The recent exponential increase in technological development
has made the automation of workforce a more feasible reality. In the article “Fully
Automated Luxury Communism,” Brian Merchant dispels apprehension towards an
automation by proposing a Utopian like society which communally shares control
of an automated workforce provided by the government as a non-profit service. Merchant
illustrates the viability of his society by providing examples of companies
such as “Uber,” the taxi service working towards full automation. Merchant
strengthens his argument including diverse sources backing up his claim, but
fails to address obvious criticism such as the necessary assimilation of the
entire society to ensure the benefit is shared equally. In theory, this could
be a Utopian society. However, the diversity of America, or any society in the
world, will create great challenges as total assimilation is virtually impossible
without a totalitarian government. The process of automation in society is
undeniable, however converting a society to a foundation of automation would be
virtually impossible. Another obvious flaw in the “FALC” argument is the lack
of job market in a fully automated society. Automating the blue collar job
market would create greater government dependency within the population and
decrease government revenue from taxes. The lacking workforce could lead to various
potential indirect effects such as an economic shift to fit such an automated
society. Without revenue and a population supporting the economy, the local
economy would likely collapse creating many long-lasting negative effects. The
process of automation in society will naturally occur with the advancement of
technology, however redefining society based on its automation could likely be
adverse and will require extensive research to be deemed viable.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
FALC
In the past few years, technology has been a major source of
controversy in several first-world societies. The majority of objection to
technological advancement comes from those who worry about the potential damage
that our ever-advancing technology could cause in our economy and our
inter-personal relationships. Others, such as members of FALC (Fully Automated
Luxury Communism) argue that technological advancement is not something to be
afraid of, it should be embraced. Members of FALC believe that technology is
our future, and that we should encourage the widespread use of technology in
work environments, even if that means technology almost entirely replacing
humans. While I recognize the validity of FALC’s arguments, their idea of
“luxury communism” lacks credibility. A society completely run by technology is
very new concept, and is not supported by the proper research and social
experiments that would reveal all of it’s shortcomings. Logistically speaking,
if FALC were to implement they’re ideas, which would require establishing an
entirely new economy, they would need to provide an answer to countless
questions and problems that realistically would take years to answer and stir
endless controversy. I believe the most pressing and provocative question that
would need to be answered is, who would be in charge of all of these robots-
our government or private enterprises? The answer would potentially determine
the role that technology would play in our every day life. Not only do I think that establishing an
entirely new economy is unpractical, I believe it is theoretically wrong. Technology
has already taken over our everyday lives in terms of communication, however
the idea that we could potentially rely on technology for almost everything
that is needed to sustain life and our overall well-being is frightening. Not
only is technology constantly malfunctioning and completely unreliable, it is
untrustworthy… A certain degree of human involvement in the work place and in
society is necessary to maintain quality control and accessibility. Another
concern that I have about a “fully automated luxury” society stems from the overwhelming
and inevitable job loss that would occur. If jobs are being taken over by technology,
people may have no way to make money, which makes attaining any form of “luxury”
impossible. Although the idea of technology doing all of human’s dirty work is
appealing, establishing luxury communism will never be practical, and would
never be able to support a functioning economy.
Working Robots
The idea of a robotic workforce and a
world without labor may seem ideal but it comes with a price. As technology has
progressively advanced over the years, many people have been planning for
robots to come take place of humans and do their jobs. By making this actual
reality, many people will find themselves left out of a job and maybe a home.
With that being said, the government would then have to pay those employees
personally in order to compensate for their lost income. That in hand brings a
bigger political aspect in the argument on whether or not to move forward with
this plan of “Fully Automated Luxury Communism”. Another major factor to
consider before turning over our world to a bunch of robots is that with so
many newly unemployed people the government might want to consider the amount
of crime rates increasing and possibly the cases of obesity and other health
issues with so much free time. As we have seen many times before history
continues to repeat itself, so who’s to say that ten to twenty years from now
people won’t have this same conversation again about a new and improved robot
or some other type of advanced technology to take over the old robots. Though
the idea of FALC may sound appealing and meet the eye at first, I think it’s
only temporarily amusing. After a while people are going to become tired of
just sitting around and such a uniform repetitive day a wish to continue
working. Overall, I think it’s totally possible for this to one day be reality
but there still are a few problem areas that should be worked out with
factories that choose to use this route and some major considerations that need
to be made in the government and workers union. Just keep in mind that there
will always be something bigger and better right around the corner and will
again change how people think and operate.
A World Run by Technology
There has been a lot of discussion about technology over the
past years and lately focusing on how far should we allow technology to
advance. Basically, how much is too much technology? According to Brian Merchant
there is no such thing. Many people like Merchant would argue that I only
disagree with this because I am afraid of the word communism or just do not
fully understand what a world run by technology would entail. However, I beg to
differ, just the phrase “a world run by technology” alone should make people cringe.
Merchant uses points about how factories are shedding jobs and many jobs are at
risk of being taken over by technology to somehow “support” his argument,
however, for me it clarifies that technology is not the answer. Yet some
readers may challenge my view by insisting that technology is one hundred
percent the way to go and that there is no better answer for the world’s
problems. Humans are so unique and regardless of religious or political views
everyone can agree we are unique creatures who were given so many advances from
our vast intricate brains, our structurally advanced body’s, down to our hard
working and determined spirits and I believe we were given these qualities for
a reason and we should value and use them. We as humans have more to offer than
a brain capable of creating technology that will perform every task for us. I agree
that robots or self-driven cars would be totally cool and maybe readers could
argue that self-driven cars would result in less car accidents and I would love
to listen, however, it is just not realistic that this will happen. In a perfect
world maybe life would be easier if technology did everything for us, however,
there is no way to test the effects it could have. The consequences greatly outweigh
the rewards in this situation. Although I grant that Merchant has valid points
regarding that technology is helpful, I still maintain that there is such thing
as too much technology and at some point a line needs to be drawn.
Concerning Communism
For the most part I would like to think that "Fully Automated Luxury Communism" could actually take off, or actually be possible. The argument for these robots and machines to replace humanity's "dirty work" is a concept that is both intriguing and borderline concerning. In the idealism for FALC seems to have a relatively large following though I see some probable concerning aspects that would have to be worked out in order to proceed into making this fantasy world a real robot utopia. For starters, who would be responsible for purchasing and maintaining these cyber workers? If you say private corporations then my continuing question would be as to what these machines true quality of work is: nothing quite beats items made by hand with "love and affection." In a more public sense what companies would be granted exclusive rights to maintain equipment available to citizens using driverless-cars driven for public transportation, and who is to say their products are more reliable than others? Further we live in a democratic capitalist society which doesn't allow for competition. Thus, either these companies who lay off workers to use robotic technology instead would have to provide their ex-employees with monetary sustainment for life, or the government would have to provide for these individuals in the society who doesn't need humans to do their work. Secondly, where would money coming from government programs to help individuals who had been replaced come from if they have no income to pay taxes with. Lastly, what would become of the population of individuals who live in this "utopia"? With little to no stimuli to keep them busy, focused, and driven for a common goal, such as financial stability, individuals are more likely to become bored. With this boredom can cause acting out, crime, irrational actions, lack of concern for a common welfare. This idea of FALC could potentially be a positive one, but I see too many outlying factors and questions for this idea to have a true chance at this point in our societies.
Roadbumps
Perhaps the biggest issue which is
overlooked in this article lies in the political mesh and foundation
of this concept as a whole. Though it's mentioned that there is a
political aspect or background to this idealistic notion, it's not
brought up as a real, practical issue with which supporters of this
movement are going to have to work around. It's easy to say that the
ideas of a world without labor or a people wholly united are
negative, but there absolutely would be sacrifices made in the
process, and convincing those who hold different sociopolitical/world
views would be nearly impossible. Not only that, not having those
people along for the ride would take away from this prospect greatly,
if not ruin it entirely. There will always be men and women who
choose to fight for a capitalistic society—to some, this is simply
the most appealing way for a society and an economy to function.
Missing cogs in a machine such as this one are going to take away
from the big picture in a vital way. What good is a laborless society
if someone around the corner is offering a better product? At that
point, the whole issue becomes messy and even more political. The
whole concept of capitalism undermines entirely what luxury communism
seeks to do. There are some nice concepts to daydream on, with these
ideals and any other sort of utopian complex—equality (and perhaps
even less labor for humans) is something we can strive for and view
as an objective good for society. But you're not gonna get everyone
on board the boat to abandon these strongly ingrained capitalistic
and individualistic worldviews (not to mention fear/loathing of
communism). Even if the majority agreed, it leaves room for
exploitation by those who want to play outside the rules of the game.
It's fine to believe that this brand of luxury communism is a
natural progression of things, but the truth is that it will never be
practical in a first world which is inhabited by many who despise
communism or who would look to cheat the system.
Blog Comment for Fully Automated Luxury Communism
I anticipate that many of the students in our
class (as well readers of this article) may find that this reading is
incorrect. So my “naysayer” will be those that have objections to the text. I
strongly agree with the points the article makes with its objections to
Capitalism and share its hopeful message. However, many readers might argue
that the reading is far too radical and that communism/socialism is directly opposed
to the America Ideal. Surely, Capitalists and Americans the like are likely to
respond by saying, “A society of shared wealth and resources will never work
because those at the bottom are likely to take advantage of the situation,
while those at the top who are providing the wealth and resources will react by
stopping production. Under Communism, we all fall down.” So is the proposal of
the reading realistic? Will it be able to function when we take into account
human free will and inclination towards greediness? Yes and yes though the
response is justified considering how we Americans have grown to detest
Communism in all forms. The argument from the Capitalists does not taken into
account the “Fully automated” portion of this type of Communism. With machines
providing all wealth and resources, there would be no tainting of the system by
human will. Research and development would still occur (believe it or not
people do those things without financial incentive) to allow for even more efficient
means of production. Besides, the American system is not directly opposed to
socialism: consider welfare programs, the push for a larger minimum wage, and
financial services for Education. In sum, I do not think the arguments against
Fully Automated Luxury Communism are justified, but rather come out a deeply
ingrained fear of past attempts of other forms of Communism.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Nickel and Dimed
After reading Barbara Ehrenreich’s essay “From Nickel and
Dimed” she provides an understanding on the struggle of having a difficult job
but still having a bad pay. What I like
the most about this essay is the fact that she knows how to explain and provide
images on how hard it can be for someone to live like the way they do. And how
little we pay attention to these problems. Society portrays the poor or the
lower class people as lazy and not being able to get a job. But the truth is,
even if they do get a job they might not have the money to buy a uniform,
transportation, etc. She uses a maid as an example to illustrate a lower class
person with a job. And the character in the essay mentions how the company gets
paid $25 dollars an hour but the maids only get paid $6.65 for each hour they
work. Which doesn’t make sense; they have these hard jobs but get paid so
little. They get paid to go to a house, clean their mess and they have to clean
in a certain way but not receiving enough money. We judge the people who are in
poverty but we tend not to help and we still end up judging them. What we also
do not understand is that the economy is getting worse but we are still getting
paid minimum wage. So of course for some people it is hard to provide for themselves,
imagine having to provide for a family and how difficult it could be. This
reading can give people a good understanding on how even if someone has a job
it can still be difficult to get out of poverty. It is not impossible but it
can be very hard to and that is what society needs to understand. Everybody has
a different life, some people are born into being rich wealthy and some are
born into the poverty side. And some people have to work for their money but
some people are getting handed that money.
Hardworking and Struggling
Nickel
and Dimed written by Barbara Ehrenreich provides an
insight to those who work in blue collared professions, but still seem to be
struggling to make enough money to provide for their day to day lives. This article,
which seems to be an autobiography of some sort, follows a newly hired
housecleaner in a large corporation, and how she ensued extremely hard work conditions,
like following strict rules and dealing with difficult clients. Her main
purpose to get across was the fact that many people work hard at their jobs,
but still seem to find themselves impoverished. With Ehrenreich’s opinion being
stated, I seem to agree with her on the basis of poverty being seen so
differently by every person. A lot of our viewpoints of poverty are of those
sleeping on the street are there for their own wrongdoings, rather than just
being dealt a deal of misfortunes. Not only does she explain her own misfortunes
with acquiring enough money to buy some food to fulfill her throughout the day,
but she gives an insight on how her co-workers also struggle with the ability
to provide for their own needs as well for their families. Her main purpose for
producing this reading was to give those who are not in a situation where they wondered
if they were going to be able to scrape enough money up for food, while working
a less than minimum waged job, an insight to this hard life. It is clear that
Ehrenreich has a strong feeling about blue-collared jobs and the impoverished
lifestyle that can still go along with it. From my point of view, this reading
allows us to think of all the different types of poverty that goes around us. Poverty
ranging from living in the streets to someone in a house but barely making ends
meet
Sweating for Every Nickel and Dime
After reading the passage “From Nickel and Dime“, Ehrenreich is surely
right about the hard struggle people from lower class deal with because it
sheds light to the difficult problem of economy. Yet, people from the upper
class are being ignorant to the situation of the struggle lower class workers
face every day. They close to their own perfect world and ignore the fact that
while they are enjoying their rich lives; on the hand, people that are in need
of jobs are willing to do the upper class responsibilities at home or in
general duties people have. In the passage of Ehrenreich, she gives a perfect
example about the process a lower class person gets a job. In this case, she
gave the example of maids, which is a low wage paid job. At the beginning of
the passage, she is explaining the restrictions and rules of being a maid. Afterward,
the new house cleaner is introducing the procedures and requirement that have
to be down before they are able work as house cleaner. She also mentions how
the company she is working for are taking advantage of woman’s economically. She
mentions how the company get way more money than what the maid gets paid. The company
gets paid $25, but the maid gets paid less than 50 percent of the profit. However,
that is not the worst part of the problem, working as a maid requires that
person to diminish their dignity, and be able to live with not even having
enough money to pay for their own lunch in their breaks. Ehrenreich is able point
out that regardless of the job a person works in, it should be consider
respectful. Even, if the job is not the most well paid or is an embarrassing job,
that person deserves every nickel and dime because that job required sweat and
a lot of effort. At the end of the day and a long week working as a maid, the
women is able adjust to her job and set her mind in a positive way to feel conformist
working in that job. This passage proves that people living on minimum wage or
even lower leads to people living in poverty and not being able to get out of
it because of the fact that they are stuck in their financially problems.
"Nickel and Dimed" Response
In Barbara Ehrenreich’s essay “From Nickel and Dimed” she
explores the life of being a maid living beneath the cost of living. Ehrenreich
makes a subtle but effective claim in stating that poverty is tangible for hard
working people that work these minimum wage jobs. It is not merely just a
number or a few coins. The maids exemplify the working class people. For them
poverty is not having enough to eat or make lunch or not having enough to
scrape up two dollars to get job supplies. I tend to agree with Ehrenreich’s
view. She sheds light on a bigger topic of poverty. It seems as though people
are so quick to judge the poor as lazy or attribute their lack of wealth to
their own misdoings. Yet, this particular essay highlights the notion that even
the hardest working people sometimes are dealt a bad station in life.
Ehrenreich herself in fact, sounds extremely intelligent to be someone who
works in a maid service. This counters the idea of those who suggest that even
bettering ones education will always bring to fruition all their desires and
the wealth that comes with it. The fact of the matter is that sometimes in life
people are dealt terrible hands. From the outside looking in, it seems easier
to judge someone based on success stories alone, that are sometimes our own. It
is much harder to empathize with someone’s plight that is not and never has nor
will be our own. We are given an opportunity to live vicariously through this
woman in Ehrenreich’s essay so that we may begin to grasp an understanding for
the hardship. The woman notably, does not complain, but describes. She like so
many others seems to have accepted her station in life. She even is left to question
just how poor her coworkers really are. It is important to note, most people
would like to think of the poor as ignorant, reckless, often time minorities,
seeking a payout so that they may carry on with the criminal and disdainful lives
a someone else’s expense. However, by generalizing we
disregard those who diligent workers who deserve every nickel and dime earned
and then some.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)