4 ms·

I agree. Long term, a society that values 100% employment over technological progress will be stomped by the society that allows its industries to automate them

I agree. Long term, a society that values 100% employment over technological progress will be stomped by the society that allows its industries to automate themselves. There's probably some good stuff to be repeated from "End of Work" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Work). Has anyone read it?

_delirium 16y ago
I think that's probably usually the case, but I'm not sure it always must be even in the long run, since short-term unrest can have significant long-term consequences. For example, if a society that purely values technological progress ends up with periods of significant disturbances/violence/unrest from masses of disgruntled people, enough damage might be done that it becomes eclipsed by a more stable society that grows more slowly, but with fewer disturbances. Admittedly, that requires a fairly high level of unrest, but it's not inconceivable that a few tens of million poor unemployed people in China could lead to quite some trouble.
paganel 16y ago
> Long term, a society that values 100% employment over technological progress will be stomped by the society that allows its industries to automate themselves. Yeap, but assuming you're a country with 20% unemployment that has a very high level of competitiveness, how do you deal with those young, unemployed people (they're mostly young) roaming the streets with nothing else better to do and with their pockets empty? What if they decide to topple the government, or to steal, or to do anything anti-social? They don't have anything to lose anyway.
- matwood 16y ago
  You think the unemployed are mostly young? I would have thought that union type manufacturing jobs mostly employed older people? Or to put it a different way, manufactures haven't hired in so long that most of the people being displaced by layoffs are older. I would also think that young people are more likely to have a college degree and the unemployment rates between people with and without college degrees varies by quite a large value. Plus young people are generally cheaper to employ.
  - paganel 16y ago
    > Or to put it a different way, manufactures haven't hired in so long that most of the people being displaced by layoffs are older. Sorry for the NY Post link, I'm too lazy to find the original source right now, but here it is (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/item_AnwaWNOGqsXMuIlGONNX1K http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/item_AnwaWNOGqsXMuIlGO...): """ The number of young Americans without a job has exploded to 53.4 percent — a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept (...) The number represents the flip-side to the Labor Dept.'s report that the employment rate of 16-to-24 year olds has eroded to 46.6 percent -- the lowest ratio of working young Americans in that age group, including all but those in the military, since WWII. """ I don't think the situation has improved that much since September 2009. And, like I said, I'm lazy, otherwise I would have found even worst figures from Western Europe countries.

_delirium 16y ago

I think that's probably usually the case, but I'm not sure it always must be even in the long run, since short-term unrest can have significant long-term consequences. For example, if a society that purely values technological progress ends up with periods of significant disturbances/violence/unrest from masses of disgruntled people, enough damage might be done that it becomes eclipsed by a more stable society that grows more slowly, but with fewer disturbances. Admittedly, that requires a fairly high level of unrest, but it's not inconceivable that a few tens of million poor unemployed people in China could lead to quite some trouble.

paganel 16y ago

> Long term, a society that values 100% employment over technological progress will be stomped by the society that allows its industries to automate themselves. Yeap, but assuming you're a country with 20% unemployment that has a very high level of competitiveness, how do you deal with those young, unemployed people (they're mostly young) roaming the streets with nothing else better to do and with their pockets empty? What if they decide to topple the government, or to steal, or to do anything anti-social? They don't have anything to lose anyway.

matwood 16y ago
You think the unemployed are mostly young? I would have thought that union type manufacturing jobs mostly employed older people? Or to put it a different way, manufactures haven't hired in so long that most of the people being displaced by layoffs are older. I would also think that young people are more likely to have a college degree and the unemployment rates between people with and without college degrees varies by quite a large value. Plus young people are generally cheaper to employ.
- paganel 16y ago
  > Or to put it a different way, manufactures haven't hired in so long that most of the people being displaced by layoffs are older. Sorry for the NY Post link, I'm too lazy to find the original source right now, but here it is (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/item_AnwaWNOGqsXMuIlGONNX1K http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/item_AnwaWNOGqsXMuIlGO...): """ The number of young Americans without a job has exploded to 53.4 percent — a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept (...) The number represents the flip-side to the Labor Dept.'s report that the employment rate of 16-to-24 year olds has eroded to 46.6 percent -- the lowest ratio of working young Americans in that age group, including all but those in the military, since WWII. """ I don't think the situation has improved that much since September 2009. And, like I said, I'm lazy, otherwise I would have found even worst figures from Western Europe countries.