Topic: Technological unemployment is (almost) here - page 5. (Read 88274 times)

Don't explain anything 'trice' just do it once (if you cared to join this thread). Apart from being an idiot I must also be blind or have serious reading comprehension issues cause I'm yet to see any 'pearl' of your wisdom.

So far you made a few posts trying to sound like a big boy, but the only thing you brought to the table is shaky argument (addressed multiple time in this thread) of '300 years of development' aka 'if something hasn't happened yet - it can never happen' belief.

Inventions of cars/automated production lines/computers etc had overall positive effect, but only because human labour could be directed elsewhere. But we're not talking anymore about robots in the factory, we're talking about robots replacing intellectual, qualified labour, or even creative labour (artist).

To dumb it down (and that's the 3rd time I present this argument to you, so far - no reply) ultimately if we're able to create human-like robot with better performance (both physical and intellectual/analytical) than human and consuming less energy - human work becomes entirely obsolete. There's no place to go anymore (maybe apart from some niche in prostitution etc).

So you can either clearly address this and explain how your free-market mechanism will cope, or carry on with some vague bullshit or random insults (you still haven't call me a 'commie' you can use that).


He wasn't very clear on what he tried to say, especially when my question was rather direct and simple. If so, the alternative economy wouldn't work for multiple reasons, not going to list them tho as they're irrelevant anyway. Even if you could successfully start alternative economy, it would very soon follow the same scenario (automation), but this time not within centuries, but rather within years, since the technology is already available. It has already been discussed here.

As long as what I say is not wrong, meaning I trample on other's rights, meaning, as this is just a forum for speak, no threats of violence and no fraud, it is not wrong what I do, therefore it is right to do it. Insulting is a right. What I say, may not be correct, that is the content of the discussion.

I'm sure a lot of what we are asking must have been answered before. This thread alone is already very large. But that doesn't give you the right to insult people. And it doesn't mean those answers are right. And people aren't discarding those 300 years. Just saying that maybe the situation is new. Making everyone fulfill new jobs every couple of years won't work. People can't adapt that fast. And I don't see how poor people creating their own jobs will work either as I said above. Even without taxes or whatever. Not to mention the worse living conditions they would have.

For you partly, but mostly for other people who might drop in, and for myself. I don't have to explain everything trice to idiots. Either you take the pearls you get, or not. You seem to either someone who is extremely slow, or a troll. The troll to normal people ratio in this forum is close to 0.8, so there is a high probability of you being a troll. You discard 300 years of development in macro economics laid before you for a cheap scare that you picked up from a luddite, it seems to be burnt into your brain.

@pawel7777 think what he is saying is that poor people without work will just work for each other. If there are no regulations and government intervention and taxes, that could somehow work. I don't think it could. Or that it would even be a free market then. You can't have a free market with so unequal participants. (poor people working for each other and rich people with automation)


People working when there are machines that do the same and maybe better is forcing people to work. The alternative is they don't eat if there is no safety net. In a society that is rich enough to automate most jobs, this doesn't make sense to me.


You don't just buy a robot. Even if cheaper than human labor, often that doesn't manifest in the large initial investment needed. Then it will probably not be just one that you need. For all that you need not to start of poor. But rather have a large amount of initial capital. Then you need to compete with other richer producers. And could poor people working for each other help? There are resources that are limited. Land for example. And some things won't be cheaper even with automation because of this. But salaries will still drop with automation right? Until people work for the minimum that still lets them eat. And then maybe they will be able to compete with machines for the same jobs. Doesn't look like a good lifestyle.

Lol. Instant win of discussion.

Why did you even bother to post in this thread?

Inform yourself.

These are nice sounding words, nothing more. Can you draft some possible scenario how would that work in practice?

Yes, consumers will choose cheaper and better quality goods from fully automated factories, producers/suppliers will choose cheaper and more reliable "workforce" - because that's more advantageous for them in the short term.

Are you saying that people will reject technology (to some degree) to sacrifice low costs for the greater good (employment)? If so, that would mean that what guarantees the self-regulation of free market is... The Luddite movement (!?)

The free market laws are the sovereignty of individuals, freedom to choose, freedom to trade. It starts with understanding human action. Individuals will by their actions prefer one thing over another, this results in valuations in the market. This means that a factory owner will only automate if he thinks that will be profitable for himself. The workers will only work for him if they consider it advantagous for themselves. The customers will only buy from him if they find in advantagous for themselves. That goes for the automation supplier also, and all other economic activity. These are laws of the market. When people meet, they start to trade according to these laws. The prices in the market are signals to all actors what to do.

Involve violence, and the balances are distorted.

With no arguments, that's a cute religious-like belief you got there.

What's the free-market "law" that help you out-compete hypothetical robot which is more skilled than you, more efficient and needs less energy to keep going than yourself?

Will you train your body not to need food/drink/sleep/shelter in order to lower your survival-only pay-rate?

There will be no technological unemployment, that is by the law of the markets, but with the violence of government, supported by their willing slaves, anything can happen.

You still have no argument. In fact, you sound like a schoolchild who just attended a class of automation, lead by an enthusiastic teacher, and instead of taking the opportunity to be on top of it, you plan to flunk that class. It is safer to rely on unconditional income, or some stalinistic planner, huh?

I used it to force you to show how 'buying a robot' by poor (who magically delivers food on your plate and pays the bills) could be placed in real-life scenario. But you're not very keen of defending your argument, are you?

And nope, I've never heard anyone, who sees TU as a threat, claiming that's 'law of nature'. It may never happen and I hope it won't, but I see such possibility and all the signs (unprecedented progress in technology) points at it being a likely scenario.

But I hear plenty of libertarians and alike claiming "it will never happen!" as if there was any 'law of nature' to prevent this (it's almost like atheist vs religion discussion). And that's understandable, if it happens, it will render their views beliefs as bullshit.

Don't want to repeat all the arguments proving TU is a real threat etc. Just a quick one, if you can create a 'robot' (or other machine or software) which consumes less energy than human + is more effective - there's no reason to employ human.

Why is it not realistic ? tell me why, I am eager to learn. Why do you consider the "no job available" a natural law of nature ?

I don't hold dogma, it is just that the arguments of libertarians I read from Milton Friedman, Rothbard, have never been attacked based on rational ground. I am merely testing them in this forum, and until now the main responses I got was "It is unrealistic @Copyright", which is not a rational argument.

I was hoping you'll explain how that's not a problem because:


Or this:


Can you apply your 'solutions' to the real life scenario? Or does it only work in your head?

Ps. In this scenario automation affected most of the sectors, so obvious solution of 'getting a new job' is not quite realistic option.

Ps2. No offence intended with the 'teenager' thing, from my experience: people like to label themselves in their teenage years (I did), but develop more balanced and open-minded approach later on. You seemed to me to be very resistant to consider that your libertarian beliefs may simply not be true, so honestly assumed you're a teenager.

In the free market, it is easy to get a job. Work prohibition, red tape, taxes and welfare are severe distortions in the job market, in fact, only governments can impede the jobmarket to the degree that people who can do something that is of value to others can go without a job. Now you know where to point your finger, if that is what you want. Of not, just get a job. Even if severely distorted, the job market somewhat works.

Chosing only welfare just because it pays just a tad better than a job, is probably detrimental to your life. I could even support taking welfare and at the same time work in the blue market.

Because getting another job is easy? In a situation where X positions were starting to get replaced by robots, only the best would be left working (if any at all).
Unless he had the predispositions to do something else (that isn't currently being replaced by robots), his family would fall apart quickly. Would it not? This is actually a great thread.
Does humanity need to evolve so that in order to survive one doesn't need to work?

This is a great video, I've watched it long ago. This is something that I often send to people when they are choosing a major to study. Unfortunately many do not understand.

I am libertarian, would be teenager, but sadly not anymore.


Find another job.
If you say, there is no job, then you should ask yourself why is this the case and study it.
What happened to the people who were copying book by hand before gutenberg ?

In the free market, you would get another job, right-size your spending and go on. The program you mentioned would be the source of work-saving, therefore productivity increase, therefore increased living standard for all.

In the not so free market, a union could force the company out of business, or violently reserve a premium to some workers, or you could conspire with the most popular mafia in your area to steal from others to give to you (all of the above reducing the living standard of the folks in the land), in exchange for support or maybe for supportive trolling in a popular bitcoin discussion medium.

You still have no reason or logic behind your non-argument, you just cry out the ludditism lie that has been refuted for hundreds of years. Basically, you have nothing.

Its a race to the bottom.

U.S is a huge issue due to lack of reinforcing higher form of education, if you see compared to other countries like korea, or japan, any other countries follow they create more higher demand fields.

If a machine cant do it, then theres hope for some involvement or more like management. If their business model is top knotch, regardless technology needs to be management more, its still not going to fulfill for everyone.

Sorry mate but you just sound like a middle-class teenager who pigeonholed himself as libertarian and refuse to acknowledge that your views simply may not work in reality.

Lets use a real example simulation, no theoretical bullshit. Imagine you're a customer service worker, with unemployed wife + kid + mortgage. You earn just enough to survive (pay the bills, get food, clothes, pay mortgage rate). One day you discover that you and your colleagues are replaced by piece of software.

What do you do? Go.