3 ms·

With all due respect you're guessing, I'm not. You're basically saying "it's worked itself out in the past so it will surely do so in the future." But that's

With all due respect you're guessing, I'm not. You're basically saying "it's worked itself out in the past so it will surely do so in the future." But that's not a logical conclusion. Things do change. What I'm saying is the fact that we won't have enough jobs for everyone is inevitable just by extrapolating on current trends. The welfare state being discussed exists because people have been able to retire much earlier without negatively impacting society. That in itself shows a trend towards the amount of human labor our society needs growing smaller. My original point is that we need to start innovating in how we govern to deal with the eventuality of that trend reaching the point where there aren't enough jobs for younger people. We shouldn't destroy the infrastructure we already have and then try to solve that problem when it becomes a real crisis.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I would like to continue this thread because I believe I am wrong -- the question is of degree. I also believe you are wrong, and much more wrong than I am (smile) Plus I believe we are being civil, and I enjoy a civil conversation that makes me think. Using past examples as indicators of future performance is called induction. Great thing. Not bulletproof by any means, but the more examples that exist the more comfortable I am with drawing conclusions. Think of it this way: given your logic, the vast majority of people will become intellectually disabled in the future, unable to find productive work or work the complex machines required to live. Sort of an Idiocracy. The problem here is that you can't take a number like "jobs" and extrapolate it, because of the very problem you're stepping into: it's an aggregate, not a metric. They don't make buggy whips any more, car manufacturing isn't done the way it used to be done in Detroit. The average guy who used to just sit behind the back-end of a horse on the farm all day somehow has managed to make it into the 21st century just fine, however. Markets are funny things. I am not one of those that thinks the free market can do everything -- but I also have a healthy respect for the unpredictable, unmanageable nature or a market. They continuously show the ability for groups of people acting creatively to come up with all kinds of ideas that I cannot forecast. If you are asking me to forecast the total number of fast-food employees over the next hundred years I have no doubt the line heads towards zero. But there's a long way from that to saying that all jobs for average people are disappearing. A long, long way. I don't know about what to do about this, although I am sure lots of folks have ideas. I think if we couldn't afford the welfare state and promises we had at the beginning of the century, I seriously doubt we're suddenly going to be able to afford it in the next 20 years. My guess is that 2012-2020 will see a huge Charlie Foxtrot with the welfare state worldwide (more than currently exists). That probably means that right now is a good time to talk about these things, because as politicized as they are now, I think they're only going to get worse.
randallsquared 16y ago
You're basically saying "it's worked itself out in the past so it will surely do so in the future." But that's not a logical conclusion. It certainly can be. Daniel is basically arguing for the outside view, and the outside view is often the best predictor of outcomes. Now, it may be that this time is different, but when you have a long history of specific failed predictions based on the details of a transition, it's certainly worth paying attention to the trend as a guide to this instance.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I would like to continue this thread because I believe I am wrong -- the question is of degree. I also believe you are wrong, and much more wrong than I am (smile) Plus I believe we are being civil, and I enjoy a civil conversation that makes me think. Using past examples as indicators of future performance is called induction. Great thing. Not bulletproof by any means, but the more examples that exist the more comfortable I am with drawing conclusions. Think of it this way: given your logic, the vast majority of people will become intellectually disabled in the future, unable to find productive work or work the complex machines required to live. Sort of an Idiocracy. The problem here is that you can't take a number like "jobs" and extrapolate it, because of the very problem you're stepping into: it's an aggregate, not a metric. They don't make buggy whips any more, car manufacturing isn't done the way it used to be done in Detroit. The average guy who used to just sit behind the back-end of a horse on the farm all day somehow has managed to make it into the 21st century just fine, however. Markets are funny things. I am not one of those that thinks the free market can do everything -- but I also have a healthy respect for the unpredictable, unmanageable nature or a market. They continuously show the ability for groups of people acting creatively to come up with all kinds of ideas that I cannot forecast. If you are asking me to forecast the total number of fast-food employees over the next hundred years I have no doubt the line heads towards zero. But there's a long way from that to saying that all jobs for average people are disappearing. A long, long way. I don't know about what to do about this, although I am sure lots of folks have ideas. I think if we couldn't afford the welfare state and promises we had at the beginning of the century, I seriously doubt we're suddenly going to be able to afford it in the next 20 years. My guess is that 2012-2020 will see a huge Charlie Foxtrot with the welfare state worldwide (more than currently exists). That probably means that right now is a good time to talk about these things, because as politicized as they are now, I think they're only going to get worse.

randallsquared 16y ago

You're basically saying "it's worked itself out in the past so it will surely do so in the future." But that's not a logical conclusion. It certainly can be. Daniel is basically arguing for the outside view, and the outside view is often the best predictor of outcomes. Now, it may be that this time is different, but when you have a long history of specific failed predictions based on the details of a transition, it's certainly worth paying attention to the trend as a guide to this instance.