3 ms·

Decades ago 80%+ of everything we bought was made in our own country, now that number has dwindled down to, 20% was it? In the consumer space, perhaps. The act

Decades ago 80%+ of everything we bought was made in our own country, now that number has dwindled down to, 20% was it? In the consumer space, perhaps. The actual manufacturing done on US soil (I am assuming you are American), has continued to grow year after year. Much of that manufacturing has seen automation to the point that the labour force has declined, but that is not related to outsourcing to China. What technology has allowed is more and more of us to pursue new opportunities. If we were all still toiling in the field, we wouldn't be building hot internet startups. There simply wouldn't be the time. As robots drive labour costs to near zero, brand new opportunities will appear for people to make an income and perhaps even get rich themselves. There will always be short periods of hardship for some people, but in the grand scheme of things, finding an income should not be a problem. Finding a job you love, however, may become more and more difficult. Take agriculture as an example. I know countless people who would love to farm, but it simply is not an option for them. Thanks to technology, very few farmers are needed anymore. Likewise, I imagine there are also people who love working on the factory floor and building a business that employs robots doing who knows what is not at all appealing to them. The question is, should we prop up jobs that can easily be replaced by robots in order to allow people who love that job to continue to profit by doing it or should we force them into doing work that is not of interest? Programming, for example, is a job anyone could do, but very few, relatively speaking, have interest in actually doing it.

ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
"If we were all still toiling in the field, we wouldn't be building hot internet startups." - But not everyone can build internet startups, we can't all have startups. Money, also, is finite. The more someone else has, the less everyone else has. It's impossible for everyone to be rich. In order for someone to win, many have to loose. And making products to sell and creating jobs to make those products were a free market's way of passing the money down from those who have it, to those who don't. Now that those who have it, are starting to automate, more and more money stays in their hands and doesn't get passed down. "Programming, for example, is a job anyone could do" - I wouldn't say so. It takes a lot of skill to become a worthy programmer, which not everyone can do. If everyone knew just the basics, that wouldn't mean they could get jobs as programmers. Even if they did, their mediocre talent would mean that they too would eventually be replaced by robots and AI programmers.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  It's impossible for everyone to be rich. In order for someone to win, many have to loose. Only if you define "rich" in relative terms. In absolute terms, virtually everyone in the US is rich, including most of those the government classifies as "in poverty".
- randomdata 15y ago
  But not everyone can build internet startups, we can't all have startups. What stops us from all having startups? Cost of labour is one of the biggest reasons. You either have to pour months to years of your time into a product just to see if it will succeed, or pay someone else to do the work for you. If you could feed your plan into a robot on Friday and have the product in your hand on Monday, all built for pennies, the barrier is lowered to the point that anyone can do it. More importantly, success need not be large in such a scenario. All you need is one customer to pay you a few dollars and you are ready to move on to solving the next person's problems. You don't have to bank on major or even moderate success. It takes a lot of skill to become a worthy programmer Skill is a function of time. It takes a lot of time to become a great programmer, no question. Those who love programming take that time to become great. Those who have no interest in programming do not. However, giving a compelling enough reason, they could do it.
  - jleyank 15y ago
    >What stops us from all having startups? In the US, I'd say health insurance. If you want a second reason, how about children.
- corysama 15y ago
  The "Fixed Amount of Pie" view of wealth is a very dangerous thought-trap that you should think hard over before you move on with it. If you buy a gold bar and drop it into the ocean, you are poorer. If you buy a reasonable car so that you can become able to commute to a new job (or create your own job), you are actually more wealthy for having spent the money.
- ajuc 15y ago
  "Money, also, is finite. The more someone else has, the less everyone else has. It's impossible for everyone to be rich. In order for someone to win, many have to loose." But money are only tokens. Products and services created by economy is what makes economy strong, not tokens it uses (imagine all prices and salaries going up 10 times - what would change?). Limited amount of money can suffice for everyody, if everybody is efficiently doing something useful to others, then limited amount of money circulates in economy, and everybody has it for some time, buing what he needs and selling what he produces. That's theory at least. Problem is - sometimes nobody wants to buy what you produce at your price - then you are poor and rich keep their money for themselves.

ChrisNorstrom 15y ago

"If we were all still toiling in the field, we wouldn't be building hot internet startups." - But not everyone can build internet startups, we can't all have startups. Money, also, is finite. The more someone else has, the less everyone else has. It's impossible for everyone to be rich. In order for someone to win, many have to loose. And making products to sell and creating jobs to make those products were a free market's way of passing the money down from those who have it, to those who don't. Now that those who have it, are starting to automate, more and more money stays in their hands and doesn't get passed down. "Programming, for example, is a job anyone could do" - I wouldn't say so. It takes a lot of skill to become a worthy programmer, which not everyone can do. If everyone knew just the basics, that wouldn't mean they could get jobs as programmers. Even if they did, their mediocre talent would mean that they too would eventually be replaced by robots and AI programmers.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
It's impossible for everyone to be rich. In order for someone to win, many have to loose. Only if you define "rich" in relative terms. In absolute terms, virtually everyone in the US is rich, including most of those the government classifies as "in poverty".
randomdata 15y ago
But not everyone can build internet startups, we can't all have startups. What stops us from all having startups? Cost of labour is one of the biggest reasons. You either have to pour months to years of your time into a product just to see if it will succeed, or pay someone else to do the work for you. If you could feed your plan into a robot on Friday and have the product in your hand on Monday, all built for pennies, the barrier is lowered to the point that anyone can do it. More importantly, success need not be large in such a scenario. All you need is one customer to pay you a few dollars and you are ready to move on to solving the next person's problems. You don't have to bank on major or even moderate success. It takes a lot of skill to become a worthy programmer Skill is a function of time. It takes a lot of time to become a great programmer, no question. Those who love programming take that time to become great. Those who have no interest in programming do not. However, giving a compelling enough reason, they could do it.
- jleyank 15y ago
  >What stops us from all having startups? In the US, I'd say health insurance. If you want a second reason, how about children.
corysama 15y ago
The "Fixed Amount of Pie" view of wealth is a very dangerous thought-trap that you should think hard over before you move on with it. If you buy a gold bar and drop it into the ocean, you are poorer. If you buy a reasonable car so that you can become able to commute to a new job (or create your own job), you are actually more wealthy for having spent the money.
ajuc 15y ago
"Money, also, is finite. The more someone else has, the less everyone else has. It's impossible for everyone to be rich. In order for someone to win, many have to loose." But money are only tokens. Products and services created by economy is what makes economy strong, not tokens it uses (imagine all prices and salaries going up 10 times - what would change?). Limited amount of money can suffice for everyody, if everybody is efficiently doing something useful to others, then limited amount of money circulates in economy, and everybody has it for some time, buing what he needs and selling what he produces. That's theory at least. Problem is - sometimes nobody wants to buy what you produce at your price - then you are poor and rich keep their money for themselves.