2 ms·

I respectfully disagree. When you really think about it, the jobs which tend to become automated away are typically blue-collar, lower level jobs. Additionally,

I respectfully disagree. When you really think about it, the jobs which tend to become automated away are typically blue-collar, lower level jobs. Additionally, the jobs which tend to displace those older jobs are higher level, technical jobs. I personally believe that tech tends to widen income disparity as a result of this.

ctdonath 13y ago
Doesn't help that many of those lower level jobs are being automated away in no small part thanks to altruistic legislation demanding they be paid more than their work is worth, raising the cost of labor to the point that the cost of automation is cheaper and more compatible with the value of the work. Pressures to innovate prompt innovation - go figure. There's plenty I'd like to hire people to do, but can't afford to dole out "minimum wage" (much less a "living wage") and prolific benefits for - not because I'm cheap, but because I've only got limited funds to spend. Result is the unemployed have fewer options, and the self-altruistic compel others to support them.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  The issue is that automation will only get cheaper as time goes on. Therefor in order to compete with automation the lower skilled will have to reduce their wage further over time in order to compete. This begins to lead to an unsustainable situation in which the workers wage is no longer enough to sustain their own life in the economy. Then you end up with three basic options. 1) Simply let people starve or rely on begging/charity/crime. 2) Support people via welfare or minimum income guarantee schemes, leading to a more socialist economy where there is no expectation to work. This increases power of government significantly because people are now dependant on these handouts for their livelihood. 3) Reduce expectations of quality of life. Stop building suburban homes and start building large "workers dorm" type accommodation. Feed people more effectively from shared canteens rather than individuals cooking for themselves etc. Hope that income from the spending of the wealthy and exports can keep the economy up when general consumer spending starts to drop.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    The issue is that automation will only get cheaper as time goes on. Therefor in order to compete with automation the lower skilled will have to reduce their wage further over time in order to compete. A classic narrow view meme, overlooking many other balancing factors. Thanks to increased automation: prices drop (making basics & luxuries more affordable to all), new markets are created, new mundane jobs are created before they can be automated. The cycle repeats; disparities happen, but they get worked out and equilibrium is restored. I'm concluding the biggest barrier to self-sustinence is socialistic government has made functional low-income living practically illegal. You can't live in settings considered normal not long ago, you can't start businesses without traversing a bureaucratic nightmare, you can't own land without near-prohibitive taxes amounting to rent. We've been here before many times. It will work out, suffering thru the same unlearned-from mistakes.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      Housing and food costs don't seem to be getting any more affordable. There is only so much land to build or plant on. There is also nothing to guarantee that new labour intensive industries will appear enabled by new technology. Startups are a classic example of this, they often employ extremely few people compared with their valuations and share of the economy. You could eliminate minimum wage laws to make automation or outsourcing less attractive but with that you have to accept a regression in living standards for a great many people.

ctdonath 13y ago

Doesn't help that many of those lower level jobs are being automated away in no small part thanks to altruistic legislation demanding they be paid more than their work is worth, raising the cost of labor to the point that the cost of automation is cheaper and more compatible with the value of the work. Pressures to innovate prompt innovation - go figure. There's plenty I'd like to hire people to do, but can't afford to dole out "minimum wage" (much less a "living wage") and prolific benefits for - not because I'm cheap, but because I've only got limited funds to spend. Result is the unemployed have fewer options, and the self-altruistic compel others to support them.

jiggy2011 13y ago
The issue is that automation will only get cheaper as time goes on. Therefor in order to compete with automation the lower skilled will have to reduce their wage further over time in order to compete. This begins to lead to an unsustainable situation in which the workers wage is no longer enough to sustain their own life in the economy. Then you end up with three basic options. 1) Simply let people starve or rely on begging/charity/crime. 2) Support people via welfare or minimum income guarantee schemes, leading to a more socialist economy where there is no expectation to work. This increases power of government significantly because people are now dependant on these handouts for their livelihood. 3) Reduce expectations of quality of life. Stop building suburban homes and start building large "workers dorm" type accommodation. Feed people more effectively from shared canteens rather than individuals cooking for themselves etc. Hope that income from the spending of the wealthy and exports can keep the economy up when general consumer spending starts to drop.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  The issue is that automation will only get cheaper as time goes on. Therefor in order to compete with automation the lower skilled will have to reduce their wage further over time in order to compete. A classic narrow view meme, overlooking many other balancing factors. Thanks to increased automation: prices drop (making basics & luxuries more affordable to all), new markets are created, new mundane jobs are created before they can be automated. The cycle repeats; disparities happen, but they get worked out and equilibrium is restored. I'm concluding the biggest barrier to self-sustinence is socialistic government has made functional low-income living practically illegal. You can't live in settings considered normal not long ago, you can't start businesses without traversing a bureaucratic nightmare, you can't own land without near-prohibitive taxes amounting to rent. We've been here before many times. It will work out, suffering thru the same unlearned-from mistakes.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    Housing and food costs don't seem to be getting any more affordable. There is only so much land to build or plant on. There is also nothing to guarantee that new labour intensive industries will appear enabled by new technology. Startups are a classic example of this, they often employ extremely few people compared with their valuations and share of the economy. You could eliminate minimum wage laws to make automation or outsourcing less attractive but with that you have to accept a regression in living standards for a great many people.