Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Roose View Post
    Some people were born to dig ditches. Where is this world that you live on where every person has the ability to learn how to program computers?
    No one is born to dig ditches.

    Altought the fear of technology is not anything new. The machines will take our jobs complaint has existed since the early industrial revolution period. They where called Luddites, workers of the textile industry of Great Britain that complained that the newly developed machines and steam power was pushing killing their jobs. They where known for rioting and breaking machinery.

    Anyways there is this thing called the Luddite Fallacy. It treats the idea of Techonological Unemployment. Technological Unemployment exists altought it cannot cause and will not cause systemic unemployment. As new technologies and machines are developed certain professions, jobs and even companies are phased out and become obselete. But the main thing of technological progress is that it will ALWAYS push prices lower and lower creating aggregate demand. More people will be able to buy more products at lower costs generating more demand of products and services. With other words the more and faster you make things the more demand you generate due to falling prices and the availability of exess liquidity the more jobs you create trough products and services.

    The only issue is that new jobs will require new skills and new types of workers. It is true that it is hurtfull for those who are being Phased out, but macro economically speaking it is beneficial.

    The clear exemple of this is the rising quality of life in the western world since industrialization coupled with a spike in population sizes. We have more people then ever in history having higher standards of living.

    If you visit places where automation is not widespread such as India, you will notice people working in labour intensive jobs for horribly low wages. Exactly because of these low wages they are unable to generate local demand (India and China) maintaing their wages low.

    It is cold hearted to the individual and can be very painful for people or even communities to be phased out by technology, but macro economical speaking it has proven its benefits.

    This is why whenever I hear bashing of public education or even hear the mention of home schooling I facedesk. Unless you intentionally want your offspring to struggle finding a job and don't want him to reap the benefits of advancing technology there would be nothing more important than education to prepar the next generation for a changed future.
    Last edited by Mihalik; 2013-01-25 at 11:11 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Sexual assault is not always rape.
    *slowclap*
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Woman rapes a guy, gives birth to child and has custody of the child.
    I don't see why you should take the child from the woman unless she abuses it.

  2. #122
    So Mihalik you wrote this entire post after ignoring the rest of the thread, and why the Luddite fallacy may not be appropriate at this time? Awesome. A giant wasted post.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    Anyways there is this thing called the Luddite Fallacy. It treats the idea of Techonological Unemployment. Technological Unemployment exists altought it cannot cause and will not cause systemic unemployment. As new technologies and machines are developed certain professions, jobs and even companies are phased out and become obselete. But the main thing of technological progress is that it will ALWAYS push prices lower and lower creating aggregate demand. More people will be able to buy more products at lower costs generating more demand of products and services. With other words the more and faster you make things the more demand you generate due to falling prices and the availability of exess liquidity the more jobs you create trough products and services.
    The notion that more high tech jobs get created as old ones get phased out works only as long as human brain is the most powerful computer on the planet.

    Once computers are smarter than people, it breaks down and humans become unemployable. This is expected to occur in a few more decades.

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So Mihalik you wrote this entire post after ignoring the rest of the thread, and why the Luddite fallacy may not be appropriate at this time? Awesome. A giant wasted post.
    Alright I have read the entire thread now. Every post. (Most of them where pointless, some funny) I never seen a single item that would refute to Luddite Fallacy. I just seen the repetition of different forms of the fallacy.

    The assumption is that all jobs of the future will be in electronics or IT. And eventually that will be automated too. Also some blaber about migrant workers and studies in literature etc.

    Future industries are in constant development and old ones are constantly phased out. The Whale Oil Industry etc.

    New industries replaced it. Fossile fuel industry, Nuclear Industry, Reneweable energies, IT industry, Cybernetics industry, Radio communications, Audio-Visual entertainment, Marketing Etc. The last 4 of the before mentioned industries literally where created in since the 50's.

    The other thing is for every technology we phase out, we create 2 or 3 new ones. Thus the workforce is distributed in different fields. Couple of hundred years ago as professions would go it would be Farmer, Blacksmith, Jewler, Stone Worker, Tanner, Shoemaker, and a handfull of others who would employ the vast majority of the population. As technology progressed subdivisons appeared. Farmers specialized either in crops or cattle, Blacksmith into Iron workers, Blacksmith, Locksmith, Clocksmith etc, or new completly new professions where created, Electricist, Plumber etc.

    The same thing is happening today. We are created new industries with different subspecialities. Old professions phase and people become more specialized in different fields. Processes become faster and more automated but operators will still be requiered.

    The Luddite fallacy continues to apply PERFECTLY!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Sexual assault is not always rape.
    *slowclap*
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Woman rapes a guy, gives birth to child and has custody of the child.
    I don't see why you should take the child from the woman unless she abuses it.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    Alright I have read the entire thread now. Every post. (Most of them where pointless, some funny) I never seen a single item that would refute to Luddite Fallacy. I just seen the repetition of different forms of the fallacy.

    The assumption is that all jobs of the future will be in electronics or IT. And eventually that will be automated too. Also some blaber about migrant workers and studies in literature etc.

    Future industries are in constant development and old ones are constantly phased out. The Whale Oil Industry etc.

    New industries replaced it. Fossile fuel industry, Nuclear Industry, Reneweable energies, IT industry, Cybernetics industry, Radio communications, Audio-Visual entertainment, Marketing Etc. The last 4 of the before mentioned industries literally where created in since the 50's.

    The other thing is for every technology we phase out, we create 2 or 3 new ones. Thus the workforce is distributed in different fields. Couple of hundred years ago as professions would go it would be Farmer, Blacksmith, Jewler, Stone Worker, Tanner, Shoemaker, and a handfull of others who would employ the vast majority of the population. As technology progressed subdivisons appeared. Farmers specialized either in crops or cattle, Blacksmith into Iron workers, Blacksmith, Locksmith, Clocksmith etc, or new completly new professions where created, Electricist, Plumber etc.

    The same thing is happening today. We are created new industries with different subspecialities. Old professions phase and people become more specialized in different fields. Processes become faster and more automated but operators will still be requiered.

    The Luddite fallacy continues to apply PERFECTLY!
    That isn't the assumption. The assumption is that with an increase in robotics that we are starting to experience will remove a much higher percentage of people from manual jobs then happens with one invention (like a cotton gin), meanwhile there will be no openings in the market for for those places to go as all menial jobs will be taken over by robots.

    You need to understand that this phrase "past performance is not a guarantee of future results". A single invention, a single innovation, has put single digit percentages of the population out of work, and they have (slowly, generally) been absorbed back into the workforce in other areas. Robotics has the ability to put upwards of 30% of the US workforce out of jobs in the next 15-20 years. Where in the economy are we going to be able to absorb 30% of the current workforce that is really only qualified for menial labor? Or are you just going to say 'its always been ok, so it will always be ok!'.

    Kind of like global warming deniers. 'The earth has been warm before, its totally ok!'.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Grummgug View Post
    The notion that more high tech jobs get created as old ones get phased out works only as long as human brain is the most powerful computer on the planet.

    Once computers are smarter than people, it breaks down and humans become unemployable. This is expected to occur in a few more decades.
    Why do you presume that would occur? Are we talking about Terminator scenarios here, or realistic employment competition for creative jobs betwen humans and machines?

    If we are talking about competition then there are still countless not yet invented industries or infant industries that require human input and a human face mostly because they are service industries. People pay to deal with people, to be serviced by people etc. Also economically speaking what exactly would the point for buisnesses to kill the purchasing power of their customers?

    Current exemples do not apply, as in our consumer society there are still trillions of untapped markets for buisnesses and there is still plenty of purchasing power.
    What you are talking about is completly breaking the supply and demand cycle, the basis of capitalist markets.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Sexual assault is not always rape.
    *slowclap*
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Woman rapes a guy, gives birth to child and has custody of the child.
    I don't see why you should take the child from the woman unless she abuses it.

  7. #127
    The Insane peggleftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Kingston upon thames
    Posts
    15,734
    Quote Originally Posted by orissa View Post
    Someone has to make the ro . . . oh wait, the robots will do that too.

    Well . . . shit.

    its ok though, someone still has to make the robots that make the robots!
    Too cool for a signature

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by peggleftw View Post
    its ok though, someone still has to make the robots that make the robots!
    Its a giant robot circle. Robots will mine/recycle for the materials, (probably not design until AI, which is most likely less than 50 years off, but oh well) and then build, deploy, and maintain their robotic brethren in all menial jobs.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    That isn't the assumption. The assumption is that with an increase in robotics that we are starting to experience will remove a much higher percentage of people from manual jobs then happens with one invention (like a cotton gin), meanwhile there will be no openings in the market for for those places to go as all menial jobs will be taken over by robots.

    You need to understand that this phrase "past performance is not a guarantee of future results". A single invention, a single innovation, has put single digit percentages of the population out of works, and they have (slowly, generally) been absorbed back into the workforce in other areas. Robotics has the ability to put upwards of 30% of the US workforce out of jobs. Where in the economy are we going to be able to absorb 30% menial laborers? Or are you just going to say 'its always been ok, so it will always be ok!'.

    Kind of like global warming deniers. 'The earth has been warm before, its totally ok!'.
    I believe in human caused global warming. But back on topic.

    You are right. There is a potential of X% of the workforce to be phased out at a relativly quick pace. Automation from this point of view is not at all different from putting manufacturing overseas. China already has several hundred million ready built robots that can do all that work for cheap.

    Yet this shift in production to overseas did not cause 25% unemployment. It did cause some, but the labour market eventually reabsorbed it in new areas. The same happens to automation. Simply there is no way you can overnight switch out 1000 workers for 10. It is a gradual process that is still painful, but it won't kill the job market.

    The truth is that the nature of menial labour is changing. 100 years ago hammering in 20 nails per minute was Menial labour, today bolting in 55 nails per minute with a boltgun is menail labour. But on the other hand we have a new industry making the boltguns.

    I said in my original post the process is painful for those who are being cycled out, and they can only stay relevant by learning new skills and becoming more globally mobile. It is harsh, but it is natural selection.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Sexual assault is not always rape.
    *slowclap*
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Woman rapes a guy, gives birth to child and has custody of the child.
    I don't see why you should take the child from the woman unless she abuses it.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    I believe in human caused global warming. But back on topic.

    You are right. There is a potential of X% of the workforce to be phased out at a relativly quick pace. Automation from this point of view is not at all different from putting manufacturing overseas. China already has several hundred million ready built robots that can do all that work for cheap.

    Yet this shift in production to overseas did not cause 25% unemployment. It did cause some, but the labour market eventually reabsorbed it in new areas. The same happens to automation. Simply there is no way you can overnight switch out 1000 workers for 10. It is a gradual process that is still painful, but it won't kill the job market.

    The truth is that the nature of menial labour is changing. 100 years ago hammering in 20 nails per minute was Menial labour, today bolting in 55 nails per minute with a boltgun is menail labour. But on the other hand we have a new industry making the boltguns.

    I said in my original post the process is painful for those who are being cycled out, and they can only stay relevant by learning new skills and becoming more globally mobile. It is harsh, but it is natural selection.

    Actually, many economists are stating that the movement of manufacturing to third world countries is still effecting the US economy. What happens when humans no longer build buildings, or are employed in a fast food shop, or build guns or anything else menial. It is a much larger percentage of the population 'suddenly' out of work. You ignore all those service jobs that didn't go anywhere (and the US is a service based economy now), that will be replaced with robotics?

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Actually, many economists are stating that the movement of manufacturing to third world countries is still effecting the US economy. What happens when humans no longer build buildings, or are employed in a fast food shop, or build guns or anything else menial. It is a much larger percentage of the population 'suddenly' out of work. You ignore all those service jobs that didn't go anywhere (and the US is a service based economy now), that will be replaced with robotics?
    I agree it is still affecting 1st world economies as a whole. But it is a natural process. Unless you are willing to accept complete technological stagnation and are willing to forgo any increase in your standards of living or quality of life this loss gain process will forever continue. The causes are different. Sometimes the pace is different. But the market will balance itself.

    I did mention global mobility too. The truth is if you want to stay relevant you also need to be willing not to tie yourself geographically. New industries and oportunities are opening up everywhere all the time. Even for someone who worked in something like car manufacturing. South American companies for exemple constantly hire oversears and trainers for their nascent industries from Europe etc.
    Developing nations are just started to build many of their infrastructure and they are desperate for skilled trainer labour, trainers etc and are willing to pay...and pay well.

    What I am saying is that the jobs will still be there. Just in different areas. And if they aren't there YET, they will be eventually.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Sexual assault is not always rape.
    *slowclap*
    Quote Originally Posted by Mooneye View Post
    Woman rapes a guy, gives birth to child and has custody of the child.
    I don't see why you should take the child from the woman unless she abuses it.

  12. #132
    Scarab Lord Zka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    hungary
    Posts
    4,108
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Actually, many economists are stating that the movement of manufacturing to third world countries is still effecting the US economy. What happens when humans no longer build buildings, or are employed in a fast food shop, or build guns or anything else menial. It is a much larger percentage of the population 'suddenly' out of work. You ignore all those service jobs that didn't go anywhere (and the US is a service based economy now), that will be replaced with robotics?
    If such thing would ever happen, then we need to put all our economy and society on a brand new foundation I think. I mean people getting some "default salary" (I don't know the english term for this) even without work. These ideas already exist, advertised by far left and are nonsense within the current economy of course.

    Retired raider coming back for WoD.
    WoD BETA CLUB

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    We need a war, and then less reproduction.
    Considering the Age of Antibiotics is almost over... I think we'll have a pandemic rather than a war.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    I said in my original post the process is painful for those who are being cycled out, and they can only stay relevant by learning new skills and becoming more globally mobile. It is harsh, but it is natural selection.
    What you seem to keep refusing to see is that when machines phase out a certain human employment sector, those jobs are moved only to jobs where humans are still the best option.

    For a employer to decide on who to employ there are 2 main topics to examine: the skill of the worker regarding to the needs for the position, and the cost of the worker.
    Because of the state of the development of automation and AI, there are still many skills that a human can possess that machines can't. But as machines become better, every single task a human can do, machines will eventually do it too. There is nothing essentially special or irreplicable about the computing machine we call "human brain". Eventually, as any piece of hardward, the human brain will be phased out as an inferior piece of hardware, and all the tasts that we used to be the only ones who could do, will not be our exclusive anymore. It doesn't matter if it is machine maintenance, programming or creative writing.
    When those new machines with better cognitivie skills than our own become cheaper than ourselves as a workforce, we will be phased out.

    You asked earlier why would a company phase out of the purchasing power their potential customers. The answer is: because the first companies to be able to do it will gain a tremendous competitive advantage over the rest, and their owners will become immensely rich.

    If we accept that the human brain has no supernatural components, and it's only the product of biological evolution (a non-intelligent process), we must admit that it can be replicated by ourselves, eventually (intelligent beings). So far so good?
    If we accept that, it's only a logical consequence of the faster evolution of computers that eventually the machines will be able to do any job humans do, better and cheaper. Given that, we must admit that under free market considerations, humans will eventually be phased of the job market. Do you admit this?

    At that point, the only people who will be able to earn a living will be those who own those machines, who will keep producing for each other, making the free market an affair of a handful of people...

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by kNite View Post
    LOL people who believe they were born to dig ditches are lazy. You may not become a rocket scientist or physicist but everyone can get the basic knowledge and skill to do a skilled labor job. Every one has the capacity for learning (unless you have a real learning disability which is completely different scenerio). Yes some people will have to work harder than other for the same amount of knowledge absorption but saying some people are so dumb they can only learn how to handle a shovel is retarded.
    Who the hell are you to dictate what a person wants to do with their lives?

    If somebody enjoys something and finds it more fulfilling than programming, than good on them and they will become the BEST at what they enjoy most. That's not being lazy - that's being an individual.

    What you're condoning isn't stopping lazyness, it's being a totalitarian dictator telling others what they can or cannot be.
    "Tell them only that the Lich King is dead... and that World of Warcraft... died with him..."

    Quote Originally Posted by BenBos View Post
    That's the ONLY reason you would post 9600 posts over 3 years: a mission of hate.

  16. #136

  17. #137
    It is a problem, i guess they have to be careful with how much they employ technology.. for example, supermarkets could be completely unmanned, but ofc the only thing stopping that is it would probably spike unemployment.

    its funny when you think that technology is created around the concept of making a task easier or more efficient but the cost is only worth it upto a certain point.

    also, not everyone can or wants to be an engineer/programmer/rust remover.

    a good example of this in effect is farming, before the industrial revolution it took quite a lot of hands to till a large field, now, 1 machine can do it all.

  18. #138
    For the people who don't seem to understand the problem with this and can claim they all get jobs elsewhere, let me put it this way.

    Lets say we lose 30% of our workforce within the next 20 years to automation. That will be a HUGE increase when we already have a huge unemployment problem (different from the unemployment rate which isn't entirely accurate as it is not all inclusive).

    You say they can get work elsewhere... Where? No one else it hiring as they dumped most of their employees as well for the cheaper machines to keep a higher percentage of the profits.

    You say new areas will open up they could work at.... How? They will be manned by machines as well as they can do all the same stuff we can but cheaper and they can out think us when it comes to simple data processing and next to no actual jobs are creative in nature.

    So you have people who are out of work with literally zero job openings anywhere for them to fill to make a living....

    So, now you ask why companies would do this and put all the consumers they rely on out of work? Easy, the first ones to do this the fastest effectively win all and make massive amounts of income. The ones who don't are effectively bankrupt and shut down in very short order.

    So what happens in the end? MASSIVE unemployment, potentially hitting over 95% after a few years to decades past that point, and a handful of people who own the machines who effectively own everything and everyone till civil war breaks out and they are killed or the government reshifts and no one can actually own them personally anymore.

  19. #139
    Scarab Lord Roose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tuscaloosa
    Posts
    4,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    So, now you ask why companies would do this and put all the consumers they rely on out of work? Easy, the first ones to do this the fastest effectively win all and make massive amounts of income. The ones who don't are effectively bankrupt and shut down in very short order.
    This I do think will happen. Those quickest to automate will see the best returns. This will allow them more opportunities. They will likely have some steep setup costs, but after those are recouped it is almost all gravy. Those companies would be in positions to corner markets. We will see more monopolies and likely even larger MNCs.

  20. #140
    Legendary! vindicatorx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bloomington, Indiana
    Posts
    6,642
    I suppose it's a good thing I am in the IT field then eh? Looks like someone planned ahead.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •