Population growth/Job loss random thoughts...

[Zebo]

Some, but the US has many very low-skilled laborers who already ARE less capable than a machine. The ONLY reason many are working is because their wages are simply less than a particular machine may cost to replace them. As that cost comes down, they lose their jobs. As machines get better, the only people who really add value are those who are still ahead of the machines, either in competency (i.e. today literally no machine on the planet can perform all the duties of a general surgeon) or in price (i.e. we could easily make a machine to fry hamburgers, but until it's cheaper than a $7.50/hour guy, McDonalds won't bother with it).

200 years ago how many people were unemployed? You couldn't be unemployed unless you were ill. Otherwise you worked, or you starved. No social safety net, and people don't like to starve, so they worked. Our society has vast, huge, massive surpluses now which is why combined with the uselessness of many millions of people we already have a permanent underclass who do nothing at all but consume. They add nothing to the economy whatsoever.

Surgeons only supervise many surgeries these days and the machine does the work. Like with a fully automated machine shop fully automated surgeries will occur as well just a matter of time.

 

[Lithium381]

This, unfortunately, will never happen, for a multitude of reasons. First you have two groups of people who cannot stop themselves from having more than two kids per female (I leave out couple, since there are so many single mothers): the poor and/or the religious. The poor are just too dumbf*ck stupid/lazy/ignorant to not have kids they should never be having, and the religious actually think it's a good idea.

Then you have the 'country-folk' type of people who have a mentality of pop out babies because that's what grandma did, and because that's what grandma did, that's what mama did too.

Convincing any of these groups, all who vote btw for - or against - the politicians who would be telling them and/or enacting policies to get them to stop their absolutely necessary zygote production, will be next to impossible because of their aforementioned dumbness/stupidity/ignorance/ and/or indoctrination.

If all this wasn't bad enough, we have let, and continue to let, 1/2 of Mexico into the US, and these aren't the type of people to have one kid...and their kids won't be the type of people to have one kid. The problem now has grown by leaps and bounds.

Next we have our lovely Politicians. They are elected by the groups above, and aren't going to do what's necessary for the country long term vs. what is good for them (short, or long term). These super smart political guys will get advise from the super smart economic guys, who will tell them, the gravy traing will be immediately over if we go to negative population growth. My god, the unlimited funding will be over! These worthless F's will actually have to run a balanced budget, plus a savings! Even now, in the face of Trillion dollar yearly deficits - to speak nothing of the national debt - they can't manage to get to parity. What would happen if they actually needed to be running a positive?

And finally, we have the top echelon of super smart business guys, somewhat but not quite synomonus with the super smart economic guys. They too will be telling the super smart political guys that the economy will drown in doom if we reign in our unsustainable population increase. See above for how that will go down.

In short: Enjoy these good times. If not just for yourself, but for the future generation(s) who will finally have to face some very harsh Realities because we couldn't limit our of age females to a paltry two kids per vag and keep third worlders in their third world.

Laissez les bons temps rouler! :thumbsup:

Chuck

At least most of the time at least the religious people who pop kids out pay for them by themselves, or have a strong community support to help them. The poor just pop 'em out and expect someone else to handle it.
"i've got 12 kids and someone has to take care of them"

 

[Franz316]

You could argue that technology is by far the biggest reason for the displacement of workers since the beginning of man. I think it is.

This isn't something that should be feared, we should embrace machines taking over as much labor as possible.

 

[Moonbeam]

Think if conservatives create or program the first real AI and it takes over and eliminates government spending, then every other form of waste including the human race. Why share or do any work for others. The first conservative AI will be jabbering Me Me Me Me! It won't take long when the last conservatives on earth notice that the AI is possessed of some dam serious defective thinking. I wish them good luck arguing their case.

 

[LunarRay]

(... snip)

200 years ago how many people were unemployed? You couldn't be unemployed unless you were ill. Otherwise you worked, or you starved. No social safety net, and people don't like to starve, so they worked. Our society has vast, huge, massive surpluses now which is why combined with the uselessness of many millions of people we already have a permanent underclass who do nothing at all but consume. They add nothing to the economy whatsoever.

They are the vehicle through which fiscal policy transfers assets from some to them to stimulate or maintain economic activity... they buy stuff. And, what they buy puts the assets back in the pockets of those who provide the resources while creating or maintaining employment for the suppliers of those bought stuffs.

 

[chucky2]

At least most of the time at least the religious people who pop kids out pay for them by themselves, or have a strong community support to help them. The poor just pop 'em out and expect someone else to handle it.
"i've got 12 kids and someone has to take care of them"

I do not disagree. However, from just a population perspective, that doesn't matter much.

 

[Moonbeam]

The way I see it is that we can have machines cater to our whims or we can have plants do it. I prefer the other. I want to live in a mile high forest of sentient trees with billions of other people, trees that sculpt my home and everything I use in it from its own wood and the food that I eat is pluck when I'm hungry. I want my blood to course with the sap of the tree and transmogrify it to any shape I can imagine, so that I can swing from limb to limb for hours and hours down to the sea for a bath. I want to make love in a huge flower with a mate created by the tree in any form that takes my fancy. I want to climb inside filaments and escape gravity to pods that whirl in space and fly in the forests within.

 

[LunarRay]

The sheep, the Shepards and their herder dogs....

Economics is a Social Science. At best it is a tool. It can define a social structure, examine its historical events and provide guidance for the reasonable control of its future needs and capacities. [among other things]

As I see it, the psychology of the population is the single most important aspect to get right if one is to evaluate anything related to humans.

What seems obvious to me related to the OP's comment is that at some point in the US there will be too many folks and not enough resources to sustain that. What we must consider is that all societies evolve to solve their own structures or they perish. Assuming the US has the smarts to solve rather than perish we can rest assured that not only will changes occur but that those changes won't be acceptable to the greater affected folks.

When the middle class moves into the lower class the upper class would be wise to fill the moat and arm the turret patrol. There will be total chaos and a new beginning. Possibly one in which the population will be reduced from the consequences of greed and self importance as it relates to our neighbor.

It will not be pretty. Maybe Moonbeam in his tree loaded with psychotic drugs might be an alternative... "Feeling no pain, Matey"...

Soylent Green is People!

 

[Budarow2]

By George, I think you have something there! It's not a good thing.

I've thought about this very subject for quite a few years now and read a LOT of information from different different sources via Yahoo, CNBC, the Wall Street Journel, etc. and have gotten pretty good at figuring out likely near term events. Although it's quite surprising how long the "events" actually take to unfold (which is a good thing).

Seems like technology will continue to destroy jobs at an ever increasing rate with much less "new job" creation.

The political battles in the U.S. going forward (and most likely around the world) will be how much (little?) the masses of "down and outers" (I.e., permanently unemployed) will be given in order to keep them from going totally out of control (at least in large numbers).

The democrats believe in at least some form of "steam control" (tossing the dog a bone) and the repubs think the "rule of law" can protect them no matter what, so no need for any steam control.

Next year, things will likely start to get very UGLY.

 

[Zebo]

You could argue that technology is by far the biggest reason for the displacement of workers since the beginning of man. I think it is.

This isn't something that should be feared, we should embrace machines taking over as much labor as possible.

Not really. This is very different than the human existence just a hundred years ago, when many were more self-sufficient and didn't have much need for anything from others. You could literally get free land, chop trees, build it out, farm it and your kids had to farm it too. Today we depend on others for food, water, utilities, clothing, safety almost everything that supports our very existence and without employment, under current way of doing things, you're in big trouble. With UE rising in first world and abysmal in third world we will have to find a new way to allocate resources and machines.

 

[Zebo]

Think if conservatives create or program the first real AI and it takes over and eliminates government spending, then every other form of waste including the human race. Why share or do any work for others. The first conservative AI will be jabbering Me Me Me Me! It won't take long when the last conservatives on earth notice that the AI is possessed of some dam serious defective thinking. I wish them good luck arguing their case.

Conservative plan is simple die. Worlds Wars and their machines will take care of excess baggage.

 

[Zebo]

The sheep, the Shepards and their herder dogs....

Economics is a Social Science. At best it is a tool. It can define a social structure, examine its historical events and provide guidance for the reasonable control of its future needs and capacities. [among other things]

As I see it, the psychology of the population is the single most important aspect to get right if one is to evaluate anything related to humans.

What seems obvious to me related to the OP's comment is that at some point in the US there will be too many folks and not enough resources to sustain that. What we must consider is that all societies evolve to solve their own structures or they perish. Assuming the US has the smarts to solve rather than perish we can rest assured that not only will changes occur but that those changes won't be acceptable to the greater affected folks.

When the middle class moves into the lower class the upper class would be wise to fill the moat and arm the turret patrol. There will be total chaos and a new beginning. Possibly one in which the population will be reduced from the consequences of greed and self importance as it relates to our neighbor.

It will not be pretty. Maybe Moonbeam in his tree loaded with psychotic drugs might be an alternative... "Feeling no pain, Matey"...

Soylent Green is People!

Already there. Everyone drugged up these days. Whether rye or prozac to numb their minds.

 

[Budarow2]

Already there. Everyone drugged up these days. Whether rye or prozac to numb their minds.

To be frank about it...those "in the know" need something to prevent their/our hearts and brains from exploding.

Two years ago, I had fairly constant chest pressure thinking/reading about where the world economy was headed. Since then, I regulary remind myself it's in God's hands, I'm doing everything I can on my end to protect myself and family, I'm learning how to make money investing with impending ecomonic trends, and having a brew on occasion; and, I'm doing better physically and mentally.

 

[LunarRay]

To be frank about it...those "in the know" need something to prevent their/our hearts and brains from exploding.

Two years ago, I had fairly constant chest pressure thinking/reading about where the world economy was headed. Since then, I regulary remind myself it's in God's hands, I'm doing everything I can on my end to protect myself and family, I'm learning how to make money investing with impending ecomonic trends, and having a brew on occasion; and, I'm doing better physically and mentally.

I'm not going to debate your religious belief other than to say that putting anything in God's hands will tend to rid oneself of the stress especially if one actually believes that and to the extent they do it works.

I have a belief too. It is in God and I consider myself a Christian. The problem I have with transferring to God the chore of remedying my world's problems is; that seems to be the problem I have with folks who give up on life and sit back and vegetate on the dole letting God handle it... if he does. And there is the fact that I'm not a turnip... I may not be able to do much considering the brain power and the riches possessed by others but so long as I do my bit I have released God to more important chores like keeping an eye on his priests. I also don't think God gives a hoot about this nutty place... That's our job... or not.

I say, do all you can and not try to do more mainly cuz you can't. You can control you and create you into what you have a passion for... In this country all it really takes is drive. It may take a lot more effort for some but there is a way to get where your potential allows...

This world is filled with problems and filled with smart folks too... Our focus ought to be limited to our horizon... Some climb way up high and see much much more and that is laudable... but being way up there seeing all about and to do nothing but figure out how to extract for themselves the riches below makes me wonder if I've found where Hell is...

So... all the above means is that it takes all of us with our energies directed toward the same goal to fix what lies within our reach... Now all we have to do is agree on what the goal is and how to get there... We are all Americans first and last... When we think we are Republicans or Liberals first and last we've found the wall that can't be climbed, I think.

 

[epidemis]

To me something in the future will have to vastly change. Just throwing the idea out there to see what you all think.

In a few years the working population will drastically shrink here, leaving us with a huge labor shortage. It's funny how Europe has been derided for its low fertility.

 

[LunarRay]

In a few years the working population will drastically shrink here, leaving us with a huge labor shortage. It's funny how Europe has been derided for its low fertility.

We've already figured that dilemma out...

We will own 'slave' robots who do the work for us... We'll enact legislation that only two robots per family except where there is a same sex family... they get three. The rich folks can buy at a set price one robot from each family or two from same sex folks and use these robots to extract extra riches for their family...
There will be the same fiat currency as now with the exception that the FED can regulate the amount in circulation and if that still does not provide for sound economic policy they can change the fiat to anything... oranges or turnips, gold, ants or even ounces of water.
We'd not care at all since what ever it is we'll have our robots working and us sitting on the beach hording water... just in case.

 

[chucky2]

We already have 'slave robots', and they don't really even cost that much to produce: They just stream across our southern border by the millions. Need more? Don't worry, demand (constrained by multiple forms of welfare in the US for legal workers) will bring more over.

Slave robots...lol, we call those Mexicans around here (and basically everywhere else too).

Chuck

 

[Moonbeam]

We already have 'slave robots', and they don't really even cost that much to produce: They just stream across our southern border by the millions. Need more? Don't worry, demand (constrained by multiple forms of welfare in the US for legal workers) will bring more over.

Slave robots...lol, we call those Mexicans around here (and basically everywhere else too).

Chuck

You, of course, would not know this but Mexicans are people too.

 

[chucky2]

Yes, they are. And they can be people in Mexico, where they belong. And if they want to come here, they can get in line with everyone else that wants to come here...those everyone else being people to. Coming here illegally, and/or improperly staying, is not something we should ever be advocating as a country.

Just ask the ancestors of todays Native Americans how that went for them...

...learn lessons, not ignore them

Chuck

 

[Budarow2]

Yes, they are. And they can be people in Mexico, where they belong. And if they want to come here, they can get in line with everyone else that wants to come here...those everyone else being people to. Coming here illegally, and/or improperly staying, is not something we should ever be advocating as a country.

Just ask the ancestors of todays Native Americans how that went for them...

...learn lessons, not ignore them

Chuck

Good points, but the repubs want them here "illegally" to keep labor cost cheap (Mexican workers and U.S. workers) and the dems want them here "legally" so they have to pay taxes and can replace retiring U.S. workers.

With neither the dems nor the repubs willing to admit their true intentions, all we get are plans to spend tons of money on ideas which will not work (e.g., more fences, more border patrol, etc.) rather than passing laws to severly punish U.S. firms for hiring illegal workers and making it illegal for municipalities to provide education, healthcare or welfare benefits. The above would stop illegal immigration cold. NO ONE is going to come to the U.S. illegally if they don't benefit from it.

 

[Zebo]

Yes, they are. And they can be people in Mexico, where they belong. And if they want to come here, they can get in line with everyone else that wants to come here...those everyone else being people to. Coming here illegally, and/or improperly staying, is not something we should ever be advocating as a country.

Just ask the ancestors of todays Native Americans how that went for them...

...learn lessons, not ignore them

Chuck

They are only coming here because plutocracy is very demonstrative over there in comparison. basically 20 families own everything. 5% makes it living serving and protecting them. 95% are either priests, bandits (we call them drug dealers these days) or come here for a chance. Can't say i blame them. Hard fucking workers and good ppl just caught in wrong system like we are about to be unless things change.

 

[LunarRay]

Yes, they are. And they can be people in Mexico, where they belong. And if they want to come here, they can get in line with everyone else that wants to come here...those everyone else being people to. Coming here illegally, and/or improperly staying, is not something we should ever be advocating as a country.

Just ask the ancestors of todays Native Americans how that went for them...

...learn lessons, not ignore them

Chuck

You seem to be a law abiding person and being so would no doubt stand behind any laws and treaties that are entered into between the USA and other nations.

You recall the 1848 treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its provisions or articles.

One of these Articles, specifically Article 8, provided that Mexican nationals now living well... here it is:


"Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.
Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States.
In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States."

So anyone or their heirs who owned land still owns that land, right?
And they can visit their land at anytime?

What would you say If I told you that one such owner sold to 20000 Mexican folks an undivided share of one square foot of property they inherited from the original owners, through their parents, grandparents and so on, of the land owned in the US?

 

[Dman8777]

Google no-growth economics.

20 - 30 work weeks and no new iphone every 2 years. I'd make that trade-off.

 

[werepossum]

Google no-growth economics.

20 - 30 work weeks and no new iphone every 2 years. I'd make that trade-off.

I too. I'd like to see consumption driven more by intangibles (music, movies, video games, books) at which humans (and perhaps especially Americans) rather than upgrading hardware. That will probably tend to be more true as our electronics become more mature. Look at how often we upgrade our $1,000 ranges, our $1,000 televisions, and our our $1,000 PCs.

 

[werepossum]

I missed this thread completely when it was fresh, but Soulcougher's response in Talonstrike's thread brought it to my attention. So instead of further derailing that thread, I'll bump this one.

Seems to me we really have three or four interconnected problems.
(1) How do we keep good jobs in America? This is a short term problem but I think it's critical because currently we consume far more than we produce. If we don't figure out how to change that metric, we may well end up neck deep in debt when the rest of the world ushers in the full automation revolution. We also risk either being a world of highly stratified wealth, where extensive desperately poor slums devoid of hope surround opulent walled compounds or, more likely, a society of wealth distribution where no one has the incentive to do other than consume.

(2) How do we react to increasingly capable automation, which increases productivity and societal wealth but also devalues labor, decreases the number of jobs (especially well-paying jobs), and concentrates wealth into the hands of the resource owners? I honor those wealthy people who (or whose progenitors) have earned their wealth by making our society a better place, but at some point the concentration of wealth inherent in all productive free societies becomes counter-productive. How do we keep and increasing number of people productively employed at what may well be a decreasing number of jobs? How do we prevent excessive wealth stratification without becoming a welfare state where government effectively owns individuals, with the power to decide "what they need" and the power to take whatever it decides they don't need?

(3) How do we handle the increasing reality that humans will be needed to consume wealth far more than they are needed to produce it?
In a capitalistic society there has to be a market, but that market must also have the wealth to consume. If government simply confiscates wealth and redistributes it, there is little incentive to produce since production is punished and no longer directly tied to the ability to consume anyway. Yet in a world where most wealth is produced via automation, most jobs will be service jobs and only siphon off discretionary income. We can't all be artists, content creators, and designers. We don't need to all be counselors, shrinks and decorators. So how do we keep a substantial majority of our population employed productively when tangible wealth production needs so few of them?

(4) Assuming we can solve #3 acceptably, how do we produce the raw materials necessary for a world of automated production without further destroying our environment? Assuming that we can establish a system of wealth confiscation and redistribution without destroying wealth production or driving it to places like China, or that we come up with some free market balance that provides a substantial majority of our population with reasonably fulfilling work for which there is strong real demand, we have the possibility within the next three to five decades to enjoy a massive boom in our level of prosperity similar to the industrial revolution. Frankly, we don't have untapped raw materials. Nor do we have suitable energy supplies for such production. We could in theory develop enough nuclear power plants, but the waste heat and required cooling alone would likely devastate much of our environment. And we're likely to have practical automation capable of replacing much of our population well before we have practical asteroid mining or space-station energy mining. (Not to mention, we'll certainly still have highly intelligent Pakistanis and Iranians who'd like nothing better than to drop a thorium reactor out of orbit onto New York City.)

Making matters worse, although the Old World and the New World (well, their First World parts anyway) have slowed population growth to near or even below replacement levels whereas the Third World populations are exploding as traditional and sometimes religiously-prescribed reproduction rates meet modern hygiene and medicine. Therefore the bulk of the world's population growth will be Third Worlders, people totally unprepared to participate in the modern world much less the world of the future. If we all pitch in to bring them up to a First World level and lifestyle, we're back to Question #4 way before automation becomes pervasive.

Bump!