B
RDU Irish
Catholics vs. Cousins
- Messages
- 8,622
- Reaction score
- 2,722
That has been the case for quite some time and quite frankly is the reason for increased standard of living. Just consider the reduction in time spent washing clothes and dishes thanks to washer/dryer/dishwashers. Obama famously blamed ATMs for persistent unemployment numbers.
Russell Roberts: Obama vs. ATMs—Why Technology Doesn't Destroy Jobs - WSJ.com
As technology replaces the labor force, where do these unemployed people go to earn enough to support themselves and their families?
A few can be retrained to take jobs in the technological field, the rest will be on the dole living off government subsidies and/or labeled as "lazy and unmotivated". The sad truth is that most of the current and future unemployed would love to be working. Only a small minority of the unemployed are actually lazy.
Unless we figure out a way to use technology to provide a living for everyone, this country will soon become more and more a country of the "haves" and the "have nots" with the "haves" hoarding their wealth and the "have nots" gradually becoming more and more violent in an effort to survive. And as the percentage of "have nots" increases, it becomes more and more difficult for the "haves" to isolate themselves from the violence that will eventually spread into their neighborhoods. As the middle class disappears, the buffer between the wealthy and the poor disappears as well.
A few can be retrained to take jobs in the technological field, the rest will be on the dole living off government subsidies and/or labeled as "lazy and unmotivated". The sad truth is that most of the current and future unemployed would love to be working. Only a small minority of the unemployed are actually lazy.
Unless we figure out a way to use technology to provide a living for everyone, this country will soon become more and more a country of the "haves" and the "have nots" with the "haves" hoarding their wealth and the "have nots" gradually becoming more and more violent in an effort to survive. And as the percentage of "have nots" increases, it becomes more and more difficult for the "haves" to isolate themselves from the violence that will eventually spread into their neighborhoods. As the middle class disappears, the buffer between the wealthy and the poor disappears as well.
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
Honestly, the ignorance that can be solved by implementing basic economics into high school curriculum...
What does a rich person do when he "hoards" his wealth? Does he bury it in his back yard? No. He puts it into stocks, bonds, mutual funds, savings accounts, real estate, etc. Let's say you're a poor person. Maybe your way out of poverty is to start a restaurant with a small business loan. Where does your bank get the cash to loan you to start your business? From the rich guy's deposits. Why does your 401(k) grow? Because rich guys "hoard" their money by investing it and growing the economy. The "end game" of capitalism is not acquisition, but increase. Rich people don't grow their wealth by stealing it from you, they grow their wealth by starting businesses and investing, which grows everyone's wealth.
You paint a picture of a dichotomous society where you're either Mitt Romney or a violent criminal. I'm guessing that 99.9% of the posters on this board are neither Mitt Romney nor violent criminals. Your "haves" and "have nots" doomsday scenario is, frankly, bullshit.
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
I get what you're saying and had often used this exact argument, more or less, to defend capitalism and its inherent reinvestment. My criticisms though are that the reinvestment will employ people less and less and "jobs" will be in niches and not whole industries.
I think you might be underestimating what a USA with 30% unemployment will resemble.
GoIrish41
Paterfamilius
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 2,119
Sends it to the Cayman Islands?
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
If we ever see 30% unemployment as the direct result of automation, I'll eat my shorts.
Job losses due to automation are only ever permanent if we have an economy where profit and innovation are discouraged. Lower cost of production means more profit, which means more reinvestment, which means growth. Sure, technology might eliminate jobs A, B, and C, but it will also create jobs X, Y, and Z. There are plenty of jobs in emerging / technical industries that don't require you to be a technical guy yourself. You assume that automation will progress but the broader economy will remain stagnant. Google didn't even exist when I was born, and now they employ 50,000 people.
tussin
Well-known member
- Messages
- 4,153
- Reaction score
- 1,982
Yes, I pretty much agree with all of this. IMO, the only negative side affect of more automation is that the new jobs / industries that are created will more likely be engineering focused with higher education requirements.
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
That's exactly the problem. What will the uneducated do? Not everyone can be an engineer..
Ndaccountant
Old Hoss
- Messages
- 8,370
- Reaction score
- 5,771
No, but not everyone has to be either.
Community colleges can offer up many of the solutions. It still goes back to the individuals:
1. Understanding what challenges are coming
2. Seeing education as the driving force to better jobs
3. Pressuring communities to invest in 2 year programs
IMO, there will not be a shortage of opportunity at the national level. How families and communities seize the opportunity is a different story. The marketplace will change, as it always does, and it will force people and communities to adapt. Those that do will be fine and those that don't will struggle.
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
O
I read the other day, and it can be wrong and I can't give you a source because I'm on my phone, that there are as many full time jobs in this country as there were in 2000.
I agree with you, but let's look at history. First we brought awesome efficiency to agriculture and moved the human capital to manufacturing. Then we brought awesome efficiency to manufacturing and moved the human capital to service sector jobs. Now we are demonstrably seeing service sector jobs being replaced with awesome efficiency, as well as the potential for complete automation of agriculture and manufacturing (outside of niches of course). Where does that human capital go? We just can't look at history and say "job losses aren't permanent."
60 Minutes said in the fall that Google, Yahoo, Amazon, and Facebook have together a trillion dollars in capital and employ less than 100,000 people.
My point is that you're replacing A A A A A B B B B C C C C C for X Y Z.
I read the other day, and it can be wrong and I can't give you a source because I'm on my phone, that there are as many full time jobs in this country as there were in 2000.
I agree with you, but let's look at history. First we brought awesome efficiency to agriculture and moved the human capital to manufacturing. Then we brought awesome efficiency to manufacturing and moved the human capital to service sector jobs. Now we are demonstrably seeing service sector jobs being replaced with awesome efficiency, as well as the potential for complete automation of agriculture and manufacturing (outside of niches of course). Where does that human capital go? We just can't look at history and say "job losses aren't permanent."
60 Minutes said in the fall that Google, Yahoo, Amazon, and Facebook have together a trillion dollars in capital and employ less than 100,000 people.
My point is that you're replacing A A A A A B B B B C C C C C for X Y Z.
Last edited:
RDU Irish
Catholics vs. Cousins
- Messages
- 8,622
- Reaction score
- 2,722
Bill Gates was surprised that with better mortality numbers, poor country birth rates declined. Just as in the developed world we are reaching a point of stagnant population growth with immigration providing a fair amount of any population growth that happens.
People wait longer to have fewer children. Resulting in fewer young to care for the old. I haven't seen stats tortured to this degree but, what part of our lower "labor force participation" is a function of retiring boomers? If old people are the fastest growing demographic, doesn't it stand to reason that labor participation would drop?
As for the $1T of capital, that is what they are worth, not the amount of money invested to create that wealth. The start up capital was pretty minimal across the board. You also don't evaluate the quality of life, cost of living impact of these companies (although I would argue Facebook has a negative impact on quality of life). Yahoo and Google make me incredibly more efficient than I could imagine being without them, and I do not show up in their employment numbers.
People wait longer to have fewer children. Resulting in fewer young to care for the old. I haven't seen stats tortured to this degree but, what part of our lower "labor force participation" is a function of retiring boomers? If old people are the fastest growing demographic, doesn't it stand to reason that labor participation would drop?
As for the $1T of capital, that is what they are worth, not the amount of money invested to create that wealth. The start up capital was pretty minimal across the board. You also don't evaluate the quality of life, cost of living impact of these companies (although I would argue Facebook has a negative impact on quality of life). Yahoo and Google make me incredibly more efficient than I could imagine being without them, and I do not show up in their employment numbers.
B
Bogtrotter07
Guest
I will take that action.
I don't think most of you understand. In twenty years, fleets of trailers will be driven by robot trucks, right to the railheads, hopefully in electric "tractors." The number of jobs reduced will make the ATM revolution seem miniscule by comparison. We can go on. And we cannot predict where all the advents will occur, so planning while in the education system may be nearly impossible, as will be retraining, mid career.
tussin
Well-known member
- Messages
- 4,153
- Reaction score
- 1,982
THE SKY IS FALLING
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
In fact, it's exactly the opposite. All data and calculations are rough, but they make the point.
1950
Population: 151M
Population over 16*: 121M
Labor Force Participation Rate: 59%
Labor Force: 71M
Unemployment Rate: 5%
Unemployed: 4M
Jobs: 67M
2010
Population: 309M
Population over 16*: 247M
Labor Force Participation Rate: 65%
Labor Force: 161M
Unemployment Rate: 9.5%
Unemployed: 15M
Jobs: 146M
Even with all the automation from 1950 to 2010, the total number of jobs has more than doubled. We've gone from A, B, C to X, X, Y, Y, Z, Z.
*I couldn't find this statistic so I just assumed 20% of the population was under 16 at any given time. No matter the actual number, the end result is roughly the same.
Ndaccountant
Old Hoss
- Messages
- 8,370
- Reaction score
- 5,771
And those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The more we resemble a third world country with the majority of the wealth concentrated in a few hands and massive unemployment and poverty, the more we are likely to face the same problems those third world countries face. Our stability has been based upon a large middle class with opportunities to improve one's lot with education and hard work. Henry Ford had the right idea when he decided to pay his laborers enough that they, too, could afford to buy the cars his company manufactured. You can hide your head in the sand, but the middle class has and continues to shrink. The question is :"How far can the middle class shrink before we realize where we are headed?" There are currently millions of young Americans seeking the middle class lifestyle or more. They have done their due diligence. They have earned degrees and have shown a willingness to work hard. They are now graduating with large student loan debts and finding only minimum wage jobs or no job at all. Where are their opportunities? This country is wealthier than it has ever been, but the truth is that wealth is not being re-invested to create jobs to the same extent it was in the past. Doomsday may be closer than you would like to admit.
- Messages
- 20,894
- Reaction score
- 8,126
Are we in for a lot of disruption in the short-term? Probably not. There are always stop-gap measures to ease the pain. But it's important to realize where these trends are heading. The ultimate goal of automation has not been incremental productivity increases, but freeing humanity from the need to work altogether. What was once the purview of science fiction novels will likely become reality within our lifetimes.
So what will that world look like? A techno-utopian society where everyone uses their (now plentiful) free time to write poetry, philosophize, and build meaningful relationships? Or an atomized dystopia where the masses are basically anesthetized through a Basic Income and a wide variety of digital distractions? I think we're much more likely to end up with something like Huxley's Brave New World than Marx's post-scarcity utopia.
Communities are usually rooted in a specific place, so their ability to adapt is limited. Individuals, of course, are free to re-train and move to a new city for better opportunities; but the constant need to be mobile is a big reason why capitalism undermines community. How can one build meaningful human relationships when you're always chasing your next promotion in a different city? It's also worth noting that retraining is a very difficult thing to do, and programs aimed at retraining our citizens have not been successful. People are much more likely to get discouraged and drop out of the work force than to start from scratch.
You touched on it with the Facebook comment, but the costs associated with capitalism's never-ending churn are reflected in broken families, declining communities, and shallow inter-personal relationships (which makes them largely hidden). Have all these electronic gadgets really helped us live better than our ancestors did? I don't think so.
So what will that world look like? A techno-utopian society where everyone uses their (now plentiful) free time to write poetry, philosophize, and build meaningful relationships? Or an atomized dystopia where the masses are basically anesthetized through a Basic Income and a wide variety of digital distractions? I think we're much more likely to end up with something like Huxley's Brave New World than Marx's post-scarcity utopia.
Communities are usually rooted in a specific place, so their ability to adapt is limited. Individuals, of course, are free to re-train and move to a new city for better opportunities; but the constant need to be mobile is a big reason why capitalism undermines community. How can one build meaningful human relationships when you're always chasing your next promotion in a different city? It's also worth noting that retraining is a very difficult thing to do, and programs aimed at retraining our citizens have not been successful. People are much more likely to get discouraged and drop out of the work force than to start from scratch.
You touched on it with the Facebook comment, but the costs associated with capitalism's never-ending churn are reflected in broken families, declining communities, and shallow inter-personal relationships (which makes them largely hidden). Have all these electronic gadgets really helped us live better than our ancestors did? I don't think so.
The Kennedy's sent their trusts to Fiji.
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
A lot of what you're saying is built upon a misunderstanding of human motivation. While the profit motive is inherent and cannot be denied, it's a mistake to attribute all human behavior to the pursuit of financial/material wealth. People find utility in diverse sources and will act accordingly. An individual included to always "chase the next promotion in a different city" probably wouldn't be contributing a whole lot to community life in the first place. He'd contribute even less if he were stripped of his mobility and prevented from pursuing his version of happiness.
- Messages
- 20,894
- Reaction score
- 8,126
Greed obviously isn't the only human motivator, but it's the only one that we've institutionalized through our economic system. Other human goods are either not recognized or actively undermined to the extent they conflict with the needs of the global economy.
True, but don't make the mistake of thinking that the government can be truly neutral when it comes to the nature of the Good. A utilitarian state is necessarily materialist in the values it promotes.
Really? My wife and I have, at a fairly young age, already been forced to make some significant financial sacrifices because we're unwilling to move away from our extended family here in Arizona. I have a couple close friends who received an lucrative job offers, moved away as a result, but remain torn as to whether it was the right decision.
Who's suggesting that we limit anyone's mobility? I'd simply prefer a system that doesn't actively undermine community by requiring rootlessness in order to advance in many (most?) career paths.
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
How much of that workforce, as a percentage of the population, can be attributed to massive growth in the service sector? I saw graphs just yesterday showing a linear fall in the percentage of workers in manufacturing, and we all know agriculture employs basically no one these days (2% is it?) What is left, mining/natural resources/ utilities?
All of this has very little to do with the next 60 years. It's a simple question at this point, where do we out people when service sector jobs disappear as astonishingly as agriculture and manufacturing jobs have?
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
http://m.bbc.com/news/technology-26614051
I flip over to reddit for a minute and bam..automated journalism.
I flip over to reddit for a minute and bam..automated journalism.
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
First, economic growth is not the equivalent of greed. Pursuing financial success may or may not amount to greed, depending on the motivation and heart of the individual. Yes, greed exists, and capitalism is successful because it tends to (though doesn't always) channel greed into productive and profitable ends for a large percentage of participants. As it is an economic system, I don't see anything inappropriate or disordered about its focus on economic goods. The problem with many systems other than capitalism is that they often deny that greed exists in the first place, or else try to prohibit it. A system cannot be successful if its very foundation is contradictory to human nature.
That's kind of my point. I'm guessing that you and your wife are actively engaged in your community and do a lot on its behalf. I contrast that with an individual who says "eff this place, I'm gonna go get PAID!" That guy is fairly useless to foundation of a community even if he were to stick around for whatever reason. His personality and basic motivations are the issue, not the presence (or lack) of mobility.
I'm in a similar place. My first job offer out of school was here in Orlando. I've had enough of the distance and will be flying to Connecticut for a job interview next Friday so that I'll be closer to my family (Rhode Island) and my in-laws (Philadelphia).
I'd prefer that too, but I've never heard of such a system whether in theory or in practice.
Ndaccountant
Old Hoss
- Messages
- 8,370
- Reaction score
- 5,771
How did Pittsburgh go from being on the brink of collapse in the 80's due to Steel, to a city thriving on Health Care, IT and Education? Why has Pittsburgh and Detroit moved in seemingly opposite directions even though both relied so heavily on manufacturing?
Perhaps we mean two different things when it comes to community? I am thinking more in terms of enticing business to invest in your community and to view your employers like a stock portfolio where diversification is key.
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
I think Whiskey was referring more to the personal relationships that make up communities. Churches, schools, youth sports, etc. The kind of thing where you walk down Elm Street and say hello to Joe the barber from three doors down. A lot of those relationships are lost when people are moving all over the place, even if the "community" is thriving from an economic perspective.
Irish Houstonian
New member
- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 301
Well, it sounds like people are voting with their feet, saying "I don't like it here". Otherwise they wouldn't be moving. And what are you supposed to do anyway, build a Berlin Wall?
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
I didn't say I agreed with him.
B
Buster Bluth
Guest
I don't think that has much to do with moving and everything to do with development models. We don't build neighborhoods anymore; subdivisions are not communities. They are palaces to the individualism Whiskey speaks of. Look at a "modern" house with a three-car garage as the front door. There is a cause and effect from building these curved roads, larger lots, and eliminating large porches... and the destruction of communities.
Ironically, the more we favor this absurd individualism in our cities, the more we rely on the state. When you don't build neighborhoods and must drive to work, stores, everywhere, you are in complete reliance on the state taking care of the public roads and the state granting you the privilege of driving. Tocqueville was onto something.
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
Larger lots? You think modern homes have large lots? When I bought my house here in Orlando it was quite literally impossible to find anything with more than 1/4 acre.
Call me crazy but I put "driving my own car on public roads" if a far distant "dependency" category from the urban model of riding the public bus on public roads.