d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Automation, Robots, And Unemployment
Prev1141516171819Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 13,726
Joined: Apr 12 2013
Gold: 70.66
Jun 18 2017 12:13pm
The monetary system holds back the progression of mankind. Technology is far advanced but it isn't available for the little people. It be fucking great to have technology advance to the point we don't need unskilled labor. However, as long as we depend on money, that will be a problem. Solution is to obviously abolish the monetary system and come up with something more efficient.
Member
Posts: 20,226
Joined: Apr 30 2008
Gold: 5,168.97
Jun 18 2017 12:14pm
Sooner or later, automation is going to lead towards a requirement for basic income. We will reach a point where the economy has fewer jobs to offer than the total number of people who are actively ready to work. If society hasn't adapted by then, expect famine, poverty and criminality like you've never seen before.

Quote (Malignanttumor666 @ Jun 18 2017 08:13pm)
The monetary system holds back the progression of mankind. Technology is far advanced but it isn't available for the little people. It be fucking great to have technology advance to the point we don't need unskilled labor. However, as long as we depend on money, that will be a problem. Solution is to obviously abolish the monetary system and come up with something more efficient.


Communism has this covered. The problem is just that human nature doesn't make this very feasible.

This post was edited by Leevee on Jun 18 2017 12:15pm
Member
Posts: 13,726
Joined: Apr 12 2013
Gold: 70.66
Jun 18 2017 12:26pm
Quote (Leevee @ Jun 18 2017 02:14pm)
Sooner or later, automation is going to lead towards a requirement for basic income. We will reach a point where the economy has fewer jobs to offer than the total number of people who are actively ready to work. If society hasn't adapted by then, expect famine, poverty and criminality like you've never seen before.



Communism has this covered. The problem is just that human nature doesn't make this very feasible.



No, socialism does not have this covered. Socialism still uses money.
Member
Posts: 20,226
Joined: Apr 30 2008
Gold: 5,168.97
Jun 18 2017 12:42pm
Quote (Malignanttumor666 @ Jun 18 2017 08:26pm)
No, socialism does not have this covered. Socialism still uses money.


Socialism is not communism.
Member
Posts: 13,726
Joined: Apr 12 2013
Gold: 70.66
Jun 18 2017 12:54pm
Quote (Leevee @ Jun 18 2017 02:42pm)
Socialism is not communism.



In this context it is because they both eliminate the means of production. Ideologically, how both get there is only different. But these are by definitions. People can control a nation and rule with an iron fist and say it is our type of socialism. And everyone will believe it. Communism is just another flavor of socialism.
Member
Posts: 20,226
Joined: Apr 30 2008
Gold: 5,168.97
Jun 18 2017 02:07pm
Quote (Malignanttumor666 @ Jun 18 2017 08:54pm)
In this context it is because they both eliminate the means of production. Ideologically, how both get there is only different. But these are by definitions. People can control a nation and rule with an iron fist and say it is our type of socialism. And everyone will believe it. Communism is just another flavor of socialism.


If that is what you think the context is, I think you have misunderstood me.

The ultimate goal of communism is to abolish any means of trade, and instead allocate a set of resources to every individual. In such a society, there is no monetary system. This is highly theoretical though -- I do not think there will ever be anyone who puts it to practice, let alone does so successfully.

Socialism does not have such a goal, unless it is being used as a gateway towards communism.
Member
Posts: 33,652
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,617.52
Jun 18 2017 02:17pm
Quote (Leevee @ Jun 18 2017 04:07pm)
If that is what you think the context is, I think you have misunderstood me.

The ultimate goal of communism is to abolish any means of trade, and instead allocate a set of resources to every individual. In such a society, there is no monetary system. This is highly theoretical though -- I do not think there will ever be anyone who puts it to practice, let alone does so successfully.

Socialism does not have such a goal, unless it is being used as a gateway towards communism.


Goal is irrelevant. Means is the only thing that matters. The two are the same in all practical aspects in history.
Member
Posts: 13,726
Joined: Apr 12 2013
Gold: 70.66
Jun 18 2017 02:29pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Jun 18 2017 04:17pm)
Goal is irrelevant. Means is the only thing that matters. The two are the same in all practical aspects in history.



Thank You!
Member
Posts: 104,572
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,485.00
Jun 18 2017 02:52pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 18 2017 12:03pm)
ok this is really really the last time i address you if you fail again to understand what i'm saying. your track record thusfar has been terrible.

This is specifically what i'm talking about, i'll make it painfully simple, and you can either address this specifically or i'm just going to ignore the rest of your posts.

In 20 years, automation will have gotten to the point that a large number of middle aged people from your generation will be stuck in limbo. They will be unskilled labor, and will have no prospect for employment to fill their retirement quota for the last 10-20 years of their lives. These people will be approx 50-60 years old, and they will create a massive welfare crisis and housing crisis that will likely continue to be a burden until they die out.

What i'm not speaking about (for your reference)

the issues millennials will face finding unskilled labor work, by the time they in trouble we'll have it figured out (because the above will happen). much like the historical examples you so fervently provide, that every person learned about in middle school, we will reach equilibrium. There's just one problem, every single one of those examples you posted caused problems. every one of them caused large groups of people, whole communities and regions to suffer. This time it will be worse, on a bigger scale. and the factors that allowed those historical examples to reach equilibrium relatively quickly are no longer in play. I can give you a run down to explain that if you're confused about it, but that's only if you actually acknowledge what i'm speaking about instead of strawmanning me with another childish historical example i already know about. the problem here at play is that i know the historical examples, how they're different, and the modern issues a play. You on the other hand only know the historical examples, you know fuckall about what's happening.

me prediction is you'll pull the old man card and just chalk up this to generational differences and still be too lazy to actually even attempt to understand what i'm talking about. so far you have just strawmaned. lets be honest, you didnt even read my posts in the thread before jumping in.

@lance, i'll hit u back later




Sounds to me like a little kid, with issues with older folks.
The same shyt you're making a living at, my generation invented...son.


You need a big bite out of a reality cookie. ^^


But, it doesn't "bother me" you'll learn in good time. That's one constant in this world. Everyone learns, sooner or later. The smarter ones, learn sooner, the rest, well they spend a lot of time...angry. :)
Member
Posts: 63,033
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Jun 18 2017 03:02pm
Interesting take on the subject, with the prediction that automation and improved technology will increase employment availability to an excessive level.


Source: http://scaruffi.com/singular/sin114.html
Quote (Piero Scaruffi)
Hyper-employment

The media are full of stories about how machines will automate most of today's jobs. Many conclude that machines will cause massive unemployment. I suspect that the truth is closer to the exact opposite conclusion: that technology will lead to hyper-employment (no unemployment and more than one job per person), and hyper-employment will cause a the global catastrophe similar to and possibly including hyperinflation, with consequences that we can't imagine.
Many of the jobs that existed in 1900 had been automated by 1960. Today most of us have jobs that didn't exist in 1900. Therefore the fact that tasks will be automated by machines is nothing new. It would be a scary sign of technological decline if it didn't happen. Despite all the jobs that were automated between 1900 and my birth, i wasn't born into a world of massive unemployment. On the contrary, i was born in a world that offer much better and better paid jobs than the jobs that had been available to my grandfather.

So the real question is whether in the near future the percentage of jobs that will be automated is rought the same, less or more the percentage of jobs that were automated in the past; and whether the new jobs created by this future automation will match the new jobs created by automation in the past. For example, the world will need a lot more engineers to build, program and maintain millions of software and hardware robots. A 2016 study by Robert Atkinson and John Wu "False Alarmism: Technological Disruption and the U.S Labor Market, 1850-2015" doesn't show any major deviation from the past... so far.

I certainly wish that jobs like plumber, electrician, etc were automated. Alas, i suspect that the world will need a lot more of them, not fewer, in the next 25 years.

Personally, i think that, as it is often the case, the media tend to look in the wrong direction. Machines that replace human jobs are nothing new. Machines to which you can outsource part of a job are, instead, something really new. These machines allow you to outsource not just one job but many, as many as you can, and desire to, manage. I suspect that in the near future many people will have two or three or 25 or 2,000 jobs, thanks to tools that will allow us to massively multitask. In that case, unemployment will de facto become negative: more than one job per person, even for the very old and the very young. A 90-year-old man will be able to carry out the activities of a 20-year-old and in fact the activities of many young men. Energy and health will not be obstacles anymore. A 5-year-old will be able to generate money by using bots to make and market something.

My prediction is therefore exactly the opposite of the most popular "doom and gloom" predictions: the global threat to social stability of the 21st century will be hyper-employment.

We may already be living in that age. Most of us work way more than 8 hours/day. We see studies about employment all the time, but those count only traditional work, the kind of work that will disappear. I'd like to see a study about the number of hours worked per capita. I suspect that number is going up. Automation is creating so much work that each person can work a lot more than in the past, potentially 16 hours a day, potentially 24 hours a day: you'll have a swarm of bots working for you even when you sleep. We forgot that, in medieval times, people worked only when they wanted, and some worked only six months a year. In the last century it was common in Italy to have a lengthy breakfast, a 3-hour lunch break and play bocce or cards in the evening before dinner. Juliet Schor in "The Overworked American" (1992), using a variety of historical studies, estimated that in the 13th century an adult male peasant in Britain worked 1620 hours compared with 1980 hours worked between 1400 and 1600 by an adult male farmer or miner and compared with 1949 hours worked in 1987 by the average worker in the USA. The Bureau of Labor Statistics report of 2000 showed that more than 25 million Americans (20.5% of the total workforce) worked at least 49 hours a week. OECD maintains statistics about the average annual hours actually worked per worker that show a 2% decline between 2000 and 2015 in the USA (from 1836 hours to 1790), but these statistics made in the age of the "net economy" can be misleading. They don't count all the independent additional income made by many of us on the Internet, and certainly don't count all the work made for free by the majority of Internet users when they supply content to social media. Ian Bogost in the Atlantic magazine argued that we're already hyperemployed, except that we mostly work for free, providing Internet companies the content that they monetize (for themselves). Until now we were working multiple jobs without even knowing that we were doing so, but we will soon become more and more aware that our leisure activities are sold as commercial goods by some corporations.

In 1930 the economist John Maynard Keynes wrote the essay "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" in which he argued that future generations would soon be able to replace work with leisure thanks to widespread wealth and surplus. "I predict that both of the two opposed errors of pessimism which now make so much noise in the world will be proved wrong in our own time-the pessimism of the revolutionaries who think that things are so bad that nothing can save us but violent change, and the pessimism of the reactionaries who consider the balance of our economic and social life so precarious that we must risk no experiments." He was wrong on human psychology though: people's preferred form of entertainment is not poetry, nor painting, nor music, but making money. We, turned into hyper-employed workers by swarms of bots, will use our "leisure time" to make more and more money, selling our products to people who are making more and more money selling their things to people who are making more and more money selling their...
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1141516171819Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll