Quit your whining. This is a good thing people and it's an example of what makes capitalism great.
Read up on Joseph Schumpeter [newschool.edu], arguably the most brilliant economist to come out of Austria. One's inability to see that the move of IT labor offshore is a good thing is largely due to a failure of most people to understand Schumpeter.
Schumpeter's primary focus was on capitalism as a dynamic system. It continually evolves through creative destruction. There are countless examples of this phenom
Quit your whining. This is a good thing people and it's an example of what makes capitalism great.
Sure... if you subscribe to the theory that a class-based culture is a healthy thing.
If you've read this gentleman's writings, you'll glean that this isn't just another routine shift in employment - we're heading toward a watershed event, a singularity. In the past, as old industries became obsolete, the work force laid off from one profession got dumped into the "generic labor" pool... y'know, the Walmart greeter, etc. What Marshall Brain is arguing - quite insightfully - is that the "generic labor" pool itself will be obsolesced, which has never happened before. What happens when the only jobs are those that you need serious skill and training to perform? What happens to the 90% of the population who has no such skills and can't develop them?
Moreover, and even worse: People claim all the time that the economy has survived everything before it, and will adapt. But some trends, promoted by such shifts, have just continued to go in an unhealthy direction. One of them is the concentration of wealth: the increasing percentage of resources owned by a tiny fraction of society. Another is the shift in wealth from individuals to corporations - never before has the economy dealt with gargantuan bodies like AOL-Time-Warner.
The impact of these trends is unknown, and ominous.
I suspect that we're heading toward a two-class society, comprised of the working skilled and the unemployed masses. Already, these two groups exist and rarely interact, but the differences are growing more visible stark by the day.
You make some good points, but I think the main problem with Michael's article is the shear amount of crack that he is smoking. Yah! Lets give $25K to everyone in the country, so everyone can be really happy and have nice middle-class lifes. In the opium laced utopia that he is currently inhabiting that makes sense, but here on planet earth we have a thing called inflation.
So what happens when you pump $25K x 300M = 7.5 trillion dollars into the economy? Do you think that the relative value of money does n
What about work on the robot assembly line? Of course robots can be used on a simple assembly line, but who is going to build those robots. I think it would just be a continuous process of robot building, repairing, upgrading etc.
While skilled labor is always more desirable, I think there will be a need for armies of general labor for building millions upon millions of all different kinds of robots, some specialized, some general purpose. Eventually any particular industry may advance to the level of robot
What about work on the robot assembly line? Of course robots can be used on a simple assembly line, but who is going to build those robots. I think it would just be a continuous process of robot building, repairing, upgrading etc.
Robots in general production deployment are currently highly specialised. The human labour involved in building and repairing new robots cannot be carried out by todays robots.
But the human body as a repair and build machine is emminently replacable, given advances in joint cons
But the human body as a repair and build machine is emminently replacable, given advances in joint construction, tactile feedback, and limited AI. There is no technical reason that the humans who build todays robots cannot be replaced with more generally functional robots. This will happen.
Of course. Which leads to a new model or at least new training modules for an older model of robots. Every time you lay off a million people, you have to build another million robots (or something close to that). Who is
If you believe that intelligence is the factor which requires humans to be treated with "rights" then you are right.
Personally I don't think intelligence is that factor. For me it is sentience, the ability to experience qualia, like pain and indignity, pleasure and pride.
Robots can't do that and I contend that no artificial creation will ever do so, because it is in the realm of the permanently mysterious.
As a related aside, it is also the reason I treat animals with more respect than most meat-eaters I
Honestly, I don't see robots as being as big a deal as the transition from an agricultural to an industry society! As the previous poster said, in the last century the jobs that 90% of people had had FOR THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION went away in a couple of generations. Now THAT'S a watershed.
Also, rapid change erodes static classes, it doesn't save them. If what the jobs look like change every generation, you'll have a lot more social mobility between generations. Class is already an extremely fluid thing in America, in a way that they really wouldn't be considered "classes" by a 19th century Brit, and definitely not by an 18th century Javanese.
An average farmer could be trained to do manual work at the factory. Some training was needed, but not very much. With robots, there might not be (that's what the parent and Brain argue) any job for those 50% (or 90%) of the people, simply because even the new jobs could be performed by robots. And you can develop new robots as fast as you can invent new jobs.
If we want to understand transitions between social orders, we need to check what Marx and Engels wrote (and also how scientists in Soviet Union, esp
Hear, hear. The robot argument devolves to the myth that if we just had 100% employment, everything would be great. There are plenty of jobs out there, but no-one seems to want to be a grass-blade straightener at the going rate. How could regulating robots, or raising the minimum wage, help this?
What happens when the only jobs are those that you need serious skill and training to perform?
It's already happened. Did you miss that whole industrial revolution thing?
never before has the economy dealt with gargantuan bodies like AOL-Time-Warner.
Hasn't it? I think you need to brush up on your history.
Everyone always says "It's different this time", but in the end, it always turns out to be the same old thing, only a slightly different incarnation. The monster corporations will eventually collaps
"What happens to the 90% of the population who has no such skills and can't develop them?"
The literacy rate in the US is 97%. If you can read, you can learn, even without help from others.
For 97% of the population the only reason for not developing new skills is because of a choice not to.
Americans spend an average of 28hrs/wk watching television. I am sure that if they spend a fraction of that time undertaking some sort of training they will be able to acquire new skills. Yes, that is correct, in the
Americans spend an average of 28hrs/wk watching television. I am sure that if they spend a fraction of that time undertaking some sort of training they will be able to acquire new skills. Yes, that is correct, in the future you may have to watch television for less than 28 hours each week to be competitive in the job marketplace.
That's it! THAT is the answer! Simple: We buy everyone a TiVo, and it raises GDP enough to not only pull the country out of a slump, but launches a new golden era of propserity! It
Luddite gargabe. If there was a single watershed event, it was the Industrial Revolution in the UK. When we get more machines (read: technology) involved in the economy, we lengthen the structure of captial, and we can reach higher levels of production.
And not just quantity, but quality and type! If you don't like people building a better mousetrap, go be a dirt farmer running Windows XP. Don't drag me into your personal hell.
If you've read this gentleman's writings, you'll glean that this isn't just another routine shift in employment - we're heading toward a watershed event, a singularity. In the past, as old industries became obsolete, the work force laid off from one profession got dumped into the "generic labor" pool... y'know, the Walmart greeter, etc. What Marshall Brain is arguing - quite insightfully - is that the "generic labor" pool itself will be obsolesced, which has never happened before. What happens when the only
What happens when the only jobs are those that you need serious skill and training to perform? What happens to the 90% of the population who has no such skills and can't develop them?
Aha. Here's a proof by contradiction: one of the robot jobs is to educate people.
I suspect that we're heading toward a two-class society, comprised of the working skilled and the unemployed masses.
This won't happen--at least under the robot situation--because the unemployed masses will be greater than the working class. Under such a scenario, a revolution will result. Don't forget that larger numbers can overthrow minorities under any democracy-like system. The only reason it doesn't happen now is because the vast majority of people are middle class and not poor.
Adaptation is a painful process, as anyone who were forced to switch careers can attest. Even the so-called gradual shift in employment patterns can have dramatic changes to society. Look at what happened to cities when suburbanization happened. The trend of white flight took about 30 years, and until about 10 years ago most major cities (New York included) were in decrepit shape. A most extreme example of what happens when jobs leave and there is little to replace the lost jobs is the city of Lowell, M
What I see as the problem is not a mechanical problem, a political problem, or a social problem -- it is a moral problem. That is, in light of growing human misery, what is our response? It is to protect ourselves, even at cost to those who are in trouble, even at cost to justice itself. That is the wrong response, with its own parallel to the tragedy of the commons.
I do agree that what we're heading for is ominous. But I think that the book Hope's Edge gives an indication of what the successful respon
What happens to the 90% of the population who has no such skills and can't develop them?
We've been over this. They adapt, or die.
What's worse? Supporting millions of people who have nothing to contribute to the world on the backs of those who do, or forcing them to adapt or die?
Sorry, but there's a fatal flaw in the argument that we should keep these people around: they create more people. Sure, it may start off with 10 million unemployed. What happens when each of them have three children? That's
I suspect that we're heading toward a two-class society, comprised of the working skilled and the unemployed masses. Already, these two groups exist and rarely interact, but the differences are growing more visible stark by the day.
Have you ever known a truly classless system to exist?
It is simply impossible. Egalitarianism has been nothing but a disaster for western civilization, and it is slowly destroying other civilizations as well.
Needless to say, there will ALWAYS be classes. You have the leader
Now we come to the real crux of the problem. You are a Jew.
Ah, the folly of assumptions.
I'm not Jewish. My stepfather is Jewish, and I inherited his name, but that's about it. I was raised Catholic, and promptly broke with that tradition when I started thinking for myself.
My ancestry is mostly German and British, and I'm now an atheist. This is probably a far cry from what you imagined, and I'm pleased to disappoint you.
I suspect that we're heading toward a two-class society, comprised of the working skilled and the unemployed masses.
Nope. That's what everybody has thought every time this happens.
What will happen is that the large supply of unskilled laborers will produce a demand for them in the form of new jobs that couldn't have been done and wouldn't have been thought of, if there weren't such a large pool of laborers available.
Perhaps those of us who are educated will all be able to afford personal servants, such
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others.
-- Berry Kercheval
People will adapt (Score:-1, Redundant)
Read up on Joseph Schumpeter [newschool.edu], arguably the most brilliant economist to come out of Austria. One's inability to see that the move of IT labor offshore is a good thing is largely due to a failure of most people to understand Schumpeter.
Schumpeter's primary focus was on capitalism as a dynamic system. It continually evolves through creative destruction. There are countless examples of this phenom
Re:People will adapt (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure... if you subscribe to the theory that a class-based culture is a healthy thing.
If you've read this gentleman's writings, you'll glean that this isn't just another routine shift in employment - we're heading toward a watershed event, a singularity. In the past, as old industries became obsolete, the work force laid off from one profession got dumped into the "generic labor" pool... y'know, the Walmart greeter, etc. What Marshall Brain is arguing - quite insightfully - is that the "generic labor" pool itself will be obsolesced, which has never happened before. What happens when the only jobs are those that you need serious skill and training to perform? What happens to the 90% of the population who has no such skills and can't develop them?
Moreover, and even worse: People claim all the time that the economy has survived everything before it, and will adapt. But some trends, promoted by such shifts, have just continued to go in an unhealthy direction. One of them is the concentration of wealth: the increasing percentage of resources owned by a tiny fraction of society. Another is the shift in wealth from individuals to corporations - never before has the economy dealt with gargantuan bodies like AOL-Time-Warner.
The impact of these trends is unknown, and ominous.
I suspect that we're heading toward a two-class society, comprised of the working skilled and the unemployed masses. Already, these two groups exist and rarely interact, but the differences are growing more visible stark by the day.
- David Stein
Re:People will adapt (Score:2)
So what happens when you pump $25K x 300M = 7.5 trillion dollars into the economy? Do you think that the relative value of money does n
Re:People will adapt (Score:1)
While skilled labor is always more desirable, I think there will be a need for armies of general labor for building millions upon millions of all different kinds of robots, some specialized, some general purpose. Eventually any particular industry may advance to the level of robot
Re:People will adapt (Score:2)
Robots in general production deployment are currently highly specialised. The human labour involved in building and repairing new robots cannot be carried out by todays robots.
But the human body as a repair and build machine is emminently replacable, given advances in joint cons
Re:People will adapt (Score:3, Informative)
Of course. Which leads to a new model or at least new training modules for an older model of robots. Every time you lay off a million people, you have to build another million robots (or something close to that). Who is
Re:People will adapt (Score:2)
Personally I don't think intelligence is that factor. For me it is sentience, the ability to experience qualia, like pain and indignity, pleasure and pride.
Robots can't do that and I contend that no artificial creation will ever do so, because it is in the realm of the permanently mysterious.
As a related aside, it is also the reason I treat animals with more respect than most meat-eaters I
As big a watershed as leaving Agriculture behind (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, rapid change erodes static classes, it doesn't save them. If what the jobs look like change every generation, you'll have a lot more social mobility between generations. Class is already an extremely fluid thing in America, in a way that they really wouldn't be considered "classes" by a 19th century Brit, and definitely not by an 18th century Javanese.
Re:As big a watershed as leaving Agriculture behin (Score:2)
If we want to understand transitions between social orders, we need to check what Marx and Engels wrote (and also how scientists in Soviet Union, esp
Re:As big a watershed as leaving Agriculture behin (Score:1)
Re:People will adapt (Score:1)
It's already happened. Did you miss that whole industrial revolution thing?
never before has the economy dealt with gargantuan bodies like AOL-Time-Warner.
Hasn't it? I think you need to brush up on your history.
Everyone always says "It's different this time", but in the end, it always turns out to be the same old thing, only a slightly different incarnation. The monster corporations will eventually collaps
Re:People will adapt (Score:3, Informative)
The literacy rate in the US is 97%.
If you can read, you can learn, even without help from others.
For 97% of the population the only reason for not developing new skills is because of a choice not to.
Americans spend an average of 28hrs/wk watching television. I am sure that if they spend a fraction of that time undertaking some sort of training they will be able to acquire new skills. Yes, that is correct, in the
Re:People will adapt (Score:1)
That's it! THAT is the answer!
Simple: We buy everyone a TiVo, and it raises GDP enough to not only pull the country out of a slump, but launches a new golden era of propserity! It
This has happened before (Score:2)
The latest being The South - pre civil war
A few wealthy landowners own thousands of slaves who pick cotton to survive.
Except that this time all labour will be performed by robots rather than human slaves.
You want to see what extremely low cost labour does to an economy? Look to history when slavery is popular.
Re:People will adapt (Score:1)
And not just quantity, but quality and type! If you don't like people building a better mousetrap, go be a dirt farmer running Windows XP. Don't drag me into your personal hell.
Re:People will adapt (Score:2, Informative)
Re:People will adapt (Score:1)
Aha. Here's a proof by contradiction: one of the robot jobs is to educate people.
Re:People will adapt (Score:1)
This won't happen--at least under the robot situation--because the unemployed masses will be greater than the working class. Under such a scenario, a revolution will result. Don't forget that larger numbers can overthrow minorities under any democracy-like system. The only reason it doesn't happen now is because the vast majority of people are middle class and not poor.
Sivaram Velautha
Re:People will adapt (Score:0)
Re:People will adapt (Score:2)
I do agree that what we're heading for is ominous. But I think that the book Hope's Edge gives an indication of what the successful respon
Re:People will adapt (Score:2)
We've been over this. They adapt, or die.
What's worse? Supporting millions of people who have nothing to contribute to the world on the backs of those who do, or forcing them to adapt or die?
Sorry, but there's a fatal flaw in the argument that we should keep these people around: they create more people. Sure, it may start off with 10 million unemployed. What happens when each of them have three children? That's
Re:People will adapt (Score:0)
Have you ever known a truly classless system to exist?
It is simply impossible. Egalitarianism has been nothing but a disaster for western civilization, and it is slowly destroying other civilizations as well.
Needless to say, there will ALWAYS be classes. You have the leader
Re:People will adapt (Score:2)
Ah, the folly of assumptions.
I'm not Jewish. My stepfather is Jewish, and I inherited his name, but that's about it. I was raised Catholic, and promptly broke with that tradition when I started thinking for myself.
My ancestry is mostly German and British, and I'm now an atheist. This is probably a far cry from what you imagined, and I'm pleased to disappoint you.
- David Stein
Re:People will adapt (Score:2)
Nope. That's what everybody has thought every time this happens.
What will happen is that the large supply of unskilled laborers will produce a demand for them in the form of new jobs that couldn't have been done and wouldn't have been thought of, if there weren't such a large pool of laborers available.
Perhaps those of us who are educated will all be able to afford personal servants, such