3 ms·
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,
by 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).
- csmeder 17y ago>"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?" Well kind of. If you have an IQ over 110 you will probably still have a job in the tech industry. With your well paying job you can buy manufactured goods for cheap and still have a bunch left over to spend on artisan goods.
- turkishrevenge 17y agoAccording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data on IT sector employment (http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag51.htm#workforce http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag51.htm#workforce) the number of IT workers is relatively small compared to the rest of the population. What about those untold millions not in IT or the sub-110 IQ "morons"? You know, the people that generally make society function? What about them? Do you think they are just going to sit idle? Or will they all be making pottery? Why should I even buy a pot made by human hands? Please.
- csmeder 17y agoWell it's already happening and going to happen more and more. Take a look at Etsy http://www.business-opportunities.biz/2009/04/29/etsycom-is-fastest-growing-online-selling-site/ http://www.business-opportunities.biz/2009/04/29/etsycom-is-... Total Members: over 2.1 million Total Sellers: over 200,000 Items Currently Listed: over 3.4 million Total $ sold (Gross Merchandise Sales) 2005 = $166,000 2006 = $3.8 million 2007 = $26 million 2008 = $87.5 million 2009 = $32 million (through March)
- turkishrevenge 17y agoFrom http://www.etsy.com/about.php http://www.etsy.com/about.php: > "Our mission is to enable people to make a living making things, and to reconnect makers with buyers. Our vision is to build a new economy and present a better choice: Buy, Sell, and Live Handmade." (emphasis mine). First, to think that we will all move back--and that's what it is, backward movement--toward a day where everyone will be some sort of subsistence producing, small-scale artisan is historically, socially, and technologically ridiculous. It's almost as if society would be moving toward the point where capitalism emerged from feudalism once again, where society would be stratified into a class of techno-elites, and everybody else. Second, what makes you think that everyone is some sort of artist? What about the mechanic, scientist, or garbage man without "artistic" talent? What happens to them? Third, $32 million is an incredibly small number compared to the billions even one company makes. What makes you think something like etsy.com would scale? Even if it were to scale out it's operations to the point where it could generate billions, do you really think etsy.com or its brokered artisans would produce item in a one-at-a-time, handmade fashion. Most likely, a new form cottage industry would emerge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottage_industry#Cottage_industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottage_industry#Cottage_indust...). But that couldn't even work, as historically speaking, cottage production was destroyed by socialized production, e.g. factory work.