Many of us were brought up to fear automation only to see it produce more product, a better economy, and more jobs.
It is a hard argument to debate because of the very strong post hoc evidence.
Does anyone here think we are looking at a "very normal" 20% unemployment by 2030? 2040?
Many of us were brought up to fear automation only to see it produce more product, a better economy, and more jobs.
It is a hard argument to debate because of the very strong post hoc evidence.
Does anyone here think we are looking at a "very normal" 20% unemployment by 2030? 2040?
Many of us were brought up to fear automation only to see it produce more product, a better economy, and more jobs.
It is a hard argument to debate because of the very strong post hoc evidence.
Does anyone here think we are looking at a "very normal" 20% unemployment by 2030? 2040?
Well, people have to build and maintain those machines, and even if they didn't, if the workforce was replaced by machines entirely, then businesses would have no consumers, because nobody would be making money. Even then, there are jobs that machines can't do, like politics, and developing the software and hardware for those machines. Also jobs in video game development, making information technology, teaching science, etc.Many of us were brought up to fear automation only to see it produce more product, a better economy, and more jobs.
It is a hard argument to debate because of the very strong post hoc evidence.
Does anyone here think we are looking at a "very normal" 20% unemployment by 2030? 2040?
Early in the US development leaders recognized that to have a society, you had to have workers, not serfs. You needed to get money into the hands of the population at a level that allows for discretionary income high enough for goods beyond a subsistence lifestyle.
Automation will eventually hit that wall in countries with high populations. Automation is fine in countries with low birth rates.
We need to slash general immigration until our U6 is under 6%, and unemployment is at 4%. We can live with 9 - 10%, and we have problems with u6 at 10% and regular unemployment at 5% due to social costs.
largerMany of us were brought up to fear automation only to see it produce more product, a better economy, and more jobs.
It is a hard argument to debate because of the very strong post hoc evidence.
Does anyone here think we are looking at a "very normal" 20% unemployment by 2030? 2040?
Many of us were brought up to fear automation only to see it produce more product, a better economy, and more jobs.
It is a hard argument to debate because of the very strong post hoc evidence.
Does anyone here think we are looking at a "very normal" 20% unemployment by 2030? 2040?
avings from a more efficient industry...flow back to the economy in one or more of the following three ways: lower prices (e.g., lower cost for groceries), higher wages for the fewer remaining employers, or higher profits. In a competitive grocery retail market, most of the savings would flow back to consumers in the form of lower prices. Consumers use the savings on lower groceries to go out to dinner a few times, buy books, watch movies, or any number of other things. This economic activity stimulates demand that other companies (e.g., restaurants, book stores, movie theaters, airlines, and hotels) respond to by hiring more workers.
I think the goal of humanity and of robotics is to free humanity from labor. Capitalism would be a dieing construct, and old system that made this current life possible. There is no capitalism with automation. And really I think that is a good thing. We have quantum computers. It is just a matter of time until we derive AI.
Will the movies predict what happens with AI? I don't think so. I think we just fear the unknown, and that manifests in those stories. With AI, you could calculate new technologies, quantum computers are already computing new materials by predicting the bonds between various substances. The computer then updates a database. Once the database is complete, and all known materials are derived, the quantum computer can be used for other means. And I am sure there are other quantum computers being made.
That means, with an AI, the AI could derive new technologies for the human race. If we automate the process of taking these ideas, and bringing them to life, and if you automate the acquisition of materials, and keep it in par with consumption, you have a fully automated society.
Need new shoes? Order it. Want to go hiking? Sure! Don't have to work. I feel like Jet Skiing, so I'm going to take a Maglev train to the Caribbean.
Forcing people to work for some old ideal makes no sense. With technology, the rules of the game changes. With the society I briefly described, there would be no need for a currency, everything is controlled by the AI.
Americans work hard to work hard. It's time we work hard to work less, or should I say, not at all.
That's the goal of people like Clinton and Obama. Massive American unemployment.
yes and it will be painful to get to the point where a $1000 computer can solve all our energy, food, medical, and infrastructure problems. Many will starve as governments are slow to react. Hell, they're still bickering over illegal immigrants and factories moving overseas like it's 1988. Today, we can cope with half being underemployed and pooling resources, but half with NO income? Take a look at brazil and greece to see how badly things can fall apart in just a few years
Nonsense. :roll:
Many of us were brought up to fear automation only to see it produce more product, a better economy, and more jobs.
It is a hard argument to debate because of the very strong post hoc evidence.
Does anyone here think we are looking at a "very normal" 20% unemployment by 2030? 2040?
They have achieved it. Pre Obama 6% or less U3 unemployment meant everyone who wanted a job had one or was short time between jobs. Not even Obama himself claims that to be true today. Today’s U3 is mostly due to the millions unemployed so long they are no longer counted, rt Obamacare turning 1 fulltime job into 2 or 3 parttime jobs..
Many of us were brought up to fear automation only to see it produce more product, a better economy, and more jobs.
It is a hard argument to debate because of the very strong post hoc evidence.
Does anyone here think we are looking at a "very normal" 20% unemployment by 2030? 2040?
Did you factor in the millions of baby boomers that are retiring? Get back with me when you do.
Remember this...
“You work three jobs? That's uniquely American, isn't it? That's fantastic."
And that was years before "Obamacare".
Do you have a link that compares 2015-16 economy to when the recession started in 2007 -08 ? Also, do you have a link to back up your claim that retiring baby boomers aren't being replaced with younger workers?In a good economy a Babyboomer retiring would create a job opening for a younger person (no negative impact on U3 or LPR). In this terrible Obama economy the retired Babyboomer is not replaced. The LPR decreases, as it has. When that young person gives up looking the U3 is not affected and leftist get to lie about actual unemployment under Obama. Checkmate.
No I'm not...you are. Apparently, Bush's quote doesn't fit your narrative that everything wrong in the world is Obama's fault. But as you can see, "working two or three jobs" was a problem when Bush was president, too.You are attempting to take the Quote from W is out of context. He was complementing Americans on their work ethic. Average Income was high under him until Dems took majorities in the senate and congress in 2006. nice propaganda try.
What is the source of your numbers? And what's wrong with the employment definition? The purpose is to measure how much available labor is not being used. Someone not trying to get a job is not available to work. So why should they be considered the same as those trying to get a job?The situation today is the the unemployed/underemployed number is 14%, and 16 million people have dropped out of the workforce in the last 10 years and so are not counted because of the nitso way we define unemployment. .
Unemployment is actually at around 9.6%, when you exclude people on Federal Aid from the total.
There has been no change in definitions or methodology of unemployment that would affect the U-3.They have achieved it. Pre Obama 6% or less U3 unemployment meant everyone who wanted a job had one or was short time between jobs. Not even Obama himself claims that to be true today. Today’s U3 is mostly due to the millions unemployed so long they are no longer counted, rt Obamacare turning 1 fulltime job into 2 or 3 parttime jobs..
A retiring upper-management baby-boomer gets replaced by an entry level college grad? I don't know you work, but that doesn't happen.In a good economy a Babyboomer retiring would create a job opening for a younger person (no negative impact on U3 or LPR).
There are far more baby boomers of retirement age than there are young people to "replace" them. It doesn't matter how good the economy is.In this terrible Obama economy the retired Babyboomer is not replaced. The LPR decreases, as it has.
Why not? That would be one less unemployed and one less in the labor force.When that young person gives up looking the U3 is not affected
What is the source of your numbers? And what's wrong with the employment definition? The purpose is to measure how much available labor is not being used. Someone not trying to get a job is not available to work. So why should they be considered the same as those trying to get a job?
How are you calculating that?
There has been no change in definitions or methodology of unemployment that would affect the U-3.
There is no time limit for unemployed so no one is "unemployed so long they are no longer counted." And for the unemployment rate, people are counted once no matter how many jobs they have.
Does anyone bother to do research?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?