Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!tim From: tim@isrnix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Robots and Employment Message-ID: <259@isrnix.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Jul-83 00:44:41 EDT Article-I.D.: isrnix.259 Posted: Fri Jul 1 00:44:41 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Jul-83 06:48:11 EDT References: utcsstat.731 Lines: 45 I agree with Laura that robots and automation COULD be a wonderfully liberating development for humanity. However that is going to involve incredible changes in the system of work,production, and income distribution that we have at present. So far those changes don't seem to be coming- we are so stuck in the "Protestant Work Ethic" mentality that grants for even very productive things like scientific research are getting axed on the grounds we can't afford it. And any idea of a Negative Income Tax or some such-we've got to get those cheaters off the welfare rolls! I do not think our current system of welfare is fair and I agree that it should be changed--because it is such a hodge-podge of this program and that program it is fraught with contradictions-one person could be just above the income line to receive benefits and thus gets absolutely nothing. On the other hand somebody else may be below that line and get subsidized housing,food stamps,etc,etc,etc all of which add up to much more income than the person just over the income line. If Reagan truly wanted to reform Welfare why didn't he propose a Negative Income tax-just say you make so many $$$ you get so many $$$-and get rid of the current morass of umpteen programs which result in the inequity I described above. The reason he won't propose such a thing is because conservatives would howl about a "Guaranteed Income" and how terrible that is. That is how far we are from giving people grants to 1)live with minimal food, clothing and shelter OR 2)for their own creativity. Scientific American last October had an interesting issue focussing on processes of automation-how they work, their results and their history. One interesting point was that made by Wassily Leontief, one of the developers of input-output analysis who pointed out that the work week went steadily down from 60-70 hours a week to about 40 hours a week in 1933. But since that time the work week has scarcely changed at all! Why should some people work 40 hours or more a week when there's other people who can't find work at all? It shows how stuck we are in a certain mode of thinking that we cannot even cut down the work week let alone make other changes in the way we perform or allocate jobs. The best book I have ever read on the likely effects of automation in this society as it is presently constituted is "Player Piano" by Kurt Vonnegut. Everything has become so automated that even the engineers who originally designed the system are being put out of work by computers to figure out their jobs for them. This leaves an incredibly wealthy leisure class elite that owns all this prodigiously productive capital and two other strata of society- to find work everybody else either joins the Army or the "Reeks and Wrecks" The "Reeks and Wrecks" are people who stand in the middle of the road leaning on shovels all day pretending to be busy. But at least they work 40 hours a week! Tim Sevener decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!tim