How Technology is Destroying Jobs

[RDS]

???

So you mean that I should keep paying employees who no longer serve any work function? To do what? Stand around smoking and joking? Then why should I invest my money in new technology?

I'm not sure what you are saying.

You get rid of them. They sink or swim.

 

[imagep]

You get rid of them. They sink or swim.

Oh, OK, I agree. I obviously misinterpreted what you were suggesting.

So I guess we don't have much to argue about.

 

[RGacky3]

And this is what...anything other than extraordinary? Are you aware of the plethora of web pages, apps, indie games, and otherwise useful applications written by average individuals that provide competition to the big corporate giants, as a result of this? When a game developed by 4 people can compete with a multi million dollar blockbuster (and ultimately boring) AAA title, you think this was better to have those big corporate publishers milk the market, rather than compete and innovate? Good grief. It's as though you're pushing FOR economic repression!

Technology currently has no known limit. None. Until you reach singularity, and we're nowhere near that. So stop the chicken-little nonsense. I work in tech, and everything cannot be automated as long as tech continues to develop. See above, technology has no reasonable limit, so why would it NOT continue to develop? Maybe if you are content to let big business or big government stifle the market so it CANNOT innovate, you'll dam it up sufficiently to destroy jobs. But if you let technology go go go, you stand a greater risk of AI taking over the world than you do of destroying the economy. And technology is applied to every industry. Health care, energy, Hollywood. So the core of our econnoy is ultimately technologically driven, has no known end point, and affects every industry.

But RGacky3 is worried about Moses...er...Marx prognostications? That's just bad **** crazy IMO.

Technology is developed on the cutting edge, as it's being used. That is, they don't even have enough time to finish development, before they implement it in products and services. That *cannot* be automated, because you can't automated if it's not even through being developed (What would you fully automate?), it simply can't be cost beneficial to invest that much in automation when next year you'd have to rewrite it anyway, and you wouldn't hit critical mass in terms of how much utilization you got from the automation.

Remember too that our expectations of living standards likewise has NOT STOPPED. That's why they redefined the poverty level relative to the economy. So if you want to be so brazen as to stop innovation, you stop the rise in living standards and poverty today = poverty tomorrow. Meanwhile with our constant innovation, poverty in years past look more like absolute poverty, and poverty today in the U.S. is like luxury living compared to a third world. You cant' have it both ways.

Stop competition and innovation and we are doomed to real corporatocracy the likes of which we'd look back and dream of today...

No one is saying stop competition and innovation.

We're saying use it in a way that benefits everyone in society,

Have a system wehre instead of a new machine coming in makes half the factory unemployed, the other half working just as hard but with cut wages (since they are lucky to have a job), and (at least for the short term) raises profit rates more the executives (although in the end will ruin the industries profitability due to the "tendancy for the rate of profit to fall," as well as the shrinking of makrets as less workers have disposable income), everyone gets higher wages and gets to work less ... which is what the result would be for a SENSIBLE economy, a cooperative based economy that focuses not on profit but on what is good for society.

 

[Mach]

No one is saying stop competition and innovation.
We're saying use it in a way that benefits everyone in society,

Those two are in contradiction as farm as I'm concerned. Competition and innovation are a result of a free marketplace. And a free marketplace is where everyone in society gets to both voluntarily buy what the choose, and work in the manner they choose. That, helps society. Being free is a fundamental good that benefits everyone in society. Please contrast poor vs real slavery to understand this concept.

Have a system wehre instead of a new machine coming in makes half the factory unemployed, the other half working just as hard but with cut wages (since they are lucky to have a job), and (at least for the short term) raises profit rates more the executives (although in the end will ruin the industries profitability due to the "tendancy for the rate of profit to fall," as well as the shrinking of makrets as less workers have disposable income), everyone gets higher wages and gets to work less ... which is what the result would be for a SENSIBLE economy, a cooperative based economy that focuses not on profit but on what is good for society.

That makes on sense in any reasonable way to me. This happens every day, has since the creation of the U.S. economy. Please understand this is the FOUNDATION for our global prosperity, and largely the global prosperity of nearly every industrialized nation. And is coupled with amazing improvements in worldwide human rights (centered on freedom in the economy coupled with political freedom typically seen as democracy).
You should WANT this to occur, because it shifts labor form something useless, and frees it up to work on something useful. In an area that is not yet automated, in an area that requires more human interaction, in an area that is developing and not mature, etc. My guess is you aren't satisfied with how fast they find new jobs, and how many new jobs there are. Please keep in mind that is likely a direct result of two primary things:
1. Our lack of success in public education preparing our children to take those new types of jobs (see public education/unions root cause)
2. Global competition (we lift 10 people out of poverty overseas and 1 of our people go unemployed...that's a hard ethical nut to crack and you need to get even better at global innovation. See #1)
Americans are in competition with far more people than ever before on this earth. . People who are groomed from day one to excel in the tech industry, to be multi-lingual, to value education, family, and hard work. And, that we're being outcompeted...you want to blame corporate execs? Or capitalism? Remember that people are expressing their freedom...people do not want to compete with Asians apparently, it's too much work, not worth the bother. And why would you think cutting everyone's salary by 50%, would be better than firing 50%? Basically you'd be asking everyone who can quit, to quit. Because a 50% pay cut is likely intolerable to everyone. ANY pay cut is often seen as intolerable. I did a 2% pay cut on a few people once (for reasonable reasons mind you), it was like a meteor destroyed civilization. 50%? Lol. So your best people leave first, and you're left with a company of people who mostly can't find another jobs....what a winning strategy? Layoff the lower 50% and you may survive the morale loss -and emerge with a good team intact. That's my take.

 

[RGacky3]

Those two are in contradiction as farm as I'm concerned. Competition and innovation are a result of a free marketplace. And a free marketplace is where everyone in society gets to both voluntarily buy what the choose, and work in the manner they choose. That, helps society. Being free is a fundamental good that benefits everyone in society. Please contrast poor vs real slavery to understand this concept.

Innovation is not a result of the market, given the fact that most technological and scientific innovation comes from outside the market place.
You always leave something out in when you define a the market ... which is primacy of private property ... and absolute exclusive property laws.
No one is arguing against free choice and so on. It's who controls what resources.0

That makes on sense in any reasonable way to me. This happens every day, has since the creation of the U.S. economy. Please understand this is the FOUNDATION for our global prosperity, and largely the global prosperity of nearly every industrialized nation. And is coupled with amazing improvements in worldwide human rights (centered on freedom in the economy coupled with political freedom typically seen as democracy).
You should WANT this to occur, because it shifts labor form something useless, and frees it up to work on something useful. In an area that is not yet automated, in an area that requires more human interaction, in an area that is developing and not mature, etc. My guess is you aren't satisfied with how fast they find new jobs, and how many new jobs there are. Please keep in mind that is likely a direct result of two primary things:
1. Our lack of success in public education preparing our children to take those new types of jobs (see public education/unions root cause)
2. Global competition (we lift 10 people out of poverty overseas and 1 of our people go unemployed...that's a hard ethical nut to crack and you need to get even better at global innovation. See #1)
Americans are in competition with far more people than ever before on this earth. . People who are groomed from day one to excel in the tech industry, to be multi-lingual, to value education, family, and hard work. And, that we're being outcompeted...you want to blame corporate execs? Or capitalism? Remember that people are expressing their freedom...people do not want to compete with Asians apparently, it's too much work, not worth the bother. And why would you think cutting everyone's salary by 50%, would be better than firing 50%? Basically you'd be asking everyone who can quit, to quit. Because a 50% pay cut is likely intolerable to everyone. ANY pay cut is often seen as intolerable. I did a 2% pay cut on a few people once (for reasonable reasons mind you), it was like a meteor destroyed civilization. 50%? Lol. So your best people leave first, and you're left with a company of people who mostly can't find another jobs....what a winning strategy? Layoff the lower 50% and you may survive the morale loss -and emerge with a good team intact. That's my take.

Thats not the case, the real raise in global prosperity i.e. for the working class as well came with the labor movement and social democratic reforms .... I believe those add to economic freedom, more private property power does not give more economic freedom.

You're ignoring my argument, I'm NOT arguing for less automation, I'm arguing for the benefits to no ONLY go to the capital holders, and arguing that it frees up people to work on something else doesn't hold given the raising rates of unemployment (and people in disability and so on), No .... automation should mean EVERYONE can work less and make more ... and people will STILL go to other industries, because innovation is rewarding ... and we have emprical evidence of that, you don't have higher innovation in countries high higher unemployment ....

1. Or maybe it's money going to private schools who get the best students in tehbest conditions and public schools getting the left overs ... One of the best educatinoal systems in teh world is the finnish one .... which is certainly not a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" privitized one.

2. that 10-1 is just a made up number .... you made it up. Also cheap labor isn't "innovation..." You privitize lands, kick people off their small buisinesses by huge corporations coming in and taking over the markets (thinking of mexico), you're gonna have a parge pool of cheap labor ... you havn't "innovated" ****, you created poverty and pulled them out of it.

No you're not "asking" people to quit ... you lay them off .... I'ts not competing with Asians, it's lowering the wage bar.

But it's a false dilema, the option isn't only lay off half or cut the pay ... another option is cut the CEO pay, cyt profit, everyone gets to work less while they produce more.

What your saying is just saying "this is the way it works ... deal with it." Well if you're a working class person you can either just accept that you're going to more than likely have a dropping living standard as more and more profit goes to the top ... Or ... you can fight for change.

 

[csbrown28]

It's often been my experience that automation in my line of work, just gives me more time to do different work.

 

[imagep]

How Technology Is Destroying Jobs | MIT Technology Review



How many of you libertarian free-market shills think you're smarter than a bunch of professors at M.I.T.? An economic paradigm shift is coming, and it won't be pretty. This society better start thinking about how to solve technological unemployment. The beginning of the end of capitalism is nearer than you think. The Super Rich better be ready now. Technology will not only eat jobs, it will eventually eat them too. Welcome to the revolution, baby.

I agree with all of that, except for the part about capitalism being doomed.

I think that with the right policies (mostly governmental policies), capitalism will thrive even more.

Regardless, I'm glad you posted the link. we all need to be discussing these things, before it is to late.

 

[csbrown28]

I agree with all of that, except for the part about capitalism being doomed.

I think that with the right policies (mostly governmental policies), capitalism will thrive even more.

Regardless, I'm glad you posted the link. we all need to be discussing these things, before it is to late.

I agree, its about adapting.

Automation is worthless if to many people are unemployed as there will be little money to buy the products made by superefficient robots. No, things may change and may even become worse for some (unless as imagep says, we address the change with the right policies), but I think its all about adapting.

 

[phattonez]

How many of you libertarian free-market shills think you're smarter than a bunch of professors at M.I.T.?

I know of one, at least, that being me.

An economic paradigm shift is coming, and it won't be pretty. This society better start thinking about how to solve technological unemployment. The beginning of the end of capitalism is nearer than you think. The Super Rich better be ready now. Technology will not only eat jobs, it will eventually eat them too. Welcome to the revolution, baby.

How will the South ever survive the rise of the cotton gin?!

 

[laska]

Most people do not seem to clearly understand "creative destruction" and how it is necessary in a capitalistic system. Before the Industrial revolution maybe 99% of the population had to work on farms to create enough food for the population. Technology will make it so only say 1% of the labor is needed. On the surface you say wow, that is horrible, 98% of the population loses their jobs. We create all this food but no one will be able to buy it because no one has a job. But that is not what happened. What it did was free up this labor to create other wealth. So now that it only takes 1% of the population to feed us, some of that labor goes to building roads. Some goes to building houses, opening factories, etc. That is creative destruction. And living standards are raised across the board because of it. Take efficiency in government. I listened to a Jon Doer interview not too long ago and the topic came around to some of his worst investments(he is a partner for the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, the famous vc that has funded such startups as Google and Amazon). He mentioned investing earlier in his career in a startup that had created technology that would save the U.S. Post office a ton of money. The company never worked out though because the USPS Union knew it would cost the department jobs. It is bad for the overall economy not to mention taxpayers though because if the USPS can do the same work with say a third of the employees and half the cost, not only would it save the taxpayers money, money that could go against the deficit or say to another needed area, it allows those let go workers to create other wealth, which creates economic growth, new jobs, more government revenue. A bigger economic pie usually means raised living standards across the board. Anyways, if you want full unemployment and little technology why not have everyone digging ditches with spoons. Have no food, no clothes, no fun things, but it's 100% employment.

 

[imagep]

Most people do not seem to clearly understand "creative destruction" and how it is necessary in a capitalistic system. Before the Industrial revolution maybe 99% of the population had to work on farms to create enough food for the population. Technology will make it so only say 1% of the labor is needed. On the surface you say wow, that is horrible, 98% of the population loses their jobs. We create all this food but no one will be able to buy it because no one has a job. But that is not what happened. What it did was free up this labor to create other wealth. So now that it only takes 1% of the population to feed us, some of that labor goes to building roads. Some goes to building houses, opening factories, etc. That is creative destruction. And living standards are raised across the board because of it. Take efficiency in government. I listened to a Jon Doer interview not too long ago and the topic came around to some of his worst investments(he is a partner for the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, the famous vc that has funded such startups as Google and Amazon). He mentioned investing earlier in his career in a startup that had created technology that would save the U.S. Post office a ton of money. The company never worked out though because the USPS Union knew it would cost the department jobs. It is bad for the overall economy not to mention taxpayers though because if the USPS can do the same work with say a third of the employees and half the cost, not only would it save the taxpayers money, money that could go against the deficit or say to another needed area, it allows those let go workers to create other wealth, which creates economic growth, new jobs, more government revenue. A bigger economic pie usually means raised living standards across the board. Anyways, if you want full unemployment and little technology why not have everyone digging ditches with spoons. Have no food, no clothes, no fun things, but it's 100% employment.

While all that is true, in the past new jobs were created as demand grew at nearly the same rate as technology replaced existing jobs. For the past several years, demand hasn't been growing as fast as workers have been displaced by technology. If the most recent trend continues for a few decades (or maybe a few hundred years), eventually there will not be enough jobs for every family to have at least one.

During the 20th century, most of our creature comforts were met. Now, that they are met, what area will create the type of demand that things like running water, electricity, phones, nice housing, automobiles, etc created? The assumption is that demand is unlimited, but I don't think thats the case. If you could purchase a new car for just one hours worth of labor, and you already had a thousand cars, do you think that you would even bother to work another hour just to purchase that 1001st car? Probably not.

It's not the point that we are current at that is the issue, it's the trend.

 

[phattonez]

While all that is true, in the past new jobs were created as demand grew at nearly the same rate as technology replaced existing jobs. For the past several years, demand hasn't been growing as fast as workers have been displaced by technology. If the most recent trend continues for a few decades (or maybe a few hundred years), eventually there will not be enough jobs for every family to have at least one.

During the 20th century, most of our creature comforts were met. Now, that they are met, what area will create the type of demand that things like running water, electricity, phones, nice housing, automobiles, etc created? The assumption is that demand is unlimited, but I don't think thats the case. If you could purchase a new car for just one hours worth of labor, and you already had a thousand cars, do you think that you would even bother to work another hour just to purchase that 1001st car? Probably not.

It's not the point that we are current at that is the issue, it's the trend.

Demand is unlimited! People will never have enough. And when we have enough, then what would be the point of producing more?

 

[imagep]

I know of one, at least, that being me.



How will the South ever survive the rise of the cotton gin?!

They didn't. You haven't ever compared poverty rates in the south to those in the north?

 

[imagep]

Demand is unlimited! People will never have enough. And when we have enough, then what would be the point of producing more?

If demand was unlimited, then rich people wouldn't be rich because they would spend every penny that they have. Why does Warren Buffet drive a old pickup truck and live in the same house that he purchased 50 years ago? it's because he choses to live that way, he could certainly afford a nicer house or vehicle. heck, even Turdledude has said that he lives a modest lifestyle, even though he could afford luxuary. People do not have unlimited demands.

if you had 1000 vacation homes, would you want any more? If penis enlargers were free, and you already had 10000 of them, would you bother to acquire any more?

Im rich enough that I could afford hundreds of pairs of shoes, but I never own more than a few pairs at a time, simply because I don't need more than a few pair.

Demand is definetely not unlimited.

As to your point that "when we have enough then what would be the point of producing more", THATS the issue. When we have enough, jobs will be very very scarce. So exactly how do the families that aren't able to obtain a job feed themselves, even in a world of abundance? Every family has to have a source of income from work or from the guberment.

the only way that the guberment could give everyone an income is if the guberment owned the means of production, thus, what you are suggesting is that ultimately, we will end up with socialism.

I agree that is a posibility, but it's not my preference, and it can be avoided with some planning and smart policy.

 

[phattonez]

They didn't. You haven't ever compared poverty rates in the south to those in the north?

I'm pretty sure that has more to do with the Civil War destroying the South than with the cotton gin.

 

[phattonez]

If demand was unlimited, then rich people wouldn't be rich because they would spend every penny that they have. Why does Warren Buffet drive a old pickup truck and live in the same house that he purchased 50 years ago? it's because he choses to live that way, he could certainly afford a nicer house or vehicle. heck, even Turdledude has said that he lives a modest lifestyle, even though he could afford luxuary. People do not have unlimited demands.

if you had 1000 vacation homes, would you want any more? If penis enlargers were free, and you already had 10000 of them, would you bother to acquire any more?

Im rich enough that I could afford hundreds of pairs of shoes, but I never own more than a few pairs at a time, simply because I don't need more than a few pair.

Demand is definetely not unlimited.

As to your point that "when we have enough then what would be the point of producing more", THATS the issue. When we have enough, jobs will be very very scarce. So exactly how do the families that aren't able to obtain a job feed themselves, even in a world of abundance? Every family has to have a source of income from work or from the guberment.

the only way that the guberment could give everyone an income is if the guberment owned the means of production, thus, what you are suggesting is that ultimately, we will end up with socialism.

I agree that is a posibility, but it's not my preference, and it can be avoided with some planning and smart policy.

If demand was not unlimited then people would stop making money at some point. From what it seems, they keep going, don't they?

 

[imagep]

If demand was not unlimited then people would stop making money at some point. From what it seems, they keep going, don't they?

Many people stop making money at some point. People do retire.

Regardless, the desire to accumulate money isn't the same thing as demand at the cash register. We demand lots of things, some people may demand stuff, others demand points (accumulated money) others demand leisure time.

If the demand for stuff and services was unlimited, then everyone would purchase everything that they could afford and no one would accumulate savings or investment that was more than necessary for their retirement.

 

[phattonez]

Many people stop making money at some point. People do retire.

Because at that point they value the leisure more than the extra money. Is demand for leisure not demand?

Regardless, the desire to accumulate money isn't the same thing as demand at the cash register. We demand lots of things, some people may demand stuff, others demand points (accumulated money) others demand leisure time.

If the demand for stuff and services was unlimited, then everyone would purchase everything that they could afford and no one would accumulate savings or investment that was more than necessary for their retirement.

Not true. People demand money for the future and thus they save. It depends on how much of a return they get in the future for saving now vs. the reward of purchasing now. The more you purchase now, the more attractive savings becomes because marginal utility decreases.