The new politics when automation removes low and middle skilled jobs.

......

 

Except it isn't a myth. This is libertarian ideology that I predict will be proven nonsense within 25 years. The reason you guys can't stand to acknowledge this possibility is because it takes libertarianism to an absurd conclusion. Infinite human desire does not equate to infinite demand for a person's labor. Economists are already talking about this issue a lot, and I think we will have a lot more data in the next decade or so.

 

No evidence of long-term technological unemployment from the last 200 years exists and none will be found in the next 25 years. This is because for every worker whose job is taken by a machine, one or more workers are employed within a short time due to the positive consequences of technological innovation that leads to higher employment.

 

Communism.

Capitalism loses stability when there's no more opportunity for workers to benefit from capital in any way.

 

It's a very real problem now for many people. If you're looking for solutions, you remove the laws that keep them from working. Do you really need to force people to get a license to cut hair? Of course not. Uber showed how to get around one of those unnecessary licensing restrictions, and that's working out really well for many people.

If you're worried about unemployment, the first thing you do is look at impediments to getting a job, and you remove them. There are plenty right now that nobody in congress is all that interested in removing.

All the things you need can be obtained with labor. Food can be grown, houses can be built, cloth can be made, and water can be had at any river or lake. You're worried about things that we humans conquered centuries ago. All it takes is labor, which you seem to be worried will not be needed.

We're a long way from that, and the federal government owns 28% of the land in the country. Then there is lots of land controlled by the western states, and more that is designated wilderness land, I believe.

If uncle Sam gave you 10 acres, you could survive on that land just like people have done since there have been people.

Now you're going full socialist on me. Sorry, but you are free to come up with all the automation you want, I reckon. I don't think the wealthy we have now should have that wealth because of the corrupt politicians that can be purchased so cheaply. Still, they are our politicians. They didn't descend from heaven, but were rather voted into office.

Yeah, that's always a possibility. So long as you have your ten acres, you're set. You don't need all that high falutin' luxury. What you need is some rain and a good crop of beans. Then you can read little house on the prairie by the light of a hand made tallow candle.

 

That's an interesting little statistic you have there. Where does it come from? Is it some law of economics or is it some short term observation?

 

Yes, I know you are worried that the people will be replaced by machines. The problem is that it doesn't really work like that. Do you know why you don't see ferrari dealerships where poor people live? It's because nobody has the money to buy a ferrari. If we're all broke, there is no reason for the robots to start producing ferraris, yes? They'll start up to make economy cars, but not luxury cars.

You can see how that works wherever you go. If people are poor, they don't have iphones, but they do have cheaper no name phones. Manufacturers (the robot owners) look at a market and manufacture products that they can afford. It's not cutting edge technology, but it works. Go to where people have money, and the supermarkets sell rib eye steaks. Go where the poor people are, and you'll find beans and rice.

So you're worried about being replaced by a robot. I get that, but that's been happening for centuries. You either adapt, or you lower your standard of living.

Let's say that I invent something that will make all that star trek stuff I talked of earlier. I have all the resources, right down to robots that collect buckets that catch the rain before it even hits the ground. People are dead broke and starving in the streets. It's your dystopian vision of the future, and I'm the buttmunch that caused it.

The question you have to ask yourself is why would I want to own all the resources? I don't need them, and all that rain water would start piling up after awhile. People are broke so what would my technology be worth? It would be like trying to sell ferraris to people who can only afford fords. If I'm interested in whatever your worthless hide can be sold for, I'll reprogram the robots to start manufacturing fords.

If I'm not interested because I'm rich, I will retire to my private island and spend the rest of my days watching sylvester stallone movies. I'll put my robots in moth balls because I'm greedy, and things go on just as they did before. The increased production that my invention brings to the table is worthless if nobody has enough money to get me off the couch. Similarly, I have no use for the world's oil supply, so why would I want it? That would be like an eskimo hoarding all the ice.

 

Third thread on this bogus issue of late? The Complex sewer pipe must be working overtime on this particular lie narrative PSA.

 

A very short history in which many things have changed, including the economic theories to explain them. This isn't much evidence. There is nothing inherent in capitalism that ensures people are always employed.

Licensing, licensing, licensing. This issues cannot be stressed enough. It would be so much easier for people who have talent but fewer resources if we could do away with licensing requirements. Once again, this is why the conservatives have no credibility. This is a conservative idea that would help hardworking poor people, and they do nothing to get this legislation passed, thus exposing the true agenda--they don't even talk about, outside obscure publications like Cato. The minute a conservative party puts their money where their mouth is, they'll get a lot more support from me. Professionals who want special protection and don't want to compete will always block it, so this will never happen, just like the majority of libertarian ideas.

Nobody wants to compete, but everybody wants to cheat.

Not bogus, just ideologically threatening.

 

What I have observed everywhere I go is that while technology puts people out of some jobs, they gravitate towards other jobs. Technology is expensive, and it scales relative to the population. The poorer people are, the less technology they have. It goes without saying, yes?

With less technology, does it also not make sense that there are fewer robots taking jobs? If so, then that does relate to what I wrote.

Of course it isn't shared. That's why I drive an econobox and Bill Gates drives something that is probably a bit more grandiose. Resources cost money, technology costs money, and no it's not shared. You have to pay for it, or do without. Since that's your worry, then worry no more. It's not a possibility but rather an inevitability.

Not on my dime, if I have any say in the matter. If they can't be on welfare, and they can't get a job, then they starve. But then we go back to doing without technology. Worried about resources? Those cost money as well. However, the better the technology, the more productive our robots become. It wasn't too long ago that people were worried about peak oil. Prior to that, they were worried about peak food supply. Technology became more productive, and now the problem seems to be too much food and too much oil.

If you're worried about people supporting themselves, they still use pedicabs in many parts of the world. This is because they can't afford ferraris. I thought I had made this point earlier...

Here we go again... We are capable of taking care of our families with just a few acres of land. Better use of the land results in being able to produce a profit by producing more than our families need. We, as a society, don't have to do anything because we as humans are already capable of doing that.

If you are living in excess of your ability to pay for it, then yes, you'll have to lower your standard of living. It could well become a third world situation, but there are places like that all over the globe. That's not something you can avoid through legislation. If so, Laos would love to know what that legislatin might be.

What do the Waltons do with that money? They invest it which helps other people. It's not in the walton family mattress gathering dust. What does that Fergus dude do with all of those homes? He probably rents them out to people who prefer renting to owning. It's being put to use. But let's say that the waltons do keep their money in their mattress, and this fergus guy just let's his real estate gather dust from being unoccupied.

So what? It's theirs. They worked for it, and they can do what they want with it. They aren't hurting you or anybody else, so just forget about them. They're like me on my private island watching Sylvester Stallone movies. I'm not hurting anybody, and the rest of the world can just get along without me.

Back in the day, kings owned the land. They owned everything. Every little hamlet, every river, and every mountain. They would basically hire managers to take care of portions of their property. These managers (earls and such) would employ people called serfs that worked for the earl. The king's job was to use a portion of the produce to defend his land from other kings, which is why there were wars.

I take it you might be a bit skeptical of the importance of protecting the land that the serfs worked on. So am I. I don't think it matters so much who owns the land I live on, or the river that supplies me with water. I'd prefer owning it myself, but I'm just not strong enough to protect it from my neighbors, who would probably love to take some for their own use.

Seriously, I don't know where you're going with this. You seem to be looking at problems, whereas I'm just trying to be realistic. Yes, there are problems with this situation where people own resources and land. There are always going to be problems, unless you're master of the universe.

What would you prefer?

 

Modern economic history is considered a short timeframe? We're in 2016, we don't experience mass long-term technological unemployment, some people lose their jobs because they are replaced by machines and other inovations but the unemployment rate isn't rising as a result of the economic growth that these innovations bring.

 

As a reminder, what you said was, "for every worker whose job is taken by a machine, one or more workers are employed within a short time due to the positive consequences of technological innovation that leads to higher employment."

That sounds like if that was something backed up by "Modern economic history" it would be backed up by some sort of formula or graph? You know how economists love their graphs...

 

Just one of the many studies out there.

Graphs included in the link: http://www.theguardian.com/business...ore-jobs-than-destroyed-140-years-data-census

 

Well you still didn't answer my question, but I think your point is that it's always been that way and nothing will ever change.

 

Do you know how something becomes a law in physics? A law is a conclusion based on experiments and observations over the course of many years.
If again and again we see no drop in employment due to the automation of the economy, it's safe to assume that automation doesn't negatively effect unemployment. What this and other studies have showed is that what happens is that humans have more disposable income due to automation (since the drop in production cost leads to lower prices) which they spend or save (in order to invest later).

 

Well I do agree that historically automation has only been a temporary bump on the road of employment because there were still other jobs for people to take. I'm worried about this time being different since the jobs created are ones that require a good deal more training and skills than in the past. That's why I didn't expect you to actually come up with some iron clad law of economics. We only have a recent history of new low and semi skilled jobs being created. A truck driver isn't going to become a systems analyst. Once millions of jobs are wiped out in transportation, are these drivers going to code? Go to medical school? No, they're not going to be employable at all.

 

Self-driving trucks have the potential to revolutionize cargo transportation. Self-driving trucks will be able to operate 24h/day without stopping. If the cost of having a self-driving truck is lower than the cost of having a normal truck and employing one or more drivers to operate it, self-driving trucks are going to replace truck drivers. In turn this will reduce both the cost and the speed of delivering cargo from one place to another, giving an overall boost in the economy.

If it took 9 hours for your cargo to arrive and now it does in 8 hours and cheaper, you're saving money. So now the reduced cost of production for your business will make you reduce your prices. And if you're selling cars or furniture or medicine or whatever, now that's going to be cheaper. And now the 30-years old woman who now buys furniture from you cheaper, has more money left in her pocket. Money which she now might spend at a nails saloon or a spa. And if the medicine you're selling is now cheaper, that will save money from the pocket of the grandma that buys medicine from you. She now has more money to spend for the home health aide she wants. And if the guy who wanted to buy a car from you now can buy it for cheaper, he has more money left in his pocket to spend at the casino with his friends.

And that's how jobs are created. Jobs that will offset the jobs lost by the truck drivers, either by employing the truck drivers themselves or other people who are unemployed or just entering the labor pool.

 

Quicker and cheaper transportation costs could in fact increase GDP and would certainly increase corporate profits, but those millions of unemployed transportation drivers...what type of jobs will appear to substitute? This isn't really some theoretical future. Our economy has been going through this for years. Yes jobs are created, but they are either on the high end, regarding professional or extremely skilled work, or part time "gig economy" jobs; nothing that replaces the jobs lost.

 

I will admit that ownership of scarce resources is a problem. Fair enough?

Wait a minute... See, you're slipping public ownership of resources in there as a solution to private ownership of resources. I can't sit here in my house and write a piece of legislation that takes the car my neighbor owns and gives it to myself, right? It's his frickin' car.

If I could, wouldn't that make his car my car? I can loan my neighbor my car because it's my car, but I can't rightfully borrow his keys without his permission.

So you're trying to slip a distinction between private and public ownership in there, which I think you're going to find problematic. The idea of public ownership is distinctly communist.

It's theirs. They can do what they want with it. Sure, I have some of my money invested in things that helps absolutely nobody. Old comic books, vintage guitars, precious metals and some other stuff that just kinda sits there in the belch vault. It's basically helping dust find somewhere to settle.

and then there is some that does, such as what little money I have in my savings account, a bit of stock. a few pieces of real estate on the wrong side of the tracks.

His many houses are helping people.

Did you ever read Thoreau's Walden? Think of his little shed that he built out of recycled nails and boards as a house that people could build if they wanted to actually own a house. Lots of land all over the world that is dirt cheap. If you can afford rent, you can afford to think of owning. It's just probably going to involve a long commute.

I would prefer to be rich, too. Unfortunately, I'm not rich. Still, I think if you want to own, then there are opportunities. You might have to relocate to the north pole, but that option is available. There's certainly not going to be anybody from the government telling you that your igloo doesn't conform to north poleian building code, so you have to vacate the premises.

Look, I appreciate where you're going with this. You see these guys owning all this stuff, when there are people who don't even own the piece of sidewalk they sleep on. One guy owns a thousand houses, and another guy has to sleep under the storm clouds in central park. It's not fair, and you want the government to come in and do something about it. Take a few houses from that guy, give a few houses to that other guy, and suddenly we're all a bit closer to an equitable arrangement.

Your answer of communism has been tried, and what happens is that private ownership turned into private ownership. The only difference is that a lot of people who were rich suddenly resulted in one guy becoming rich because your communism needs a central planning authority, and that always devolves into a kim Il sung, or a pol pot, or a mao or a stalin or a castro.

You're going to have to figure out some way to keep that from happening, and I don't think you're there yet. A social democracy is one answer, but we have that now, and what we have is about 28% of the land owned by the government and just sitting there with nothing but the bears and the deer living their lives, while homeless people sleep on the street.

I don't think you'll ever get there with social democracy. We've tried it, and it has failed. Push for more, and you're going to get more stalins and maos.