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.
Delusional nonsense designed to appeal to the collection of overgrown children in Deep Left Field.
The unfortunate fact it that there are all manner of tasks which require either manual dexterity or a thought process that technology can't replicate, and is unlikely to do so. And the principal consumes of these tasks are likely to be elderly, infirm, disoriented, or just not playing with a full deck.
These are the hard facts of life, boys and girls, and while you'll immediately scream "racism", "misogyny", or whatever buzzword comes to mind -- these issues transcend all races and social classes.
At this point, you will likely start beating the drum for euthanasia -- until it's your turn.
Which part is delusional nonsense, the doomsday predictions of no jobs because robots have taken them all, or the utopian dreams of no need for anyone to work because they can? Both seem pretty damn far-fetched, TBH.
Why would the people who need services that cannot be performed by a machine be limited to the elderly, infirm, etc? (Assuming that is what you are trying to say - you mean consumers, right, and not "consumes?")
I don't think anyone has mentioned race or gender as a factor in this discussion, so why do you feel the need to introduce them?
Euthanize whom? People who require too many services that must be performed by humans, or people who are superfluous because robots have taken all the jobs?
I read your post several times, and still can't make any real sense of it, so I thought I'd ask for a bit of clarification, just in case you have a point, other than insulting liberals.
Hun, sorry to break it to you, but the way things are, I'm pretty sure the big corporations and the big government are already in cahoots with eachother. You think you are voting for politicians to put in place regulations, taxes and fees to protect the American worker, but all they are doing is just finding ways to stifle competition for their lobbyists.
I'm sure they are in cahoots with each other. For example, a few years ago, for example, the government made a law where states were forbidden from making laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods. In their defense, I have heard there's nothing innately more harmful about genetically modified foods than other stuff we eat, but I'm still betting Monsanto pushed for this sort of thing. I'd be very surprised if Monsanto didn't have something to do with that: House passes bill blocking states from requiring GMO labels on food | TheHill
The USDA had two years to finalize the regulations, so it would be coming into affect pretty soon. However, I hear it's being slowed down by one of Trump's decisions, and I'm wondering if Monsanto had some input into that too:
This additional barrier imposed by the Trump administration suggests that regulatory agencies will struggle in the next four years to implement rules. In the meantime, the USDA not only faces a standstill until at least March 21 on GMO labeling research, but the agency may be tasked with considering which two regulations may have to be cut in order to make room for the GMO labeling regulations. This is no small task, as regulations cannot simply be deleted from the code of federal regulations. An important note is that because the new law expressly preempts state regulation of GMO labeling, no state can step in and fill this regulatory void. At this point, it is impossible to know what the future holds for GMO labeling standards. Regardless, we’ll keep you updated on the USDA’s progress. https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insig...-back-in-limbo
although I haven't looked into any possible changes yet
but my point is, we're always going to be able to get something from corporations. They can buy government officials, but the nice thing about having government officials is that, yes, many of them will be bought and sold, but they don't have to be. Unlike business owners, Government officials are, at least in theory, hired and fired by the public rather than their coworkers. You can have a genuinely patriotic politician who just wants what's best for the nation. I'm not sure how common they are, but I suspect at least enough of them exist to keep the corporations from becoming all-powerful...so long as we are able to vote.
Once 100% unemployment hits, the robot owners will have no customers to buy the widgets that their robots produce. Robot owners will then support the government imposition of a robot tax and Universal Basic Income. People will get paid money without having to work. People buy products again, robots go back to the production line, and the owners are happy because they have revenue and profits again.
Some people on UBI will be a lump on the couch and do nothing. A majority of people will quickly get bored with that. They will create cottage businesses, learn a skill, and add to the economy. It is possible to have an optimistic outcome to all of this.
Why would the owners of the machines care about being able to sell their wares to an impoverished populace if that populace is not a burden on them? You're applying postwar business psychology to a future era where consumerism will be less useful and the use of force is much cheaper.
Which world would you rather live in? One where billions of people spend their robobucks on ration day at the mall, or one in which a far smaller number of more compelling people do research and explore the stars?
Being a UBI recipient is kind of like being a pet, or living in a zoo.
I also think you underestimate the number of people who would waste their lives addicted to drugs in a UBI system. We already see glimpses of this with the opioid epidemic.
In 1800 83% of Americans worked in agriculture. In 1850 55% did. Today about 2% do.
In 1910 about a third of American jobs were in manufacturing. Today under 10% are.
We will find something productive to do with the excess labor, just as we have before in more jarring economic transitions.
These pat summaries of earlier industrial revolutions always gloss over the suffering of the tenant farmers who were evicted by the enclosures, and had to move to mill towns and slave away, and the orphans who were kidnapped off the streets to be indentured servants in frontier lands. Many of the excess population died as a result of their economic dislocation.
Earlier industrial revolutions also mainly substituted machines for muscle. This one will substitute machines for brains. If you aren't strong enough to work, and you aren't smart enough to work, what role could you be used for?
These pat summaries of earlier industrial revolutions always gloss over the suffering of the tenant farmers who were evicted by the enclosures, and had to move to mill towns and slave away, and the orphans who were kidnapped off the streets to be indentured servants in frontier lands. Many of the excess population died as a result of their economic dislocation.
Earlier industrial revolutions also mainly substituted machines for muscle. This one will substitute machines for brains. If you aren't strong enough to work, and you aren't smart enough to work, what role could you be used for?
In the short term unemployment is low. No worries here except the increase of people on disability (about a third of whom aren't truly disabled), which is driven by bad public policy more than economics.
In the medium term the only thing coming which is likely to cause mass-unemployment is automated trucking (and to a lesser extent driving). About 3% of the labor force. Most likely sector to absorb those workers (in aggregate, not as individuals) is health and care work for our aging population. Since the skills are different individuals who have been trucking for years will suffer a reduction in income but they'll find something else useful to do (unless the SSDI fraud loopholes stay open and everyone dives through that), and people who would instead be doing those things will move into the positions needed in elder care.
In the long term the best forecasts tend to focus on pat, high-level drivers and similar historical experiences, not diving into the weeds.
Which part is delusional nonsense, the doomsday predictions of no jobs because robots have taken them all, or the utopian dreams of no need for anyone to work because they can? Both seem pretty damn far-fetched, TBH.
Why would the people who need services that cannot be performed by a machine be limited to the elderly, infirm, etc?
I don't think anyone has mentioned race or gender as a factor in this discussion, so why do you feel the need to introduce them?
Euthanize whom? People who require too many services that must be performed by humans, or people who are superfluous because robots have taken all the jobs?
The point is simply: There is almost always a wide gap between the idealized predictions of those who promise and/or expect too much, and what actually can be marketed and delivered as the desires of the populace meet the limitations of hard science. A review of earlier issues of "junk science" publications such as Popular Science will underscore the point. And when those unpleasant facts have to be explained to an immature and/or anti-technical audience, it's in the interest of the peddlers of fantasy to deflect. Better to find a convenient scapegoat than to tell the mark that (s)he's been duped -- let alone own up to the deceit.
One of the themes of recent populist politics was the broken promises of those carrying the torch of neoliberal economics. Outsourced jobs were not replaced with the same quality and quantity, and automated jobs were not replaced with the same quality and quantity.
The labor force participation rate is low for this reason. Wages have been stagnant since the late 70s in many places.
Saying "it's never different this time" as an article of faith is a logical fallacy. It's usually true, but that doesn't mean it's always true. I do think it's different this time, and we already have a 40 year track record of stagnant wages, the decoupling of productivity gains from wage gains in the same time period, a historically low birth rate, etc. Automation is usually fingered as the main culprit, and that will only intensify.
One of the themes of recent populist politics was the broken promises of those carrying the torch of neoliberal economics. Outsourced jobs were not replaced with the same quality and quantity, and automated jobs were not replaced with the same quality and quantity.
The labor force participation rate is low for this reason. Wages have been stagnant since the late 70s in many places.
Saying "it's never different this time" as an article of faith is a logical fallacy. It's usually true, but that doesn't mean it's always true. I do think it's different this time, and we already have a 40 year track record of stagnant wages, the decoupling of productivity gains from wage gains in the same time period, a historically low birth rate, etc. Automation is usually fingered as the main culprit, and that will only intensify.
In 1800 83% of Americans worked in agriculture. In 1850 55% did. Today about 2% do.
In 1910 about a third of American jobs were in manufacturing. Today under 10% are.
We will find something productive to do with the excess labor, just as we have before in more jarring economic transitions.
Coal mining? :-)
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.
