|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But jobs aren't a finite resource we can run out of. Workers are. They are though. Or at least Jobs that are willing to pay enough to live on and afford a house are a finite resource. Because the people who could pay you that have a much large talent "pool" and can choose to pay you nothing.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
Will perhaps the continuing decline in birth rates and demographics in the country alleviate the unemployment caused by increasing automation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Family Values posted:This is a true statement even without automation. Laying this problem at the feet of automation is conflating two somewhat unrelated (or loosely related) phenomenon. As you say, it pre-existed automation technologies by a pretty large span. Inequality is nothing new and it's not the fault of automation, but better automation has the potential to exacerbate the problem and remove what little power vulnerable groups already have. It's worth discussing because we've built a society that's fundamentally based around an individual's worth to their employer, and anything that threatens to diminish that worth for a large portion of the population is of major societal concern. flashman posted:Will perhaps the continuing decline in birth rates and demographics in the country alleviate the unemployment caused by increasing automation? If Japan is any indication, a shrinking workforce actually encourages a lot of investment in automation technologies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
flashman posted:Will perhaps the continuing decline in birth rates and demographics in the country alleviate the unemployment caused by increasing automation? Maybe in a couple generations, but right now the response is increased immigration, and investment in automation like Paradoxish said. There's an ideal world not too far from our grasp where everybody has access to birth control, education, a strong social safety net, and the factors that drive high birthrates are neutralized to the point where the only babies being born are being born on purpose. If we're ever globally below replacement things might get weird, and we'll probably need automation to make elder care possible on a wide scale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
I want to change my tone for a bit. I am a bit of a one note gimmiclk poster and I know of course I was going to be the guy white knighting technology. But I think this discussion also bugs me at a political level. Like how the same narrative has been sold to both the left and the right altered just slightly for taste. Like the narrative of stolen jobs being the problem. For the right it's minorities that stole the jobs on the left it's scientists and engineers that stole them, but the narrative is always that jobs were stolen. Like it feels so transparently that the people that actually are cheating workers are pointing at just random groups and saying "him! he stole your good job! I can't give you maternity leave because they stole the good job that has it!" But there is no real indication they would actually give benefits or safety nets or health care or equal pay if 'they' somehow stopped stealing the jobs and gave the jobs back. It seems like such a transparent misdirection and I hate so much watching the left also buy it, but just with "no you racist, it's not the blacks that stole your job, it was the cybermen!". No body stole your job. Your billionaire boss just told people that while he stole your benefits. He wouldn't give them back if the spooky 'others' stopped stealing your job. People have jobs, 95+% of the country is employed, what they don't have is unions or safety nets or protections that make them livable jobs. Someone didn't steal the good jobs, if those jobs came back they would be equally as stripped of rights and benefits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I want to change my tone for a bit. I am a bit of a one note gimmiclk poster and I know of course I was going to be the guy white knighting technology. But I think this discussion also bugs me at a political level. Nobody's talking about "cybermen" but you, you strawmanning idiot. If you want to talk about how wrong everybody else is you might pick a topic you know jack poo poo about first, because this one isn't it. For one thing, that unemployment statistic you pulled out of your rear end is inaccurate and wildly misleading. Unemployment statistics don't take into account the chronically unemployed (they only track "job-seekers," not people who have given up) or the underemployed, who can't get enough hours or high enough pay to live despite being technically employed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But if we have a huge pool of "minimum wage workers" I don't really imagine a world where someone doesn't think of a way to utilize them Here's why this line of thought is retarded. Walmart isn't the largest employer in America because they care about the people they employ. They employ that many people because they have 5000+ stores scattered all over the nation and, for those stores to function, they need local bodies to run the cash registers/stock the shelves/manage other employees/etc. Amazon's leading the way but there's going to come a day where a giant 'supercenter' type of store like Walmart will be able to operate on a tiny skeleton crew of local workers thanks to automation. And that's not going to happen in a vacuum. At the same time the retail industry is getting gutted, there's going to be a number of no-education/low-education industries imploding...which will cause ripple effects throughout the entire economy as tens of millions of desperate people look for work. The reason why there's so much debate about the topic is because we're heading into uncharted territory and there's no clear solution for the people left behind. There's three possibilities people talk about - 1) go back to school for a 'good' job 2) ??? industry appears to save the day 3) basic income - but none of those are realistic. 1) a 'good' job is usually good because it takes some type of expertise and/or there isn't a glut of labor storming the gates 2) the idea that some unknown industry will pop up and provide 10+ million jobs is ridiculous 3) the owners aren't going to pay the tab for everybody even if it's in their best interest. Owlofcreamcheese posted:It seems like such a transparent misdirection and I hate so much watching the left also buy it, but just with "no you racist, it's not the blacks that stole your job, it was the cybermen!". No body stole your job. Your billionaire boss just told people that while he stole your benefits. He wouldn't give them back if the spooky 'others' stopped stealing your job. Except it's actually happening and the way capital is trying to justify it is 'hey, we only got rid of the bad mcjobs so now you can focus on going to school to get a good job (just get yourself deep into debt to pay for your schooling and ignore us herding everybody towards a couple of select industries while also importing workers so we can depress wages/benefits lol)' See today's news stories about Amazon trying to turn Alexa into Lily, a suite of AI software that can handle customer service, and Ford's concept of a self driving van with onboard drones to deliver packages. That isn't capital pointing fingers to make labor fight amongst themselves. That's capital trying to eliminate labor all together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Nobody's talking about "cybermen" but you, you strawmanning idiot. If you want to talk about how wrong everybody else is you might pick a topic you know jack poo poo about first, because this one isn't it. For one thing, that unemployment statistic you pulled out of your rear end is inaccurate and wildly misleading. Unemployment statistics don't take into account the chronically unemployed (they only track "job-seekers," not people who have given up) or the underemployed, who can't get enough hours or high enough pay to live despite being technically employed. Can you make a single post without namecalling. It's so extremely grating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Can you make a single post without namecalling. It's so extremely grating. Can you make a single post without strawmanning? All I ever see is people trying to have interesting conversations about complex topics and you making GBS threads them up posting whatever you think makes you look smart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:See today's news stories about Amazon trying to turn Alexa into Lily, a suite of AI software that can handle customer service, and Ford's concept of a self driving van with onboard drones to deliver packages. That isn't capital pointing fingers to make labor fight amongst themselves. That's capital trying to eliminate labor all together. Good. Those are soul-crushing, and (at least for the latter) body-destroying jobs and I don't want humans doing them if we can automate them. What about inequality? I don't know, or at least I don't know which of the possible solutions I can imagine will see adoption; but that's a separate issue that we need to solve regardless of whether we bring technological progress to a standstill or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Good. Those are soul-crushing, and (at least for the latter) body-destroying jobs and I don't want humans doing them if we can automate them. How do those people support themselves after their profession is eliminated? Customer service is already bottom of the barrel in terms of possible employment and UPS/FedEx/USPS drivers actually make a good living.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Robots cant even fold a towel or make a bed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i27iWSWyvEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
I've run into a lot of people lately that are of the opinion that it's actually immoral to work for companies leading automation, or to 'automate' work in anyway and a lot of these people are very "left leaning". I tried explaining how insane that view is, if we knew we could build a machine that could replace coal miners, which would be safer and put less hardship on someone, it would be immoral to send someone to work in the mines and possibly die for no reason other than we have this archaic idea that humans must suffer in the form of having a job to deserve to live, even if theres no real gains to be had from that suffering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Blockade posted:I've run into a lot of people lately that are of the opinion that it's actually immoral to work for companies leading automation, or to 'automate' work in anyway and a lot of these people are very "left leaning". I tried explaining how insane that view is, if we knew we could build a machine that could replace coal miners, which would be safer and put less hardship on someone, it would be immoral to send someone to work in the mines and possibly die for no reason other than we have this archaic idea that humans must suffer in the form of having a job to deserve to live, even if theres no real gains to be had from that suffering. Considering the most realistic outcomes of automation (surprise: you'll be waiting for GMI forever) their position is not entirely unreasonable. In pure theory they are of course deeply misguided, but using automation in a deliberately benevolent way would require a totally different kind of economy and dominant ideology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Inequality is nothing new and it's not the fault of automation, but better automation has the potential to exacerbate the problem and remove what little power vulnerable groups already have. It's worth discussing because we've built a society that's fundamentally based around an individual's worth to their employer, and anything that threatens to diminish that worth for a large portion of the population is of major societal concern. But isn't Japan's unemployment fairly low despite this increased investment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
flashman posted:But isn't Japan's unemployment fairly low despite this increased investment? It's apples and oranges. Completely different work culture (employees much more likely to stay with one company for their entire career) and rampant sexism and xenophobia that limit the workforce to mostly Japanese-born men. The female workforce participation rate in Japan is much lower than America's, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Wouldn't a transition back to a single earner family spurred by automation be a good thing? Why should workforce participation of the population at large be something to strive for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
flashman posted:Wouldn't a transition back to a single earner family spurred by automation be a good thing? Why should workforce participation of the population at large be something to strive for? With well college educated men marrying college educated women and blue collar joes still marrying secretaries automation is more likely to end up with two earners in one family and complete unemployment for the other. Or maybe we should retrain machine assemblers as waiters and force the women to stay home?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
you feelin fucky posted:With well college educated men marrying college educated women and blue collar joes still marrying secretaries automation is more likely to end up with two earners in one family and complete unemployment for the other. Or maybe we should retrain machine assemblers as waiters and force the women to stay home? This is true if that level of automation was implemented wholly and instantaneously but it will be more gradual than that. The rapid increase of women in the labor force over the past 50 years has lead to dual income families climbing from 25 percent to 60 percent. This increase in income has by and large been gobbled up by consumer debt, rising home costs, childcare etc. I don't think it's out there that over a 50 year horizon with automation that the reverse won't happen and the extra jobs you've seen creating these 2 income families disappearing to revert back to a single earner system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Governments might need to partially nationalize companies over certain worth, to make sure enough resources are going to funding UBI and other programs that keep people from rioting. Direct control is better than playing raise/evade taxes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
flashman posted:This is true if that level of automation was implemented wholly and instantaneously but it will be more gradual than that. The rapid increase of women in the labor force over the past 50 years has lead to dual income families climbing from 25 percent to 60 percent. This increase in income has by and large been gobbled up by consumer debt, rising home costs, childcare etc. I don't think it's out there that over a 50 year horizon with automation that the reverse won't happen and the extra jobs you've seen creating these 2 income families disappearing to revert back to a single earner system. The cat is kind of out of the bag when it comes to women working, though it didn't affect every field equally. Neither will automation affect every field equally. Just because we need to work less hours to maintain our level of wealth for society as a whole, there is no reason to believe those working hours will be divided equally over households.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
flashman posted:Wouldn't a transition back to a single earner family spurred by automation be a good thing? Why should workforce participation of the population at large be something to strive for? Ok then, let's make men the homemakers this round. We'll fire you the instant you get married, or as soon as you hit the age where it seems like you might want to. And we'll make sure to pay you less, because you should really have a woman at home taking care of expenses, so this is probably just pocket money for you right sweetie?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
That is suitable it doesn't matter which of the partners is the earner.you feelin fucky posted:The cat is kind of out of the bag when it comes to women working, though it didn't affect every field equally. Neither will automation affect every field equally. Just because we need to work less hours to maintain our level of wealth for society as a whole, there is no reason to believe those working hours will be divided equally over households. It's not about women working it's about double income family units. There has been little gained in terms of real purchasing power with the second income with much of it going to finance ballooning mortgages and other necessary expenses. Keep the men home to rear the young it's not about which parent stays home really. flashman fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
flashman posted:That is suitable it doesn't matter which of the partners is the earner. Are you really that ignorant? Jesus christ dude read a book, watch a movie, talk to a woman over 40. Anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
flashman posted:That is suitable it doesn't matter which of the partners is the earner. In the roman empire the head of the family was a single person, and the idea of "family" was bigger, including slaves working in the house. So maybe thats another solution. Have a group of maybe 10 persons living in a house, with familiar relations, with the person with a job (women or men, don't matter) being the head of the family. While everyone else watch TV / play videogames all day. Paterfamilias / Motherfamilias. http://www.ducksters.com/history/ancient_rome/family_life.php
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Power imbalances lead to abuse. Someone with all the money holds all the power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Divorce proceedings are fairly generous these days you aren't bonded into servitude by your earner spouse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
flashman posted:Divorce proceedings are fairly generous these days you aren't bonded into servitude by your earner spouse. Oh lovely we've got an MRA here. Tell us about spermjacking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Ok then, let's make men the homemakers this round. We'll fire you the instant you get married, or as soon as you hit the age where it seems like you might want to. And we'll make sure to pay you less, because you should really have a woman at home taking care of expenses, so this is probably just pocket money for you right sweetie? Sounds good to me, how do I find a woman okay with this arrangement?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Blockade posted:Sounds good to me, how do I find a woman okay with this arrangement? I'm sorry the role of "glib misogynist who's never read a book in his life" has already been filled in this thread. Check in with TFR, they're always hiring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Blockade posted:Sounds good to me, how do I find a woman okay with this arrangement? Hard to tell if that comment is you getting the point or being incredibly obtuse. In any case, the ideal seems to be that a family can be fully supported by one working parent, regardless of the genders involved. Having both parents participate in the labor force is fine if that is what they want to do but seems to me to just have been a temporary mask over the lack of rise in wages over the past few decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I'm sorry the role of "glib misogynist who's never read a book in his life" has already been filled in this thread. Check in with TFR, they're always hiring. ...you never read tfr, do you? And womens participation in the workforce has always actually been just about equality and independence. Not some grand capitalist conspiracy, like goddamn that's one of the most hosed up things to believe, what's wrong with you? E. It seems like this discussion is mostly still jousting about if there is a possible alternative to, well, to wage slavery. Here, have Chomsky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcBLCBxq1k8&sns=em ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Power imbalances lead to abuse. Someone with all the money holds all the power. Indeed, its much more likely that once automation takes over we're going to have a bunch of unemployed people without a safety net because the people in power will abuse it. Wage inequity is going to be worse, not better, along with tons of other things that have been discussed here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:...you never read tfr, do you? I do, actually. But I'm sure you guys think you're being subtle, sorry for breaking kayfabe. And are you talking to me with that second part? Because if so you either didn't read my posts or are doing some kind of opposite-day interpretation. What is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Hard to tell if that comment is you getting the point or being incredibly obtuse. Well, I wouldn't settle down with someone who doesnt bring in any income unless I was fairly wealthy and was very secure in that wealth. I imagine most women look at it the same way. I don't see single income families occurring again unless purchasing power goes way up. Sorry if that was sexist Mr Brontosaurus. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Blockade posted:Well, I wouldn't settle down with someone who doesnt bring in any income unless I was fairly wealthy and was very secure in that wealth. I imagine most women look at it the same way. I don't see single income families occurring again unless purchasing power goes way up. It's insanely loving sexist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I do, actually. But I'm sure you guys think you're being subtle, sorry for breaking kayfabe. Brontosaurus, only the first part was to you (that wasn't obvious?) The politics cesspool is were the trumpets are, otherwise tfr is mostly like the rest of SA outside d&d?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Brontosaurus, only the first part was to you (that wasn't obvious?) The politics cesspool is were the trumpets are, otherwise tfr is mostly like the rest of SA outside d&d? You guys have a constant undercurrent of low-key misogyny but we don't need to fight about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You guys have a constant undercurrent of low-key misogyny but we don't need to fight about it. This is way of topic, so is there someplace I could go to educate myself? I quite possibly have chalked it down as 'just american culture' and it could be rather good to get beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:This is way of topic, so is there someplace I could go to educate myself? I quite possibly have chalked it down as 'just american culture' and it could be rather good to get beyond that. We have an excellent Feminism Thread that's needed a nice discussion to chew on, it would be awesome if you posted in there And you're on the right track, America also has an undercurrent of low-key misogyny
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 16:08
|
|