3 ms·

This has been a trend over all of human history. Going to keep it brief and technically incorrect to paint a picture... Initially, everyone was required to eit

by RyanZAG 14y ago

This has been a trend over all of human history. Going to keep it brief and technically incorrect to paint a picture... Initially, everyone was required to either hunt or gather food (probably). After a bit, humanity settled down into farming, and fewer people were required to keep everybody fed. This allowed for more time for childbirth. Better understanding of agriculture led to the creation of larger towns with specialized jobs such as blacksmiths and stables which led to farm animals helping to improve yields even further. To create the tools, some people had to go into mining jobs. The pattern here is that advancement allows fewer people in each economic area to provide the same benefits, freeing up labor for new economic areas. So clearly, the modern move to automate jobs isn't necessarily anything new. People are now free to move into creating accounting software instead of manually filling out journals. The problem occurs when the people freed up from advances do not have any new work to move into. The result may simply be de-urbanization - people moving back into the countryside to grow their own food. Most people can afford to buy a small plot of land in the middle of nowhere (small piece of land in the middle of Africa is practically free). Or the result may be socialism. Or the result may be new economic sectors being revealed by innovation. Fortune telling won't get us very far.

georgemcbay 14y ago
As the original article alludes to the big difference now is that the rate of advance is increasing. When whole industries are being upended within a few years and this turnover is getting faster all the time, it is difficult to point to "retraining" (the historical fix for this) as a solution. Most people just aren't that intellectually flexible. Those that are will prosper, the vast majority will, I think, be screwed. I'd love to see some sign that the US Government is starting to take this issue seriously and planning for it. While we're still years away from this becoming a critical social problem, I do believe that the brunt of the impact from this trend is inevitable and not too far off (certainly within my lifetime and I'm pretty old now). I'm personally very much in favor of a hybrid socialist system where everyone gets a guaranteed minimum income but people who are able and willing to can still work to earn more. I think this helps in a number of ways, the first being avoiding societal collapse and possible revolution due to the massive amount of unemployed there will be relative to the current population and secondarily, it gives even driven people a buffer to live on while chasing their dreams. I think the end result would actually be more positive for humanity than the current system, though for obvious reasons it will not be supported by the capital gatekeepers who currently wield the money (and thus the power). I find the idea that any degree of socialism will result in no progress is pretty insulting towards humanity. There will always be people who are driven (whether it be by ego or curiosity or whatever) to do great things.
- afterburner 14y ago
  Krugman has touched on this a bit in recent posts, although he's still in "gathering evidence" mode on the issue. It's a very interesting and serious problem, and I very much agree that a "hybrid socialist system" is not the disaster some say it would be. We're not talking about centralized bureaucratic communism, but rather what is already in place in parts in many Western countries.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Besides, some studies by professional economists provided evidence that a "regulated capitalist" economy with imperfect markets is really not substantially more efficient (in the strictly economic sense of the word) than a "liberalized socialist" economy. Market optimality apparently turned out to be an all-or-nothing property of the mathematical models that gave rise to significantly different (but still amenable to scientific examination when we alter the models) behavior in the real world. http://jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/ http://jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  "... the rate of advance is increasing." There is certainly a truth in this, while a person could get by with a fourth grade education in the 1800's to someone who could get buy with "some high school" at the turn of the century, to needing a "high school diploma" by the end of the second World War. To needing a STEM degree in the 21st century.

by RyanZAG 14y ago

georgemcbay 14y ago

As the original article alludes to the big difference now is that the rate of advance is increasing. When whole industries are being upended within a few years and this turnover is getting faster all the time, it is difficult to point to "retraining" (the historical fix for this) as a solution. Most people just aren't that intellectually flexible. Those that are will prosper, the vast majority will, I think, be screwed. I'd love to see some sign that the US Government is starting to take this issue seriously and planning for it. While we're still years away from this becoming a critical social problem, I do believe that the brunt of the impact from this trend is inevitable and not too far off (certainly within my lifetime and I'm pretty old now). I'm personally very much in favor of a hybrid socialist system where everyone gets a guaranteed minimum income but people who are able and willing to can still work to earn more. I think this helps in a number of ways, the first being avoiding societal collapse and possible revolution due to the massive amount of unemployed there will be relative to the current population and secondarily, it gives even driven people a buffer to live on while chasing their dreams. I think the end result would actually be more positive for humanity than the current system, though for obvious reasons it will not be supported by the capital gatekeepers who currently wield the money (and thus the power). I find the idea that any degree of socialism will result in no progress is pretty insulting towards humanity. There will always be people who are driven (whether it be by ego or curiosity or whatever) to do great things.

afterburner 14y ago
Krugman has touched on this a bit in recent posts, although he's still in "gathering evidence" mode on the issue. It's a very interesting and serious problem, and I very much agree that a "hybrid socialist system" is not the disaster some say it would be. We're not talking about centralized bureaucratic communism, but rather what is already in place in parts in many Western countries.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Besides, some studies by professional economists provided evidence that a "regulated capitalist" economy with imperfect markets is really not substantially more efficient (in the strictly economic sense of the word) than a "liberalized socialist" economy. Market optimality apparently turned out to be an all-or-nothing property of the mathematical models that gave rise to significantly different (but still amenable to scientific examination when we alter the models) behavior in the real world. http://jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/ http://jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/
ChuckMcM 14y ago
"... the rate of advance is increasing." There is certainly a truth in this, while a person could get by with a fourth grade education in the 1800's to someone who could get buy with "some high school" at the turn of the century, to needing a "high school diploma" by the end of the second World War. To needing a STEM degree in the 21st century.