The Old Economy is Over. Hail the New Economy.

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,562
1,741
126
The old ways of doing business are over. Look for automation to be more prominent, which will make employment for the working poor more difficult. It truly will be survival of the fittest IMO. The people wo are able to adapt will do very well. Everyone else is in trouble it seems.

 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
The old ways of doing business are over. Look for automation to be more prominent, which will make employment for the working poor more difficult. It truly will be survival of the fittest IMO. The people wo are able to adapt will do very well. Everyone else is in trouble it seems.

I wonder if the Trump appointee would be saying the same thing if Trump had won.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,681
8,060
136
The old ways of doing business are over. Look for automation to be more prominent, which will make employment for the working poor more difficult. It truly will be survival of the fittest IMO. The people wo are able to adapt will do very well. Everyone else is in trouble it seems.

It used to be the end-goal of technology and mechanization that people would have more time for themselves and ingenuity, with less time required to work just to stay indoors and fed.

Unfortunately, the JobCreator™ oligarchs have turned the man-made, artificial "economy" into the state religion. And they demand continued sacrifices to appease the Almighty FreeMarket™...unless you want the InvisibleHand™ to getcha.

As long as the people who already own everything are allowed to write all the rules to make sure their wealth increases exponentially, while the serfs get logarithmic growth if any at all, the broken status quo will continue until collapse.

Of course, even discussing our economic state religion is declared blasphemy by the JobCreators™ and their zealot followers. So, it's mostly just status quo, with occasional adjustments around the edges that the zealot scream at in rage and jihad.
 

ralfy

Senior member
Jul 22, 2013
484
53
91
The old ways of doing business are over. Look for automation to be more prominent, which will make employment for the working poor more difficult. It truly will be survival of the fittest IMO. The people wo are able to adapt will do very well. Everyone else is in trouble it seems.


Those who invest from automation can only earn from sales to consumers who can afford to buy using wages from jobs that have been replaced by automation.

The implication is that capitalism does not exist as as system where the fittest survive. Rather, it relies on increasing prosperity among increasing amounts of people, which explains why the global middle class has been growing long before the pandemic started:

 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,002
136
And the only way I know to get "increasing prosperity among increasing amounts of people" is to use Basic Income to establish a floor no one can fall through. Heck, once that is established business can do !@#$ all for compensation, it won't matter one bit to me. As people will be cared for regardless. Let the free market reign, after we get our piece of it.

Imagine how financially liberating it'll be to all sorts of businesses, states, cities, every level of government - to no longer fund pensions. Pay your taxes and have it covered. No more racing to the bottom with pyramid schemes to bankrupt yourselves. Employees will be a hell of a lot cheaper to hire on and keep.

A fully funded and fully realized safety net is the ONLY way to truly liberate people.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
The new economy was already well underway, but the pandemic definitely accelerated aspects of it. First they automated and outsourced the manufacturing jobs, and I remained silent. Then they broke collective bargaining with the gig economy, and I didn’t say anything. When they came to replace my job with an algorithm, I stood alone.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,971
13,488
136
Those who invest from automation can only earn from sales to consumers who can afford to buy using wages from jobs that have been replaced by automation.

The implication is that capitalism does not exist as as system where the fittest survive. Rather, it relies on increasing prosperity among increasing amounts of people, which explains why the global middle class has been growing long before the pandemic started:

*boom* .. this dude be dropping truth bombs.
A relatively simple construct that, yet, the uber rich fails to grasp.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,080
10,880
136
The new economy was already well underway, but the pandemic definitely accelerated aspects of it. First they automated and outsourced the manufacturing jobs, and I remained silent. Then they broke collective bargaining with the gig economy, and I didn’t say anything. When they came to replace my job with an algorithm, I stood alone.
So you want things to be purposefully inefficient? Or would you consider training for displaced workers or even universal basic income as a counter to increasing automation?
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
So you want things to be purposefully inefficient? Or would you consider training for displaced workers or even universal basic income as a counter to increasing automation?
Operational efficiency is the lie MBAs tell themselves to justify the ruthlessness required to squeeze out one more ounce of shareholder value. I don’t support UBI, because its a system to placate the masses. I support organized labor and retraining. We should start by unionizing Amazon facility centers and gig economy workforces, and break up tech monopolies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmagg

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,971
13,488
136
Operational efficiency is the lie MBAs tell themselves to justify the ruthlessness required to squeeze out one more ounce of shareholder value. I don’t support UBI, because its a system to placate the masses. I support organized labor and retraining. We should start by unionizing Amazon facility centers and gig economy workforces, and break up tech monopolies.
That might hold on the short distance... but as more jobs fade, what is the north star to navigate for here? At some point there is gonna be too many people vs available jobs. Then what? If there is no labour purpose of your existence can society justify keeping you around? Should it send you on one last walk into the desert without healthcare? What you wanna do with people? Not your problem let god sort em out?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Serious question - if automation is taking over everything then why has productivity growth over the last ten years been pretty middling? (Caveat: there has been a large increase in the last six months but this is common during recessions)
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,102
14,440
146
<Conservative MBA Grad>
Look this is basic economics. Giving 1 CEO an extra $10M a year doesn’t really affect the bottom line. It’s just one guy who deserves to be compensated.

But pay 5000 burger flippers an extra $1/hr and every burger has to cost $5000 more. This is just simple conservative math.

See take this graph
https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Ftimworstall%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F10%2Fwagescompensation-1200x1093.png

For a long time workers wages kept rising which made everything expensive. Then we finally broke productivity away from wages. But it’s still not good enough. If we can keep productivity going up while simultaneously decreasing wages (people can live on $2/day after all) then profits will increase exponentially as costs drop.

When this happen across all market segments GDP growth will become exponential leading to spectacular market growth and market returns and even the first trillionaires!

“But where will the money come from to buy these products if everyone is on subsistence level wages?” some of you may ask.

The free hand of the market.

“But that doesn’t make sense!”

THE FREE HAND OF TEh MARKET WILL PROVIDE! What are you a commie bastard who wants to go back 40 years when there were only dozens of billionaires?

/Conservative MBA grad>
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,080
10,880
136
Operational efficiency is the lie MBAs tell themselves to justify the ruthlessness required to squeeze out one more ounce of shareholder value. I don’t support UBI, because its a system to placate the masses. I support organized labor and retraining. We should start by unionizing Amazon facility centers and gig economy workforces, and break up tech monopolies.

those things are not mutually exclusive. you can make a workplace more efficient, and you can have unions, and you can retrain workers if/when they are displaced by new technology. all that means is that companies can't chase the absolute maximum dollar possible, and instead have to include social justice/economics as part of their operational model.

i do agree that "maximize shareholder value" is an absolutely cancerous phrase, unionization of workers is a good thing, and that it's nigh time for tech monopolies to be broken up.
 

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,562
1,741
126
IMO, much of what happens during your work life is going to depend on your skillset. This is just ancedotal, but I'll use my sister as example. She's a computer programmer. She gets to work at home. She also earns about $130k a year. She works in the cloud storage, cyber security. I'm sure that many here have great paying computer based jobs, and will continue to do well financially in the forseable future. You could say the same for public workers like teachers, police, fire, etc. Those positions aren't in jeopardy for automation. My concern are the low wage workers: cashiers, gas attendants (NJ), gig workers, etc. Now, is this the governments fault, or is it personal responsibilty issue. Or, maybe a mixture of both? This is why tech companies have to outsource. There are good high paying jobs available. But, they often are only available to applicants who have skills in critical thought, mathmatics, science, and technology. It's why so many Americans are being left behind. I taught in South Korea. The one thing I noticed was how far advanced they were compared to American students. The work ethic is another.

The problem I have with UBI is the moment you start the program we won't be able to end it. So, when does it end? Or, does it not end. This is why so many Republicans had an issue with Biden. It's why socilism got thrown around quite a bit. When many hard working Americans think of UBI they think about people who don't want to work. Americans who want to do nothing but sit on their lazy asses and collect their UBI monthly checks. Isn't that human nature though? To do as little as possible.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,235
10,810
136
For many reasons, we need population control world wide, on the birth side, of course.

We also need to get back to supporting working class people and properly taxing companies and billionaires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,224
5,800
126
<Conservative MBA Grad>
Look this is basic economics. Giving 1 CEO an extra $10M a year doesn’t really affect the bottom line. It’s just one guy who deserves to be compensated.

But pay 5000 burger flippers an extra $1/hr and every burger has to cost $5000 more. This is just simple conservative math.

See take this graph
https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Ftimworstall%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F10%2Fwagescompensation-1200x1093.png

For a long time workers wages kept rising which made everything expensive. Then we finally broke productivity away from wages. But it’s still not good enough. If we can keep productivity going up while simultaneously decreasing wages (people can live on $2/day after all) then profits will increase exponentially as costs drop.

When this happen across all market segments GDP growth will become exponential leading to spectacular market growth and market returns and even the first trillionaires!

“But where will the money come from to buy these products if everyone is on subsistence level wages?” some of you may ask.

The free hand of the market.

“But that doesn’t make sense!”

THE FREE HAND OF TEh MARKET WILL PROVIDE! What are you a commie bastard who wants to go back 40 years when there were only dozens of billionaires?

/Conservative MBA grad>

Every 10 Years Governments, using its' Citizens as collateral, will just dump $Trillions of Borrowed money into the hands of the Wealthy. This is the prefect way for the Oligarchy to stay as the Oligarchy, it removes the Citizens economic power to determine where Wealth flows.
 

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,878
2,712
136
For many reasons, we need population control world wide, on the birth side, of course.

We also need to get back to supporting working class people and properly taxing companies and billionaires.
Can't have government programs without taxable workers. Inverted population pyramids are not fun for governments. The "less regulated" are the suppliers of the taxable workforce and thus sustain numerous welfare states via immigration. It is more evident in Europe as the hard numbers show the birth rate is well below replacement and thus the replacements come from less tightly restricted cultures regarding having children.

It's implicit that the prevention of the formation of a young workforce will also serve to curb the collective power of the particular populace. Which, in this case, would mean keeping continental Africa on the bottom of the world wide totem pole, consistent with history.

Taxation is blunt instrument and there is a hidden market amongst governments to attract people to their particular lands. These undercutters will serve to make sure that simply raising taxes will not guarantee an increase in revenue as the upper middle-class and above find ways to give the code "the slip" or petition(sometimes legitimately) that the taxes are to inhibitory to their operations.

CoVID has accelerated and assisted in slaying the old and relieving the burden of having to pay their Social Security and other costs of government programs to keep them alive and without morbidity. Hence, the tepid and bizarrely delayed response by the top brass such as the WHO, Trump, numerous other leaders, at its outset is actually entirely coldly rational if the aim was herd culling and helping governments balance budgets "accidentally-on-purpose".
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
That might hold on the short distance... but as more jobs fade, what is the north star to navigate for here? At some point there is gonna be too many people vs available jobs. Then what? If there is no labour purpose of your existence can society justify keeping you around? Should it send you on one last walk into the desert without healthcare? What you wanna do with people? Not your problem let god sort em out?
Sadly, given current patterns relative to human history, we are due for an event that will solve that problem with violence.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
<Conservative MBA Grad>
Look this is basic economics. Giving 1 CEO an extra $10M a year doesn’t really affect the bottom line. It’s just one guy who deserves to be compensated.

But pay 5000 burger flippers an extra $1/hr and every burger has to cost $5000 more. This is just simple conservative math.

See take this graph
https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Ftimworstall%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F10%2Fwagescompensation-1200x1093.png

For a long time workers wages kept rising which made everything expensive. Then we finally broke productivity away from wages. But it’s still not good enough. If we can keep productivity going up while simultaneously decreasing wages (people can live on $2/day after all) then profits will increase exponentially as costs drop.

When this happen across all market segments GDP growth will become exponential leading to spectacular market growth and market returns and even the first trillionaires!

“But where will the money come from to buy these products if everyone is on subsistence level wages?” some of you may ask.

The free hand of the market.

“But that doesn’t make sense!”

THE FREE HAND OF TEh MARKET WILL PROVIDE! What are you a commie bastard who wants to go back 40 years when there were only dozens of billionaires?

/Conservative MBA grad>

"Productivity" is incorrectly used where people insinuate that WORKERS are being more productive. That is entirely false and a complete fabrication.

"Productivity" here is simply (as it states at the bottom) the growth in the output of goods.

That means - more machines - less human hands performing work. Or are you insinuating that people with $40-60k office jobs are productive people as they spend 60% of their day browsing Facebook?




Anyhow - were a services based economy. People are adapting but the problem is that there is always going to be 1 generation that is left behind because it's simply too late for them to adapt.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
"Productivity" is incorrectly used where people insinuate that WORKERS are being more productive. That is entirely false and a complete fabrication.

"Productivity" here is simply (as it states at the bottom) the growth in the output of goods.

That means - more machines - less human hands performing work. Or are you insinuating that people with $40-60k office jobs are productive people as they spend 60% of their day browsing Facebook?
Yes, which was true even before the split in productivity and compensation took place. The difference was before, the benefits of automation were spread throughout the economy. Now, the benefits of automation go only to the owners. So basically, in today's economy, people with resources are in good shape. The rest are screwed. We automate away family wage jobs and replace them with minimum wage jobs, look at GDP and unemployment rates, and say the economy is fine.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
The old ways of doing business are over. Look for automation to be more prominent, which will make employment for the working poor more difficult. It truly will be survival of the fittest IMO. The people wo are able to adapt will do very well. Everyone else is in trouble it seems.

What will Trump voters do. Can't possibly move from bubble land.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
"Productivity" is incorrectly used where people insinuate that WORKERS are being more productive. That is entirely false and a complete fabrication.

"Productivity" here is simply (as it states at the bottom) the growth in the output of goods.

That means - more machines - less human hands performing work. Or are you insinuating that people with $40-60k office jobs are productive people as they spend 60% of their day browsing Facebook?

Anyhow - were a services based economy. People are adapting but the problem is that there is always going to be 1 generation that is left behind because it's simply too late for them to adapt.

No, the measure of productivity is correct and your distinction is meaningless.

Say a programmer makes software that accomplishes in minutes what used to take a dozen people weeks. What drives the productivity, the machine doing the work or the person that programs it? Neither one is useful without the other so the answer is 'who gives a shit'.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Yes, which was true even before the split in productivity and compensation took place. The difference was before, the benefits of automation were spread throughout the economy. Now, the benefits of automation go only to the owners. So basically, in today's economy, people with resources are in good shape. The rest are screwed. We automate away family wage jobs and replace them with minimum wage jobs, look at GDP and unemployment rates, and say the economy is fine.

The difference and WHY compensation kept pace was because previously the means for the extra output was still in the hands of the workers. This was around when things like basic tools were made such as hand-held drills as a random example of many. We still needed the worker to perform the functions and utilize the drill...

Now except for select-few procedures, most factories are done with completely automated tools - not tools in the hands of the workers.