What To Do About The Long-Term Implications of Automation

I agree that this does deserve another thread of it's own because it would not be fair to take this one off in another direction. If you get the chance to start one up just link me in and I will participate to support the raising of the SS income cap and the introduction of a NDS.

 

a cascading failure cannot be corrected by 'education', the root cause must be solved before it can be fixed properly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_failure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passengers_(2016_film)

 

Personally, I am looking forward to the day when I do not have to log onto this forum to post my tirades. An online robot pre-programmed with all of my prejudices and political stereotypes will be able to log on under my nick and post more outlandish BS that I could possibly invent while I lie in the hammock on the veranda sipping a cool one. Automation? Bring it on!

 

the 4 phased approach won't work, they won't let you use lawful government force to take the product of their labor so that you can redistribute it equitably to people who need it.

what they will allow you to do is let industry give the undesirables good paying ditch digging jobs for oil, civilisation does not have a duty to save the poor because the poor do not have the intelligence to defend themselves.

the rich will only save those who can benefit them, and they don't trust you or the moral compass of your people to freely hand over such power.

 

good paying manufacturing jobs were replaced by good paying jobs in the energy industry for the uneducated classes...

free market capitalism cannot support good paying jobs for both working class immigrants and working class Americans.

uneducated and poor Americans want the dignity of tariffs and a huge wall, or pragmatically high paying jobs that pollute the environment, not generous welfare or a 'UBI'.

 

Not entirely

First the future is not as inevitably bleak as you believe

Machines are not going to take over 90% of the jobs

I think that is an over simplification

China and mexico are fighting to take every American factort job that they can

So they are not surrendering to this new world of yours

However assuming you are right who or what will design and build the machines?

I want America to be the leader in manufacturing no matter if tpits with machines or people

But I think what you want and all you care about if some form of guaranteed income for everybody whether they contribute to society or not

Am I correct?

 

America is running near the bottom in education

Our students rank about 25th in math and science worldwide

So chances are the best engineers will soon not be Americans

So here is my suggestion for what to do

1. Dont panic. Chances are the move to robots will not be as fast or complete as you think

2. Reform education. Meaning return to the basic fundimentals Place more emphasis on tangible subjects like math and science, reading and writing

3, restrict immigration to only high skill workers and the immediate family of wives and children. And begin deporting illegal aliens based on that same standard after we build a wall and stop the flow of new illegals

4. Fight tooth and nail with china and mexico for manufacturing Make sure new production is located in America not china

Thats not the only steps we can take but you asked for ideas and those are mine

 

Midland Texas has help wanted signs everywhere

 

Been doing some reading and came across something that bears upon this thread IMO.

Step back to the time when we were tribal groups. In those societies there was a "pecking order" but the concept of poverty did not exist. Even the lowest member on the ladder was still entitled to food and shelter and the protection of the rest of the members should there be some or other outside threat. This concept extended when it came to unimproved land that was used for either hunting.gathering and then later grazing domesticated animals. All members of the tribe has "equal ownership" of the territory that they either hunted/gathered and/or grazed.

Then we began the concept of farming which increased the yield of the land and with that came the concept of ownership of the land that was being farmed. This is where society began to diverge into those that owned the land and those who merely worked the land. If you did not own the land all you had to offer was your labor. If you could not work the land you were a parasite and forced off the land in preference to someone who could work the land. This is the origin of wealth and poverty between those that have and the have-nots.

Today the concept has morphed into what happens when even the able bodied can no longer work because they are not efficient enough to earn more wealth than they cost to employ? This will result in poverty expanding into what today is the middle class. Without the means to earn a living millions will become impoverished. Banks will evict people from their homes because they can't make their mortgage payments in much the same way that farmers in the dust bowl were evicted from their farms because they could not grow any crops.

Poverty did not exist in what we refer to as "primitive" tribal societies but in our advanced "civilized" societies we not only have poverty but we are about to have poverty on a scale never imagined before.

We do have the advantage that we technically governed by ourselves but how are we going to restructure society? Does everyone have a right to food and shelter regardless of their contribution to society in an age when the majority of people are "parasites" through no fault of their own? We adapted to the change from tribalism to civilization at the cost of introducing poverty amongst a subset of humanity. What happens when we increase that subset to a level where it is a majority of the people?

Can we adapt because our current system of laws is geared towards the concept of ownership? If only a few own everything then what happens to the majority who own nothing?

Effectively we need a whole new concept of how to govern ourselves in the future because the current system does not have the answers as to how we can adapt successfully to what is about to happen.

 

If you think for a moment, you will have to agree that we are part of nature, and nature is part of us. Humans have the ability to modify and adapt- but the idea that we can exempt ourselves from the laws of life that nature controls is pure fantasy. The best quality of life is to use our adaptability within the natural principles that are inherent in our world, and in us.

The concept of a cooperative is the basis of communism, socialism and similar things. It works for ants, bees and a few species where the particular species is a clone of a master dna- but it never works for species whose very nature is to express themselves as individuals. We are not, never have been and never will be equal in that respect. The most important thing here is to understand that we make ourselves who we are- individually. That doesn't mean we vary in value as a birthright, but it does mean we vary both in value and in compatibility according to our personal choices; we make ourselves who we are. A commune style society attempts to make everybody equally entitled, distribute things equally between people. It stifles the creativity, the individuality, makes the best slaves to the support of the least, removes the incentive from those who have the greatest potential.

That invariably attracts those who want to have more but contribute less, and it repulses those who can produce more and do not wish to carry the load for others. Bernie Sanders- hippie child, great supporter of such ideas for example- was thrown out of a commune he lived in, because while he loved to talk the talk, but wouldn't work. He's been selling the idea of people living like bees all his life. That philosophy has one consistent element, in that it is always a re-distribution of wealth from the more productive people to the less productive- and against their will. Negative social effect.

People make themselves what the are, and within a proper framework, that is fine. If you choose to be minimally productive, that is your choice. So long as you are willing to live within your means, it is also your right. However when that person starts to say they have a right to the fruits of the labor of those who make themselves more productive and want society to take that for them- you have a crime of sorts, stealing from the productive to support the non-productive person, who wishes to live better but not work for it.
I have empathy for those who are in need for reasons beyond their control, and I will give them a hand up. I do not have empathy for those in need as a consequence of their own choices- and I have no motivation to give them a hand-out. Huge difference in those actions, that many do not understand.

In nature there are species that group together for the safety it can provide, but that is their individual choice because it serves their needs individually due to the nature of that species. It's not a matter of humans living a specific way- it's a matter of them being allowed to live as they wish, not be compelled to participate in a social group they want no part of. Socialism always depends on taking something from others that they don't want to give, claiming entitlement to what others accomplish. Theft. Theft of those people's property, of their productivity, of their spirit. It is the essence of freedom to choose the way we wish to live, to be free of those who would live off us and control our lives.

It is in our nature to be creative, to desire, to excel- and to be individual. But neither the objectives of those things not the drive for them is the same in all people. Our nature is to be individual, and yet form partnerships with others to accomplish more, to build things no individual can do alone. BUT that is a voluntary thing- not a compulsive one. We can form mutualistic relationships, by choice- but parasitic ones, where one side feeds on others, is healthy for no one.

 

The minimum wage has been a curse on the working class, and a gift to Big Business.

 

automation will not advance to where everyone is sitting at home collecting welfare checks 'UBI', and making love to robots.

you will always have to earn your keep in society and support a human family, whether by digging ditches for oil, or some other respectable means of employment such as manufacturing automobiles.

once the tariffs and huge wall go into effect, wages will go up in menial labor jobs for the uneducated, and they too will be propelled into the workforce.

 

IMO if the USA, or local communities, want industry, then let business do their job and let government and society do their job. Industry's job is not to solve or participate with problems in society. Industry, just as an individual, simply need to pay 'whatever' taxes are necessary for both to be sustainable. It is these taxes that determine what society can do towards solving 'their' problems. If people need shelter, or health care, or food, or whatever, this task belongs to government and society. If government and society cannot provide reasonable governance and a likable society, then over time people and industry will leave. As a business owner I do not wish to spend a nanosecond of my time thinking about society problems! Just tell me how much I must pay in taxes then leave me alone! If government and society are too stupid to collect the correct amount of taxation, or too stupid to properly manage the area, then industry and people will simply find other places to function. OR...we just need to accept that Americans/humans have reached our peak performance and we simply are not capable of solving complex problems...this is what I believe and this tells me the future will be a very bumpy ride...

 

It's not an attitude...it's a fact that we cannot force change! We prove this every day! As a group we are now incapable of doing much of anything.

I just wish society could understand that industry has a very narrowly focused task, to satisfy demand and earn profits and grow, and many of them can perform this in many areas of the US and around the world. If location A does not work then try location B and so on. The MORE that society forces on industry the more likelihood industry will find another place. Keep industry and government functions 100% separate! One of my pet peeves for decades is why society and government think industry should provide health care? IMO this is stupid and helps explain the root of these problems.

I don't like plans that are doomed from the beginning! These types of plans are not solutions! Society and government proves year after year their incompetence yet people still hope something will miraculously change? It won't! It can't in our current environment of failure...

 

And that would no doubt be serious enough to produce violence and organizing efforts, and either change or martial law and serious oppression under a dictatorship.

Good question. And we had better figure it out now while we can or I'm afraid we will risk major personal economic hardship, widespread poverty, violence, and government crack-downs on the population with all that such a situation brings if we wait. And a major way of organizing may be to form a "radical" political party that goes all-out to rebuild unions and citizen support organizations under one umbrella. Remember that at the time of the Great Depression 25% of the workforce was unionized and there were three (I believe) "people's parties" - communist and socialist. And those parties were very powerful due to the number of members. That made it possible for FDR to tell the corporate leaders that they were either going to pay LOTS more in income taxes, or the communist party had plans for them that they would like much, much less.

I am not in favor of a communist party, but some party that faithfully represents the people may be needed. The problem I see right now is that people don't see the need yet. I'm just worried about the conditions it may take to force us to see the need.