After reading a great piece on the role and relationships between humans and algorithms, I went on a little (constructive) rant on Twitter (starting here). Here’s what I said again, as a blog post, for reference reasons and easier readability:
In the debate around how we will tackle the redistribution of work due to more robotic labor I honestly cannot understand: How is the most obvious solution isn’t the most-discussed? That more productivity total, by hugely less people, requires major rethinking. Full-time employment is gone. Never coming back. That’s a problem with 19c/20c thinking, but doesn’t have to be going forward.
We produce more, ie. create and capture more value, it’s just even less equally distributed under the traditional market model. So what? This is a societal decision, we can change that model. It’s been changing since day 1. We just might need some awkward convos.
Basic universal income seems an obvious, comparatively small step, but an unavoidable one. How have we not done this already? But we need to rethink the human’s role in society, too. I think we define our roles too much through our work, salary, status. This is bound to fail going forward. We need alternative models of contributing to society beyond “bread winner”. Again, baby steps: First, incentivize currently underpaid roles, like carers, social work, etc. Then expand from there.
This assumes a world view where most people actually enjoy working one way or another of course. Which I believe. It just partially uncouples salary & status & identity from job title, and couples it more closely with things we choose to do. More choice, more leeway in prioritizing work or free time, in balancing freedom and financials. Anyone who likes to earn more could still work more; this isn’t a post-capitalist approach. It’s social market capitalism 2.0.
Is it really that complicated?