4 ms·
Interesting, thought provoking, and most likely correct general premise - followed by a bunch of incorrect correlations and details. > Clearly, more and more j
by lionhearted 17y ago
Interesting, thought provoking, and most likely correct general premise - followed by a bunch of incorrect correlations and details.
> Clearly, more and more jobs will move from more developed nations to countries like China, and it is difficult to see how, as this process continues, the United States retains its leadership position. In fact, it seems entirely possible that the U.S. will exchange places with less well-developed nations.
The United States has never been good at continuing dominance in a field they invent. Basically, it gets invented in the USA, and another part of the world gets better at it and takes over within 30-70 years. Historically, the US economy would've collapsed many times over had we not kept "inventing our way out of it". If it keeps up, USA keeps going. If not, starts to fall apart. Of course, the following isn't true:
> And the labor that is needed can’t be done in more developed nations because there are people elsewhere who will happily provide that labor less expensively.
"Can't" isn't the right word. There's certainly enough people that would be happy to work for the ever-increasing buying power of a modern day $5 to $20 per hour, and people would pay a premium to not have to ship things across seas and to be closer to their factories. The problem is that the labor laws in the USA has changed it from an economy with very many $15-per-hour jobs into one with a few $40 to $70 per hour jobs due to our laws.
> When we create devices that individuals will be able to own that will be able to produce everything that we need, the solution will be at hand. This is not science fiction. We are starting to see that happen with energy with things like rooftop solar panels and less expensive wind turbines. We are nowhere near where we need to be, but it is obvious that eventually everyone will be able to produce his or her own energy.
This is, of course, very false. It ignores economies of scale. Energy will eventually get closer to free, but it will most likely be because of giant nuclear fusion or hydrogen plants or something like that. The trend is towards even fewer institutions providing our basic needs, not spreading it out. What will happen is people will turn to more "intangible" sorts of work - sciences, philosophy, aesthetics, design, communication, and so on. There'll be lots more people working on things that would have been frilly or an unnecessary luxury in years past.
> This means that a small number of people, the people in control of the creation of goods, get the benefit of the increased productivity.
False! The quality of life across everywhere has increased a lot faster than the quality of life has improved for the rich. Now, the barriers to entry into industry as all but disappeared, and the "American Dream" of rags to riches is more possible than ever. You can get the benefits of economy of scale without a lot of money by having Amazon host it for you or some such. I had dedicated warehouse and automated shipping for orders at a company I ran for $200 per month + $2.50 per package shipped at my small company. It's going to be possible to get wealthier than ever.
Now, the wages for unskilled labor will fall off a bit, even as the prices of things get cheaper. I don't know which will fall faster going forwards, but so far, prices of essential goods and luxuries have fallen faster than unskilled wages. But also, there's been a shift to skilled labor in the developed countries, and what Peter Drucker called "knowledge work". Yeah, gradually there will be less people needed to tar roofs and roof-tarring wages will fall, but nobody really wants to do that anyway. As cheap, easily installed roofings improves more and more, there will be less roof tarrers, but kids that would've become roof tarrers will become computer programmers or writers or systems engineers or biochemists or whatever.
> Unfortunately, that wealth will be held by a very small number of people. And their operations will need to employ very few people.
This is such old world thinking. Yes, there will be less traditional, unskilled jobs. No, those people won't die in the streets. People are resilient. They'll move into other, more necessary positions that fill the new needs, as the old needs get cheaper than ever to buy.
> In short you will have a few very wealthy folks, and a much larger majority that will just not be needed for the most important things that the country needs to do.
Author could've written this about cars too, and how it's going to kill all those horseshoeing and horsebreeding and carriage driving and carriagemaking operations, and how the world is going to be a mess, and it would've looked correct.
Again, interesting premise, hadn't thought about it, probably correct. The follow-on conclusions are way off base.
- krav 17y agoI really enjoyed your point by point take on this.
- BillGoates 17y agoWhen robots are making robots that make our stuff, noone will be able to buy any of the cheap stuff, except the people that controls the goods. Labor is the only good most people have, and it's worth is declining. The previous generation could maintain the same lifestyle, doing less work. For years the rich are getting richer and the poor get poorer, but the last years the middle class is shifting to poor as well. The more "intangible" sorts of work are only getting paid, after the basics needs are paid, and thanks to the internet people are sharing those skills for free.
- lionhearted 17y ago> When robots are making robots that make our stuff, noone will be able to buy any of the cheap stuff, except the people that controls the goods. I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but the rest of the comment looks serious. Here's the standard answer: As long as any human needs or wants are unfilled, there's a capacity for an unlimited amount of work and labor. As robotics gets less expensive, it will progressively replace unskilled, repeatable, monotonous labor. As of yet, we're nowhere near having quality enough robotics to do abstract, creative work. Thus, more (human) work will become abstract and creative. The more mechanical, automatic, less skilled work will gradually become streamlined, mechanized, and replaced as that becomes safer and more efficient than paying people to do that kind of work. > Labor is the only good most people have, and it's worth is declining. Completely unskilled labor - working at Taco Bell, pressing a button every 17 seconds, unloading crates from a truck - the worth of those is declining. Skilled labor - including servicing robotics or operating a complex crane - the worth of those is slightly increasing. Knowledge work - research, biochemistry, computer programming, genetics, engineering - the worth of those is greatly increasing. There has been and will continue to be a general shift from completely unskilled labor to skilled labor, and skilled labor to knowledge work. > The previous generation could maintain the same lifestyle, doing less work. For years the rich are getting richer and the poor get poorer, but the last years the middle class is shifting to poor as well. This is patently false. The average person today has twice as many possessions as the person of forty years ago. The resources, necessities, and luxuries available to people has greatly increased on the low end and slightly increased on the high end. Look at technology - what do wealthy people use online? Google for search, Gmail for email, Facebook for networking, Amazon for books, Ebay for auctions. Those are all available to anyone of any social class in the developed world. Think about computers in general - you can get a totally functional computer for web browsing and word processing for dirt cheap, almost free. This is an incredible thing. You can get a Personal Transportation Device (aka a "car") for very cheap! My 1995 Infiniti J30 was $1900, and that was a luxury car 15 years ago. It still totally gets the job done. Even the poorest people in America can buy a nice enough car, outright, in cash, for less than a month's work in a bad job. That's amazingly marvelous. The quality of life gap is closing tremendously. The difference in goods, services, availability, and access is getting closer all the time. The wealthier are getting slightly wealthier because it's possible to leverage your good works to more people to help the world. The poor and middle class are getting much wealthier because they can transact with the people doing the best job globally at everything. Google is the best in the business, and it's available to everyone that can get online. > The more "intangible" sorts of work are only getting paid, after the basics needs are paid, and thanks to the internet people are sharing those skills for free. Actually, that's a good point that people are grappling with. How can we convert our skills that other people want to money? I don't have the answers on that, but I'd feel confident wagering a lot of money that there's where there's going to be a lot of growth in those areas. Creative people will find creative solutions to monetizing their work. We're going to be seeing more writers, artists, programmers, researchers, designers (yes, the demise of design has been greatly exaggerated), and so on. Short of a brutal WWIII, I feel pretty good that my children are going to live in a much more pleasant, clean, stimulating, enjoyable world, with meaningful and interesting work to do, inexpensive necessities, and ever improving design, experience, and aesthetics of the everyday world.