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.
Joseph Schumpeter's creative destruction actually is part of what says automation does not have a long term effect on employment other then changing the jobs people are employed at.
Its also based upon certain assumptions.
The primary that a person can retrain to a new job. IE we are interchangable cogs in the machine. This was true in the past, but today more and more jobs that will remain after automation require a higher then average IQ, and learning ability. People spend a decade getting up to speed.
So what happens when automation comes along thats generic enough that you can't go to another low skill job because it can do the new ones that open up? THATS whats different on whats coming up.
The answer is....you retrain to something more complex. 4 years later you graduate with your new degree. 3 years after that the advancement of AI and expert systems replaces you.....again. Assuming you're even capable enough to learn something new.
Again we're seeing some truly amazing stuff coming up, and this is not like replacing a group of people with a specific automation. We're going to be far more generic.
You're on my ignore list because most of your responses have been.....not of the discussion variety. Im not sure whats gotten into you, but I'm enjoying it.
It depends on where you are financially. For example, with a 100K income lets say that we needed to take 22% of my income to pay for this. So bam i am down 20K. But wait...lets say its a 12K/yr basic income. Good news! I am only down 8K....but wait....I have a wife who is disabled (IE doesnt work, but I make too much for her to get social security).....so another 12K. I am positive 4K. But wait! I have a kid in college......right now no income. suddenly im getting half his basic income or he finds a new place to sleep. Im up 10K.
Joe, Mike, and Ray have 100, 500, and 3,000 dollars respective. Now, redistribute it evenly.
Now each has 1200. Collectively, they had 3600. Your redistribution added... Oh, wait. It didn't add one red cent to the collective wealth.
It just removed Ray's ability to start his business. Now nobody starts one and hires the other two.
It's as if you have no grasp of math...
Quote:
Obviously everyones situation varies.
Lets say I own a shop selling used goods (something I used to do actually). Suddenly my sales go up. As does my income.
And? This may benefit you. But the person who LOST the business is harmed and maybe goes out of business. Not sure why you think this, collectively, benefits the country.
Quote:
etc etc. There are in fact a LOT of good things that offset the cost. Crime would drop for example. Probably as much as 10% if I had to guess.
There is no positive correlation between people believing they are entitled to someone else's money and labors and a reduction in crime.
Quote:
Theres a ton of studies that would disagree with you. Even in the past automation has had serious impacts for some painful periods before recovering. And whats coming next is general automation of the sort that is completely unlike that which has occurred in the past.
The nice thing about statistics, is that you can claim your numbers mean anything you want them to mean. The bad thing about statistics, is that they don't change reality.
Quote:
As I said in my earlier reply, I don't think its appropriate now, where it would do as you describe, but rather in the future when job losses mount, and GDP and revenues increase. Without both of those I agree with you about it not being reasonable now.
What are "gdp revenues"?
Quote:
You obviously arent living off 12K a year
You're right. I made less than that last year.
Quote:
If you are currently on SSI, would you take a job for a year that would cost you your guarenteed income?
I am not living on SSI. In fact, we had to live on almost nothing last year. In fact, we lost our life savings the last 3 years and I finished 2013 without enough money to buy a pizza.
Quote:
When I went from making 34K/yr to 70K the next year, do you know how much more my take home was? About the same. Suddenly the kids had no free lunchs, I paid medical, sliding scale psychology appointments for one kid went from $10/hr up to $75, etc etc.
And yet, you argue that's an incentive to work and work harder.
Quote:
As for the incentive....same as always...to do better. Seriously thats what the vast majority wants. You seem to think taking the threat of starvation or homelessness away would suddenly make us all just stop right there and not move.
Actually ,for a very sizeable portion of the population, it will.
I would stop working, because I could survive and not endure anywhere near as much pain. But, that would definitely decrease the productivity of the economy.
Quote:
Past automation has had small effects on employment that while painful went away within a decade. Future automation thats much more general will have a vastly larger impact then you apparently imagine.
It will INCREASE employment.
Quote:
Whats funny is that you say this when I'm agreeing with you for the most part. Thats hilarious. Its like some generic insult to throw at someone. I've got a better grasp then 95% of the people posting here.
I disagree with you on this. Debt is often bad, except in times of recession, or when the debt is used for infrastructure spending with significant revenue gains long term. IE recently. Arguing if it was used correctly is another topic entirely-some yes, some no. But Debt can be good.
I think we are exiting the point where debt is good. But blanket statements like that are wrong.
When the right started spewing that deficits didn't matter I questioned their sanity.
I expressed an extremist view because I was dealing with an extremist. But I stand by the fundamental argument that all debt is bad.
However, you and I can split hairs.
For example, today the purchase of a home by any ordinary person except a lottery winner require debt financing. Things were different when an ordinary person could buy a home or buy land and build one for a couple of years earnings. Or even a car. And both fit into your point about "investment" for the sake of long term revenue. Same for roads, sewers, water treatment facilities, and fixing potholes.
But my basic premise is true even in these cases. When you owe money you have fewer options than when you dont. That goes for all individuals and all institutions.
Yes, this is why I know technological unemployment is reality unlike you.
LOL! No, you don't grasp a thing. The vast majority of people employed do not produce wealth or necessities. The majority of people employed in the US provide things which are actually luxuries. Restaurants. Health care. Prepared foods. Retailed clothes. Movies, music, entertainment.
We can afford these things PRECISELY because it takes so few people to produce the necessities and the necessities have such tiny costs by comparison.
If we reduce the costs of things we need, by automation, we will have EVEN MORE resources to hire people for the luxuries of life.
As I said, you have not the faintest grasp of fundamental economics.
LOL! No, you don't grasp a thing. The vast majority of people employed do not produce wealth or necessities. The majority of people employed in the US provide things which are actually luxuries. Restaurants. Health care. Prepared foods. Retailed clothes. Movies, music, entertainment.
We can afford these things PRECISELY because it takes so few people to produce the necessities and the necessities have such tiny costs by comparison.
If we reduce the costs of things we need, by automation, we will have EVEN MORE resources to hire people for the luxuries of life.
As I said, you have not the faintest grasp of fundamental economics.
But where will people get income to consume these luxuries when their jobs have been replaced by automation? This is where basic income comes into place.
But where will people get income to consume these luxuries when their jobs have been replaced by automation? This is where basic income comes into place.
Wow... It's as if you're standing on a tiny island in the middle of the ocean saying "So where's all the water?
MONEY is not the problem. Someone must first PRODUCE things and trade for what they want, in order for the FIRST job to be created. Money is absolutely meaningless until you produce something to trade. It's just marks on a chalkboard, bits of paper, grains of sand on a beach, it has no intrinsic value.
Having 50 billion dollars will do nothing if your plane has crashed on the north slope of Alaska and nobody knows where you are.
It also won't buy you a loaf of bread until someone produces ALL the things required to make a loaf of bread.
It is merely the DENOMINATOR of trade, it does not create trade. Until you produce something, trade is two starving and freezing men in a blizzard, lost in the tundra of Alaska, telling each other they'd give their life savings to get out.
The fact is, those who PRODUCE OUR ESSENTIALS are the ones who enable all other trade. The next in line are those who produce the NEEDS. Next, are those who enable greater productivity. You need more and more of them and producing more, so that there is so much excess that we trade it freely for what someone else has.
If I own the robot factory that produces shoes (next door to my competitor), and it actually costs me $1.29 to make a pair of shoes and they sell for $1.35, you have now saved $30 will YOU WILL spend on something else. Did I have to have all $31.25 and then distribute it to enable more trade? No.
Now, please understand, it is TAXATION and REDISTRIBUTION which decrease trade and cause unemployment. Government takes and throws AWAY more than 1/3 of everything produced. Now perhaps you can grasp why there's a deficit in employment and the cost of necessities is so much inflated.
But where will people get income to consume these luxuries when their jobs have been replaced by automation? This is where basic income comes into place.
Wow... It's as if you're standing on a tiny island in the middle of the ocean saying "So where's all the water?
MONEY is not the problem. Someone must first PRODUCE things and trade for what they want, in order for the FIRST job to be created. Money is absolutely meaningless until you produce something to trade. It's just marks on a chalkboard, bits of paper, grains of sand on a beach, it has no intrinsic value.
Having 50 billion dollars will do nothing if your plane has crashed on the north slope of Alaska and nobody knows where you are.
It also won't buy you a loaf of bread until someone produces ALL the things required to make a loaf of bread.
It is merely the DENOMINATOR of trade, it does not create trade. Until you produce something, trade is two starving and freezing men in a blizzard, lost in the tundra of Alaska, telling each other they'd give their life savings to get out.
The fact is, those who PRODUCE OUR ESSENTIALS are the ones who enable all other trade. The next in line are those who produce the NEEDS. Next, are those who enable greater productivity. You need more and more of them and producing more, so that there is so much excess that we trade it freely for what someone else has.
If I own the robot factory that produces shoes (next door to my competitor), and it actually costs me $1.29 to make a pair of shoes and they sell for $1.35, you have now saved $30 will YOU WILL spend on something else. Did I have to have all $31.25 and then distribute it to enable more trade? No.
Now, please understand, it is TAXATION and REDISTRIBUTION which decrease trade and cause unemployment. Government takes and throws AWAY more than 1/3 of everything produced. Now perhaps you can grasp why there's a deficit in employment and the cost of necessities is so much inflated.
well now don't be so harsh on them.
it's just that expected charity breeds sloth and people get corrupted by it.
if I was government I may institute a program where people would at least need to work to eat and sleep.
everything else that's a luxury they would have to pay for
this is out of compromise so that they still live but
the fact is I realize they are lazy in those conditions and need to produce.
hence forcing them to at least do chores.
hello? good parents at least ask their children to do chores around the house for their allowances if they even give them any.
so in this case you can treat them like children if they want gov assistance.
and no cash/food stamps tyvm.
no way to sell either.
just shelter + food.
and you must at least work 4 h per day for it.
chores that is.
picking up trash cleaning up.
farming the back yard to grow crops.
picking the crops
etc.
if you are good with computers then put them in computer stations
that's them eating too so they better work hard.
this can happen until they find a job then.
I think that's an extremely good deal already
considering people need to work 2-3 weeks now to pay for rent and food.
also if people have no jobs the best thing to do is for them to farm food.
or collect water.
because people need food and water no matter what.
lower food + water prices is always better as at least they can consume it.
rent money is another story.
people do not need expensive housing they just need cheap housing.
I have to add to this, because people can't comprehend even the most fundamental aspects of reality.
If, because everything I needed was produced by robots at small prices, I would need very little "money" to live very well. And, compared to 250 years ago, the man hours of labor to produce our necessities is microscopic. So, why do we have poverty, where people supposedly can't afford to eat?
It's real simple. In each step of production and distribution of our necessities, and in every daily USE of these necessities, government confiscates a large chunk of MONEY.
The wife and I need about $180 groceries each month. Add water, lights, heat, medicines we need, clothing, etc, and it adds up to perhaps $500. But only a few dollars of that goes to the actual individuals who produced all those things. The REST is paying for luxuries and the costs imposed by government.
Our $1200 rent (and we live in the next to cheapest possible housing in the region) is 40% taxes. Our wages are reduced by 30+% due to taxes. The price of everything we use is raised anywhere from 20 to 98% due to the costs of regulation and taxes.
So, goverment has imposed a scheme that requires CASH MONEY to exist - large quantities of it. Even though the cost of your actual needs is negligible.
What does this cost do? It pays people to do things that impose more costs or does not benefit us.
And that's where all our excess production has gone. Government is borrowing MONEY to try to make up for the labor and the money it stole from us for its purposes.
If it did not, we would be rolling in money, it would require very little income to work and anyone producing any service or wanted thing to live very well and easy.
It is not automation that destroys employment. It is government's imposed costs.
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.
