Bill Gates says a 3-day work week where ‘machines can make all the food and stuff’ isn’t a bad idea::“A society where you only have to work three days a week, that’s probably OK,” Bill Gates said.

  • The Dark Lord ☑️@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    213
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t care what one of the richest people in the world thinks about labour and work/life balance. I care what the average person thinks.

    But he’s right about this.

          • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unions are tragically toothless when the federal government can just decide a planned strike is illegal.

            • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              More unions need to coordinate and actually create threat of a general strike. The UAW ending their contract on May Day and calling for others to do the same actually seems like a pretty good way to leverage power. I don’t think the government can move quick enough to block that kind of collective action.

              • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Biden literally signed an executive order blocking railway workers from striking. If he has that kind of authority and is willing to use it in that way, then all he has to do is make an executive order declaring all strikes illegal. Also, not trying to be a naysayer, but a general strike is a pipe dream. You can barely get people in the same union to cooperate, let alone multiple unions cooperating for a general.

        • sock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          yea! lets hope really hard and politicians might start taking hope as bribes for legislature

      • RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        And their decisions equate to: how can we employ the fewest number of people with the least benefits and make the most profit off what we’re selling?

        But definitely don’t consider that under- or unemployed people don’t have the money to spend on making those profits happen.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bill Gates isn’t making the decisions anymore and hasn’t been for decades now

    • Bogasse@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, every debate about reducing the number of cars always ends at something like “too many jobs are involved in the car industry, so we need to preserve these jobs, and also people need cars to go work in these factories”. I feel like there will hardly be a deep environmental breakthrough if it doesn’t come with a deep social change.

      • Mac@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would rather work down the road at a bakery than drive to the next town to be an engineering apprentice.

        Only one of them pays, however.

      • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        “We’re too deep in the hole we’ve dug for ourselves. Just keep digging and hope we eventually come out the other side.” That’s what that logic effectively equates to: doing the same stupid thing and hoping it eventually works out for you.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Companies would automate and save on employees, making people poor. Automation only makes sense if basic universal income is applied

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The “””end goal””” would be people working half the time, earning half the money, and stuff costing half as much to make and half as much to purchase.

        The issue is we have to force them to translate the manufacturing cost decrease in a price decrease, or it’s never going to happen.

      • The Dark Lord ☑️@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A reduction in work hours is also a step forward until UBI is instated. If I make the same amount doing 4 or even 3 days of work in a week, while automation does the rest, that works for me. The idea is that people need to work less and make the same if not more. UBI or a reduction in work hours are both good paths forward. UBI being the ultimate goal.

    • metallic_z3r0@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t care what he thinks, but I care that he has a platform that others in his class listen to and may respect. It’s not a position you hear often from those with a lot of wealth. I’m ok with progress coming from any direction, even if it’s self-serving in some form, and I do think it’s self-serving.

  • Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not a bad idea, but it also can’t exist without a complete re-haul of what it means to live in modern society. Right now, replacing workers and cutting hours means people don’t have enough money to live. That is not an acceptable result of automation. I’m not qualified enough to have a reasonable solution to this, but I know it needs to be addressed before we get to that point.

      • Patches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        In 2010 Bill Gates was worth 50 Billion. He is now worth 117 Billion.

        He ain’t exactly coasting. He just has a higher PR budget than he did back in the 90s.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The machine doesn’t require a salary but instead of sending the money it saves to the workers it replaces it is added to the yearly profits, a three day work week with more automatisation can’t happen before that last part is reversed or there’s extreme deflation happening to compensate for lower wages.

    • Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do wonder if this is even a money thing as even OpenAI has warned investors that money in the future is not certain. Maybe we are going to be forced to look to alternatives other than money as the means of value?

  • sartalon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    1 year ago

    We will absolutely have automation but the workers will just be fired and all profits will be absorbed by the stockholder.

    No cost savings will be passed on the other consumer either.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that would be wildly unstable. The capitalist class can’t sell automated-produced goods if people don’t have any money because they’re unemployed.

      However, those mass layoffs will make this quarter’s numbers go up, and everything else is a problem for next quarter, which is why they’ll do it.

      • kablammy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Once AI and robots can do/make anything they want on demand, they won’t even need money, so don’t need to make money by selling stuff. For sure, they will probably have a tough time transitioning from the idea of making money, but they won’t need to any more. The rest of us could split off our own fairer economy, but they’ll probably have the IP locked up on all the technology so we can’t use it and have to keep working 5 day or more weeks.

    • IDontHavePantsOn@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Hmmm… Solve world hunger…Why don’t we do that?..”

      “Sir, your dinner is ready.”

      “The flies were wild caught yes?”

      “From Botswana sir. Just as you like.”

      Slurp

    • bigmclargehuge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary and Denmark are all capitalist societies and run on <5 day work weeks. Capitalism is not the problem, North American society in particular is what seems to have the problem.

      • isles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary and Denmark

        Each of which have about 2-4x union participation than USA, for example. Which indicates to me that they’re doing a better job of keeping capitalism at bay, not that capitalism is more benevolent in those countries.

  • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Assuming the owners of those machines don’t restrict the people’s access to that “food and stuff”

    • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You think Bill Gates of all people don’t know that? He’s just trying to gaslight us into thinking the stupid-rich gigacorporation owners like him are the solution and not the problem.

      • Isthisreddit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know about that. Young ruthless Bill Gates was another person, older and wiser Bill Gates has already achieved richest person in the world, Forbes #1, etc etc - all that’s in the rearview mirror - I believe he has awakened and realized it takes a village and he wants his legacy to reflect that

        • pedz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just goes to show how you can change your public image with shit loads of money. He just laundered his image real good and you just ate it up.

          He has not “awakened” to anything. He’s just very good at selling his BS. What’s even worse is that now if you bring up his shitty ways, you are associated with the anti vax idiots.

        • veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bill Gates hasn’t really changed dude. He’s just developed a thicker veneer. He’s the largest landowner in the US now, because he’s been buying up as much arable land as possible. He can say its BAU all he wants, it’s incredibly sketchy af. Now in conjunction with this statement, its easy to see where once he cornered the software market, you could infer he’s aspiring to do the same with food with full automation.

          • Isthisreddit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Michael Burry (guy from the big short) has been doing the same. We all know climate change is going to fuck us, we all know we are headed towards serious water shortages, etc - these guys also know and have money to position themselves - for what final gameplan I don’t know, but at least with Gates his recent history has shown a care for the greater good for humanity at least. Can’t say the same for other billionaires.

            I know Bills history pretty well, I just see a difference between him now and how he was a ruthless businessman in his prior life. Maybe he has me fooled, but I don’t really see it other than people’s conspiracy theory stuff. Guys like Elon are another story though

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      1 year ago

      People who sell things that are in high demand and necessary for survival generally are not in the practice of denying people access to those things.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Health care providers are not in the habit of denying care. Health insurers are because they have a perverse incentives to do so - this is why they should not exist

          • 20hzservers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly the people who sell the thing in high demand the issurers are in the business of denying care to people by raising prices on healthcare. I feel like your mind is in the right place I agree insurance companies shouldn’t exist but what you said in your first comment is false large companies who sell high demand products absolutely gouge on prices all of the time.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s literally not true though. They compete with each other over offering the lowest price.

              • 20hzservers@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s funny. In reality they compete on increasing shareholder profits by colluding on prices and paying their employees as little as possible. And to be crystal clear “they” are the CEOS/boards of most major companies.

              • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                In what world? Outside of government exchanges, you’re limited to the plan your employer offers you.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We were discussing large corps that aren’t insurance companies

      • eskimofry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, What mind bending drugs are you on? Healthcare is riddled with examples of denied insurance claims for treatments.

      • Flambo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        if you won’t deny a thing to someone it’s pretty hard to sell it to anyone

      • isles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        denying people access to those things.

        The only way I can reconcile your statement is if you finish it with “if they can afford it”. Which also makes your statement meaningless. No one was ever arguing that business denies products/services to those who can pay for them.

        Health care, food, and shelter are all in high demand, necessary for survival, and if you can’t afford it, you are denied it.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No one was ever arguing that business denies products/services to those who can pay for them.

          “If they can afford it” suggests otherwise.

          Yes, things do indeed cost money and always will until we discover replicator tech.

  • countflacula@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Crap, now all the braindead covid conspiracy theorists are going to roll this into their “15 minite cities are open air prisons” conspiracies

  • realitista@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sounds great. Only question is how we get paid well enough to live. A question which went conveniently unasked and unanswered.

    • Acters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      We should stop measuring our productivity in hourly and need to go back to salary well paying positions, or everyone needs to share the costs with UBI instead.

      • realitista@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good luck convincing companies to change anything that won’t make them more money. I think the only way it can happen is with UBI, hopefully funded by the hoarded assets of the few biggest companies and billionaires where all the money is getting accumulated.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Salaried wages don’t make sense for a whole lot of positions tho - like you’d have 0 manufacturing employees.

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Didn’t we get one day a week since the Old Testament? And then we got a second day because new sky giant disagreed with the days from old sky giant?

        • SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Correct about Sunday, but a two-day weekend didn’t become a thing until organized labour fought for it in the 20s, and wasn’t codified into law until 1940.

  • moonwalker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    How in the world did Bill Gates go from being a scummy unethical monopolistic figure to now some trusted guru on everything? I need an explanation.

    • diffcalculus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Remember when he depended on the workforce and labor of others? Then remember when he stepped away from running a company and stopped depending on labor?

      That’s when he magically turned “for” employee rights and sustainability. Weirdly coincidental, I know.

      I applaud and respect Gates for what he stands for now and what his foundation achieves. But he would be the first one to mandate return to office and be against anything that cuts into his bottom line if he was still running a company.

      • nyar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        His foundation is a stack of lies. His desire is the same as it always was, control of what should be free.

        • JustMy2c@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          He strategically bought HUGE amounts of land on top of Aquivers in us and many many other countries…

          What he menas here is, HE can provide you with food IF YOU WORK FOR HIM

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lots of PR. I just listened to a QAnonAnonymous podcast episode on him and learned that the foundation isn’t as charitable as it seems. There are many reports that they come in and try to control the charity/project requesting funds, force these groups to give licensing rights to their technology, and often rely on public funds to get their projects off the ground. They likened it to the old Microsoft days where they come in and absorb companies with hostile takeovers.

  • bcron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s what would happen in capitalist America: entities would own those machines and use them as a means of personal enrichment, it’d displace a ton of human workers, the taxes generated from profits generated wouldn’t offset the economic impacts, and then half of the lawmakers would introduce bills that would provide lucrative incentives to those entities if they maintain a certain ratio of human workers and they’d staple a bunch of regressive crap onto it like abortion or whatever, it wouldn’t pass because the other half of lawmakers would want to tax the hell out of profits made with those machines, government would shut down 4 times a year, Jeff Bezos builds a vacation home on the moon

  • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    As an end goal, with something like UBI and rescaled salaries etc … yes, this obviously true.

    The catch is that there’d be a transition period, with uncertainties and states of incomplete capacity either from the AI or the implementation of the rearrangements of salaries etc.

    In that phase, there will be opportunities for people or companies to acquire power and wealth over this new future. Who will make and sell the AIs? Who will decide what gets automated and how and with what supervision. That’s where the danger lies. It’s a whole new field of power to grab.

  • profdc9@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    He’s ok with it as long as the machines are all running Windows, and he gets his fair share.

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    When someone says technology will make your work easier, they’re looking for an excuse to make you work harder.

  • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    It would be a great idea except it’s incompatible with capitalism. It would take away a lot of jobs from less privileged people and society would do nothing to support them. These people could then be exploited even harder due to job scarcity.

    Would be nice though if we could have nice things.

    • s_i_m_s@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sometimes I wonder what they would do if you could make endless perfect copies of objects like you can mp3s.

      Dududdo you wouldn’t copy a car. You wouldn’t copy a cheeseburger Copying is a crime.

      Like remember it’s only been recently that it became possible to make endless copies of media at effectively no cost.

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They would figure it out some way to enforce artificial scarcity. Can’t have poor people getting free stuff without being worthy.

      • onlinepersona@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        From the employee perspective yes, we have to work 4 days a week, but from the employer perspective, there’s no need to work 4 days a week. In fact, it’s even less productive than working 5 days a week.