Technological unemployment is (almost) here

[giantdragon]

There certainly are simple jobs which are not creative that are more and more being taken over by machines. What about people that can not compete against robots any more? What about a significant percentage of citizens that have nothing of value to offer for society or only at a price much higher than the cost of machines?

They need to adapt to survive, just like every other living thing on this planet (humans included.)

In the long run only few creative jobs will be available, so it not a question of adaptation (education and skills) but rather a wealth redistribution.

[1714174054]

1714174054

[1714174054]

1714174054

[1714174054]

1714174054

[1714174054]

1714174054

[1714174054]

1714174054

[bobdutica]

One profession that will continue to be in demand for a long time is that of plumber. They cannot be automated or outsourced, and without them human wastes will back up, smell bad and cause diseases. Consider The Great Stink of London (a great read). In the 1850's the city of London could not grow any larger because the sewage was making people sick and the people couldn't stand the smell. It wasn't until they started engineering a sewer system that the city could start to grow again.

[anu]

In the long run only few creative jobs will be available, so it not a question of adaptation (education and skills) but rather a wealth redistribution.

I'd like to quote here who should be your favorite economist: In the long run we're all dead.

The upcoming crisis will cost countless jobs (and possibly countless lives) and it will have nothing to do with tech unemployment. How about we worry about the problems at hand and not the ones that may come up in 2050? Because for tech unemployment to ever become a problem we need to live long enough.

But I guess you want wealth redistribution now? In other words, you want the government to take away your neighbor's property at gun point and hand it to you?

[giantdragon]

But I guess you want wealth redistribution now? In other words, you want the government to take away your neighbor's property at gun point and hand it to you?

Better if it will happen peacefully. But if the elites won't take any measures to deal with tech unemployment, the outcome likely will be as you wrote (however it will be not a govt, but the desperate hungry rioters who will point gun and have absolutely no mercy to the wealthy people)!

[dogechode]

But I guess you want wealth redistribution now? In other words, you want the government to take away your neighbor's property at gun point and hand it to you?

Better if it will happen peacefully. But if the elites won't take any measures to deal with tech unemployment, the outcome likely will be as you wrote (however it will be not a govt, but the desperate hungry rioters who will point gun and have absolutely no mercy to the wealthy people)!

At least he finally admits it. Yes, we should all share and sit around and sing kumbaya, and it shouldn't matter that some people are stupid and lazy and self-destructive and wasteful and ignorant, we should just go right ahead and give them an equal share of everything others have worked hard to earn.

Right. I'll get right on that.

[giantdragon]

At least he finally admits it. Yes, we should all share and sit around and sing kumbaya, and it shouldn't matter that some people are stupid and lazy and self-destructive and wasteful and ignorant

If you have carefully read my previous posts, you should know that I advocate guaranteed employment instead of unconditional basic income for idling. However, this of course is impossible if privately-owned corporations force people to work 8-12 hours/day and use child labor in China/Bangladesh/Vietnam so there are simply no jobs for everyone in developed countries.

we should just go right ahead and give them an equal share of everything others have worked hard to earn.

Robots worked hard 24/7/365 while 0.001% elite takes all profits.

[reckoner]

some insightful posts here.

[twiifm]

If you have carefully read my previous posts, you should know that I advocate guaranteed employment instead of unconditional basic income for idling. However, this of course is impossible if privately-owned corporations force people to work 8-12 hours/day and use child labor in China/Bangladesh/Vietnam so there are simply no jobs for everyone in developed countries.

Have you read the proposal for Job Guarantee by Pavlina Tcherchnova?  http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?docid=1508

Heres another proposal by Randall Wray  http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/mmp-blog-43-job-guarantee-basics-design-and-advantages.html

[anu]

At least he finally admits it. Yes, we should all share and sit around and sing kumbaya, and it shouldn't matter that some people are stupid and lazy and self-destructive and wasteful and ignorant

If you have carefully read my previous posts, you should know that I advocate guaranteed employment instead of unconditional basic income for idling. However, this of course is impossible if privately-owned corporations force people to work 8-12 hours/day and use child labor in China/Bangladesh/Vietnam so there are simply no jobs for everyone in developed countries.

we should just go right ahead and give them an equal share of everything others have worked hard to earn.

Robots worked hard 24/7/365 while 0.001% elite takes all profits.

Because the Soviet system worked so well. AKA "We pretend to work, and the government pretends to pay".

[giantdragon]

Because the Soviet system worked so well. AKA "We pretend to work, and the government pretends to pay".

If you would have a choice between USSR economic system and prospective collapsed civilization due to tech unemployment induced inequality, I am sure you would choose the former.

BTW, recent NASA study looks very realistic IMHO!

[dogechode]

For the record, jobs went to 3rd world countries because American workers got greedy and were being lazy. It got to the point where so many factories were unionized and demanding obscene pay to do very simple jobs and slack off a lot. For example, the union workers destroyed the one great American steel industry. So everyone saying greedy corporations sent jobs overseas should take a long hard look at the facts and realize that greedy workers demanding $30 an hour to tighten bolts on an assembly line caused management to look for a better alternative.

AND everyone has this cheapass mentality nowadays and they want rock bottom prices for everything, forcing companies to find ways to lower production costs. Decades ago the American consumer was very picky about quality, warranty, brand loyalty was stronger, etc. Nowadays the culture is all about getting the cheapest price.

[giantdragon]

For the record, jobs went to 3rd world countries because American workers got greedy and were being lazy. It got to the point where so many factories were unionized and demanding obscene pay to do very simple jobs and slack off a lot. For example, the union workers destroyed the one great American steel industry. So everyone saying greedy corporations sent jobs overseas should take a long hard look at the facts and realize that greedy workers demanding $30 an hour to tighten bolts on an assembly line caused management to look for a better alternative.

In fact only profits of the corporate owners grew significantly last decades! It is a pure race to the bottom! If the state would nationalize all "unpatriotic" enterprises and leave manufacturing onshore, unionized workers in the US/EU would continue enjoying high standards of life, but managers/shareholders/CEOs who don't like this form of socialism can be awarded with a free one-way airline ticket!

[anu]

Because the Soviet system worked so well. AKA "We pretend to work, and the government pretends to pay".

If you would have a choice between USSR economic system and prospective collapsed civilization due to tech unemployment induced inequality, I am sure you would choose the former.

BTW, recent NASA study looks very realistic IMHO!

That, my friend, is called a False Dichotomy.

For the record: All civilizations that collapsed before were extremely centralized. Some of them, like the Easter Islands, directed all their ressources towards one goal, and worked "as one". Our civilization as it is can't collapse in it's entirety because it is still too de-centralized. Politicians are working hard to change that, but they are not yet there. We can, of course, have a world wide financial collapse - again, because the financial world is too interconnected and too centralized.

Interestingly, the problem of centralization and interconnectedness was entirely ignored in Jared Diamond's otherwise very interesting book "Collapse". Wonder why? It is the topic of Vernor Vinge's "Deepness in the Sky" and Dimitry Orlov's "Five Stages of Collapse". Interesting reads, all of them, for those who wonder why and how civilizations collapse.

Give me one historic collapse of a de-centralized civ (not conquest) and I will consider you less of a narrow minded totalitarism monger. What I mean is something like the Greek civilization. It never collapsed and in a way, it still survives.

[phelix]

Because the Soviet system worked so well. AKA "We pretend to work, and the government pretends to pay".

If you would have a choice between USSR economic system and prospective collapsed civilization due to tech unemployment induced inequality, I am sure you would choose the former.

BTW, recent NASA study looks very realistic IMHO!

That, my friend, is called a False Dichotomy.

This. Same as the poll.

There certainly are simple jobs which are not creative that are more and more being taken over by machines. What about people that can not compete against robots any more? What about a significant percentage of citizens that have nothing of value to offer for society or only at a price much higher than the cost of machines?

They need to adapt to survive, just like every other living thing on this planet (humans included.)

And by "adapt to survive" you actually mean "die"?

[giantdragon]

All civilizations that collapsed before were extremely centralized.

Modern civilization is too technologically advanced therefore cannot become more decentralized than some threshold, after which hi-tech products will start to disappear (space flights at first, then jet airliners, then microprocessors and so on). I agree that many countries now are too centralized, but going "all-in" to decentralization is not a good idea!

Give me one historic collapse of a de-centralized civ (not conquest) and I will consider you less of a narrow minded totalitarism monger. What I mean is something like the Greek civilization. It never collapsed and in a way, it still survives.

There are examples when small decentralized civilizations were conquered by a more centralized one due to superiority in the technologies [related with above post].

[giantdragon]

http://mises.org/daily/1121

Interesting assumption from the quoted article - libertarian ideas may look good, but every time in history they ended up with monopolization and crony capitalism!

When one truly looks at Iceland's history objectively, one can see what the real causes of Iceland's collapse was. The lack of competition and the monopolistic qualities that eventually came about when five families cornered the chieftaincy market was one reason. These five families bought the majority of chieftaincies. They controlled the court and legal system to a significant extent. This meant that there were not as many chieftains to choose from. This led to less competition, creating opportunities for increased exploitation over the free farmers, eventually leading to a revolt against the 5 families.

[anu]

libertarian ideas may look good, but every time in history they ended up with monopolization and crony capitalism!

It is indeed a question why people are like that. Why do Western tourists in India or Thailand eat McPinkSlimeBurger (TM) when you can get 1001 excellent and healthy dishes within a 50 yards circle and for less money? If you can answer that question, you know why Anarchy has to fight uphill battles. Anyway, libertarian societies just need reforms from time to time. But how about collectivism?

Collectivist ideas may look good, but every time in history they ended like this:

[giantdragon]

Collectivist ideas may look good, but every time in history they ended like this:

I can change the word "Collectivist" to "Capitalist" and post the same image!

[anu]

Collectivist ideas may look good, but every time in history they ended like this:

I can change the word "Collectivist" to "Capitalist" and post the same image!

No you can't - Killing fields, Gulag, KZ are not things companies come up with. Companies want to sell. Killing your customers is bad for business.

The only company that ever killed substantial numbers of people on their own accord was AFAIK the East India Company. And that company grew so big and ugly that it turned into a government. But even they killed orders of magnitude fewer people than collectivists like Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao or the Holy Inquisition.

[giantdragon]

No you can't - Killing fields, Gulag, KZ are not things companies come up with. Companies want to sell. Killing your customers is bad for business.

I am not telling solely about corporations, but rather about capitalist system as a whole. Economic depressions, wars, hunger etc all create the victims displayed on your image!