Automation is collapsing our economy

Michael said:
I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but this doesn't make any sense.
1) If the poor are to too poor to buy from the factory owner, then the owner begins to also lose money, shutters her factories AND she become poor too, not rich. Even if she had money saved, if there are no businesses to buy from, what good is your money in this society?
Click to expand...

no you understand it, that call "Collapse".

2) Also, you mention the rich hoard money. AND? In a free market the poor can create their own money and use this money to trade. Money is there to make trade easier and to act as savings. At any point the poor can trade with one another using a new money or/or currency of their choice and/or creation. Also, rich people generally don't hoard money, they invest it or loan it.
Click to expand...

This is post-collapse possibility, assuming the rich don't exterminate the poor, the poor out of desperation would likely form an economy of their own, likely their ideology will have diverged to extremism like yours, highly libertarian, but probably also high anti-technological, they would like run off to the farm land and create an agrarian amish like society where everything is made by hand.

3) I fail to see how automation is going to do anything to harm the people in this society?
Click to expand...

Post-collapse harm will have already be done, more harm won't be possible, the poor that survive the famines, revolts and exodus from the cities to go back and make essentials (food) on their own will become completely independent of the rich, who if we have become technologically advance enough will have an economy all there own too, made of of completely automated labor and robotic servants, and no work what so ever, just living off their investment, stock dividends and ownership of that automated labor.

Lets suppose the owner is of a cheese factory and 40% of people in town work making cheese. Slowly year over year cheese making is automated. All that happens is these people leave the factory and do something else.
Click to expand...

What else will they do, again with the anti-Luddite argument! Here tell me what else they would do and I will tell you it could be completely automated (and made to superior quality) and thus they could not be hired to do it. There would be nothing else for the poor to do except for each other and that would have to compete against any automated service they could still afford. If they can no longer afford the hydroponic automated farm food, they will have to make the food themselves, subsistence wise, the standard of living for them would become like zambia, in which barter is often of more value then the present currency, and people dedicate most of their time to making for themselves (so they don't starve) rather than for an economy.

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that society collapses with automation?!? I come to the exact opposite conclusion.
Click to expand...

I explained repeatedly now step by step. Productivity is slowing, human population growth is slowing, demand growth is slow, but things are still getting more automated, so productive capacity can increase but without the demand it either fire people, pay them less or produce more expensive products that must compete against the guy that has automated his factory more and can produce cheaper, market economic dictate the later will win the biggest share of the market, so everyone keeps automating and firing and paying less to remain competitive. With less money people buy less stuff, the market growth slows and stagnates as automation makes things cheaper but people have less money to buy equalizes each other (ala Japan), to compete in the ever tighter market producer must automated more a vicious feed-back loop begins. This economy is highly unstable, anything and set it into recession or depression and eventual collapse.

Lastly, private property rights (self ownership), law, sound money and free-markets are anything but simple concepts. These are the bases of prosperity and civilization.
Click to expand...

Much of the history of civilization, private property did not exist, except for feudal lords and the peasants were their property! Free-market often did not exist either, and technically a truely free market as never existed, nor ever will. In short many of these concepts are not the basis of prosperity and civilization.

- BUT, I have mentioned many times that raising children peacefully (no spanking or yelling) and logically, is important towards creating a prosperous society. However, this is covered within private property rights.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with this thread!

- I also mention how public schools are over-producing workers which is lowering the price of labor hours due to over supply. But, this is covered in free markets (IOWs we need to deregulate markets to allow people NOT to be workers and we need to privatize schools to prevent homogenisation of children's skills. Education needs to focus on the child as an individual, not the State sausage cog-factory we have today).
Click to expand...

What use will human skills have when the day comes that machines can do everything? Private or public schools will be completely useless. The price of labor is dropping because machines can do more and more of it for cheaper.
 
Michael said:
In today's hyper regulated markets, I doubt many (if not most) of the factories built in the early 1900s would have ever been developed.

If you want people to create new jobs for themselves as they are automated out of factory and low-skill work, then you NEED to deregulate the markets and you need to allow them to use money to trade with one another (eliminate income tax). Law and self ownership are also axiomatic towards any form of civilization.

It's going to be a LONG time before 'everything' could be automated. We WANT this automation. But to allow for people to continue to trade with one another while automation removes them from their jobs - then you need free markets. Because no one knows what people will want in the future. Only the free markets will bring about the goods and services unknown unknowns of the future :)


Another 80,000 new regulations this year alone. All of which written by industries that are being regulated. IOWs, most of this is rent-seeking.
Click to expand...

You can't expect people to know things needed regulating until they happened, and their effects on society can be seen.

Automation is not the issue. When things are automated, people need to create and manufacture the automation machines, and people need to provide services to the makers. The problem is energy. Energy is the capacity to do work, this is the foundation of all human activity. We would be in a better position on that front if we didn't leave capitalism to do it's thing regardless of consequences (that's what regulation prevents).
 
spidergoat said:
Automation is not the issue. When things are automated, people need to create and manufacture the automation machines,
Click to expand...

Can an economy run when the majority income is from people being paid to create and manufacture the automation machines? How are we to expand are economy so that everyone can make money creating and building all those machines, fundamental limits (energy) prevent that. And what to happen once the process of create and manufacture automated machines is also automated, once to make a factory required hundred and hundred of people to design it, design the machines, build the machines, more and more of that work is being done by machines now, instead od dozens of drafts-men, AutoCAD, etc, etc.

and people need to provide services to the makers.
Click to expand...

Why can't machines provide those services? Are there services that can never ever be replaced by machines and can an economy run on everyone doing those services?

The problem is energy. Energy is the capacity to do work, this is the foundation of all human activity. We would be in a better position on that front if we didn't leave capitalism to do it's thing regardless of consequences (that's what regulation prevents).
Click to expand...

Energy is another problem all its own, energy means exponential growth must end, without growth improvements in efficiency (automation) becomes a problem because there not enough energy to make more materials and thus products to keep the same amount of workers producing ever more products at ever faster rates. Of course demand is the similiar kind of problem as it too is fundamentally limited.
 
ElectricFetus said:
no you understand it, that call "Collapse".
Click to expand...
I understand you think 'collapse' would occur, but I don't. I think that as machines take over low-end jobs, humans leave those jobs and do something else. So, we can't talk about post-collapse because I don't agree there would BE a collapse.

This is post-collapse possibility, assuming the rich don't exterminate the poor, the poor out of desperation would likely form an economy of their own, likely their ideology will have diverged to extremism like yours, highly libertarian, but probably also high anti-technological, they would like run off to the farm land and create an agrarian amish like society where everything is made by hand.
Click to expand...
1) using the word extremism is a fallacy. (also, self ownership is axiomatic, not extreme).
2) I don't want to be amish. I like technology.
3) I don't think there would be a post-collapse in a free society.

People will stop dealing with the State and people will stop using fiat currency long before there is a collapse.
Post-collapse harm will have already be done, more harm won't be possible, the poor that survive the famines, revolts and exodus from the cities to go back and make essentials (food) on their own will become completely independent of the rich, who if we have become technologically advance enough will have an economy all there own too, made of of completely automated labor and robotic servants, and no work what so ever, just living off their investment, stock dividends and ownership of that automated labor.
Click to expand...
The evidence suggests the poor always have access to the same tech as the rich soon after it's introduced into the market. So, if the rich live like this, so too do the poor. Therefore there are no rich or poor.

I explained repeatedly now step by step. Productivity is slowing, human population growth is slowing, demand growth is slow, but things are still getting more automated, so productive capacity can increase but without the demand it either fire people, pay them less or produce more expensive products that must compete against the guy that has automated his factory more and can produce cheaper, market economic dictate the later will win the biggest share of the market, so everyone keeps automating and firing and paying less to remain competitive. With less money people buy less stuff, the market growth slows and stagnates as automation makes things cheaper but people have less money to buy equalizes each other (ala Japan), to compete in the ever tighter market producer must automated more a vicious feed-back loop begins. This economy is highly unstable, anything and set it into recession or depression and eventual collapse.
Click to expand...
This may happen to our society as it is now, but what I think will happen is the economy is going to liberalize and the central banks will fail. The government will shrink. Life will be better.

Much of the history of civilization, private property did not exist, except for feudal lords and the peasants were their property! Free-market often did not exist either, and technically a truely free market as never existed, nor ever will. In short many of these concepts are not the basis of prosperity and civilization.
Click to expand...
True, free markets never existed. And most of history there were a lot poor with a few owners. This changed with the USA. Now we're reverting back to lots of poor who don't have self-ownership and a few owners. I maintain this will change as this monetary system fails.

What use will human skills have when the day comes that machines can do everything? Private or public schools will be completely useless. The price of labor is dropping because machines can do more and more of it for cheaper.
Click to expand...
Then it's 100% leisure time.

I feel you're putting the horse before the cart. The day when human labor is 100% replaced by machines, is the day there is no distinction between rich and poor. Until that day, there is 'work' that needs doing and people will do it. With self-ownership, law, sound money and freedom, they'll soon be as wealthy as the next person.

IF there are ANY poor at all, then these people will have work to do, using automation will reduce what work they need to do - until there is no work. So, the logical outcome is everyone is rich.


Again, look at technology, it's accessible to everyone soon enough. Not only the rich use iPhones. Poor do too. Most poor in the USA have air-conditioning. Most poor in the USA have more space in their house then the middle class in France. The poor in the USA don't starve to death. The poor of today, are probably living much better than kings of 500 years ago.

Now, I do agree with some of what you are saying IF we continue to regulate the markets then it makes it impossible for people to compete against machines IF they are trained from childhood to only BE a worker cog (which is why I mentioned childhood). Yes, that's true. BUT, once we deregulate the markets, and raise a new group of humans that can think like owners not cogs, then they will create new products and society will do perfectly fine. This IMO is going to happen, because it must. If not, then yes, we will be stuck in the society you describe where machines replace people and those people are left with nothing they can legally do but be a servant or go onto general welfare (however long that lasts).
 
ElectricFetus said:
What else, tell me what else could human do!?!?
Click to expand...
Progress is a continual process. As jobs become automated, then people move on to do different jobs. For example, a field that required 10,000 people to plow and tend 1000 years ago, requires a 100 (or less) today. It didn't happen overnight. People moved on to other jobs and slowly now some people make iPod games (as an example).

No one is going to build automated factories that produce goods no one is buying. Factories expand productivity as the markets for their goods expand. If those markets do not expand, they do not expand their automation.

So? What could people do? They could be food tasters and chiefs? They could test sofas for comfort? They could test games for how fun and engaging they are? They could watch movies and rate them? As society becomes more automated people will do less menial jobs and more meaningful jobs. They should also work less and less until one day no one works at all.

Automation is one foot in front of the other. It's not like tomorrow we'll have automated humanoids that can replace all aspects of humans. BUT, if this is something we want, then humans will have jobs testing and working on those humanoids until one day no one works - maybe those will be the very last jobs?


I would mention this though, thanks to the general public's appetite for government largess, central banks were invented to monetize the goodies used to buy off the public. This then causes a decrease in purchasing power. The distortion in the market results in government interfering right down to attempting to set a minimum wage. When this minimum wage is too high, companies invest in automation which IMO leads to resources being directed to reduce employees at a time when this isn't needed (self scanners at checkout as an example). If money gained value instead of losing value, perhaps there'd be a decreasing wage with productivity gains, and thus no need to automate human labor as aggressively as is being done now. One could think of this as karma.
 
Michael said:
... Factories expand productivity as the markets for their goods expand. If those markets do not expand, they do not expand their automation. ...
Click to expand...
True, but no need to have last two words, now small. The nearly decade long decrease in typical Joe American's salary purchasing power (assuming he still has a job) is why demand from Americans is low, the US economy is less than stagnate* even with four years of Trillion dollar /year thin-air money having been created.

Many in retail are doing "negative expanding" As I recall JC Pennies is closing 33 stores and laying off 20 or 30 thousand employees; Macy's is closing only about a dozen stores and getting rid of about 5000 employees, etc. for almost all except the very "high-end" retailers and they are expanding, but mainly in China. The former Pennies employees will not be shopping much at the still open Macys - problem feeds on its self - is a negative feed back loop basically because wealth is concentrating with too little income transfer to off set that nature effect (I.e. if you have good income you can invest and get greater income. If you have too little, you borrow when you can and pay interest to the well off.)

The only way out of this feed back loop is more progressive tax rates - exactly the opposite of the change GWB made - and to some extent, higher mimium wages in highly profitable industries where the response will not be to eliminate jobs. Blanket / "across the board" increase in minimum wage, probably with make the negative feed back stronger for any industries that can out source or import.

The cure for that is stronger, more active, and smarter government, not doing away with government and taxation. I. e. a government typical of the Scandinavian countries - high tax with quite progressive rates that funds nearly free (to user) quality health care and education FOR ALL. (Very low fraction of population in jail as a result - exact opposite of US's approach with local funding of primary schools.)

* Per capita growth in this "negative feed back" loop is negative (less than rate of population increase).
 
Michael said:
Progress is a continual process. As jobs become automated, then people move on to do different jobs.
Click to expand...

What jobs??? The move from agriculture to factory jobs was a benefit for most people simply because the jobs paid better, demand was growing, and automation made fewer workers produce more and thus make more money, but factory jobs kept automating, now 80% of people work in the service sector for less money and longer hours: different jobs does not mean better jobs! and now service sector jobs are being sucked up by automation, automated box packers, automate cashiers, website you can buy everything one needing no stores, a handful of webdesigners and web managers now do the work of hundreds of retail stores. There is no field that is not being more and more automated, I already pointed out even in the arts automation is squeezing jobs, CGI movies cut down on animators as computers do more and more of the animating, a DJ can now do the work of a whole orchestras, even have virtual singers. Again what job can people move to???
 
ElectricFetus said:
What jobs??? The move from agriculture to factory jobs was a benefit for most people simply because the jobs paid better, demand was growing, and automation made fewer workers produce more and thus make more money, but factory jobs kept automating, now 80% of people work in the service sector for less money and longer hours: different jobs does not mean better jobs! and now service sector jobs are being sucked up by automation, automated box packers, automate cashiers, website you can buy everything one needing no stores, a handful of webdesigners and web managers now do the work of hundreds of retail stores. There is no field that is not being more and more automated, I already pointed out even in the arts automation is squeezing jobs, CGI movies cut down on animators as computers do more and more of the animating, a DJ can now do the work of a whole orchestras, even have virtual singers. Again what job can people move to???
Click to expand...


Fighting change isn't working for you is it? Therefore don't fight it.

You do have to keep skills current. No one is going to be able to support a family anymore while working as a salesclerk in a department store or running a machine that is making a T-shirt.

The country is full of people who are employed however so don't jump off a cliff yet.
 
Billy T said:
The cure for that is stronger, more active, and smarter government, not doing away with government and taxation.
Click to expand...
This is like saying the solution to being poisoned is to take a bigger longer draught of a stronger poison.

The 1% own nearly 40% of the wealth and the top 10% nearly 90% of everything - there may not BE a solution at this point, other than collapse (or as I think - get used to being poor). The US Government spent $8.5 trillion losing two more made-up wars (to much flag waving support and fanfare I might add), and has no accountability on how it spent this money. Compare with MS, Bill Gates' entire lifetime's worth of wealth, made be creating the world's most used OS - is what? $50 billion or so? That doesn't even cover the annual expense wasted at the Dept of Education annually.

It's my opinion the rich will not BE as rich in a free society. I think with true competition, the rich will eventually even be poor. Just think to 2008, the Government literally dumped 5 generations of debt bailing out the rich. You think the Government is going to turn around and really tax these same people? No way. The State is the LAST institution anyone should trust to do anything other than continue to poison everything it touches.

But, hey, I don't mind to watch what would happen. I'm sure it will fail, and in the end we'll just have more uber rich ruling over a bunch of poor. My solution is less State and more Freedom. Particularly once we remove Income Tax - then the Fed will end and the Wars will have to end as well. Maybe if we work really hard, it'll only take a generation to fix this mess. But, it is going to take a generation. But, hey, that's better than the 5 that are going to be sold out for the 2008 Global Bail Out the Rich by the Fed crime.

I. e. a government typical of the Scandinavian countries - high tax with quite progressive rates that funds nearly free (to user) quality health care and education FOR ALL. (Very low fraction of population in jail as a result - exact opposite of US's approach with local funding of primary schools.)
Click to expand...
My friend's mother opened her own Montessori School in MI decades ago. Those kids LOVE learning, and they are literally MILES above the top public schools in State schools. Money is NOT the problem. We've never spent more for less - ever.

The LAST thing we need is the Government interfering with childhood education, not only does The Dept of Education (1979) itself suck up $50 BILLION ($400/family) annually (in one big bureaucratic circle jerk) but it homogenizes education, it sucks the LOVE of learning OUT of a child (which is a feat in and of itself given children LOVE to learn by default) but it trains the children to BE a worker (like the teacher) and not an owner (like the people who create the prosperity and pay the tax FOR the teacher).

In short: Public Schools are over producing workers, driving down their wages due to the over supply of labor hours. Worse still, they spend 12 years brainwashing children into BEING a worker. Compounding this is the hyper-regulation that prevents workers from opening a businesses AND then there's licencing/rent-seeking. Finally, the State devalues he money with inflation and this harms the worker the most - but greatly helps those who take on debt (see: Government).


As for healthcare, we have a hyper-regulated healthcare market complete with licencing / rent-seeking. The data is in, this experiment in regulating healthcare is killing many jumbo-jet sized containers worth of people per week due to negligence and incompetence AND costs through the roof. So, the solution is LESS government, MORE free market.


Oh, and I'd just add, those Scandinavian economies didn't just *pop* into existence. If you read their history you'll find these countries have liberalized their markets in the past (going way back to the mid-1800) then they create a lot of wealth, then people get jealous at the wealth inequality (even though they themselves are also wealthier), then they socialize, then they start to lose wealth, then they liberalize their markets again. Back and forth. Right now, many of these "socialized" economies are more liberal than 15 years ago and LESS social. I'd also add - we're not Germanic or Scandinavian or Japanese for that matter. Economies are built out of people - we are different. We have a different language, we're multicultural, we have a different history, you can't even walk at night in most major US cities, this problem does not exist ANYWHERE to my knowledge in Japan. I mean, anywhere. Japan IS a tiny bit less safe compared to 30 years ago, probably an effect of stagnation - but nothing like the USA during a time when we were making money hand over fist. We're simply different people.

But, why ONLY pick Scandinavian? What about France or Spain? Or how about Greece or Italy? Or how about Japan?

I'd also say, Norway has a terrific public school system by the way.
ElectricFetus said:
What jobs??? The move from agriculture to factory jobs was a benefit for most people simply because the jobs paid better, demand was growing, and automation made fewer workers produce more and thus make more money, but factory jobs kept automating, now 80% of people work in the service sector for less money and longer hours: different jobs does not mean better jobs! and now service sector jobs are being sucked up by automation, automated box packers, automate cashiers, website you can buy everything one needing no stores, a handful of webdesigners and web managers now do the work of hundreds of retail stores. There is no field that is not being more and more automated, I already pointed out even in the arts automation is squeezing jobs, CGI movies cut down on animators as computers do more and more of the animating, a DJ can now do the work of a whole orchestras, even have virtual singers. Again what job can people move to???
Click to expand...
The reason labor hours are cheap (service jobs) is because there's an oversupply of workers vis-a-vie public schooling, regulations and licencing/rent-seeking. It's really that simple. Supply and demand. Over supply labor-hours, the prices goes down. We need less labourers and more business owners.

Further, the money itself is being devalued - this should NOT occur in a society that is becoming more productive. As society becomes more productive prices must come down (when sound money is used). In short, inflation is yet another tax the State imposes on society and it harms the poorest the most because they generally rent and buy goods in cash whereas people/owners save as their debts are devalued away with inflation at the cost of the living standard of the poor. In short, the poor pay BOTH the rent AND their owner's debt via the inflation tax.

We NEED sound money if we're going to shift to working LESS with productivity gains. This can not happen without sound money - we NEED money that gains value with productive gains made by automation to reduce the number of labor hours. BUT we will never get sound money because the general public like their 'free' roads and will not vote for anyone who tells them they have to pay for the roads (even though it'd be 1000 times cheaper). They want their $1.25 letter delivered for $0.25 cents (even though the deferred costs are much higher and shovelled onto their kids). Welcome to Democracy in ou Public Schooled Republic of Greed.


Anyway, no one can tell you what the jobs would be. It's like asking in 1985 what jobs will there be in 2005. No one can know. BUT, what we CAN know is free markets allow people to create jobs BY VALUE (as opposed to rent-seeking jobs), also with sound money people need LESS money as hey take advantage of automation. See? So this means LESS need TO work. Does this make any sense?



We need LESS Government and MORE Civil Liberty. This is the ONLY way we can create these unknown jobs AND be a fair equitable prosperous society. We need sound money to reduce labor-hours as automation replaces people. We will get none of this. What we will get instead is more government interference and the rich will get much much richer until there's a revolution whereby the rich are killed off OR the new norm, get used to being poor.
 
Last edited:
I agree automation kills jobs.

Grocery stores no longer need price labels (products used to be individually priced). Store inventory is now roughly estimated (theft interferes) by the bar code scanners that register purchases, this was previously done by inventory checkers. Computers and scanners have eliminated thousands of jobs and many in each store.

The store accountants can sign printouts instead of being necessary as most aspects of accounting are being woven into software. The computer can also issue Direct pay to employee banks and print pay stubs based upon computerized "Punch cards" (For young: Punch cards printed times on paper and needed manual calculation).

THAT IS JUST STORES

Your lunch in a hospital will now be delivered by a robot to your floor, in the same way hospital laundry is taken to laundry. A TUG robot takes it up and down the elevator unsupervised.

I used to design wedding websites as a part time business and now a $20 software program will be able to do it.

I tell my Children one thing.... Make sure the career they pick will be around in 20-30 years.

Printing was a good profession 20 years ago, but now there is only a small percentage of the former need. Presses can run with less people at 6 times the speed, not to mention the computer has replaced a lot of printing (junk mail, phone books, books, etc.).

Google now has cars that drive themselves very well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE
Watch that and tell me a young bus driver today will have a safe job in 20 years.

Automation can be as simple as a snowblower cleaning sidewalks 10 times faster than people. A combine can harvest more on a farm than hundreds of men.

3D printers look to be replacing construction, etc.

Drones (coming soon), Cameras, facial recognition, license plate recognition, etc., is making policing easier and less police are needed (but heaven forbid any city cut budgets of).

Drones and bombs are making armies obsolete. Who the heck needs to kill with a sword or bayonette these days.

Robots can do repetitive tasks of the most mundane variety. CNC machines can carve wood or replicate lots of things.

Internet reduces need for libraries. 20 years ago if you wanted to know about China you needed to go to the library and find a book on the topic, and now you can google the information 1000 times more complete. Videos also.

Sure new jobs are created. One guy is needed (for now) to drive the combine. One guy is needed to program the robots in all the hospitals. Those two jobs never existed before.

Once bus drivers are replaced maybe there will be a "security guard" position open up on these buses and that will be new.

Jobs are vanishing faster than new ones appear.

Do you know any kid that has ever done roofing? That's nice. Take a picture, because already roofing tiles are coming out wit a lifetime guarantee. House siding never requires painting. Fibreglass cars don't rust.

Caddies are losing to golf carts.

You could literally discuss any job and it has been improved by technology.

Any improvement to any machine puts people out of work. Sewing machines go faster now than ever before so less sewers are needed, etc.

Digital cameras have put camera/photo developers out of business. Remember Kodak... Yeah film... GONE...

Youtube is poised to destroy every television station in the world, only legislation is slowing it.

Schoolteachers may even be replaced by software. Fun games that can teach any subject are in the works.
Imagine playing a game that tests your knowledge, determines where you are weak and then it shows you videos on that subject that are proven to be the best at teaching a topic. Get the best algebra teacher in the world on video with animated examples, etc., that would help a child learn. It's possible Kids will have PhD equivalent educations before they hit high school.

It is interesting what will happen. The government will have two choices. Lock up the unemployed by making them steal to survive or by creating bogus jobs like "street polisher".

Name a job that is not sped up by technology.
 
Michael said:
The reason labor hours are cheap (service jobs) is because there's an oversupply of workers vis-a-vie public schooling, regulations and licencing/rent-seeking. It's really that simple. Supply and demand. Over supply labor-hours, the prices goes down. We need less labourers and more business owners.
Click to expand...

Your premise is stupid and wrong, it would not matter what skills and training people have if their value of labor universally is going down. The conclusion though is the same as mine or at least one possible solution: people's capitalism. Fundamental shift is needed in which instead of people 'making a living' as labors everyone needs to become owners of capital, everyone needs to own a livable share of the increasingly automated labor. Doing that though would require incredible amounts of regulation in order to get wealth to the poor and lock it in as stocks, bonds and business co-ownerships, frankly socialism and welfare might be less of a welter.

Further, the money itself is being devalued - this should NOT occur in a society that is becoming more productive.
Click to expand...

Society can't become more productive, there are fundamental limits of energy and demand, but industry is becoming more efficient: being able to produce the same amount of stuff with less workers.

Anyway, no one can tell you what the jobs would be. It's like asking in 1985 what jobs will there be in 2005. No one can know. BUT, what we CAN know is free markets allow people to create jobs BY VALUE (as opposed to rent-seeking jobs), also with sound money people need LESS money as hey take advantage of automation. See? So this means LESS need TO work. Does this make any sense?
Click to expand...

No it makes absolutely no sense, how does one 'create jobs by value'? We have witness the over the last 2 centuries to move of jobs from agriculture to industry (good times) and then from industry to service (not so good times) there is no other place for people to go after that, there is not enough room in the other fields of the arts, researchers and goverment

We need LESS Government and MORE Civil Liberty. This is the ONLY way we can create these unknown jobs AND be a fair equitable prosperous society.
Click to expand...

A conclusion with no valid premise, pure adulterated delusion.

We need sound money to reduce labor-hours as automation replaces people.
Click to expand...

How, explain how this mechanism works.
 
@ Billy T,

In your attempt to portray a job not affected by technology you suggested ...
Teaching slow learners in primary grades or average students at the graduate level.
Click to expand...

I had said,
Schoolteachers may even be replaced by software. Fun games that can teach any subject are in the works.
Imagine playing a game that tests your knowledge, determines where you are weak and then it shows you videos on that subject that are proven to be the best at teaching a topic. Get the best algebra teacher in the world on video with animated examples, etc., that would help a child learn. It's possible Kids will have PhD equivalent educations before they hit high school.
Click to expand...

But I can expand on that ...

Imagine a group of clever people compiled a program that could teach every known subject starting with the alphabet and languages of your choosing.

There are already tons of programs designed to help "slow learners" and can revamp their teaching and questions to focus on problem areas for any particular child. A computer can recognize problem areas of an individual and focus more attention on it.

Imagine a child has problems with vowels .. The computer can stop and show a video to the slow learner that might teach more than a teacher in a class of 25 could do. Something like ...

[video=youtube;fR-BLFZyAWs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR-BLFZyAWs[/video]

Note: is actually how the say the alphabet in the Philippines. The say it based on how it sounds in a word. I think it is better and aids phonetics.

I am not saying that video will cure a slow learner, but a computer program can teach a child at its own pace and make learning fun. It can teach in game formats with rewards and punishments. Perhaps in the future a child will earn movie or television time based upon their level of achievements.

such as
 
To Kwhillborn:
I agree machines could eliminate junior high thru undergraduate college teachers, but think some level of skill / knowledge that slow learning first graders rarely have are required to play educational games and they often surfer from attention defects so will not even sit still to watch passively a movie, much less actively participate in a learning game.

At least at the Ph.D. level you are developing NEW knowledge, which by definition no machine has. Thus, in most cases, one willingly becomes a slave to some professor very skilled / respected in the field you hope to advance.

In addition to certain levels of education, I also suspect that there will always be jobs in the world's first profession that humans will want done by other humans, not machines. In some sense most everyone who would not do their job/ work/ for free, is a whore - selling their time for money.
 
Billy T said:
To Kwhillborn:
I agree machines could eliminate junior high thru undergraduate college teachers, but think some level of skill / knowledge that slow learning first graders rarely have are required to play educational games and they often surfer from attention defects so will not even sit still to watch passively a movie, much less actively participate in a learning game.

At least at the Ph.D. level you are developing NEW knowledge, which by definition no machine has. Thus, in most cases, one willingly becomes a slave to some professor very skilled / respected in the field you hope to advance. In addition to certain levels of education, I also suspect that there will always be jobs in the world's first profession that humans will want done by other humans, not machines. In some sense most everyone who would not do their job/ work/ for free, is a whore - selling their time for money.
Click to expand...

First of all specialty tutors is not a viable field, its not going to grow much and if it did the income would drop due to competition. It is frankly laughable that those 80% service sector people could move into jobs like specialty tutors. Same argument can be made for artist, everyone could become an artist but only those with true virtuosity would have any chance at success, the rest would be stuck as street performers/musicians and those pathetic people selling crap at a Renaissance fair! The argument that there will always be some jobs for humans because someone want humans to do them does not bridge the gap between mass unemployment and a stable economy: there will not be enough of said jobs, and there will likely always be less and less of them. Someday they might have android/gyniod tutor that are better then the real thing. Basically your saying "there will always be vinyl records, so an economy can live off such anachronistic things" yeah no sorry, a 'vinyl' economy is never coming back or going to be important economically unless we ban or run away from technology.
 
ElectricFetus said:
... It is frankly laughable that those 80% service sector people could move into jobs like specialty tutors. ...
Click to expand...
I agree. Kwhillborn did NOT ask where will the new jobs for all be. He asked for any type of job than is safe for disappearing via automation - I gave two.
 
ElectricFetus said:
Your premise is stupid and wrong, it would not matter what skills and training people have if their value of labor universally is going down. The conclusion though is the same as mine or at least one possible solution: people's capitalism. Fundamental shift is needed in which instead of people 'making a living' as labors everyone needs to become owners of capital, everyone needs to own a livable share of the increasingly automated labor. Doing that though would require incredible amounts of regulation in order to get wealth to the poor and lock it in as stocks, bonds and business co-ownerships, frankly socialism and welfare might be less of a welter.
Click to expand...
I disagree, the value of labor-hours is low NOT because of automation, but because there's an oversupply of labor-hours on the market. Automation could exacerbate that labor supply yes. But automation isn't the reason labor is cheap - it's the supply of labor that determines the price of labor. We could have lots of automation, and if there was an under-supply of labor on the market, the price of labor-hours would go up until the point where business owners would close their business and sell labor. It's an inductive observation referred to as supply and demand. While it may be incorrect, I wouldn't say it's stupid. Public schools, regulations and licensing/rent-seeking all act to increase the supply of labor-hours thus reducing their price on the market.


As for sound money, it is required to price a subjective value judgement. If the money is not sound, neither is the entire economy because it becomes impossible to change a subjective feeling into a objective account for trade. Our money is not sound. It's continuously debased (along with our entire way of life). The value of money in our society went from market forces to State force. IMO, this is working its way through our entire society - which, to use an analogy, is poisoned: Death by Currency.

Society can't become more productive, there are fundamental limits of energy and demand, but industry is becoming more efficient: being able to produce the same amount of stuff with less workers.
Click to expand...
Society should become more productive as well as more efficient. Yes, there is a physical limit - I'm not convinced this is something we need to worry about. As can be seen in Europe, Japan and now the USA with the slow reversal of population growth. Really, the only families that grow are those that receive misinformation about the state of their place in the economy due to welfare where having more children with less resources is perceived as being beneficial. Economic information about the state of the markets feeds back to members in society who modify the number of children and go from having many and putting in little per child in terms of resources to having a few and putting in a lot in terms of resources.

The planet has plenty of energy for now.

No it makes absolutely no sense, how does one 'create jobs by value'? We have witness the over the last 2 centuries to move of jobs from agriculture to industry (good times) and then from industry to service (not so good times) there is no other place for people to go after that, there is not enough room in the other fields of the arts, researchers and goverment
Click to expand...
What doesn't make sense? We CAN NOT know the jobs people will have because we CAN NOT know what people in the future will want. The only way to know is a free-market where people are allowed to value goods and services in a sound currency and trade freely with one another.

How, explain how this mechanism works.
Click to expand...
Why do we need sound money? It's needed to conduct trade. It's how we are able to take a subjective feeling like value and objectively express it in a way that facilitates trade. Trade itself allows for specialization. Sound money is needed to determine profit. Profit is needed to determine what is and is not valued, how much of something is wanted or needed, what the weather was like, if someone is having a divorce - all sorts of things, countless. Price is probably the single most important information in our economy and sound money is needed to determine an accurate price. I don't see how a complex society can function without money. There's too many unknown (and can never BE known) variables that bring even something simple like coffee beans from South America to Germany - only price contains the information for all of these variables (including how pissed a picker was his wife was cheating on him which decreased the number of plants he could tend, 3 years ago). No sound money, no sound price mechanism.



Let's go back to the cheese factory. Suppose 40% of the people in the town work making cheese for themselves and the other 60% (these people love their cheese). As this factory slowly automates, the people who make cheese are free to go and perform other services. This is GOOD for this little society IF those people are FREE to create their own businesses - even making high-end cheeses. In today's markets, the State would pass a 'Cheese Licence' and place a limit on competition. This is immoral. Also, IF people in society do not have money to purchase cheese, then the factory has to stop automation and eventually shutter. We simply can not have a day were there are a bunch of automated factories AND a bunch of money-less poor people. The factories would have no one to sell anything to. So, it can't happen. Do we agree? Automation CAN ONLY continue so long as there's an economy of people to sell automated products to. So, again, there will never be a day of total automation with a few 'rich' owners and a bunch of poor. It simply can not come to be. It's not possible. You NEED people to trade and they need money to trade, no trade, no automation, no rich people.

Also, until humans cannot be distinguished from robots, human's will always have work to do. While it seems totally odd now, perhaps in the future 10 humans will work to raise one child - giving that child everything they need to become a peaceful loving human adult. Including laughing and trying out foods and talking about dreams - etc.... Perhaps that society will value children so much that they could never imagine a world where people put their children into daycare for 12 hours a day 6 days a week just to buy a bigger apartment or newer car. AND these are 'real' experiences and CAN only be genuinely shared between humans that experience them (theory of mind). To use a robot would be to lie to the child and this would of course be immoral and therefor not valued by this future society. AND, if or when a day comes when robots can raise children with all the attributes of and indistinguishable from a human, then those robots WILL BE human.


How does that sound?
 
Michael said:
I disagree, the value of labor-hours is low NOT because of automation, but because there's an oversupply of labor-hours on the market.
Click to expand...

Over-supply exist BECAUSE of automation, with more workers for ANY AND EVERY skill they compete for fewer jobs, the companies can get the workers willing to do the most work for the least amount of money, wages drop. Changing up the labors skills sets will do NOTHING because ANY AND EVERY skill is becoming more and more automated!

Society should become more productive as well as more efficient. Yes, there is a physical limit - I'm not convinced this is something we need to worry about.
Click to expand...

We can't be more productive, population growth is slowing, demand per person has limits, energy and resources is getting more expensive are finite, productivity must stagnate, yet to match ever increasing efficiency we must grow exponentially or else cut jobs.

What doesn't make sense? We CAN NOT know the jobs people will have because we CAN NOT know what people in the future will want.
Click to expand...

We can know by simple extrapolation that there will not be enough jobs, no mater what they are, machines will be doing most of them and there will be fewer and fewer left for people.

The only way to know is a free-market where people are allowed to value goods and services in a sound currency and trade freely with one another.
Click to expand...

A conclusion with no valid premise, I might as well say "The only way to know is institute a communist society in which all automatic products are divided fairly to all the people" technically we would know as the product everyone would be producing is nothing.

Let's go back to the cheese factory. Suppose 40% of the people in the town work making cheese for themselves and the other 60% (these people love their cheese). As this factory slowly automates, the people who make cheese are free to go and perform other services.
Click to expand...

WHAT OTHER SERVICES??? It not just the Cheese factory but every other factory and every other service and even new services that have yet to be invented that are increasingly automated, there will be NO OTHER SERVICES that will magically appear to take up the glut of laid off workers! They will have to compete for few and less paying jobs! We know this as a fact over the last few decades as most people left the industrial sector and crammed into the service sector, now the service sector is start to be automated. Sound money is completely irrelevant to this movement of labor!

Also, until humans cannot be distinguished from robots, human's will always have work to do.
Click to expand...

Not enough work today, and they will have no work what so ever if and when that day comes.

While it seems totally odd now, perhaps in the future 10 humans will work to raise one child - giving that child everything they need to become a peaceful loving human adult.
Click to expand...

Why not 10 robots? Robots that are smarter then people, that look like people, that never get frustrated with the child, never hit it, show that child nothing but love, that can laugh and try out food and talk about dreams, etc, what lie is there in that? A machine that incapable of anger or hate, only love for a child, how is that a lie? They won't be human though, without all the negative emotions of a person, without demands for food, sleep, sex, shelter, both physiologically and mentally not human, maybe once were human, but not anymore, and the economy of said beings would not be like anything we have today or probably could even imagine, and would certainly not be a free-market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top