Topic: Technological unemployment is (almost) here - page 40. (Read 88276 times)

I missed this earlier. This is not true, because police forces, as well as private security forces, do not work for free, and will support whoever is paying their paychecks. In that scenario, it will be the people with the wealth, not the rioters who are rioting due to lack of it.

What the masses prefer has nothing to do with the ultimate outcome, only the timing and the severity of the implosion by delaying market corrections.

History runs from minimal to maximum to minimum government over and over again since Mespotamia. Rome collapsed from 1.4 million to 30,000 population for 1000+ years, and there are numerous repeating examples throughout history.

Perpetual motion (free energy and resources) is not reality.

Minimal government is coming again, but not until after the masses try to strangle every cent of wealth from anyone who has any. Once they've destroyed all private wealth that did not hide successfully, then the we will rebuild from the chaos and ashes of society with small government, free markets, and rationality again. The period from 2016 to 2033 is going to be hell in many ways (similar in many ways as 1929 to 1946 yet the debt-to-GDP levels are double to triple worse and in every country), but it offers much opportunity to the few who will ride a better altcoin. The Bitcoiners will go down with the Titanic (but not until after rising to astronomical price levels), many ending up in jail for not declaring capital gains and unsuccessfully hiding wealth from the coming G20 crackdown on tax avoidance along with France's initiative to tax all wealth at 75%.

P.S. A minanarchist is not an anachist. We believe in minimal government.

Nay! I bet that >90% of the population will prefer to live in a country with some form of government control via economy (right-wingers will choose high taxes and unconditional income however more leftist countries will nationalize production means and switch to the planned economy) rather than Somali-like. You need to read comments on Reddit (there are many topics about this issue) to understand what solutions are more preferable for the MOST people (who in fact will decide either by voting, riots or civil war).

It is the only possible outcome. As I explained in my prior posts, the other two choices on the poll are not economically sustainable and thus they collapse into my outcome as you admit below.


Exactly. My outcome is the only possible one.

So this poll is nonsense.


That is not mutually exclusive with providing that for them in an altcoin which doesn't end up in dystopia for all as is the case for Bitcoin's design.


You better learn what deflation really is.


You don't understand that large (individual or pooled) capital is blind, monolithic and the actual knowledge creators (the "ants") are the only thing that keeps society from falling into the abyss. Read the "what deflation really is" linked post above.

Excellent point ... the whole 'having a job' syndrome and 'unemployment' are relatively recent constructs in human social history, notably modern economics statistics.

There are many, many ways to live your life. "Making a living" may have very much or very little to do with 'having a job'.

Technological advances could be boon for social, cultural and spiritual development of humanity as people need to work much less to meet there needs and have abundant spare time to pursue activities that truly motivate them. Of course in some people that will be drinking, smoking, promiscuous sex or otherwise squandering there days, but this is more a reflection of the damaged psyches of these individuals that has nothing to do with how easy it is or isn't to make a living.

What are you really scared of here, that people that have too much free time and aren't chained to the grindstone can't be trusted to be good?

People should realize that having a job is not the only way to earn one's life.   When they have a job, they should put more efforts into saving money and turn it into capital so they can receive money when they don't have a job.    IMHO

Perhaps. But that 0.01% still needs to live somewhere, eat, protect their wealth, and buy stuff, meaning someone still has to work to make that for them. And Bitcoin doesn't pay interest, so it's not like they'll be able to live off of it alone indefinitely, meaning investments into other people and companies. Plus there's this: "lotto curse".

I don't expect many of the wealthy early adopters to be able to hold on to their money.

Actually, you can have healthcare for $100. Though youll have to be content with 1900's technology, involving barbers, scary saws, and no anesthetic.

This scenario will never happen so I just don't think it is worth including.

Just imagine that these 45% of the population mentioned in this Oxford report really get unemployed after 20 years. When the people will start understanding what really is happening (i.e. governments around the world and its brainwashing will be unable to maintain "Luddite fallacy" myth) they will start so massive riots that never happened in the human history. These unemployed will clearly understand that they have nothing to lose therefore will fight to death. Also large part of police forces in many countries no doubt will support rioters (traffic and street cameras connected to image recognition software, drones already replacing many cops, so they also must fear about it).

As the result, some countries will turn to the non-capitalist economies, however other part will deepen into the full collapse and chaos. Even if you are strongly right-leaning, I don't think you will be happy to live in the country like Somalia.

I don't have time to read this thread to see if anyone already mentioned the recent Oxford study/research which claims 45% of all existing jobs will be gone within 20 years.

The new economy be knowledged based and mostly programmers and hitech knowledge workers (e.g. nanotech, etc). Everything will be automated, there is even a D-shape 3D printer that can print an entire house in solid, monolithic marble.

I've written about this on my blog:

http://unheresy.com

It is interesting how this relates to the dystopian future that Bitcoin creates.

Specifically Bitcoin aggregates too much to the early adopters, because the debasement ends and the mining is ASICs only.

Thus you will end up with only 0.01% with the money and the rest of society pissed off and unemployable.

Luckily I don't think that will be the outcome. Instead an altcoin will soon destroy this perceived monopoly and the world will be saved from this dystopia. But not if the Bitcoiners have their way, such as blocking me from replying further to that above linked thread (or was the entire thread locked?).

---

P.S. I can't vote for the poll, because it doesn't include the choice, "Minanarchy where the unemployed have to retrain or live in poverty". Of course, we will need to be charitable and provide food via private charities.

Both of the choices for the poll can't possibly be sustained (wasting human resources always leads to failure and death). They are eugenics outcomes. See Ted Turner's (CNN) Georgia Guidestones inscriptions for where that leads you.

You socialists go on with your myopia. History shows where you ALWAYS end up.

have to agree with this.

Also bidding up the prices. Consider even if the state did nothing else besides just heavily subsidizing certain healthcare companies. Seems benign enough, right? But in fact that would massively bid up prices for all inputs in that industry, causing a "crowding out" effect where the inputs become artificially too expensive for most non-subsidized firms to compete. Companies go out of business until only the ones joined at the hip with the government are still around, bloated monopolies or oligopolies with very little profit motive. Then to compensate the government will start providing free healthcare, driving up prices more. Total clusterf*ck. Not to mention endless reams of regulation on top of all that. And people wonder why healthcare is expensive.

You're talking about crony capitalism, corporatism, fascism...nothing to do with free markets at all. The problem isn't capitalists, it's the power of the state up for grabs for capitalists to glom onto in order to beat away their competitors. In a world with little or no state power, entrepreneurs are not so scary

very few dr's do that, thats why radiologist get paid so much there are hardly any. So its not going to have much of an effect.

Further Dr's refuse to give results out results (and the law back them) unless you coem and see them, it take time to go through the implications of the results and then plan and continue.

I think there are way around this but it will be the omni healer 9000 where you just get in and it can fix 90% of stuff.

I said about analyzing diagnostic data, e.g. MRI or X-ray scans.

and no, see what would the insensitive for the doctor to work faster, and it still takes about 15 minutes for a person to describe symptoms, basic checks and order tests, then come back again for results.

The data extraction human patient can not made faster, what your going to talk 1000 times faster. Sure a biometric chip/band think may help a bit but its still going to take that time

But they just don't need. Moreover - most jobs today don't require hardware mechanisms entirely, only software.

As Watson could do all the job, even if the law will be passed requiring approval of the diagnosis from the human, this doctor will just sign the result paper produced by software thus replacing 1000s of the doctors working manually now.

the money just isn't in the manufacturing economy that people fera for blue collar automation jobs.

See the glut of cars we can produce versus need?

also the actuators of the robots is no where near what we need to do many tasks.

as to

"IBM Watson will definitely shrink number of doctors"

no that profession will get laws passed that the human is the one has the license to practice, and they are free to use the computer, so they will remain highly paid and employed just have much easier jobs.

as to wealth generally, it is in the land and house/infrastructure.

I agree with your write up.

I work at a high-tech company, and some of our products of Business Intelligence we sell to other companies to automate process, have resulted in those companies letting go lots of workers.  I don't feel particularly good about it.

Today, automation of everything from manufacturing to business processes have created a new challenge, and that is what else can people do now that a whole categories of jobs are going obsolete in all sectors of the economy.

Pretty much, the only category that is not much affected is "services", like auto mechanic, starbucks and restaurant.
But even those are under threat... just Google  "burger making machine",  "noodle making machine" for restaurant.

It is quite scary, so many people are unemployed, the question is "where do we go from here?"

Anyways, just my thoughts.

This quote is wrong, in that coonservative ecoonomic thinkers do not emphasize the importance of production, they emphasize the importance of trade. It just seems like production. When you pass regulations, restricting a conservative producer, and the producer objects, a left-leaning person may view this as the producer emphasizing the importance of production, and objecting to being restricted from producing. In fact, what the producer is objecting is the fact that this regulation effectively makes some consumers impose trade restrictions on other consumers. It's basically some people telling others, "no, you can't trade for that, even if you want to." It's a subtle, but important difference, in which the thing that is important that is being emphasized, and interfered with, is actually the consumer's ability to trade, not the producer's ability to produce.

This also means that the rest of the quite may not be applicable, since consumers wish to trade and consume, and the thinking that goes against that of the producers (like regulations and left-leaning policies) actually interferes with the consumer's ability to trade, obtain the things they want, and consume. So, in an increasingly automated society, placing restrictions on trade and consumptions will not actually solve any problems, since producers are still free to make their production more efficient by increasing automation.