[Dilbert San Diego]

I really wonder about issues such as this.

We can beat up on Bill Gates, have at it.

But, what about the larger issues? Will people displaced by automation have some kind of gainful employment, above subsistence level?

I know history teaches us that we saw a huge decline in people involved in farming in this country, as former farm workers migrated to cities and found jobs. As farming became more mechanized there was less need for human labor. And those people found low skilled jobs in cities.

I know I’m oversimplifying but hope others can add to this discussion about what will displaced workers do; what sorts of jobs will they do, and who will be paying their paychecks to do that work? It’s not clear to me that displaced fast food or warehouse type workers, will easily find other employment in today’s world.

Any thoughts???

[bert]

I morn the lost type writer manufacturing jobs. The makers of ribbons alone who lost their jobs makes me weep.

Then there are the millions of underpaid though employed women who beavered everyday creating the reams and reams of memos and invoices and statements and letters. Their jobs are all gone.

Tragedy struck the home of cassandra white when she was laid off from her typist job. She was the sole support of her aging father who suffered from mental illness after he lost his job as buggy whip maker. It's just terrible, terrible, terrible

[SoCal Pubbie]

This topic has been discussed around here before. It’s a good one. I for one am worried about what the future may bring in this regard. Not everyone is cut out to be an engineer, doctor, college professor, or artist. As far as that goes, a lot of those functions may also be replaced by machines in the fairly near future.

This is why you see some people discussing the possibility of the government paying a minimum “living wage” regardless of whether you work or not, because it may simply be impossible to employ enough people to keep society from collapsing. An interesting thought in any case.

[cssGA30005]

Good points.

but I don't think we will have any discussion here because people hear are more interested in beating up billGates justifiably.

[PeterPrinciple]

Any thoughts???

---

The Invisible Hand?

No body likes the concept of the Invisible Hand. The answer to your question could be free markets, which are scary and unknown but work in the long term.

Or centralized govt control, which make us feel empowered but don’t work, which I think is answer you are looking for?

Now having said that, neither choice works perfectly, but what has history shown us?

[Crucial]

Capitalism requires adaption. It’s benefits to society are well worth the price of that inconvenience and lack of certainty in the job market although it is tough on people. The price of rampant socialism is much tougher on all of us.

[PGR88]

What's the difference between a job in 2017 that can be automated and textile weavers in the early 19th century replaced by machine looms, or livery operators, horse groomers, and teamsters reduced by automobiles？?

[unlearner]

Consider the following as my two cents and a bit of thinking out loud. It is meant more as a point of discussion and idea brainstorming than advocacy.

Intellectual property rights reform is needed to address the coming glut of displaced workers due to rapid technological change.

Keep in mind that intellectual property rights are a legal construct and not part of the principle of ownership that exists under natural law. Therefore citizens, having forfeited a subset of natural rights under such laws, are rightfully entitled to benefit directly from the innovations that are protected by such laws.

Reduce patent protection on software to the 5-10 year range. Companies can either do that or keep their software a trade secret. (Can’t do both. If it is commercialized while it is a trade secret, it cannot later be patented.) Require software protected by patents to become fully open source (including comments and supporting documentation) after the patent expires. Innovations to such software can also be patented and cannot incorporate open source software into the patent. (In other words, you can patent a plugin or extension but cannot patent a forked version of the open source code.)

Either heavily tax all patented products or pay the owners (i.e. innovators) a hefty purchase price to nationalize them. Use the taxes, royalties, and fines for infringement collected to subsidize and retrain displaced workers (or any other “entitlement” programs that continue to exist). Penalize other nations that do not enforce the treaties they’ve entered into.

I have written in the past that the idea of a universal basic income is not intrinsically a Socialist / Communist concept. The usual proposal may be socialistic, but it does not have to be. While I am not sure a UBI is a good idea, and I am not an advocate of such, I think it should be within the realm of debate among conservatives. To me the conservative position on government subsidies and “hand outs” should be that all citizens are treated equally. This would necessitate the end of means testing, for example. If anyone gets subsidized food, EVERYONE (i.e. citizens) should get subsidized food. If anyone gets subsidized housing, EVERYONE (i.e. citizens) should get subsidized housing. Etc.

If we continue to tax income, it should be a flat percentage for EVERYONE, i.e. for ALL income earners, regardless of citizenship status.

Companies could be required to share a certain amount of ownership with employees. So when companies innovate or buy innovations that displace workers, those workers benefit from the increased profitability of the companies.

[BwanaNdege]

“When the Computer Wore a Skirt:” Langley’s Human Computers 1935-1970

"Before the development of electronic computers, the term “computer” referred to people, not machines. It was a job title, designating someone who performed mathematical equations and calculations by hand. Over the next thirty years, hundreds of women, most with degrees in math or other sciences would join those first five computers at Langley. Tucker herself helped recruit many of them, traveling to universities and women’s colleges across the South. By 1946, as the overall supervisor for Computing, Tucker presided over a vastly expanded department that had trained about 400 women and placed them in sections across the facility. Reading, calculating and plotting data from tests in Langley’s wind tunnels and research divisions, human computers played an integral role in both aeronautical and aerospace research at the lab from the mid-1930s into the 1970s, helping it keep pace with the high output demanded by World War II and the early space race. Along with their contribution to the field, Langley’s computers also stood out for another reason: they were all women. "

[Ozark Tom]

Set up a stock provision such that workers displaced by robotics have a stake in the companies success from use of robotics. A share based on the robotics increase in productivity for the company, an increase in profits.