3 ms·

>the vast majority of unemployed people will not "find work". they will be "given work" by other people who are in a position to take advantage of them. That's

by kiba 16y ago

>the vast majority of unemployed people will not "find work". they will be "given work" by other people who are in a position to take advantage of them. That's of course, when only industrialization is the only factor. When you factor in all the other technological factors and social trends, the picture will begins to look different, if not radically so.

venkat01 16y ago
Please to elaborate on these "other technological factors and social trends." If there's too much panic on one side by those who are losing their jobs, there seems to be a great deal of hand waving and talk about "other factors" by those who are less affected by these "trends".
- kiba 16y ago
  The Flynn effect trend seem to indicate that the population is getting smarter over time. However, it would probably only slow down the loss of jobs. Unless, IQ increase dramatically. Than there's the emerging invisible economy in which everything is determined by supply & demand, but also contracts that are per se, not "enforceable", and where reputation matters. That where people can find jobs in spite of the structural deficiency in the wider economy that forbid the price floor for labor to drop to where it needs to be. They are happening now. But there's the past record in which new jobs are created out of jobs being eliminated by robots. There are demands for humans to program them, probably repair them, and so on. It might happen again with this process of industrialization. There's another factor: prosthetic that effect a superhuman attribute or merging of humans into machines. It seem to take forever right now, though. This could be simply be our linear point of views, but not the actual development rate. But then again, whether or not we have jobs in the future is not determined by what arguments I make, but of the facts.
  - konad 16y ago
    > Unless, IQ increase dramatically. 100 IQ is defined as the average in the population under study, therefore increase / decrease is impossible.
    - kiba 16y ago
      >100 IQ is defined as the average in the population under study, therefore increase / decrease is impossible. By our standard, most people 100 years ago would be classified as retarded. Thus, what I meant by increase in IQ is in relative to past populations. An errors? Perhaps, but that's nitpicking.
      - konad 16y ago
        I would say that "smarter over time" is the wrong conclusion of the Flynn effect.
maxawaytoolong 16y ago
Indeed, the picture does look a little different... it looks like people will not be "given work," either.
exit 16y ago
"other factors and social trends" is completely abstract to me. can you give me concrete examples?

by kiba 16y ago

venkat01 16y ago

Please to elaborate on these "other technological factors and social trends." If there's too much panic on one side by those who are losing their jobs, there seems to be a great deal of hand waving and talk about "other factors" by those who are less affected by these "trends".

kiba 16y ago
The Flynn effect trend seem to indicate that the population is getting smarter over time. However, it would probably only slow down the loss of jobs. Unless, IQ increase dramatically. Than there's the emerging invisible economy in which everything is determined by supply & demand, but also contracts that are per se, not "enforceable", and where reputation matters. That where people can find jobs in spite of the structural deficiency in the wider economy that forbid the price floor for labor to drop to where it needs to be. They are happening now. But there's the past record in which new jobs are created out of jobs being eliminated by robots. There are demands for humans to program them, probably repair them, and so on. It might happen again with this process of industrialization. There's another factor: prosthetic that effect a superhuman attribute or merging of humans into machines. It seem to take forever right now, though. This could be simply be our linear point of views, but not the actual development rate. But then again, whether or not we have jobs in the future is not determined by what arguments I make, but of the facts.
- konad 16y ago
  > Unless, IQ increase dramatically. 100 IQ is defined as the average in the population under study, therefore increase / decrease is impossible.
  - kiba 16y ago
    >100 IQ is defined as the average in the population under study, therefore increase / decrease is impossible. By our standard, most people 100 years ago would be classified as retarded. Thus, what I meant by increase in IQ is in relative to past populations. An errors? Perhaps, but that's nitpicking.
    - konad 16y ago
      I would say that "smarter over time" is the wrong conclusion of the Flynn effect.

maxawaytoolong 16y ago

Indeed, the picture does look a little different... it looks like people will not be "given work," either.

exit 16y ago

"other factors and social trends" is completely abstract to me. can you give me concrete examples?