Printable View
Rich people plot all day long about how they can get what others have to get more themselves because they want more for themselves. This is the essence of how you become rich and then even richer. They violate the very core of what you say there and yet you blame the little man for trying not to have to give everything he has to the rich man who is not happy with all the stuff he already has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Good, if I make any sense I am doing being mysterious all wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I don't think that material inequality is nearly as important an issue as the social consequences of the current economic system are.
Rampant drug abuse, mental illness, family breakdown, community breakdown, moral breakdown - all these are not consequences of poverty, but rather a specific set of social conditions that have been created by the industrial and post-industrial world. The reduction of a person to a drone if they are lucky, idleness if they are not. The instability of irregular work. The many issues caused by unnatural work and unnatural hours. The indignity of never realising self-sufficiency, of being reduced to a burden for family or the state. The divorcement of wealth from labour. The inability to live a basic, fulfilling life with a family and your own home. To lose your life to the machine, to invisible faces and abstract forces. This is what I am surrounded by every day, increasingly I am coming to realise that this will be my life. When I see people who have been ruined like this, it makes me angry at the world. Those that suffer the most are demonised, only a tiny portion of the problem are scapegoated (see for example the moral outrage of the upper middle classes at bankers). Honesty life these days doesn't even feel real, it's like a bad dream.
Wealth distribution is just a symptom of modern productivity demands in industry that negate physical labor. The wealthy are getting wealthier now, but the constant growth demanded by the capital investment driving that wealth accumulation is unsustainable without growing real income levels and employment. Capitalism in its current form will have to be replaced, either by a much more enlightened or much more despotic economic model.
The key phrase being "in its current form."Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Well-regulated markets are still the best vehicle for a whole host of goods and services. I imagine there will someday be a more efficient, more humane, less-prone-to-panics-and-bubbles system. No idea what it will be, but it will probably come from one of the bastard offspring of Google.
I just don't know where the jobs will come from to keep the market viable. We can't all be software engineers and managers, not that those jobs are any more insulated from automation than any others. We are moving toward a future where most people will not work, at least in the way we think about work today. It's already well underway - corporate profits and thus stocks have skyrocketed since the depths of the recession while the labor force has steadily shrunk and a record 20% of households are on food stamps. The primary driver behind those profits has not been organic growth, but instead easy money and cost cutting - much of it the result of reduced payroll through automation. As stated earlier, this can be liberating or enslaving, depending on how we react and choose to structure our society going forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
My concern with the idea that there are no more jobs out there is that it may just be too soon to tell if that is the case. The decline of manufacturing in the Western world has taken place within the span of 30-40 years. If you could predict where the jobs would be coming from PJ, lets be honest, you wouldn't be chilling here at the org, you would be making the big bucks and becoming the next Bill Gates.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I am particularly interested in the growth of new forms of entertainment, especially the increasing influence of "YouTube personalities" and channels as well as the growth of eSports such as League of Legends. I doubt the latter will become anything comparing to physical sports given how unprofessional the market is, but you never know how things will develop over 10 years.
Automation is only a treath to the number of jobs if the level of wealth in society remains constant.
Fortunately for us, our level of wealth increases along with automation, and increased automation results in more jobs, not fever.
So you're saying you believe in trickle-down economics? :mellow:
Believe is something you do in church, and I consider trickle-down economics to be nonsense. Not sure how increased number of jobs due to automation has anything to do with trickle.down economics, however. Care to explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Well, someone has to automate all those jobs. :wacko:
Yes, that's the glory of it all. I'll give a historical perspective even though I noticed your sarcasm-smileys ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
A few hundred years back, the majority of the population was employed in agriculture. Today, the number of farmers in industrial countries are extremely small, even though we are producing much more food now. The automation of agriculture removed a ton of farming jobs. This, however, didn't mean that nobody is employed today. The automation had two effects:
Firstly, jobs were created to make the machinery responsible for automating farming tasks.
Secondly, the abundance of available persons allowed the creation of new types of jobs.
It's the second one who is the most important one. A new reality creates new products and jobs.
The issue is that there's need to be something new this time, rather than an old section expanded. When service jobs are getting automated, what is next? I don't doubt that production and total wealth has gone up in the process, it's just that there's no default idea that the increased wealth by a job creates new jobs in a sufficient ratio to sustain full employment.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Luckily, we're not employed as oracles, so there's no need for us to try to predict the future. Attempting to do so will fail anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
But since this is what has happened in every change of production in human history up until this point, I see no reason why the same shouldn't happen this time.
Well, the sun rises every day, so we can expect that to go on for eternity, right? :shrug:
As far as we are concerned, yes....Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
On the other hand, human events move a few orders of magnitude more quickly than the sun...
Wanna the join the legions of people who have predicted the end of humanity? They're all dead, and we're still here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Excuse me if I don't join the Doom&Gloom crowd.
Woah, hey, why the false dichotomy between doomsday and 'humanity shall prosper forever'?Quote:
Wanna the join the legions of people who have predicted the end of humanity?
There's plenty of evidence showing that things might just get rough in the future, and in fact the future may transform human societies into something scarcely imaginable to ourselves, but on the basis of the unique developments of the past few millennia you feel confident predicting that the existence of humanity itself is a panacea to humanity's problems.
Wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid. You need more evidence than vague allusions to past problems overcome. Interestingly though, you don't note that the old problems are precisely what the new problems threaten to recapitulate. For all we know, there could be a cyclical fate awaiting us, or even something totally in the Z dimension...
It is just the everlasting cycle of history. Natural capitalism happens, in other words all the assets end up to few. Once those assets are in too few hands, revolution happens. After revolution aggression from the winning party towards outside the society at hand and then war happens. After the war population focus is at rebuilding and investing in next generation, while the next generation follows those values, the generation after that questions the earlier values and turns towards more individual ones and again the path is set similar to last cycle. Nothing new under the stars.~D
So.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Automation will make society as we know it collapse?
No, but any confluence of a spike in state authoritarianism and corporatism, climate disruption and rising sea levels and an associated scarcity of natural resources, national tensions, the rise of widespread nano-or-neuro-technology, the economic stagnation of key industries, and so on, could.
The point being, your blithe complacency is worrying.
Evolve, not collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In 50 years, if we're still both here and civilization is still around, first round is one me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Each change has also brought significant changes to society. The change going from industry to service is the smallest of them and the easiest one to predict as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That's the thing we're talking about. Will things solve themselves? Yes, eventually. But the lack of clear goals means that you'll need to do it through experience. Experience in these cases means a bucket load of conflicts.
To follow up on what PJ said. There's certainly nothing surprising if the current model of capitalism falls, it's from the 1930-ties (Fordism) if you stretch it a bit. But its fall will not be buissness as usual for those who experience it, even if those living in 2200 sees it that way through the historical lens.
Conflict is a natural part of human life. It is to be expected. It's also to be expected that we live through it and create a new system which will eventually break down into conflict and so on and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Well, labor costs are high but energy costs will also rise in the long run, additionally the costs to acquire complicated machines rise and computers cannot fully simulate a human brain yet.
Once the latter is possible however, we can automate management positions and save a whole lot of money because robots do not need a wage and certainly not a golden parachute when they have failed horribly. The money this frees up can then be used to distribute to the homeless. Once the entire industry has been automated, we will need neither jobs or employment nor money because the machines will just keep everything going while we consume the fruits of their free labor. We'll have to find another way to discern important humans and unworthy ones though, maybe a return of noble families?
HoreTore predicts that new jobs will be invented, so we'll have to keep working.
Husar predicts that, eventually, we won't have to work anymore.
I declare Husar as our prophet and new world leader. HoreTore can be put in a cage in some museum of long forgotten curiosities under the label "a working human". When Monty and I visit him in his cage, over 50 years, we'll have a beer at his expenses.
That's true. The thing with this one is what Husar is into a bit. It's quite possible that you reach a situation where only 20-30% (or less) of the population has jobs that needs to be done. The rest is obsolete.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Their relation with the rest of the population isn't gonna be solved with the current system.
Are we ever going to reach a point were we don't need more artists, writers, actors, academics, athletes, travel guides, or other weirdos?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
You don't need to produce something valuable to call it work. You just need to produce something others appreciate. When machines do all our production, we can all become failed writers struggling to make it.
Now that's a dystopic future!