work that got done quicker.
I honestly can’t believe how cynical some people are here. I truly don’t envy you.
Its not my fault you havent accepted youre a wage slave yet and havent become the right amount of cynical that you can recognize dripping sarcasm when its right in front of you.
I worked my way out of poverty so although I agree with you, I think the wording needs specificity.
You cannot work your way out of poverty by working harder at a poverty job. You have to switch jobs and grow your skill set until you become a valuable enough commodity to trigger competition for you.
No it isn’t. Go work a trade job like being an electrician. Start early enough and put it in a 401k and other such investments and you will retire a millionaire.
Most jobs give you the training, most jobs aren’t that physical, and you get paid to learn and work. None of those are obstacles at all, you’re just ignorant.
I would posit that rose-colored glasses serve the capitalist class, and that it serves the interest of labor to make realistic assessments and adjust behavior accordingly. That is a message of strategy and success.
There is a massive gap between rose tinted glasses and crippling nihilism. By your last comment it seems that we are both somewhere in between.
What I wrote is true, but it does not mean that it is all roses or even anywhere near as friction free as it once was, but you absolutely can still find success in this shitshow.
What you responded is also true. We need strong labor (amongst many other things) and a realistic view of the current state of our society before we can make any headway.
The point I wanted to make is that it does not serve one’s self to throw their hands up in the air, exclaim that there is no point, wait for society to magically fix itself, and do nothing but complain on the Internet.
I believe that we are stronger and more resilient than we give ourselves credit for, and maybe that’s where I concede I might have rose tinted glasses.
Im saying, you can spend every day working very hard but that alone will not get you out of poverty. There are always political and social menuevrors you have to do or hit the lottery.
No technology has ever resulted in lighter workloads for the average person. Different, and sometimes less strenuous, but never less time consuming.
Washing machine.
Also, lighter work loads and less time consuming are different arguments - unless you mean no technology has ever resulted in neither, which is a rather bold statement.
Counterpoint: The cotton gin. It was supposed to make slavery obsolete, but actually reinvigorated the practice of slavery by making slaves able to do more work.
Then everyone should be happy for the new job creators
What new job creators?
The ai over lords
They haven’t created any jobs.
Sure
What jobs have they created?
Whoosh
I mean, this read sarcastic, but it seems Lemmy disagrees.
Before washing machines, people would hand off washing to professionals. Now the expectation is that the person who can afford it must wash things themselves. More time spent on that.
Uh, maybe for rich people…
Let me introduce you to the washboard and the bucket.
Lol. Who washed the cloths?
The professionals, who obviously could wash clothes just by staring at them.
Quite the jutsu.
Then it takes more hours to pay for the machine.
Pretty sure every piece of technology past the wheel can be considered to save humans time with their tasks.
No the tasks increase to fill the saved time.
Better technology frees more time for other tasks. Whether that’s work or leisure depends on the individual. Everyone has the same 24 hours a day independent of how you use them. Most people don’t just sit and do nothing. To even suggest that things like an electric stove, washing machine, lawnmower or a bicycle aren’t saving people real time on tasks they’d have to do either way is ridiculous.
Seems like we still must work the same amount regardless of how much we’d “like” to do other things though. What you’re talking about happened, but happened a long time ago.
In most cases people get paid by the hour. The wage is compensation for your time, not effort. If a new technology comes along that increases your work productivity you’ll still end up working the same hours because that’s what you’re being paid for. I’d say that there’s still a real difference between spending 8 hours a day swinging an axe compared to running a chainsaw. Same amount of time is spent working but the effort needed goes down while productivity increases.
However, this isn’t always the case. I work in construction and it’s not untypical that someone has a fixed price for completing a job. There you are not compensated for your time per se but effort. If you’re quick you do get to “go home early.” However this doesn’t lead to people working less either - quite the opposite. They get greedy, hoard too much work, rush it, the quality suffers and they tend to get really stressed out and easily irritated.
In olden times before washing machines people were expected to change into clean (washed) underclothes daily, and an apron got washed when dirty, but their main clothing went a long time between cleanings. Even longer than the clothes on the chair, like months.
Similarly, expectations of manicured pool-table lawns with the advent of lawnmowers.
Better stoves/ovens I’ll totally grant you. I have enough trouble adjusting from my old “runs hot” oven to my new “runs cold” oven, I can’t imagine trying to bake a cake in a wood or coal oven.
And the horse that preceded the bicycle took more maintenance, not less.
👍🏻
Why constantly add more tasks? There’s only finite amount of maintenance on a house or things that need to get done.
human innovativeness ensures there’s always new things that people want to do.
I thought we were talking about capitalism. I misread the comments.
The post was about jobs, so we are…
Dish washer, laundry washer, laundry drier, lawn mower, a vehicle, there’s thousands dude.
All things that save time at home, not at work.
Do people not do laundry for work? Mow lawns? Drive? Anything you could use for personal use can also help with work… what about a restaurant? No washing machines there apparently….
Do you have any specific examples that are solely “home saving” pieces of technology? Or do other peoples jobs not exist past your desk?
The whole point is that those technologies don’t save the workers time at all, because the time saved just gets filled up with more work. The business owners are the one who benefit from the increased productivity, not the workers.
The workers don’t get more free time as a result of the technology. In many cases, they take a pay cut because the technology makes their job “easier” or “less skilled.” So they still work 8 or more hours a day, and they still make barely enough to get by on (if they even make that much), while their boss only gets richer for their efforts.
This is the entire point that seems to be going over your head.
[Edit: “easier” and “less skilled” were in scare-quotes because they don’t represent my personal point of view, but it’s how the employers justify it. Thought that would be obvious.]
No I get that, but both topics can happen at once.
Sorry this need to be explained that your view isn’t the only one ;)
We have all these things to use at home because they originally started at work, can’t have one without the other. But you would need to look at this objectively for that, but clearly you are biased and just want to whinge that capitalism is bad! Even though that wasn’t brought up by anyone in this chain. But bloviate if you want!
You’re loading so much strawman and ad hominem into that comment that I can only assume you’re not arguing in good faith. Did you use your alts to upvote yourself? Cause I can’t imagine anyone on this sub would go for that drivel
This entire post is about “AI taking over jobs,” and now you want to pretend the topic isn’t about work life (i.e., under capitalism)?
What are you even trying to insinuate? Did I ever claim that my viewpoint is the only one? No, I just said you’re wrong. I can do that without claiming some sort of monopoly on facts.
Besides, you’re the one who seems to be having trouble admitting that you’ve been mistaken. Instead of saying “Oh, that makes sense, yeah I get it now” you’re launching into this tirade of personal attacks? Not rational behavior. And yet you want to preach to me about “looking at it objectively”?
Objectively, the topic of this conversation was about whether technology saves workers time, and the fact is, it doesn’t, as can be demonstrably proven.
Nobody was talking about whether or not washing machines save you time on your chores. A person who works at an industrial laundromat facility isn’t getting a 4-hour workday with UBI just because somebody invented a more efficient machine. He’ll be doing the same amount of work, not getting paid more for the increased productivity. Only difference is his boss will get richer. Do you want to continue denying that reality?
As an analogy for AI in the workplace, which is where this conversation started, the pattern holds true. It doesn’t save the workers time. It doesn’t make them more money. They get worked just as hard for just as long, sometimes even moreso as the expected output increases. And their bosses reap the benefits of any increase in productivity.
Any attempt by you to retreat behind a motte-and-bailey by trying to subtly change the topic to basic housekeeping tasks (which again, is not the topic of this discussion), is doing nothing more than obfuscating the situation for the benefit of the owner-class. So what is your goal here?
Someone has never heard of flat rate or piece rate work.
Is that how most jobs that use AI work? Because that’s what this analogy is about
Have you seriously never heard of jobs that pay by the sq/ft or piece…?
Drywall mudding with the right tools you can mud a house in a day instead of 5 and make the same money. Lawns are typically by the house as well, so the better the mower, the faster you can earn, or the sooner you can go home in the same day.
So how does that not save someone time? They could do the same amount of jobs and make the same money if the want, or make more, it’s entirely their choice.
Don’t have such a narrow and ignorant view of the world.
I see you went and did exactly that! Lmfao.
You apparently have no concept about how much technology saves for manual labor, yes it doesn’t always mean less work, but you’re working less in a lot of cases. Take that however you want, but you’ve already shown your view is apparantly the only valid one.
Would you rather use a scythe and blow your back out, use a push mower and be dead at the end of the day, or use a ride on and be comfortable all day? I know which one I would prefer, but go ahead and use your sciccors so you get less done, do a worse job, and be too sore and have no energy for you own shit.
That cost labor to buy.
Which is less labor than the original task? What’s your point? I can get a lawnmower for a few hours of work and it would save me hundreds compared to whatever they used before.
Tbh scythes are pretty fun to use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA1qpDmm8CI
Not everyone has such a magical job.
A push mower is like $50, you can also get them used for $10 or free as well.
Is there a piece of technology that doesn’t?
Even making your own wheel would cost your time first…
This is a good point, and it’s often much longer workhours. People used to have to stop when it got dark, because candles and oil lamps were too expensive, but not with electric lights. Mules refuse to work more than about six hours a day, but trucks will keep going as long as you refuel them.
Yes in advanced economies we have weight problems because a significant amount of people sit around all day instead of toiling the field… but what has technology done for us lately!
_When you don’t actually read what the person your responding to said. _
oh feel free to fill me in instead of just being snarky
I can’t speak on their behalf but I do agree, what does actually improve things is labor laws because otherwise they’re just going to do more work at a higher efficiency.
not even a neo-luddite. a good old fashioned luddite
So you really want to unpack that?
Labor competition prevents productivity gains from generating excess labor in capitalist systems.
Then supply and demand must follow.
Can I just cut you off at the pass and say its a myth that you can work your way out of poverty. The system isn’t set up like that.
Exactly. The system is set up so that people work for barely enough to survive. Introducing better tools doesn’t give labor more free time, it gives their bosses more money. We’ve seen this with every technology since the cotton gin now: that’s why no one imagines that AI will give people more time with their families.
Except piecework and flat rate jobs still exist. You don’t have to work for someone else especially with how affordable most of these tools are.
Nowadays I’m self-employed but back in my previous job I was paid by the hour. I earn exactly the same amount of money independent of whether I spend the whole day cutting steel with a hacksaw or an angle grinder but from my perspective as an employee, the angle grinder sure saves me a ton of effort. Same applies to other tools, better workwear and so on. Yeah, I don’t get to go home at 12pm because the better tools were so much faster but it sure made the 8 hours I spent at the jobsite that much less unpleasant. Naturally that is even more so the case now that I’m the beneficiary of the work that got done quicker.
I honestly can’t believe how cynical some people are here. I truly don’t envy you.
Back in the day, half of jobs were literally death sentences lol. Weird to see this amalgamation of technophobia and historical honey moon syndrome.
Then then the argument isn’t about jobs and feeding that narrative is unproductive
You’re the one who asked “Why isn’t anyone saying that [great labor saving technology] will give us more free time?”
Its not my fault you havent accepted youre a wage slave yet and havent become the right amount of cynical that you can recognize dripping sarcasm when its right in front of you.
Demand for human labor lowers. So they hire fewer people and capture the savings themselves.
It’s never about spending more time with the family. It’s all about paying less for labor.
Which they already optimize for. If we all make less we only widen the gap between the oligarchs and labor. Two classes that dont ever mingle anyway.
100%. We should be using AI as the catalyst for a new union movement
We should.
I had no intention of making the claim that work could lead to wealth, and honestly don’t see how my comment would lead to it.
I think OP simply has very poor reading comprehension.
You just havent followed that path enough.
I worked my way out of poverty so although I agree with you, I think the wording needs specificity.
You cannot work your way out of poverty by working harder at a poverty job. You have to switch jobs and grow your skill set until you become a valuable enough commodity to trigger competition for you.
That just gets you out of poverty.
That world is gone.
No it isn’t. Go work a trade job like being an electrician. Start early enough and put it in a 401k and other such investments and you will retire a millionaire.
That presumes educational, physical, finances aren’t obstacles.
Most jobs give you the training, most jobs aren’t that physical, and you get paid to learn and work. None of those are obstacles at all, you’re just ignorant.
Educational: if you have a phone, you have access to almost all of human knowledge, largely for free.
Physical: I’ve seen people without legs do things people with able bodies won’t or can’t do.
Finances: I’ve seen single mothers work three jobs to put food on the table while going to school for nursing at the same time
If you truly have the will, there is always a way. I’m not saying it’s easy, but you absolutely can.
It is not. Don’t fall for that defeatist bullshit.
I would posit that rose-colored glasses serve the capitalist class, and that it serves the interest of labor to make realistic assessments and adjust behavior accordingly. That is a message of strategy and success.
There is a massive gap between rose tinted glasses and crippling nihilism. By your last comment it seems that we are both somewhere in between.
What I wrote is true, but it does not mean that it is all roses or even anywhere near as friction free as it once was, but you absolutely can still find success in this shitshow.
What you responded is also true. We need strong labor (amongst many other things) and a realistic view of the current state of our society before we can make any headway.
The point I wanted to make is that it does not serve one’s self to throw their hands up in the air, exclaim that there is no point, wait for society to magically fix itself, and do nothing but complain on the Internet.
I believe that we are stronger and more resilient than we give ourselves credit for, and maybe that’s where I concede I might have rose tinted glasses.
Im saying, you can spend every day working very hard but that alone will not get you out of poverty. There are always political and social menuevrors you have to do or hit the lottery.
Yes, I am agreeing with you, and I figured that’s what you meant. I am just clarifying for anyone else reading.
No hate