4 ms·

I think its more dissatisfaction with life in general, with unemployment maybe being one of many triggers. You're probably right about addressing at the demand

I think its more dissatisfaction with life in general, with unemployment maybe being one of many triggers. You're probably right about addressing at the demand level. But, I see the problem being more societal - think no one really understands everything. You take away self-reliance of people (whether they realize it or not) at many levels... its cheaper to get some good-enough quality food at 13 places near my home, so why should I learn to cook. I can get any vegetable I want at the store, so I probably don't need to learn how to tend a garden. In both instances as examples I'm losing a little control of my life. And then.... TV gives me entertainment, and the internet even more so, so maybe i'll just sit back and let it entertain me. So maybe I don't need to read anymore. Its easier to have short non-contextual entertainment bits, which rewire my brain further to think differently [wrongly?]... [0] And, now capitalism has made all margins of businesses so slim that there's no real way to enter a business and still have a safety net in case you fail. You either need to disrupt an industry, create a marketplace, find a niche, or fail hard. I think we're just starting to see the uglier stuff here. Short of some great awakening I also don't see the correct prescription. Pun intended. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

glangdale 10y ago
Postman's book is now 32 years old! I read it as a teenager, which dates me... I'm not sure about the Amusing Ourselves To Death stuff or the tut-tutting about cooking and gardening, but overall, though, I think you're on the right track. I'm sure that between automation of both manufacturing and services, big-box retailers and the fact that the covering of the 'long tail' is done very well by web-based business. It's hard to picture what a lot of people are going to be able to do in this circumstance and there seems to be the real potential for a cascading unpleasantness. If you even half-believe the 'technological unemployment' worry, the scary part is that the non-automatable jobs that involved providing goods and services to those displaced by technology will also suffer. There may be plenty of spare time for people to have that 'great awakening', whatever that might turn out to be.
- mholmes680 10y ago
  >>cooking and gardening two examples of many, admittedly probably too personal. Others: technology obsolescence, and the move toward not actually OWNing anything so nothing to learn to repair. >>If you even half-believe the 'technological unemployment' worry, the scary part is that the non-automatable jobs that involved providing goods and services to those displaced by technology will also suffer. Yes... My context is now that as a parent, I'm seeing windows closing for the kids' future that I had. I mean programming (maybe; I hope) and robot repair will be very lucrative. So will professions like plumbing and electricians.
  - glangdale 10y ago
    I feel the 'parent context' too. I have kids old enough to be thinking more seriously about what they want to do when they group up (i.e. early teens) and it's difficult to know what to tell them. I suspect that many of the hopefully lucrative paths you mentioned will be things that gets more and more 'sealed' and routinized (i.e. robot repair == "remove broken assembly, put in new assembly, send broken assembly to factory in low-cost geo for salvage/repair"). It's not all doom and gloom, of course, and I think it's important to maintain a positive outlook esp. in front of one's kids when talking about this stuff. And of course, the growing helplessness and screen addiction of many of their peers suggests that in competitive terms, finding and holding a good job might be easier and easier (which isn't very encouraging overall, but appeals to the "amoral familism" streak I occasionally get).
golergka 10y ago
> And, now capitalism has made all margins of businesses so slim that there's no real way to enter a business and still have a safety net in case you fail. You either need to disrupt an industry, create a marketplace, find a niche, or fail hard. While this is true, phrasing it like a critique of capitalism seems very, very weird. As if in a socialist or communist society starting a business is supposed to be easier and margins larger. (Disclaimer: I have founded two failed startups to date, still living on friends' couch after the second one now).
- mholmes680 10y ago
  Fair enough, I think I mean distribution of wealth. Capitalism is VERY good at moving money up. But, lately, in America, there's been not enough ways to get money going back down.
  - golergka 10y ago
    > Capitalism is VERY good at moving money up. You're phrasing it as if you're comparing it with something. Have you ever lived in a communist country? I have yet to see a "redistribution of wealth" system that actually distributes more wealth than it lives for itself.

glangdale 10y ago

Postman's book is now 32 years old! I read it as a teenager, which dates me... I'm not sure about the Amusing Ourselves To Death stuff or the tut-tutting about cooking and gardening, but overall, though, I think you're on the right track. I'm sure that between automation of both manufacturing and services, big-box retailers and the fact that the covering of the 'long tail' is done very well by web-based business. It's hard to picture what a lot of people are going to be able to do in this circumstance and there seems to be the real potential for a cascading unpleasantness. If you even half-believe the 'technological unemployment' worry, the scary part is that the non-automatable jobs that involved providing goods and services to those displaced by technology will also suffer. There may be plenty of spare time for people to have that 'great awakening', whatever that might turn out to be.

mholmes680 10y ago
>>cooking and gardening two examples of many, admittedly probably too personal. Others: technology obsolescence, and the move toward not actually OWNing anything so nothing to learn to repair. >>If you even half-believe the 'technological unemployment' worry, the scary part is that the non-automatable jobs that involved providing goods and services to those displaced by technology will also suffer. Yes... My context is now that as a parent, I'm seeing windows closing for the kids' future that I had. I mean programming (maybe; I hope) and robot repair will be very lucrative. So will professions like plumbing and electricians.
- glangdale 10y ago
  I feel the 'parent context' too. I have kids old enough to be thinking more seriously about what they want to do when they group up (i.e. early teens) and it's difficult to know what to tell them. I suspect that many of the hopefully lucrative paths you mentioned will be things that gets more and more 'sealed' and routinized (i.e. robot repair == "remove broken assembly, put in new assembly, send broken assembly to factory in low-cost geo for salvage/repair"). It's not all doom and gloom, of course, and I think it's important to maintain a positive outlook esp. in front of one's kids when talking about this stuff. And of course, the growing helplessness and screen addiction of many of their peers suggests that in competitive terms, finding and holding a good job might be easier and easier (which isn't very encouraging overall, but appeals to the "amoral familism" streak I occasionally get).

golergka 10y ago

> And, now capitalism has made all margins of businesses so slim that there's no real way to enter a business and still have a safety net in case you fail. You either need to disrupt an industry, create a marketplace, find a niche, or fail hard. While this is true, phrasing it like a critique of capitalism seems very, very weird. As if in a socialist or communist society starting a business is supposed to be easier and margins larger. (Disclaimer: I have founded two failed startups to date, still living on friends' couch after the second one now).

mholmes680 10y ago
Fair enough, I think I mean distribution of wealth. Capitalism is VERY good at moving money up. But, lately, in America, there's been not enough ways to get money going back down.
- golergka 10y ago
  > Capitalism is VERY good at moving money up. You're phrasing it as if you're comparing it with something. Have you ever lived in a communist country? I have yet to see a "redistribution of wealth" system that actually distributes more wealth than it lives for itself.