On the issue of jobs....

[Moonbeam]

In our society one has to have gainful employment in order to be self and family supportive and because we have competitive markets, we have competition for jobs subject to the laws of supply and demand. Not enough work and what we all earn will eventually go down. Manufacturers will flee to the cheapest labor markets. This is the nature of competition.

The drive for cheaper and cheaper labor drives the robot industry and technological advances are asymptotically accelerating. The day is coming when human labor will be relatively superfluous. Everything will be produced very cheaply but nobody will have any money to buy anything.

This seems to me to be the end of capitalism. Efficiency for the sake of itself leads to the demise of the worker.

What if focus on jobs is not the answer if what is required is vastly beyond that level of endeavor, a need to radically alter our economic system and our judgments on the value of life.

What do we do with billions of people whose lives are not needed?

How are the Moties going to get to God's Eye?

 

[realibrad]

What economic system would you like, if not capitalism?

 

[Fern]

In our society one has to have gainful employment in order to be self and family supportive and because we have competitive markets, we have competition for jobs subject to the laws of supply and demand. Not enough work and what we all earn will eventually go down. Manufacturers will flee to the cheapest labor markets. This is the nature of competition.

The drive for cheaper and cheaper labor drives the robot industry and technological advances are asymptotically accelerating. The day is coming when human labor will be relatively superfluous. Everything will be produced very cheaply but nobody will have any money to buy anything.

This seems to me to be the end of capitalism. Efficiency for the sake of itself leads to the demise of the worker.

What if focus on jobs is not the answer if what is required is vastly beyond that level of endeavor, a need to radically alter our economic system and our judgments on the value of life.

What do we do with billions of people whose lives are not needed?

How are the Moties going to get to God's Eye?

No need to restrain advances so we are continually struggling to meet our physiological needs.

We can just move on to tackling higher needs (I'm thinking of Maslow's pyramid). However, as with most things, the transition may be difficult.

Odd to see such neo-Luddite posts on a tech forum.

Also, capitalism is not restricted to material goods. I see no conflict nor end to capitalism, at least not necessarily.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

What economic system would you like, if not capitalism?

I started this thread because of the thread about Schumer criticizing democrats over jobs, and it seems to me that jobs are not the real issue because jobs are going to go more and more away due to technological efficiencies. It seems to me that's were we are headed and that what we need to do is deal, not with creating more jobs for people but figuring out how we are going to live without work to do. Unless we have a technological collapse, it seems to me, machines are going to be doing more and more of our labor at an ever increasing rate. They will, I think, also in the not too distant future, be the only ones capable of managing their own complexity. The will exceed our ability to learn skills and adapt to change.

I didn't start this thread to recommend an alternative, only to raise questions as to where we are going or should be. I was looking for your opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

No need to restrain advances so we are continually struggling to meet our physiological needs.

We can just move on to tackling higher needs (I'm thinking of Maslow's pyramid). However, as with most things, the transition may be difficult.

Odd to see such neo-Luddite posts on a tech forum.

Also, capitalism is not restricted to material goods. I see no conflict nor end to capitalism, at least not necessarily.

Fern

I did not suggest we could or should restrain advances, only that we look at what possibilities there are in the direction we are going.

I understand that we may have a lot of leisure time to do other things, but not if we need and have no money.

No matter what capitalism is restricted to or not, it is based right not on the exchange of money. At present, those without work generally don't have any.

 

[realibrad]

I started this thread because of the thread about Schumer criticizing democrats over jobs, and it seems to me that jobs are not the real issue because jobs are going to go more and more away due to technological efficiencies. It seems to me that's were we are headed and that what we need to do is deal, not with creating more jobs for people but figuring out how we are going to live without work to do. Unless we have a technological collapse, it seems to me, machines are going to be doing more and more of our labor at an ever increasing rate. They will, I think, also in the not too distant future, be the only ones capable of managing their own complexity. The will exceed our ability to learn skills and adapt to change.

I didn't start this thread to recommend an alternative, only to raise questions as to where we are going or should be. I was looking for your opinion.

OK, so first you did not answer my question in any context at all.

Second, do you have any reason for your views? Why is a world where robots do all things needed for human desires a bad thing? What makes you believe that anything is bad?

You used a whole bunch of words and really did not say much other than conjecture about a future that you dont seem to have justification for.

 

[chucky2]

I would imagine we would need to start some serious efforts into getting people indoctrinated with population control measures. Healthy people will lots of free time f*ck, that's just the way that goes. Even now, we need less people in the world, not more. Addressing this before masses of people can do nothing and exist comfortably would probably be a good idea...

 

[realibrad]

I did not suggest we could or should restrain advances, only that we look at what possibilities there are in the direction we are going.

I understand that we may have a lot of leisure time to do other things, but not if we need and have no money.

No matter what capitalism is restricted to or not, it is based right not on the exchange of money. At present, those without work generally don't have any.

This probably explains your misconception. I dont think you are sufficiently economically literate to be able to talk about this in a meaningful way. The idea that you need to have money to participate in a capitalist market is wrong. Goods/services can still be exchanged as capital, and currency is not needed.

There is a reason retired people felt they could retire. While they do not work, they have enough capital to live. Some people I have met, live in the mountains and do not use money of any sort.

 

[Mai72]

IMO, we need checks and balances. Our government should be telling these large companies that if you want to pursue greener pastures in SE Asia you will face heavy import taxes. The top only care about themselves with little regard for anyone else.

I don't understand people who want to see the failure of the worker's union. The American dream happened with the help of the worker's union. The downfall of the middle class is directly tied to the downfall of unions in America. I don't agree with everything the unions stand for, but what's the alternative? Strength is in numbers.

 

[Moonbeam]

OK, so first you did not answer my question in any context at all.

Second, do you have any reason for your views? Why is a world where robots do all things needed for human desires a bad thing? What makes you believe that anything is bad?

You used a whole bunch of words and really did not say much other than conjecture about a future that you dont seem to have justification for.

I depend on the other person doing some thinking of their own.

 

[realibrad]

I depend on the other person doing some thinking of their own.

I am not sure if that is an insult that I do not understand, or a random sentence that means nothing.

Do you mind explaining what you mean, or answering one of my previous questions?

 

[ivwshane]

This probably explains your misconception. I dont think you are sufficiently economically literate to be able to talk about this in a meaningful way. The idea that you need to have money to participate in a capitalist market is wrong. Goods/services can still be exchanged as capital, and currency is not needed.

There is a reason retired people felt they could retire. While they do not work, they have enough capital to live. Some people I have met, live in the mountains and do not use money of any sort.

So when humans become super efficient and design a system that provides goods and services by automation/robots, you are proposing we go back to the barter system?

While the end of capitalism is no where near it's end, there is no reason why we couldn't have a discussion where capitalism no longer works.

I'm sure our resident baby boomers remember growing up with every science magazine telling you that the future means working less and doing more "fun" activities. So what happened? Why did efficiency go up and yet hours worked has also gone up? Why are Americans taking less vacation?

Is it wrong to want a system where man can focus on his family and advancing human intellegence and discovery?

 

[Zaap]

I don't understand people who want to see the failure of the worker's union. The American dream happened with the help of the worker's union. The downfall of the middle class is directly tied to the downfall of unions in America. I don't agree with everything the unions stand for, but what's the alternative? Strength is in numbers.

People in this country can't even get the concept straight.

A union is all about people joining together, to negotiate wages with an employer, drawing an invisible line over which no outsider is allowed to cross and take over anyone else's job for less than the previously agreed upon wages and working conditions. People in unions at some level must understand that doing so even at the 'lowest levels' (to start with) allows the whole structure above to be undermined and eventually topple.

Now: consider that a border is the SAME THING.

Consider that too many people have been conned into thinking that a border is to be completely ignored, by which anyone can cross the invisible line, take over anyone else's job for less than previously agreed upon wages and work conditions, and undermine the entire structure above it.

If people are going to allow that in the broadest sense and even fall for the total bullshit that they are racists if they don't go along with it: STFU about unions. First: collectively get your head in the union called The United States of America of which you also belong, and of which every other scab on the planet that can wander across a line automagically doesn't.

 

[Mai72]

This probably explains your misconception. I dont think you are sufficiently economically literate to be able to talk about this in a meaningful way. The idea that you need to have money to participate in a capitalist market is wrong. Goods/services can still be exchanged as capital, and currency is not needed.

There is a reason retired people felt they could retire. While they do not work, they have enough capital to live. Some people I have met, live in the mountains and do not use money of any sort.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...der-of-burts-bees-says-he-was-ousted/9982551/

Have you ever seen the documentary on the guy who made Burt's Bees? Burt Shavitz is just a normal guy who lives in the mountains. Although he was screwed royally by partner Roxanne Quimby, he was still paid over $4m and he gets a yearly payment for his likeness on Burt's Bees products. He lives without hot running water. Who wants to live like that? It's too extreme for most people.

On the other hand the reason many people are in a dire financial mess is because they spend spend spend! Studies have shown that having more things doesn't equal happiness. And people know this! Still they spend spend spend. Also, having large payments ties you down, and you can't live life fully. Life is about experiences. Traveling to distant places is exciting to me. You can't do that if you need to work constantly to pay off revolving debt. Then, it's all over and you're on your death bed wondering what happened. You were a slave to materialism and you didn't even know it. Sad.

 

[realibrad]

So when humans become super efficient and design a system that provides goods and services by automation/robots, you are proposing we go back to the barter system?

While the end of capitalism is no where near it's end, there is no reason why we couldn't have a discussion where capitalism no longer works.

I'm sure our resident baby boomers remember growing up with every science magazine telling you that the future means working less and doing more "fun" activities. So what happened? Why did efficiency go up and yet hours worked has also gone up? Why are Americans taking less vacation?

Is it wrong to want a system where man can focus on his family and advancing human intellegence and discovery?

Bartering is a part of Capitalism. Money is not the only form or capital. I dont know of any other way to say that to make it easier. I mean, paying for something is a form of trading, as you are exchanging capital/currency for goods/services.

So, you want to know why efficiency and technology has gone up, but we work more than ever eh. People want more. If I wanted a lifestyle of say the 50s, how much would I need to work? A typical middle class lifestyle would not require a 40hr week for the vast majority of people working. You want a house under 1000 square feet, that is super cheap. Want a car without power anything or AC, it can be yours. Want an AC for your house, nope, because thats for the rich.

People work because they want newer and better things. People are ok with working more, as long as they get neat things.

 

[Moonbeam]

This probably explains your misconception. I dont think you are sufficiently economically literate to be able to talk about this in a meaningful way. The idea that you need to have money to participate in a capitalist market is wrong. Goods/services can still be exchanged as capital, and currency is not needed.

There is a reason retired people felt they could retire. While they do not work, they have enough capital to live. Some people I have met, live in the mountains and do not use money of any sort.

I am very happy you were able to explain my misconception to yourself. I also hope you learn to read. The ideas you suggest I failed to address were all covered in the very post you claim lacked them. But I have no interest in further explanation. I get the feeling you are here with hostility and not with an interest in my question. Bye.

 

[Mai72]

People in this country can't even get the concept straight.

A union is all about people joining together, to negotiate wages with an employer, drawing an invisible line over which no outsider is allowed to cross and take over anyone else's job for less than the previously agreed upon wages and working conditions. People in unions at some level must understand that doing so even at the 'lowest levels' (to start with) allows the whole structure above to be undermined and eventually topple.

Now: consider that a border is the SAME THING.

Consider that too many people have been conned into thinking that a border is to be completely ignored, by which anyone can cross the invisible line, take over anyone else's job for less than previously agreed upon wages and work conditions, and undermine the entire structure above it.

If people are going to allow that in the broadest sense and even fall for the total bullshit that they are racists if they don't go along with it: STFU about unions. First: collectively get your head in the union called The United States of America of which you also belong, and of which every other scab on the planet that can wander across a line automagically doesn't.

Well thanks for clearing that up for me.

http://forums.anandtech.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=36952299

When I was in Thailand I was told that foreigners were only allowed to work a set number of jobs. Teaching ESL was the primary job that most foreigners obtained. We weren't allowed to do much else. Foreigners aren't even allowed to own property.

What's currently happening in America would never take place in Thailand, or most other countries for that matter.

 

[realibrad]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...der-of-burts-bees-says-he-was-ousted/9982551/

Have you ever seen the documentary on the guy who made Burt's Bees? Burt Shavitz is just a normal guy who lives in the mountains. Although he was screwed royally by partner Roxanne Quimby, he was still paid over $4m and he gets a yearly payment for his likeness on Burt's Bees products. He lives without hot running water. Who wants to live like that? It's too extreme for most people.

On the other hand the reason many people are in a dire financial mess is because they spend spend spend! Studies have shown that having more things doesn't equal happiness. And people know this! Still they spend spend spend. Also, having large payments ties you down, and you can't live life fully. Life is about experiences. Traveling to distant places is exciting to me. You can't do that if you need to work constantly to pay off revolving debt. Then, it's all over and you're on your death bed wondering what happened. You were a slave to materialism and you didn't even know it. Sad.

Life for the poor has never been better. The problem is, the poor are trying to live outside of their means, instead of bettering their position. Why would you take out a loan to go to a trade school, when you could use that money to buy a new car? There is no reason you need to have massive amounts of debt to get buy in America and most other first world countries.

I have a HS diploma, and make almost as much as my GF who has a 4year degree. If we both made the salary I make, we would still be able to afford the house we bought. We both own our cars, but to be fair, her mom did buy it for her used for about 5k. I would say I am self made, as my dad gave me a car on my 19th birthday. It was a sweet ass 1986 VW jetta with over 100k miles on it. It was worth about 300 bucks that I earned by working at his auto repair shop.

The only reason you would be crushed by dept is through loans, or medical bills as far as I can see. The former would be the individuals fault, and the medical I would say is not. Point is, you can easily get by and be very happy.

 

[realibrad]

I am very happy you were able to explain my misconception to yourself. I also hope you learn to read. The ideas you suggest I failed to address were all covered in the very post you claim lacked them. But I have no interest in further explanation. I get the feeling you are here with hostility and not with an interest in my question. Bye.

I am quite capable of understanding many other people, so I cant figure out why I dont understand your point. I get the feeling there is a reason you have not yet responded with any specifics. The difference seems to be that I am directly asking you about that, and am willing to talk about it. You on the other hand, seem to respond with very little substance.

Anyone else understand what Moonbeam means when he said he addressed my questions previously? Perhaps someone else can explain, as you Moonbeam do not seem to be willing to.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

OK, so first you did not answer my question in any context at all.

Second, do you have any reason for your views? Why is a world where robots do all things needed for human desires a bad thing? What makes you believe that anything is bad?

You used a whole bunch of words and really did not say much other than conjecture about a future that you dont seem to have justification for.

A world where all things are done and all things shared equally? That's a far cry from what we are facing and likely to face. Let me put it to you this way. When the people who control the machines no longer need you, what is your value? Not much. You become obsolete and a liability. You have no intrinsic value to a money oriented society. If I take away that which makes you economically valuable and there is nothing that you can do to make it otherwise you think that means nothing? No.

 

[realibrad]

A world where all things are done and all things shared equally? That's a far cry from what we are facing and likely to face. Let me put it to you this way. When the people who control the machines no longer need you, what is your value? Not much. You become obsolete and a liability. You have no intrinsic value to a money oriented society. If I take away that which makes you economically valuable and there is nothing that you can do to make it otherwise you think that means nothing? No.

This is going to get very long and complicated, and I will do my best to try and keep it going, but I am about to leave work, so I hope this goes on tomorrow as well. I am a sucker for these economic topics.

So, at some point, robots cannot fill all human wants. Human brains are years ahead of any robot. The ability of the human brain is not even fully understood, so the idea that we can make something more powerful than it is a long way off.

The whole point seems to be that there will be a time, when people will not be able to offer enough value, to be paid by another person. Why pay a person to make my food, when I can pay a robot far less right?

Part of the answer is already obvious. Why do people still buy things in a store instead of online? People crave human interaction. Long before robots take over the world, we will find ways to improve our human bodies. Maybe we improve our mental abilities. Maybe we use cybernetics to change our bodies to be stronger, faster, more able to do work. That is what has been happening now right.

Shoes allow us to walk on things that would hurt our feet. Glasses improve our eyesight. Clothes allow us to work in more places. Why would we not use robots to make ourselves better?

There is not a robot on this planet that can do all the things a person can. I would bet that we improve ourselves before we build something from the ground up.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am quite capable of understanding many other people, so I cant figure out why I dont understand your point. I get the feeling there is a reason you have not yet responded with any specifics. The difference seems to be that I am directly asking you about that, and am willing to talk about it. You on the other hand, seem to respond with very little substance.

Anyone else understand what Moonbeam means when he said he addressed my questions previously? Perhaps someone else can explain, as you Moonbeam do not seem to be willing to.

I will do one little piece and that's it because I don't want to argue with you over minutia. I believe that technological advances will make labor less and less needed and I want to talk about how we will address that instead. If you don't think we face such issues, that's fine by me. Here is the one example of what I addressed and you didn't get:

You said: "The idea that you need to have money to participate in a capitalist market is wrong. Goods/services can still be exchanged as capital, and currency is not needed."

I know that and it is why I said: "No matter what capitalism is restricted to or not, it is based right not on the exchange of money. At present, those without work generally don't have any. I said 'right not" but meant "Right now", in short, our system is based on money as a means exchange, not that money is the only means, but the major one. I said, "generally" because people who have capital don't have to work, for example the retired. I was speaking in generalities only and conditioned my words to reflect the fact there are exceptions. You came along and wanted to make issues of the exceptions which I had carefully exempted and was not interested in. The big picture is not a few people living in the mountains eating snakes, but the masses of humanity that rely on work to feed themselves. Assuming, as I did, that technology is making work more and more obsolete, I wanted to discuss what we are going to do about it. I don't give a crap about pulling you self up by the bootstraps, or how unions are destroying the world or any of that shit.

I think work is disappearing. If you want to talk about something else, start your own thread. If you want to say that work is not disappearing that's fine but I was, I think, very clear as to the reasons I think it is.

 

[realibrad]

I will do one little piece and that's it because I don't want to argue with you over minutia. I believe that technological advances will make labor less and less needed and I want to talk about how we will address that instead. If you don't think we face such issues, that's fine by me. Here is the one example of what I addressed and you didn't get:

You said: "The idea that you need to have money to participate in a capitalist market is wrong. Goods/services can still be exchanged as capital, and currency is not needed."

I know that and it is why I said: "No matter what capitalism is restricted to or not, it is based right not on the exchange of money. At present, those without work generally don't have any. I said 'right not" but meant "Right now", in short, our system is based on money as a means exchange, not that money is the only means, but the major one. I said, "generally" because people who have capital don't have to work, for example the retired. I was speaking in generalities only and conditioned my words to reflect the fact there are exceptions. You came along and wanted to make issues of the exceptions which I had carefully exempted and was not interested in. The big picture is not a few people living in the mountains eating snakes, but the masses of humanity that rely on work to feed themselves. Assuming, as I did, that technology is making work more and more obsolete, I wanted to discuss what we are going to do about it. I don't give a crap about pulling you self up by the bootstraps, or how unions are destroying the world or any of that shit.

I think work is disappearing. If you want to talk about something else, start your own thread. If you want to say that work is not disappearing that's fine but I was, I think, very clear as to the reasons I think it is.

You just said, that you think labor will be less and less needed. Then you say that robots will take over labor. This is not a semantics point either. If robots take over labor, as they have, then it will likely drive people to do more productive things, by making other goods/services cheaper. I dont think you mean to say that computers have hurt the world right? Because so far as I can tell, that is the logical conclusion you will have to get to, if you believe that automation will take jobs.

Machines do not take away the demand for labor. Machines replace people for that task, but only when its more efficient to do so. When resources are used more efficiently, everyone benefits. Yes, its true that not everyone benefits in the same way. In the short run, some people may lose their jobs, but the overall benefit to the society means that the person who lost their job was benefited by the same process before.

Time saving devices is a major reason women were able to get out of the home, and demand equality in society. It was no longer necessary to have someone spend all day at home keeping house, when most of it was done by machines. This free time allowed women to find jobs, and prove they were equal to men. The ability to make their own money meant that they could leave a terrible marriage. There are many more examples.

My point is that there is very little reason to believe there is a problem. That is why I asked you for reason that you came to your conclusions.

So again, why do you believe that robots will take over the world and people will not have work?

 

[Moonbeam]

So again, why do you believe that robots will take over the world and people will not have work?

Inevitability, Mr. Anderson, Inevitability.... Not to far in from the knee of the asymptote is straight up. Imagine a program that replicates with abandon and has no idea why it exists.

 

[Sonikku]

We could start a major war (it's for freedom) to thin the population down as we won't have need for most of them. There will be massive profits for the weapons and military contractors, which in turn means sizable campaign donations for the congressmen that keeps them happy too. The excess population would be dwindled down to just what we need in a post robot intensive world and the ruling classes in both countries could ensure the war stays conventional and doesn't go nuclear. No profit in that.

win win all around really.