"Hipsters on Food Stamps" or lies we tell kids about College and Society

[Tellos Athenaios]

Idaho, your posts remind me of that song "Luddite" from "Horrible Histories".

[Idaho]

Idaho, your posts remind me of that song "Luddite" from "Horrible Histories".

I haven't heard it.

I am far from being a luddite. I love technology. I am an avid follower of technological advances. What I don't like is technology being controlled and directed for the purpose of making already wealthy people even wealthier.

Earlier this was called "progress". But progress towards what? As far as I can see, the end destination isn't somewhere that 80% of us humans would want to be; a place where 2% own everything, 18% do the work, and the rest starve.

[Idaho]

Timely article:

Myth of lazy poor serves to justify inequalities

[TinCow]

I am far from being a luddite. I love technology. I am an avid follower of technological advances. What I don't like is technology being controlled and directed for the purpose of making already wealthy people even wealthier.

Earlier this was called "progress". But progress towards what? As far as I can see, the end destination isn't somewhere that 80% of us humans would want to be; a place where 2% own everything, 18% do the work, and the rest starve.

The same arguments were made about the industrial revolution, which increased the 'misery' level for many workers who began working in factories, and caused a significant increase in slavery in the US. Eventually our societies reacted to the problems and began to alleviate the hardshardships without removing the benefits of the technology. The information revolution isn't really any different from it's mechanical ancestor. There's a cycle that civilization goes through with developments like these and we'll adjust to compensate, likely much faster this time than previously. I do not advocate complacency; the needed changes do not come from such a stance. However, I believe doom and gloom are misplaced.

[Idaho]

You are right that with each technological change, there has been widespread anxiety about what it portends. However there are significant differences now. Specifically with regard to ownership of the world's resources, the scale of long term unemployment and the rich-poor divide.

Industrialisation took away jobs and created more. The information revolution has created some jobs, but has probably taken away many more than that.

The question will be answered by degrees. By the unemployment rate in our respective countries in 3 years time. In the level of taxes of the super rich at that time, and the level of media vilification of people who don't have work.

At my most pessimistic I fear that we may see "poor camps" (workhouses/concentration camps) within 10 years. And that's before the oil shortages start to bite.

[TinCow]

Industrialisation took away jobs and created more. The information revolution has created some jobs, but has probably taken away many more than that.

I'm very skeptical about this claim; show me some stats. I'll concede that it's probably true in the US and Western Europe, but likely the exact opposite on a global level. You cannot view the impact of a scientific advance based on individual nations alone. Some adapt to the change better than others, and the change is not properly tracked by looking only at those who fare least well. I'd go so far as to say that I think the information revolution has vastly improved the overall standing of living of the entire planet simply due to the significant increases we've seen in China, India, and other such nations.

In addition, the current perception in the US and Western Europe is heavily biased due to our current economic situation. The Great Recession has almost nothing to do with technological advances and everything to do with poor regulation of the financial industry and poor governance. Anyone looking at employment levels in Spain, Greece, etc. is going to be seeing an economic situation that is not remotely representative of the reality of the information revolution.

[Idaho]

I'm very skeptical about this claim; show me some stats. I'll concede that it's probably true in the US and Western Europe, but likely the exact opposite on a global level. You cannot view the impact of a scientific advance based on individual nations alone. Some adapt to the change better than others, and the change is not properly tracked by looking only at those who fare least well. I'd go so far as to say that I think the information revolution has vastly improved the overall standing of living of the entire planet simply due to the significant increases we've seen in China, India, and other such nations.

In addition, the current perception in the US and Western Europe is heavily biased due to our current economic situation. The Great Recession has almost nothing to do with technological advances and everything to do with poor regulation of the financial industry and poor governance. Anyone looking at employment levels in Spain, Greece, etc. is going to be seeing an economic situation that is not remotely representative of the reality of the information revolution.

And you are right to be sceptical, and to want evidence. I would also like to see what the figures are.

My guess is that it mirrors the industrial revolution, in that the actual workforce employed in the new factories and industrialised industries, was still relatively few even as late as 1850. Their impact was magnified by their novelty.

The economic boom in China has very little to do with the information age, and everything to do with industrial development in that country. In India there has been significant IT development - but from the figures I have dug out, it only employs just less than 2m people directly, and 9m indirectly. In a population of 1bn, that's not earth shattering.

[TinCow]

The economic boom in China has very little to do with the information age, and everything to do with industrial development in that country. In India there has been significant IT development - but from the figures I have dug out, it only employs just less than 2m people directly, and 9m indirectly. In a population of 1bn, that's not earth shattering.

You're talking about direct IT employment, but that misses a large segment of the IT revolution itself. All the electronics that are produced in those nations are the product of the IT revolution and are thus part of it. If you are creating an iPhone, your job exists because of the IT revolution. In addition, the advances in the flow of information have significantly increased the viability of globalization of industry. The increasing development of corporations in developing nations, particularly in Asia and South America, owes a great deal to the ease with which large corporations can now manage such sprawling businesses. There's a lot more to the information revolution than simply IT professionals working on network drives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And that's before the oil shortages start to bite.

There won't be any oil shortages. Oil will rise to about ~$200 or so a barrel at which point it becomes economical to exploit the more difficult shale oil that is trapped in rock formations in places like Canada. Oil will hover around that plateau for a long while before we start to run out of shale oil. The current trend in alternatives is promising as the price for solar panels is dropping every year. I strongly suspect that in 12 years, much of the West will be fully committed on a path towards reducing coal and oil consumption, to be replaced by renewable and natural gas. Only industrial usage and non public transportation (I see buses running on natural gas all the time) will continue to use oil unabated until we finally reach the breaking point with battery technology that allows for long distance, fully electric vehicles.

[Montmorency]

On the other hand, in the 19th century social-welfare was widely seen as morally just and necessary. Nowadays, there are relatively fewer individuals holding a strong belief in this, and they are easily dismissed as "bleeding-heart welfare-liberals", or otherwise only operate on a limited scale (e.g. business-school outreach and training, private local charity)

It seems to me that, if 'adjustment' doesn't arise from a similar source (i.e. widespread sentiment and political activism), then where will it come from? The only alternative I can see is a typically-human last-minute reaction to the chronic-become-acute. And is it really healthy to expect all the solutions to come about during continual last-minute panics, when the foundation is already cracking?

[Ironside]

The same arguments were made about the industrial revolution, which increased the 'misery' level for many workers who began working in factories, and caused a significant increase in slavery in the US. Eventually our societies reacted to the problems and began to alleviate the hardshardships without removing the benefits of the technology. The information revolution isn't really any different from it's mechanical ancestor. There's a cycle that civilization goes through with developments like these and we'll adjust to compensate, likely much faster this time than previously. I do not advocate complacency; the needed changes do not come from such a stance. However, I believe doom and gloom are misplaced.

Do you agree with the basic idea though? That full production can be reached without having a large chunk of the population employed? Say when andriods takes over a large part of the service sector for a more extreme example?
Main employer sectors through history:
agriculture->industry->service ->????

[a completely inoffensive name]

All countries with a high standard of living and high rates of basic education have seen their population rates go below 2.1, the replenishment rate. The only exceptions are countries with large amounts of immigration, such as the US.

The issue of population and jobs will no longer be a problem post 2050 once the global birth rate finally hits 2.1 and starts to drop. I'm sorry we won't enjoy the good times gentlemen but have joy that your children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy it within a reasonable period of their life.

[Montmorency]

Pff, have you never heard of the productivity paradox?

As stated by another, we'll likely see it in the coming decades. Electrification's impact was felt throughout the 20th century, not so much in the late 19th.

[TinCow]

Do you agree with the basic idea though? That full production can be reached without having a large chunk of the population employed? Say when andriods takes over a large part of the service sector for a more extreme example?
Main employer sectors through history:
agriculture->industry->service ->????

The issue isn't employment, the issue is quality of life. We look at it through the filter of employment because that's the only quality of life option we have. If you're talking about the world hundreds of years in the future where androids roam our streets, then you're talking about a world so fundamentally different from where we are now that the basic relationship between employment and quality of life itself may begin to break down. Simply put, people may not have to have full-time jobs as we know them now to have a quality of life above what we have now. If everyone has an android and androids can do all your household chores, include home repair, cooking, etc., the only income a person would even need would be income sufficient to buy the supplies necessary for life, such as food, shelter, and the android itself.

It's impossible to predict what that future will look like, but yes I do think full production will be reached. The simple fact is people get bored and like to do things. Even if a large portion of the world doesn't have to work, most people still will. That work will not involve normal industrial production, but will probably focus more on creativity and intellectual pursuits, along with high-skill craftsmanship like we're seeing with the current revival of artisan-level consumer products. The history of world employment is a history of a diminishing number of people being involved in agriculture and other industries necessary to allow us to meet the physical requirements of life/civilization. As that number diminishes, the proportion of people involved in scientific and other more creative pursuits increases. With robot labor, it is theoretically possible that the entire population could eventually be on top of the employment pyramid. Unlikely IMO, but possible.

It's going to be a bumpy road to get there though.

[Papewaio]

Back to the original post. I'm old (forty this year) and started Uni at 17. Even before I started I knew the difference between a professional degree ie Medicine, Engineering or Accounting vs non professional degrees such as Marketing, Science and Arts. Arts even then was so low on the job totem poll that a B.A stood for a degree in Bugger All.

A typical inter faculty joke on campus is what does a BA ask an Enginnering Grad?
"Would you like fries with your meal?".

So it's hardly new news that without taking on postgraduate studies a lot of undergraduate degrees are not sufficient to get employment. A scientist typically has a Masters and are on their way to a Doctorate. An English Teacher is typically an English undergraduate with a Dip Ed.

In IT you are expected to study and certify in your areas of expertise. Professional development is for life and in IT you cannot stand still or you are going backwards. You should never feel comfortable with your skillset that just means you are at a plateau and need to stretch, develop, grow and learn.

It's true for most fields even food prep ... Just watch Jiro Dreams of Sushi.

[Idaho]

The issue isn't employment, the issue is quality of life. We look at it through the filter of employment because that's the only quality of life option we have. If you're talking about the world hundreds of years in the future where androids roam our streets, then you're talking about a world so fundamentally different from where we are now that the basic relationship between employment and quality of life itself may begin to break down. Simply put, people may not have to have full-time jobs as we know them now to have a quality of life above what we have now. If everyone has an android and androids can do all your household chores, include home repair, cooking, etc., the only income a person would even need would be income sufficient to buy the supplies necessary for life, such as food, shelter, and the android itself.

It's impossible to predict what that future will look like, but yes I do think full production will be reached. The simple fact is people get bored and like to do things. Even if a large portion of the world doesn't have to work, most people still will. That work will not involve normal industrial production, but will probably focus more on creativity and intellectual pursuits, along with high-skill craftsmanship like we're seeing with the current revival of artisan-level consumer products. The history of world employment is a history of a diminishing number of people being involved in agriculture and other industries necessary to allow us to meet the physical requirements of life/civilization. As that number diminishes, the proportion of people involved in scientific and other more creative pursuits increases. With robot labor, it is theoretically possible that the entire population could eventually be on top of the employment pyramid. Unlikely IMO, but possible.

It's going to be a bumpy road to get there though.

But we have seen that people who aren't working get vilified. The super rich refuse to pay for them and spend huge amounts to undermine tax collection. Alongside this, working people are encouraged to hate them.

"I'm not paying for some lazy persons robot and food bill so they can spend their days making collages out of beer bottle tops"

The un working won't be able to spend their time on lofty, artistic pursuits because they, their forebears and progeny will live in the crappy end of town with the highest concentration of bottle shops and the worst equipped, overcrowded schools.

[TinCow]

But we have seen that people who aren't working get vilified. The super rich refuse to pay for them and spend huge amounts to undermine tax collection. Alongside this, working people are encouraged to hate them.

"I'm not paying for some lazy persons robot and food bill so they can spend their days making collages out of beer bottle tops"

The un working won't be able to spend their time on lofty, artistic pursuits because they, their forebears and progeny will live in the crappy end of town with the highest concentration of bottle shops and the worst equipped, overcrowded schools.

Today, yes... but only to an extent. However, I was talking about Ironside's hypothetical future with androids, not today. The very definition of what qualifies as working/lazy changes as a product of our time. Roll us back 200 years and working 50 hours a week would be seen as rather lackadaisical by many in the industrial working classes. Does that mean people who work 50 hours a week now are lazy? In addition, during the same time period many wealthy individuals actively looked down upon 'work' as we think of it today. Does that mean all our wealthy individuals today are uncultured brutes?

In addition, I believe you're exaggerating today's situation a bit as well. The super rich are not a monotheistic bloc that wear monocles and complain about the quality of the help these days. Certainly some are like that, but not even close to all of them. There's as much of a division on the issue amongst the rich as there is amongst the middle-class. I'd even go so far as to say that it's the upper-middle class that's pushing the anti-socialism agenda more than anything else. It's the people who feel like they've got a shot at being super rich who don't like the idea of that money being siphoned away from them. Many of the actual super rich don't tend to get too ruffled by the idea that they'll have to pay an extra 5% tax, because it wouldn't impact their lifestyles at all. If all the super rich were bankrolling one side of this argument, it wouldn't be such a tightly contested issue. There's a lot of money on both sides because there are many wealthy individuals who support higher taxes and greater social services.