Technological Unemployment: The Real Reason This Elephant Ch

Post Reply New Topic

An article dealing with one of the issues brought up in the video I posted last night. I think this is probably what we'd want to pay far more attention to than gender pronouns or what we think of Trump. It's an issue that could hang the whole world out to dry if we don't think critically about it and build some rather advanced understandings of its implications as well as proposed solutions before it hits full blast.

Technological Unemployment: The Real Reason This Elephant Chart is Terrifying
https://futurism.com/technological-unem ... errifying/

If something isn't found to do with the population who no longer offer viable skills it could lead to a breakdown in civilization.

I'd say that's a given.

The population may become divided between the wealthy and the "barbarians." This reminds me of the movie Elysium in which the elite live on a space station above Earth and the rest live on the surface which has fallen into disorder.

It seems inevitable that the bubble will burst, the beginning of this century looks more like the first half of the 20th century rather than the latter half we grew up in. Idleness by a large percentage of the male population proceeds almost every major war, this new culture that discourages marriage and having a family on top of that is not sustainable and will destroy itself in the long run. The idea that people will just get other jobs is only based on that of the industrial revolution and doesn't carry any weight in 2017, people won't and haven't gotten other jobs as they've sank further out of the middle class into a permanent underclass. I am starting to think an EMP which destroys all the electronics on earth wouldn't be such a bad thing, not a lot of reason to be positive about anything in the future. Lets hope the VR and sex robots are good enough to pacify what I think is the inevitable collapse of the modern technological society.

Think about implications of 50-80% unemployment on democracy and civil rights, they will not exist if this future comes to past. We'll be living in one of those dystopian novels about the future, what can realistically be done to change this? If 80% of the population is unemployed then the only society that could function is a totalitarian dictatorship, that's the only thing that could stop that 80% from killing the other 20.

I see two choices: Let them starve, and Guaranteed annual income. Regrettably, the Let them starve side has their act very well together, and the people who dislike that idea have not accepted Guaranteed annual income.

Idleness will still be an issue regardless of the material needs are met, in the west the poor's material needs are already taken care of in the most basic sense as nobody is starving in our countries but dissatisfaction & misery spread like wildfire.

The flipside argument is that with the cost of production approaching zero that everything should be cheap and freely available but I think this doesn't take into fact the human proclivity towards greed. Chinese slave goods aren't really that much cheaper but profit margins are much larger, how much does a pair of Nike's cost to produce and what do they sell for? People won't produce if there is no motivation or purpose in doing so, I don't see how a society like this can exist without it looking like some third world African country.

I still feel like our quality of thinking as a culture is crap. We're still playing the game of beating ourselves over the heads with tautologies that we received under the knuckles, belts, and paddle-boards of our elders rather than actually thinking about what kind of world is worth living in.

The trouble for the rich, with the rich taking it all, is that the quality of their own lives would drastically diminish - ie. the more poverty stricken a word is and the more uneducated and unhappy the populace is the more dangerous and generally miserable a place it is and particularly for the wealthy of the US and Europe I can't imagine the cost of walling in small cities in Mumbai-style slums doesn't register in their minds. Such a world would afford them no freedom either. If anything they needed to be reminded of that often, ie. unless they can make a paradise of the moon or Mars and go off-planet they have skin in the game as well.

The other problem too - lightening the population with war doesn't seem to make much sense either, ie. man-to-man combat is getting increasingly obsolete and about all they could do, if they really wanted to solve the problem that way, is to round up single disaffected males and females, ship them to Antarctica, and test out the evolving intelligent drone robots - whether they're attempting to target a frozen dead body from 50,000 feet or a badly frost-bitten but still mobile one.

I think that's mainly because we're still not there yet. It's a bit like how global warming is still pooh-poohed and likely will be until we see Florida undeniably getting semi-submerged and the groundwater turning brackish. I think people will have a much different attitude when then no one can say, with any credibility, that working hard and being responsible assures anything.

They're disenfranchised. I think, as an absolute necessity, that community would need to be rebuilt as well as civics organizations, even schools of philosophy - perhaps bringing back something like a modern equivalent of the Greek mysteries. It's pretty obvious though, at least in my mind, that such a world would do badly if nihilism, destructive competition (especially intersectional politics), and compound fracturing of identity weren't circumvented.

We can provide everyone with lots of material goods, and people who want to avoid idleness will produce them. Some will prefer to work in factories, and some will prefer to work as artisans.

We'll always have conspicuous consumption, imo, but who cares if everyone is eating?

It feels like people have started to value experiences more highly than possessions, which I see as a positive trend.

Yes, the research supports the idea that the happiness is inversely correlated to inequality, even among the richest people in a country.

I don't see things developing that way, society in the culture of welfare isn't one of self improvement or liberation to pursue your interests. Not everybody is like us on the spectrum who can engulf ourselves totally in our special interests; what I've seen of idleness in my life is substance abuse, violence, and a learned helplessness. People need a purpose and need to feel that they can support themselves, nobody is going to want to get married and start a family or put any effort into life if they feel totally dependent. What incentive would there be to work? Just throwing money at things doesn't solve anything.

Until we've been completely automated out of the workplace, education is the best way to stay relevant. MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) can help distribute education to a wider audience, Khan Academy is especially useful at teaching pre-calculus. The only problems I have are with finding a clear cut learning path towards a degree, and a lack of accreditation. You can toil away and learn a thing or two, but it doesn't have the same guarantee an accredited degree has in getting your foot in the door with your chosen industry. Of course if you have a degree and want to learn new things, it might be worthwhile.

I'd go with the garanteed annual income or universal basic income as I've heard it referred to, one reason is it would negate the need for a lot of welfare programs and cut down all grueling processes associated with that. The SSI office and EBT office are just as bad if not worse than those dreadful places you have to go to get your drivers license renewed.

People will have to adjust to increasing technological advancements, and I am not so sure it has to lead to a negative outcome.

pre-calculus isn't going to be much use if you're so inept at math you can't pass college remedial math and a neurologist thinks its likely you have some kind of learning disability in that area.

I think the research on Direct Cash Transfers is relevant. Give poor people a large one time cash grant. There have been several randomized controlled trials (the gold standard for research). It's becoming the standard by which other charities are judged. It seems fair to say that a charity has to at least do more good than just giving the poor people the money directly would have done.

Jacoby, this answers your post as well. It turns out poor people, if they are given money rather than intrusive services, spend it wisely. Basic econ is right on that point. Remarkably few people spend it on drugs, although some certainly do. The net impact on the community is positive and lasting.

The same charity has submitted to an independent research plan for a test of universal basic income in several very poor communities in Africa. They selected a large list of places which met their criteria, and the researchers randomized the application of the grants. It will take a while to get useful data, but Give Directly is the charity.

Lots of preachy liberals are getting toppled by this movement, so there is something for everyone. It also confirms that people sometimes know more than experts. Go wild.