Technological unemployment is (almost) here

[Erdogan]

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.

[pawel7777]

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

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

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 ?

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

Why does the poor doesn't own a robot which will work for him ?

So why does the poor not buy a robot, since his wage is higher than a robot ?

Or this:

No, the poors can provide services to each others as well and form their own economy

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.

[Nicolas Dorier]

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

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 ?

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.

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.

[pawel7777]

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 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.

[Erdogan]

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 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.

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?

[pawel7777]

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 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.

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.

...

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?

[Erdogan]

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 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.

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.

...

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?

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.

[pawel7777]

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.

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 (!?)

[Erdogan]

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.

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 (!?)

Inform yourself.

[pawel7777]

Inform yourself.

Lol. Instant win of discussion.

Why did you even bother to post in this thread?

[Gronthaing]

@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)

What is the point of forcing everyone to work? Especially if you can already automate it?

I'm not forcing anyone, people who preach against automation are.

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 say : that the poor will starve because they have no job because nobody need them. (assuming no unconditional income)
I ask : Why does the poor doesn't own a robot which will work for him ?

If you say : Because he is poor and have no money for it.
I would ask : So why would'nt he work for himself or work for other poors who have no money for a robot ?

If employing another poor is cheaper than owning a robot, then it basically means that a poor is more effective than a robot, if not, why would the robot cost more ?

If you say : a robot cost less than hiring a poor,
I would ask : So why does the poor not buy a robot, since his wage is higher than a robot ?

It is unbelievable that so many people think that the middle/upper class must/should/are giving jobs to the poor.
No, the poors can provide services to each others as well and form their own economy. They are just prevented to do so when you have law like minimal wage, insurmontable bureaucraties bullshit to waste time on, or banks, legally mandatory for the business, refusing to even open a fucking bank account for them. (It happened to me as well, and I'm not poor)

If robot can grant you any desires, then yes, you don't need money at all, no need for any "unconditional income". You won't even need to socialize, since this need would also be taken care of robot.
If you need at least 2 thing that only other humans can give, then you start to enter into an exchange that will ultimately be done with money. Unconditional Income will be a tax on those who offer those services (by depreciating there stock of money) forcing them to work and give even more for the same thing.

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.

[Erdogan]

Inform yourself.

Lol. Instant win of discussion.

Why did you even bother to post in this thread?

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.

[Gronthaing]

Inform yourself.

Lol. Instant win of discussion.

Why did you even bother to post in this thread?

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.

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.

[Erdogan]

Inform yourself.

Lol. Instant win of discussion.

Why did you even bother to post in this thread?

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.

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.

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.

[pawel7777]

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.

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).

@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)

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.

[Nicolas Dorier]

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.

Thanks, at least there are some arguments worth debating.
In fact I spent lots of time replying to it, but then I have seen that I did not included the impact of rent you mentioned. (I assumed wrongly that in highly competitive unhampered market, the cost of any product is equals to the cost of labor -which is true for knowledge jobs though-)
I'll get back after some rothbard/mises/smith reading, remember seeing some stuff about rents, I don't remember their rational though.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Before coming with better arguments about the other stuff you said, which made it clear I need to include rent in the picture, I can respond to the following:

Until people work for the minimum that still lets them eat

Yes. Labor being like any good, the price of it is ultimately equals to its cost.

Doesn't look like a good lifestyle.

It is not, but it assure minimum subsistence, while allowing the individual to develop his capacities to increase his salary.

"Labor market" is an erroneous term.
I work in IT, and technically speaking, even if I am labor, I'm not in the same market than a cashier. (we are not competing each other)
We should talk of labor markets with a "s", rather than 1 market.

So it gives appropriate incentives for people to move into other markets where robot are not present or too costly.
It is an incentive for individual development.

The current way of doing it is though subsidies to innovation, which only goes to the pocket of the well politically connected rather than the poor.

[tyz]

My guess is, there will be a higher tax on machines in the future. On the other hand, the more machines are producing products the higher will be the maintanance and management overhead which creates new jobs. Jobs shift from production to management.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Unemployment is an ill-defined concept, as with most of the jargon in economics and the other humanities-side of soft sciences.

So it is easy to have endless debates about nothingness. People are still free to be as lazy or as productive as they choose, generally speaking.

[thejaytiesto]

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

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

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 ?

Please, stop being this delusional. As time goes on, there are LESS things to do by the average joe, and most are average joes, and guess what, the biggest impact in automation will be all the jobs made by the vast majority, which are average joes.

As time goes on its more and more complicated to be creative in a way that would make you money, simply because more things are already invented, let alone create something that would be able to employ a ton of people in an ever increasingly automated reality.

Again, are you seriously going to tell to the average 45 year old guy with a family that has been working on factories for life to "man up and become a creative entrepeneur?" Jesus fucking Christ, do you live on a bubble?
This man is FUCKED beyond belief if his job gets automated, unless, guess what, a state helps him with basic income so he doesn't have to start stealing and getting in risky business to feed their godamn family and himself, that's if he doesn't goes nuts and crashes a car full of gas bottles or something forced by the desperate situation.
Get a grip on reality buddy.