Technological unemployment

[Rainbow Dash]

First, for those of you unaware of what the term "Technological Unemployment" means, here.


Unemployment caused by technological advances. This includes machines and software substituting for human labor, advances in efficiency negating the need for friction-based jobs, and increased data availability undermining professions that rely on information asymmetry.

Anyway


OK has anybody conciderd when they power up their I-pad or kindel or when they do their banking on line or boast about the saveings when shopping on line they are doing their part to kill jobs the paper ,publishing industry etc. are being hit extreamly hard by the e-reader. Banks cant wait till enough people no longer use their teller service to lay off workers. just a few of my thoughts on the job issue

I was reading the cbc today, and found this comment, on an article about our shrinking job market. It's a shining example of people who just don't get it. On this planet we actually have people who think we should stop using new technologies, and go back to wasting resources unnecessarily on things like books, bank receipts, and so on, so that we can bring back jobs that are now totally unneeded.

There's this bizarre idea that a lot of people hold (I suspect a lot of people here hold it too!) where they believe that we need to be employed, and that not having as close to 100% employment as possible, is a bad thing. This is especially funny coming from libertarians (hi king) who value freedom above all else. A lot of these people actually believe that freedom from private dictatorships (companies, employment) is a bad thing, and also believe that Capitalism which forces them to submit to a private dictatorship gives them a lot of freedom.

If you don't understand the extent to which automation has displaced people in developed nations, I want you to take a look around your room. That computer you're using right now, as well as all the other components, such as your mouse and keyboard, were probably made almost entirely, if not entirely, by machines. The list goes on, your car, your mp3 player, your water battle, your furniture. Most of the food you eat (at least that which comes out of industrialized nations) came from an industry which, thanks to technology, has gone from employing nearly 90% of the population, to less than one percent.


There are over 285,000,000 people living in the United States. Of that population, less than 1% claim farming as an occupation (and about 2% actually live on farms). There are only about 960,000 persons claiming farming as their principal occupation and a similar number of farmers claiming some other principal occupation. The number of farms in the U.S. stands at about two million.

Source: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/demographics.html

Most market economists have dismissed this trend of technological unemployment, because up until now, the workers who were displaced by machines had been absorbed into another industry. Today, most Americans work in the service industry. They too are now being threatened by automation. We're seeing automated restaurants, grocery stores, and so on, beginning to emerge.

While it's totally possible another industry will emerge again, it's only a matter of time before the same thing occurs again, and considering our population is still growing rapidly, it probably won't take very long before the system becomes totally unsustainable.

Or maybe we'll just euthanized by robots or something :allears:

Anyway, the jobs aren't coming back, and yet again our centuries old system is showing it's age.

[Limited]

Without technology we would still be cavemen bashing two rocks together, or more probable - dead.

I agree that the last 20 years or so has seen a shift in employment. Its changing from face to face engagement (buying an item in a shop) to clicking away on a mouse to order. An example of that today - I purchased Assassins Creed Brotherhood for Xbox...3 minutes after my payment went through to the company they had packaged my order ready to be handed over to royal mail. That type of efficiency wouldnt be possible without computers.

Sel, I think you'll realise the job market has changed, not rapidly decreased. Robots build cars now? Who builds the robots? Who services the robots, who checks the products that leave the factory line are 100% satisfactory?

Anything is ordering on the web? Like buying games? Okay who delivers them to your house? Who creates the websites that allow you to place an order?

The answer to all of these is people. We are not a forgotten commodity.

Machines will never replace everything we do, even online shops will never replace every transaction made...why you ask? Some people just love the sheer fact they can walk into a store and feel the image. You can try on that new top to make sure it fits you. You can ask the clerk for bespoke advice regarding what you are buying. People will always want that human touch to things, and that is why I do not worry about technological unemployment.

The problem lies more with births and deaths ratio and how people are living longer. Global population is on a steady

[=sw=warlord]

People have been bitching about machines taking their jobs since the first wheel.
I remember studying about how people moaned because print presses were making the process of creating books far faster than people could write.
This is no different today just a different department that's making the same old changes.

[Rainbow Dash]

Robots build cars now? Who builds the robots?

I'm just gonna cut this part out and separate it from my next bit, because I'd like to point out that there is definitely still some human interaction in the construction of robotic devices. However, most robots are built by machines, it's not like all the parts are made from hand or something.



Sel, I think you'll realise the job market has changed, not rapidly decreased. Who services the robots, who checks the products that leave the factory line are 100% satisfactory?

Except it has rapidly decreased. Sure, you definitely need people to service the robots, and perform quality control, but how many people does this really take? I guarantee you it's pretty far from 7 billion people.



Anything is ordering on the web? Like buying games? Okay who delivers them to your house? Who creates the websites that allow you to place an order?

Games are a terrible example, since there is literally next to no reason to continue wasting resources producing physical media, and then delivering a physical good like that, when it can be transferred in a few minutes, to a few hours, over an internet connection, with no resources wastefully used.

As for the delivery, I would like to point out we have robotic cars, capable of automated driving, we have automated trains, planes have had autopilot for a while, but still require people. Currently it's still preferable to have people overseeing these machines, since they are still in their relative infancy, and planes still require people to perform take offs and landings, but this doesn't mean they will be like this forever. Technology will improve, and continue to relieve people of some jobs we currently see as irreplaceable.

As for websites, sure, it takes people, but again, as with the current state of delivery, it doesn't take very many, and again it will continue to go down even further as technology continues to assist in the development of websites.



The answer to all of these is people. We are not a forgotten commodity.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that if we wanted to, we could make all jobs disappear tomorrow, obviously in our current state people are still required for plenty of jobs. I'm simply pointing out a trend that has been happening for all of recorded history, and that there are a few billion current jobs that are technically unneccessary.



People will always want that human touch to things, and that is why I do not worry about technological unemployment.

Do you care about the human touch of the delivery man coming to your door, asking you for your signature, then leaving? Do you care about the human touch in the manufacturing of your toilet seat? Do you care about the human touch in doing your home plumbing? Do you care enough about the human touch that you are adamant about never using an automated checkout in a grocery store?

Even if you are (I doubt it), not everyone else is, as can be witnessed by the sheer amount of people who shop online, use automated checkouts, and who use machine manufactured goods.



The problem lies more with births and deaths ratio and how people are living longer.

If in our system, having longer lives, and a lower death ratio is a problem, then that's just another obvious sign that it's obsolete.



This is no different today just a different department that's making the same old changes.

It's different. Not only do we have far more people, we also have no idea what to force most of them to do instead, now that the service industry, one of the last vestiges of a sector capable of mass employment, is coming under the threat of automation. Whereas previously there were still loads of places for people to be absorbed into.

[=sw=warlord]

Read my whole comment.
This has been going on for ages and for as long as advancements are made new markets have opened for new kinds of jobs.
People were worried computers would make humans obsolete and now there's thousands of opportunities because of computers.

[Rainbow Dash]

This has been going on for ages and for as long as advancements are made new markets have opened for new kinds of jobs.


I said exactly this in my first post.



People were worried computers would make humans obsolete and now there's thousands of opportunities because of computers.

Sure, computers have created plenty of job opportunities, but you're not keeping in mind that they have also ended many more, or that the jobs they have created generally require a rather high level of expertise, that is almost non existent in most people over 35.

[Zeph]

Takes far more people to make an e-reader than a printing press.

Despite taking more people, jobs are endangered simply because higher tech jobs require higher education.

The whole idea of 'technological unemployment' is classic misdirection from the flawed system of academia.

[Limited]

I work for two reasons, the majority of it is for income, so I can afford to live, have a bed to sleep in and to enjoy life. The other reason is to keep myself occupied. Anyone that has a full time job, and then goes to unemployment will after a few weeks crave for something to do. Crave for some direction and managing.

Theres a difference between machine made and robot made. How are iPhones made? Okay probably part of the process is robot made (CPU, GPU etc) however a lot of the production is hand made.

Maybe where you live everyone is a dick to each other, and thats why you dislike the personal touch. Until you experience a traditional English village, you will never fully understand what I mean.

Look at McLaren company, cars are 100% hand made.

[Rainbow Dash]

But Zeph! If people were educated, Capitalism wouldn't last more than a minute, since people would realize that a system which requires constant consumption, and therefore growth, in order to function, is a fucking ludicrous idea!

[PopeAK49]

If it wasn't for IT, most jobs wouldn't be possible today. I know pleanty of companies that would let their employees take certain computer courses. Jobs offer training for a reason. Maybe its also why many degrees require a few Computer courses.

Anyways, Its funny to pull out my Asus Transformer during class lectures and see everyone using pen and paper. My first true step toward efficiency other than using the hand blow drier over paper towels.


But Zeph! If people were educated, Capitalism wouldn't last more than a minute, since people would realize that a system which requires constant consumption, and therefore growth, in order to function, is a fucking ludicrous idea!
You mean if people would take some god damn economics courses or actually retain that information. :eng101:

[Rainbow Dash]

I work for two reasons, the majority of it is for income, so I can afford to live, have a bed to sleep in and to enjoy life. The other reason is to keep myself occupied. Anyone that has a full time job, and then goes to unemployment will after a few weeks crave for something to do. Crave for some direction and managing.

The labor for income game is obsolete, so I'm not going to respond to anything about how you can buy things with money, that's irrelevant. Anyway, so you're telling me that if you didn't have someone telling you what to do all the time, you'd be incapable of finding things to do? You're not making a very good argument here for why employment is a good thing for people lol.



Theres a difference between machine made and robot made. How are iPhones made? Okay probably part of the process is robot made (CPU, GPU etc) however a lot of the production is hand made.

First off what? Machines are robots, and robots are machines. Also as for your example, if I go and make a pencil without the use of ANY technology, it's going to take me forever to make a pencil, whereas a machine can make millions in the same amount of time. Just because people are currently being allocated to these tasks, does not somehow mean they are required.



Maybe where you live everyone is a dick to each other, and thats why you dislike the personal touch. Until you experience a traditional English village, you will never fully understand what I mean.

For starts, no, they're not. Second, where did I say I disliked human touch? Third, I live in fucking Ottawa bro, we're pretty rural as far as cities go, and I've spent a vast majority of my time in small villages where other members of my family live, so I assume I have your approval on my level of understanding what you mean.



Look at McLaren company, cars are 100% hand made.

This is like saying that because I built my computer it's 100% handmade.

You mean to tell me they go out and extract the minerals, by hand, without shovels, or any tools. Then they go and process the minerals into the parts they need for their car, by hand, without any tools whatsoever, and so on? That's impressive, and a total waste of human time.



You mean if people would take some god damn economics courses or actually retain that information. http://www.modacity.net/forums/styles/smilies/extra/eng101.gif

I took an economics course in high school. Not once did it actually talk about anything other than rules Capitalism set out, and never touched on it's flaws, or any other system. I find it pretty doubtful that there's many (if any) courses that are very different from that.

[Limited]

Sel, your inconsistent with your argument. You keep mentioning robots are making out jobs obsolete. Like I have already mentioned a machine is not a robot. A robot however, is a machine.

Machine: An apparatus using or applying mechanical power to perform a particular task.
Robot: A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically.

Your basically saying, robots are now doing everything. No they arent.

So living in a small village you will understand that everyone knows everyone, it is the true meaning of a community. You go to the shop to see your friend (owner), you say hello, ask how the kids are. Maybe he asks you to drop a letter off to a house on the way home. That is human interaction, people need that in some form.

[=sw=warlord]

May I just point out that Life itself consists of machines, chemical processes and the such.
If you look at it that way machines have always been the ones performing tasks, only now they're not all biological.

[Rainbow Dash]

Like I have already mentioned a machine is not a robot. A robot however, is a machine.


woops, you're right, I sped through that and didn't read that part of my post.



Your basically saying, robots are now doing everything. No they arent.

Uhh, what, I'm not. Read my posts again.



human interaction, people need that in some form.

I won't argue with that, if you're a kid and you're never touched ever, you will die. Regardless of whether you're fed, watered, etc. You seem to have this misconception, that if we eliminated the requirement our system has for everyone to be as employed as possible, we would suddenly not have human interaction. That is not what anyone here is suggesting, and while it is a possibility, it's a ridiculously unlikely one.

ps king I am f5ing like crazy here bbe

[king_nothing_]

There's this bizarre idea that a lot of people hold (I suspect a lot of people here hold it too!) where they believe that we need to be employed, and that not having as close to 100% employment as possible, is a bad thing. This is especially funny coming from libertarians (hi king) who value freedom above all else. A lot of these people actually believe that freedom from private dictatorships (companies, employment) is a bad thing, and also believe that Capitalism which forces them to submit to a private dictatorship gives them a lot of freedom.
Who is arguing we need ~100% employment? If you're under the assumption that that is a libertarian ideal, you're confused. The clamor for full employment by any means is a socialist plank. They are the ones who make it their goal. Libertarians' primary concern is maximizing production. Though something near full employment could be the by-product of such a goal, it is not the goal itself. Maximizing production is the end. Employment is the means. Constant 100% employment is not realistic even in an ideal free market, because it would constantly be reconfiguring itself in order to maximize production and efficiency.

Your "capitalism forces them to submit" and "private dictatorship" nonsense is not really worth responding to. There is no "force" in a true free market; any claim of such is a perversion of the word for effect.

Ask yourself which side of this argument is actually advocating the use of force.

[PopeAK49]

College is WAY different from high school. I highly doubt a college level professor teaching microeconomics and macroeconomics is the same as a high school teacher teaching you basic economics. But I'll let you know how it goes next fall semester when I'm required to take those two courses. The professors I have so far enjoy individuals who are open minded about the subject.

[Cortexian]

I for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

[=sw=warlord]

You called me, Freelancer?

[Rainbow Dash]

Who is arguing we need ~100% employment?

What is almost always required in our Capitalist society to allow people to support themselves in it? Employment. When we don't have high employment, with decent wages, people have a difficult time supporting themselves.



If you're under the assumption that that is a libertarian ideal, you're confused.

Don't worry, I don't think it's a libertarian value, I have however come across several libertarians who hold the view that as high as possible employment is generally a good thing, because they believe it means people will be able to support themselves because they have jobs.



The clamor for full employment by any means is a socialist plank. They are the ones who make it their goal.

*looks at libertarian socialism*

You're painting an entire group with one brush.



Libertarians' primary concern is maximizing production.


That's odd, I thought their primary concern was liberty.


Libertarianism generally refers to the group of political philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) which emphasize freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will), individual liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty), and voluntary association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association).



Your "capitalism forces them to submit" and "private dictatorship" nonsense is not really worth responding to. There is no "force" in a true free market; any claim of such is a perversion of the word for effect.

Whether you like it or not, companies are equatable to private dictatorships. You go there, you get told what to to, you do it, or you don't receive the means to support yourself.

As for the free market system, answer these questions for me.

Will people in it have to submit to jobs they do not want to do to survive in it's system, when it is operating normally?

How will it deal with Capitalism's infinite growth paradigm, aside from collapsing when further growth becomes impossible?

How can you seriously advocate a market economy, which is based around supply and demmand, when we now have digital goods which have infinite supply?



Ask yourself which side of this argument is actually advocating the use of force.

You have a real issue with projected dualities. Every time you post, you always have this presumption that anyone who is against the "free market", must be against freedom itself, or that everyone who does not support Capitalism, is a Socialist.

I have told you this time and time again, I am not a socialist, nor am I against freedom (heck I'd probably qualify as a libertarian), I support The Venus Project's Resource Based Economic model.

[DarkHalo003]

I don't know if you forgot outsourcing, but a primary reason for a weak job market is that companies/corporations go elsewhere than Western civilizations for cheaper labor.

[Maniac]

zDZFcDGpL4U

[TVTyrant]

Didnt watch video, just watched your sig for a few minutes

/thread

[Rainbow Dash]

Didnt watch video, just watched your sig for a few minutes

/thread

Congratulations you're just as ignorant as you were when you entered the thread?

good job!

[TVTyrant]

Congratulations you're just as ignorant as you were when you entered the thread?

good job!
Oh name calling. Thats cool and progressive of you. Congrats.

I read everything written up until that video, which I did not watch. I actually believe you are right on this, but you continue to act like an asshole any time anyone disagrees with you or tries to be funny in one of your threads. Than you start labeling people and so on and so forth. So yeah, other than reading for my own interest, I usually try my best to NOT comment on what you say. And I didnt. And you attacked me anyways. So go fuck yourself.

[Rainbow Dash]

I read everything written up until that video, which I did not watch. I actually believe you are right on this, but you continue to act like an asshole any time anyone disagrees with you or tries to be funny in one of your threads.

My response probably would have been different if you had given some indication that you didn't just walk into the thread and go, "hurr hurr tits distracted me from nollij".



I usually try my best to NOT comment on what you say. And I didnt. And you attacked me anyways.

Why? The exact problem here is that you didn't comment on what was being said, and instead made some totally irrelevant post?

[TVTyrant]

Why? The exact problem here is that you didn't comment on what was being said, and instead made some totally irrelevant post?
Because like every other person on the internet, I have learned you are not looking for a discussion. You're looking to shove your beliefs down the throats of others. Even when King trys to make an argument against you, you try to boil it down to semantics instead pf actually taking a moment to think about what hes saying and arguing against it. Your point about the purpose of the Libertarian party is exactly what I'm talking about. You know exactly what he meant. He was talking about an economic belief system. Instead, you chose to say "hurp durp not actually the definition of libertarians derf".

Tl;DR /too ranty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E

[Rainbow Dash]

Because like every other person on the internet, I have learned you are not looking for a discussion.

If I wasn't looking for a discussion, I wouldn't post these kinds of threads.



You're looking to shove your beliefs down the throats of others.

Beliefs? What fucking beliefs? Please, search through this thread for me and point out every belief I have presented as a fact.



Even when King trys to make an argument against you, you try to boil it down to semantics instead pf actually taking a moment to think about what hes saying and arguing against it.

:raise:



Your point about the purpose of the Libertarian party is exactly what I'm talking about. You know exactly what he meant. He was talking about an economic belief system. Instead, you chose to say "hurp durp not actually the definition of libertarians derf".


huh, who here is talking about a Libertarian party lol?

He was saying Libertarians are something they are not, and I corrected him? How awful?

[DarkHalo003]

It seems to me you only post these topics to convince people of your preference in government/economy that you gained via information you found fitting to be evidence to justify your preferences. Correct me if I'm wrong though, please.

[EX12693]

I'm just going to leave my 1.5 cents here:

Technology will always take jobs from other places, and as technology advances it will do that even more so. The very purpose of technology is to increase the efficiency of a certain task.
But from what I've seen, advances in technology (or anything else, really) will always be stunted while subservient to capital.

[Rainbow Dash]

It seems to me you only post these topics to convince people of your preference in government/economy

No, I post these topics to highlight the problems with our current centuries old system. I don't understand why some people seem to think that explaining to them why Capitalism is failing, and was always doomed to do so from it's conception because of many structual flaws it posesses, is somehow forcing my views on them. I have never told anyone they have to choose the solution I currently support, heck I've only posted it here once or twice, because before we can even discuss that, it is far more important that people first understand why we need a new system in the first place.

[Maniac]

You found that video interesting Sel?
(removed my tits for fear of distraction)

[Rainbow Dash]

You found that video interesting Sel?
(removed my tits for fear of distraction)

I've seen it a few times before. It's a great video that highlights a lot of issues with our current western education model.

[TVTyrant]

You found that video interesting Sel?
(removed my tits for fear of distraction)
Lol. No more flame wars over tits!

[Maniac]

I've seen it a few times before. It's a great video that highlights a lot of issues with our current western education model.
For sure it does.
I don't think it's very relevant to your thread, but i thought you would like it.

[n00b1n8R]

Feels good to be getting an education for an industry where my job can not be replaced by a machine and my skills will always be in demand :engineer:

[=sw=warlord]

For a moment there I thought you was going to say you was studying to be a prostitute but then I remembered about Japan.

[Rainbow Dash]

As for the free market system, answer these questions for me.

Will people in it have to submit to jobs they do not want to do to survive in it's system, when it is operating normally?

How will it deal with Capitalism's infinite growth paradigm, aside from collapsing when further growth becomes impossible?

How can you seriously advocate a market economy, which is based around supply and demmand, when we now have digital goods which have infinite supply?


Still waiting for you to answer these kingy poo :3

[El Lobo]

Weird sig man.

[TVTyrant]

Weird sig man.
Yeah. Creeps me right the fuck out.

[t3h m00kz]

too fucking weeaboo.

[n00b1n8R]

Can you even call ponies weeaboo?

[t3h m00kz]

it's not so much the fact that it's ponies as much as it's the fact that it's a horrible generic kawaii uguu style

that generic anime style is about as appealing to me as slapping my dick with crayfish

[nuttyyayap]

Oh I dunno man, I've heard that slapping your dick with crayfish is a rather pleasant experience! :iamafag:

[DarkHalo003]

Oh I dunno man, I've heard that slapping your dick with crayfish is a rather pleasant experience! :iamafag:
....WHAT!?

[t3h m00kz]

really now?

go try it out and get back to us with an enlightening story!

[Dozo]

Moe is Justice.

[ICEE]

Hey look for once I agree with sel about a thing--

Oh wait we're not talking about that anymore nevermind

Ponies or something right?

[Jelly]

Moe is Justice.

agreed