OT: future of jobs or lack thereof

[musiqsoulchild]

Interesting tangent.

I think we are nowehere near peak population capacity in terms of housing. Just look at vast swathes of unused land in the world.

The issue isnt one of available land. Its more to do with:

1) Water distribution systems
2) Transportation networks
3) Waste management systems
4) Food distribution

Almost 90% of the worlds population lives within 100 miles of a major water body. Just think about that.

I think its a lot easier to create the above systems than colonize another planet. Basically, you end up creating millions of infrastructure jobs by deciding to connect interior parts to major cities.

Colonizing another planet will be about protecting ourselves from accidentally destroying a planet more so than about space on the planet IMO. Also, I just think it is part of the human condition to attempt to expand outwards.

I think we can probably learn to physically sustain 5-10x the amount of people we presently do and given population trends that will probably be sufficient. How we manage that socially might be more challenging.

There is such an interesting conversation there to be had. I just dont think we can meaningfully have it here without it completely disintegrating into a race based conversation.

I'll try however.

I think the desire to expand outwards rather than consolidate inwards is a very Caucasian trait. One to which we owe the entire world economic order / trade and also some of its ills ( colonization, etc.).

Interestingly enough, there is also a massive linkage between colonizers and countries that are predominantly surrounded by the sea /ocean ( Japan all the way to the Viking lands and all the way to Britain and other European sea powers).

From my experience as an Indian American, my desire is to consolidate. Not to expand. This translates into me being more worried about how much money I save rather than figure out how to earn more.

Just food for thought and good discussion. No harm intended whatsover.

[dougthonus]

There is such an interesting conversation there to be had. I just dont think we can meaningfully have it here without it completely disintegrating into a race based conversation.

I'll try however.

I think the desire to expand outwards rather than consolidate inwards is a very Caucasian trait. One to which we owe the entire world economic order / trade and also some of its ills ( colonization, etc.).

Interestingly enough, there is also a massive linkage between colonizers and countries that are predominantly surrounded by the sea /ocean ( Japan all the way to the Viking lands and all the way to Britain and other European sea powers).

From my experience as an Indian American, my desire is to consolidate. Not to expand. This translates into me being more worried about how much money I save rather than figure out how to earn more.

Just food for thought and good discussion. No harm intended whatsover.

Maybe, but I don't think so. I think there have been lots of people warring over territory and attempting to expand in Asia for years. If you look at the history of most nations there are people who tried to expand and conquer just with varying degrees of success.

Even if you look at something like China or India which are huge, huge areas of land, my guess is that these areas are so big as to the results of someone conquering that much land long ago.

I do think the conquering over ocean has largely been a caucasian trait, but that may be due more to technological advancement relative to the areas they conquered more so than any other reason. Certainly at various points people from China tried to conquer some of the island nations around them like Taiwan and Japan, but were unsuccessful.

[MrSparkle]

This is mainly in regards to USA....

But personally I find the future of jobs to be last on my list of fears. As tech improves, unless the USA becomes a totally masochistic dictatorship, then "socialism" is basically a necessity -- atleast as far as medical care and continuing to subsidize food costs. People are gonna have to work less hours, less labor.

Call it Star Trekkian utopia blabber, but there's just no way around it. Tech is going to continue doing more and more of the dirty work... and tech will never replace the human touch, so there will always be room for human work, perhaps much less overall, but it will need to be repurposed.

Meanwhile, the reality is that the more tech you have running the show, the more people you need running the tech. And I know the sci-fi films have us all believing AI tech will make humans obsolete, but there is ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS something better with a (good) human touch. The tech is gonna keep getting better and better, and every decade "it'll soon be as good as the real thing..." and you know, it gets close, but it still never reaches that end point.

The metaphors I'll propose are the music industry and video games. Granted, both are "luxury" items compared to necessities, but let's not digress; we're on a basketball forum talking about 20 year olds throwing a ball in the hoop. All this stuff is multi-billion dollar industry, and there's an industry for everything.

But they've been saying since the late 70s that the future of music is electronic. And maybe it is as far as the top-40 charts go. And maybe a cello sample sounds better than ever when you trigger it from your cheap/affordable laptop/iphone program, compared to the fake sounding chainsaw you'd get with a $20,000 rig in the 80s. But you know what? Ask any composer or classical musician and they'll still be able to tell the difference between a programmed solo cello performance and a real cellist. It would take an incredibly skilled programmer or keyboard player to fake that cello sample. Which comes back to human touch. And if the tech is so good now, why why can't everybody make a top-40 song?

And same with computer graphics. Are we gonna ever replace real actors with CGI actors? I realize it's getting more and more believable, but even when it's there, you're gonna need more people to program the CGI. Or enter the VR - let's hypothetically say it gets to the point where you can't differentiate at all between the VR and reality, as far as appearance/graphics and interactions go. There will still be so many reasons to hire humans to do things.

I'm sure there will be a future crisis, due to economic/social/climate factors, and right now we have a very irresponsible administration, but I'm not living in fear.

My biggest questions for the future:

Population and non-renewable resources need to be micro-managed.

Climate must be addressed. Never mind flooding or extreme weather, the big problem is how it will exponentially affect the food chain in next decades. Also, certain countries may become uninhabitable in the future if they get any hotter. That would create massive population displacement and problems.

America not electing dumpster fire leadership who will create conflicts across the globe.

[The Box Office]

This is mainly in regards to USA....

But personally I find the future of jobs to be last on my list of fears. As tech improves, unless the USA becomes a totally masochistic dictatorship, then "socialism" is basically a necessity -- atleast as far as medical care and continuing to subsidize food costs. People are gonna have to work less hours, less labor.

Call it Star Trekkian utopia blabber, but there's just no way around it. Tech is going to continue doing more and more of the dirty work... and tech will never replace the human touch, so there will always be room for human work, perhaps much less overall, but it will need to be repurposed.

Meanwhile, the reality is that the more tech you have running the show, the more people you need running the tech. And I know the sci-fi films have us all believing AI tech will make humans obsolete, but there is ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS something better with a (good) human touch. The tech is gonna keep getting better and better, and every decade "it'll soon be as good as the real thing..." and you know, it gets close, but it still never reaches that end point.

The metaphors I'll propose are the music industry and video games. Granted, both are "luxury" items compared to necessities, but let's not digress; we're on a basketball forum talking about 20 year olds throwing a ball in the hoop. All this stuff is multi-billion dollar industry, and there's an industry for everything.

But they've been saying since the late 70s that the future of music is electronic. And maybe it is as far as the top-40 charts go. And maybe a cello sample sounds better than ever when you trigger it from your cheap/affordable laptop/iphone program, compared to the fake sounding chainsaw you'd get with a $20,000 rig in the 80s. But you know what? Ask any composer or classical musician and they'll still be able to tell the difference between a programmed solo cello performance and a real cellist. It would take an incredibly skilled programmer or keyboard player to fake that cello sample. Which comes back to human touch. And if the tech is so good now, why why can't everybody make a top-40 song?

And same with computer graphics. Are we gonna ever replace real actors with CGI actors? I realize it's getting more and more believable, but even when it's there, you're gonna need more people to program the CGI. Or enter the VR - let's hypothetically say it gets to the point where you can't differentiate at all between the VR and reality, as far as appearance/graphics and interactions go. There will still be so many reasons to hire humans to do things.

I'm sure there will be a future crisis, due to economic/social/climate factors, and right now we have a very irresponsible administration, but I'm not living in fear.

My biggest questions for the future:

Population and non-renewable resources need to be micro-managed.

Climate must be addressed. Never mind flooding or extreme weather, the big problem is how it will exponentially affect the food chain in next decades. Also, certain countries may become uninhabitable in the future if they get any hotter. That would create massive population displacement and problems.

America not electing dumpster fire leadership who will create conflicts across the globe.

Yep. I didn't vote for Trump. I knew what was up with him when he researched him back in 2003-2005. He really is a racist POS. His actions and his words reflect that. Bob Mueller is coming around that corner.

I looked around recently for jobs in my field and there is ZERO. Damn. The market for my particular job dried up and the major corporations wanting my skills demand way too much for the same pay as my previous job. The pay was crap, too. Awful.

[Dominator83]

This is mainly in regards to USA....

But personally I find the future of jobs to be last on my list of fears. As tech improves, unless the USA becomes a totally masochistic dictatorship, then "socialism" is basically a necessity -- atleast as far as medical care and continuing to subsidize food costs. People are gonna have to work less hours, less labor.

Call it Star Trekkian utopia blabber, but there's just no way around it. Tech is going to continue doing more and more of the dirty work... and tech will never replace the human touch, so there will always be room for human work, perhaps much less overall, but it will need to be repurposed.

Meanwhile, the reality is that the more tech you have running the show, the more people you need running the tech. And I know the sci-fi films have us all believing AI tech will make humans obsolete, but there is ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS something better with a (good) human touch. The tech is gonna keep getting better and better, and every decade "it'll soon be as good as the real thing..." and you know, it gets close, but it still never reaches that end point.

The metaphors I'll propose are the music industry and video games. Granted, both are "luxury" items compared to necessities, but let's not digress; we're on a basketball forum talking about 20 year olds throwing a ball in the hoop. All this stuff is multi-billion dollar industry, and there's an industry for everything.

But they've been saying since the late 70s that the future of music is electronic. And maybe it is as far as the top-40 charts go. And maybe a cello sample sounds better than ever when you trigger it from your cheap/affordable laptop/iphone program, compared to the fake sounding chainsaw you'd get with a $20,000 rig in the 80s. But you know what? Ask any composer or classical musician and they'll still be able to tell the difference between a programmed solo cello performance and a real cellist. It would take an incredibly skilled programmer or keyboard player to fake that cello sample. Which comes back to human touch. And if the tech is so good now, why why can't everybody make a top-40 song?

And same with computer graphics. Are we gonna ever replace real actors with CGI actors? I realize it's getting more and more believable, but even when it's there, you're gonna need more people to program the CGI. Or enter the VR - let's hypothetically say it gets to the point where you can't differentiate at all between the VR and reality, as far as appearance/graphics and interactions go. There will still be so many reasons to hire humans to do things.

I'm sure there will be a future crisis, due to economic/social/climate factors, and right now we have a very irresponsible administration, but I'm not living in fear.

My biggest questions for the future:

Population and non-renewable resources need to be micro-managed.

Climate must be addressed. Never mind flooding or extreme weather, the big problem is how it will exponentially affect the food chain in next decades. Also, certain countries may become uninhabitable in the future if they get any hotter. That would create massive population displacement and problems.

America not electing dumpster fire leadership who will create conflicts across the globe.

Well as far as the global warming goes, i guess Chicago didn't the memo! Our April was more like a February

[khufure]

Well as far as the global warming goes, i guess Chicago didn't the memo! Our April was more like a February

it turns out local climate isn't global climate, surprise!

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

this is not complicated on a global scale. if you release massive amounts of CO2, eventually the planet warms up. this is happening, and accelerating.

[johnnyvann840]

Well as far as the global warming goes, i guess Chicago didn't the memo! Our April was more like a February

it turns out local climate isn't global climate, surprise!

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

this is not complicated on a global scale. if you release massive amounts of CO2, eventually the planet warms up. this is happening, and accelerating.

Crazy thing is that everyone thinks it's cars and industrial pollution that is the main cause of greenhouse gasses. The truth is that it's cows. The methane gas released by cow farts, belching and their shiiiit is a larger cause of global warming than CO2 from automobiles or anything else other than electricity generation. Of course, it's a man made problem just the same, but it is an interesting fact.

Not to mention that livestock is the largest cause of deforestation as we clear more and more land for pastures so we can eat more meat and consume more dairy. Livestock is also the fastest growing cause of our loss of water sources. The pesticides used to treat feed crop and the animals waste itself is contaminating more potable water than anything. To make it even worse they occupy 30% of the land on the planet and grazing degrades and erodes land to unusable levels. 70% of former Amazon forests have been turned into land for grazing which also greatly contributes to global warming.

Who knew?

[SensiBull]

A couple of observations:

1. The counter argument against Universal Basic Income that I most often hear is that it amounts to 'paying people to do nothing.'

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/y-combinator-basic-income-study_us_56aa2b04e4b05e4e37036c34

This is more of a confession than arguers supporting the view seems to realise it is, rather than the stunning, argument-ending critique its supporters imagine it to be.

It's basically an admission that what we currently do is non-mandatory 'busy work.' It implies that paying people to do nothing is an option that is unwise to choose, not the necessity and source of self-worth that workplace roles are routinely marketed (even to extremely young, pre-pubescent children) as being.

It validates perceptions previously dismissed as conspiracy theories, such as:

- 'Planned obsoleteness' or [the deliberate disabling of a product to prevent it from working, thus requiring the buyer to purchase a replacement.

[For example, inkjet printer manufacturers employ smart chips in their ink cartridges to prevent them from being used after a certain threshold (number of pages, time, etc.), even though the cartridge may still contain usable ink or could be refilled (with ink toners, up to 50 percent of the toner cartridge is often still full). This constitutes "programmed obsolescence", in that there is no random component contributing to the decline in function.]

- 'Perceived obsoleteness'

[Obsolescence of desirability or stylistic obsolescence occurs when designers change the styling of products so customers will purchase products more frequently due to the decrease in the perceived desirability of unfashionable items.]

These are things that are designed to keep people employed and, therefore, occupied. Without it, government's role in managing society would change to being primarily a social function, with health and law enforcement picking up the pieces. How many domestic disputes only end because one partner or the other has to go to work, and/or the kids have to go to school?

Keeping people occupied is part of government's peace-keeping role, not necessarily the essential function that people are encouraged to see in even quite meaningless roles.

2. Ben Franklin is attributed with the quote:

"If every man and woman would work for four hours each day on something useful, that labor would produce sufficient to procure all the necessaries and comforts of life."

Whenever I've heard the quote mentioned, it was in the context of what that person could produce for sustaining himself or herself, not others.

Instead, we work 8-10 hours per day, with commutes that require paying what is typically six or seven 'suppliers' (gasoline, registration, insurance, maintenance and fluids, an auto manufacturer, a finance company, tolls, roadside assistance, etc.) to get there.

Is it any wonder that people feel so unfulfilled when so much of their limited years of life are dedicated to earning the money to maintain a life that distracts people from the things that really matter to themselves, and the economy DEPENDS on that?

#dontquityourdayjob

[coldfish]

A couple of observations:

1. The counter argument against Universal Basic Income that I most often hear is that it amounts to 'paying people to do nothing.'

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/y-combinator-basic-income-study_us_56aa2b04e4b05e4e37036c34

This is more of a confession than arguers supporting the view seems to realise it is, rather than the stunning, argument-ending critique its supporters imagine it to be.

It's basically an admission that what we currently do is non-mandatory 'busy work.' It implies that paying people to do nothing is an option that is unwise to choose, not the necessity and source of self-worth that workplace roles are routinely marketed (even to extremely young, pre-pubescent children) as being.

It validates perceptions previously dismissed as conspiracy theories, such as:

- 'Planned obsoleteness' or [the deliberate disabling of a product to prevent it from working, thus requiring the buyer to purchase a replacement.

[For example, inkjet printer manufacturers employ smart chips in their ink cartridges to prevent them from being used after a certain threshold (number of pages, time, etc.), even though the cartridge may still contain usable ink or could be refilled (with ink toners, up to 50 percent of the toner cartridge is often still full). This constitutes "programmed obsolescence", in that there is no random component contributing to the decline in function.]

- 'Perceived obsoleteness'

[Obsolescence of desirability or stylistic obsolescence occurs when designers change the styling of products so customers will purchase products more frequently due to the decrease in the perceived desirability of unfashionable items.]

These are things that are designed to keep people employed and, therefore, occupied. Without it, government's role in managing society would change to being primarily a social function, with health and law enforcement picking up the pieces. How many domestic disputes only end because one partner or the other has to go to work, and/or the kids have to go to school?

Keeping people occupied is part of government's peace-keeping role, not necessarily the essential function that people are encouraged to see in even quite meaningless roles.

2. Ben Franklin is attributed with the quote:

"If every man and woman would work for four hours each day on something useful, that labor would produce sufficient to procure all the necessaries and comforts of life."

Whenever I've heard the quote mentioned, it was in the context of what that person could produce for sustaining himself or herself, not others.

Instead, we work 8-10 hours per day, with commutes that require paying what is typically six or seven 'suppliers' (gasoline, registration, insurance, maintenance and fluids, an auto manufacturer, a finance company, tolls, roadside assistance, etc.) to get there.

Is it any wonder that people feel so unfulfilled when so much of their limited years of life are dedicated to earning the money to maintain a life that distracts people from the things that really matter to themselves, and the economy DEPENDS on that?

#dontquityourdayjob

At the end of the day, we can only consume what we produce as a society. When I say consume, people often think of flat screen TV's but the luxury items are a small part of our economy. Its the truck drivers that bring food to the grocery stores and those that stock the shelves, the doctors that give us health care, the people that maintain our roads, the workers behind the scenes making it so that you have electricity 99.9% of the time without thought, etc.

All of that is value added work. Its stuff that we gladly pay for. Its true that there is a lot of non value added work. Jobs just pushing around paperwork no one really cares about.

If you pay people not to work, some of them . . . will not work. If it reduces the amount of stuff we have to consume, our standard of living goes down. In the process, the people who do work will charge more for their time, which adds to income disparity.

I really don't have a good solution. There is no system where you can have a relatively equal distribution of goods and services with only some of the people providing them. Humans simply aren't wired that way. What's fair to one person is unfair to others.

The big change would be a massive increase in productivity through automation. Then, effectively we could consume far more than what we produce. If that happens, we can spend a lot less of our time doing menial jobs as long as we figure out how to distribute the gains fairly. Regardless, I'm not afraid of automation or AI. I can't wait for it.

[musiqsoulchild]

A couple of observations:

1. The counter argument against Universal Basic Income that I most often hear is that it amounts to 'paying people to do nothing.'

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/y-combinator-basic-income-study_us_56aa2b04e4b05e4e37036c34

This is more of a confession than arguers supporting the view seems to realise it is, rather than the stunning, argument-ending critique its supporters imagine it to be.

It's basically an admission that what we currently do is non-mandatory 'busy work.' It implies that paying people to do nothing is an option that is unwise to choose, not the necessity and source of self-worth that workplace roles are routinely marketed (even to extremely young, pre-pubescent children) as being.

It validates perceptions previously dismissed as conspiracy theories, such as:

- 'Planned obsoleteness' or [the deliberate disabling of a product to prevent it from working, thus requiring the buyer to purchase a replacement.

[For example, inkjet printer manufacturers employ smart chips in their ink cartridges to prevent them from being used after a certain threshold (number of pages, time, etc.), even though the cartridge may still contain usable ink or could be refilled (with ink toners, up to 50 percent of the toner cartridge is often still full). This constitutes "programmed obsolescence", in that there is no random component contributing to the decline in function.]

- 'Perceived obsoleteness'

[Obsolescence of desirability or stylistic obsolescence occurs when designers change the styling of products so customers will purchase products more frequently due to the decrease in the perceived desirability of unfashionable items.]

These are things that are designed to keep people employed and, therefore, occupied. Without it, government's role in managing society would change to being primarily a social function, with health and law enforcement picking up the pieces. How many domestic disputes only end because one partner or the other has to go to work, and/or the kids have to go to school?

Keeping people occupied is part of government's peace-keeping role, not necessarily the essential function that people are encouraged to see in even quite meaningless roles.

2. Ben Franklin is attributed with the quote:

"If every man and woman would work for four hours each day on something useful, that labor would produce sufficient to procure all the necessaries and comforts of life."

Whenever I've heard the quote mentioned, it was in the context of what that person could produce for sustaining himself or herself, not others.

Instead, we work 8-10 hours per day, with commutes that require paying what is typically six or seven 'suppliers' (gasoline, registration, insurance, maintenance and fluids, an auto manufacturer, a finance company, tolls, roadside assistance, etc.) to get there.

Is it any wonder that people feel so unfulfilled when so much of their limited years of life are dedicated to earning the money to maintain a life that distracts people from the things that really matter to themselves, and the economy DEPENDS on that?

#dontquityourdayjob

At the end of the day, we can only consume what we produce as a society. When I say consume, people often think of flat screen TV's but the luxury items are a small part of our economy. Its the truck drivers that bring food to the grocery stores and those that stock the shelves, the doctors that give us health care, the people that maintain our roads, the workers behind the scenes making it so that you have electricity 99.9% of the time without thought, etc.

All of that is value added work. Its stuff that we gladly pay for. Its true that there is a lot of non value added work. Jobs just pushing around paperwork no one really cares about.

If you pay people not to work, some of them . . . will not work. If it reduces the amount of stuff we have to consume, our standard of living goes down. In the process, the people who do work will charge more for their time, which adds to income disparity.

I really don't have a good solution. There is no system where you can have a relatively equal distribution of goods and services with only some of the people providing them. Humans simply aren't wired that way. What's fair to one person is unfair to others.

The big change would be a massive increase in productivity through automation. Then, effectively we could consume far more than what we produce. If that happens, we can spend a lot less of our time doing menial jobs as long as we figure out how to distribute the gains fairly. Regardless, I'm not afraid of automation or AI. I can't wait for it.

I am more afraid of an outright, bloody rebellion by the poor and disadvantaged who are tired of being screwed over time after time, than I am about AI taking jobs.

Honestly, Democracy could fail spectacularly in the US with the far right and the far left occupying significant chunks of the political spectrum.

Once, cumulatively, they reach critical mass - sayanora.

[Axolotl]

With future of jobs there is no zero scenario, where things stay as they have been. There are two rough scenarios instead: the positive and the negative.

The negative is that automation will eat more and more jobs and the wealth will accumulate more and more into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Although absolute poverty has been on the decrease, there are weak signals of this scenario already playing out. This scenario is not healthy, and will lead to unstable societies with all their dysfunctionalities.

The positive scenario is that - like the industrial revolution - the new economy will create more wealth and progress. If we give the pre-industrial world a value of 1, the mature industrialised society would get a value of 10, and the true information age a value of 100. That's how big the change could be.

Now, before the industrialised society reached maturity, there were some horrible growing pains. Workers rights, for example, were non-existent. There will be growing pains this time too, and I think we have already seen them begin. Things described in the OP are part of those pains.

There will be new jobs, jobs we can't yet even think about. What will be common to those jobs is that they will require a high ability in symbol analysis, ie. the construction of meanings with humans. These are jobs that will also require a good amount of intellect and creativity, which means that not everyone will be able to succeed in these jobs.

Also arts, entertainment, sports and such will be in demand. Already an actor playing a doctor can get paid several times more than a doctor doing actual doctoring.

Alas, the jobs will become more intellectually demanding, and there will be less and less "ditch digging" -jobs available. This means that a certain percentage of the work force will not be able to find work. What that percentage will be is impossible to predict, but I'd wager that it's bigger than current normal unemployment rates.

With automata new added value will be created, and unless we let the negative scenario play out, that added value needs to be redistributed. The automata certainly don't need but a fraction of it, so let's just tax the added value more, and give out a reasonable universal basic income through personal taxation. If your income is below a certain threshold, your taxes are negative. At the threshold you are at +-0, and above you pay taxes. The main thing in this is that work will always increase your available income.

Anyway, what do I know... These are just some random thoughts that a random dude on the internets put together and typed down.

[dougthonus]

I am more afraid of an outright, bloody rebellion by the poor and disadvantaged who are tired of being screwed over time after time, than I am about AI taking jobs.

Those two things might be highly related. The key would be that AI would shift a huge portion of the population to the poor and disadvantaged. The existing poor/disadvantaged aren't likely to do such a thing since they haven't yet, and their quality of life is higher here than the vast majority of the places on the world.

What would cause such a shift is the disappearance of the middle class, this would be where there is anger. People who are losing something they used to have.

[Axolotl]

I am more afraid of an outright, bloody rebellion by the poor and disadvantaged who are tired of being screwed over time after time, than I am about AI taking jobs.

Those two things might be highly related. The key would be that AI would shift a huge portion of the population to the poor and disadvantaged. The existing poor/disadvantaged aren't likely to do such a thing since they haven't yet, and their quality of life is higher here than the vast majority of the places on the world.

What would cause such a shift is the disappearance of the middle class, this wouåld be where there is anger. People who are losing something they used to have.

I do believe the shift described to be happening, at this point especially to lower middle class and blue collars - young people do not reach their parents standard of living anymore.

This shift is in my opinion the single most importanr reason behind D. Trump becoming the president of the US of A, and whoever came up the slogan "Make America great again" really connected with that sense of loss, of things being better before something happened to things, something that has left the nation in a state of confusion.

The wall is something concrete (no pun intended) to make people feel they have been heard and to make it seem like there were a patent solution to whatever happened to things. It doesn't need to be built, the feeling of being heard is what matters.

But I digress.

Jobs equal money equals jobs still works today, but in the future it may not. We have automata doing the work, but who will buy the results if added wealth is not redistributed?

[coldfish]

I am more afraid of an outright, bloody rebellion by the poor and disadvantaged who are tired of being screwed over time after time, than I am about AI taking jobs.

Those two things might be highly related. The key would be that AI would shift a huge portion of the population to the poor and disadvantaged. The existing poor/disadvantaged aren't likely to do such a thing since they haven't yet, and their quality of life is higher here than the vast majority of the places on the world.

What would cause such a shift is the disappearance of the middle class, this wouåld be where there is anger. People who are losing something they used to have.

I do believe the shift described to be happening, at this point especially to lower middle class and blue collars - young people do not reach their parents standard of living anymore.

This shift is in my opinion the single most importanr reason behind D. Trump becoming the president of the US of A, and whoever came up the slogan "Make America great again" really connected with that sense of loss, of things being better before something happened to things, something that has left the nation in a state of confusion.

The wall is something concrete (no pun intended) to make people feel they have been heard and to make it seem like there were a patent solution to whatever happened to things. It doesn't need to be built, the feeling of being heard is what matters.

But I digress.

Jobs equal money equals jobs still works today, but in the future it may not. We have automata doing the work, but who will buy the results if added wealth is not redistributed?

I strongly agree that middle class stagnation is why Donald Trump is president.

I disagree with your assertions about automation, the wall, etc.


That is the most telling graph I can give. Between 1950 and 1980, productivity in the US in real terms (adjusted for inflation) doubled. ALL of the gains went to the middle class. Between 1980 and 2015, productivity doubled again. Only 1/10th of the gains went to the middle class though.

Why? What happened?

Well, the US was largely a closed system for most of its history.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

Put the chart to max and you will see that the balance and volume of trade was virtually 0 until the late 70's.

The US government changed the laws. They turned the US economy from a closed system to an open system, which drastically increased the supply of labor. As all things, prices (in this case, labor rates) are set by supply and demand. This massive increase in supply of labor put downward pressures on labor prices which allows business owners to keep the gains from productivity.

Productivity tools aren't new. The pace of increase now isn't even particularly strong. The issue isn't AI or automation, its the rigged system created in the 70's and 80's. Undo that and you will go back to a system that is inherently balanced.

Some of the issues I am talking about:
- Change in currency laws from Nixon
- Open borders. And yes, this is part of the issue. If you had no immigration, labor prices would be higher.
- Globalization including WTO, currency account law changes, etc.
- Changes by Reagan to the Sherman Anti Trust laws that allowed megacorps to dominate sectors

[realEAST]

Those two things might be highly related. The key would be that AI would shift a huge portion of the population to the poor and disadvantaged. The existing poor/disadvantaged aren't likely to do such a thing since they haven't yet, and their quality of life is higher here than the vast majority of the places on the world.

What would cause such a shift is the disappearance of the middle class, this wouåld be where there is anger. People who are losing something they used to have.

I do believe the shift described to be happening, at this point especially to lower middle class and blue collars - young people do not reach their parents standard of living anymore.

This shift is in my opinion the single most importanr reason behind D. Trump becoming the president of the US of A, and whoever came up the slogan "Make America great again" really connected with that sense of loss, of things being better before something happened to things, something that has left the nation in a state of confusion.

The wall is something concrete (no pun intended) to make people feel they have been heard and to make it seem like there were a patent solution to whatever happened to things. It doesn't need to be built, the feeling of being heard is what matters.

But I digress.

Jobs equal money equals jobs still works today, but in the future it may not. We have automata doing the work, but who will buy the results if added wealth is not redistributed?

I strongly agree that middle class stagnation is why Donald Trump is president.

I disagree with your assertions about automation, the wall, etc.


That is the most telling graph I can give. Between 1950 and 1980, productivity in the US in real terms (adjusted for inflation) doubled. ALL of the gains went to the middle class. Between 1980 and 2015, productivity doubled again. Only 1/10th of the gains went to the middle class though.

Why? What happened?

Well, the US was largely a closed system for most of its history.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

Put the chart to max and you will see that the balance and volume of trade was virtually 0 until the late 70's.

The US government changed the laws. They turned the US economy from a closed system to an open system, which drastically increased the supply of labor. As all things, prices (in this case, labor rates) are set by supply and demand. This massive increase in supply of labor put downward pressures on labor prices which allows business owners to keep the gains from productivity.

Productivity tools aren't new. The pace of increase now isn't even particularly strong. The issue isn't AI or automation, its the rigged system created in the 70's and 80's. Undo that and you will go back to a system that is inherently balanced.

Some of the issues I am talking about:
- Change in currency laws from Nixon
- Open borders. And yes, this is part of the issue. If you had no immigration, labor prices would be higher.
- Globalization including WTO, currency account law changes, etc.
- Changes by Reagan to the Sherman Anti Trust laws that allowed megacorps to dominate sectors

This massive increase in supply of labor put downward pressures on labor prices which allows business owners to keep the gains from productivity. (...)

Some of the issues I am talking about:
- Change in currency laws from Nixon
- Open borders. And yes, this is part of the issue. If you had no immigration, labor prices would be higher.
- Globalization including WTO, currency account law changes, etc.
- Changes by Reagan to the Sherman Anti Trust laws that allowed megacorps to dominate sectors

While I tend to agree with data and most of the conclusions you draw from it, there is ideological element you, in my opinion, misinterpret. I think some of this measures weren't just bad calls on the economic side, but were conscious choices with clear goals in sight, and done in coordination on global level (Thacher-Regan axis that finally crushed labor movement, which trickled down - both economically and ideologically - to smaller countries and economies).

For instance, falling price of labor due to open borders (open borders being inherently good thing - here not even questioning why there was/is such a disparity in the world that people emigrate in such numbers) could have easily been countered by raising and fixating minimum wage, which, in combination with keeping Sherman laws would prevent, essentially, eventual "cartelization" of most important branches of economy (and nowadays, basically whole economy) and would have resulted in much more equal market game, which is the essence of capitalism.

And in globalized world (which in context of open society is a positive idea) and world economy, those effects ripple world wide too, when instigated by major power(s).

The fact USA economy became so import oriented in that period (inherently, not a bad thing at all, but to a certain degree) and continued to function as such up until recently, in many instances, was geopolitical in it's nature - it was a way of financing newly established regimes, as the part of cultural and economic warfare, to put it most lapidary.

Coupled with increasing cuts to public health care and welfare state in general, along public education system, as well as tax reforms that favored rich at the expense of working and middle class (not even mentioning the corruption, as evidenced in recent example of Panama papers: 7500 billion dollars!), in the long run it created fertile soil for proliferation of what is now labeled as alt-right, and is slowly becoming mainstream.
(also, not even trying to make a difference between Republicans and Democrats since B. Clinton here)

[musiqsoulchild]

I am more afraid of an outright, bloody rebellion by the poor and disadvantaged who are tired of being screwed over time after time, than I am about AI taking jobs.

Those two things might be highly related. The key would be that AI would shift a huge portion of the population to the poor and disadvantaged. The existing poor/disadvantaged aren't likely to do such a thing since they haven't yet, and their quality of life is higher here than the vast majority of the places on the world.

What would cause such a shift is the disappearance of the middle class, this would be where there is anger. People who are losing something they used to have.

And that's what's happening right now. There is a seething anger everywhere.

Maybe I am overstating it as I grow older. But, maybe not.

[coldfish]

This massive increase in supply of labor put downward pressures on labor prices which allows business owners to keep the gains from productivity. (...)

Some of the issues I am talking about:
- Change in currency laws from Nixon
- Open borders. And yes, this is part of the issue. If you had no immigration, labor prices would be higher.
- Globalization including WTO, currency account law changes, etc.
- Changes by Reagan to the Sherman Anti Trust laws that allowed megacorps to dominate sectors

While I tend to agree with data and most of the conclusions you draw from it, there is ideological element you, in my opinion, misinterpret. I think some of this measures weren't just bad calls on the economic side, but were conscious choices with clear goals in sight, and done in coordination on global level (Thacher-Regan axis that finally crushed labor movement, which trickled down - both economically and ideologically - to smaller countries and economies).

For instance, falling price of labor due to open borders (open borders being inherently good thing - here not even questioning why there was/is such a disparity in the world that people emigrate in such numbers) could have easily been countered by raising and fixating minimum wage, which, in combination with keeping Sherman laws would prevent, essentially, eventual "cartelization" of most important branches of economy (and nowadays, basically whole economy) and would have resulted in much more equal market game, which is the essence of capitalism.

And in globalized world (which in context of open society is a positive idea) and world economy, those effects ripple world wide too, when instigated by major power(s).

The fact USA economy became so import oriented in that period (inherently, not a bad thing at all, but to a certain degree) and continued to function as such up until recently, in many instances, was geopolitical in it's nature - it was a way of financing newly established regimes, as the part of cultural and economic warfare, to put it most lapidary.

Coupled with increasing cuts to public health care and welfare state in general, along public education system, as well as tax reforms that favored rich at the expense of working and middle class (not even mentioning the corruption, as evidenced in recent example of Panama papers: 7500 billion dollars!), in the long run it created fertile soil for proliferation of what is now labeled as alt-right, and is slowly becoming mainstream.
(also, not even trying to make a difference between Republicans and Democrats since B. Clinton here)

Just to note, I didn't actually place blame. I just noted the change. I tend to agree that the changes were intentional. Point blank, rich people hate inflation and the 70's were eye opening for them. To combat inflation, they introduced supply side economics which is effectively a way to repress labor in order to control prices.

And yes, democrats and republicans are largely the same. Both want to keep the globalization, labor suppressing system in place. As an over generalization, the differences are that democrats want to give people thousands of dollars worth of entitlements to make up for their 10's of thousands in lost wages. Republicans think people should either work harder or get ****. Democrats are a little more in the right here but not by much.

The fact that a flaming idiot like Trump got elected by basically mentioning tearing down this system without any plan to accomplish it says a lot. The fact that just about no other politician (maybe Sanders a little has mentioned trade) is having a different take on the same issue says even more.

[realEAST]

Just to note, I didn't actually place blame. I just noted the change. I tend to agree that the changes were intentional. Point blank, rich people hate inflation and the 70's were eye opening for them. To combat inflation, they introduced supply side economics which is effectively a way to repress labor in order to control prices.

And yes, democrats and republicans are largely the same. Both want to keep the globalization, labor suppressing system in place. As an over generalization, the differences are that democrats want to give people thousands of dollars worth of entitlements to make up for their 10's of thousands in lost wages. Republicans think people should either work harder or get ****. Democrats are a little more in the right here but not by much.

The fact that a flaming idiot like Trump got elected by basically mentioning tearing down this system without any plan to accomplish it says a lot. The fact that just about no other politician (maybe Sanders a little has mentioned trade) is having a different take on the same issue says even more.

Maybe "omit" instead of "misinterpret" would have been better word choice on my side, as I didn't want to imply it was intentional or you were unaware, and I do agree with what you wrote in post first quoted, as well as in last one.

All processes mentioned are probably best sublimed in popular example of that ominous remark about addressing electoral body on the level of 14 year old person being most efficient.

In that context, thinking about framework within which technological advancements are made and implemented in society makes me a bit weary.
At the same time, technology and knowledge (in broadest sense) are only way to counter those, as well as "tools" to try and bridge the worldwide gap, without withstanding equally wide crisis - if used correctly that is (lapidary said).

Unfortunately, at the moment it seems like a vicious circle.

[dice]

And yes, democrats and republicans are largely the same. Both want to keep the globalization, labor suppressing system in place. As an over generalization, the differences are that democrats want to give people thousands of dollars worth of entitlements to make up for their 10's of thousands in lost wages. Republicans think people should either work harder or get ****. Democrats are a little more in the right here but not by much.

it is republicans who have been systematically working to weaken worker unions for 40+ years. and maintain our incomprehensibly cruel health care system over the same time period. people know where the blame lies for the weakening of the american worker class. and they know who deserves the credit for creating and protecting social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.

i mean, all a person has to do is look at the makeup of the supreme court to recognize the philosophical gulf between democrats and republicans. it's beyond obvious

of course, maybe ruth bader ginsberg and clarence thomas are secretly in cahoots as a branch of the "deep state," right?

[coldfish]

And yes, democrats and republicans are largely the same. Both want to keep the globalization, labor suppressing system in place. As an over generalization, the differences are that democrats want to give people thousands of dollars worth of entitlements to make up for their 10's of thousands in lost wages. Republicans think people should either work harder or get ****. Democrats are a little more in the right here but not by much.

it is republicans who have been systematically working to weaken worker unions for 40+ years. and maintain our incomprehensibly cruel health care system over the same time period. people know where the blame lies for the weakening of the american worker class. and they know who deserves the credit for creating and protecting social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.

i mean, all a person has to do is look at the makeup of the supreme court to recognize the philosophical gulf between democrats and republicans. it's beyond obvious

of course, maybe ruth bader ginsberg and clarence thomas are secretly in cahoots as a branch of the "deep state," right?

And it was democrats that passed WTO and Nafta. The TPP that Obama negotiated had some freaking whoppers in it and mostly was a giveaway to multinational corporations. Even now, liberals aren't even commenting on the trade wars that Trump is waging. The fact that the press is completely ignoring the fact that China and the EU have had tariffs on US goods while prior administrations didn't lift a finger is pretty telling.

The democrats created social security in the 30's and medicare/medicaid in the 60's. Their shift to pro globalization and anti worker happened after that. Hell, republicans were the ones who undid slavery. At some point, they stopped getting credit for that from african americans. Credit doesn't last forever.

Like I said, democrats want to give entitlements but they have heavily participated in rigging the economic system against the middle class.