4 ms·

Very reminiscent of creative destruction from Joseph Schumpeter - the whaling industry was destroyed by the petroleum industry. The survivors are the ones who

Very reminiscent of creative destruction from Joseph Schumpeter - the whaling industry was destroyed by the petroleum industry. The survivors are the ones who possess the skills that are in demand. As the demand shifts, skills need updating.

jeremyjh 14y ago
Why would new industries and job roles always spring up to replace ones which have become obsolete? I agree that historically this has happened but I see no reason that it should be a necessary consequence. We have to consider the possibility that a segment of the population will have no realistic options for producing marginal value.
- dreamdu5t 14y ago
  Because the labor and resources freed up from automation and increased productivity allow us to pursue new things. There's always more to improve upon. Why would this segment of the population not have realistic options for producing marginal value? Everyone is capable of learning new things.
  - jeremyjh 14y ago
    Why would those new things necessarily be labor intensive? Lately most new profitable things require capital.
    - nickff 14y ago
      It should generally be presumed that when something has happened repeatedly and predictably in the past, it shall continue to do so.
      - jeremyjh 14y ago
        Until it doesn't - how many draft horses do you see working now? Besides which, we've got over fifty years of history telling us that wealth concentration is happening faster and faster. If just that trend alone continues then within our lifetime most people would not be earning enough to sustain themselves.
      - Crake 14y ago
        We're such a small segment of history, though. We're just a blip on the timeline of the universe. Look at how our population has expanded in the last 100 years alone...some things are just unsustainable.
    - saosebastiao 14y ago
      Do they? Cause from my view, the role of capital is greatly diminished, even from 10 years ago. PG has acknowledged as much with their move towards smaller monetary investments in Y Combinator businesses.
      - jeremyjh 14y ago
        pg is a pretty small part of the economy. Still, there is truth in what you are saying but when it comes to developing software there are barriers to entry much more substantial than capital.
        tomjen3 14y ago
        PG is a tiny part of the economy -- but he is also on the bleeding edge. What is true of him will be true of others in 50 years.
  - Jare 14y ago
    > Everyone is capable of learning new things Perhaps not quickly or efficiently enough, but even worse, it's not a given that there will always be enough valuable activities for everyone to perform and earn a wage. This is particularly true when wealth is not evenly distributed. The needs that a small group of wealthy people have for human-created value is, well, small, and therefore wealth barely gets redistributed. Other factors compound this, like the fact that most of the proceeds from a market do not go to the (potentially many) people involved in producing the goods or services, but to those comparatively few with the capital to finance that activity; the chasm between the (so to speak) haves and the have nots grows bigger and bigger. At that point, a significant segment of society simply can't earn a living, and society must adapt to become sustainable again. It's not the kind of thing that happens overnight, but you can see how most forces are pushing in that direction, so without a fundamental change in the dynamics of production, market and compensation, it's not a question of if, but when.
pixl97 14y ago
And when the day comes that available labor far outstrips the demand for labor? Your skill may be in demand, but how many will be willing to do the job at subsistence rates? Will the day come when 10s of millions (billion even?) of people be made redundant by technology? What will they do to eat? How will nations and societies deal with this? Grind the unemployed in to Soylent Green?, grand social welfare programs?, war? I always liked this fictional story about it. http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
- dreamdu5t 14y ago
  They will need to learn skills that are in demand. I don't owe you anything simply because you exist.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    The day will come when no human skills are in demand. That day may not be next week, but it might be in the next couple of centuries. It might even be in your lifetime. What then?
    - nickff 14y ago
      Dreamdu5t was just making the point that every person owns the products of their labour; and one's failure does not grant any right to take from others.
    - saosebastiao 14y ago
      We ensure that the machines serve the people, as opposed to a person.
      - lgieron 14y ago
        Exactly! We just raise corporate taxes so high that the money collected can support unemployed masses, thus reaching the long sought after ideal of work being the option and not the necessity. Each person will have the choice to either work towards elevating his social status (via creating his own invention/company/piece of art/...) or just collect the state check.

jeremyjh 14y ago

Why would new industries and job roles always spring up to replace ones which have become obsolete? I agree that historically this has happened but I see no reason that it should be a necessary consequence. We have to consider the possibility that a segment of the population will have no realistic options for producing marginal value.

dreamdu5t 14y ago
Because the labor and resources freed up from automation and increased productivity allow us to pursue new things. There's always more to improve upon. Why would this segment of the population not have realistic options for producing marginal value? Everyone is capable of learning new things.
- jeremyjh 14y ago
  Why would those new things necessarily be labor intensive? Lately most new profitable things require capital.
  - nickff 14y ago
    It should generally be presumed that when something has happened repeatedly and predictably in the past, it shall continue to do so.
    - jeremyjh 14y ago
      Until it doesn't - how many draft horses do you see working now? Besides which, we've got over fifty years of history telling us that wealth concentration is happening faster and faster. If just that trend alone continues then within our lifetime most people would not be earning enough to sustain themselves.
    - Crake 14y ago
      We're such a small segment of history, though. We're just a blip on the timeline of the universe. Look at how our population has expanded in the last 100 years alone...some things are just unsustainable.
  - saosebastiao 14y ago
    Do they? Cause from my view, the role of capital is greatly diminished, even from 10 years ago. PG has acknowledged as much with their move towards smaller monetary investments in Y Combinator businesses.
    - jeremyjh 14y ago
      pg is a pretty small part of the economy. Still, there is truth in what you are saying but when it comes to developing software there are barriers to entry much more substantial than capital.
      - tomjen3 14y ago
        PG is a tiny part of the economy -- but he is also on the bleeding edge. What is true of him will be true of others in 50 years.
- Jare 14y ago
  > Everyone is capable of learning new things Perhaps not quickly or efficiently enough, but even worse, it's not a given that there will always be enough valuable activities for everyone to perform and earn a wage. This is particularly true when wealth is not evenly distributed. The needs that a small group of wealthy people have for human-created value is, well, small, and therefore wealth barely gets redistributed. Other factors compound this, like the fact that most of the proceeds from a market do not go to the (potentially many) people involved in producing the goods or services, but to those comparatively few with the capital to finance that activity; the chasm between the (so to speak) haves and the have nots grows bigger and bigger. At that point, a significant segment of society simply can't earn a living, and society must adapt to become sustainable again. It's not the kind of thing that happens overnight, but you can see how most forces are pushing in that direction, so without a fundamental change in the dynamics of production, market and compensation, it's not a question of if, but when.

pixl97 14y ago

And when the day comes that available labor far outstrips the demand for labor? Your skill may be in demand, but how many will be willing to do the job at subsistence rates? Will the day come when 10s of millions (billion even?) of people be made redundant by technology? What will they do to eat? How will nations and societies deal with this? Grind the unemployed in to Soylent Green?, grand social welfare programs?, war? I always liked this fictional story about it. http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

dreamdu5t 14y ago
They will need to learn skills that are in demand. I don't owe you anything simply because you exist.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  The day will come when no human skills are in demand. That day may not be next week, but it might be in the next couple of centuries. It might even be in your lifetime. What then?
  - nickff 14y ago
    Dreamdu5t was just making the point that every person owns the products of their labour; and one's failure does not grant any right to take from others.
  - saosebastiao 14y ago
    We ensure that the machines serve the people, as opposed to a person.
    - lgieron 14y ago
      Exactly! We just raise corporate taxes so high that the money collected can support unemployed masses, thus reaching the long sought after ideal of work being the option and not the necessity. Each person will have the choice to either work towards elevating his social status (via creating his own invention/company/piece of art/...) or just collect the state check.