Technological unemployment is (almost) here - page 45.

giantdragon

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1002

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on October 26, 2013, 05:38:34 PM

You are already lost because your mental framework is through the broken "only govt. can solve the big problems" prism.

We do not have free market capitalism, big failures get bailed out. The wealth concentration problem is mostly due to misallocation of resources in weak, useless, 'bad' hands caused by the monopoly currency issuance, (financial cartel). We need more Elon Musks, not Jamie Dimons and Bernankes is the basic problem ... Elon Musks create jobs, Jamie Dimons and Bernankes destroy them. It really is as simple as that ... lack of vision, imagination, social organisation and liberty

I don't insist that my opinion is 100% true, may be you are right, but the scenario I have described in original post considered most probably. Even mainstream economists start accepting existence of the problem, please read Gartner report.

BTW, I never told that any current government could solve the problem, mentality shift is need. Coming Swiss referendum could be good start for it.

Shawshank

legendary

Activity: 1623

Merit: 1608

Quote from: giantdragon on October 26, 2013, 03:35:04 PM

Quote from: Shawshank on October 26, 2013, 02:49:38 PM

There are also private companies with the intention of exploring Mars, and lots of people willing to go there and be pioneers in a new land. Travelling out of the Solar System is again a step by step process, which may work in a free society. Why can't you go to Jupiter or Saturn after Mars has been colonized?

And do you really believe these private corporations will employ billions of "useless" people, reduce working day to 1 hour without wage cut just to preserve stability in the society? Shocked

Technology will not bring down the number of available jobs, though. No need to cut working hours. Jobs will be more technically oriented because that is what customers are demanding. That's all.

I agree with you that a stable peaceful society is a really complicated endeavor. It has always been. Many risks are currently lurking: H1N1, political conflicts and war, energy crisis, droughts, social exclusion, huge debt everywhere...

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: giantdragon on October 26, 2013, 05:16:26 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on October 26, 2013, 04:53:00 PM

Unemployment is a massive misallocation of resource and its a symptom, not a problem.

The basic argument seems to boil down to "the machines took all the jobs, we don't need workers anymore".

This is a fallacy, it is like arguing that the guy who invented spades took away jobs from the peons scratching the dirt with their bare hands.

The problem is not lack of jobs but lack of vision, imagination, social organisation and liberty to take on projects of scale that can truly enhance the existence of all of humanity.

Your average Westerner lives in a comparatively royal existence when compared with a citizen of Roman times. Imagine if everyone could live like today's royalty? What resources would it require? How much labour would be needed to achieve this, include for the leverage that advanced technology allows? Could we set up colonies on the Moon, on the ocean floor, orbiting Nirvanas? Could we provide cheap plentiful energy, nutrition, mobility to every person on the planet?

I agree with you that humans' demands growth will always create some jobs, but unfortunately free market capitalism is unable to solve technological unemployment problem without government intervention - too big wealth concentration on capital and not labor will simply destroy the economy. You should look at "net jobs" effect from automation (jobs created in new areas MINUS jobs lost), after some point it will no matter be negative, even if our society are full of creative people (of course if no regulatory measurements taken, e.g. working day reduced). You can still hope that problem will be solved itself, but this is really hard to believe now!

You are already lost because your mental framework is through the broken "only govt. can solve the big problems" prism.

We do not have free market capitalism, big failures get bailed out. The wealth concentration problem is mostly due to misallocation of resources in weak, useless, 'bad' hands caused by the monopoly currency issuance, (financial cartel). We need more Elon Musks, not Jamie Dimons and Bernankes is the basic problem ... Elon Musks create jobs, Jamie Dimons and Bernankes destroy them. It really is as simple as that ... lack of vision, imagination, social organisation and liberty

giantdragon

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1002

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on October 26, 2013, 04:53:00 PM

Unemployment is a massive misallocation of resource and its a symptom, not a problem.

The basic argument seems to boil down to "the machines took all the jobs, we don't need workers anymore".

This is a fallacy, it is like arguing that the guy who invented spades took away jobs from the peons scratching the dirt with their bare hands.

The problem is not lack of jobs but lack of vision, imagination, social organisation and liberty to take on projects of scale that can truly enhance the existence of all of humanity.

Your average Westerner lives in a comparatively royal existence when compared with a citizen of Roman times. Imagine if everyone could live like today's royalty? What resources would it require? How much labour would be needed to achieve this, include for the leverage that advanced technology allows? Could we set up colonies on the Moon, on the ocean floor, orbiting Nirvanas? Could we provide cheap plentiful energy, nutrition, mobility to every person on the planet?

I agree with you that humans' demands growth will always create some jobs, but unfortunately free market capitalism is unable to solve technological unemployment problem without government intervention - too big wealth concentration on capital and not labor will simply destroy the economy. You should look at "net jobs" effect from automation (jobs created in new areas MINUS jobs lost), after some point it will no matter be negative, even if our society are full of creative people (of course if no regulatory measurements taken, e.g. working day reduced). You can still hope that problem will be solved itself, but this is really hard to believe now!

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Unemployment is a massive misallocation of resource and its a symptom, not a problem.

The basic argument seems to boil down to "the machines took all the jobs, we don't need workers anymore".

This is a fallacy, it is like arguing that the guy who invented spades took away jobs from the peons scratching the dirt with their bare hands.

The problem is not lack of jobs but lack of vision, imagination, social organisation and liberty to take on projects of scale that can truly enhance the existence of all of humanity.

Your average Westerner lives in a comparatively royal existence when compared with a citizen of Roman times. Imagine if everyone could live like today's royalty? What resources would it require? How much labour would be needed to achieve this, include for the leverage that advanced technology allows? Could we set up colonies on the Moon, on the ocean floor, orbiting Nirvanas? Could we provide cheap plentiful energy, nutrition, mobility to every person on the planet?

If technology is providing us with an excess of leverage then we need to find bigger rocks that need moving.

Socialism is a mechanism to shackle minds ... but it doesn't give everyone an excuse to sit on their asses whining about the machines stealing their jobs, that's just another symptom of the disease.

giantdragon

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1002

Quote from: 2dogs on October 26, 2013, 03:55:29 PM

.gov already manipulates the labor force with the minimum wage, unemployment/disability bennies, and other subsidies/handouts.

These manipulations are biased in favor of the big corporations - real wage falling since 70's and labor participation rate also decreasing continuously since early 2000s (which can indicate that "peak jobs" already passed). Governments that have been in power within last decades worsened the problem, not tried to solve as they must.

2dogs

legendary

Activity: 1267

Merit: 1000

.gov already manipulates the labor force with the minimum wage, unemployment/disability bennies, and other subsidies/handouts.

EDIT: Tax it if you want to stifle the change, subsidize if you want to encourage it.
The essence of social manipulation by our elected officials.

giantdragon

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Shawshank on October 26, 2013, 02:49:38 PM

There are also private companies with the intention of exploring Mars, and lots of people willing to go there and be pioneers in a new land. Travelling out of the Solar System is again a step by step process, which may work in a free society. Why can't you go to Jupiter or Saturn after Mars has been colonized?

And do you really believe these private corporations will employ billions of "useless" people, reduce working day to 1 hour without wage cut just to preserve stability in the society? Shocked

Shawshank

legendary

Activity: 1623

Merit: 1608

Quote from: giantdragon on October 26, 2013, 11:06:24 AM

Quote from: Shawshank on October 26, 2013, 01:08:37 AM

There will always be a need for human labor because human needs are insatiable. Once all needs seem to be fulfilled, new needs will arise: immortality, eternal happiness, travelling to the space, travelling to the future

These projects cannot be fulfilled in capitalist economy because don't guarantee success (ROI) within reasonable timespan. Capital owners don't even invest into nuclear fusion which is soon-achievable, so why should they invest into immortality or relativistic speed travel which may be possible only after 1000 years!?

The process towards near-immortality requires little steps that can be accomplished in a capitalist (free) society. In fact, life expectancy has been increasing thanks to research and the promise of ROI on development of medical technology.

There are also private companies with the intention of exploring Mars, and lots of people willing to go there and be pioneers in a new land. Travelling out of the Solar System is again a step by step process, which may work in a free society. Why can't you go to Jupiter or Saturn after Mars has been colonized?

Some may find relief, some even happiness, in the latest anxiolytics and lab drugs. However, a less technical way of life: yoga, reading, theater, sports, helping others... may be valid answers towards happiness for many people.

giantdragon

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Shawshank on October 26, 2013, 01:08:37 AM

Unless there is major unrest, it seems we are surely moving towards a more knowledge-oriented economy. The problem exists because those who are not capable to adapt are being left out. It has been happening for ages, though. In the Roman Empire, for example, those without good sight or physically weak may had trouble to survive. How to tackle these issues is definitely a challenge.

And there no doubt WILL be great civil war, or do you really think people will keep silence and starve when are aware that permanent technological unemployment start appearing!? We don't see unrest now because people still believe "Luddite fallacy" is a true fallacy and will last forever, but it it won't.

Quote from: Shawshank on October 26, 2013, 01:08:37 AM

There will always be a need for human labor because human needs are insatiable. Once all needs seem to be fulfilled, new needs will arise: immortality, eternal happiness, travelling to the space, travelling to the future

These projects cannot be fulfilled in capitalist economy because don't guarantee success (ROI) within reasonable timespan. Capital owners don't even invest into nuclear fusion which is soon-achievable, so why should they invest into immortality or relativistic speed travel which may be possible only after 1000 years!?

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on October 26, 2013, 12:07:52 AM

Quote from: giantdragon on October 25, 2013, 01:20:03 PM

Do you mean the government can enact the law limiting working day to 2-4 hours? In free market economy capital owners will simply move away production/services to the country without such legislation.

Governments ALREADY do limit the workweek. The "40 hour" workweek was established in 1937. Since then the productivity of the average worker has increased by a couple magnitudes. We still cling to 40 hour workweek like it is some fundamental law of physics. No reason a government (or many governments) couldn't reduce it to 35 or 32.

If we are 10% below peak labor then reducing workweek 10% would compensate.

I always think reducing working hour is the best solution, since it also increase the free time that people can use to spend their money

But there is a difficulty with this approach: It need majority of people willingly reduce their income by 10% (otherwise the company will face a loss), and due to the fact that most of them are in debt, they can't do it. Debt based consumption made it impossible to move towards this direction

Actually the unemployment is the same as reducing working hours if you look from a man-hour point of view

Shawshank

legendary

Activity: 1623

Merit: 1608

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on October 26, 2013, 01:27:54 AM

Quote from: Shawshank on October 26, 2013, 01:08:37 AM

And don't forget poetry. Machines can't do that.

Quote from: discourse.cpp

The umbrella
You want an umbrella and all you have is
a ﬂannel handkerchief and a sponge

http://peerpress.de/discoursecpp.pdf

OK, then. How about a romantic candlelight dinner talking about poetry. Machines can't do that.

2dogs

legendary

Activity: 1267

Merit: 1000

Quote

capital owners and lucky "tech elite" (programmers, scientists, 3D-model designers etc whose jobs cannot be automated)

Okay, I just want to know how to get on that ride.

Shallow

sr. member

Activity: 938

Merit: 255

SmartFi - EARN, LEND & TRADE

Skynet is coming

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: Shawshank on October 26, 2013, 01:08:37 AM

And don't forget poetry. Machines can't do that.

Quote from: discourse.cpp

The umbrella
You want an umbrella and all you have is
a ﬂannel handkerchief and a sponge

http://peerpress.de/discoursecpp.pdf

Shawshank

legendary

Activity: 1623

Merit: 1608

Unless there is major unrest, it seems we are surely moving towards a more knowledge-oriented economy. The problem exists because those who are not capable to adapt are being left out. It has been happening for ages, though. In the Roman Empire, for example, those without good sight or physically weak may had trouble to survive. How to tackle these issues is definitely a challenge.

There will always be a need for human labor because human needs are insatiable. Once all needs seem to be fulfilled, new needs will arise: immortality, eternal happiness, travelling to the space, travelling to the future, sending bitcoins with your mind... And don't forget poetry. Machines can't do that.

giantdragon

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1002

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on October 26, 2013, 12:07:52 AM

No reason a government (or many governments) couldn't reduce it to 35 or 32.

If we are 10% below peak labor then reducing workweek 10% would compensate.

This is not feasible while corporations have large lobbying forces in the government. In some countries we can see even inverse processes now - softening working hours regulations as government try to make own country more competitive for the capital owners.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: giantdragon on October 25, 2013, 01:20:03 PM

Do you mean the government can enact the law limiting working day to 2-4 hours? In free market economy capital owners will simply move away production/services to the country without such legislation.

Governments ALREADY do limit the workweek. The "40 hour" workweek was established in 1937. Since then the productivity of the average worker has increased by a couple magnitudes. We still cling to 40 hour workweek like it is some fundamental law of physics. No reason a government (or many governments) couldn't reduce it to 35 or 32.

If we are 10% below peak labor then reducing workweek 10% would compensate.

giantdragon

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1002

Quote from: waltermot321 on October 25, 2013, 11:40:33 PM

I don't think so, food might became close to free that time....

Food production requires a lot of energy, but economic collapse caused by tech unemployment will happen much faster than invention of cheap abundant energy source.

waltermot321

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: johnyj on October 25, 2013, 07:52:50 PM

In the future when most of the works will be done by machines and AIs, there will be a big problem for majority of people to get an income. I think in such case there must be a system that distribute AI ownership to every social members. It's all about ownership

I don't think so, food might became close to free that time....

Topic: Technological unemployment is (almost) here - page 45. (Read 88257 times)