Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yes, compared to todays standards it is pitiful, but so was a cellphone in 1990.
People don't see how quickly technology is changing. Just look around and see what is available today that wasn't when you were a kid. Now forward that out a few decades.
to spell it out, factories will be build where robot workers build robots.
the technology is fast converging where people will not be needed to run the world anymore.
Who is going to engineer, design, build and maintain all the roads and bridges wiped out by hurricanes or entire towns obliterated by tornadoes? Those skills are not easy to cheap to learn but what we are willing to pay for them has continuously decreased. Why do we expect anyone to do the work for free? Financiers do not expect to work for anything less than exorbitant wages but they expect the rest of us to work for their profits without anything for ourselves.
Decent jobs are getting scarce in the US. Hell, indecent jobs are as well.
You can blame the GO TO COLLEGE and make sure it is a TOP university crowd for the lack of people entering the trades anymore. Heck, we aren't even raising our own farmers anymore. Pretty soon there will be no Americans left that now how to build or grow a damn thing.
Who is going to engineer, design, build and maintain all the roads and bridges wiped out by hurricanes or entire towns obliterated by tornadoes? Those skills are not easy to cheap to learn but what we are willing to pay for them has continuously decreased. Why do we expect anyone to do the work for free? Financiers do not expect to work for anything less than exorbitant wages but they expect the rest of us to work for their profits without anything for ourselves.
Decent jobs are getting scarce in the US. Hell, indecent jobs are as well.
And much of their work is now done by a computer, not a person. The person just takes your money(although sometimes the computer does that as well).
yes, compared to todays standards it is pitiful, but so was a cellphone in 1990.
People don't see how quickly technology is changing. Just look around and see what is available today that wasn't when you were a kid. Now forward that out a few decades.
to spell it out, factories will be build where robot workers build robots.
the technology is fast converging where people will not be needed to run the world anymore.
Yeah, robots are going to write code and program themselves. It ALL starts and ends with a human being involved. Don't be scared, embrace it and learn new skills.
Yeah, robots are going to write code and program themselves. It ALL starts and ends with a human being involved. Don't be scared, embrace it and learn new skills.
At a minimum, just accept the fact that we will all be working furiously to train our armies to stop the robots from enslaving us.
How about training our Armies to stop the plutocrats and their pet politicians from enslaving us. Robots take your job but the bankers take your freedom.
Social unrest, more crime, higher gun sales and Obama out in 2012.
The you will see protectionist legislation enacted and finally a well needed clampdown and mass deporation of Illegal Aliens that have no right to be here in the first place.
What happens if, due to technology/off-shoring/etc, the number of jobs has peaked in the US, and is now starting to decline?
If we continue to add 2-3 million people a yr, but lose jobs each year instead of gain them?
This is not all that unrealistic, as the goal of technology seems to be find a job a person does, and replace it with a machine.
Some are done more easily than others.
What happens as we add another 30 million, but no jobs(or lose more)?
The negative: fewer people employed means less money being put into medicare and SS. the one positive thing: the new group of grads are from the late 80 plus and they are a smaller number than the baby boomers, so as the boomers retire their will be more jobs and fewer people to fill them. Does this make any sense?
The negative: fewer people employed means less money being put into medicare and SS. the one positive thing: the new group of grads are from the late 80 plus and they are a smaller number than the baby boomers, so as the boomers retire their will be more jobs and fewer people to fill them. Does this make any sense?
NIta
But generation X and Y are over 100 million, so there are actually more people than boomers.
What happens if, due to technology/off-shoring/etc, the number of jobs has peaked in the US, and is now starting to decline?
If we continue to add 2-3 million people a yr, but lose jobs each year instead of gain them?
This is not all that unrealistic, as the goal of technology seems to be find a job a person does, and replace it with a machine.
Some are done more easily than others.
What happens as we add another 30 million, but no jobs(or lose more)?
Good for you for thinking outside the box. There is a very real possibility that jobs in the US have peaked.
Service industries have really low margins. A law firm might have a margin of 90% but that is due to the fact that its costs are fixed and it is an highly specialized service. Other services don't have the luxury of fixed costs, like restaurants and others that rely on commodities that are constantly changing prices. Typically an after tax profit of 6%-10% is excellent.
Anyway, the point is the wages just aren't there and never will, unlike other sectors of the economy, and services just aren't enough to support an economy, and certainly not enough to support the level of labor participation that people want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crystalblue
And how would a different president make a difference? Will they stop the advance of technology? End off-shoring?
Ending off-shoring means the loss of even more jobs. It's a global market and nothing can be to done to change that. The US is a mere 4.5% of the global market, and it's not enough to sustain US businesses, even with protectionist tariffs.
You could certainly do that, but the price would be a reduction in households that have two wage-earners back to the 1950s, where only 6% of households had two-wage earners. If women can handle being house-wives again, and men can handle being house-husbands, then you can do that. If not, then you can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
Someone STILL has to manufacture those robots, program those robots, etc.
They have robots making robots. Regardless, it's a net loss of jobs.
Kroger's now has automated checkout lanes. That's 8 cashiers that aren't working. You argue someone has to repair and maintain the machines, and that's true, but it only takes one person, not 8, so you have net loss of 7 jobs. And while someone has to make the machines, they don't have to be in the US to make them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It ALL starts and ends with a human being involved. Don't be scared, embrace it and learn new skills.
