Technological Unemployment: The Real Reason This Elephant Ch

Post Reply New Topic

That wouldn't be a problem. If machines took over mans job that means they produce our supplies instead of us having to produce them. We would have a heck more free time. People would propably work part time. And there were will be demand for jobs in different areas compared to now. School system propably has to change to adjust to the development of these new demands.

yes, that's true. and how are these people with "a heck more free time" going to pay for goods and services? wishful thinking?

Reading your article the logic seems to be that higher through-put will cause more work flowing through the gaps and more hands on deck needed to manage those gaps. I'd say that they're optimistically 'betting' on this, they may not entirely be wrong but we're dealing with a much more profound set of capabilities with the cheapening software and robotics.

As for universal human redundancy - I'm not sure if you mean on the individual or societal level. I'd agree that we'll be nowhere near 100% replacement in our lifetimes, pragmatically it'll never happen. At the same time you don't need much more than 1/4 of the workforce permanently displaced to cause significant problems with societal stability especially if those people are stuck below the poverty line.



I don't think you need to be a doom-mongering Luddite to see that if we don't handle the situation responsibly we can radically destabilize our society and be at risk of putting a really unhealthy regime in power. I'd argue for universal basic income, one low enough to where people will still want to work because it won't cover much more than supplement basic amenities. To do this at least keeps us from getting into the situation where 1/4 of the culture could get desperate enough to resort to a much worse kind of populism than what we've seen so far either in the US or Europe.

I can see a "leader" pitting various poor factions against each other.

Is it possible that if you are making an argument that involves labeling Bill Gates and Elon Musk "Luddites" then perhaps you are not using that word correctly?

Just a thought.

Perhaps also worth considering:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5159 ... ying-jobs/

Money doesn't have actual value. Money is given for the amount of productivity your provide to this society which in return can be spend on products( time=money, and money is a trade system). These products are there because someone else's productivity. If many jobs are done by robots it means they become productive, and in return means we don't have to be as productive as before( because they now provide our products). I think the system considering valuta will change to fit these new changes. Goods and services will be cheaper because less people have to work to make these goods and services. Ofcourse like the current economical system it will be abused because that's how humans are. Making a man made utopia a mere fantasy.

I don't think it's optimistic to bet with form. After all, the result of automation has typically resulted in increases in employment over the mid to long term. That's not to say that we won't eventually need to adjust to a whole new type of society - perhaps it will be called the "post-tech" or "human redundancy" society.



On a societal level. I'm certainly not suggesting there won't be an uncomfortable transition, but I'm sure we'll adapt our way through it and arrive at something manageable.



You most certainly don't, and I used the phrase largely in jest, albeit with some truth to it. In the UK (and elsewhere) we already have fairly widespread state benefits. I would imagine that the result of large-scale redundancy would be some kind of automation tax in order to cover the shortfall. I just don't foresee that being a permanent arrangement as the markets evolve.

No, it's not possible.

However, it is entirely plausible that you're uncharitably misinterpreting the spirit of the argument. Perhaps if you were to address the points made, as opposed to forwarding an inane semantic argument based purely on whatever your own intentions are, there might be reciprocity.

those that suggest that aspies [more or less] automatically have monetizable talents and know intuitively [or easily/quickly learn how to monetize said talents] is ignoring the bulk of us average types [not gifted] who have no monetizable talents and even if we did, would have not a clue as to how to even learn how to entreprenurialize said talents.

monetising is the difficulty, you need enough narcistic advertising to get anything out of anything
- your decent cooking goes unnoticed but others stay nicely in the middle of the attention-asking-task
- your products of good quality don't make it on their own, everybody imagines imself more knowlegdable...because seen that on tv ? whatever, the need to trod on you is too strong, and we'll buy that industrial product rather, that's save!

There are plenty of jobs for people with no skills.

Isn't the real issue .. whether you can work ... with your ASD?

Ye, but this thread is all about how these jobs are going to be taken over by technology. Maybe the jobs which will remain in the future do require skills.

In the service sector today, more skills equals better jobs. At the bottom are people who are hired despite obvious disabilities. Then you have places like Walmart, which are lousy places to work for, but those people can't get better jobs. Then you have places like Target and Costco, which offer similar work and pay, but improved working conditions. And so on, though most people really aren't familiar with the services that the rich and upper middle class take for granted.

I think the argument I'm making throughout the thread is that you can only have a small percentage of people excluded or falling through the cracks of a system before it sees massive revision and if that number escalates too intensely there's a serious threat of overturning just about everything that a given society has worked for and be replaced with something a lot worse, all because people got too desperate to have the patience for an above-board solution.

I've been liking Mark Blyth's economic analysis of the current situation and he mentioned some very poignant things about WWII Europe - how fascism was an equivalent and opposite reaction to the Russian experiment and how fast Communist sympathies and sentiment were sweeping through the continent (and God only knows... try picturing Germany under the Treaty of Versailles austerity plan - that would be quite the credible threat would it not!). Keynesianism after WWII happened because the capitalists of the world realized that they almost lost everything, ie. they would have if Communism had swept Europe, the US, etc. and the purpose of that was to maximize employment. Clearly it didn't work because the labor costs of the employer filtered through to the finished goods but it goes to show how seriously they took the issue of keeping people satiated with their income.

There's the old saying about the thin veil of society that we're nine meals away from really nasty chaos at any given point because that's about how much most people have in their pantry. From that perspective societal stability is one of the most important things you can invest in as a government. That's also part of why if the people are outraged enough over something the government's in deep trouble if it doesn't listen. Obviously if it's an autocratic government it might be able to go off in some bull-headed direction a bit longer but the reaction from the populace tends to even be worse and possibly quite bloody.

As of right now there is a tendency for a lot of people out there to be on government benefits who are below the poverty line. There have actually been a lot of challenges actually thrown at companies like Walmart when people put two and two together and realize that if someone's working for a company 40 hours per week and that the person's wages are insufficient to pay for their basic needs to where the government has to reach out to financially help them - Walmart technically has US tax-payer subsidies in its tax margines, over above what other corporate welfare Walmart might be receiving. So in a way we already are sort of doing this albeit in specific cases and in a rather complicated/abstract manner. It might make things simpler from that standpoint to check into cost-of-living indexes in different states and let the calculations and possibly funding as well of a UBI get worked out at a state level.

Also I think it's important to point out - the blanket idea that if wages go up prices go up, it holds true when that's in labor costs. Something in this equations suggest that there are ways that this could be done that would ret*d the consequence of inflation. If it's just a demand hitting price issue I think that would only cause inflation on certain kinds of items that steer toward luxury, for example whether you're making $10 or $20 an hour you'll probably use about as much toothpaste, deodorant, shaving cream, or toilet paper as you would have otherwise. If you're getting ice cream at the grocery store I could see your Hagen Daaz getting more expensive while you're generic storebrand may or may not lift.

My point there - I think it's a more universal and pernicious effect when we're talking about employer payroll being raised rather than just the amount of money people have to spend.

The biggest impediment to change is that the ones who would benefit the most are often the ones who don't vote. And, if you don't vote, the politicians that get to decide typically ignore your opinion, no matter how well reasoned or logical it may be.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... dont-vote/