4 ms·

Technology enriches technologists and capitalists, but it actually impoverishes the uneducated masses because they no longer have jobs and cannot afford higher

Technology enriches technologists and capitalists, but it actually impoverishes the uneducated masses because they no longer have jobs and cannot afford higher education. The missing link in your story is that the secretaries and phone operators and librarians put out of work cannot afford retraining and cannot get loans to retrain. So they are converted from middle class wage earners to the ghettoized poor. Without a social safety net, gains in productivity only benefit a small minority. The middle class is being cannibalized by your kind of thinking.

NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago
Yes. A LOT of sales people got replaced by Web sites. And technology also replaced many book store clerks, telephone operators, etc. In some ways it's a BAD situation. But, in 'productivity', that is, economic results per dollar, that remains. It's just that increases in 'productivity' don't always mean an increase in standard of living, quality of life, better society, etc. All I addressed was productivity, not standard of living, 'the social contract', 'financial security', a 'better society', etc. You are absolutely correct that much of the technology that has increased productivity has hurt a LOT of people. And it is very true that our society needs to do something about this situation. And, moreover, if count the cost of the 'safety net' for the people put out of work for the technology, then it may be that, with also the cost of the technology, sometimes there is a net loss in 'productivity'. For another example, Google, Craig's List, etc. are putting out of work a LOT of people in the classified ads departments of newspapers. Heck, the Internet is putting a lot of newspapers and magazines out of business: Newsweek just sold for, what, $1 to someone who wanted to run it as a personal interest instead of a business? I haven't gotten a newspaper or magazine on paper in years, and last week I finally hauled out three really heavy, big, green plastic bags of old magazines. Still, in the long term, larger picture, and in the sense of the article, 'productivity' marches ahead. We don't like all the downside, but, still, we don't really want to go back. So, we need to find better solutions for how to move ahead. Sure, it's too easy to see that too soon we will have to give everyone a basic 'stipend' so that anyone who wants more can work and make much more. Doing this and keeping a 'productive' society will NOT be easy. Or, what happens when Robots, Inc. makes a robot for $1000 that can do the work of over 90% of the current jobs? Still, the article and I were writing about JUST 'productivity' and not at all about your, justified, concerns about 'quality of life'.
- forensic 15y ago
  I agree with your analysis I just think your previous comment had an unavoidable political message: the implied message was that there is no problem and intervention is not needed. Your scenario of giving people a stipend seems politically unlikely. The trend, which shows no signs of abating, is for the American standard of living to simply diminish unrecoverably. This has been happening for 40 years. The average American's lifestyle is moving toward the average Chinese lifestyle. That trend will continue without political intervention. Political intervention will not occur as long as the intellectual class (e.g. you and all the people you influence with your adept analysis) remains politically neutral in their spare time.
  - NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago
    "the implied message was that there is no problem and intervention is not needed" No, again, I just addressed the point of the article, 'productivity'. To move on to address the 'social', etc. results from getting more productivity via information technology would have been 'off the subject'. Or, raw productivity remains important. For your concerns about China, I'm not much concerned. My biggest concern would be that they will be able to compete more for some of the 'world-market' goods such as oil. But, the US doesn't have to be short of oil: We are just awash in shale oil and coal, both of which can be made into gasoline, at roughly present prices. And longer term, with bioreactions, possibly endothermic and driven by electric power from nuclear reactions, we need not be short on energy in any important forms. For the US 'standard of living' in, say, GDP per person, one decade at a time, I see that increasing at a nice rate and not falling. Yes, GDP per person is an 'average', and taking the average raises some issues: So on the one hand is someone out of work who made $50,000 a year, and on the other hand is someone who gets a vacation for three months in the south of France in a hotel at $2000 a day. So, how to 'average' that? Or, after $100 million, who would even walk across the street for another $1 million, yet a poor person would crawl across the street for $1000, $100, maybe $10. So with a high GDP per person, we can have more people not willing to walk across a street for another $1 million while we have others stuck with very low fraction of the GDP. Broadly, a society awash in cheap robots should not have nearly all the humans destitute and on the streets but with really well off humans being served by the robots! Really, that desirable future needs more, actually MUCH more, economic productivity because the GDP per person now is not nearly high enough. So, one issue is increasing the GDP per person; another issue is what to do with the increases. Here's a first-cut, fairly automatic resolution: Currently an information technology entrepreneur can start a business, get a large increase in productivity, keep the revenue and earnings, and put out of work a lot of other people. Well, as people go out of work, the safety net will cost more and taxes will increase. Then the entrepreneur will not deploy the technology unless the revenue can cover BOTH some earnings AND the taxes for the safety net. So, technology that does get deployed will increase productivity enough to pay for both the technology AND the people put out of work. Or, instead of the Google founders being worth maybe $15 billion each and putting out of work thousands of people in, say, newspaper classified ad departments, the Google founders will pay higher taxes and the safety net for the former newspaper workers will improve. Our politics and society might move to such a situation without ever really agreeing that 'technology should pay for the jobs it kills' or some such. For the politics, I'm against stupid government that makes things much worse, and we've had WAY to much of that. It would be negligent for me not to mention the real cause of the housing bubble that caused The Great Recession: My view is that the bubble was caused by stupid government, by Obama (when he was a Senator), the Black Congressional Caucus, and Barney Frank telling Fannie and Freddie to back junk paper. It was NOT caused in any significant sense by Wall Street, 'complex' financial instruments, AIG, or the bond rating agencies. I do agree with Greenspan that he was a significant cause. I do want my slice of the pie to get bigger but from making the whole pie bigger, not from taking from someone else, but this desire does not translate very directly into any feasible, effective 'political action'. Beyond politics, a crucial issue is, yes, good government and, then, MORE, actually MUCH more, economic productivity. Only with more GDP per person can we have the safety net as strong as we want it. Or "The problem with socialism is that it too soon runs out of other people's money.". Right. So, one solution is enough more economic productivity so that the other people won't run out of money. Simple enough. Then there will be other problems: The political system can split into (1) the people working and (2) the people in the saftey net. Then the people in (2) can so choke the geese in (1) who are producing the golden eggs that in every sense standard of living stagnates. Indeed, that is a common description of just what is going on in most of the more socialistic European countries. Yes, a worker makes a big 'investment' in education, training, experience, etc. in their career. In accounting terms, that investment is an asset on their personal, financial balance sheet. Then when they lose their job, they have to 'write off' that asset. That 'write off' shows as a big loss on their income statement for that year. So, who covers that loss? The person and no one else. And, you are correct: We are short of capital to replace that asset on that person's balance sheet. So, the person is now 'under capitalized' and like such a business that has shut down and left a building with a leaky roof, broken windows, and weeds in the parking lot. Not good. Before the economy gets going again, we may have to open 'camps' where people live in dorms and eat in common cafeterias.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
wynand 15y ago
It is also possible that the efficiency gains brought by technology allow previously inaccessible services to become accessible to more people, thereby increasing demand for those services. For example, some types of legal discovery can now be done very well by software. On the face of it, one might think that many lawyers will lose their jobs (as discovery normally requires the attention of many lawyers). However, since the process is now cheaper, companies that could never before have afforded such legal services can now afford them. The lawyers will no longer be doing the actual discovery work, but will instead guide the software. I realize that my example targets a highly-paid group and that litigation is perhaps not the kind of thing anyone gets excited about, but this is what popped into my head first. You can apply this thinking to other fields. Technology sometimes leads to job losses but it also leads to new jobs. It's not much consolation to people who lose their jobs - and how to redirect talent on a large scale seems to be an unsolved problem - but in the long run, if done right, tech improvements can improve all the lives of many people.
ctdonath 15y ago
"but it actually impoverishes the uneducated masses because they no longer have jobs and cannot afford higher education." Minimum wage laws mean it is illegal to pay someone a fair wage for menial work. Ergo, the uneducated no longer have jobs. The work must still be done, but as it is illegal to hire a person we automate the process. Higher education is free. Libraries, Internet, ... MIT has all curriculum on line for free, along with many other schools. Certification is what's expensive, and so long as people are willing to commit to stupid huge loans the prices will keep going up. As an instructor I am astounded at the percentage of students who just will not do the work. It's not that they cannot afford retraining - there is a host of funding options, and if you're paying list price you're doing it wrong - it's that they want certification without education. The safety net is being abused. Between outlawing viable poverty and wanting benefits without effort, only a small minority are willing to be productive and gain the benefits thereof.
- forensic 15y ago
  Stop making this a moral issue. Did 20th century behaviourism teach you nothing? The human stock is only as good as the stimulation it receives. The reason people have trouble learning is because they are victims of mass culture. When a child is raised on corporate propaganda from age 1 how do you expect him or her to be intellectual? You phrase these things in moral terms and indicate that the failure lies with those in poverty. But we intellectuals discovered long ago that those in poverty behave in predictable, controllable ways. Garbage in, garbage out. The public schools have become corporate propaganda systems and the Universities have lost all sense of public duty. The poor can't educate themselves. They need an enlightened class to protect them (using government) from the powerful forces of propaganda. You sit in your ivory tower and blame the victims, when you have no idea what it's like to be raised by a television and modern public schools bought and paid for by special interests. Children are impressionable and stupid. Your classes have to compete for attention with the greatest propaganda machine the world has ever known: the U.S. corporate media.
  - NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago
    It's called 'pop culture'! Or it's "the great wasteland". Or it's the "message" in "the medium is the message". But heavily it's the old tried and true of the humanities culture, 'drama' as in 'formula fiction', especially as in the 1000 year old 'morality' plays. So, I'm reluctant to believe that more of the 'humanities' culture will have a solution. Or, with high irony, in main results, if not in all intentions, the 'humanities' are a great enemy of humans!

NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago

Yes. A LOT of sales people got replaced by Web sites. And technology also replaced many book store clerks, telephone operators, etc. In some ways it's a BAD situation. But, in 'productivity', that is, economic results per dollar, that remains. It's just that increases in 'productivity' don't always mean an increase in standard of living, quality of life, better society, etc. All I addressed was productivity, not standard of living, 'the social contract', 'financial security', a 'better society', etc. You are absolutely correct that much of the technology that has increased productivity has hurt a LOT of people. And it is very true that our society needs to do something about this situation. And, moreover, if count the cost of the 'safety net' for the people put out of work for the technology, then it may be that, with also the cost of the technology, sometimes there is a net loss in 'productivity'. For another example, Google, Craig's List, etc. are putting out of work a LOT of people in the classified ads departments of newspapers. Heck, the Internet is putting a lot of newspapers and magazines out of business: Newsweek just sold for, what, $1 to someone who wanted to run it as a personal interest instead of a business? I haven't gotten a newspaper or magazine on paper in years, and last week I finally hauled out three really heavy, big, green plastic bags of old magazines. Still, in the long term, larger picture, and in the sense of the article, 'productivity' marches ahead. We don't like all the downside, but, still, we don't really want to go back. So, we need to find better solutions for how to move ahead. Sure, it's too easy to see that too soon we will have to give everyone a basic 'stipend' so that anyone who wants more can work and make much more. Doing this and keeping a 'productive' society will NOT be easy. Or, what happens when Robots, Inc. makes a robot for $1000 that can do the work of over 90% of the current jobs? Still, the article and I were writing about JUST 'productivity' and not at all about your, justified, concerns about 'quality of life'.

forensic 15y ago
I agree with your analysis I just think your previous comment had an unavoidable political message: the implied message was that there is no problem and intervention is not needed. Your scenario of giving people a stipend seems politically unlikely. The trend, which shows no signs of abating, is for the American standard of living to simply diminish unrecoverably. This has been happening for 40 years. The average American's lifestyle is moving toward the average Chinese lifestyle. That trend will continue without political intervention. Political intervention will not occur as long as the intellectual class (e.g. you and all the people you influence with your adept analysis) remains politically neutral in their spare time.
- NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago
  "the implied message was that there is no problem and intervention is not needed" No, again, I just addressed the point of the article, 'productivity'. To move on to address the 'social', etc. results from getting more productivity via information technology would have been 'off the subject'. Or, raw productivity remains important. For your concerns about China, I'm not much concerned. My biggest concern would be that they will be able to compete more for some of the 'world-market' goods such as oil. But, the US doesn't have to be short of oil: We are just awash in shale oil and coal, both of which can be made into gasoline, at roughly present prices. And longer term, with bioreactions, possibly endothermic and driven by electric power from nuclear reactions, we need not be short on energy in any important forms. For the US 'standard of living' in, say, GDP per person, one decade at a time, I see that increasing at a nice rate and not falling. Yes, GDP per person is an 'average', and taking the average raises some issues: So on the one hand is someone out of work who made $50,000 a year, and on the other hand is someone who gets a vacation for three months in the south of France in a hotel at $2000 a day. So, how to 'average' that? Or, after $100 million, who would even walk across the street for another $1 million, yet a poor person would crawl across the street for $1000, $100, maybe $10. So with a high GDP per person, we can have more people not willing to walk across a street for another $1 million while we have others stuck with very low fraction of the GDP. Broadly, a society awash in cheap robots should not have nearly all the humans destitute and on the streets but with really well off humans being served by the robots! Really, that desirable future needs more, actually MUCH more, economic productivity because the GDP per person now is not nearly high enough. So, one issue is increasing the GDP per person; another issue is what to do with the increases. Here's a first-cut, fairly automatic resolution: Currently an information technology entrepreneur can start a business, get a large increase in productivity, keep the revenue and earnings, and put out of work a lot of other people. Well, as people go out of work, the safety net will cost more and taxes will increase. Then the entrepreneur will not deploy the technology unless the revenue can cover BOTH some earnings AND the taxes for the safety net. So, technology that does get deployed will increase productivity enough to pay for both the technology AND the people put out of work. Or, instead of the Google founders being worth maybe $15 billion each and putting out of work thousands of people in, say, newspaper classified ad departments, the Google founders will pay higher taxes and the safety net for the former newspaper workers will improve. Our politics and society might move to such a situation without ever really agreeing that 'technology should pay for the jobs it kills' or some such. For the politics, I'm against stupid government that makes things much worse, and we've had WAY to much of that. It would be negligent for me not to mention the real cause of the housing bubble that caused The Great Recession: My view is that the bubble was caused by stupid government, by Obama (when he was a Senator), the Black Congressional Caucus, and Barney Frank telling Fannie and Freddie to back junk paper. It was NOT caused in any significant sense by Wall Street, 'complex' financial instruments, AIG, or the bond rating agencies. I do agree with Greenspan that he was a significant cause. I do want my slice of the pie to get bigger but from making the whole pie bigger, not from taking from someone else, but this desire does not translate very directly into any feasible, effective 'political action'. Beyond politics, a crucial issue is, yes, good government and, then, MORE, actually MUCH more, economic productivity. Only with more GDP per person can we have the safety net as strong as we want it. Or "The problem with socialism is that it too soon runs out of other people's money.". Right. So, one solution is enough more economic productivity so that the other people won't run out of money. Simple enough. Then there will be other problems: The political system can split into (1) the people working and (2) the people in the saftey net. Then the people in (2) can so choke the geese in (1) who are producing the golden eggs that in every sense standard of living stagnates. Indeed, that is a common description of just what is going on in most of the more socialistic European countries. Yes, a worker makes a big 'investment' in education, training, experience, etc. in their career. In accounting terms, that investment is an asset on their personal, financial balance sheet. Then when they lose their job, they have to 'write off' that asset. That 'write off' shows as a big loss on their income statement for that year. So, who covers that loss? The person and no one else. And, you are correct: We are short of capital to replace that asset on that person's balance sheet. So, the person is now 'under capitalized' and like such a business that has shut down and left a building with a leaky roof, broken windows, and weeds in the parking lot. Not good. Before the economy gets going again, we may have to open 'camps' where people live in dorms and eat in common cafeterias.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

wynand 15y ago

It is also possible that the efficiency gains brought by technology allow previously inaccessible services to become accessible to more people, thereby increasing demand for those services. For example, some types of legal discovery can now be done very well by software. On the face of it, one might think that many lawyers will lose their jobs (as discovery normally requires the attention of many lawyers). However, since the process is now cheaper, companies that could never before have afforded such legal services can now afford them. The lawyers will no longer be doing the actual discovery work, but will instead guide the software. I realize that my example targets a highly-paid group and that litigation is perhaps not the kind of thing anyone gets excited about, but this is what popped into my head first. You can apply this thinking to other fields. Technology sometimes leads to job losses but it also leads to new jobs. It's not much consolation to people who lose their jobs - and how to redirect talent on a large scale seems to be an unsolved problem - but in the long run, if done right, tech improvements can improve all the lives of many people.

ctdonath 15y ago

"but it actually impoverishes the uneducated masses because they no longer have jobs and cannot afford higher education." Minimum wage laws mean it is illegal to pay someone a fair wage for menial work. Ergo, the uneducated no longer have jobs. The work must still be done, but as it is illegal to hire a person we automate the process. Higher education is free. Libraries, Internet, ... MIT has all curriculum on line for free, along with many other schools. Certification is what's expensive, and so long as people are willing to commit to stupid huge loans the prices will keep going up. As an instructor I am astounded at the percentage of students who just will not do the work. It's not that they cannot afford retraining - there is a host of funding options, and if you're paying list price you're doing it wrong - it's that they want certification without education. The safety net is being abused. Between outlawing viable poverty and wanting benefits without effort, only a small minority are willing to be productive and gain the benefits thereof.

forensic 15y ago
Stop making this a moral issue. Did 20th century behaviourism teach you nothing? The human stock is only as good as the stimulation it receives. The reason people have trouble learning is because they are victims of mass culture. When a child is raised on corporate propaganda from age 1 how do you expect him or her to be intellectual? You phrase these things in moral terms and indicate that the failure lies with those in poverty. But we intellectuals discovered long ago that those in poverty behave in predictable, controllable ways. Garbage in, garbage out. The public schools have become corporate propaganda systems and the Universities have lost all sense of public duty. The poor can't educate themselves. They need an enlightened class to protect them (using government) from the powerful forces of propaganda. You sit in your ivory tower and blame the victims, when you have no idea what it's like to be raised by a television and modern public schools bought and paid for by special interests. Children are impressionable and stupid. Your classes have to compete for attention with the greatest propaganda machine the world has ever known: the U.S. corporate media.
- NY_Entrepreneur 15y ago
  It's called 'pop culture'! Or it's "the great wasteland". Or it's the "message" in "the medium is the message". But heavily it's the old tried and true of the humanities culture, 'drama' as in 'formula fiction', especially as in the 1000 year old 'morality' plays. So, I'm reluctant to believe that more of the 'humanities' culture will have a solution. Or, with high irony, in main results, if not in all intentions, the 'humanities' are a great enemy of humans!