Posted on 01/15/2013 9:35:42 AM PST by ksen
For most of modern history, two-thirds of the income of most rich nations has gone to pay salaries and wages for people who work, while one-third has gone to pay dividends, capital gains, interest, rent, etc. to the people who own capital. This two-thirds/one-third division was so stable that people began to believe it would last forever. But in the past ten years, something has changed. Labor's share of income has steadily declined, falling by several percentage points since 2000. It now sits at around 60% or lower. The fall of labor income, and the rise of capital income, has contributed to America's growing inequality.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
You’re using the same argument that’s always been used and it’s incorrect. God forbid a checkout clerk get replaced with an automated system. What would the clerk do? Consider farming. There was a time when half the population farmed. Now it’s less that 2% because of machines and technology. It’s accurate to say that “half the jobs were lost” to farming machines. But it wasn’t a bad thing. Quite the contrary.
This article comes at the question from the idiotic “income equality” point of view. It’s a joke. Bring on the robots!
You raise good points. But there is some complexity here that should also be weighed.
In 1700, how many people sat around and did nothing? Only the aristocracy — a very small percentage of the population. Everyone else worked and produced, or else they died. That’s just the way it was, whether anyone liked it or not.
Look at our world now. How many people in America sit around and do nothing? Quite a few — they may want to work, but work can be hard to find. A thread earlier today claimed that the real unemployment rate was close to 30%. That’s a lot of people who are not working — and not dying either.
As there is more automation, there will be greater possibility for people to contribute nothing — and you know we won’t let them starve. What economic system has a foolproof method of providing to everyone what they “need” even if they do not work? Socialism.
As automation increases, as labor is less needed, then the general societal trend toward Bigger Government, more socialism, and less respect for property will grow. I don’t like it. You don’t like it. But we need to see the very real danger in this social trend.
Sure, people can try to “protect themselves”, but the REAL danger is ... they won’t have to. They will expect to be taken care of, and they will be.
I think you misread my point because I'm not arguing that technological advancement is inherently bad or should stop. What I am arguing about is that we as a society need to decide if we should be doing something to help those displaced adapt to the new marketplace.
Not everyone is equipped to be a robotic engineer or handle the math for professions that rely heavily on math. As the return on labor diminishes and the return on capital rises there should be a way to open up opportunities that allow more and more people to become owners of capital.
People need to protect themselves, not expect the world to help them.
I'd rather have a society that is a little less stark or socially darwin. You may disagree but that's why we have political debates.
Better yet, learn how to fix the robots. Tech support is a growing field, and not just in India.
LOL! Yeah, all those peasants... what will we (us important people) do with them when we don’t need them for factory production?
This conversation has never gotten on a sensible start. Labor reduction in factories will naturally lead to wonderful new opportunities just as farm mechanization did.
...If the ‘important people’ don’t screw things up too much with their ‘smart’ attempts to interfere.
Actually you are hitting at a strawman because I'm not using that argument at all. I agree to bring on the robots. But I also agree that something should be done to help workers adapt to their changing situation in order to help them take advantage of the new opportunities that will arise.
you and me both!
I'm all for automation of every labor saving task possible, but yes, there are consequences. For starters, what to do with all of the people who are put out of work or otherwise made obsolete? While some may find a niche in the new order of things, most will end up on the wrong side of the Player Piano river. There are more non-skilled people than there are skilled, and the former won't simply die willingly. Some say that the FEMA camps have been built to house Tea Party types, but I suspect that the useful idiots and unemployable eaters will be the first to rounded up, despite having served as voting tools for the tyrant who orders the genocide.
The bigger factor is the economic one of supply and demand. People without incomes cannot consume unless the government provides for them, but the government has already run out of money and is running out of producers to tax. Automation reduces the numbers needed for production. At some point robotics will be self regenerative and there will be little need for human intervention and upkeep. At that point, who is the consumer? If robots can do everything and humans are no longer needed, then how do humans pay for the goods and services that robots provide?
What economic system has been created to replace the barter/monetary system?
I don't know the answer, but God I love an egg cream.
We need to figure out how The Federation managed it. ;)
There is that possibility. I’ve raised it in discussions on 3D printers and even neardly discussion on their conceptual forebears the replicator. I call it Judge Dredd world, part of the back story of the Judge Dredd comics is that automation has gotten to the point that people are by and large unnecessary, the vast majority of the work in the world is done by machines, unemployment is in the 90% range, school teaches hobbies because they know the kids will never hold jobs.
It is possible. Of course in the end there’s really not much we can do about it. The one proviso is that prior to this all big technological advances have resulted in raising the standard of living. It’s possible the current run in technology is breaking that trend. In the end though either way the survival method is the same, if your job is projected to be done by robots soon, learn another.
You are in favor of social darwinism? Because that’s what you’re advocating.
Should we just let the displaced workers eat cake while they are trying to adapt on their own too?
Well, I hope so.
I am sure there are great things just around the corner -- things I cannot even imagine. With enough automation, people may be freed up to achieve those new things and live in a world much better than the world we have now.
But is this inevitable? Today, I have enough food, enough cars, a big enough house, and more "stuff" than I really need. What will my life look like when we are all freed up to do more great stuff? Well, as I stated earlier, "I can't even imagine".
I can take it on faith that such a better world is around the corner, but what if I've pretty much achieved something like the max in material wealth -- I'm not Trump, but practically speaking I don't have enough hours in the day to enjoy to leisure activities that are currently available to me.
If there is no bright shining better world around the corner ... then my material needs will be met by robots, while I sit at home enjoying my leisure, while "society" provides for my needs.
I think we're heading for a Socialist Utopia. And how do you feel about that? The feral crowd in the inner city may be ahead of the curve on this one.
Call it whatever you want. But when people have “helped” like you’re advocating, it’s always been a disaster. I know it doesn’t FEEL right. God Almighty. Am I on the wrong site or something?
We as a society don’t make that decision. The workers do. We can, and have, setup methods for people to learn new job skills. But the worker has to make the decision to use them. Many don’t, they demand the world halt, and they lose.
You don’t have to be a robotic engineer to run the robots. The modern world of technology puts nice UIs in front of everything. Most folks that program computers don’t actually know how to program computers, they’re using high level programming languages that the compiler changes to actually program the computer. Same thing with modern robots, just like your DVR, you figure out the language.
Doesn’t matter what society wants, in the end the people need to take responsibility for themselves and put knowledge in their brains. Because it’s their brains and their lives.
If they want to be in support they need to learn empathy. The modern era of call center support is much more oriented towards making people feel better than solving the problem. Seen it where I work, and it kind of scares me, the technical knowledge of our support staff has dropped dramatically in the last 4 years (when we changed directions), and our customer satisfaction level has sky rocketed.
Nonsense.
Go back to farming because it’s a good example. Half the people lost their job. Who was there to save them, the way you’re advocating? Nobody. What happened? Economic boom and an increase in living standards for everyone.
Contrast that with the New Deal. Here’s a great article right here on FR, though I doubt you’ll be bothered to read it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1048166/posts
People wonder why socialism hasn’t died. It’s because people like you “want to help”. Stop with the help already.
“They will expect to be taken care of,and they will be.”
That will only be true as long as elites need their votes.
After the votes aren’t needed,death camps.
With robots doing all the work, aren't we all going to be "useless eaters"? Except the political class, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.