The impact of cheap material goods on the economy

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
U

Ultima

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 1999
2,893
0
0
Within 20-40 years or so, assuming no major catastrophes we can assume that we will have entered a new age of nanotechnology where most material goods become very cheap to build, and manufacturing is practically 100% automated (yeah, not just outsourced but done completely by machines).

From what I've read, the promise of nanotech is that it can reduce the cost of material goods vastly, meaning a car might not cost $30,000 but $300, a table might cost $5, a TV might cost you $20, a computer $50 not to mention that these goods would be far more reliable and durable than today. With material goods so cheap even people working at walmart at today's wages will be rich in comparison to today ;)

What do you think the impact of cheap material goods will ultimately be, in an environment where the only jobs left are "information" jobs (until AI anyways) and service jobs. I can imagine that many people might choose to work much less since their money does so much more, on the other hand companies could be greedy and drop wages so far that the poor of the future are just as poor as the poor today even with the lower prices. (25 cents an hour anyone? ;))
 
M

mfs378

Senior member
May 19, 2003
505
0
0
Step 1: collect underpants
Step 2: ...
Step 3: profit

=

Step 1: develop nanotechnology
Step 2: ...
Step 3: cheap material goods

:D

In both cases, step 2 is the crucial one. What you are suggesting seems preposterous. How do you come up with the idea that you will be able to get a car for $300?
 
Zebo

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
It's a lie. Did nike lower it's price on air jordans when they moved to 89cents a day labor? Nope, still $120, because they spent the "savings" in advertising to maintain and grow thier already dominate position and name recognition. Same for levis which were made in SF costed $32 and are still the same with slave labor. Don't beleive the hype.

All this stuff, globalization, promise of nanotech, robotics etc is to make big corps bigger, put up more barriers to entry for smaller ones and relegate labor to slaves for the few working.
 
glenn1

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You just gave a pretty good explanation of what a deflationary economy is. You can look at Japan over the last 15 years or so for an example of how deflation benefits consumers.
 
S

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
It's a lie. Did nike lower it's price on air jordans when they moved to 89cents a day labor? Nope, still $120, because they spent the "savings" in advertising to maintain and grow thier already dominate position and name recognition. Same for levis which were made in SF costed $32 and are still the same with slave labor. Don't beleive the hype.

All this stuff, globalization, promise of nanotech, robotics etc is to make big corps bigger, put up more barriers to entry for smaller ones and relegate labor to slaves for the few working.
Click to expand...

I only buy New Balances that are made in the USA. If I am going to pay US prices, they better go to US workers. New Balance rocks.
 
U

Ultima

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 1999
2,893
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
It's a lie. Did nike lower it's price on air jordans when they moved to 89cents a day labor? Nope, still $120, because they spent the "savings" in advertising to maintain and grow thier already dominate position and name recognition. Same for levis which were made in SF costed $32 and are still the same with slave labor. Don't beleive the hype.

All this stuff, globalization, promise of nanotech, robotics etc is to make big corps bigger, put up more barriers to entry for smaller ones and relegate labor to slaves for the few working.
Click to expand...

This is true, but nanotech actually takes the playing field away from the big companies. Anyone with a design can build that design with nanotech without needing to hire expensive labour or build an expensive plant. Nike and GM won't be able to hold huge markets as they do now. If someone chooses to buy a $120 Nike shoe when nanotech makes available $10 shoes that are better, then they're dumbasses ;) Nike won't have choice but to follow suit, and then their only advantage will be brand name recognition...
 
U

Ultima

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 1999
2,893
0
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
You just gave a pretty good explanation of what a deflationary economy is. You can look at Japan over the last 15 years or so for an example of how deflation benefits consumers.
Click to expand...

What happened in Japan? Isn't deflation just lowering the "fake" costs while real costs stay the same? As inflation raises prices but the real costs stay the same? THat's not the same as actually lowering the *real* costs ;)
 
Jeff7

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
We need good methods of recycling old crap - if stuff gets even cheaper, it'll become even easier to throw out, and the landfills can't keep taking in trash indefinitely. A lot of the stuff that's just thrown out can be recycled, reused, or else used as biomass fuel. Witness the wood pellet industry, which I'm a new part of (pellet stove). The companies buy sawdust from sawmills and similar industrial establishments, and compress it into small pellets, which are used to heat homes. Most of this sawdust would otherwise be dumped into landfills.
So there's the environmental impact (and a bit of a shameless plug for pellet stoves).

Other thing about low-paying jobs...provided it doesn't all come in a burst, like tomorrow you wake up and every Walmart/Target/Whatevermart has Mr. Nano, able to manufacture a vast array of small devices, and it operates on...cat litter (clay). Then there will be many jobs lost quickly. But nanotechnology will likely come slowly; some sectors will need to adapt, some will be eliminated. And if we're ready for it as a species, and use it responsibly - not to find even more ways of just killing each other - then I think that it will be for the better overall. But yes, progress can be painful sometimes.
 
U

Ultima

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 1999
2,893
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ultima
material goods become very cheap to build, and manufacturing is practically 100% automated
Click to expand...

I'm doing my best to make it that way:D

CkG
Click to expand...

So how bout you get a head start and ask them to pay you 25 cents an hour?
Click to expand...

So what do you two really think about my post? Seriously :)

 
U

Ultima

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 1999
2,893
0
0
Originally posted by: Jeff7
We need good methods of recycling old crap - if stuff gets even cheaper, it'll become even easier to throw out, and the landfills can't keep taking in trash indefinitely. A lot of the stuff that's just thrown out can be recycled, reused, or else used as biomass fuel. Witness the wood pellet industry, which I'm a new part of (pellet stove). The companies buy sawdust from sawmills and similar industrial establishments, and compress it into small pellets, which are used to heat homes. Most of this sawdust would otherwise be dumped into landfills.
So there's the environmental impact (and a bit of a shameless plug for pellet stoves).
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a good point, all that excess material consumption would be deadly if it had nowhere to go but the landfill. Thankfully though you can use garbage as "feed stock" for nanites. Since they work on a molecular level, garbage is just a bunch of carbon atoms, iron atoms, etc... to use for construction. Heck, I've even read on how they can use the excess CO2 in the atmosphere to build...

 
B

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
It's a lie. Did nike lower it's price on air jordans when they moved to 89cents a day labor? Nope, still $120, because they spent the "savings" in advertising to maintain and grow thier already dominate position and name recognition. Same for levis which were made in SF costed $32 and are still the same with slave labor. Don't beleive the hype.
Click to expand...
What kept the prices high is people willing to pay that much for it.

I'm sure you know that it's already possible to buy $10 shoes and $8 jeans...they just aren't Nikes or Levi's.

The two companies love that you're willing to pay that price but they're not forcing anyone to buy at all.

But now back to the real topic. With the same amount of resources, possible production will be higher so, economically, it will absolutely improve the standard of living (output/person) on paper. Who knows how that standard of living will be distributed though...
 
EagleKeeper

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Zebo
It's a lie. Did nike lower it's price on air jordans when they moved to 89cents a day labor? Nope, still $120, because they spent the "savings" in advertising to maintain and grow thier already dominate position and name recognition. Same for levis which were made in SF costed $32 and are still the same with slave labor. Don't beleive the hype.
Click to expand...
What kept the prices high is people willing to pay that much for it.

I'm sure you know that it's already possible to buy $10 shoes and $8 jeans...they just aren't Nikes or Levi's.

The two companies love that you're willing to pay that price but they're not forcing anyone to buy at all.
Click to expand...

Also, the quality is not that much better (if at all); Just a fancy package that you through away anyhow. Many more bells and whistles.
Note that those bells/whistles are not used by the superstars that endorse the product.

 
Phokus

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: Ultima
Originally posted by: Zebo
It's a lie. Did nike lower it's price on air jordans when they moved to 89cents a day labor? Nope, still $120, because they spent the "savings" in advertising to maintain and grow thier already dominate position and name recognition. Same for levis which were made in SF costed $32 and are still the same with slave labor. Don't beleive the hype.

All this stuff, globalization, promise of nanotech, robotics etc is to make big corps bigger, put up more barriers to entry for smaller ones and relegate labor to slaves for the few working.
Click to expand...

This is true, but nanotech actually takes the playing field away from the big companies. Anyone with a design can build that design with nanotech without needing to hire expensive labour or build an expensive plant. Nike and GM won't be able to hold huge markets as they do now. If someone chooses to buy a $120 Nike shoe when nanotech makes available $10 shoes that are better, then they're dumbasses ;) Nike won't have choice but to follow suit, and then their only advantage will be brand name recognition...
Click to expand...

Can you explain how nanotech is magically supposed to do all this?
 
U

Ultima

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 1999
2,893
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Ultima
Originally posted by: Zebo
It's a lie. Did nike lower it's price on air jordans when they moved to 89cents a day labor? Nope, still $120, because they spent the "savings" in advertising to maintain and grow thier already dominate position and name recognition. Same for levis which were made in SF costed $32 and are still the same with slave labor. Don't beleive the hype.

All this stuff, globalization, promise of nanotech, robotics etc is to make big corps bigger, put up more barriers to entry for smaller ones and relegate labor to slaves for the few working.
Click to expand...

This is true, but nanotech actually takes the playing field away from the big companies. Anyone with a design can build that design with nanotech without needing to hire expensive labour or build an expensive plant. Nike and GM won't be able to hold huge markets as they do now. If someone chooses to buy a $120 Nike shoe when nanotech makes available $10 shoes that are better, then they're dumbasses ;) Nike won't have choice but to follow suit, and then their only advantage will be brand name recognition...
Click to expand...

Can you explain how nanotech is magically supposed to do all this?
Click to expand...

What's so magical about it? You plug a design into a computer, and your nanites build it for you. All one would need are general purpose assemblers. Pretty much anyone could manufacture stuff as long as they had some land, with costs being whatever labour they used, the nanites themselves, bulk material, shipping, etc... I AM speaking about 20-40 years in the future :)
 
U

Ultima

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 1999
2,893
0
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Zebo
It's a lie. Did nike lower it's price on air jordans when they moved to 89cents a day labor? Nope, still $120, because they spent the "savings" in advertising to maintain and grow thier already dominate position and name recognition. Same for levis which were made in SF costed $32 and are still the same with slave labor. Don't beleive the hype.
Click to expand...
What kept the prices high is people willing to pay that much for it.

I'm sure you know that it's already possible to buy $10 shoes and $8 jeans...they just aren't Nikes or Levi's.

The two companies love that you're willing to pay that price but they're not forcing anyone to buy at all.

But now back to the real topic. With the same amount of resources, possible production will be higher so, economically, it will absolutely improve the standard of living (output/person) on paper. Who knows how that standard of living will be distributed though...
Click to expand...


$10 shoes and $8 jeans tend to be rather shoddy. I haven't seen any $50 TVs or $300 cars ;)
I guess the distribution depends on how many people are on the earth by then. Even nanotech isn't going to magically solve the problem of overpopulation. People are just going to have to learn to have less kids.
 
W

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Boys and Girls, this thread reminds me of when I was a mere broth of a lad in th 1950's. If you read the articles then, we'd be living on the moon, flying to work in levi-cars (man, would that be a disaster), and computers would be providing -- now note the distinction here -- would be providing intelligence, not just stupid calculations.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, it didn't turn out that way. Don't hold your breath for nanotechnology.
 
B

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Originally posted by: Ultima
Originally posted by: Zebo
It's a lie. Did nike lower it's price on air jordans when they moved to 89cents a day labor? Nope, still $120, because they spent the "savings" in advertising to maintain and grow thier already dominate position and name recognition. Same for levis which were made in SF costed $32 and are still the same with slave labor. Don't beleive the hype.

All this stuff, globalization, promise of nanotech, robotics etc is to make big corps bigger, put up more barriers to entry for smaller ones and relegate labor to slaves for the few working.
Click to expand...

This is true, but nanotech actually takes the playing field away from the big companies. Anyone with a design can build that design with nanotech without needing to hire expensive labour or build an expensive plant. Nike and GM won't be able to hold huge markets as they do now. If someone chooses to buy a $120 Nike shoe when nanotech makes available $10 shoes that are better, then they're dumbasses ;) Nike won't have choice but to follow suit, and then their only advantage will be brand name recognition...
Click to expand...

I dont know what your Idea of nanotech is but I fear you are reading to many sciemce fiction journals. Drop the fiction and you might get a better idea of nanotech. Nanotech is a buzzword right now but it certainly does not mean tiny machines that assemble a car out of the elements present in the air or whatver your idea is - but Nonotech might enable your cars paint to be scrtch resistant and always shiny. Sorry it's not as exciting as to boldly go where noone has gone before.

But to answer the question. I see sever economical problems in the future. First: The globalization will be a big equalizer in the long run - and it will not make us all richer as advertized. But yes it will make emerging countries richer and the more developed poorer. Off course ppl that already accumulated capital will always stay rich (unless they burn it somehow) but it will be increasingly difficult to change your social status to the better.
Second: If our goods are manufactured predominantly by robots, i would say it would be like it always was before the 20th century. A very small portion of the population (the ones with capital and the ones with the indispensible development jobs) will be able to afford things. but the vast majority will be extremely poor. The economy in general will see a tremendous downturn - who should buy all those
goods if many(most) ppl are unemployed or work in very low paying jobs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom