Technological unemployment is (almost) here

[Rassah]

However, planned economy with democracy and elections won't let above problem to happen.

How do you have a planned economy with a democracy and elections? You believe people are capable of making decisions as to what it takes to run each and every business, or even if they only vote to pick one person to run one company, you think they can know the person's qualifications, how well they will fit into the company, and be able to evaluate their ongoing performance?
Even better, you think people will actually take the time to study these things before voting, instead of turning the entire planned economy into a popularity contest?

[giantdragon]

How do you have a planned economy with a democracy and elections? You believe people are capable of making decisions as to what it takes to run each and every business, or even if they only vote to pick one person to run one company, you think they can know the person's qualifications, how well they will fit into the company, and be able to evaluate their ongoing performance?
Even better, you think people will actually take the time to study these things before voting, instead of turning the entire planned economy into a popularity contest?

1. I mean USSR had only single party, so it led to elite's degradation. If we will allow multiparty system with political competition this won't happen (banning only pro-capitalist parties the same way as nationalist/far-right parties banned in Germany now).
2. As I said later, state-wide ERP software can help to measure performance.
3. I think it is reasonable to require passing some qualification exam for the people who want to participate in the voting. People will have a lot of time thanks to automation, so why not to learn!

[giantdragon]

Neo-luddite riots started appearing, right I have predicted!
http://pando.com/2013/12/20/breaking-protesters-attack-google-bus-in-west-oakland-smashing-window/

[bitcoinhelp]

The actual empirical evidence doesn't support the wishful thinking that higher unemployment will hurt consumer spending and the economy in general. The bourgeois class doesn't have to fear people not being able to buy their stuff.

[giantdragon]

The actual empirical evidence doesn't support the wishful thinking that higher unemployment will hurt consumer spending and the economy in general. The bourgeois class doesn't have to fear people not being able to buy their stuff.

It may be true for luxury goods, but what about mass-markets products that must be produced in the quantities many times exceeding number of bourgeoisie and "tech elite" to be bring profit for corporations?!

[Rassah]

It may be true for luxury goods, but what about mass-markets products that must be produced in the quantities many times exceeding number of bourgeoisie and "tech elite" to be bring profit for corporations?!

Reduce production to the number of "bourgeoisie and tech elite" and increase prices to compensate, and you'll still make a profit.

[giantdragon]

Reduce production to the number of "bourgeoisie and tech elite" and increase prices to compensate, and you'll still make a profit.

Most hi-tech products have huge R&D and initial costs (e.g. lithographic masks for CPUs), so only mass markets allow to set prices on the acceptable level. If we will reduce the production, bourgeoisie and tech elite will be new poor after buying these products!

[Rassah]

Reduce production to the number of "bourgeoisie and tech elite" and increase prices to compensate, and you'll still make a profit.

Most hi-tech products have huge R&D and initial costs (e.g. lithographic masks for CPUs), so only mass markets allow to set prices on the acceptable level. If we will reduce the production, bourgeoisie and tech elite will be new poor after buying these products!

They're elite. They can afford it. They'll be the only ones who can. As wealthy early adopters, they're the ones who pay thousands for new large screen TVs and expensive gadgets already, remember?

[giantdragon]

As wealthy early adopters, they're the ones who pay thousands for new large screen TVs and expensive gadgets already, remember?

This small price premium at the sale beginning is nothing compared to the full R&D costs. Without the mass market a bourgeoisie and "tech elite" have to pay not thousands, but millions or billions USD so very soon these people will notice they are not the rich anymore!

[Rassah]

As wealthy early adopters, they're the ones who pay thousands for new large screen TVs and expensive gadgets already, remember?

This small price premium at the sale beginning is nothing compared to the full R&D costs. Without the mass market a bourgeoisie and "tech elite" have to pay not thousands, but millions or billions USD so very soon these people will notice they are not the rich anymore!

More likely it would mean that no one would make such devices, if they cost millions or billions, and there aren't enough people to buy them. So the only things that will be made will be the things that the makers actually know can be sold. Maybe that means that the TVs won't be as big, and gadhets won't be as fast, but I'm sure these wealthy types will manage somehow.

[giantdragon]

More likely it would mean that no one would make such devices, if they cost millions or billions, and there aren't enough people to buy them. So the only things that will be made will be the things that the makers actually know can be sold. Maybe that means that the TVs won't be as big, and gadhets won't be as fast, but I'm sure these wealthy types will manage somehow.

I don't think "tech elite" will be much happy with this fate - living in the small enclaves, spending large resources on the defense (80-90% "useless population" will fight very hard trying to capture these cities) and even don't having hi-tech products!

[Rassah]

(80-90% "useless population" will fight very hard trying to capture these cities) and even don't having hi-tech products!

So, it'll be like the Taliban on camels, fighting US with their satellites and drones?
Besides, why would they want to fight? If, as you claim, technological unemployment will make us all poor, then they won't earn much for risking their life fighting. And if it won't, then those they want to fight will be the ones giving them jobs, money, and things to buy.

It's pretty sad, and rather disgusting, that some people's default reaction to seeing someone else's wealth is "I'm going to kill him and take it for myself" instead of "I'm going to learn from him and create it for myself." Thank god for karma, keeping these types of people poor and broken.

[giantdragon]

So, it'll be like the Taliban on camels, fighting US with their satellites and drones?

Desperate people with AK-47 have much better chances than police with drones and satellites!

Besides, why would they want to fight? If, as you claim, technological unemployment will make us all poor, then they won't earn much for risking their life fighting.

Your argument contradict himself. People will fight when they have nothing to lose - risking the life is much better than starvation for most people! Try not to eat just 3 days and you will understand what is it!

It's pretty sad, and rather disgusting, that some people's default reaction to seeing someone else's wealth is "I'm going to kill him and take it for myself" instead of "I'm going to learn from him and create it for myself."

You should read OP before writing this rubbish - "white collars" will be (or yet being) affected as well as unskilled workers, so even if you learn hard it won't guarantee success. Do you know how many programmers (!) are unemployed in the EU and US now!? Even if entire population will learn valuable skills (programming, 3D modeling, robot maintenance etc) there won't be enough jobs for them all under capitalism!

P.S. I intended to discuss peaceful ways to solve technological unemployment issue and not the civil war, which is rather obvious if we won't solve this problem.

[Rassah]

Do you know how many programmers (!) are unemployed in the EU and US now!?

I don't know. I haven't read the latest death toll from starvation numbers. Maybe you can tell me?

BTW, it's still pretty dumb that you keep thinking of capitalism as "having a job." It's not having a job and letting someone give you money, it's making jobs and making money. You are too far into the "get a good paying job to survive" brainwashing mentality.

[giantdragon]

Do you know how many programmers (!) are unemployed in the EU and US now!?

I don't know. I haven't read the latest death toll from starvation numbers. Maybe you can tell me?

Of course they don't starve because welfare and crappy jobs like burger flipper still exist.

it's still pretty dumb that you keep thinking of capitalism as "having a job."

Under capitalism if you don't have a job you cannot live (not counting welfare and charities that only allow not to starve).

You are too far into the "get a good paying job to survive" brainwashing mentality.

If you are not lucky enough to get capital and live from its rent, its only way to survive in the capitalist economy model!

[Rassah]

it's still pretty dumb that you keep thinking of capitalism as "having a job."

Under capitalism if you don't have a job you cannot live (not counting welfare and charities that only allow not to starve).

See, that is exactly what I'm talking about. People like Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Steve Jobs, and others like them didn't have jobs, or capital to live off of, yet they live pretty damn well. Capitalism is not finding an employer and hoping he will give you a job. That's the sad brainwashing that you and many others were convinced of. Capitalism is creating wealth and trading it with others. If you can't find employers to give you a job, you be the employer. Sure, it's not easy, and is much more difficult to figure out than just having someone else tell you what to do and give you money for it, but it is way better than starving to death.

[giantdragon]

See, that is exactly what I'm talking about. People like Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Steve Jobs, and others like them didn't have jobs, or capital to live off of, yet they live pretty damn well. Capitalism is not finding an employer and hoping he will give you a job. That's the sad brainwashing that you and many others were convinced of. Capitalism is creating wealth and trading it with others. If you can't find employers to give you a job, you be the employer. Sure, it's not easy, and is much more difficult to figure out than just having someone else tell you what to do and give you money for it, but it is way better than starving to death.

I think you understand that people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are 0.000001% of the population, other will never repeat their success! For the remaining 99.999999% only one option to not to starve will be fighting, and they no doubt will fight if the economic model won't be adapted to post-labor era!

[kjj]

See, that is exactly what I'm talking about. People like Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Steve Jobs, and others like them didn't have jobs, or capital to live off of, yet they live pretty damn well. Capitalism is not finding an employer and hoping he will give you a job. That's the sad brainwashing that you and many others were convinced of. Capitalism is creating wealth and trading it with others. If you can't find employers to give you a job, you be the employer. Sure, it's not easy, and is much more difficult to figure out than just having someone else tell you what to do and give you money for it, but it is way better than starving to death.

I think you understand that people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are 0.000001% of the population, other will never repeat their success! For the remaining 99.999999% only one option to not to starve will be fighting, and they no doubt will fight if the economic model won't be adapted to post-labor era!

Those are just examples that can be quickly and easily used because they are famous, and they are famous because they are rich.  Do you know my mechanic, Bard?  He started out with nothing, now owns his own shop.  He's modestly rich by most standards, but he makes a lousy example on the internet because you have never heard of him.

There is a huge spectrum between starving in the streets and Bill Gates.  To get off of one end, you don't need to make it all the way to the other end.  Most of the middle is very nice.

[giantdragon]

Those are just examples that can be quickly and easily used because they are famous, and they are famous because they are rich.  Do you know my mechanic, Bard?  He started out with nothing, now owns his own shop.  He's modestly rich by most standards, but he makes a lousy example on the internet because you have never heard of him.

There is a huge spectrum between starving in the streets and Bill Gates.  To get off of one end, you don't need to make it all the way to the other end.  Most of the middle is very nice.

In this topic I tried to draw a macro-model, i.e. what will happen for the society a whole. Of course exceptions exist for some sectors, but these small niches not affected by automation where you can work for yourself not being a superstar (e.g. hairdresser, plumber, mechanic, repairman etc) will evaporate very quickly as crowd of unemployed will try to take these jobs! Also don't forget that AI capabilities are not static, so after 20 years there may be even robo-mechanic and robo-hairdresser.

[Murwa]

See, that is exactly what I'm talking about. People like Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Steve Jobs, and others like them didn't have jobs, or capital to live off of, yet they live pretty damn well. Capitalism is not finding an employer and hoping he will give you a job

I just love this kind of arguments ... ( love to laugh at it )

This is a one in a million exception not a rule.

And yet those twisted free-market minds somehow treat it like a revelation.