A world without work

[haymarket]

I thought it was too, but I'm not going to call for doom and gloom just yet. Society has gone through a lot of industrial revolutions. Someone will have to program and repair the robots. Maintain the facilities. Provide security. Build it. Ship it and so on.

Not to call it social Darwinism, but it will be a social evolution. Society will evolve to fit. Those who can't won't make it. It will be no different than what has been happening with computers now.

And what is to stop EVOLUTION from getting the letter R in front of it when the displaced masses decide that they are simply not going to go away and join Darwin in the dust bin of life?

 

[blackjack50]

That is where we part company. I am NOT willing to simply cast my fate to the wind in the hopes that there will be a solution and its the same technology that is taking jobs that suddenly will turn 180 degrees and be our savior. No - that is just too much of a Grand Canyon jump.

We (the world) went from thousands of years in an agrarian economy where almost everyone had employment to 150 years in an industrial economy where jobs actually increased so much that we (the USA) had to import millions of workers here to make up the shortage.

But when we transitioned from the industrial economy to the tech economy, what the heck happens to all those displaced workers that simply do not have the intelligence, skills or general aptitude for that brave new world.

I remember touring a parts plant in Detroit about three years ago where less than forty people were far more productive that ten times that number that used to work there. I watched a little lady who could not have weighed more than 120 pounds manipulate robotic machine three times her size and punch out parts with it. The guy who gave us the tour said that twenty years ago the guy in that spot would have been six feet two and at least 200 pounds and then there were 400 more just like him.

So what happens to those 400 big guys if they are not too bright and just cannot make that transition?

They don't get the job. Those 400 guys aren't society, which is what I'm mainly looking at. Not individuals. But those guys COULD find a job. They would have to look elsewhere though. Farming, landscaping, trucking, maintenance, temp agencies, construction, animals, merchant marine/barge, law enforcement, military, fire, prison guards, travel industry, security, and on and on.

I can't possibly come up with all the solutions for the individuals. But I'm betting that I could, if I knew them, help them along their way. I personally think there will always be a spot in farming and other rural jobs:

There are a lot of empty places here still.

 

[blackjack50]

And what is to stop EVOLUTION from getting the letter R in front of it when the displaced masses decide that they are simply not going to go away and join Darwin in the dust bin of life?

Some of them might. The other half of those big workers found a job operating military machinery and law enforcement against those revolutionaries

 

[haymarket]

They don't get the job. Those 400 guys aren't society, which is what I'm mainly looking at. Not individuals. But those guys COULD find a job. They would have to look elsewhere though. Farming, landscaping, trucking, maintenance, temp agencies, construction, animals, merchant marine/barge, law enforcement, military, fire, prison guards, travel industry, security, and on and on.

Oh but those 400 guys are very much society - or at minimum a part of it. And those guys on that line made good union wages. They could buy a house and get married and have a family and but a new car every five years or so and basically be stand up decent folk who were a credit to a solid middle class community.

So now they are suppose to say "welcome to Wal Mart " for 30 hours a week and take home $200? I don't think thats a plan for a workable and sustainable society in a democratic republic like ours.

 

[haymarket]

Some of them might. The other half of those big workers found a job operating military machinery and law enforcement against those revolutionaries

If you have ever seen GANGS OF NEW YORK someone at the end of the movie says much the same thing in reaction to the NY City draft riots during the Civil War...... we will hire half of the poor to kill the other half.

That sort of plan did not work too well in France or Russia or other places. Those are dice I do NOT want to roll for the USA and my kids and grandkids.

 

[Neomalthusian]

My apologies in advance if someone else has already used this here

Robots are going to steal the jobs of chefs, salespeople and models, researchers say as they unveil full list of likely robot professions - News - Gadgets and Tech - The Independent

35% is a huge number of jobs.... and just what are these people expected to do when you add that number to those who already exist today who are basically unnecessary in the new economic order?

Whatever they want?

It is NOT good news for the entire idea of employment in the world to come.

This is why the liberal desperation to tie wage and benefit mandates and other burdens to employment is futile and exacerbates everything they're afraid of. Fuel on the fire.

 

[haymarket]

Whatever they want?



This is why the liberal desperation to tie wage and benefit mandates and other burdens to employment is futile and exacerbates everything they're afraid of. Fuel on the fire.

I do not speak far right wing so I have no idea what that means in normal rational English.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I do not speak far right wing so I have no idea what that means in normal rational English.

I keep forgetting what a difficult time you have comprehending what you read. I'll try again. This time try to focus:

You and your ilk want to mandate American labor be more expensive and regulated a all the time. Unions, benefit mandates, wage legislation, et cetera do nothing but accelerate these trends. It would be one thing if liberals wanted to speed up this process, but it's clear they don't and are petrified of the future, so it just goes to show they can't think more than an inch in front of their faces.

 

[imagep]

Well, according to Database Error, 51% get some form of government assistance. In light of such numbers, it's implausible to maintain tgey as a group are net positive contributers.

I wasn't saying that they are net contributors to tax revenue, they are net contributors to our society. Also, your link was referring to immigrants, not illegal immigrants, all though I don't if that would make a difference or not..

 

[imagep]

Yet you are measuring hours worked instead of the yield (market value?) of that work. It is no more "unfair" that a good carpenter makes more than a barely adequate carpenter in the same amount of time spent working. This is where the union model tends to fail the most - basing pay on years of experience instead of actual individual output. Sometimes they may coincide but often they do not. The same is true of a highly skilled worker and an entry level worker - one may produce enough in a 10 hour day to support them for a week while the other may fall well short of that.
'

You make for a valid point, more productive people should be paid more per hour, but that in no way alters my point that if we get to the point that there are not enough jobs for every family to have at least one, we are going to need to find a way to "share" those jobs between more workers.

That logic fails on many levels. We still have to have a system that encourages (rewards?) actual production over mere consumption. Obviously, if one could enjoy the same lifestyle for either doing entry level work (or even no work) as one that supplies highly skilled labor then far fewer would bother to attain those needed skills.

The concept (system?) of equally (or even nearly equally) sharing the output of a few will degenerate into more (consumer) folks demanding an ever larger "fair share" of the output of the few (producing) folks. That, rather than automation, was the downfall of Greece.

Rest assured that I will work (produce) far less when I start receiving my SS retirement, in six months, than I do now. I suppose you will celebrate the added work opportunity created for whoever picks up my slack but that is only likely to be one that does not receive a government check.

 

[Longshot Lou]

The likely scenario in the future ( 100 years from now?) . Robots do 80% of all work. The 80% unemployed receive a guaranteed minimum income which will be funded by those capitalists who own the most productive robots. Doesn't sound like a perfect world to me but it is the one that is coming.

 

[Neomalthusian]

if we get to the point that there are not enough jobs for every family to have at least one, we are going to need to find a way to "share" those jobs between more workers.

This is bizarre. Forced sharing of jobs? Skewing hiring preference toward families?

What sort of government do you propose doles out all the jobs and sets the universal wage rates in society? A singular global one? You'd need that degree of control to ensure this sharing of jobs according to need.

 

[imagep]

Not so - as proof I will offer the fact that there are now jobs that most US citizens will not do that pay well enough to support illegal immigrant laborers and their dependents. The difference is mainly the option being available to take an easier route (the "safety net"). I doubt that many would forgo years of earnings or even years of leisure time to develop a skill that paid only in elevated prestige

EDIT: There is also the probability that a US doctor could then do far better outside of the US where a free market economy still existed. That is why foreign doctors often come here now.

I would expect that all countries would likely have the issue of technology eliminating jobs, so there will likely be the same economic issues everywhere. Technology pretty much costs the same amount everywhere.

 

[blackjack50]

Oh but those 400 guys are very much society - or at minimum a part of it. And those guys on that line made good union wages. They could buy a house and get married and have a family and but a new car every five years or so and basically be stand up decent folk who were a credit to a solid middle class community.

So now they are suppose to say "welcome to Wal Mart " for 30 hours a week and take home $200? I don't think thats a plan for a workable and sustainable society in a democratic republic like ours.

I don't think I ever said anything about Walmart. Though that is possible. But I can still think of other jobs they could work that are unionized if they really want too. They could get jobs as electricians and plumbers and power companies and phone guys and water. There are dozens of places out there that hire guys with the requisite skill level. And what you described are big men with strength.

Maybe they don't need to rely on their strength for a job? Maybe now they need to rely on other abilities? So I'm not going to try and make some kind of plan for those men. They are the minority after all. So they aren't society. They are a part of it. And society must adapt or die. As sad as that is for those guys (and don't take that as me being unsympathetic to the plight...what you described defines close family and friends of mine). They have to adapt as well. Just play to their strengths, which may be mechanical work or construction and blah blah blah.

I can't advocate the halting of technology, especially for a concept like that of a Luddite

 

[imagep]

I think I addressed that. The best barterer gets the best stuff.

What would you barter with if technology had eliminated the need for human labor?

And I would assume that every product could be equally great, even if there were different brands, thus the cost would be the same. A Rolls could be about the same price as a Kia, and there wouldn't be a need for either to be expensive, other than to ration natural resources.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't recall any successful effort to slow down or prevent the use of automation or other technical methods for reducing the need for workers. I don't think there should be one either. Let the machines do most of the work, so us people can think, invent, create, play and care for our selves, families and communities.

We have an enormous creative means at our disposal with the internet. Most people go to buzz feed and rot their minds. If given the opportunity, most folks will simply be lazy.

 

[imagep]

That logic fails on many levels. We still have to have a system that encourages (rewards?) actual production over mere consumption. Obviously, if one could enjoy the same lifestyle for either doing entry level work (or even no work) as one that supplies highly skilled labor then far fewer would bother to attain those needed skills.

The concept (system?) of equally (or even nearly equally) sharing the output of a few will degenerate into more (consumer) folks demanding an ever larger "fair share" of the output of the few (producing) folks. That, rather than automation, was the downfall of Greece.

Rest assured that I will work (produce) far less when I start receiving my SS retirement, in six months, than I do now. I suppose you will celebrate the added work opportunity created for whoever picks up my slack but that is only likely to be one that does not receive a government check.

No one is suggesting that all jobs should pay alike. And yes, when you retire and someone gets your job, they will likely be pleased. Unemployed people leave unemployment benefits all the time for good jobs.

 

[imagep]

Adventure/travel industry, mechanical and computer repair, insurance, banking, shipping, education, social work, entertainment, and on and on. There are plenty of industries that would see minor automation. But not complete.

Most of those industries you just mentioned are particularly susceptible to a high level of automation. And "repair" jobs are likely to disappear as it becomes cheaper to replace with a mass manufactured part than to diagnose and repair.

 

[blackjack50]

Most of those industries you just mentioned are particularly susceptible to a high level of automation. And "repair" jobs are likely to disappear as it becomes cheaper to replace with a mass manufactured part than to diagnose and repair.

They may see the introduction of automation, but I can't see any of those being replaced by it. People are sometimes just faster and easier to use. And cheaper. Plus the technology will need to be maintained regardless of cost of repair/replace. Someone has to decide that. And they have to replace it or repair it

 

[jimbo]

What would you barter with if technology had eliminated the need for human labor?

And I would assume that every product could be equally great, even if there were different brands, thus the cost would be the same. A Rolls could be about the same price as a Kia, and there wouldn't be a need for either to be expensive, other than to ration natural resources.

First, thanks for the well reasoned debate.

The barter medium in my scenario would be an issued credit to be used as the recipients as they see fit. The concept of human labor having would no longer be valid as there would be no needed labor. Likewise, the chits (equivalent to our current monetary dollar) would have no value other than their ability to trade for needs first, then wants. I assume that each individuals wants and needs would differ. Some would want a Maserati, and willing to give up eating to get it, and others would be happy with a Kia and put the rest away against the beach house he really wanted. Price would be set as it is now; the desirability and availability of a particular item. I think the rationing of resources would come into play, along with the demand on robot labor. If a Maserati took twice as much of both resources and labor, then it might or should cost twice as much in chits. The bartering and lending among individuals would come into play when a persons wants exceeded his amount of wealth and/or patience. Just like it does now.

I don't think the time is anywhere near where humans would be content with not deciding what's for dinner themselves.

Other than my belief that humans will eventually work themselves out of a job, I don't have a lot of answers. This is the only answer floating around in my head that might actually work in concept, but the details are sketchy.

 

[haymarket]

I keep forgetting what a difficult time you have comprehending what you read. I'll try again. This time try to focus:

You and your ilk want to mandate American labor be more expensive and regulated a all the time. Unions, benefit mandates, wage legislation, et cetera do nothing but accelerate these trends. It would be one thing if liberals wanted to speed up this process, but it's clear they don't and are petrified of the future, so it just goes to show they can't think more than an inch in front of their faces.

save that little speech for when the unemployed hordes come to your place in your brave new world of the future. I have no doubt it will save your behind from their anger and they will kneel down and repent immediately.

Unless of course you insult their reading comprehension or call them liberals, then it probably is curtains for you.

But I do get you and what motivates you. If you give any credence to the idea of a world without work or tens of million who simply are not needed down the road - it spells KAPUT to your ideology and crap that you support and then what the heck will you do when your belief system has failed not only you but the country?

So play ostrich or paddle up the denial river and keep smiling.

 

[haymarket]

I don't think I ever said anything about Walmart. Though that is possible. But I can still think of other jobs they could work that are unionized if they really want too. They could get jobs as electricians and plumbers and power companies and phone guys and water. There are dozens of places out there that hire guys with the requisite skill level. And what you described are big men with strength.

Maybe they don't need to rely on their strength for a job? Maybe now they need to rely on other abilities? So I'm not going to try and make some kind of plan for those men. They are the minority after all. So they aren't society. They are a part of it. And society must adapt or die. As sad as that is for those guys (and don't take that as me being unsympathetic to the plight...what you described defines close family and friends of mine). They have to adapt as well. Just play to their strengths, which may be mechanical work or construction and blah blah blah.

I can't advocate the halting of technology, especially for a concept like that of a Luddite

I am 66 years old - you are probably younger. We have very very very different versions of the future and the opportunity or lack of it that will be there for average or under average intelligence or skills - . So you will probably see how this all plays out and I will not.

I sincerely hope your version and you advice works for all. I suspect it will not.

 

[imagep]

They may see the introduction of automation, but I can't see any of those being replaced by it. People are sometimes just faster and easier to use. And cheaper. Plus the technology will need to be maintained regardless of cost of repair/replace. Someone has to decide that. And they have to replace it or repair it

Banking and insurance in particular are mostly procedural jobs that can and are being replaced by technology. Money jobs can easily be handled by computers as most money is electronic data, and data is easy for computers to process.

Entertainment jobs are being replaced like crazy by technology - used to be if you wanted to hear music, you had to go to a place that had a human musician. Heck, now we can play music on our phone. Video games, movies, etc are all replacing the need for human labor in the entertainment field. And I used to go to a human travel agent if I wanted to buy tickets for my vacation, now I just use expedia or hotels.com, towns that used to have one or two travel agencies now have none, and huge cities that used to have dozens of travel agencies now often only have one or two.

But I do agree that there will be some jobs left in every industry, forever, just not very many.

 

[blackjack50]

I am 66 years old - you are probably younger. We have very very very different versions of the future and the opportunity or lack of it that will be there for average or under average intelligence or skills - . So you will probably see how this all plays out and I will not.

I sincerely hope your version and you advice works for all. I suspect it will not.

True. BUT...I just don't see technology being able to replace humans in my future. And even then humans will still be needed to run the machines and maintain them. And many jobs just won't be able to be replaced by computers.

 

[Neomalthusian]

save that little speech for when the unemployed hordes come to your place

Your liberal ideas make worse the American problems you're wetting your pants about currently. You want to make American labor more expensive and less internationally competitive right now, even though that can only make the intermediate term future worse for us.

But I do get you and what motivates you. If you give any credence to the idea of a world without work or tens of million who simply are not needed down the road - it spells KAPUT to your ideology and crap that you support and then what the heck will you do when your belief system has failed not only you but the country?

No one is calling for the types of reforms a fully automated global economy would require, mainly because we don't have a fully automated global economy.

In the meantime, liberals' agenda to self-sabotage needs to be squashed. Americans need to be competitive and do and produce things better than other countries can. Not just lazily pass laws entitling ourselves to things the way liberals suggest.