Topic: Technological unemployment is (almost) here - page 2. (Read 88255 times)
Being afraid that one day our own technology will overcome us is underestimating our own capability and overestimating theirs. With proper control and a more knowledge oriented point view, we will only grow, we wont go down.
Unemployment is an artificially created situation used by governments to keep the employment market competitive and wages low.
wow, are you for real? There are supposedly 10,000 jobs in the market. There are 100,000 capable employees coming out. There are more capable employees in the market every year, not the jobs. Companies are expanding but not at such a rate, not every CEO is a massive job creator. There is unemployment, its a huge problem. 'Unreal'. Oh god.
Say you have a going concern with 10 workers on minimum wages at 10 USD/hr.
If you increase the minimum wage 50% from 10 to 15, what happens?
There is not enough income to cover that, so you might think that to keep expenses at the same level, 3 workers will be fired.
But no, 7 workers can not produce the same as 10, so productivity for the remaining 7 must be increased.
But wait, to increase productivity, the owner has to invest in equipment and maintain it. There is no extra income to cover that, so what he must do, is to fire more workers, and find the right balance between labour and investment.
So he may have to go to 5 remaining workers, invest in equipment to increase productivity so output is the same as before.
Capital, which is a scarce, will have to be drawn from other possible investments. And there is no guarantee that the customers are happy with the change. Minimum wage is wealth destruction, not least for the ones who are fired.
Without minimum wage (ban on low wage workers), the same could happen, but only as a result of the labour market requiring 15 USD for work hours. In that case, the workers that leave are happy, because they go to higher paid places. The wealth creating, free market just advanced a notch.
If you increase the minimum wage 50% from 10 to 15, what happens?
There is not enough income to cover that, so you might think that to keep expenses at the same level, 3 workers will be fired.
But no, 7 workers can not produce the same as 10, so productivity for the remaining 7 must be increased.
But wait, to increase productivity, the owner has to invest in equipment and maintain it. There is no extra income to cover that, so what he must do, is to fire more workers, and find the right balance between labour and investment.
So he may have to go to 5 remaining workers, invest in equipment to increase productivity so output is the same as before.
Capital, which is a scarce, will have to be drawn from other possible investments. And there is no guarantee that the customers are happy with the change. Minimum wage is wealth destruction, not least for the ones who are fired.
Without minimum wage (ban on low wage workers), the same could happen, but only as a result of the labour market requiring 15 USD for work hours. In that case, the workers that leave are happy, because they go to higher paid places. The wealth creating, free market just advanced a notch.
Again, "communism this soviet that". Cut the bullshit. We are in 2015, technology today does things that we could only have dreamed about in soviet ages. Again: tons of jobs getting automated by machines, few new jobs being created to try to stop the perpetual unemployment. Therefore: dead end. How do you change this? everyone becomes a programmer and a technician that fixes the robots? lol.
I had always believed that eventually humans would not longer be doing the work but replaced by robots with the same capability. A persons job would be maintaining the robot. So instead of flipping burgers for a living, one will be maintaining the robot(s) that flips the burgers.
The main problem is the people that will have the brains to take care of the machines will be the 1% compared to the rest, specially someone that has been doing the same thing for decades and suddenly finds out what he does is deprecated by a machine.
"We need communism because ... robots."
That's your argument right?
Have some faith in humanity and the power of the emergent good of motivated individuals to keep solving societies toughest challenges, as they have done already for millenia.
If there is an increase in the forced minimum wage, expect to say goodbye to the macdonalds clerks that take your order and payment and collect the food on a tablet. The higher labour price will signal that more automation is needed. You will have to press the buttons yourself, pay with a card to the machine, and the food is assembled in an automated mega hamburger maker. It's machine voice will call you when the tray is ready.
You see, the market works always, also in a trade distorted by violent force. You can call it the general market.
If they do this automation unforced, it means that the wages have already increased enough to spur it.
You see, the market works always, also in a trade distorted by violent force. You can call it the general market.
If they do this automation unforced, it means that the wages have already increased enough to spur it.
What could happen in an imagined peaceful, let it bloom econony, is that productivity increases, prosperity increases, people might want to work less (you never know, it is up to each individual), and if so, price of labour would increase and signal that more robots are necessary.
Robots taking over all work is economically impossible. You will see in the coming years that productivity is coming down due to zero interest rate policy over many years and therefore a seriously distorted capital structure.
In such a world, automation will cost more than it tastes, and business will go more and more low tech.
In such a world, automation will cost more than it tastes, and business will go more and more low tech.
People who own the machines automobiles will reap the rewards just as people who "own" the labor reap the rewards now. This is unacceptable except for the owners.
It's time for the rest of the people to collectively own themachines automobiles to eliminate the advantage of the few over the many. Only then will the true capability of machines automobiles be realized for all. Until then, it will be the same good ol elite exploiting the rest of the population scam.
It's time for the rest of the people to collectively own the
ftfy. the government should own all the cars, trucks, tractors, bulldozers and factories by that logic ... ask the soviets how that turned before spouting nonsense to the world perhaps?
Yeah, because the technology was exactly the same 50+ years ago than it is now. Now that's some nonsense.
Thats what people like you don't get. You always think humanity will keep reinventing itself to generate more jobs than what machines automate, when if you look at the objective data is exactly the opposite: machines are replacing more jobs than what new jobs are being generated, try to get that one through your thick skull for once please.
All this panic about jobs disappearing is non-sense to me. Lets make robots do ALL the work, and let us humans live lives of leisure.
The economy used to have businesses provide goods and services by paying employees for their labour. Those employees were then able use those wages to consume the goods and services the businesses created. Today, the production of goods gets cheaper and cheaper, largely because robot are replacing workers. This, however, is destroying the consumer base that's supposed to buy those goods in the first place. How can anyone consume goods, however cheap, if no one has any money?
The solution? A Universal Basic Income. Businesses can still automate all they like with no fear of killing off their customers. It's a win-win solution for everyone. I've never been a socialist but I simply don't see any other outcome for this dead end.
The economy used to have businesses provide goods and services by paying employees for their labour. Those employees were then able use those wages to consume the goods and services the businesses created. Today, the production of goods gets cheaper and cheaper, largely because robot are replacing workers. This, however, is destroying the consumer base that's supposed to buy those goods in the first place. How can anyone consume goods, however cheap, if no one has any money?
The solution? A Universal Basic Income. Businesses can still automate all they like with no fear of killing off their customers. It's a win-win solution for everyone. I've never been a socialist but I simply don't see any other outcome for this dead end.
No. A Universal Basic Income is just another communistic fix to a deeper communistic caused problem. You need to first let people keep the money they can earn before you think about taking it off them to give back to others ... if governments stopped ripping off people and facilitating powerful people to rip off economically weaker people you start to go in a good direction again.
The governments are causing the problems, why look to more government solutions to problems they are creating? That's insanity defined.
Again, "communism this soviet that". Cut the bullshit. We are in 2015, technology today does things that we could only have dreamed about in soviet ages. Again: tons of jobs getting automated by machines, few new jobs being created to try to stop the perpetual unemployment. Therefore: dead end. How do you change this? everyone becomes a programmer and a technician that fixes the robots? lol.
I had always believed that eventually humans would not longer be doing the work but replaced by robots with the same capability. A persons job would be maintaining the robot. So instead of flipping burgers for a living, one will be maintaining the robot(s) that flips the burgers.
The main problem is the people that will have the brains to take care of the machines will be the 1% compared to the rest, specially someone that has been doing the same thing for decades and suddenly finds out what he does is deprecated by a machine.
All this panic about jobs disappearing is non-sense to me. Lets make robots do ALL the work, and let us humans live lives of leisure.
The economy used to have businesses provide goods and services by paying employees for their labour. Those employees were then able use those wages to consume the goods and services the businesses created. Today, the production of goods gets cheaper and cheaper, largely because robot are replacing workers. This, however, is destroying the consumer base that's supposed to buy those goods in the first place. How can anyone consume goods, however cheap, if no one has any money?
The solution? A Universal Basic Income. Businesses can still automate all they like with no fear of killing off their customers. It's a win-win solution for everyone. I've never been a socialist but I simply don't see any other outcome for this dead end.
The economy used to have businesses provide goods and services by paying employees for their labour. Those employees were then able use those wages to consume the goods and services the businesses created. Today, the production of goods gets cheaper and cheaper, largely because robot are replacing workers. This, however, is destroying the consumer base that's supposed to buy those goods in the first place. How can anyone consume goods, however cheap, if no one has any money?
The solution? A Universal Basic Income. Businesses can still automate all they like with no fear of killing off their customers. It's a win-win solution for everyone. I've never been a socialist but I simply don't see any other outcome for this dead end.
No. A Universal Basic Income is just another communistic fix to a deeper communistic caused problem. You need to first let people keep the money they can earn before you think about taking it off them to give back to others ... if governments stopped ripping off people and facilitating powerful people to rip off economically weaker people you start to go in a good direction again.
The governments are causing the problems, why look to more government solutions to problems they are creating? That's insanity defined.
People who own the machines automobiles will reap the rewards just as people who "own" the labor reap the rewards now. This is unacceptable except for the owners.
It's time for the rest of the people to collectively own themachines automobiles to eliminate the advantage of the few over the many. Only then will the true capability of machines automobiles be realized for all. Until then, it will be the same good ol elite exploiting the rest of the population scam.
It's time for the rest of the people to collectively own the
ftfy. the government should own all the cars, trucks, tractors, bulldozers and factories by that logic ... ask the soviets how that turned before spouting nonsense to the world perhaps?
Which of the developed countries is most likely to try once again to deal with the ramifications of a guaranteed minimal income--either to implement it or just seriously consider it? I recall Switzerland voting against it via popular vote about two years ago.
Did anyone's perception of Richard Nixon change when they found out he wanted to put in place a similar negative income tax while he was president?
Did anyone's perception of Richard Nixon change when they found out he wanted to put in place a similar negative income tax while he was president?
Unconditional income doesn't have to lead to extreme tax. A recent study confirmed that all the money that now goes into the infrastructure and institutions who manage the social security system, far exceeds the costs of providing everybody a base income.
The same goes for charity work. If all the money that goes into thirld world development (read filling the pockets of corrupt governments) would go to the people directly, every citizin would have about 1500 to 2000 dollars!!
Closing thought, if all the money/value in the world gets evenly distributed, we all would have 70 million per citizin!!! Let that sink in, we all could be millionaires.....
The same goes for charity work. If all the money that goes into thirld world development (read filling the pockets of corrupt governments) would go to the people directly, every citizin would have about 1500 to 2000 dollars!!
Closing thought, if all the money/value in the world gets evenly distributed, we all would have 70 million per citizin!!! Let that sink in, we all could be millionaires.....
what i still figure out as vision of man its far more intelegent than robots robots do simple tasks but not substitute the vision of market that human as if only you install a need for money in less nervouse matters and human consience you could find a machine robt that is able to negociate porper in thet matter the machines will substitute humans into the digital nervouse central system but thats very unlikable still for now soo inovation comes from man not machines.
Yes. Even bitcoin will replace many existing jobs if it ever become mainstream.
Do you mean unemployment will grow as Bitcoin became more familiar in the financial market ? I think bitcoin has nothing do with those jobs factors, since the invention of bitcoin according to satoshi is "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution." 
People who own the machines will reap the rewards just as people who "own" the labor reap the rewards now. This is unacceptable except for the owners.
It's a bit different. You can 'reap the rewards of labour' for generations, but when TU kicks in, it'll be dead-end for all. As the 'owner of machines' you'll need consumers (with income) to buy from you. And the risk of angry mob raiding your house and taking over your goods and your power grows in line with the number of unemployed with no income.
So when TU becomes real issue, there should be mutual willingness to come up with some sort of solution. The biggest problem is whether the political elites (and those who pull their strings) have any long-term strategy rather than focusing only on the next few years.
For the last 200 years increase in the labor productivity have leaded to higher standards of living and creating jobs in new areas. Arguments that robots can leave people out of work have been called "Luddite fallacy" and dismissed by most economist and politicians.
But look what happens now. Highly paid blue-collar jobs have been already replaced with robots or outsourced to China. Service sector is most difficult to automate, so most jobs (>80%) are concentrated here today. Professions which in the past being considered as temporarily for students and school dropouts (fastfood cooks and waiters, bartenders, janitors, taxi/truck drivers, cashiers etc) now become acceptable even for adult people with college degree, however they also start showing signs of the automation and no doubt these jobs will gone after 5..10..20 years. Skilled white-collar jobs aren't safe places anymore - software reduce demand for accountants and tax consultants, cloud computing hits IT-workers, emerging AI systems like IBM Watson will definitely shrink number of doctors/lawyers/journalists and other data-processing jobs. Personal 3D printers could break away whole supply chains (manufacturing -> shipping -> warehouses -> retail sale) leaving millions of "useless intermediaries" out of work.
Problem of the technological unemployment is well described in the book "Lights in the tunnel". Personally I don't agree with the solution offered there, however author provides strong proof about problem's seriousness.
First of all, I appreciate your post, you bring up the real truth regards to unemployment because of hitech technology growths. According to me one of the solution is that we must change our mind set and reinvent our lifestyle according to the current scenario, we pray and hope that our future generations will adopt innovative methods to win their life in this digital world. But look what happens now. Highly paid blue-collar jobs have been already replaced with robots or outsourced to China. Service sector is most difficult to automate, so most jobs (>80%) are concentrated here today. Professions which in the past being considered as temporarily for students and school dropouts (fastfood cooks and waiters, bartenders, janitors, taxi/truck drivers, cashiers etc) now become acceptable even for adult people with college degree, however they also start showing signs of the automation and no doubt these jobs will gone after 5..10..20 years. Skilled white-collar jobs aren't safe places anymore - software reduce demand for accountants and tax consultants, cloud computing hits IT-workers, emerging AI systems like IBM Watson will definitely shrink number of doctors/lawyers/journalists and other data-processing jobs. Personal 3D printers could break away whole supply chains (manufacturing -> shipping -> warehouses -> retail sale) leaving millions of "useless intermediaries" out of work.
Problem of the technological unemployment is well described in the book "Lights in the tunnel". Personally I don't agree with the solution offered there, however author provides strong proof about problem's seriousness.
No matter what people say, humans will always have a higher hand in the race than computers. They might be error free, smart and efficient but there is something in humans which machines fail to develop. Wisdom and emotions. And that is enough to inflict massive change.
Here's how to solve the problem of potential backlash against robots:
Provide each worker displaced with a "golden parachute" that will provide for him for the rest of his life. That's what CEO's get when they become obsolete .
This won't solve the problem for young people who looking for a first job. Provide each worker displaced with a "golden parachute" that will provide for him for the rest of his life. That's what CEO's get when they become obsolete .
Here's how to solve the problem of potential backlash against robots:
Provide each worker displaced with a "golden parachute" that will provide for him for the rest of his life. That's what CEO's get when they become obsolete .
Provide each worker displaced with a "golden parachute" that will provide for him for the rest of his life. That's what CEO's get when they become obsolete .
Making things cheaper doesn't mean they will be sold for cheaper. Usually the difference becomes greater profit for companies. And next year's profit always needs to be more than today's profit, otherwise manager's lose their jobs.
Sure, at first when the company manages to reduce their costs (automation, outsourcing etc.) they would enjoy higher profit margin, but once their competitors do the same, they would all have to reduce prices.
How many people could afford first mobile phones/first PCs/laptops/microwaves etc, and how many can afford them now?
E.g., automation has been added to the manufacture of cars for decades, has the cost of cars gone down over decades? No, the cost has gone up...and up...and up.
You got any stats to support that? Quick google search proves you're wrong:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2408807/New-car-prices-risen-inflation-25-years.html
Jump to: