No, expecting me to come up with the new jobs is the strawman. I can't predict the future any more than you can. So I can make up jobs, like "fnargle washer," but without knowing what a fnargle is, I can't say for certain that it would need washing. But I can tell you that a great many of the service jobs that exist today will not go out of style, either because they cannot be automated, or because it will be a mark of prestige that you have chosen not to automate that particular service.
there is precious little that can not be automated. mostly stuff that requires either creativity or complex manual labor. sure, some people will prefer human personnel, even if it costs a little extra. but that doesnt change the general trend. i agree that its not fair to ask you to make up new jobs. its also not fair to claim that the service economy will neutralize the effect of lost production jobs without any possible way to back that claim up  The market responds to needs. it responds to needs by filling them. Filling those needs provides employment. If all human needs are filled by a machine, then that would be a pretty damn fine problem to have, don't you think?
in theory, with a much nicer human race around or with infinite resources, yeah it would be. but with finite resources and everybody wanting as much luxury as possible? |
|
|
|
There are many more service-oriented careers that won't go out of style, no matter how automated the world gets, besides tech support. and yes, that includes sales clerk. The more upscale shops might even pride themselves on having human staff. Can you predict the future with 100% certainty? Neither can I. Nobody can.
strawman. i never claimed to precisely predict the future. neither did i claim that every single job will vanish. but if some jobs disappear, you need replacements. you didnt come up with any. But the market can react to it when it happens, so long as it's not constrained by short-sighted regulations.
"the market" consists of human beings, which are short-sighted too - and usually dont give a fuck about other human beings that are only an abstract number in a statistic. trusting in the market to magically solve all problems is just another religious belief. |
|
|
|
I see. you've never needed assistance with your computer, then?
when i need assistance its usually with problems tech support needs assistance with, too. You're evading, by the way.
evading a non-argument you never even presented properly. but if you really insist: just because there are jobs that dont require any production doesnt mean there is an infinite number of possible jobs there. it doesnt even mean there is a single extra job there. unless you can make up a realistic scenario that doesnt require 80% of the worlds population becoming tech support staff i really dont see that i need to prove anything here. |
|
|
|
You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?
they are selling products, plus they will be obsolete eventually. Are they producing anything? Is the tech support rep on the phone producing anything? You're seriously worrying about a non-issue. sales clerks are already a dying species and the modern phenomenon called "tech support" is a scourge, and hopefully a short-lived one. |
|
|
|
Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.
well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes." same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians |
|
|
|
You don't. But good news: work ≠ production. Does the sales clerk at the grocery store produce anything? Are they working?
they are selling products, plus they will be obsolete eventually. You do realize that this song has been sung before, yes? The Curse of Machinery (Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson) yeah, very long text. does it address finite resources at some point? because thats really the key to the argument. in the past (industrial era etc.), resources havent been a problem. Read it and find out. Trust me, you will be better for the experience. In fact, read the whole book. You will be exponentially better informed. If you read one text on economics in your lifetime, this is it. i skimmed it a bit: It would be far better, if that were the choice—which it isn’t—to have maximum production with part of the population supported in idleness by undisguised relief than to provide “full employment” by so many forms of disguised make-work that production is disorganized. The progress of civilization has meant the reduction of employment, not its increase. It is because we have become increasingly wealthy as a nation that we have been able virtually to eliminate child labor, to remove the necessity of work for many of the aged and to make it unnecessary for millions of women to take jobs. A much smaller proportion of the American population needs to work than that, say, of China or of Russia. The real question is not how many millions of jobs there will be in America ten years from now, but how much shall we produce, and what, in consequence, will be our standard of living? The problem of distribution on which all the stress is being put today, is after all more easily solved the more there is to distribute.
We can clarify our thinking if we put our chief emphasis where it belongs—on policies that will maximize production.
i tihnk its pretty clear that he does not address the problem of finite resources and/or a society that already moved from not employing children to not employing anyone that isnt between 20-50. |
|
|
|
Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.
well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore |
|
|
|
You still haven't logically connected automation and poverty.
only like a million times. how do you distribute wealth without work? You do realize that this song has been sung before, yes? The Curse of Machinery (Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson) yeah, very long text. does it address finite resources at some point? because thats really the key to the argument. in the past (industrial era etc.), resources havent been a problem. |
|
|
|
eventually, you just run out of services you can offer. unless, instead of increasing quantity you increase quality, which, for the most part, means better educated service personnel. So, your fear is that automation will take all jobs except those that need the most education, do I understand that correctly? what i fear is that current societies will only address the symptoms as long as it is possible to maintain the illusion that work for everyone is an option. what i fear is that, if the problem is tackled to late, unequality, poverty and civil unrest will already have grown to the point where rational debate and a slow transformation of a society is no longer possible. automation will take jobs, period. i can only predict to some extent what jobs that will be, and in what order. easy example: pretty much everything that has to do with transportation and logistics is likely to vanish within the next few decades. |
|
|
|
I don't think you quite understand how to do a logical progression. Let's try again.
Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:
Each individual will be able to produce more in less time. Therefore, it follows that:
There will be less workers needed to produce the same amount of products. Therefore, it follows that:
Less workers will be trained to produce products. Therefore, it follows that:
If people want to work, they will have to find something to do other than production. Therefore, it follows that:
you mistake appearance for function. just because you make it look formal doesnt mean its correct. specifically, without arguing with limited resources, less producing workers is no consequence of higher efficiency. The economy will shift largely from a manufacturing one to a service economy.
This is already being seen in industrialized nations. Your bogeyman is nonexistent. Not every job is one that produces something, some, perhaps even most, are services, such as daycare, tech support, or sales.
my bogeyman is very much alive. service economy is nothing new, its just that services are a little more complicated to automate than production. but that doesnt mean service economy is the future, it just means its a little less ancient history than production economy. most services either require a good education or are at risk of becoming obsolete. daycare, medical care and similar services are one of the very few exceptions. eventually, you just run out of services you can offer. unless, instead of increasing quantity you increase quality, which, for the most part, means better educated service personnel. |
|
|
|
I don't know about you, but I don't see that as a problem. Do me a favor. Logic through, step by step, how, exactly, that's a problem.
I'll start you off:
Technology is constantly increasing each individual's productivity. Therefore, it follows that:
with limited worldwide resources and resources being a necessary part of production, worldwide productivity has, even without considering demand at all, an upper limit. therefore, it is, at some point, impossible, to let everybody work at maximum productivity. since it is inefficient to teach double the amount of workers and let them work half-time, work will eventually be done by few people working full time. to avoid that you can either: - let a society be deliberately inefficient, giving everyone work - find a way to distribute wealth without the necessity for work both of which your prefered society cannot accomplish. or, for that matter, any existing one i know of. so, increasing productivity is not a problem by itself. the problem is that we dont have a good way to deal with its consequences. |
|
|
|
And what would you counter self-ownership with? I claim that everyone owns 100% of themselves, and 0% of anyone else. That is fair and equitable, because it applies to everyone equally. What principle would you base your "fair and equitable" system on?
i would base it on principles the actual participants could agree upon. as long as you found ancap nation only with volunteers in a completely seperate new nation, that might not be much of a problem at first. but in every existing society, you will always have different views on what is fair and reasonable. as long as you start out with "i know whats right for all of us" you are bound to fuck up, no matter how awesome your principles are. |
|
|
|
Ever think that a degree in "women's studies" is not very conducive to a productive career? Ever think that maybe, just maybe, not everyone needs a college education? Ever think that one of the best jobs for a single mom is taking care of other people's kids? Ever think that the licensing requirements and regulations are getting in the way of people doing just that? Ever think that minimum wage is reducing the number of available jobs? Ever think that your "solutions" are part of the problem?
the "problem" is ever increasing productivity. just because people get paid less doesnt mean there is more work to do. this goes especially for jobs not requiring high-level education. your whole idea of a society is based on people earning their livelihood through work, which is not realistic in the present and will become completely absurd in the foreseeable future. |
|
|
|
So you concede that other people are required as observers for your property right to exist?
No.... If there are no other people, then I have a de facto right to my property, because there's no one to violate it. When there are other people around, then those people have to agree on some ground rules. We call these ground rules "rights," and so that these ground rules will be fair and equitable, we base them on objective principles such as self-ownership. the idea that objective principles exist is the very core of all fundamentalism. as long as you base your set of rights on "objective" principles you always risk not listening to your fellow citizens who might have entirely different ideas about what rights are necessary and what ground rules are fair and equitable. |
|
|
|
Without welfare, students will have to work there way through uni, sick people will die or depend on charity donations, single mothers and the poor will end up homeless and on the street, crime will increase, and the gap between the rich and poor will become even greater.
agree sadly.. Without welfare, students would have to get loans and work to pay them off, sick people will have to rely on their insurance, single mothers and the poor will have to get jobs, crime will decrease, and the size of the middle class will increase. yeah right, because banks give loans to lower class students, sick people dont get fucked by insurance lawyers, everybody wants to employ single moms, millions of jobs will just magically appear out of thin air, people without any support from society would never resort to crime as a means of survival and work is so much better at redistributing money than interest is... i think this is a perfectly valid worldview - as long as you are not older than 16. |
|
|
|
|
im prinzip gibts doch nur zwei mögliche fälle:
1.) das ist alles nur vaporware und die ganzen vorbesteller haben unheimlich geld in den sand gesetzt
2.) irgendein anbieter hat irgendwann tatsächlich was marktfähiges, haut plötzlich in rauesten mengen asics raus, und die margen beim mining werden selbst für die asicbesitzer sehr klein und die asics haben defacto keinen wiederverkaufswert. dann haben die ganzen vorbesteller wiederum unheimlich geld in den sand gesetzt.
|
|
|
|
|
wahrscheinlich ging der autor davon aus, dass der leser weiss, was eine kryptographische hashfunktion ist.
|
|
|
|
Du gehst in deiner Betrachtung davon aus, dass die User bereit sind, höhere Gebühren zu zahlen (in Fiat, nicht in BTC).
Nein, ich gehe in meiner Betrachtung nur davon aus, daß es wesentlich mehr Transaktionen geben wird (die Blöcke sind ja heute nichtmal ansatzweise voll) und das praktisch keine Transaktionen mehr ohne Gebühr versendet werden. Bis die Gebühren den Reward überholen, dauert es ohnehin noch einen ganze Weile, so leer sind die blöcke nicht mehr. du musst ja davon ausgehen, dass immer nur ganz wenige blöcke voll sein dürfen, weil sich transaktionen sonst ganz schnell anfangen anzustauen. 300k blöcke sind jetzt schon relativ häufig. deshalb schätze ich, dass viel mehr als 5x so viele transaktionen nicht tragbar sind bei 1mb blockgröße. ka, wieviele freie transaktionen es noch gibt, aber mehr als eine verzehnfachung der gebühren ist so nicht mehr drin. das sind dann immer noch nur 10% des aktuellen blockreward auf den ganzen tag gerechnet. wobei die blockgröße vermutlich schon vor der nöchsten halbierung mal angehoben werden muss. sollte das System tatsächlich solange überleben, wird es auch eine ganze Reihe Dienstleister geben, die ein Interesse daran haben, das System weiterhin funktionsfähig zu halten und schon allein deshalb Mining betreiben, ob sie damit nun direkt was verdienen, oder die Mining-Aktivitäten durch ihr eigentliches Angebot querfinanzieren.
ich vermute, dass es auch relativ viel unprofitables mining von privater seite aus geben wird. coinlabs geschäftsmodell basiert ja darauf, dass leute ohne zu kalkulieren mal ein bisschen losrechnen, um sich dann in spielen oder sonstwo irgendwann ein paar goodies leisten zu können. das ist nicht preiseffizient, aber halt schön einfach, weil man selbst nichts weiter machen muss , als den rechner laufen zu lassen. |
|
|
|
2) Die Transaktionsgebühren steigen (wieder auf Fiat bezogen: Vielleicht bleibt der BTC-Betrag gleich, aber ein BTC ist um einiges mehr wert). Ich denke allerdings nicht, dass die User die höheren Transaktionsgebühren einfach so bezahlen würden. Hier sehe ich zwei Möglichkeiten:
a) Es bildet sich ein System von Bitcoin-Banken, die das Guthaben ihrer Kunden halten und Transaktionen unter sich ausmachen, in der Blockchain tauchen nur Ausgleichszahlungen auf. Die Banken verlangen wesentlich geringere Transaktionsgebühren (oder Kontoführungsgebühren).
im moment bewegen wir uns ja immer noch bei <1 cent. ich denke, die meisten user haben kein problem mit einstelligen centbeträgen. microtransactions fallen dann natürlich größtenteils weg, das müssen sie aber eh irgendwann, wenn die transaktionen die blöcke komplett füllen. es gibt übrigens noch eine weitere möglichkeit 2c) der wert miningpower/bitcoinpreis sinkt. dann sinkt natürlich die sicherheit, aber vermutlich ist der sicherheitspuffer da im moment sowieso sehr groß. @lassdas die ersten jahre kannst du im prinzip gar nicht als grundlage für irgendwelche berechnungen nehmen. deine extrapolation bezieht ja noch nichtmal blockgrößen und änderungen in der gebührenberechnung mit ein. imho kann man schon sinnvoll spekulieren, wenn man die technischen und ökonomischen eckdaten miteinbezieht. nur einfach bei einem einzelnen wert eine lineare entwicklung anzunehmen und das dann für die nächsten jahre zu extrapolieren, wird natürlich kaum zu sinnvollen ergebnissen führen. nach der rechnung müßte man mit einem bitcoin in zwei jahren ja auch 10.000 pizzen kaufen können |
|
|
|
@holliday i agree with ending the war on drugs etc... but you might want to notice that the other countries with the highest gun rates and still very low homicide rates have extensive welfare programs? especially the scandinavian countries are known for excellent public education and welfare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_modelin my opinion, the most important factor in capital crimes is poverty and an even distribution of wealth is key to low crime rates. i dont give a fuck about communism btw, but in my opinion the empiric evidence clearly suggests that not redistributing wealth is the single largest mistake any highly developed country can make. the resulting impact on crime, productivity and living quality in general is so grave that it costs way more than the actual welfare programs, despite the fact that they are beyond fucking expensive. regarding guns, personally i just dont trust all people all the time. everybody around me having guns just makes me nervous, despite the fact that i have no trouble handling guns myself. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
