Dimon Sees AI Giving a 3 1/2-Day Workweek To the Next Generation (bloomberg.com) 113
Jamie Dimon said artificial intelligence is already being used by thousands of employees at his bank, and is likely to make dramatic improvements in workers' quality of life, even if it eliminates some jobs. From a report: "Your children are going to live to 100 and not have cancer because of technology," Dimon said in an interview on Bloomberg TV Monday. "And literally they'll probably be working three-and-a-half days a week." Dimon, who has called AI "critical to our company's future success," previously said the technology can be used to help the firm develop new products, drive customer engagement, improve productivity and enhance risk management. The New York-based firm advertised for more than 3,500 related roles between February and April, according to data from consultancy Evident, and Dimon dedicated an entire section to AI in his shareholder letter this year, calling JPMorgan's efforts, which include more than 300 use cases already in production, "an absolute necessity."
Yep! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep! 3 1/2 day work week for 70% of your salary! Taking into account inflation, we'll probably end up with something like 30% of our current purchasing power. /s
Re:Yep! (Score:5, Insightful)
AI is going to reduce our reliance on human workers. As a result the productivity gains from AI will:
a) Be passed onto the workers.
b) Be further leveraged by the ultra wealthy ownership class.
Is anyone really that naive as to what will happen?
Re: Yep! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same thing workers in the 90s were told when the information super highway was taking off.
Turns out companies just found more work for employees to do. That or outsource their job to a call center in India.
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out companies just found more work for employees to do.
Workforce participation has fallen 5% since 1990. So people are not doing "more work".
Re: (Score:2)
People that are working are doing more work.
The barrier to entry has increased. Ie the productive class is taking on enough work that the lowest end just isn't worth bringing on.
Re: Yep! (Score:4, Informative)
People that are working are doing more work.
No they aren't.
In 1980, full-time employees worked an average of 2,002 hours/year. In 2022, they worked an average of 1,892 hours/year.
That's a decrease, not an increase.
The barrier to entry has increased. Ie the productive class is taking on enough work that the lowest end just isn't worth bringing on.
So you are claiming that the unemployment of the unskilled workers has increased?
That is nonsense. Unemployment of people with no college is at 4.2%, near historic lows. Low-paid service jobs are some of the most difficult to fill. The McDonald's in my neighborhood has a sign in the window offering $18/hour as a starting wage.
Re: Yep! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the same thing people have been saying since the wheel put bearers out of work. It was wrong then, it has been wrong every time since then, and it will continue to be wrong every time it's spouted by morons in the future.
It's up to us (Score:3)
It all depends on the politicians we elect. Our great-grandparents elected people who mandated the 40 hour work week, and we can choose to elect people who will mandate a 28 hour work week.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, what politicians do you think we'll elect when rich people have even more money and even fewer controls on how they can use that money for campaigning?
Total spending from the campaigns, party, and Super PACs in the 2016 campaign was $1.4 billion for Clinton and $960 million for Trump. Money certainly helps win elections, but it does not win elections. We just need to use populism to vote in progressives instead of right wing authoritarians.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, that's not the hypothesis. The influence of money is less about who wins than it is about who runs in the first place. (Link [fivethirtyeight.com]) Candidates have been getting richer and richer over time, as campaigning has been getting more and more expensive.
Third, and I know I'm going off on a little tangent here, the need for so much money means that even if a good candida
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's terrible how the rich control politics.
Maybe we should ask President Bloomberg what he's gonna do about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that was a big concern when industrialization started to replace manual labour with machines. That's basically exactly what Marx was talking about. So how'd it turn out? In the industrialized nations most people have lives filled with luxury that would have been inconceivable to someone in the 19th century.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep! 3 1/2 day work week for 70% of your salary! Taking into account inflation, we'll probably end up with something like 30% of our current purchasing power. /s
I'd imagine what we'll really see is a devaluation of human work as automation starts taking more and more of the used-to-be-human jobs. To the point where, even when a human is required, it'll be viewed as a less-than (automaton) and I would expect every pay review to be a series of insulting, "why are we paying you when the robot next door needs nothing more than a bit of power to do its job?" questions. Gonna be a real fun time for us plebes until the owner class manages to convince themselves that all t
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say people will be paid less? It took massive strikes and protests to get a five day work week. The ruling class won’t easily let go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep! 3 1/2 day work week for 70% of your salary! Taking into account inflation, we'll probably end up with something like 30% of our current purchasing power. /s
Sounds great if that's what you prefer. Personally I'll probably prefer to keep working 40 hours at 100% salary. Hopefully no government bureaucrats make my preferences illegal.
Here's the thing. You could replace "AI" with "Internet", "PCs", "computers", "fertilizers", "containers", "tractors", "steel plows", or "steam engines" and and have the same story. Some of that innovation went to reducing work weeks. Some went to increasing salaries (and yes, productivity improvements lead to increased wages and ben
Re: (Score:2)
One major factor is how much of the economy changed at once. One of the big reasons the 'internet' revolution went so well is almost no one was impacted by it. The jobs lost were a tiny part of the population, and the new jobs created smaller still. This meant the shock could be absorbed since the income of consumers was not all that impacted. Same, to a
Re: (Score:2)
One of the big reasons the 'internet' revolution went so well is almost no one was impacted by it. The jobs lost were a tiny part of the population,
Ummm, did you actually live through the 90's and 00's? I did. The number of jobs disrupted by internet connectivity was massive. Just like the number disrupted by the widespread adoption of PCs a decade earlier.
Ask anyone involved in retail, sales, marketing, research, communication, software development, or entertainment. There wasn't mass unemployment because new jobs were being created in the same frantic hurry as old ones were destroyed (although I'd be interested to see numbers as to whether job churn
Re: (Score:2)
It will be a 6 day work week with 30% staff instead
Re: (Score:2)
70% of your salary, unless you're a UAW member. They're asking for a 4-day work week with 5 days' pay.
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/11... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clueless (Score:5, Informative)
Your children are going to live to 100 and not have cancer because of technology
Apologies, I couldn't continue reading after this sentence because it struck me as humorous.
Must we heed the predictions of individuals who failed to anticipate the 2008 financial crisis, requiring a $12 billion bailout from taxpayers despite their supposed expertise in finance? Their inability to foresee a crisis unfolding in their own domain raises questions about the credibility of their predictions.
Re: (Score:3)
"Expertise in finance" should imply hedging against the inevitable crashes. Hell, everyone involved acknowledged real estate was about to implode in 2006-08. We all knew. The bubble was plainly visible and the market distortion was a ticking time bomb. I was uninvested and I didn't own real estate at the time. I bought at the bottom of the market just after the crash. That's my 'expertise'. Dimon was stuck being fully invested in things that earned income *now* like everyone else in the market at tha
Re: Clueless (Score:3)
This statement would make sense in case of most banks but JPM didn't require bailout in 2008. It was forced to take take government loans so that other banks didn't look as bad compared to them. JPM repaid those loans in full at earliest moment they were allowed to do so.
Dimon is a shit eating grifter regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
the 2008 financial crisis, requiring a $12 billion bailout from taxpayers
Where in the world did you come up with "$12 billion"?
That is wildly incorrect, by a factor of 60.
Re: (Score:2)
Where in the world did you come up with "$12 billion"?
From here [nytimes.com]. But honestly, the actual amount doesn't really matter. The point remains the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Where in the world did you come up with "$12 billion"?
From here [nytimes.com].
Uh. No. That is totally wrong. That's the amount JP Morgan's stock rose after the bailout. None of that $12B came from taxpayers. It was a paper profit to shareholders.
But honestly, the actual amount doesn't really matter. The point remains the same.
Numbers matter. They really do. $12B is how much the government spends in an afternoon. If we coulda bailed out the entire financial sector for pocket change like that, it woulda been a total non-issue.
The actual bailout was $720B.
Re: (Score:2)
Numbers matter. They really do. $12B is how much the government spends in an afternoon. If we coulda bailed out the entire financial sector for pocket change like that, it woulda been a total non-issue.
The actual bailout was $720B.
Thanks for correcting my numbers. As I am not from the US, I didn't pay much attention how much it was at the time, and I didn't do my due diligence checking the number I gave in my previous comment.
Re: (Score:2)
So the 2008 "failure" means that this prediction is suspect? I'd like to know why you think there's overlap, other than, "They got something wrong before, therefore they'll never be right again." Which, of course, would be poor quality logic.
Re: (Score:2)
They got something wrong on something they were supposed to be expert with. I am sure not giving them much credit on something they have zero knwoledge about (life expectency in 80 years from now + cancer cure for everybody).
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I agree if you mean that their ability to be able to predict it is about as bad - or as good - as that of most others. I don't think think 2008 changes that very much. The company has a 140+ year history, and Dimon was only in the hot seat since 2005. Even if it was blindingly obvious when he sat in the chair, there wouldn't have been enough time to disentangle sufficiently. And JP Morgan wasn't nearly the worst of those bailed out. By 2009 they had paid it back, and were still solvent.
So I agree they
Re: (Score:2)
So the 2008 "failure" means that this prediction is suspect? I'd like to know why you think there's overlap, other than, "They got something wrong before, therefore they'll never be right again." Which, of course, would be poor quality logic.
So instead, how about "Jamie Dimon has no acknowledged expertise in the field for which he's making predictions. Additionally, his company likely has something to gain by people accepting and embracing AI rather than mistrusting it and pushing back against it. Therefore, Jamie Dimon's prediction is neither more nor less likely to be correct than anybody else's; but it is unlikely to be impartial, and accepting it as correct could support the goals of a demonstrably parasitic corporation".
Does that satisfy y
Challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
What fantastical bullshit. I'll tell you what, how about if that prediction doesn't pan out by the time that I hit Jamie's age (67), his bank gives me his job for five years. That'll give him more than a decade to make that the norm at the bank.
Academic economists have been touting the short workweek for what, a century now? It doesn't happen, because business owners and their accountants are governed by an iron rule: it's cheaper to work your FTE employees for an additional 15-20 hours per week than it is to hire an additional FTE because the marginal costs are less than the costs of administration and benefits for an additional hire. The only industries where this isn't implemented are ones that try to hold most of their employees in PTE slots which lack benefits.
So hell will freeze over before your job, even if it benefits from AI, will be reduced to 30 hours per week. Most of those productivity benefits are going straight to executive compensation and bonuses, with a piece going to the shareholders (but only through speculative increases in stock price -- not dividends), and a smidgen going to increased wages in connection with the increased productivity.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course said shorter work week could be legally mandated. You know, exactly like our 40 hour one currently is (which nicely answers the question of whether this could possibly happen or not as well)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course said shorter work week could be legally mandated. You know, exactly like our 40 hour one currently is
Which for me begs the question: how do we know 40 is the right value? Maybe it's 30. Maybe it's 50. We're so used to 5x8 few seem to question it.
And that begs the question, why do we think anyone but the employer and employee should have any say in the matter? Surely those two parties have the most knowledge and stake in the game. Why would I not respect an agreement they negotiated?
Re: (Score:3)
And that begs the question, why do we think anyone but the employer and employee should have any say in the matter? Surely those two parties have the most knowledge and stake in the game. Why would I not respect an agreement they negotiated?
Because unless you're one of the rare fortunate ones and have a very rare and sought after skill set there is a tremendous power imbalance in negotiations between an individual and a large corporation with its entire HR department and lawyers. This is why the 40 hour work week had to be legally set, we werent getting there at all with honest employer / employee negotiating.
Re: (Score:1)
It's true. People wanted to enjoy the benefits of automation by working fewer hours, so they mandated a 40 hour work week. As it turned out, that only helped folks who's work could not be automated.
For people who have actually faced automation before, the net result is that instead of a single full time job they have to scrape together 2 - 3 part time jobs. It's usually just barely enough to survive. The "counterexamples" typically involve a career change.
The person who watches over the self-checkout lin
The math that never changes (Score:2, Informative)
This applies not just to big, greedy corps but also to mom and pop shops.
Re: (Score:2)
What never changes is the value of what the worker produces must be greater than the cost of employing the worker.
Corporate profits continue to increase, so clearly workers continue to not only produce value, but produce ever more value.
This applies not just to big, greedy corps but also to mom and pop shops.
Mom and pop shops are the ones getting screwed over. Economies of scale mean big corps pay less overhead per employee once a business gets big enough to have to help provide health insurance (it's not like the business ever has to pay for all of your health care, you still can have co-pays and such) so this keeps small businesses small in order to stifle competition. Corporate profits,
Re:The math that never changes (Score:5, Interesting)
Stock buybacks (which used to not even exist!) are continuing to increase in volume.
Stock buybacks consume zero capital. They are simply a way of transferring money from low-growth companies to high-growth companies. This benefits both investors and employees.
Example: Company A has a million dollars in the bank, has a P/E of 10, and a ROC of 5%. Company B has no money in the bank, a P/E of 20, and a ROC of 10%.
Obviously, it makes sense for Company A to return the money to investors in a stock buyback. Just as obviously, it makes sense for Company B to do the opposite and issue new shares to sell to investors. So the net effect is investors sell shares back to A and buy from B.
This benefits both companies, benefits investors, and benefits employees by creating more jobs at Company B than would have been created if Company A had expanded instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true, but the bar for that has gotten ridiculously low.
If we can pay multi-million dollar bonuses to C-Levels each and every year, I can't help but wonder just how large the gap between value and cost of worker has gotten.
Re: (Score:2)
...he's still underpaying his workers at least 1800 bucks.
Re:The math that never changes (Score:5, Insightful)
What never changes is the value of what the worker produces must be greater than the cost of employing the worker.
This applies not just to big, greedy corps but also to mom and pop shops.
Obviously that math doesn't change but the amount companies can afford to pay workers does. Because GDP per working adult changes over time. In 2023 it is $165k, while in 1970 it was $104k (adjusted for inflation). US workers should have been able to expect a nearly 60% real median wage increase over that period. Instead we have seen incomes increase 11%.
So anyone making $50k a year today should be making $72k per year if wealth growth had been evenly distributed between the capitalist and labor classes. It probably wouldn't be competitive globally to pay unskilled labor that much, so something like UBI could be put into place to cover the difference. But companies absolutely have enough money to pay their employees this much money, we as a society simply choose to let shareholders keep an ever increasing portion of our country's growing wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
What fantastical bullshit. I'll tell you what, how about if that prediction doesn't pan out by the time that I hit Jamie's age (67), his bank gives me his job for five years. That'll give him more than a decade to make that the norm at the bank.
While Dimon isn't very specific, I don't think he is implying these changes will happen over the next 10 years. When talking about the next generation it sounds to me like people who are about to be born or very young today, so more like 30-40 years.
Academic economists have been touting the short workweek for what, a century now? It doesn't happen, because business owners and their accountants are governed by an iron rule: it's cheaper to work your FTE employees for an additional 15-20 hours per week than it is to hire an additional FTE
A 3-4 day work week certainly won't happen out of the good of company's hearts, just like the 5 day work week didn't spring up from corporate generosity. It will be up to us voting for politicians who make this a priority. It happened before (5 day work week); i
Re: (Score:2)
It will be up to us voting for politicians who make this a priority.
The Party will never allow it to become a priority, nor will they allow people who want it to be a priority to be on the ballot.
It happened before (5 day work week); it can happen again.
The Party was still two separate entities then. Those were the days before widespread corporate ownership of politicians.created the Party and their bickering teams, "Red" and "Blue".
Re: (Score:2)
LOL!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
and the rich will get even more richer. The Network Effect has grown networkier over time.
Re: (Score:1)
nah bro we're totally gonna use these AI tools to send more money to bottom, trust me
we love that our corporation is dependent on laborers that we have to pay and will use these tools to further that - it won't be the other way around, pinky promise
Re: (Score:2)
If AI is able to shorten the work week, then there will be less jobs and less salary.
When electricity and efficient assembly lines shortened the work week to 40 hours, the number of jobs increased and wages went up.
Re: LOL!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Radically changing an industry does not guarantee more jobs become available.
Nothing is guaranteed. But technological innovation has almost always led to more jobs and higher wages.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, living standards have increased twenty-fold in developed countries, while countries that failed to automate, such as Ethiopia, Niger, and Afghanistan, have seen their incomes stagnate or decline.
That is the exact opposite of what the Chicken Littles predicted and continue to predict.
They're ignoring history (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect this 3-1/2 day work week will turn out like most earlier promises of less workload and shorter workweeks - a layoff of 2/5 of the workforce
When did that happen?
In America, the 40-hour work week became law in 1940, when employment was soaring.
Never (Score:2)
It's true (Score:2)
AI will eventually allow people to live without working, or let them choose whether or not to work, and enjoy a higher standard of living than today.
But before we get there, it will leave behind a trail of destruction, joblessness and poverty the likes of which the world has never seen. And it will do this because it's being deployed as a tool of capitalism, by rich ultra-capitalists, for the sole purpose of making themselves even richer by eliminating their main source of expense: salaries.
The world is hea
Re: (Score:2)
AI will eventually allow people to live without working, or let them choose whether or not to work, and enjoy a higher standard of living than today.
But before we get there, it will leave behind a trail of destruction, joblessness and poverty the likes of which the world has never seen. And it will do this because it's being deployed as a tool of capitalism, by rich ultra-capitalists, for the sole purpose of making themselves even richer by eliminating their main source of expense: salaries.
The world is heading for a massive catastrophe, and only our children will see the positive result of what's being unleashed today. Our generations are in for a really rough ride... Enjoy the last years of peace and properity while you can before the disaster.
We worship capitalism as if it were the be-all, end-all of human existence. To our detriment. We're already seeing where that leads society and the world as a whole beginning to pain out. As automation begins eliminating more and more human work, expect it to get a LOT worse.
Why couldn't we mature enough as a species to understand that capitalism is just one part of a working society, not the entirety of it? The oligarchs are happy. The rest of us should know better.
Re: (Score:2)
The oligarchs are happy. The rest of us should know better.
The oligarchs own the media and have brainwashed a lot of the rest of us into believing in trickle down economics and Horacio Alger myths.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself how anybody with a poverty-level salary can possibly want to vote for a billionnaire tax dodger when all they should rationally want to do is hang him high with his guts for being part of the wealthy elite that keeps them poor.
Re: (Score:2)
This can only work for a few companies. For companies to make massive profits, that companies' customers have to have jobs and incomes with which to buy products and services.
If every company lays off all their employees - then profits cannot go up, because there will be no one left to buy the things t
AI Crowd Control (Score:1)
Invest in companies that make walls and gates for rich communities and you should do well!!
Re: (Score:2)
I have a hunch that an investment in pitchforks might pay higher dividends.
The problem with pushing people down is that at some point, you reach a critical mass that isn't manageable anymore.
Ridiculous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Organized labor would demand they be paid 7 days for doing 3.5 days of work, plus you'd have to hire extra people.
There is a catch (Score:2)
You would be paid for only 3.5 days
Productivity increases are NEVER passed to workers (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, right (Score:3)
Computers were supposed to do that already. Computers will make us so productive that we can do our work in half the time, and we'll only work 20 hours a week anymore!
And that's true. Since 1975, worker productivity went up by 200% to 1000%, depending on the field. The more computers mattered, the more productivity went up. I don't know about you, but I don't work 1/2 of what my dad did. And I certainly don't work 1/10th of his workload. I do have fewer colleagues than my dad did, though.
What we'll really get is instead of 30% less work is 30% fewer workers. Just as we did with computers.
Re: (Score:2)
What we'll really get is instead of 30% less work is 30% fewer workers. Just as we did with computers.
We didn't get that, either. What we got instead was a higher standard of living. Bigger houses, nicer cars, more entertainment options, more eating out, more vacation travel, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
For the 70% that still had jobs, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda odd if you think about it. In the 50s, women didn't work and the income was enough to buy a house, own a car, raise 2 kids, put them through college. Today, both work and rent an apartment, lease a car and if they can afford a kid, that kid will need a student loan to go to college.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda odd if you think about it. In the 50s, women didn't work and the income was enough to buy a house, own a car, raise 2 kids, put them through college. Today, both work and rent an apartment, lease a car and if they can afford a kid, that kid will need a student loan to go to college.
The apartment is bigger, the car is nicer, and their lifestyle is at a significantly higher standard, though. If they chose to live in a 50s-sized house, with 50s level of comfort, basically never eating out (like the 50s), not spending much on entertainment and not traveling, they could easily get by on a single income. The problem is that since hardly anyone lives at that standard of living it feels like poverty -- and finding a 50s-sized house almost requires living in the bad part of town. So, approxima
lower full time to 32 hours or maybe 30 hours (Score:2)
lower full time to 32 hours or maybe 30 hours and unlink healthcare from jobs
days off (Score:2)
Let's see Dimon give anyone a single day off without cutting pay.
Customer service (Score:2)
Even less likely to get a human being when you need customer service. Just useless AI auto responses.
Nope (Score:2)
Jaime Dimon has two modes: 1.) Lying 2.) Wrong.
These statements are a combination of both. YOUR children will still die of cancer because they won't have guaranteed access to healthcare. YOUR children will not live to 100 because of any one of several climate change-driven disasters and/or conflicts.
And there is no way Dimon is paying for five days of work and getting only 3.5, so YOUR children will make 60% of what you earn.
The mythical soon (Score:1)
People give physicists shit for promising that an energy breakthrough will arrive 10 years repeatedly, but it's the same with the marketers of technology and their "promise" of a reduced workweek - not now, but soon. SOON!
It's the perennial carrot on a stick to keep people thinking anyone not down for The New Technology is a rustic, a luddite, a pitifully retrograde mind.
Call this what it is. It's bullshit from a hypebeast who faces no downside for lying to your face.
[x] doubt (Score:2)
We've heard this before (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Same promises of "more leisure time" were made at the start of the industrial revolution, when machines were predicted to reduce the need for human labor.
The whole legally mandated 40 hour work week that came into law after the industrial revolution sort of undermines what you seem to be trying to do with your post here.
Re: (Score:2)
People work more than 40 hours per week today; many jobs expect more. I never had a full time 40 hour job; lowest one clearly stated 45.
The productivity gains that were actually achieved and surpassed, were the basis of predictions of 30 hours per week around 2000 along with flying cars and a moon base... We went backwards and the productivity gains all went to the top 5% plus fewer jobs; many which simply raced to the bottom because 3rd world labor is cheaper (and so is prison labor...even China has gone t
Re: (Score:2)
I never had a full time 40 hour job; lowest one clearly stated 45.
Jesus, you need to find better work. While I've done more than 40 in individual weeks plenty of times I've never had a job with a routine weekly expectation of above 40 hours. Even with the OT I do in my current job my weekly average for the year cant be much higher than 42 hours.
A REAL mandated 35 hours per week needs to be a starting point;
I think you missed your own best point here that you seemed so close to making. An even better starting point would be to require overtime pay for salaried workers working over 40 hours as that seems to be the root of your problems
Re: (Score:2)
Decades ago, I had peers who said nothing was 40 anymore; unofficially, they pushed expectations and culture to go over 40. They'd have to buck the culture and limit chances of promotion (which has been proven a farce, you quit jobs to get a raise and everybody knows this by now.) My employers at the time were just more honest about it. Depends on your work naturally; but higher responsibility jobs manage to eat up unofficial time and stuff just happens which is your responsibility to take care of .... th
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing what you're writing here makes me grateful I work for the company I do as Ive worked for them for 20 years now and I've gotten very substantial raises from them at times. My expectation is 40 hours a week, it's not too often I'm asked to work over, and the at home work texts are fairly minimal and sensible. Overall I really dont think about work very much when I'm at home.
I also get 5 weeks off a year which for us Americans is downright luxurious (although somehow companies in other wealthy first wor
That's an average (Score:2)
A huge chunk of people will be working 0 hours because AI took their jobs. The rest will be working 60 hours a week.
Income inequality (Score:3)
We already have that. (Score:2)
Heard exactly the same promise about computers (Score:2)
15 hr week (Score:2)
https://www.npr.org/2015/08/13... [npr.org]
Rejoice Fellow Humans! (Score:2)
When AI deigns to give us a 3.5 day work-week, then we'll know we've appeased our overlords.
capitalist sees a future without labour (Score:1)
Is more free time... a good thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not convinced that humanity does well with excessive free time, whether that free time comes "gratis" or through reduced quality of life (i.e. 70% less work, 70% QOL). I think that over stressing and under stressing people are both bad options. I suspect there needs to be some pressures on folks.
"I think", "I suspect", "I'm not convinced"... as you can see, I do not have the courage of my convictions. But while I question whether idle hands are the devil's playthings, I can't help but notice the ludicrous things chronically unemployed eastern European males get up to...
Seems dumb (Score:2)
Why not fire 70% of your staff and have the remaining 30% work 75 hours a week? Seems like AI would allow sleep deprived workaholics to continue to be productive.
Imagine how efficient communication would be among your IT department would be if it was just one guy who drinks a lot of Red Bull all night while AI answers tickets and assigns physical access required tasks to the on-call meat bag?
Only if the unions win (Score:2)
It might start with the auto workers seeking 4-day work weeks. If they fail it may never happen.
1970 all over again (Score:2)
we've been promised that 40 years ago.
workweek is not shorter, salaries are not higher, corporate profits skyrocketed.
so, yeah, sure.