4 ms·

I'm going to go out on a limb here. This is the inherent weakness of the capitalist system. Eventually productivity outstrips need. The process is kinda backwar

by flogic 17y ago

I'm going to go out on a limb here. This is the inherent weakness of the capitalist system. Eventually productivity outstrips need. The process is kinda backwards but that seems to be the truth. In my world, a manager lays people off to save money. Then they realize work isn't getting done because they have less people. So they use automation to fill the gaps. Those jobs don't come back.

stingraycharles 17y ago
Who makes the automation possible?
- msluyter 17y ago
  We do, for now, but for every one job created for a software/hardware engineer, several (probably low skill jobs) may be destroyed. Compare the total number of, say, cashiers to software developers.
  - Nwallins 17y ago
    > Compare the total number of, say, cashiers to software developers. So, ATMS... would you replace them with human bank tellers? Would that be a net benefit to the economy?
    - msluyter 17y ago
      No, I mean, if it is indeed the case that the total number of jobs displaced by automation exceeds those generated by it, I have no particular take on how to handle it.
      - Nwallins 17y ago
        My point is that though automation "costs" jobs, it simultaneously reduces the cost of production (e.g. the production of financial transactions, here). Ultimately the benefit from more efficient production is a rising tide that lifts all ships. It would be hard to argue that reversing the industrial revolution and returning to cottage industries would be a net benefit, even though our current production levels would require 10-1000x as many jobs.
dsplittgerber 17y ago
But the people laid off may found a great company afterwards. You look at the economy as a zero-sum game. But the pie is growing bigger nearly all the time.
- bengebre 17y ago
  As a thought experiment, isn't it possible that the pie (wealth) could grow larger but that the distribution of that wealth could be narrower due to technology and outsourcing of jobs? That may not be zero-sum, but it could certainly be problematic for wage earners.
  - dsplittgerber 17y ago
    The wealth distribution within a given first-world society is certainly changing, with bigger amounts of wealth going to the top 1% etc. That's mostly due to the fact that well educated and connected knowledge workers are able to utilize globalization to a greater extent than your regular mailman. But that's not necessarily for the worse. Even inflation-adjusted wage stagnation need not necessarily be bad, as you mostly can buy more with your money today (reduced prices for electronics, basic necessities etc.) than in the past.
msluyter 17y ago
I assume you've been downvoted because there's a somewhat reflexive faith here that new classes of jobs will always be created to fill those that have been taken over by increased automation/productivity. That may be true, but for anyone who believes that, I recommend at least taking a look at the arguments Marshall Brain presents in his"Robotic Nation." One of his conclusions is that -- unlike with previous revolutions where new classes of jobs appeared to replace the ones that were destroyed (industrial for agricultural, for example) -- no new class of jobs appears to be on the horizon that is also not automatable.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  I can't recommend the book "Economics in One Lesson" highly enough. It answers this question. Full text here: http://jim.com/econ/ http://jim.com/econ/ I think it should be required reading for everyone during high school. This chapter is relevant: "The Curse of Machinery" - http://jim.com/econ/chap07p1.html http://jim.com/econ/chap07p1.html Long story very short? We'll be okay. It's been a worry for a long time, and it's always been false. But the chapter of the book says it much better than me, and it's a short read. Actually, I'm going to submit this now as a separate submission. Really, highly recommended, very insightful stuff. Edit: Submitted here if you'd like to discuss: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127345 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127345
  - msluyter 17y ago
    It's been a worry for a long time, and it's always been false. And therefore it will always be false?
    - Zot95 17y ago
      The "TL;DR" doesn't cover it, but in the chapter the previous commenter references, he does explain why it's a logical fallacy. At the risk of putting something incomplete and/or incorrect, TL;DR summary of the explanation of the fallacy is that the productivity saved by automation is always available to fuel further production.
  - 17y ago
jacoblyles 17y ago
Tired old statistic: in the 1700s, 90% of American workers worked on farms. But because of automation, today only 2% of workers do and we are better off for it. We spend a smaller percentage of our resources on producing the food we eat and can put those resources to other uses. Also, it is not true that 88% of people are unemployed.
- flogic 17y ago
  Yes but during the industrial revolution we had a lot of unmet need. Now, we are much better off. I'm not convince there is enough need to justify keeping everyone employed.
  - jacoblyles 17y ago
    Just to be clear, the entire history of humankind is evidence against your theory. You are guessing that something will happen that has never happened before. That's not as bad as it sounds. Every event has to happen for a first time. But you should realize that you are making a very extreme claim based on nothing more than speculation.
    - flogic 17y ago
      I'm quite probably wrong and I'm also playing devils advocate poorly. What I'm trying to say is we already have almost everything we need. While I can point to many aspects of my life that could be improved upon, I can't point to many where the improvement would result in more and better jobs.
korch 17y ago
From a microeconomic perspective, the specialization of labor undoubtedly allows us to maximize production, yet from a macroeconomic perspective, I think you're right. I know Marx is beyond dated, and that it's only permitted to speak of him using hushed tones in serious conversation, however, in Das Kapital one of his fundamental arguments was that the long-run problem Capitalism is destined to face and ultimately lose to will be the problem of over-production. Which sounds counter-intuitive, as how could over-production possibly be bad? His argument is interesting and worth studying for itself, even if it is mostly outdated.
- codexon 17y ago
  how could over-production possibly be bad? Over-production results in a general glut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_glut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_glut Real demand is still present, but the lack of liquidity in a general glut artificially depresses demand. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke explains: but the story that captivated Bernanke involved a town full of shoe factories that closed during the Depression, leaving the community so poor that its children went barefoot. "I kept asking, Why didn't they just open the factories and make the kids shoes? The reason is because the community didn't have anything to offer the factory owners. The factory owners know that the community doesn't have money to pay for shoes, but on the other hand the community would have money if these factories paid them instead of closing the factories. These problems would go away if anyone could own a factory and have access to the materials, which many people above have said. However, this goes against the tenets of a capitalist free market: where someone is free to own much of the resources/land/factories/IP, which sets the barrier to entry beyond what most people can pay.
  - nova 17y ago
    free to own much of the resources/land/factories/IP One of these things doesn't belong.

by flogic 17y ago

stingraycharles 17y ago

Who makes the automation possible?

msluyter 17y ago
We do, for now, but for every one job created for a software/hardware engineer, several (probably low skill jobs) may be destroyed. Compare the total number of, say, cashiers to software developers.
- Nwallins 17y ago
  > Compare the total number of, say, cashiers to software developers. So, ATMS... would you replace them with human bank tellers? Would that be a net benefit to the economy?
  - msluyter 17y ago
    No, I mean, if it is indeed the case that the total number of jobs displaced by automation exceeds those generated by it, I have no particular take on how to handle it.
    - Nwallins 17y ago
      My point is that though automation "costs" jobs, it simultaneously reduces the cost of production (e.g. the production of financial transactions, here). Ultimately the benefit from more efficient production is a rising tide that lifts all ships. It would be hard to argue that reversing the industrial revolution and returning to cottage industries would be a net benefit, even though our current production levels would require 10-1000x as many jobs.

dsplittgerber 17y ago

But the people laid off may found a great company afterwards. You look at the economy as a zero-sum game. But the pie is growing bigger nearly all the time.

bengebre 17y ago
As a thought experiment, isn't it possible that the pie (wealth) could grow larger but that the distribution of that wealth could be narrower due to technology and outsourcing of jobs? That may not be zero-sum, but it could certainly be problematic for wage earners.
- dsplittgerber 17y ago
  The wealth distribution within a given first-world society is certainly changing, with bigger amounts of wealth going to the top 1% etc. That's mostly due to the fact that well educated and connected knowledge workers are able to utilize globalization to a greater extent than your regular mailman. But that's not necessarily for the worse. Even inflation-adjusted wage stagnation need not necessarily be bad, as you mostly can buy more with your money today (reduced prices for electronics, basic necessities etc.) than in the past.

msluyter 17y ago

I assume you've been downvoted because there's a somewhat reflexive faith here that new classes of jobs will always be created to fill those that have been taken over by increased automation/productivity. That may be true, but for anyone who believes that, I recommend at least taking a look at the arguments Marshall Brain presents in his"Robotic Nation." One of his conclusions is that -- unlike with previous revolutions where new classes of jobs appeared to replace the ones that were destroyed (industrial for agricultural, for example) -- no new class of jobs appears to be on the horizon that is also not automatable.

lionhearted 17y ago
I can't recommend the book "Economics in One Lesson" highly enough. It answers this question. Full text here: http://jim.com/econ/ http://jim.com/econ/ I think it should be required reading for everyone during high school. This chapter is relevant: "The Curse of Machinery" - http://jim.com/econ/chap07p1.html http://jim.com/econ/chap07p1.html Long story very short? We'll be okay. It's been a worry for a long time, and it's always been false. But the chapter of the book says it much better than me, and it's a short read. Actually, I'm going to submit this now as a separate submission. Really, highly recommended, very insightful stuff. Edit: Submitted here if you'd like to discuss: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127345 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127345
- msluyter 17y ago
  It's been a worry for a long time, and it's always been false. And therefore it will always be false?
  - Zot95 17y ago
    The "TL;DR" doesn't cover it, but in the chapter the previous commenter references, he does explain why it's a logical fallacy. At the risk of putting something incomplete and/or incorrect, TL;DR summary of the explanation of the fallacy is that the productivity saved by automation is always available to fuel further production.
- 17y ago

jacoblyles 17y ago

Tired old statistic: in the 1700s, 90% of American workers worked on farms. But because of automation, today only 2% of workers do and we are better off for it. We spend a smaller percentage of our resources on producing the food we eat and can put those resources to other uses. Also, it is not true that 88% of people are unemployed.

flogic 17y ago
Yes but during the industrial revolution we had a lot of unmet need. Now, we are much better off. I'm not convince there is enough need to justify keeping everyone employed.
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  Just to be clear, the entire history of humankind is evidence against your theory. You are guessing that something will happen that has never happened before. That's not as bad as it sounds. Every event has to happen for a first time. But you should realize that you are making a very extreme claim based on nothing more than speculation.
  - flogic 17y ago
    I'm quite probably wrong and I'm also playing devils advocate poorly. What I'm trying to say is we already have almost everything we need. While I can point to many aspects of my life that could be improved upon, I can't point to many where the improvement would result in more and better jobs.

korch 17y ago

From a microeconomic perspective, the specialization of labor undoubtedly allows us to maximize production, yet from a macroeconomic perspective, I think you're right. I know Marx is beyond dated, and that it's only permitted to speak of him using hushed tones in serious conversation, however, in Das Kapital one of his fundamental arguments was that the long-run problem Capitalism is destined to face and ultimately lose to will be the problem of over-production. Which sounds counter-intuitive, as how could over-production possibly be bad? His argument is interesting and worth studying for itself, even if it is mostly outdated.

codexon 17y ago
how could over-production possibly be bad? Over-production results in a general glut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_glut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_glut Real demand is still present, but the lack of liquidity in a general glut artificially depresses demand. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke explains: but the story that captivated Bernanke involved a town full of shoe factories that closed during the Depression, leaving the community so poor that its children went barefoot. "I kept asking, Why didn't they just open the factories and make the kids shoes? The reason is because the community didn't have anything to offer the factory owners. The factory owners know that the community doesn't have money to pay for shoes, but on the other hand the community would have money if these factories paid them instead of closing the factories. These problems would go away if anyone could own a factory and have access to the materials, which many people above have said. However, this goes against the tenets of a capitalist free market: where someone is free to own much of the resources/land/factories/IP, which sets the barrier to entry beyond what most people can pay.
- nova 17y ago
  free to own much of the resources/land/factories/IP One of these things doesn't belong.