Selecione o endereço
Ver todas as opções de compra
Imagem do logotipo do app Kindle

Baixe o app Kindle gratuito e comece a ler livros do Kindle instantaneamente em seu smartphone, tablet ou computador - sem a necessidade de um dispositivo Kindle.

Leia instantaneamente em seu navegador com o Kindle para internet.

Usando a câmera do seu celular, digitalize o código abaixo e baixe o app Kindle.

Código QR para baixar o aplicativo Kindle

Seguir o autor

Aaron Benanav
+ Seguir
Mais livros deste autor
Algo deu errado. Tente fazer sua solicitação novamente mais tarde.

Automation and the Future of Work Capa dura – 3 novembro 2020

Edição Inglês por Aaron Benanav (Autor)
4,3 4,3 de 5 estrelas 74 avaliações de clientes
Ver todos os formatos e edições
A consensus-shattering account of automation technologies and their effect on workplaces and the labor market

In this consensus-shattering account of automation technologies, Aaron Benanav investigates the economic trends that will shape our working lives far into the future.

Silicon Valley titans, politicians, techno-futurists, and social critics have united in arguing that we are on the cusp of an era of rapid technological automation, heralding the end of work as we know it. But does the muchdiscussed "rise of the robots" really explain the long-term decline in the demand for labor?

Automation and the Future of Work uncovers the deep weaknesses of twenty-first-century capitalism and the reasons why the engine of economic growth keeps stalling. Equally important, Benanav goes on to salvage from automation discourse its utopian content: the positive vision of a world without work. What social movements, he asks, are required to propel us into post-scarcity if technological innovation alone can't deliver it? In response to calls for a permanent universal basic income that would maintain a growing army of redundant workers, he offers a groundbreaking counterproposal.

Leia mais Leia menos
Previous page
  1. Número de páginas
    160 páginas
  2. Idioma
    Inglês
  3. Editora
    Verso
  4. Data da publicação
    3 novembro 2020
  5. Dimensões
    14.68 x 1.7 x 21.72 cm
  6. ISBN-10
    1839761296
  7. ISBN-13
    978-1839761294
  8. Ver todos os detalhes
Next page

Descrição do produto

Sobre o Autor

Aaron Benanav is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Syracuse University. He has written for the Guardian, the Nation and New Left Review.

Detalhes do produto

  • Editora ‏ : ‎ Verso (3 novembro 2020)
  • Idioma ‏ : ‎ Inglês
  • Capa dura ‏ : ‎ 160 páginas
  • ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1839761296
  • ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1839761294
  • Dimensões ‏ : ‎ 14.68 x 1.7 x 21.72 cm
  • Avaliações dos clientes:
    4,3 4,3 de 5 estrelas 74 avaliações de clientes

Sobre o autor

Siga autores para obter atualizações de novos lançamentos e recomendações aprimoradas.
Aaron Benanav

Aaron Benanav

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Descubra mais livros do autor, veja autores semelhantes, leia blogs de autores e muito mais

Avaliações de clientes

4,3 de 5 estrelas
4,3 de 5
74 avaliações globais

Principais avaliações do Brasil

Há 0 avaliações e 0 classificações de Brasil

Principais avaliações de outros países

Traduzir todas as avaliações para português
Political Econ Reader
5,0 de 5 estrelas Simply brilliant
Avaliado na Alemanha em 29 de maio de 2021
Compra verificada
Innovative, gracefully written, superbly reasoned, and richly supported argument about a topic of the first importance (a lot of topics, actually). Plus you can read it in like a day or two, maximum, and learn more than you would from much longer works.
Denunciar
Perspective
5,0 de 5 estrelas A brilliant recipe for mankind's future
Avaliado no Reino Unido em 9 de janeiro de 2021
Compra verificada
This book sees current social problems as incapable of remedy by vogue ideas such as Universal Basic Income and only capable of resolution by a movement of new social consciousness uniting ‘around a new emancipatory social project’ to bring in a non-market post-scarcity society. The author argues convingly that ‘even in the richest countries most people are so atomized, materially insecure and alienated from their collective capacities that their horizons are stunted’ and that the kind of society he recommends to replace capitalism would be far superior to anything that has so far existed or that capitalism could promise in the future. In addition, though it would be a society of abundance, it would not be - and would not need to be - a society of super-abundance, and this is something that Benanav captures effectively by stating that ‘a literal cornucopia is not required’. He goes on to explain that ‘it is only necessary that scarcity and its accompanying mentality be overcome’ and how ‘abundance is not a technological threshold to be crossed’ but ‘a social relationship, based on the principle that the means of one’s existence will never be at stake in any of one’s relationships’.

The sources drawn upon by Benanov in writing this book are wide and diverse with a good number of charts, graphs and tables and almost 40 pages of extensive documentation. Yet none of this weighs heavily on the reader, since both the thrust and the details of his arguments are laid out in clear, engaging fashion making them easy, indeed pleasurable, to follow and take in, and allowing the whole to hang together in a way that makes it a highly satisfying and persuasive read for anyone open to radical ideas about social development.
1 pessoa achou isso útil
 Denunciar
Michael M. Adkins
1,0 de 5 estrelas Not a bad writer, but someone needs to challenge this book
Avaliado nos Estados Unidos em 15 de janeiro de 2021
Compra verificada
The author admits not to having a technical background, but his dad does. And, he also loves reading science fiction. However, when he talks about Universal Basic Income, I envision science fiction series The Expanse, where Basic Assistance (their term for UBI) exists but inequality is the worst on Earth than anywhere else. And, the UN welfare recipients are in no way happy with rampant crime, drugs, and prostitution.

Yet, the author and I both agree that UBI by itself only further exacerbates inequality - he might have also read or watched the expanse before writing this book. He proposes a system where everyone gets a job, so that even those who would be hurt by automation the most can still be participants in society, and work is distributed according to talents; instead being rewarded with money, you're rewarded with more exciting work and fewer hours.

I understand the intent behind it. Human beings need purpose in life. And, UBI, as it's most popularly proposed, is merely a bandaid solution to the populace becoming surplus due automation. However, I think that he and most leftists fail here in that they don't recognize that human nature will always cause inequality in some way.

The word "Utopian" was chosen by Thomas Moore (whose work is also cited be the author) because it means "No place" in Latin. The idea behind that meaning is that a perfect society is impossible but it's something that we can strive for. Where the Leftists fail is that they tend to try to make the Utopia a reality rather gradually guiding society in that direction. And, have always failed because they fail to recognize human nature. All humans are selfish and will tend towards putting himself/herself over others. Even those whose intentions are to eliminate inequality in earnest, will gravitate towards this kind of behavior by default.

The writer, although admits to having a left-leaning bias, has looked at arguments on "both sides" - even going as far as citing a racist "intellectual" in his research. However, I believe that he and most modern Leftists have tendency to only hear indentarian right-wing arguments, because they tend to actually agree on some matters. A point that another Leftist writer Phil A. Neel pointed out in his book Hinterlands.

The fact that many conservatives, with the exception of indentarian conservatives, is that conservatives tend to be more pragmatic when it comes to human nature. And, I think that, at least for conservatives in the West, has to do with the fact that conservatives tend to come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds where their faith instructs that humans are inherently evil and are irredeemable by themselves.

In my opinion, the best that we can strive for is to reduce inequality and improve the likelihood of attaining upward social mobility. How we go about is still something that I myself don't have an answer for. Historically, humans would just find opportunity for themselves in new frontiers when opportunity at home was becoming stagnant.

Space exploration or ocean exploration seem like the logical solution. It seriously wouldn't eliminate inequality but would provide those who don't want to sit at home and receive handouts an opportunity to actually control their own lives.
8 pessoas acharam isso útil
 Denunciar
Geoff Crocker
3,0 de 5 estrelas Basic income is preferable to Marxist nirvana
Avaliado no Reino Unido em 8 de setembro de 2021
Compra verificada
The two divergent classical responses to the evident defects of capitalism are i) Keynes’s view that capitalism can be fixed, and ii) Marx’s view that it can’t and will either self-destruct or be destroyed. Aaron Benanav takes the second, and it is his Marxist agenda, rather than any persuasive logic, which drives his rejection of basic income’s claim as ‘sticking plaster’ to correct the dysfunctionalities of current capitalist economies. Keynes was arguably right in arguing that deficit-funded government infrastructure investment and welfare expenditure, coupled with higher wages to fund demand, rather than the neo-classical proposal for lower wages to price labour back into work, would prove to be effective remedies for involuntary unemployment.

So can UBI funded by debt-free sovereign money correct any of the current economic dysfunctionality of recurrent crisis, pervasive debt, austerity, low pay, in-work poverty, massive inequality, and ecological damage?

Benanav thinks not. He is scathing and derisory of the ‘automation theorists’ claim that technology is destroying jobs, referring to a ‘jeans-wearing elite’ (p3) promoting ‘technocratic fantasies’ (p11) who want to ‘wind down the economy’ (p72). His alternative explanation that global overcapacity has driven down demand for labour (p26) sits inconsistently with his claim that capital has gone on strike and refused to invest (p70). He is right to point out that productivity paradox can arise as societies seek to load production with social costs, for example by delaying retirement age, but wrong in his claim that productivity does not affect the service sector, when empirical examples from banking, insurance, and law show the opposite.

His rejection of Charles Murray’s right wing case for UBI would be shared by most UBI advocates, but he fails to do justice to left wing calls for UBI from advocates like Philippe van Parijs and others he fails to mention, all of whose work cannot be dismissed in the half page Benanav allocates (p75). Contrary to Benanav’s claim, research at the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, UK, does show technology to be a major cause in reduced labour share. Benanav cannot dispute clear empirical evidence that labour income has consistently fallen against consumer expenditure for the whole post-war period, necessitating an increase in ‘unearned income’ from pensions, welfare benefits, dividends, and household debt. It’s clear that in a totally automated economy, all income would be UBI, all funded by debt-free sovereign money, and therefore reasonable to propose that in partially automated economies, this is proportionately true.

The extremity and clarity of his Marxist agenda is set out in proposals to ‘threaten firms with full socialisation’, ‘doing away with private enterprise’, ie ‘a truly existential threat to asset owners’ wealth’ in order to ‘bring capital to heel’ giving ‘power to democratic organs of the people themselves’ (p71). He advocates ‘progressive socialisation of the means of production via a planned transfer of asset ownership to society at large’, with ‘a conquest of production which finally succeeds in wresting the power to control investment decisions away from capitalists’ (p79). We’ve been there before. I personally spent over 15 years in nearly 50 cities of post-Soviet Russia, seeing first hand the dismal results.

His closing advocacy of a socialist nirvana where ‘everyone can go to social warehouses and service centres to get what they need, hop on a train, get their teeth cleaned’ (p88), all made possible through an abundance derived not from technology, but from ‘social relationship’ (p89), and threateningly coordinated by ‘various committees’ (p92), is nowhere explicated. It relies on some combination of human selflessness and purity, and ignores the prevalence of human moral failing. His main complaint about basic income proposals is that they don’t adopt his Marxist paradigm, and even dare to offer a more reasoned alternative to it.

Technology has delivered huge increases in standards of living, but it has also sucked income out of the economy, which in turn has led to huge increases in household debt, and in government debt from accumulated deficits to meet social welfare needs. The urgent issues are to get income to people and to get debt out of the economy. Only basic income funded by debt-free sovereign money offers to achieve this. Capitalism has and can morph to more socially responsible definitions. Its overthrow to a Marxist paradigm carries the huge empirically realised threat of tyranny and dictatorship.
1 pessoa achou isso útil
 Denunciar