Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Technology in Labor Market

ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 1:36:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Societal trends have shifted enormously since the turn of the century, and alongside those changes socially, the labor market has been altered by the influx of skilled, technological labor. Many construe the advancement in technology as a benefit to companies, while others interpret these changes as a regression to economics. It's imperative to recognize the positives of technology, as well as the potential negatives to the labor market, and its ability to sustain sufficient employment demands of a growing nation's populace. All things considered, however, technological replacements -- for now -- are a net benefit to the economic environment and the scheme of productivity.

When technology was first being introduced as a possibility to improve productivity, it was nothing comparable to how it is viewed today. The "technology" they had was not computer-generated, it was strictly mechanization. The Industrial Revolution was a time period in which a broad array of occupations benefited from becoming easier due to advanced machines, less required human labor, and generally an expedited time between creation and sale. Few people in the 21st century view it as a plightful period. Dissention was more common when these things were first introduced. [http://www.econlib.org...] This is quite similar to what we see happening today. A lot of people, whether they realize it or not, accept past technological advancements in labor with a dismissive attitude: it was a net good for society and the economy. Yet, they fail to recognize the congruent nature between then and now. Skeptics often criticize current implications of technological replacement without regard to the same occurrences years ago, and it is concerning.

Of course, it's unreasonable to assume the two are exactly parallel. The ramifications of each are still dissimilar in a lot of ways. Look at it this way: we've essentially lost all of the jobs that we would have required to pick all of the cotton by hand, we've lost all the jobs that we would have required without Henry Ford's assembly line. But from a different perspective, we could not gain more profit from the product had we employed hundreds more people to accomplish the same goal. From an exclusively economic standpoint, it appears we save employers a lot of money by implementing technological replacements for too many workers. In a most general sense, this is correct. The primary issue comes when people fail to recognize the similarity and the differences between older technological advancements and modern upgrades.

There are plenty of companies who are utilizing technology to better their business. Levi's has used technology to replace workers who gave their jeans a "worn" look. [http://blogs.wsj.com...] This is only one example, but it portrays a thoughtful point: if these rudimentary jobs, which require a relatively low skill to complete, are being replaced with technology, and saving companies money, it's a net benefit to society, quite interchangeable with upgrades from the Industrial Revolution. Could we rebound from the loss of jobs like we have in the past? The answer is yes. Obviously, things will have to change -- the demographics of labor will seriously be altered. Instead of performing the duties robots now carry out, jobs will be made to design, improve, and innovate technology to carry out actual tasks. Perhaps this is concerning to some, but it shouldn"t be. This doesn"t mean the end of human labor. It doesn"t foreshadow a time where robots control our lives, it only references an era in which human involvement will be used differently than it has been in the past.

Erik Brynjolfsson of MIT asserts human labor can"t be replaced. After all, he questions the little creative ability of robots and automation in general, and notes that they are "lousy problem solvers." [http://www.wsj.com...] We can"t be replaced by technology. We are too important, creatures that are far too special to be removed from the workforce. But this isn"t the biggest concern, we"ve known technology can"t really replace us. A far bigger concern for most critics is the dichotomy between workers. Severe inequality in skills would surface, as low-skilled, low-educated workers would find it much harder to come into work, while higher-skilled, Ivy League educated workers would have plenty of job security. Scholars from Stanford put it well, "While the overall trend is marked by significant economic growth and prosperity, this progress has come at the expense of many individuals." In net, it"s a large benefit to society, to the economy, and to most workers. From solely a utilitarian perspective, it appears a perfect opportunity to bring back a booming economy. This boon, unfortunately, would only sustain some, not all.

So, what should we do? Curtail the implementation of mass technological replacements? No. We should pursue these upgrades with the idea in mind that we benefit society. Even with low-level jobs being lost, they can still be replaced. Those jobs can be transitioned to repair of machines, basic operational jobs, and other such occupations that require little formal skill. The labor market has been lackluster for quite some time, and the easiest, most effective way to rebound the flailing remnants of the workforce and put them into use with machines. Employment demands can be met with more jobs focusing on innovation, improvement, and invention. Despite the lackadaisical progress since the turn of the century in productivity enhancements via technology, we can get on track now by pushing for available upgrades in the labor market.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 1:36:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Thoughts?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Dark-one
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 1:49:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 1:36:44 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
Societal trends have shifted enormously since the turn of the century, and alongside those changes socially, the labor market has been altered by the influx of skilled, technological labor. Many construe the advancement in technology as a benefit to companies, while others interpret these changes as a regression to economics. It's imperative to recognize the positives of technology, as well as the potential negatives to the labor market, and its ability to sustain sufficient employment demands of a growing nation's populace. All things considered, however, technological replacements -- for now -- are a net benefit to the economic environment and the scheme of productivity.

When technology was first being introduced as a possibility to improve productivity, it was nothing comparable to how it is viewed today. The "technology" they had was not computer-generated, it was strictly mechanization. The Industrial Revolution was a time period in which a broad array of occupations benefited from becoming easier due to advanced machines, less required human labor, and generally an expedited time between creation and sale. Few people in the 21st century view it as a plightful period. Dissention was more common when these things were first introduced. [http://www.econlib.org...] This is quite similar to what we see happening today. A lot of people, whether they realize it or not, accept past technological advancements in labor with a dismissive attitude: it was a net good for society and the economy. Yet, they fail to recognize the congruent nature between then and now. Skeptics often criticize current implications of technological replacement without regard to the same occurrences years ago, and it is concerning.

Of course, it's unreasonable to assume the two are exactly parallel. The ramifications of each are still dissimilar in a lot of ways. Look at it this way: we've essentially lost all of the jobs that we would have required to pick all of the cotton by hand, we've lost all the jobs that we would have required without Henry Ford's assembly line. But from a different perspective, we could not gain more profit from the product had we employed hundreds more people to accomplish the same goal. From an exclusively economic standpoint, it appears we save employers a lot of money by implementing technological replacements for too many workers. In a most general sense, this is correct. The primary issue comes when people fail to recognize the similarity and the differences between older technological advancements and modern upgrades.

There are plenty of companies who are utilizing technology to better their business. Levi's has used technology to replace workers who gave their jeans a "worn" look. [http://blogs.wsj.com...] This is only one example, but it portrays a thoughtful point: if these rudimentary jobs, which require a relatively low skill to complete, are being replaced with technology, and saving companies money, it's a net benefit to society, quite interchangeable with upgrades from the Industrial Revolution. Could we rebound from the loss of jobs like we have in the past? The answer is yes. Obviously, things will have to change -- the demographics of labor will seriously be altered. Instead of performing the duties robots now carry out, jobs will be made to design, improve, and innovate technology to carry out actual tasks. Perhaps this is concerning to some, but it shouldn"t be. This doesn"t mean the end of human labor. It doesn"t foreshadow a time where robots control our lives, it only references an era in which human involvement will be used differently than it has been in the past.

Erik Brynjolfsson of MIT asserts human labor can"t be replaced. After all, he questions the little creative ability of robots and automation in general, and notes that they are "lousy problem solvers." [http://www.wsj.com...] We can"t be replaced by technology. We are too important, creatures that are far too special to be removed from the workforce. But this isn"t the biggest concern, we"ve known technology can"t really replace us. A far bigger concern for most critics is the dichotomy between workers. Severe inequality in skills would surface, as low-skilled, low-educated workers would find it much harder to come into work, while higher-skilled, Ivy League educated workers would have plenty of job security. Scholars from Stanford put it well, "While the overall trend is marked by significant economic growth and prosperity, this progress has come at the expense of many individuals." In net, it"s a large benefit to society, to the economy, and to most workers. From solely a utilitarian perspective, it appears a perfect opportunity to bring back a booming economy. This boon, unfortunately, would only sustain some, not all.

So, what should we do? Curtail the implementation of mass technological replacements? No. We should pursue these upgrades with the idea in mind that we benefit society. Even with low-level jobs being lost, they can still be replaced. Those jobs can be transitioned to repair of machines, basic operational jobs, and other such occupations that require little formal skill. The labor market has been lackluster for quite some time, and the easiest, most effective way to rebound the flailing remnants of the workforce and put them into use with machines. Employment demands can be met with more jobs focusing on innovation, improvement, and invention. Despite the lackadaisical progress since the turn of the century in productivity enhancements via technology, we can get on track now by pushing for available upgrades in the labor market.

Seems inevitable. However, we can't just say no. Other countries could likely adapt this technology, and rapidly make production faster and cheaper. If we're not equipped to beat them at this game, they could out-compete our companies, and that will be a huge problem.

Humans will likely be at the top for awhile. However, AI is increasingly improving, which I'm not sure if this professor is making not of.

We'll have to try not to out balance things of course.
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:18:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 1:36:58 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
Thoughts?

Erik is delusional if he thinks that there is no way machines can match human creativity and ingenuity. It is simply a matter of time. Add in the thought that it is estimated that being a loan officer and underwriter will become obsolete in the next two decades. It is rather evident that the jobs created to program and maintain the computer systems that will perform those two functions will not make up for the losses.

I think it will take some time until it creates a giant underclass because there are not enough jobs to go around, but one thing is for certain. Economics will change in ways we can't even fathom.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 3:14:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
A person posts a long OP about economics and has a profile pic of a bunny.

[censored by the DDO Elite]

#ConspiracyBegins

https://www.youtube.com...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 3:57:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 3:14:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
A person posts a long OP about economics and has a profile pic of a bunny.

[censored by the DDO Elite]

#ConspiracyBegins

https://www.youtube.com...

;)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 3:57:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
before the industrial revolution people worked hard so that there would be enough food and other things for everybody.
There was this concept that if your tribe had too many people who did not do their share of the work, but ate their share of the food, people would starve. Being lazy was seen as something bad.
Times have changed. With the machines doing most of the work. There are so many people who's work is not needed, and have been laid off. There may be a need for people to repair machines, but only for a few..
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:01:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:18:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:36:58 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
Thoughts?

Erik is delusional if he thinks that there is no way machines can match human creativity and ingenuity. It is simply a matter of time.

I tend to agree with the professor. Think of it this way -- a machine cannot feasibly assure total randomization, it's all programmed. Creativity is lost when things don't actually have a mind. Sure, it will get better, but I don't believe they will ever match our abilities. Ours are natural as we are living, machines don't live.

Add in the thought that it is estimated that being a loan officer and underwriter will become obsolete in the next two decades. It is rather evident that the jobs created to program and maintain the computer systems that will perform those two functions will not make up for the losses.

This is why it's imperative to teach people necessary skills now, before we see a severe dichotomy.

I think it will take some time until it creates a giant underclass because there are not enough jobs to go around, but one thing is for certain. Economics will change in ways we can't even fathom.

Probably a century, at least. For sure, economics has already began formative changes that were unheard of during Keynes' time.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:03:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 3:57:54 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
before the industrial revolution people worked hard so that there would be enough food and other things for everybody.
There was this concept that if your tribe had too many people who did not do their share of the work, but ate their share of the food, people would starve. Being lazy was seen as something bad.
Times have changed. With the machines doing most of the work. There are so many people who's work is not needed, and have been laid off. There may be a need for people to repair machines, but only for a few..

I think you're dismissing the congruence between then and now. Both times, there were (and are) critics of advancements, claiming the labor market can't handle the backlash of employment after jobs are replaced by machines. We rebounded then, why can't we now? Moreover, would not the currency gain more value if there was less need for it to exist? It already happens like that as it is, this would just stir the pot.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:06:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 1:49:56 PM, Dark-one wrote:
Seems inevitable. However, we can't just say no. Other countries could likely adapt this technology, and rapidly make production faster and cheaper. If we're not equipped to beat them at this game, they could out-compete our companies, and that will be a huge problem.

The US isn't under threat by any countries in terms of technology. Some Asian-Pacific nations may be ahead of the game in some areas, but we're moving at a safe pace from a strictly competitive standpoint.

Humans will likely be at the top for awhile. However, AI is increasingly improving, which I'm not sure if this professor is making not of.

There is no threat of AI overtaking humanity. All of that is utterly senseless fantasy.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:07:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 3:14:56 PM, tejretics wrote:

In all seriousness, I'd appreciate your opinion. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Dark-one
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:24:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 4:06:42 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:49:56 PM, Dark-one wrote:
Seems inevitable. However, we can't just say no. Other countries could likely adapt this technology, and rapidly make production faster and cheaper. If we're not equipped to beat them at this game, they could out-compete our companies, and that will be a huge problem.

The US isn't under threat by any countries in terms of technology. Some Asian-Pacific nations may be ahead of the game in some areas, but we're moving at a safe pace from a strictly competitive standpoint.

Humans will likely be at the top for awhile. However, AI is increasingly improving, which I'm not sure if this professor is making not of.

There is no threat of AI overtaking humanity. All of that is utterly senseless fantasy.

Didn't say that the U.S. is under threat. I said that it would be if we outright stalled this progress.

Assuming machines make it to our cognitive abilities, which they gradually seem to be doing, they could become a threat. However, I'm a proponent of "then don't allow them to develop their own conscience and beliefs! Keep it out of the programming!".
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:25:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 3:14:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
A person posts a long OP about economics and has a profile pic of a bunny.

[censored by the DDO Elite]

#ConspiracyBegins

https://www.youtube.com...

BUSTED!
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:26:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 4:24:27 PM, Dark-one wrote:
At 3/29/2016 4:06:42 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:49:56 PM, Dark-one wrote:
Seems inevitable. However, we can't just say no. Other countries could likely adapt this technology, and rapidly make production faster and cheaper. If we're not equipped to beat them at this game, they could out-compete our companies, and that will be a huge problem.

The US isn't under threat by any countries in terms of technology. Some Asian-Pacific nations may be ahead of the game in some areas, but we're moving at a safe pace from a strictly competitive standpoint.

Humans will likely be at the top for awhile. However, AI is increasingly improving, which I'm not sure if this professor is making not of.

There is no threat of AI overtaking humanity. All of that is utterly senseless fantasy.

Didn't say that the U.S. is under threat. I said that it would be if we outright stalled this progress.

Ah, I see. Fair enough. Sorry for misinterpretation.

Assuming machines make it to our cognitive abilities, which they gradually seem to be doing, they could become a threat. However, I'm a proponent of "then don't allow them to develop their own conscience and beliefs! Keep it out of the programming!".

I see what you mean, but I don't think that would even happen as long as we keep the development out of the hands of psychopaths like Hitler, Mussolini, Pot, Jong Un, and the likes.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:33:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 3:14:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
A person posts a long OP about economics and has a profile pic of a bunny.

[censored by the DDO Elite]

#ConspiracyBegins

https://www.youtube.com...

My thoughts exactly
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 5:59:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 1:36:44 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
This has long been a conversation that has been a major point of debate for economists, especially among Keynesians and Marxians. For a long time, the Keynesians felt that as technology advanced workers would need to work less and predicted that we would one day become a Leisure society because productivity would become so high that workers would only need to work three days a week for four hours a day and we would transition into a leisure society and the only question would be what to do with all that free time.
For a while, this was the case as wages increased along productivity. However what Keynes and his followers did not predict was corporate greed, and that the wealth created by this increased productivity would not be returned to workers in the form of wages, but would be pocketed by corporate executives for themselves.
In my view, and in the view of many others, the best way to deal with this is to democratize the technology and the economy, so then workers will control it and it can be used to enrich all of the workers rather than the corporate executives.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 6:03:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 5:59:05 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:36:44 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
This has long been a conversation that has been a major point of debate for economists, especially among Keynesians and Marxians. For a long time, the Keynesians felt that as technology advanced workers would need to work less and predicted that we would one day become a Leisure society because productivity would become so high that workers would only need to work three days a week for four hours a day and we would transition into a leisure society and the only question would be what to do with all that free time.
For a while, this was the case as wages increased along productivity. However what Keynes and his followers did not predict was corporate greed, and that the wealth created by this increased productivity would not be returned to workers in the form of wages, but would be pocketed by corporate executives for themselves.
In my view, and in the view of many others, the best way to deal with this is to democratize the technology and the economy, so then workers will control it and it can be used to enrich all of the workers rather than the corporate executives.

Agreed, except there are still challenges with democratizing it. If a lunatic who happens to be intelligent gets ahold of the information, he/she could use it for ill-will.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 7:17:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 6:03:50 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/29/2016 5:59:05 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:36:44 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
This has long been a conversation that has been a major point of debate for economists, especially among Keynesians and Marxians. For a long time, the Keynesians felt that as technology advanced workers would need to work less and predicted that we would one day become a Leisure society because productivity would become so high that workers would only need to work three days a week for four hours a day and we would transition into a leisure society and the only question would be what to do with all that free time.
For a while, this was the case as wages increased along productivity. However what Keynes and his followers did not predict was corporate greed, and that the wealth created by this increased productivity would not be returned to workers in the form of wages, but would be pocketed by corporate executives for themselves.
In my view, and in the view of many others, the best way to deal with this is to democratize the technology and the economy, so then workers will control it and it can be used to enrich all of the workers rather than the corporate executives.

Agreed, except there are still challenges with democratizing it. If a lunatic who happens to be intelligent gets ahold of the information, he/she could use it for ill-will.

I don't understand what you mean by a "lunatic..who gets ahold of the information"?
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 7:26:57 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Now if someone can't get a job there is still this stigma about not working that will apply to him.
Nobody want's to hire him. there are plenty of other people who are more qualified that are looking for work. Society does not need for him to work, except that the money for his welfare check comes from taxes.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 7:39:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
"For a long time, the Keynesians felt that as technology advanced workers would need to work less and predicted that we would one day become a Leisure society because productivity would become so high that workers would only need to work three days a week for four hours a day"
What happened was the workers who could do a job better. Would do this job for 40 hours a week. Other people became redundant.
Economists don't really understand how an economy works well enough to predict.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 8:05:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 7:26:57 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
Now if someone can't get a job there is still this stigma about not working that will apply to him.
Nobody want's to hire him. there are plenty of other people who are more qualified that are looking for work. Society does not need for him to work, except that the money for his welfare check comes from taxes.

If we cut welfare, then that shouldn't be a big issue. There are jobs for those who are willing to work. It's simple. That's how illegal immigrants (and some legal) find the jobs they do. The issue is those jobs are labelled as jobs that Americans are "unwilling" to do. They still exist. If we didn't become some dependent on welfare and a baby-sitting government, we, too, could have those jobs.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 8:06:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 7:39:52 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
"For a long time, the Keynesians felt that as technology advanced workers would need to work less and predicted that we would one day become a Leisure society because productivity would become so high that workers would only need to work three days a week for four hours a day"
What happened was the workers who could do a job better. Would do this job for 40 hours a week. Other people became redundant.
Economists don't really understand how an economy works well enough to predict.

They still don't, but they have a good idea. And an advance in technology wouldn't have a great negative impact on the economy, as some critics inaccurately suggest.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:10:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
a "job that nobody wants to do," is really a job you wouldn't want unless you couldn't get another job.
There are still plenty of people who don't want to hire Blacks, they don't have to if there are plenty of Mexican's around to do that job.
You may feel that people who don't work should not get taxpayer money as a substitute for a pay check, but that is due to an instinct that you and many other people have
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:16:16 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Eventually the majority of people in America will be unemployed or retired, except for the workers who can't vote because they are not citizens.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:47:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 12:10:49 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
a "job that nobody wants to do," is really a job you wouldn't want unless you couldn't get another job.

In which case, you would take the job.

There are still plenty of people who don't want to hire Blacks, they don't have to if there are plenty of Mexican's around to do that job.

That's incredibly racist, and not entirely true. If people are prejudiced, it's usually against both of those stereotypes. That's a weak rebuttal.

You may feel that people who don't work should not get taxpayer money as a substitute for a pay check, but that is due to an instinct that you and many other people have

Lol, and why should they when they don't seek employment?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:48:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 12:16:16 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
Eventually the majority of people in America will be unemployed or retired, except for the workers who can't vote because they are not citizens.

Of course. And of what merit is the argument here? Or is there not one?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 1:53:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I would really appreciate some more input, if anyone cares to...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW