“We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work,” she said in response. “We should be excited by that. But the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem.”
“We should not be haunted by the specter of being a slave to your student loans,” she said in response. “We should be excited by that. But the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem.”
“We should not be haunted by the specter of being divorced and bankrupted due to medical bills,” she said in response. “We should be excited by that. But the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem.”
While I agree that the second two answers would be bizarre and useless ones, I think that shows that her response was actually a direct encapsulation of the problem we have to address with automation. Yes, she didn’t offer a multi-step plan to get us there, but her answer was a clear policy goal: not having a job shouldn’t leave you destitute, especially in a society where all the jobs have been automated. This isn’t empty rhetoric because a) not everyone agrees, and b) it isn’t the only possible solution.
I see that you think it’s impossible to achieve, but that doesn’t make it a non-answer. Her answer isn’t, “Well, this problem would go away if only the Unicorns would return!” It is a direct solution she hopes to achieve through a variety of means. It is a cultural change more than anything else.
So why don’t we just give everyone enough to live without working menial jobs? Then people who want extra money so they can buy a flashy car or the hottest new tech or w/e can work the menial jobs, people who want to achieve things with a team can work the team jobs, people who want to start Etsy businesses that only pay them $3 an hour on a good day can just go ahead and do it, etc.
US GDP was over $21 trillion last year. We could give every single person $24k / year (double the single-person poverty line) and still have about 2/3 of that GDP for the richer folks to soak up. We could probably be even more targeted and achieve more, by creating government programs to rent housing (~$2 trillion / year) (with a tax credit for those who secure their own housing), provide free public daycare (~$60 billion / year), healthcare (~$2.4 trillion), and college ($70 billion) (with no offsetting credits, so people are encouraged to use these things), and then some stipend for typical essentials (adding up one list I read through, this would cost maybe $25k / household on average, or ~$3.2 trillion). So for the low, low cost of $7.7 trillion or so, we could provide everyone in the country with a middle-class safety net and let them spend their “work” hours to do jobs they enjoy or are passionate about or to earn the money to get them ahead of the pack so they can buy the exclusive stuff. Obviously we can’t just enact that into law - it would be an absolute disaster. But we can move towards that kind of society in small steps, if we keep that goal ahead of us, rather than treating each small step as the goal.