5 ms·

This will create wealth. Wealth will mean that art, health and relaxation will be in high demand. 100 years ago over 90% of people were farmers. Now 2% of peop

by csmeder 17y ago

This will create wealth. Wealth will mean that art, health and relaxation will be in high demand. 100 years ago over 90% of people were farmers. Now 2% of people work on farms, does that mean we have 88% unemployment? . No we don't. Instead we have Yoga instructors who charge $80 an hour for a private lesson. We have artists who charge $500 for a hand made bowl. . The more we have robots automate the more wealth we will have, the more wealth we have the the greater the number musicians, artists and yoga instructors we will have. . Creating wealth doesn't destroy jobs long term, "A rising tide raises all boats", however short term many people will be displaced and have no jobs during the transition. (Short term could be many years). . In the long run this is better. Do you think UPS sorting employees would rather be doing this http://www.core77.com/blog/technology/a_different_sort_of_assembly_line_inside_a_ups_shipping_facility_15929.asp http://www.core77.com/blog/technology/a_different_sort_of_as... or creating art work?

berntb 17y ago
I don't disagree with what you wrote, but... In industrialized countries a hundred years ago, 90% of the population were not farmers. You need to go back 50-100 years more for that. First link I found claims 30% of the population lived in farming communities in 1900: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_were_farmers_affected_by_industrialization_in_the_US http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_were_farmers_affected_by_indus... Edit: This seems to be quite official, claims 38% farmers in 1900, 69% 1840. http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm (Sorry for nitpicking facts irrelevant for your argument.)
exit 17y ago
But being a yoga instructor / bowl maker is just as (if not more) time consuming as being a farmer used to be. And those are insecure jobs which people have to struggle to make ends meet with.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Historically, farmers went hungry when harvests were poor. How many yoga instructors, janitors, or receptionists starve in bad markets?
- csmeder 17y ago
  the point I am making is there will be so much wealth more people will be able to afford yoga and the demand for yoga instructors will be much higher. This will make their work more valuable.
_delirium 17y ago
The farm transition was basically a direct farm->factory mass transition though. Farming declined, and masses of poor people flocked to rapidly growing cities, where they could be employed almost immediately as unskilled factory labor. Are things like yoga instruction and pottery really the question mark in the farm->factory->[?] sequence?
- csmeder 17y ago
  Its already happening. The rich and the wives of the rich already spend a bunch of money on spa treatments, yoga, art, small boutique clothes etc... This trend will continue to grow as we become a wealthier world. . When a car factory is so cheap any joe can buy it, cars and other goods will be dirt cheap. (well this wont happen because of the availability of land and natural resources but it will go towards this direction with only the cost of land and natural resources (possibly energy) pulling it the other direction.)
turkishrevenge 17y ago
When you say: > "This will create wealth. Wealth will mean that art, health and relaxation will be in high demand." Yes, I agree to an extent. But I must ask, wealth for who? Certainty not for the people no longer employed in the jobs that were "automated away". Other labor markets must exist to absorb those that became unemployed as the result of automation. > Now 2% of people work on farms, does that mean we have 88% unemployment? %2 of the population is capable of producing the the labor of 88% (or any number > %2) because of the introduction of technological and methodological advances in farming. Roughly from the middle of the 19th century to the present, the production of food fundamentally changed in character from relatively small-scale primitive production (think horse-drawn plough and peasant or slave labor) to large-scale, technological production (mechanical threshers, high-yield genetically modified seeds, effective pesticides, etc). Agriculture became much like any other industry, and as such, was revolutionized. It was inevitable. I think as someone else on this thread already pointed out, the other 88%, for the most part, had no other choice than relocate to the population centers seeking work. Many found it as unskilled factory labor. The pay was universally poor, and only through the gains made by widespread unionization of both trade (American Federation of Labor) and unskilled or semi-skilled workers (Congress of Industrial Organizations), were workers able to achieve a livable wage. > "The more we have robots automate the more wealth we will have, the more wealth we have the the greater the number musicians, artists and yoga instructors we will have" So basically we will have a society where current industrialists will own the overwhelming majority of robotic labor (property), whereas the rest of use will be "employed" as small scale artisans? > Creating wealth doesn't destroy jobs long term, "A rising tide raises all boats", however short term many people will be displaced and have no jobs during the transition. (Short term could be many years). As I said, only if other labor markets exists to absorb the newly unemployed. Whether such markets already exist or are created, is up for society to determine. It may take years for new markets to form, leading high unemployment for quite a while. Historically speaking, when power looms and other such mechanical devices were introduced into factory production, new labor markets did manifest to absorb some of the unemployed in the from of engineers and repairmen. Of course the introduction of machines was not without struggle (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots as an example).
- 17y ago
nradov 17y ago
This is silly. Most people on the lower end of the intelligence and creativity scale are not going to be successful as musicians, artists, or yoga instructors either. Those are not the kind of jobs that just anyone can do, nor will there be sufficient demand for those luxury goods and services regardless of how much more wealthy the upper classes become. I'm not a Luddite, but we are going to have to find a place for those people or else we are headed for serious social unrest.
- csmeder 17y ago
  This isn't silly. Compared to 100 years ago a much greater number of people are already successful artists, musicians and yoga instructors. These people sit across the IQ distribution. Many do not have high IQs many do not have low IQs. But thats okay because a HUGE % of the population sit between 90 and 110.

by csmeder 17y ago

berntb 17y ago

I don't disagree with what you wrote, but... In industrialized countries a hundred years ago, 90% of the population were not farmers. You need to go back 50-100 years more for that. First link I found claims 30% of the population lived in farming communities in 1900: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_were_farmers_affected_by_industrialization_in_the_US http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_were_farmers_affected_by_indus... Edit: This seems to be quite official, claims 38% farmers in 1900, 69% 1840. http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm (Sorry for nitpicking facts irrelevant for your argument.)

exit 17y ago

But being a yoga instructor / bowl maker is just as (if not more) time consuming as being a farmer used to be. And those are insecure jobs which people have to struggle to make ends meet with.

Semiapies 17y ago
Historically, farmers went hungry when harvests were poor. How many yoga instructors, janitors, or receptionists starve in bad markets?
csmeder 17y ago
the point I am making is there will be so much wealth more people will be able to afford yoga and the demand for yoga instructors will be much higher. This will make their work more valuable.

_delirium 17y ago

The farm transition was basically a direct farm->factory mass transition though. Farming declined, and masses of poor people flocked to rapidly growing cities, where they could be employed almost immediately as unskilled factory labor. Are things like yoga instruction and pottery really the question mark in the farm->factory->[?] sequence?

csmeder 17y ago
Its already happening. The rich and the wives of the rich already spend a bunch of money on spa treatments, yoga, art, small boutique clothes etc... This trend will continue to grow as we become a wealthier world. . When a car factory is so cheap any joe can buy it, cars and other goods will be dirt cheap. (well this wont happen because of the availability of land and natural resources but it will go towards this direction with only the cost of land and natural resources (possibly energy) pulling it the other direction.)

turkishrevenge 17y ago

When you say: > "This will create wealth. Wealth will mean that art, health and relaxation will be in high demand." Yes, I agree to an extent. But I must ask, wealth for who? Certainty not for the people no longer employed in the jobs that were "automated away". Other labor markets must exist to absorb those that became unemployed as the result of automation. > Now 2% of people work on farms, does that mean we have 88% unemployment? %2 of the population is capable of producing the the labor of 88% (or any number > %2) because of the introduction of technological and methodological advances in farming. Roughly from the middle of the 19th century to the present, the production of food fundamentally changed in character from relatively small-scale primitive production (think horse-drawn plough and peasant or slave labor) to large-scale, technological production (mechanical threshers, high-yield genetically modified seeds, effective pesticides, etc). Agriculture became much like any other industry, and as such, was revolutionized. It was inevitable. I think as someone else on this thread already pointed out, the other 88%, for the most part, had no other choice than relocate to the population centers seeking work. Many found it as unskilled factory labor. The pay was universally poor, and only through the gains made by widespread unionization of both trade (American Federation of Labor) and unskilled or semi-skilled workers (Congress of Industrial Organizations), were workers able to achieve a livable wage. > "The more we have robots automate the more wealth we will have, the more wealth we have the the greater the number musicians, artists and yoga instructors we will have" So basically we will have a society where current industrialists will own the overwhelming majority of robotic labor (property), whereas the rest of use will be "employed" as small scale artisans? > Creating wealth doesn't destroy jobs long term, "A rising tide raises all boats", however short term many people will be displaced and have no jobs during the transition. (Short term could be many years). As I said, only if other labor markets exists to absorb the newly unemployed. Whether such markets already exist or are created, is up for society to determine. It may take years for new markets to form, leading high unemployment for quite a while. Historically speaking, when power looms and other such mechanical devices were introduced into factory production, new labor markets did manifest to absorb some of the unemployed in the from of engineers and repairmen. Of course the introduction of machines was not without struggle (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots as an example).

17y ago

nradov 17y ago

This is silly. Most people on the lower end of the intelligence and creativity scale are not going to be successful as musicians, artists, or yoga instructors either. Those are not the kind of jobs that just anyone can do, nor will there be sufficient demand for those luxury goods and services regardless of how much more wealthy the upper classes become. I'm not a Luddite, but we are going to have to find a place for those people or else we are headed for serious social unrest.

csmeder 17y ago
This isn't silly. Compared to 100 years ago a much greater number of people are already successful artists, musicians and yoga instructors. These people sit across the IQ distribution. Many do not have high IQs many do not have low IQs. But thats okay because a HUGE % of the population sit between 90 and 110.