
Corporations Don't Want Employees - danielrm26
https://danielmiessler.com/blog/corporations-dont-want-employees/?fb_ref=mU3EyvOazW-Hackernews
======
wrong_variable
This gives far too too much credit to AGI.

1 #

The biggest losers with AGI is going to be corporations, corporations and
capitalism rests on a very simple idea - private property.

Humans are employed to create stuff that can be patented or owned and
essentially converted into crystallized wealth ( house, factory, software )

However the interesting thing about software - ( something that paul graham
pointed out ) - is its almost no-cost to copy it. Its the great equalizer -
what would take a factory and a lot of workers to build - will just take a
piece of software to create.

So software (a.k.a maths), the ultimate product of efficiency and capitalism
is what is going to make capitalism not work.

2 #

The reason for so much unemployment is due to bad policies by govt. lack of
growth in developed countries ( money moves from there to developing countries
- if a dollar buys me more goods in china of'course my dollar is going to go
to china ). Trade deals that do not take into account factors such as those.

3 #

I think there is a strong incentive of 'not dying' in all of us. If you pushed
people far enuf they would innovate. You can build a robot from sticks and
stones if the alternative is to starve.

~~~
Retra
The king divides his land up amongst his lords and promises them that they
might become kings themselves if they produce enough wealth and capture enough
lands for the crown. Then the lords take that land and make the same promise
to the serfs: if you farm it well enough and produce enough strong warrior
children, maybe you'll end up as a favorite of your lord.

This is feudalism, and it's not hard to see how the steady-state result of
this system is everyone running to endless war, as there is ruthless
competition at every level of the hierarchy. This is also how most
corporations are run, and the promises of glory and wealth are largely as
empty now as they were when feudalism was common.

Unemployment is not a _problem_. It is the _goal_.

>However the interesting thing about software - ( something that paul graham
pointed out ) - is its almost no-cost to copy it. Its the great equalizer -
what would take a factory and a lot of workers to build - will just take a
piece of software to create.

My employment contract states that any patents I file are to be held by my
employer, and that I may not participate in open-source software without their
approval, and a good deal of other terms that protect me from economic
freedom. Software hasn't equalized much in that regard.

>I think there is a strong incentive of 'not dying' in all of us. If you
pushed people far [enough] they would innovate. You can build a robot from
sticks and stones if the alternative is to starve.

They would die. You can't not die just because you want to. If the alternative
is to starve, _many many people will starve._ It is callous to suggest
otherwise.

------
quantum_nerd
Corporations exist mostly because of consumerism, though. Once those "humans"
are not able to work and in turn, spend their money buying crap from
corporations, then...?

~~~
danielrm26
It's a great point, but I think corporations have shown they're willing to
sacrifice long-term benefit for next quarter's numbers.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Not just the corporation, but the owners. It's not as if employees and
executives are blind to long-term thinking, but the higher up you are, the
more dependent your salary and bonus is on your earnings report, and if the
numbers don't satisfy the Street, they can kick you out.

The problem is that self-interested thinking doesn't often benefit the whole.
Every corporation is in the right for cutting costs, reducing tax burden, and
getting as much profit as possible (and keeping it!). Without a strong
government to form and enforce public policy, the private sector creatively
destroys itself and society every few decades, while the rich keep their cash.

Some on HN the other day speculated that the fiercely autocratic Asian
governments are the only way to reign in the power of major corporations. I
think there is a point to that.

------
lossolo
Problem is with capitalism and it's founders that told us all that you can't
live without work. In next decades we will need to change the system
diametrical because robots will take all not creative jobs out there. If we
want basic pay we will need to tax corporations that use robots at around
70-90%, money from tax will go for basic pay, money from people that receive
basic pay will go to corporations etc. Thing that needs to be controlled is
capital, it can't be taken out of the market like it's done now, companies are
gathering billions of dollars which are taken out of the market. Capital taken
from the market can not be redistributed again. One thing is for sure, current
system need to be changed and adapted to robots revolution.

------
protomyth
If it comes to it, I think a prorated minimum guaranteed income is more
likely. Given some of the payday crap, I would hope its paid out every weekday
morning.

I doubt robots and AI can do every in the next 50 years, so someone is going
to be doing something even its art or crafts.

[edit] who exactly owns these companies? Aren't people making money off the
company?

------
jake_morrison
I think it's a bit funny to anthropomorphize corporations. If this is restated
as "Shareholders of Corporations Don't Want Employees", it may still be true,
but it shows that there is a choice.

------
justifier
also the opposite: people want to do anything else but work; here work means
fulfilling some other's ideas for a task based, stead revenue`profit`leverage
based, compensation

there is a great line in iron man iii where the character happy says: The
human element of human resources is our greatest point of vulnerability. We
should start phasing it out immediately.

once people are given capitol simply for being alive robotics will develop
exponentially

and companies and individuals will be the better for it

------
a3n
I don't think it's going to be basic income. I think it will be something more
like we'll all be drafted.

~~~
dudul
How do you envision this working?

Corporations, while they don't need/want employees, still want customers and
people to buy their stuff. How would people get buying power if they are
"drafted"?

~~~
orionblastar
Yeah one of the dangers of AI and robots taking jobs is that they don't have
any customers left as in B2C business model. They will have to do a B2B model
but then all of the people out of work will damage the economy.

What about the people who got old and or sick? With all the people going poor
without jobs some might resort to crimes to make a living.

The draft can only take so much of the population. But our military uses
drones a lot and might use robot soldiers that share memories and kill the
enemy more than humans can and don't need any training. Is it murder if a
robot kills a civilian?

~~~
Evolved
_What about the people who got old and or sick? With all the people going poor
without jobs some might resort to crimes to make a living._

You're absolutely right and things specifically like identity theft already
work this way.

 _The draft can only take so much of the population. But our military uses
drones a lot and might use robot soldiers that share memories and kill the
enemy more than humans can and don 't need any training. Is it murder if a
robot kills a civilian?_

Much like tragic losses of soldiers that occur during special ops missions are
categorized as a soldier dying in a "training accident" one might assert that
if a robot kills a civilian it would be chalked up to an "industrial
accident."

~~~
sukilot
Industrial "accidents" already have a long history, especially in modern Asian
manufacturing.

------
hahagavkdr
Local man rediscovers the profit motive

------
sharemywin
Basic income is the path to humanities demise. If people are only given enough
to survive they won't have children. No one wants to support welfare babies.

Capitalism doesn't work as well if your less intelligent. As computer's get
smarter they will just siphon the money away from the dim witted meat
bags(even the smartest of us).

------
godembodied
Imagine you alone can control robots and grow animals(including humans) in a
lab. You could use robots for specific tasks and use humans as sexual slaves
or worker slaves. This could happen if there are 'designer babies', where you
could create very beautiful women and have them as your slaves. Or you could
create a race of slave super-humans(merge humans with mechanoids), which would
fulfill certain tasks you gave them. Do you think in that case you would need
some consumers buying from your companies? Of course not.

Now imagine few thousand people like you. Lets say those on Forbes list. Now,
instead of one guy being in control, you have few thousand of them each
specializing in certain area. One could make sexual slaves. Another one could
have an army working to make video games. Third one would have slaves making
clothing, houses or vehicles and so on... Those few thousand people could
create a B2B economy with few thousand oligarchs trading among themselves.
What about the rest? They could be eliminated very easily by certain viruses
or through some other means. Humans could still exist, but they would be
'designed' or genetically modified to fit specific purposes.

Just remember genocides, slavery, nukes, wars etc. Nothing is off the table.
The stakes are very high. Those few oligarchs would live like trillionaires,
so they would probably be ready to do anything. I mean people today kill each
other for $1k, imagine what could be done when stakes are this high. Contrary
to popular belief, history doesn't follow the direction of progress of any
animal species. It's fun until it's not (dinosaurs and many other extinct
species). This situation could trigger wars and genocides we haven't seen
before. I don't think it's going to be cupcakes and rainbows. People in 19th
century were very optimistic about the future, imagining all kinds of utopias,
but what was 20th century? Huge wars, mass genocides, diseases etc. I am not
optimistic and don't think there is some kind of an ark of human progress
where people will reach utopia. It will be change, but no progress/regress.

~~~
ddorian43
Who will create the lab? Won't he be the most powerful ? Can't these people
genetically modify themself to not care about sex slaves (or even consumption,
so no worker-slaves needed) ? Maybe scientists-slaves?

The truth(by my simple/short unscientific observation) is that most people
don't give a fuck at all about anything other than themself so why should the
lab-designer care about them (and share his tech)?

What happens when you build you lab/fix-diseases and don't want to share them
with the masses (you don't want their $$)(you just want to share with other
lab-designers/scientists/doctors etc). They WILL try kill you. How to escape
this ? Kill them first? Don't share at all (you supposedly want to share with
other lab-builders)?

I think, the lab creator WILL have to also build crazy weapons to protect
himself from "the others"? They just won't accept no for an answer.

So you have to create your weapons first, then build the lab (or enslave
others by using weapons to build the lab for you).

Makes sense ?

~~~
godembodied

      Who will create the lab? Won't he be the most powerful ?
    

Every oligarch(if there are many of them, like there were many kings in
medieval Europe) would need to have a lab. It will be specialized. Just like
factories today are specialized. Today, one company might use factory to make
phones, another one to make clothing etc. They all use different devices for
different products.

    
    
      Can't these people genetically modify themself to not care about sex slaves (or even consumption, so no worker-slaves needed) ? Maybe scientists-slaves?
    

That's equivalent to suicide. You could do something similar today to
eliminate sexual or other desires, but people aren't doing it.

    
    
      The truth(by my simple/short unscientific observation) is that most people don't give a fuck at all about anything other than themself so why should the lab-designer care about them (and share his tech)?
    

Care about who? Other oligarchs? If there are other oligarchs(which is not
necessary, since it could be one king and few thousand people below him), then
he would receive benefits from them and vice versa.

    
    
      What happens when you build you lab/fix-diseases and don't want to share them with the masses (you don't want their $$)(you just want to share with other lab-designers/scientists/doctors etc). They WILL try kill you. How to escape this ? Kill them first? Don't share at all (you supposedly want to share with other lab-builders)?
    

Who will try to kill them? Masses or other oligarchs?

    
    
      I think, the lab creator WILL have to also build crazy weapons to protect himself from "the others"? They just won't accept no for an answer.
    

What others? Other oligarchs with different labs?

    
    
      So you have to create your weapons first, then build the lab (or enslave others by using weapons to build the lab for you).
    

This is true. It could be a hierarchy where the top dog (king) shares some
wealth with the lower ranked. Kinda like in medieval Europe. Most robots and
lab-grown humans would be like serfs and those closest to the king would get
all the benefits and practically unlimited wealth.

~~~
ddorian43

       That's equivalent to suicide. You could do something similar today to eliminate sexual or other desires, but people aren't doing it.
    

I assumed they can replicate at the lab.

    
    
       Care about who? Other oligarchs? If there are other oligarchs(which is not necessary, since it could be one king and few thousand people below him), then he would receive benefits from them and vice versa.
    

Most people don't care about pushing human(ity) further, just want the current
entertainment flavor of the generation. Why should the lab-creator care about
them ? Just because someone pays for your job, doesn't mean it should exist,
ex: gossip magazines. And when you have no work/purpose, why should you exist
? To consume finite resources? He may think the same thing for other
oligarchs.

    
    
       Who will try to kill them? Masses or other oligarchs?
    

If you build a life-extension (or a human backup+restore) lab you'll be at war
with whoever you don't want to share.

    
    
       What others? Other oligarchs with different labs?
    

2 main ways to change the world would be: Kill those who oppose you, or build
better tech and don't save them (but those will better weapons will kill you
first).

The more you automate and advance, the easier it would be to not need(and
pursuing of not needing) other oligarch/normal sheeple.

