People predicted the working week would decrease dramatically over the last half-century. We now seem to work much harder. People predicted a paperless office. On the contrary we use more paper than ever because we can print on it so damn fast! Who knows what the outcome of more robots will be? Judging by the last 50 years it'll mean more and harder work for all of us.
In the US, the ammount of housework per day has not gone down much in the last 150 years. This is despite the advent of vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, etc. Instead, we have found ways to use these inventions to change the way we do things, so that we can fill up our free time with the same old chores....
Same thing regarding the work force. Sure, it is painful for the older population who may not have the skills to compete, but that is an argument for lowering the retirement age, IMO;-) Can we all retire early??
The fact is that a robot-driven world will mean that MUCH more will be done, and that everyone's job will be that of information management (whether a corporate manager type, a researcher, or a technician). In general, I predict very little change to wealth distribution. After all what does an entry level computer technician make today compared to a McDonalds fry cook..... In my state it is only about 30% more, if that.... The differences will be:
1: More education will be required to find a job. This means that schools will take up a larger percentage of our economy and wages will go up to compensate.
2: Raw weath (savings, assets, etc.) distribution will probably be relatively unchanged, though the quantities accumulated would go up with productivity.
How do we get there? What else would be necessary?
This may offend some people, but it is what I honestly think. Forget affirmative action-- it is based around an industrial age model, and will not be able to provide lasting benefit as the economy progresses. There are other, better, though costlier ways to ensure equal access to education:
1: Start programs aimed at donating used computers to low income families. Computers should be preloaded with an operating system, a word processor, spreadsheet, web browser, etc.
2: Open branch campuses of local community colleges in the inner cities, and in low income areas. Pair these with community technology centers, where people can go to use computers, learn about technology (computer operation, repair, etc). and hopefully better prepare themselves for the new economy.
3: Have the federal and/or state government pay for full tuition through the first bachelor's degree. Masters and PhD's could be offered on a merit basis via teaching assistanceships, etc.
4: Require folks on welfare who do not have a bachelor's degree to take some classes:-) Failure to pass without a medical/learning disability would put one on probationary status, and two successive quarters in a row might require suspension of some benefits.
Why won't this fly? 1: Education is expensive and too many people see it as a luxury rather than something which is necessary for our continued economic development.
2: Cost, cost, cost. The current solution we have is far less expensive, although it doesn't seek to elevate *every member* of society to the point where everyone can participate in the information revolution. For this reason I say that our schools are about 30 years (maybe more) behind our current needs.
Housework has gone down for most people. Did you see that TV series 1900 house? A bunch of modern British people decided to live for 3 months as if in 1900. Life for the women was one long chore. The amount of work was unbelievable. Just doing the washing was an entire day's work. Cooking was hell as a stove needed to be maintained. It was hard and slow to cook with. I can't even begin to reconut how much work these people did!
Who can make predictions like that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well said, but there is more (Score:2)
Same thing regarding the work force. Sure, it is painful for the older population who may not have the skills to compete, but that is an argument for lowering the retirement age, IMO
The fact is that a robot-driven world will mean that MUCH more will be done, and that everyone's job will be that of information management (whether a corporate manager type, a researcher, or a technician). In general, I predict very little change to wealth distribution. After all what does an entry level computer technician make today compared to a McDonalds fry cook..... In my state it is only about 30% more, if that.... The differences will be:
1: More education will be required to find a job. This means that schools will take up a larger percentage of our economy and wages will go up to compensate.
2: Raw weath (savings, assets, etc.) distribution will probably be relatively unchanged, though the quantities accumulated would go up with productivity.
How do we get there?
What else would be necessary?
This may offend some people, but it is what I honestly think. Forget affirmative action-- it is based around an industrial age model, and will not be able to provide lasting benefit as the economy progresses. There are other, better, though costlier ways to ensure equal access to education:
1: Start programs aimed at donating used computers to low income families. Computers should be preloaded with an operating system, a word processor, spreadsheet, web browser, etc.
2: Open branch campuses of local community colleges in the inner cities, and in low income areas. Pair these with community technology centers, where people can go to use computers, learn about technology (computer operation, repair, etc). and hopefully better prepare themselves for the new economy.
3: Have the federal and/or state government pay for full tuition through the first bachelor's degree. Masters and PhD's could be offered on a merit basis via teaching assistanceships, etc.
4: Require folks on welfare who do not have a bachelor's degree to take some classes
Why won't this fly?
1: Education is expensive and too many people see it as a luxury rather than something which is necessary for our continued economic development.
2: Cost, cost, cost. The current solution we have is far less expensive, although it doesn't seek to elevate *every member* of society to the point where everyone can participate in the information revolution. For this reason I say that our schools are about 30 years (maybe more) behind our current needs.
Re:Well said, but there is more (Score:4, Informative)