4 ms·

So, to put it simply, more and more people have to work to support more people than before, right ?

by johnchristopher 7y ago

RobertoG 7y ago
Only if productivity have not increased.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  Has productivity increased enough to compensate for it ?
- liveoneggs 7y ago
  taxes to fund those not working would be required to absorb the productivity gains
- AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
  Only if productivity have not increased. It has not, alas. Take cars as an example: if we were building Fort T models, then yes, they would cost peanuts (especially Chinese copies). But for every dollar of productivity increase we add two dollars of safety devices, emission controls and new shiny gadgets.
  - gjm11 7y ago
    Making safer and less-polluting cars is a productivity improvement: it means people are getting better cars -- and everyone else is getting less likelihood of getting killed in a car accident, less health damage from other people's exhaust fumes, etc.
    - AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
      Right, but in the context of this discussion the cost primary function of the car (moving my butt from one place to another) has increased, or, in the best case, stayed the same.
      - mercutio2 7y ago
        Productivity is an economic term of art, which IS the context of this discussion. Productivity in the non—services sector of the economy has increased dramatically. You can buy much, much more stuff per inflation adjusted dollar. There remains rigidity in the market, which doesn’t generally make it easy for people to work 15 hour weeks to earn a 1940s income, but really, productivity for goods has dramatically increased.
        heavenlyblue 7y ago
        >> You can buy much, much more stuff per inflation adjusted dollar. Is it the stuff that works a 1/10th of the time it worked before because today we can "optimise" for longevity?
      - randomdata 7y ago
        Though, interestingly, the older generations, especially in rural areas, talk about driving as an event. Back in the day they would carefully plan trips into town once a week to gather supplies and run other errands. These days, nobody thinks twice about hopping into the car every single day of the week. The average number of miles per driver driven per year has certainly trended upward over the years. The total costs may be as much as ever, but the consumption is also higher. The productivity gains have been realized by moving your butt further and more often.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    That's not quite true. Automation has expanded at an explosive rate for 20 years. For many products, it takes nobody at all to produce them. How does that figure into 'productivity'?
    - hutzlibu 7y ago
      Not quite. I do not believe there are that many fully automated production lines and even those ... needs people to maintain them and build them and develope them and fix broken parts etc.
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        Believe it or not, its been happening. In fact if it isn't automated and is of any size, then it's been outsourced to Asia. When it grows to a sufficient size to warrant the fixed overhead of automation, it may return to the western world. But without the assembly-line jobs, giving lie to the idea that bringing factories back will create (many) jobs. The 1% of 'old factory jobs' that are retained (Engineer, planner etc) won't employ many people.
        hutzlibu 7y ago
        Twisting words? "For many products, it takes nobody at all to produce them. " Nobody at all is quite different from "not many"
adventured 7y ago
No. More and more robots and systems will have to work to support the expanding, aging demographics. We're going to desperately need all the automation, robotics, AI and related productivity enhancements we can get. Most likely we can't build it fast enough given the rate at which large population segments are aging, the demand will be staggering.
- lm28469 7y ago
  If you live in a hardcore capitalist country like the US all the automation money will go straight to the business owners pockets. We keep talking about automation like it is _going_ to happen in the future, truth is it's happening for 40 years, if not more. In europe politicians were promising a 30 hours work week and retirement at 50 in the 70s, all of that thanks to automation, you don't need to be an expert in this field to know that it didn't turn out that way.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    You don't need be an expert to know that quality of life has changed too. If you want to live like the 1970s you need a lot less money. No cable TV bill for your 19 inch TV. No cell phone or internet bill. Your car has an AM only monophonic radio (unless you splurge on an aftermarket 8-track player), and no AC unless you are rich. Those are just a few of the areas of life that people have upgraded. I contend that if all the people who worked on the above were spread out to the jobs of the 1970s with just automation applied the 30 hour workweek would be practical. However people have chosen to use the extra time automation gives them to develop more luxuries in life.
    - lm28469 7y ago
      > quality of life has changed too. "changed" is the keyword here, not everything got better. At some point you hit the diminishing return law. Did Uber, Facebook and Netflix had a greater impact on human life than hot tap water and fridges ? Do we need 3 new versions of iphones per year ? Same day delivery ? Did food delivery really upped your quality of life or are we just getting lazy and fat because we consider walking 10 minutes a chore ? Technological progress is automatically assumed to be good, but when you take a few steps back and look at the big picture we're not much better than 50 years ago. We have more useless activities and gadgets to spend our hard earned money, that's for sure, did it make the world a better place, that's another question. > However people have chosen to use the extra time automation gives them to develop more luxuries in life. I don't think "people" chose anything, the elite are very happy with the status quo. Look at wealth inequality stats, it's very easy to see where the money is going, and it's not in the interest of "the people".

So, to put it simply, more and more people have to work to support more people than before, right ?

RobertoG 7y ago

Only if productivity have not increased.

johnchristopher 7y ago
Has productivity increased enough to compensate for it ?
liveoneggs 7y ago
taxes to fund those not working would be required to absorb the productivity gains
AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
Only if productivity have not increased. It has not, alas. Take cars as an example: if we were building Fort T models, then yes, they would cost peanuts (especially Chinese copies). But for every dollar of productivity increase we add two dollars of safety devices, emission controls and new shiny gadgets.
- gjm11 7y ago
  Making safer and less-polluting cars is a productivity improvement: it means people are getting better cars -- and everyone else is getting less likelihood of getting killed in a car accident, less health damage from other people's exhaust fumes, etc.
  - AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
    Right, but in the context of this discussion the cost primary function of the car (moving my butt from one place to another) has increased, or, in the best case, stayed the same.
    - mercutio2 7y ago
      Productivity is an economic term of art, which IS the context of this discussion. Productivity in the non—services sector of the economy has increased dramatically. You can buy much, much more stuff per inflation adjusted dollar. There remains rigidity in the market, which doesn’t generally make it easy for people to work 15 hour weeks to earn a 1940s income, but really, productivity for goods has dramatically increased.
      - heavenlyblue 7y ago
        >> You can buy much, much more stuff per inflation adjusted dollar. Is it the stuff that works a 1/10th of the time it worked before because today we can "optimise" for longevity?
    - randomdata 7y ago
      Though, interestingly, the older generations, especially in rural areas, talk about driving as an event. Back in the day they would carefully plan trips into town once a week to gather supplies and run other errands. These days, nobody thinks twice about hopping into the car every single day of the week. The average number of miles per driver driven per year has certainly trended upward over the years. The total costs may be as much as ever, but the consumption is also higher. The productivity gains have been realized by moving your butt further and more often.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  That's not quite true. Automation has expanded at an explosive rate for 20 years. For many products, it takes nobody at all to produce them. How does that figure into 'productivity'?
  - hutzlibu 7y ago
    Not quite. I do not believe there are that many fully automated production lines and even those ... needs people to maintain them and build them and develope them and fix broken parts etc.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      Believe it or not, its been happening. In fact if it isn't automated and is of any size, then it's been outsourced to Asia. When it grows to a sufficient size to warrant the fixed overhead of automation, it may return to the western world. But without the assembly-line jobs, giving lie to the idea that bringing factories back will create (many) jobs. The 1% of 'old factory jobs' that are retained (Engineer, planner etc) won't employ many people.
      - hutzlibu 7y ago
        Twisting words? "For many products, it takes nobody at all to produce them. " Nobody at all is quite different from "not many"

adventured 7y ago

No. More and more robots and systems will have to work to support the expanding, aging demographics. We're going to desperately need all the automation, robotics, AI and related productivity enhancements we can get. Most likely we can't build it fast enough given the rate at which large population segments are aging, the demand will be staggering.

lm28469 7y ago
If you live in a hardcore capitalist country like the US all the automation money will go straight to the business owners pockets. We keep talking about automation like it is _going_ to happen in the future, truth is it's happening for 40 years, if not more. In europe politicians were promising a 30 hours work week and retirement at 50 in the 70s, all of that thanks to automation, you don't need to be an expert in this field to know that it didn't turn out that way.
- bluGill 7y ago
  You don't need be an expert to know that quality of life has changed too. If you want to live like the 1970s you need a lot less money. No cable TV bill for your 19 inch TV. No cell phone or internet bill. Your car has an AM only monophonic radio (unless you splurge on an aftermarket 8-track player), and no AC unless you are rich. Those are just a few of the areas of life that people have upgraded. I contend that if all the people who worked on the above were spread out to the jobs of the 1970s with just automation applied the 30 hour workweek would be practical. However people have chosen to use the extra time automation gives them to develop more luxuries in life.
  - lm28469 7y ago
    > quality of life has changed too. "changed" is the keyword here, not everything got better. At some point you hit the diminishing return law. Did Uber, Facebook and Netflix had a greater impact on human life than hot tap water and fridges ? Do we need 3 new versions of iphones per year ? Same day delivery ? Did food delivery really upped your quality of life or are we just getting lazy and fat because we consider walking 10 minutes a chore ? Technological progress is automatically assumed to be good, but when you take a few steps back and look at the big picture we're not much better than 50 years ago. We have more useless activities and gadgets to spend our hard earned money, that's for sure, did it make the world a better place, that's another question. > However people have chosen to use the extra time automation gives them to develop more luxuries in life. I don't think "people" chose anything, the elite are very happy with the status quo. Look at wealth inequality stats, it's very easy to see where the money is going, and it's not in the interest of "the people".