An argument for using tax revenue from AI productivity gains to fund millions of needed care, counseling, etc. jobs to create a better economy and ensure full employment in the age of AI
Windows_10-Chan on
If AI truly causes wide permanent unemployment surely we’d be so productive that we could just provide a UBI instead of running a monstrously large jobs program for social workers (which does not fit everybody, pay is far from the only reason these roles have shortages.)
Desperate_Path_377 on
this sounds difficult to do in practice. The #1 complaints about sectors like daycare, education and health care is the cost of providing it. The only way you could drastically increase the number and compensation of, say, ECEs would be some combination of rising tuition fees and/or state subsidies. It will be very hard to reconcile the ‘affordability agenda’ with using these sectors as jobs banks.
also, while Sperling acknowledges these care jobs are not for everyone, I think he overstates the inherent dignity of the work itself. You can see this from fields like nursing that have decent-to-high compensation but substantial attrition.
one final point, these care jobs are overwhelmingly staffed by women. ECEs are like >95% women. that’s a whole complex dynamic and i don’t want to dwell too much on it. But, starting from the position that these sectors lean female, i do wonder about the gender implications of creating a job bank that would substantially exclude male workers. Can’t see much good coming out of that.
mebesasporfa on
TLDR: when AI takes over knowledge work, all the displaced Americans (but definitely *definitely* not me) should go pour concrete and change adult diapers.
BasedTroutFursona on
The bulk of jobs left is gonna be wiping geriatric ass, and dude wants to talk about dignity?
5 Comments
An argument for using tax revenue from AI productivity gains to fund millions of needed care, counseling, etc. jobs to create a better economy and ensure full employment in the age of AI
If AI truly causes wide permanent unemployment surely we’d be so productive that we could just provide a UBI instead of running a monstrously large jobs program for social workers (which does not fit everybody, pay is far from the only reason these roles have shortages.)
this sounds difficult to do in practice. The #1 complaints about sectors like daycare, education and health care is the cost of providing it. The only way you could drastically increase the number and compensation of, say, ECEs would be some combination of rising tuition fees and/or state subsidies. It will be very hard to reconcile the ‘affordability agenda’ with using these sectors as jobs banks.
also, while Sperling acknowledges these care jobs are not for everyone, I think he overstates the inherent dignity of the work itself. You can see this from fields like nursing that have decent-to-high compensation but substantial attrition.
one final point, these care jobs are overwhelmingly staffed by women. ECEs are like >95% women. that’s a whole complex dynamic and i don’t want to dwell too much on it. But, starting from the position that these sectors lean female, i do wonder about the gender implications of creating a job bank that would substantially exclude male workers. Can’t see much good coming out of that.
TLDR: when AI takes over knowledge work, all the displaced Americans (but definitely *definitely* not me) should go pour concrete and change adult diapers.
The bulk of jobs left is gonna be wiping geriatric ass, and dude wants to talk about dignity?