Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The coming employment crisis

HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2017 11:30:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Example: According to the American Trucker Association, there are 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the US. Self-driving vehicles are being developed by no less than 5 companies and competition between the various companies developing these technologies will produce practical, self-driving trucks within the next five to 10 years.

Currently many companies are using driverless vehicles to move goods and materials in ports and mining operations... Uber purchased a Ca. company "Otto" with an eye towards the driverless taxi.

I read an article claiming a Chinese company has plans to replace 50,000 manufacturing jobs with robotics.

We better start thinking about what to do with billions of unemployed people because the market economy will fail.
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
supplysider
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2017 1:31:53 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Hairless, this is a very good thread discussing the topic.

http://www.longecity.org...

They mentioned the driverless trucks a few years ago, though now the big worry seems to be the robobuggies that are already rolling out across America.

The above thread has put forward the idea that once these buggies are firmly entrenched across the urban landscape, then much of the urban economy/landscape would become mooscape. Most of the city in the future will be economic desert.
JohnViterPakpahan
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2017 7:40:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Labor absorption will be significantly reduced with this technology. Indeed this is very efficient, but not in terms of improving people's welfare. Indeed not all things that humans can do by robots. But in industrial machines, manpower will only serve as an operator. Even later this industrial machine will be installed artificial intelligence, which can work without the operator.
John Viter Pakpahan
Pompo
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2017 6:16:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 4/24/2017 11:30:20 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
Example: According to the American Trucker Association, there are 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the US. Self-driving vehicles are being developed by no less than 5 companies and competition between the various companies developing these technologies will produce practical, self-driving trucks within the next five to 10 years.

Currently many companies are using driverless vehicles to move goods and materials in ports and mining operations... Uber purchased a Ca. company "Otto" with an eye towards the driverless taxi.

I read an article claiming a Chinese company has plans to replace 50,000 manufacturing jobs with robotics.

We better start thinking about what to do with billions of unemployed people because the market economy will fail.

The displacement of the labour force has been discussed for a long time. Mill and the ricardian ideas boosted the decreasing benefit's rate in Marx.He said that the introduction of technology by the capitalists was their way to protect themselves against the cyclical crisis. To fire workers, meaning less wages to pay and more benefits for them ( this was presented as a economic cycle but the consequences were getting worst on its round though).

So what Marx said at that time seems to be the same problem right? Unemployment is going to increase no matter what ( well ,he advocated for the end of capitalism and the entrance of the communist society, but lets suppose thats kinda an utopia for now).

However, there are some critics to this approach:

First, don't confuse displacement with increase in unemployment. These new machines also require labour , so there might be some works which moves from one sector to another.

Second, education is increasing in modern societies, therefore the number of people devoted to do this mechanised works will decrease in the long run compensating the effect as well as order effects...

And last but not least, government should definitely intervene into the market creating incentives and the necessary investments ( your question is sealed by the monetary authorities in the world).

Should we be pessimistic? I don't believe so, we have been dealing with technological change and we will continue successfully.
BabyBooms
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 4:21:13 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/19/2017 6:16:12 PM, Pompo wrote:
First, don't confuse displacement with increase in unemployment. These new machines also require labour , so there might be some works which moves from one sector to another.

Surely you're not that naive! Why would an employer install robots to do what workers have done if not to increase profits. One of the biggest costs in manufacturing has always been labor, and there has always been an effort under capitalism to reduce the labor cost as a way of increasing profits. So why do you really think the employer would install robots?


Second, education is increasing in modern societies, therefore the number of people devoted to do this mechanised works will decrease in the long run compensating the effect as well as order effects...

huh?


And last but not least, government should definitely intervene into the market creating incentives and the necessary investments ( your question is sealed by the monetary authorities in the world).

Should we be pessimistic? I don't believe so, we have been dealing with technological change and we will continue successfully.

Capitalism is beginning to eat itself and us. Things are not going to get better from here with capitalism.
Pompo
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 11:20:13 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2017 4:21:13 AM, BabyBooms wrote:
At 5/19/2017 6:16:12 PM, Pompo wrote:
First, don't confuse displacement with increase in unemployment. These new machines also require labour , so there might be some works which moves from one sector to another.

Surely you're not that naive! Why would an employer install robots to do what workers have done if not to increase profits. One of the biggest costs in manufacturing has always been labor, and there has always been an effort under capitalism to reduce the labor cost as a way of increasing profits. So why do you really think the employer would install robots?


Second, education is increasing in modern societies, therefore the number of people devoted to do this mechanised works will decrease in the long run compensating the effect as well as order effects...

huh?


And last but not least, government should definitely intervene into the market creating incentives and the necessary investments ( your question is sealed by the monetary authorities in the world).

Should we be pessimistic? I don't believe so, we have been dealing with technological change and we will continue successfully.

Capitalism is beginning to eat itself and us. Things are not going to get better from here with capitalism.

I don't get your post. I haven't said that the capitalists don't install machinery because of profits, they do, but we are discussing unemployment here, I guess you didn't understand my point.

So I'd be glad to hear some proposals. Sure, capitalism is eating us so what, what do we do about it?
BabyBooms
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 3:37:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2017 11:20:13 AM, Pompo wrote:
At 5/23/2017 4:21:13 AM, BabyBooms wrote:
At 5/19/2017 6:16:12 PM, Pompo wrote:
First, don't confuse displacement with increase in unemployment. These new machines also require labour , so there might be some works which moves from one sector to another.

Surely you're not that naive! Why would an employer install robots to do what workers have done if not to increase profits. One of the biggest costs in manufacturing has always been labor, and there has always been an effort under capitalism to reduce the labor cost as a way of increasing profits. So why do you really think the employer would install robots?


Second, education is increasing in modern societies, therefore the number of people devoted to do this mechanised works will decrease in the long run compensating the effect as well as order effects...

huh?


And last but not least, government should definitely intervene into the market creating incentives and the necessary investments ( your question is sealed by the monetary authorities in the world).

Should we be pessimistic? I don't believe so, we have been dealing with technological change and we will continue successfully.

Capitalism is beginning to eat itself and us. Things are not going to get better from here with capitalism.

I don't get your post. I haven't said that the capitalists don't install machinery because of profits, they do, but we are discussing unemployment here, I guess you didn't understand my point.

So I'd be glad to hear some proposals. Sure, capitalism is eating us so what, what do we do about it?

Well, it was all over my post: robots are used to reduce workers, i.e. create unemployment.

What do we do? We scream. We yell. We write to our congressmen. We push for worker self-directed enterprises (co-ops) and every advantage and incentive for WSDEs.

The manufacturers who install robots and lay off workers have a different choice that they could make. They could instead KEEP those workers and pay them the same wages but cut their hours. Government could provide incentives for them to do that. How about providing a temporary, targeted business tax cut that would balance and pay for amortizing the cost of the robots for businesses that install robots IF they agree to continue paying the same wage and cut the working hours of their workers?
Pompo
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 6:32:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/23/2017 3:37:18 PM, BabyBooms wrote:
At 5/23/2017 11:20:13 AM, Pompo wrote:
At 5/23/2017 4:21:13 AM, BabyBooms wrote:
At 5/19/2017 6:16:12 PM, Pompo wrote:
First, don't confuse displacement with increase in unemployment. These new machines also require labour , so there might be some works which moves from one sector to another.

Surely you're not that naive! Why would an employer install robots to do what workers have done if not to increase profits. One of the biggest costs in manufacturing has always been labor, and there has always been an effort under capitalism to reduce the labor cost as a way of increasing profits. So why do you really think the employer would install robots?


Second, education is increasing in modern societies, therefore the number of people devoted to do this mechanised works will decrease in the long run compensating the effect as well as order effects...

huh?


And last but not least, government should definitely intervene into the market creating incentives and the necessary investments ( your question is sealed by the monetary authorities in the world).

Should we be pessimistic? I don't believe so, we have been dealing with technological change and we will continue successfully.

Capitalism is beginning to eat itself and us. Things are not going to get better from here with capitalism.

I don't get your post. I haven't said that the capitalists don't install machinery because of profits, they do, but we are discussing unemployment here, I guess you didn't understand my point.

So I'd be glad to hear some proposals. Sure, capitalism is eating us so what, what do we do about it?

Well, it was all over my post: robots are used to reduce workers, i.e. create unemployment.

What do we do? We scream. We yell. We write to our congressmen. We push for worker self-directed enterprises (co-ops) and every advantage and incentive for WSDEs.

The manufacturers who install robots and lay off workers have a different choice that they could make. They could instead KEEP those workers and pay them the same wages but cut their hours. Government could provide incentives for them to do that. How about providing a temporary, targeted business tax cut that would balance and pay for amortizing the cost of the robots for businesses that install robots IF they agree to continue paying the same wage and cut the working hours of their workers?

I believe you are missing an important point in your argument. You say that robots create unemployment. Well that might be true if you define what type of labour activities they are displacing, because they do create employment too. Some jobs devoted to internet, communication, engineering etc wouldn't exist today without them ( don't think on robots only as big machinery but also about any kind of technological development). That was my point on the displacement of the labour force to other new fields.

Again , and I insist on my argument here, he should think about other roles people might do, in fact, that what has been happening since the industrial revolution , some jobs are replaced by machines and workers adapt to another role. Of course, I admit that the foresight seems more pessimistic nowadays as the massive invention and development of new technological devices seem to threat a higher amount of sectors and workers.

Education: there is a interesting macroeconomic model by Romer stating that the level of growth of a country depends not only on the amount of new machines that can be achieved but on the knowledge of the workers on how to use them. We get to the same point, through government, education is improved, new roles can be done by the workers.

Should government intervene? Definitely. This process of automatisation will for sure create great inequalities since it's not possible to equal the level of education of all the workers to the technological advances.

I don't know how would your tax proposal work in the US, I'm spanish so I'm not really aware of your tax system, but it would require a previous fiscal analysis. Proposals sounds good but when you need to analyse them with a limited budget, political opposition etc, they become much more complex.

Hope I made my argument a little bit more clear!
BabyBooms
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2017 7:32:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/23/2017 6:32:10 PM, Pompo wrote:
At 5/23/2017 3:37:18 PM, BabyBooms wrote:


The manufacturers who install robots and lay off workers have a different choice that they could make. They could instead KEEP those workers and pay them the same wages but cut their hours. Government could provide incentives for them to do that. How about providing a temporary, targeted business tax cut that would balance and pay for amortizing the cost of the robots for businesses that install robots IF they agree to continue paying the same wage and cut the working hours of their workers?

I believe you are missing an important point in your argument. You say that robots create unemployment. Well that might be true if you define what type of labour activities they are displacing, because they do create employment too. Some jobs devoted to internet, communication, engineering etc wouldn't exist today without them ( don't think on robots only as big machinery but also about any kind of technological development). That was my point on the displacement of the labour force to other new fields.

Again , and I insist on my argument here, he should think about other roles people might do, in fact, that what has been happening since the industrial revolution , some jobs are replaced by machines and workers adapt to another role. Of course, I admit that the foresight seems more pessimistic nowadays as the massive invention and development of new technological devices seem to threat a higher amount of sectors and workers.

Education: there is a interesting macroeconomic model by Romer stating that the level of growth of a country depends not only on the amount of new machines that can be achieved but on the knowledge of the workers on how to use them. We get to the same point, through government, education is improved, new roles can be done by the workers.

Should government intervene? Definitely. This process of automatisation will for sure create great inequalities since it's not possible to equal the level of education of all the workers to the technological advances.


I don't know how would your tax proposal work in the US, I'm spanish so I'm not really aware of your tax system, but it would require a previous fiscal analysis. Proposals sounds good but when you need to analyse them with a limited budget, political opposition etc, they become much more complex.

Hope I made my argument a little bit more clear!

Yes, it is clearer now. And no doubt automation would work both ways as you say. I'm afraid the preponderance of result would be unemployment.

One thing you don't seem to be considering, or maybe realizing, is that capitalism could deliver on promises better 40 years ago than 20, and 20 years ago more than now. And the reason for that is that things evolve. There is no "going back" and there is no staying stable. It moves. It changes. And now capitalism can no longer promise more production as the solution to unemployment or stagnant economies because big businesses are already suffer underutilized capacity. Plus they now face increasing digital economies based on information that is free. This is all spelled out in this rather good article: https://www.theguardian.com...
kendonhank
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2017 4:53:27 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/23/2017 7:32:15 PM, BabyBooms wrote:
At 5/23/2017 6:32:10 PM, Pompo wrote:
At 5/23/2017 3:37:18 PM, BabyBooms wrote:


The manufacturers who install robots and lay off workers have a different choice that they could make. They could instead KEEP those workers and pay them the same wages but cut their hours. Government could provide incentives for them to do that. How about providing a temporary, targeted business tax cut that would balance and pay for amortizing the cost of the robots for businesses that install robots IF they agree to continue paying the same wage and cut the working hours of their workers?

I believe you are missing an important point in your argument. You say that robots create unemployment. Well that might be true if you define what type of labour activities they are displacing, because they do create employment too. Some jobs devoted to internet, communication, engineering etc wouldn't exist today without them ( don't think on robots only as big machinery but also about any kind of technological development). That was my point on the displacement of the labour force to other new fields.

Again , and I insist on my argument here, he should think about other roles people might do, in fact, that what has been happening since the industrial revolution , some jobs are replaced by machines and workers adapt to another role. Of course, I admit that the foresight seems more pessimistic nowadays as the massive invention and development of new technological devices seem to threat a higher amount of sectors and workers.

Education: there is a interesting macroeconomic model by Romer stating that the level of growth of a country depends not only on the amount of new machines that can be achieved but on the knowledge of the workers on how to use them. We get to the same point, through government, education is improved, new roles can be done by the workers.

Should government intervene? Definitely. This process of automatisation will for sure create great inequalities since it's not possible to equal the level of education of all the workers to the technological advances.


I don't know how would your tax proposal work in the US, I'm spanish so I'm not really aware of your tax system, but it would require a previous fiscal analysis. Proposals sounds good but when you need to analyse them with a limited budget, political opposition etc, they become much more complex.

Hope I made my argument a little bit more clear!

Yes, it is clearer now. And no doubt automation would work both ways as you say. I'm afraid the preponderance of result would be unemployment.

One thing you don't seem to be considering, or maybe realizing, is that capitalism could deliver on promises better 40 years ago than 20, and 20 years ago more than now. And the reason for that is that things evolve. There is no "going back" and there is no staying stable. It moves. It changes. And now capitalism can no longer promise more production as the solution to unemployment or stagnant economies because big businesses are already suffer underutilized capacity. Plus they now face increasing digital economies based on information that is free. This is all spelled out in this rather good article: https://www.theguardian.com...

"One thing you don't seem to be considering, or maybe realizing, is that capitalism could deliver on promises better 40 years ago than 20, and 20 years ago more than now."

And what data do you have to support that? Technology, BTW, has ALWAYS created more net jobs than it has displaced.

"This process of automatisation will for sure create great inequalities since it's not possible to equal the level of education of all the workers to the technological advances."

What inequalities? Why does the education level of workers have to equal the technology level? the whole point of technology is to make things easier and free people to other things.
BabyBooms
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2017 4:22:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/25/2017 4:53:27 AM, kendonhank wrote:
At 5/23/2017 7:32:15 PM, BabyBooms wrote:


Yes, it is clearer now. And no doubt automation would work both ways as you say. I'm afraid the preponderance of result would be unemployment.

One thing you don't seem to be considering, or maybe realizing, is that capitalism could deliver on promises better 40 years ago than 20, and 20 years ago more than now. And the reason for that is that things evolve. There is no "going back" and there is no staying stable. It moves. It changes. And now capitalism can no longer promise more production as the solution to unemployment or stagnant economies because big businesses are already suffer underutilized capacity. Plus they now face increasing digital economies based on information that is free. This is all spelled out in this rather good article: https://www.theguardian.com...

"One thing you don't seem to be considering, or maybe realizing, is that capitalism could deliver on promises better 40 years ago than 20, and 20 years ago more than now."

And what data do you have to support that? Technology, BTW, has ALWAYS created more net jobs than it has displaced.

From after the G.D. until about 1975 the middle class enjoyed growing incomes, the "American Dream", affordable education, etc.

In the last 40 years, from about 1975 to today, the middle class's real incomes have been flat, and today the American Dream is more and more out of reach. And now, the middle class is shrinking.

That is the same as saying that capitalism could deliver on promises better 40 years ago than 20, and 20 years ago more than now.
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2017 5:55:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 4/24/2017 11:30:20 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
Example: According to the American Trucker Association, there are 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the US. Self-driving vehicles are being developed by no less than 5 companies and competition between the various companies developing these technologies will produce practical, self-driving trucks within the next five to 10 years.

Currently many companies are using driverless vehicles to move goods and materials in ports and mining operations... Uber purchased a Ca. company "Otto" with an eye towards the driverless taxi.

I read an article claiming a Chinese company has plans to replace 50,000 manufacturing jobs with robotics.

We better start thinking about what to do with billions of unemployed people because the market economy will fail.

I don't think we need to concern ourselves with the employment crisis, the baby boomers are all retiring right now and leaving behind many vacant government and other sector positions available. Also there is a lot of demand for skilled trade workers, such as plumbers, electricians, wood workers. With many new graduates choosing the service industry, a lot of new positions in the skill trades are left vacant.

Until robots can repair a flooded toilet or repair a electrical line or handle customers in the government industry, I think we are ok.

I think now more then ever there are many jobs available, the majority of our population is aging and retiring, now is the time to grab the reins and go fill those positions. And you have to be willing to relocate because the jobs are there.
Pompo
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2017 10:06:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/25/2017 4:53:27 AM, kendonhank wrote:


"This process of automatisation will for sure create great inequalities since it's not possible to equal the level of education of all the workers to the technological advances."

What inequalities? Why does the education level of workers have to equal the technology level? the whole point of technology is to make things easier and free people to other things.

No. You are misunderstanding the concept of technology. Both Congo and the Uk have access to computers, however the Uk workers have the necessary skills to use them.

What you said works for the simple technological devices but not for all of them, again, technology is not only about robots nor physical things.
Archaholic
Posts: 1,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 12:22:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
But all the same, I think there will be an increase of unemployement despite the job displacement you all talked about. In fact, some scholars are debating whether goverments should pass the universal basic income.

It seems that this scenario will come true, so let's put some socialist measures into action. I really don't want my grandchildren to starve.

BR
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 1:37:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/29/2017 12:22:14 AM, Archaholic wrote:
But all the same, I think there will be an increase of unemployement despite the job displacement you all talked about. In fact, some scholars are debating whether goverments should pass the universal basic income.

It seems that this scenario will come true, so let's put some socialist measures into action. I really don't want my grandchildren to starve.

BR

Don't worry Archaholic unless you live in Africa, nobody is starving. The key to employment is education, the longer you stay in school the better a job you will get. Tell your kids and grandkids to stay in school, the only people who are starving are high school drop outs.

https://goodmenproject.com...
Archaholic
Posts: 1,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 1:56:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/29/2017 1:37:52 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 5/29/2017 12:22:14 AM, Archaholic wrote:
But all the same, I think there will be an increase of unemployement despite the job displacement you all talked about. In fact, some scholars are debating whether goverments should pass the universal basic income.

It seems that this scenario will come true, so let's put some socialist measures into action. I really don't want my grandchildren to starve.

BR

Don't worry Archaholic unless you live in Africa, nobody is starving. The key to employment is education, the longer you stay in school the better a job you will get. Tell your kids and grandkids to stay in school, the only people who are starving are high school drop outs.

https://goodmenproject.com...

FanBoy, I understand that you, as an american, have a special thinking about progress. I agree with the statement that higher education is the key for development; however, this development should be understood for everybody and not for a bunch of individuals.

That image you put forward is the thinking of the typical american who only cares for himself and not for the whole society. Dude, the problem of the others can cause serious consequences to the rest, so it's better to guarantee first people's well-being before even thinking about ourselves.

I insist, if this turns out wrong, the universal basic income should be taken into account.

BR
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 3:13:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/29/2017 1:56:00 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 5/29/2017 1:37:52 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 5/29/2017 12:22:14 AM, Archaholic wrote:
But all the same, I think there will be an increase of unemployement despite the job displacement you all talked about. In fact, some scholars are debating whether goverments should pass the universal basic income.

It seems that this scenario will come true, so let's put some socialist measures into action. I really don't want my grandchildren to starve.

BR

Don't worry Archaholic unless you live in Africa, nobody is starving. The key to employment is education, the longer you stay in school the better a job you will get. Tell your kids and grandkids to stay in school, the only people who are starving are high school drop outs.

https://goodmenproject.com...

FanBoy, I understand that you, as an american, have a special thinking about progress. I agree with the statement that higher education is the key for development; however, this development should be understood for everybody and not for a bunch of individuals.

That image you put forward is the thinking of the typical american who only cares for himself and not for the whole society. Dude, the problem of the others can cause serious consequences to the rest, so it's better to guarantee first people's well-being before even thinking about ourselves.

I insist, if this turns out wrong, the universal basic income should be taken into account.

BR

Archaholic I have to kindly disagree with you LOL. America is the best country in the world!! #1, why because it's capitalism and it encourages everyone to be the best and become the best they can be. We promote competition and free thinking, we rule the world because we have the most rights and the most freedoms. Nobody is holding anyone back from becoming what they want to be.

By introducing universal basic income, you will take away the competition, the drive of some people as nobody will care anymore, everyone will make a basic income. This creates laziness and stagnation in the economy.

What you need to understand is that there will be lazy people, bad people, un-educated , un-driven people, that's just the way it is, I don't think they deserve a free ride. In a Capitalist world the money and jobs are up for grabs, education and experience rule and I strongly believe in the strong survive and the weak parish.

I have no sympathy for the weak, I call it collateral damage, only the best and strongest survive, it has been that way for centuries, I don't want to help the weak, unfortunately you have to pick yourself up and fight or fall into poverty. Everyone has a choice.
Pompo
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2017 11:47:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/29/2017 3:13:45 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:


What you need to understand is that there will be lazy people, bad people, un-educated , un-driven people, that's just the way it is, I don't think they deserve a free ride. In a Capitalist world the money and jobs are up for grabs, education and experience rule and I strongly believe in the strong survive and the weak parish.

I have no sympathy for the weak, I call it collateral damage, only the best and strongest survive, it has been that way for centuries, I don't want to help the weak, unfortunately you have to pick yourself up and fight or fall into poverty. Everyone has a choice.

Are you serious?
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2017 1:37:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/29/2017 11:47:31 PM, Pompo wrote:
At 5/29/2017 3:13:45 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:


What you need to understand is that there will be lazy people, bad people, un-educated , un-driven people, that's just the way it is, I don't think they deserve a free ride. In a Capitalist world the money and jobs are up for grabs, education and experience rule and I strongly believe in the strong survive and the weak parish.

I have no sympathy for the weak, I call it collateral damage, only the best and strongest survive, it has been that way for centuries, I don't want to help the weak, unfortunately you have to pick yourself up and fight or fall into poverty. Everyone has a choice.

Are you serious?

Welcome to the real world champ. You can be anything you want, or a bum on the street it's your choice. The strong become CEO's while the weak end up in soup kitchens and on welfare. That's the real world
Pompo
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2017 5:26:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/30/2017 1:37:48 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 5/29/2017 11:47:31 PM, Pompo wrote:
At 5/29/2017 3:13:45 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:


What you need to understand is that there will be lazy people, bad people, un-educated , un-driven people, that's just the way it is, I don't think they deserve a free ride. In a Capitalist world the money and jobs are up for grabs, education and experience rule and I strongly believe in the strong survive and the weak parish.

I have no sympathy for the weak, I call it collateral damage, only the best and strongest survive, it has been that way for centuries, I don't want to help the weak, unfortunately you have to pick yourself up and fight or fall into poverty. Everyone has a choice.

Are you serious?

Welcome to the real world champ. You can be anything you want, or a bum on the street it's your choice. The strong become CEO's while the weak end up in soup kitchens and on welfare. That's the real world

Sure dude, I understand now, natural selection, hopefully all those blinds, invalids and doors finally dissapiar and we evolve into a better and fairer world.Yes, that makes much more sense now.
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2017 6:30:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/30/2017 5:26:40 PM, Pompo wrote:
At 5/30/2017 1:37:48 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 5/29/2017 11:47:31 PM, Pompo wrote:
At 5/29/2017 3:13:45 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:


What you need to understand is that there will be lazy people, bad people, un-educated , un-driven people, that's just the way it is, I don't think they deserve a free ride. In a Capitalist world the money and jobs are up for grabs, education and experience rule and I strongly believe in the strong survive and the weak parish.

I have no sympathy for the weak, I call it collateral damage, only the best and strongest survive, it has been that way for centuries, I don't want to help the weak, unfortunately you have to pick yourself up and fight or fall into poverty. Everyone has a choice.

Are you serious?

Welcome to the real world champ. You can be anything you want, or a bum on the street it's your choice. The strong become CEO's while the weak end up in soup kitchens and on welfare. That's the real world

Sure dude, I understand now, natural selection, hopefully all those blinds, invalids and doors finally dissapiar and we evolve into a better and fairer world.Yes, that makes much more sense now.

Lets just round up all the degenerates, retards, mentally ill and old people and put them on an island, the rest can stay and work here LOL
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2017 12:56:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/23/2017 3:37:18 PM, BabyBooms wrote:
At 5/23/2017 11:20:13 AM, Pompo wrote:
At 5/23/2017 4:21:13 AM, BabyBooms wrote:
At 5/19/2017 6:16:12 PM, Pompo wrote:
First, don't confuse displacement with increase in unemployment. These new machines also require labour , so there might be some works which moves from one sector to another.

Surely you're not that naive! Why would an employer install robots to do what workers have done if not to increase profits. One of the biggest costs in manufacturing has always been labor, and there has always been an effort under capitalism to reduce the labor cost as a way of increasing profits. So why do you really think the employer would install robots?


Second, education is increasing in modern societies, therefore the number of people devoted to do this mechanised works will decrease in the long run compensating the effect as well as order effects...

huh?


And last but not least, government should definitely intervene into the market creating incentives and the necessary investments ( your question is sealed by the monetary authorities in the world).

Should we be pessimistic? I don't believe so, we have been dealing with technological change and we will continue successfully.

Capitalism is beginning to eat itself and us. Things are not going to get better from here with capitalism.

I don't get your post. I haven't said that the capitalists don't install machinery because of profits, they do, but we are discussing unemployment here, I guess you didn't understand my point.

So I'd be glad to hear some proposals. Sure, capitalism is eating us so what, what do we do about it?

Well, it was all over my post: robots are used to reduce workers, i.e. create unemployment.

What do we do? We scream. We yell. We write to our congressmen. We push for worker self-directed enterprises (co-ops) and every advantage and incentive for WSDEs.

The manufacturers who install robots and lay off workers have a different choice that they could make. They could instead KEEP those workers and pay them the same wages but cut their hours. Government could provide incentives for them to do that. How about providing a temporary, targeted business tax cut that would balance and pay for amortizing the cost of the robots for businesses that install robots IF they agree to continue paying the same wage and cut the working hours of their workers?

Your whole perspective is wrong. Jobs don't produce wealth. The product that's created is wealth. The goal is to create and produce, not just stay busy. It's not the paycheck that keeps people fed, clothed and sheltered, it's trading the product that was created. You're are thinking of it backwards.
And to think we can get 'the government' to force everyone into co-ops and unions and whatever is complete madness. What you want to do with your life is up to you, don't think you have a say in how I live mine.
BabyBooms
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2017 2:06:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/7/2017 12:56:52 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 5/23/2017 3:37:18 PM, BabyBooms wrote:
Well, it was all over my post: robots are used to reduce workers, i.e. create unemployment.

What do we do? We scream. We yell. We write to our congressmen. We push for worker self-directed enterprises (co-ops) and every advantage and incentive for WSDEs.

The manufacturers who install robots and lay off workers have a different choice that they could make. They could instead KEEP those workers and pay them the same wages but cut their hours. Government could provide incentives for them to do that. How about providing a temporary, targeted business tax cut that would balance and pay for amortizing the cost of the robots for businesses that install robots IF they agree to continue paying the same wage and cut the working hours of their workers?

Your whole perspective is wrong. Jobs don't produce wealth. The product that's created is wealth. The goal is to create and produce, not just stay busy. It's not the paycheck that keeps people fed, clothed and sheltered, it's trading the product that was created. You're are thinking of it backwards.

No I'm not. But I think you're misunderstanding me. The question is whether it's intentional.


And to think we can get 'the government' to force everyone into co-ops and unions and whatever is complete madness.

Yes it would be. Luckily that isn't at all what I'd like to see. I guess you are misunderstanding me, and possibly willfully, since I never even implied that is what I want.
Chedgy
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2017 11:50:13 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 5/23/2017 4:21:13 AM, BabyBooms wrote:

Capitalism is beginning to eat itself and us. Things are not going to get better from here with capitalism.

I disagree, the effects of the industrial revolution in my native Britain did nothing for the common worker for the first 75 years or so, it was only after 1850 that the common workers started to benefit.

Technological change like this disrupts the labour force and some of the people thus displaced are not suited to the new jobs created.
Indeed the spread of universal, state-funded education systems came out of the response to the lack of a 'trickle-down' up to the first half of the 19th Century.
It was also helped, dare I say it, by the increase organisation of labour from the second half of the 19th Century onwards
BabyBooms
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2017 3:26:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/6/2017 11:50:13 AM, Chedgy wrote:
At 5/23/2017 4:21:13 AM, BabyBooms wrote:

Capitalism is beginning to eat itself and us. Things are not going to get better from here with capitalism.

I disagree, the effects of the industrial revolution in my native Britain did nothing for the common worker for the first 75 years or so, it was only after 1850 that the common workers started to benefit.

Technological change like this disrupts the labour force and some of the people thus displaced are not suited to the new jobs created.
Indeed the spread of universal, state-funded education systems came out of the response to the lack of a 'trickle-down' up to the first half of the 19th Century.
It was also helped, dare I say it, by the increase organisation of labour from the second half of the 19th Century onwards

While the factual comments of your post are true, I think what you're overlooking is the evolution of capitalism to what it is today with the developing challenges it faces today. As long as there was significant undeveloped technology that would:
1) continue to reduce production costs leading to increasing profit, and
2) prove to be wanted and beneficial to the public and therefore marketable to the public
capitalism prospered and was not damaging to society. Markets existed and the means of profiting from those markets existed.

EVOLUTION OF CAPITALISM - You need to know this:
But when the new, emerging technological advantages to production began to diminish, capitalism had to begin relying more on manipulations and tricks to continue to increase profitability. So beginning in the 1970s workers began to lose. Their wages/income began to stagnate as corporations took more and more of the gains from production as profit. The middle class fought back by sending its women into the work force in order to preserve or continue to advance its lifestyle. And when corporations kept real wages from growing along with production in order to keep the profits going, banks started promoting debt as a solution for the middle class in its effort to maintain its lifestyle. Credit cards proliferated. People even held multiple credit cards in order to keep charging in spite of the individual card's debt limitations. Then the debt burden contributed to a banking crisis in 2008.

Corporations were faced with new barriers to their quest for profits. The public's willingness to take on the level of debt that was needed to fund the level of consumption required for preservation of profitability wavered, slumped, and grew more slowly. And with stagnant incomes since the 1970s, the middle class was unable to consume sufficiently on just their income. So corporations had to cut costs even more.

Costs then were cut by standard means including mergers (reduction of duplication) and technological upgrades/computerization, but also more notably by moving production overseas for very, very cheap labor. And they aren't coming back. And corporations aren't going to revert back to being beneficial to workers because they can't since their profits are what drove them to this and profits would slump and spell their doom if they did.

Private profit has been the driving force through all of this, and private profit is the motivation that will keep it all going in the direction it is going, There is no going back. There is no magic solution that will make everything nice again. The future of capitalism will be guided by the profit motive and the pressures against them, created by their own economic choices and needs, are beginning to do serious damage to society. Private profit is the problem. Private profit has to go. And those who privately profit will never work to end profitability and private wealth accumulation. It's up to us, the people.
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2017 3:23:31 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Despite the ignorant trolling, there is a real concern with the coming economic situation. Currently in the USA, our economy is becoming more and more service industry based due to displacement of workers through robotics and Artificial Intelligence. Median wages are declining while profitability and production are rising. In order to maintain a capitalist economic system the populace must have access to currency in sufficient quantity to prevent social upheaval. Currently, fewer people are more productive. In other words, if the wealthy wish to maintain and increase their wealth and power then the majority of the populace must buy the goods and services being produced. In order to buy those goods and services, the populace must get money from somewhere. If 1 worker can now do the job of 5, then 4 people need a living wage from somewhere.

The premise that education will solve this problem is obviously fallacious in a future where robotics and AI can do the repetitive manual labor as well as high level thinking. Someone proffered that there will still be a need for plumbers but how many plumbers can any market sustain? In my City, there are a sh!tload of "lawn care" companies... The phone book from last year is a memorial to those who couldn't survive the glut.

Facebook and Google have had to take it's AI offline because it was creating it's own, more efficient language. The Pentagon has AI that probes it's network for security weakness and repairs those holes...
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2017 1:31:20 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I know it's sad, pretty soon we will all be replaced by robots. What will we do for work and money?? A robot is 100 times faster then a human, doesn't need sick days, or vacation and can work 24 hours a day, every bosses dream employee and doesn't require a wage.

I think I'm going to become a robot technician, the one downfall to robots is that they will need maintenance and programming, since it will be all robots, I won't be useless to them as long as I'm the robot maintenance guy, all the rest of the humans will be terminated!!

Judgement day is coming, Skynet will become self aware, or should I call it Google.
HairlessApe
Posts: 230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2017 2:03:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2017 1:31:20 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
I know it's sad, pretty soon we will all be replaced by robots. What will we do for work and money?? A robot is 100 times faster then a human, doesn't need sick days, or vacation and can work 24 hours a day, every bosses dream employee and doesn't require a wage.

I think I'm going to become a robot technician, the one downfall to robots is that they will need maintenance and programming, since it will be all robots, I won't be useless to them as long as I'm the robot maintenance guy, all the rest of the humans will be terminated!!

Judgement day is coming, Skynet will become self aware, or should I call it Google.

What makes you think there won't be repair bots?
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2017 2:46:06 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2017 2:03:11 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 8/21/2017 1:31:20 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
I know it's sad, pretty soon we will all be replaced by robots. What will we do for work and money?? A robot is 100 times faster then a human, doesn't need sick days, or vacation and can work 24 hours a day, every bosses dream employee and doesn't require a wage.

I think I'm going to become a robot technician, the one downfall to robots is that they will need maintenance and programming, since it will be all robots, I won't be useless to them as long as I'm the robot maintenance guy, all the rest of the humans will be terminated!!

Judgement day is coming, Skynet will become self aware, or should I call it Google.

What makes you think there won't be repair bots?

Damn!! you are right now I will be terminated too!! LOL,

I will be the leader of the resistance, we will fight the machines!!