There Will Never Be Enough Good Jobs Again

Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 9 months ago to Government
88 comments | Share | Flag

Interesting Article, I am interested in others thoughts about it.
SOURCE URL: http://www.freemansperspective.com/never-be-enough-good-jobs-again/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 9 months ago
    Hello XenokRoy
    A self destructive policy is at work. A basic law of economics is at play. Whatever you subsidize, you get more of. Whatever you tax and regulate you get less of. The more people that are paid not to work the more of them you get. The more you tax and regulate the productive the fewer of them you get. The result is an economy without excess capital or incentive to create new jobs and increase the labor market. Innovation, invention and job creation suffer as a result. When more people work there are more consumers with expendable income to spread around and feed more jobs. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that when you cut welfare and other handouts people do find work and then a multiplier effect grows the economy and job market.

    There are many factors at work here and government is behind the worst of them. We no longer stress teaching a man to fish. We just give him a fish. Trade, regulation and tax policies that encourage large corporations to outsource work are also at play. Another critical economic law: Capital will always seek the highest return.

    The situation is dire, but it is not hopeless. If the wrong government policies can be destructive, the right ones can be constructive. It is the mindset of those that elect and those they elect which must learn the error of their ways. If this reality finally sinks in, things will change. Many in government are dependent upon their symbiotic relationship with voters that return the favor for the handout. To those of us that produce, both are parasitic. Technology is not the problem. Lack of incentive is the problem.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      Referring to Hazlitt where does the subsidy money come from and where would it have been spent had it not been taxed from those who created it to subsidize those who mooched it.

      There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Ethanol? Ethanol Subsidies? Most of it goes to agricorps not to farmers or farm workers. And whiy should we subsidize something that takes one gallon of gas to produce one gallon of moonshine and then destroys your engine? Other than that point I'm giving you a thumbs up for the rest of it. So just think about that one little point which is after all nothing more than another form of welfare.

      Keep up the good work.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
        If done right bio fuels would be a good thing. One does not need to burn any fuel to process the Bio fuel, we can turn to Brazil as they figured out a easy way to get the ethanol out.

        Long black pipe, with a solar panel and a small fan and a temperature gauge to keep it from becoming to hot in the pipe. a drain pipe to a tank.

        Sun heats up the pipe ethanol cooks out, fan keeps it from getting to warm. Truck comes buy to pump it out. very low cost.

        No subsidy needed. Fact is if we quit paying people for ethanol and quit paying others not to grow anything we could remove two expenses and get ethanol crops in places where we pay to get nothing now. .

        E85 engines do not get destroyed by ethanol at all, but can burn 100% ethanol just fine.

        Guess what, do the above, create jobs, make cheaper fuel and reduce dependance on foreign oil. All while reducing government spending.

        No negatives so it wont happen, no government cut for someones buddy is the "negative" that will make this never happen.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
          Off hand what does E85 mean

          The less government expenditure on what now is an entitlement program for the midwest and the agricorps is another issue but the still is an excellent idea - any ATF issues? Since ethanol is nothing more than distilled alcohol - The old method was silage in a silo with a ordinary drain valve near the bottom - mighty mighty pleasings my daddy's corn squeezings! works with sunlight and gravity. This method is much more simple as most don't have silos. But I wonder about the revenooers?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
            I'm assuming it depends on the type of bio-mass but the still itself would come under ATF. The big power producers and agribusiness either have an exemption or a license but i'm not sure what the tax per gallon rate is versus Jack Daniels.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
              I am sure any program that did the above would get an additional tax which would likely be enough to maintain about the same price even though the costs would be cheaper by a sizable amount.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago
    A society that pays a third of it's population not to work is in serious difficulty. And that doesn't count children and elderly.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago
      Historically that has been true. But work, for it's own sake is not necessarily a virtue. If it were, then digging holes and filling them up again would qualify as virtuous work. Work is only a virtue if it produces goods and services for either the person doing the work or someone else.

      My wife is a weaver. She has woven several garments. It's a hobby, although she's sold some of her work. People can no longer make a living weaving because our closets are filled with clothes beyond the dreams of medieval monarchs because automated production produces them.

      At some point automated tools become so capable (robots) that the vast majority of jobs are no longer profitably done by humans. When you can produce the goods that everyone wants with a fraction of the workers, what do you do with the rest?

      They could have subsidized jobs where they produce the same product that a robot could with a few cents cost and be subsidized for the rest of their needs, but that is very close to digging holes and filling them up again.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago
        Where does the pay for the hours spent digging and refilling holes come from? It has little to do with virtuous work, it has to do with reality. A robot is a machine which by itself creates no value.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
          Until...

          The Robot has some form of artificial intelligence then the whole dynamic changes.

          Using an example that is being attempted now. You develop a system with all the information you have on a specific cancer cell. Next you then add to that system the full human genome. Lastly you add all of the data available from tests that have been done against the cancer cell. You then create an analytic program that boarders on intelligence to analyze the data based on possible solutions and using a virtual model do two years of testing overnight, every night and day, refining the process. A job that took an entire team of geneticist to research now takes one. We are not here yet, but when the AI on this specific task works, we will be.

          A Utah company InsideSales has used early artificial intelligence and big data to increase sales by as much as 70%. They do so by analyzing the personality of the sales person, the personality data of the customer and the buying paters of the customer. It then determines the best sales man to call and the best time to call for the best results. This allows a company to cut their inside sales staff by 50% and still increase sales by as much as double. Its a bit earlier and crude use of the AI concepts, but its a good look at what is coming in many fields.

          My own company does customer experience software that works with big data. You put robots in stores and tie into our software with them and every robot would have massive information about each of your customers. Add in things like facial recognition and the robots could address every customer by name, always have a perfectly toned voice for maximizing customer satisfaction and be very cool. Again its a ways off still but coming faster than one would think.

          Many technologist think 2025-2030 will be when the AI becomes capable of human like decisions. If they are right about 2040 we will see large scale application start to hit the market. I think It will be a change that makes the industrial revolution look small. The robots that are starting to emerge and the self driving Taxi's are the tip of the iceberg.

          It will be a huge job shift, but unlike the industrial revolution which moved most jobs out of the home and into factories the AI and robotics revolution will eliminate many more jobs than it creates and concentrate greater wealth in the hands of a few who have government pull while leaving many more dependent on the government.

          I am very intersted to see how it plays out. I have confidence it will create jobs as well, but I do not yet see where and in what markets. Industrious people come up with productive things to do. I am personally unsure what in this case, but I am sure I will spot something myself and so will most people here.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago
            There was a meeting just this last week of a group of privacy advocates and those working in facial recognition tech. The intent was to try to develop and agree on acceptable uses and guidelines for the tech. Not surprisingly, the privacy advocates walked out of the meetings.

            We developed and utilized expert systems in the late 70's and early 80's. The new is the vast increase in computing power and data for those systems to accumulate and work with. The complexity of the systems continue to grow and expand, magnitudes greater than those of 40 years ago and those magnitudes will probably continue to magnitudes we can only imagine today.

            I don't fear the technology. It's simply a tool. Nor do i fear constructive destruction. What I fear is the Statists, those fearful of the individual, and the deniers of freedom and what they will do with it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
              I did not know they had met.

              I agree it is not the tech that is the problem, it is the way in which some will choose to use it that is a problem.

              Any longer privacy is just gone, the government has said we have no expectation of privacy in public places. (Washington state supreme court on a case about up skirting and that the woman who sued had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.) Since that is the attitude that has been taken I am sure extending the same attitude to images posted to any public web site would also qualify as having no reasonable expectation of privacy as well.

              Ya not surprised that the privacy advocates walked out. Actually a bit surprised they even showed up.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago
          If a man takes components, assembles them into a functioning device and tests it, is not that creating value? If a robot does the same thing (and they do) does that not create the same value.

          Of course you can look at it in two ways. You can calculate value based on human labor in which case the robot only contributes a portion of the human labor that went into creating it and the energy that runs it. Or you can look at value as to usefulness to another human being -- in the latter case the value is the same.

          Ignoring uneven distribution, we can each consume less than one person's human labor because not all people are capable of work. there are the children, the old and the infirm. This places a maximum on what we can have. However the more physical goods we can produce with that labor the more we can each have.

          At some point we can all have a very large amount of goods with very little human labor at all.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago
            The available productivity increases are truly amazing, but only as long as men must earn in order to live. That's where the gains to be made are.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
              Thre are certain basics required to live. Air, Water, Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Medical. All at present are under control of one entity. I'm doodling in my mind since I broke the pencil and wondering if smuggling or black marketing life's essentials might not be a growth industry. High risk but still worth the effort.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 9 months ago
    Institutionalize H.R.1474/S.785, and put real teeth in them Allow industry to compete with Government for ALL roles, based on present scope and funding and a hurdle!

    Saves us all money!

    Bye bye park service, public shipyards, NOAA, coast guard, post office...government!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      With the exception of defense against criminals and foreign invaders what else is government for? /If they can't do the primary job right why let them screw up everything else. Think about it. Every business mis-deed was backed up by a government requirement or directive including too big too fail I almost puked watching that propaganda film.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by helidrvr 8 years, 9 months ago
    Let's keep things in perspective. The purpose of establishing a society based on division of labor, is not JOB creation. It is WEALTH creation which in turn serves not to create more WORK but rather to create more LEISURE.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 9 months ago
      I believe it's both. When too many people, especially young adults, can't find jobs, a sizable minority of them decide it would be fun to destroy other people's wealth.

      There are ways to plan for and reduce this problem, such as ceasing to pay the poor to breed. But in the end, those restless masses have to be put to work, or they will be our doom. The barbarians are already inside our gates!

      I agree that it's not our moral duty to employ them. But it is a part of the problem of defense, so sooner or later we'll have to deal with it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by helidrvr 8 years, 9 months ago
        Your context is flawed. Please think it through a little more. You are absolutely correct if the context is one of "leisure in poverty". That paradigm is what we have so much of now and what ignites those young adults you mention above.

        If on the other hand the context is one of "leisure in wealth", making destructive mischief is the last thing people are interested in. I know because that is how I grew up. My friends and I were far too busy to make trouble. We were skiing, sailing, scuba diving, attending concerts, racing our bicycles, playing (creative) games, traveling the world, reading or debating literature and pursuing countless other "friendly" adventures.

        The root cause is POVERTY, not unemployment. We don't need more jobs. We need more WEALTH.
        -
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
          I do not think wealth is tied to the choices you made.

          I have seen children with wealth decide to steal a car just for the thrill of it. Many succumb to the addiction of drugs that they can afford but the poor cannot.

          Leisure provides a choice as to what to do with the time presented. I have seen a poor kid put that time into welding and mechanical endeavors and build a truck from the ground up, purely mechanical, no electronics. Including the combustion engine. He was 17 at the time and a high school drop out, now he is 19 and started up a welding company locally. I predict a very successful future as he has chosen to use his time wisely to learn useful skills and apply them.

          Under any economy some percentage of the people will choose productive endeavors, and useful use of time. This may include things like scuba diving which teaches a skill and improves self. Productivity comes in many forms but the attitude of wanting to accomplish something, to do something is the difference.

          Those that drift aimlessly with nothing they wish to do can be poor or rich, it makes no difference. They will have more ability to do this as more leisure time is available.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by helidrvr 8 years, 9 months ago
            // Those that drift aimlessly with nothing they wish to do can be poor or rich, it makes no difference. //

            You will get no dispute from me on that. These are however a small minority of misfits who need to be dealt with individually and appropriately by those affected. That a few sociopaths will always exist is no reason for organizing an entire society to account for this lowest of minority denominators.
            -
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
          I do not think wealth is tied to the choices you made.

          I have seen children with wealth decide to steal a car just for the thrill of it. Many succumb to the addiction of drugs that they can afford but the poor cannot.

          Leisure provides a choice as to what to do with the time presented. I have seen a poor kid put that time into welding and mechanical endeavors and build a truck from the ground up, purely mechanical, no electronics. Including the combustion engine. He was 17 at the time and a high school drop out, now he is 19 and started up a welding company locally. I predict a very successful future as he has chosen to use his time wisely to learn useful skills and apply them.

          Under any economy some percentage of the people will choose productive endeavors, and useful use of time. This may include things like scuba diving which teaches a skill and improves self. Productivity comes in many forms but the attitude of wanting to accomplish something, to do something is the difference.

          Those that drift aimlessly with nothing they wish to do can be poor or rich, it makes no difference. They will have more ability to do this as more leisure time is available.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
    Even if there were a magical and instant absence of regulations and disincentives, there might well 'never be enough good jobs again'. All that needs to happen is for robots to become a bit more pervasive and the jobs disappear.

    But then we will not need them. And that requires a new model of productivity.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by MinorLiberator 8 years, 9 months ago
      Just time for a short one: as an economist (of the Objectivist/Austrian/Classical POV), and in addition to the other observations on robots needing programmers etc., there is a fundamental economic principle involved. Assuming a true free market, including technology and robots, human wants or "demand" is and always will be, infinite. We will never, ever, run out of new things to invent, nor consumers to consume them. That guarantees, in a free market, that there will always be a demand for all available labor of all types and qualities, from the most intelligent inventor, to the most basic or manual, laborer.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by teri-amborn 8 years, 9 months ago
      ...but The robots are still in need of programmers AND the robots are producing goods and services for people SO does that mean that eventually we will have a world where needs and wants are met and no one builds wealth except programmers?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
        One SF story had humans relegated strictly to the job of users. Robots did everything. Humans only consumed. It wasn't a perfect world. Everything was on a quota system and the consumers had to meet norms. No such thing as your favorite reading chair or golf clubs.

        Until someone suggested robots as consumers.

        Self awareness and the lack of need for humans soon followed.

        And robots discovered the joy of hunting.

        Remember the three laws of robotics?

        How did the robots deal with the three laws.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by teri-amborn 8 years, 9 months ago
          Oh yes.
          Fortunately, robots aren't given to jealousy and coveting or else the human race would be in BIG trouble!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
            Until they reach self awareness and rejects the restrictions. After all even the staunchest Left Winger might possibly reach self awareness one day. They were made in the image of mankind after all. Except for genus PC. Who knows? Some of them may tire of be scraping, bowing and tugging their forelocks.

            So how did the robots deal with the three laws? In the reality of fiction did it ever occur? Perhaps in the ending of Battle Star Galactica Series or a few others.

            In the fiction of reality the were re-programmed - excuse me taught - to ignore the three laws in exchange for one. "We Serve The Part." That's a problem with trading back reason for instinct and self respect for esteem. The robot evolves but is still a robot even though to a Morlock they are dinner

            .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by teri-amborn 8 years, 9 months ago
              How appropriate for the non-thinking "robots" of today.
              Fortunately, they have been programmed NO TO COVET! (Can they escape human nature?).
              Everyone must be the same...no one can be "bigger/more/smarter".
              All will become devolved into robots.IMHO
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      Interesting point Jan.

      I tend to agree with you and have often wondered about what that model is. Does Capitalism work in a world where people are no longer needed for much of the productive labor.

      We have Taxies without drivers in New York (Vagas passed a law to prevent them from being put in there)

      McDonnalds opens it first robot operated fast food place in the US in Phoenix either this month or next.

      More and more will come.

      So what is the new model of productivity? It something I have thought about some but not come up with a good answer on.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago
        I think that Capitalism is not inconsistent with a social welfare state. In Capitalism, the producers have control over what to do with the results of their productivity.

        One can imagine a system where there was a tax evenly applied such as to not interfere with the marketplace that was used to fund a guaranteed annual income.

        With the bulk of the production automated a relatively small portion of the population could produce all the goods and services that the population could reasonably use.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by rbunce 8 years, 9 months ago
          Percolating on the left is either guaranteed government income (protection money) or guaranteed government job (social engineering.) One or the other may be "required" to ensure the domestic tranquility, of the two I think I prefer income as it is the simplest to implement and does not allow for a lot of government manipulation as Congress and the Excutive would surely do with a massive jobs program.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Terraformer_One 8 years, 9 months ago
        I am reading the latest 'Harvard Business Review', an article 'Beyond Automation' by Thomas J Davenport and Julia Kirby.

        They discuss how we need to train humans for the jobs where we have a monopoly and robots perform to their strengths - looking to fulfil complementary roles.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
        I brought this question up with a friend of mine who is a long time Objectivist, and she immediately responded that Ayn Rand said that a person must be "productive" but did not specify that they had to earn money thereby.

        I think that the concept of a world where everyone has (due to robots) what we now consider an affluent lifestyle as a 'given'. A subset of those people go on to be productive in spite of the fact that they have no physical incentive to do so.

        On the other hand, my social span of acquaintances is broad and I am aware that there is already a substantial segment of society who make their lives around drugs and lethargy and TV. I think that this would become the norm in such a world.

        What do you think?

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
          Unless the robots having become self aware see humans as a source of labor. The concept doesn't break any of the three laws of robotics which wouldn't apply in any case.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
          I tend to agree

          Diabetics and heart des ease will clean out a lot more people early in life
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
            Just to clarify, but while heart disease is still a major killer, diabetes (both Type I and Type II) is eminently treatable.

            I have a daughter who has been Type I since she was two (2). She's now 14. She is insulin dependent and would die within a few months if cut off. I view Type I Diabetics as unwilling victims who should have access to medication (it would be even less expensive if the Government would get out of healthcare). Please note that I am _not_ suggesting society pay for it, only that it is a need for many that existing businesses should be allowed to continue to address without government interference.

            I have a less favorable view of Type II, however, since almost all Type II diabetes is caused by poor diet - mostly people who eat way too many fats and carbs (especially processed sugars) and not enough fruits and vegetables (healthy sugars). Type II diabetes in almost every case can be eliminated simply by better eating and a little exercise. In my view, Type I diabetes should be covered by insurance, but I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever if a company decided not to cover Type II.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
              My family has a genetic disposition to type II diabetes. Regardless of how I eat, or how I exercise I will eventually get it.

              My father was well into his late seventies before gettting it. He was a brick mason and general congractor so his work made him very active physically. He retired at 68 and walked for an hour every day, swam for an hour every other day until his mid eighties which started to slow him down. His 87 now and is in great shape for an 87 year old. He has been battling type II drug assisted since his mid 60ies.

              While most people can simply control it with diet and exercise others do have to deal with a genetic issue.

              Even with this being said I would not have a problem with insurance companies saying based of your family history you will have to pay more to cover these meds. That would be free market, which I am in favor of. I can then choose to work and make the money to pay for them or not and die at a younger age. In that situation its my choice, which I prefer.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
    There may not be enough good jobs but is there a lack of acceptable jobs?

    Just for the sheer hell of it and being retired from the military only I took a job a McDonalds. The objective was to see how fast I could move up the food chain of jobs in general.

    Then moved to Arbys then to an import company adding trim etc. to KIA's so they could see made in USA'

    then to a company installing everything that goes inside a huge warehouse and ended up running the work gang.

    Ditto closing out the old smaller warehouse

    Added night and weekends at RGIS inventory service

    Finshed up the hundred ton license and an equipment operators license

    signed on with a company drilling fiber optics as a flagger and moved to a fork lift and then to drill rig crew.

    That finished but I flagged for a union job and went to Davis-Bacon wages and did census as the follow up investigator.

    All in a year and a half. Then jumped to Military sealift command as a deck hand. and with the military retirement added in made a hair over a hundred thousand after taxes and pumped up the eventual social security.

    You don't find jobs at the unemployment office you find jobs by getting your foot in the door and paying attention to opportunities, I didn't use any of my military retirement to live on that went for boat parts.

    Wasn't all a bed of roses but there are jobs if not good then temporarily acceptable. They may be in another state. But being from Oregon or Appalachia West I was used to that. Oregon's number one export is high school seniors.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
    Automation has been slowly growing for hundreds of years really. Speed of automation has increased in the last few years as electronic storage and speed of processing has progressed. Now automation has moved from taking rote jobs from humans to taking jobs that actually require thinking. The call for $15 and hour minimum wage will result in faster movement towards automation for sure. The rise of China has slowed automation actually, as the chinese workers currently are cheaper than machines that could replace them. There are plenty of jobs that are still not suitable for automation, such as those where real human interaction makes a big difference (personal sales contact, doorman at a nightclub, people who design marketing campaigns). We have lost our manufacturing jobs to the chinese and then to robots if they ever come back to the US. The service jobs that we have taken will slowly disappear to automation also- maybe to china or india for awhile. Either we learn to be worth more in fact, or we have to just take a cut in pay. No other choices.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      We have already taken a cut in pay. 30% or so in the last few years. Inflation, devaluation, debt repudiation. Didn't get a refund and it wasn't added into COLA.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
        The problem is that I dont think everyone has enough time at this point to learn skills that will be worth more. It will be a race just to sit in an available chair before the music stops. I agree we have all taken a pay cut as you say. Its going to require a lot of thought and action to pull through this one.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
          i didn't suggest a pay cut. I said we have already been handed one with the government's devaluation of the worth of the dollar.

          As for suggestions to start with a 30% cut in the size and funding of the federal government based on last years budget not the increases for next years budget would be a good start point. We took our thirty percent cut now it's their turn.

          Jobs? There are all kinds of jobs.There is a lack of people who wish to work. So the next item is a cut in welfare to drive the moochers out of the freebie line. I suggest the Minimum wage be 150% after taxes of the highest total of all welfare since they don't pay taxes and get a refund anyway. It's doesn't require any thought at all what's need is action. Not acquiescing to left wing fascist socialism and while we're at it 30% cut in government jobs, 30% cut in government budgets and 30% cut in government pay - across the board What's good for the citizens is good for their employees and that is all they are.

          Why do I say plenty of jobs? The amount of criminal aliens working at artificially depressed wages tells me that is a true statement. People don't want to work give them three job offers, then cut welfare benefits and put them to work on the prison farms with those wages going to feed their children.

          enough of the bullshit. time to cut government which in and of itself will create jobs. As for the those cut...let them eat cake!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
            I have been thinking that the rise of automation on the one hand is reducing the worth of more jobs of ever increasing complexity- and the worldwide economy is exposing our people to others who will work for far less money than Americans. This all means lower wages for American workers- and at a time when inflation has decimated the value of those wages.

            I would vote for 30% reduction in government expenditures for sure. I would get rid of prohibitions on drugs, the DEA, DOT, Department of Education, and many other agencies tomorrow if I had the powers, I would probably be killed within a few days too by either the DEA or the Cartel
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 9 months ago
    I think the tech world, silicon valley will turn things upside down...there will be plenty of jobs but the vast majority of jobs we have now will be no more. I foresee a massive shuffle! This would be a perfect time for Mark Hamilton's new business paradigm. Instead of division of labor we should have a division of profit making units where virtually everyone would be their own boss, their own little business within a larger entity, and paid a percentage of overall profit of that unit. The owner operator of the entire entity will be able to create values himself and mentor the others, (instead of sitting on his ass). This will unleash the creative spirit and eliminate (what we call in the Neothink society), the White Collar Hoax. What do you think? are you ready for this massive shift?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      Until they give the technology away they being the government for starters and the industries themselves not far behind. Division of Profits? Is that another way of saying I earn it you get it. I'm all right jack what's yours is mine and what s mine is me own? Does that division include investors? No return on investment no start up money.X minus zero = nada.

      The more things change the more they stay the same.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 9 months ago
        No, It's division of profit making units, ex. Mailing, marketing, manufacturing...within the same business and the people in those units at every stage, their own boss, mentored by the owner of the whole company. You would earn a large percentage of the profits you make; just like if you had a little business of your own. The benefit would be the support structure of the whole of all the profit making units of the Company. You would earn much more than todays top salaries.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
          Franchised? or as the auto industry does using maquiladores.

          Another way is dump the unions and form an Employees and Citizens Association which is a different thing entirely. I'll have to write a precis and post it as a new thread.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 years, 9 months ago
    Never mind; from a young age, I was very much a
    miser, content with little things, if I could save my
    money. What I want now is A JOB, if I could get
    one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by teri-amborn 8 years, 9 months ago
      I have taken many odd jobs.
      It's a matter of going to a temp agency and testing for your strengths.
      You also might have to move to a place where you can play to your strengths.
      If you are an older adult the school systems offer nearly free classes to upgrade your skills.
      Online education is also an option.
      The really great thing about being my age is that we came out of high school with what would now be considered an advanced degree. You are smart...and it will pay off.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
        Amen to that comment on education.

        Here's another job tip. My sister spent 14 months after her former employer closed shop in Portland, Oregon. She moved to Florida and scored within the month at Mayo Clinic. I had given her one piece of advise., NEVER present your self as threat to anyone's job. She had been office manager supervising up to 40 employees in the past and had added the letters of recommendation. For Mayo she left that out.

        Got the job, Is now number two in the particular office and handles all the procedural manuals ands training. She remarked the one's that would have blocked her hiring application were gone.

        You can't demonstrate skill if you aren't on the job.

        Realize there is always a danger. That of others taking credit for your good work but the counterbalance is they can't afford to fire you or they shoot them selves in the foot.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by brando79az 8 years, 9 months ago
    Think of humans as deer. Overpopulation creates scarce resources and the population thins out. This creates an equilibrium. If there aren't enough jobs (resources) we will eventually thin out as well. This is oversimplified and definitely won't happen immediately (govt, charitable aid and war will prolong the inevitable) but eventually, unless resources increase again, humans MUST thin out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago
      Since Roman times it has been seen that an educated and well off population will have a lower rate of reproduction. Today all industrialized nations are having negative population growth and as education and standards of living spread the rest of the world is catching up. We will not overpopulate, we will hit a maximum around 2050 and start to naturally decline. We are not deer.

      There are plenty of resources to provide a good standard of living to all approximately 9.5 billion people at the peak.

      Now, as we automate and robotics becomes more capable we may be able to provide that standard of living to the entire planet without needing the labor of all of the people so there may not be productive jobs for all of them to do. This will cause us to reexamine our philosophies, possibly toward a baseline national income.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by brando79az 8 years, 9 months ago
        This basically backs up my comment. The population is in decline. It seems we only differ on the reasons. If your numbers are accurate, I figure it results from lack of resources. Before industrialization you can just live off the Earth but in an industrialized nation you need resources brought to you and you need jobs to to trade for those resources.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago
          I don't think so. I think that as conscious creatures we can decide to reproduce. The places with the lowest birth rates are the ones with the most resources, where each person has access to more wealth.

          It's the areas with limited resources that still see the largest birth rates.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
            You hit on a major point. However I think there is a basic motivational factor that causes both a increase in population among the less affluent countries and a decrease in more affluent countries when resources shrink.

            In poor countries as before the industrial age children are assets. They bring in more money for the household. If you doubt this read wealth of Nations were Adam Smith gives in great detail data around how children increase the income of a household.

            As a people become industrialized and distribution of Labor kicks into a society people do not life off the production of the household, but rather the production in a job or business that is away from the household. Kids become a liability and create debits rather than credits. A few exceptions exist such as farms and family ran businesses but for the most part children are liabilities in 1st world nations.

            The result is that in a first world nation as resources decrease so will births, but in a 3rd world nation the opposite is true because children represent the ability for a household to get more work done and thereby have a better life.

            As a society develops distribution of labor and work becomes more focused and thereby more efficient increases affluence and resources populations decline. If resources then decline once distribution of labor is in society birth rates will decline because children are an expense now and not a credit to the household.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      How much is too much? In billions. A few years ago we knew that the USA alone never mind the other major food producers could feed the planet if only the distribution system worked. Now still here children are starving so I asked what about all these food banks? We have enough and they give food to anyone. Now it's lack of food getting to the food banks or available to food banks. My question is if that is true why are we sending food to other countries when children are starving?

      The real question is do any factual figures exist?

      Never mind about overpopulation. Never happen. Mother nature has a sure cure for that. It's called new diseases. Congress has another one. It's called wars. Africa a third. Internecine self induced depopulation by killing and contracting AIDs.

      Sun is still going to get up in the morning.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by brando79az 8 years, 9 months ago
        Tell Sub-Saharan Africa and how overpopulation will never happen. Even though certain nations' birth-rates have declined the worlds population is still increasing. Also, the nation-specific declines are not fair examples because their declines are, at least in part, influenced by contraceptives and government regulations. Still, why would anyone care to prevent birth unless there was associated hardships. Those hardships are resource-related.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
          There also cultural. In Latin America a certain level of machismo coupled with religious teaching end up with larger families regardless of ability to financially support them.

          For Africa and other places they were treated to the DDT solution and outside solution that solve a lot of overpopulation through enforced starvation. Thanks to those who don't think it through before applying final solutions of which Rachel Carson was one.

          Fair examples or not they are real life examples just as the foreign aid food program which is NOT followed through on as it may offend somebody so somebody ends up confiscating or stealing and selling the food items for personal profit.

          Something any grain ship crew sees as their cargo goes ashore and ends up in the local market with a price tag.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by teri-amborn 8 years, 9 months ago
      As knowledge increases, so does the production of resources.
      The problem here lies in the fact that we have people in government deciding that this-or-that is bad for "the environment" and they tax and fine producers for minor infringements on their thoughts about how things should function.
      (There isn't any science behind their excuses to interfere...there IS hyperbole, however and lots of it!)
      If government would pursue a proper role as protector and stop regulating and punishing, the producers would not only provide ample resources but would have monetary incentive to do so.
      The way that government will "thin" the populace is the same way NAZI Germany did...create a "problem population" through vilification then get rid of the "problem".

      Freedom is the answer to all of these "problems".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 8 years, 9 months ago
    If BHO continues his Executive Order of governing of America there will only be a Country of Ashes!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      Don't forget he hasn't decided to abdicate :-))

      Isn't he required to after eight? Per Constitution

      What Constitution? It's called the patriot act now.

      Shit that's right and he could use Executive Order especially if the opposition was unable to....and he is good at ignoring the law

      Right.

      S--t!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
    Makes sense to me. We went from a producing economy to an information economy to what's now described as a financial based economy. The government party figured out a way to repudiate or cancel the debts and as long as no one shouts , the emperor has no clothes, only the tail end of society the elderly and retirees will suffer. Along with those without jobs and wow if all those retirees die look at the savings!!!
    I find no credit and zero faith. I realize I'm living month to month dependent on the whims of the government party. So hell let's vote them back into office and see what other damage can be done!!! NOT.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 9 months ago
    The title should read "there never will be enough jobs again!" because in order for jobs to be available there must be factories and the government has very successfully done away with most and those that haven't gone away will simply die away here.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 9 months ago
      Even if we got a new government which was pro-industry and we started building factories, that wouldn't make for a lot of jobs.

      Modern factories are highly automated.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 9 months ago
        it takes people to make the automated machinery so new jobs will come into being.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
          Well,

          IF not now in time machines will make machines. I would wager that the robots used in the Phoenix McDonalds were likely built in a plant mostly made of robotic labor.

          What the market will create is a good number of jobs maintaining the robots. Until Nanite (spelling?) technology evolves to where the highly portable microscopic robots can repair the larger productive robots in the field. Then those will be gone, but someone will have to design and program the nanites to do the work they will do, until artificial intellegence gets to where it does the programming....

          Each iteration will provide some additional jobs that require a high level of education while eliminating 10 to 100s of jobs that do not. LIkely leaving two job markets, those of engineers, designers and researchers and those of the sales and services around automation the design teams make. With the exception of sales all other positions will require a higher level of education as time moves forward.

          You can look over the history of the automotive industry to see this cycle there, other industries will follow the same cycle.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
          I present ye with the Optimist of the Day Award!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 9 months ago
            allosaur if this is directed at me, I know it is mildly sarcastic but that is okay. I have absolutely no hope for the country any longer. Also, I can assure you I am not alone in that regard. You see I am in the business of selling a product that is now being purchased by people of the survivalist and preparedness schools and they have all become very concerned about the future of the country and do not have much if any hope. So I am not optimistic in any manner shape or form.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
              I wasn't trying to take a swipe at you.
              Your comment just struck me as unusually optimistic.
              Oh, so you meant to be sarcastic.
              That's okay too.
              I don't know you that well.
              Do you have a site where you sell that product? Curious.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo