4 ms·

I'm not talking about working conditions. I'm referring to employment. We need less people to do stuff. Thousands of years ago everyone was involved in subsista

I'm not talking about working conditions. I'm referring to employment. We need less people to do stuff. Thousands of years ago everyone was involved in subsistance. Pretty soon we developed technologies (the wheel, the plow) that meant we needed fewer people to do that. So people were able to move on to doing other things (like making pots or clothing). Pretty soon we automated those things as well (potters wheel, the loom, etc.) and people needed to start making other things. Over time not making anything at all, but doing service work became more common. But automation means we don't need service work as much either. We're running out of places to move people who's jobs were automated out of existence. I don't deny that life is much better for all this technology, but we need to acknowledge the other problem.

CPLX 10y ago
> We need less people to do stuff. A thousand years ago there were 400 million people on earth. Today there are 764 million jobs in China alone. So, on a literal basis at least, that's not turning out to be true so far. Your supposition is that this time it's different than all the other times people have claimed that automation and technology will make everyone idle. But maybe it's not different this time. Maybe technological advancement proceeds relentlessly and has for awhile, and today only looks special because we're in it. Maybe the mechanisms by which economies achieve full employment don't work in the way you're describing.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  GP's statement would have been better written as "we need fewer people to do stuff relative to the output they produce". Our workforces, globally, are far more productive than they've ever been thanks to various force multipliers. Better fertilizers and machinery and pesticides and GMO seeds mean we need far fewer people to produce the same amount of food as before. The same is true for most industries, or we are moving towards it being true for them. There may be 764 million jobs in China, but it's almost certain that those workers are doing more than just double the work of the 400 million people from 1000 years ago (as measured by output).
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  My supposition isn't that it's different. Just faster. There is no "this time", it's been an ongoing process. We have been able to produce more with fewer people since the plow was invented. As the pace of technological improvement increases, the amount we can produce does as well. For a long time we just produced more and different stuff, but that's not going to last forever. I do not think this is bad necessarily, just something we now have to acknowledge and plan for. We need to start seriously considering how we structure a society where not everyone can -- or needs to -- work.

CPLX 10y ago

> We need less people to do stuff. A thousand years ago there were 400 million people on earth. Today there are 764 million jobs in China alone. So, on a literal basis at least, that's not turning out to be true so far. Your supposition is that this time it's different than all the other times people have claimed that automation and technology will make everyone idle. But maybe it's not different this time. Maybe technological advancement proceeds relentlessly and has for awhile, and today only looks special because we're in it. Maybe the mechanisms by which economies achieve full employment don't work in the way you're describing.

Jtsummers 10y ago
GP's statement would have been better written as "we need fewer people to do stuff relative to the output they produce". Our workforces, globally, are far more productive than they've ever been thanks to various force multipliers. Better fertilizers and machinery and pesticides and GMO seeds mean we need far fewer people to produce the same amount of food as before. The same is true for most industries, or we are moving towards it being true for them. There may be 764 million jobs in China, but it's almost certain that those workers are doing more than just double the work of the 400 million people from 1000 years ago (as measured by output).
stinkytaco 10y ago
My supposition isn't that it's different. Just faster. There is no "this time", it's been an ongoing process. We have been able to produce more with fewer people since the plow was invented. As the pace of technological improvement increases, the amount we can produce does as well. For a long time we just produced more and different stuff, but that's not going to last forever. I do not think this is bad necessarily, just something we now have to acknowledge and plan for. We need to start seriously considering how we structure a society where not everyone can -- or needs to -- work.