5 ms·

We are now entering a new age where our current form of capitalism will not work. You see, when there was enough demand on the workforce (as in, there was as mu

We are now entering a new age where our current form of capitalism will not work. You see, when there was enough demand on the workforce (as in, there was as much or more work to do than there were workers), things worked reasonably well. Now we are entering an era where there is much less demand for workers, yet we are not yet productive enough to just sit back, relax, and let machines handle 99.9%+ of the work. Think about it: 50% unemployment is terrible. 100% unemployment is not unemployment. It means there are enough resources to go around that nobody has to work. There is so much food, shelter, and entertainment that we don't need to get up in the morning and go to work. Obviously, 100% unemployment cannot happen. In all likelyhood, we'll still need doctors, chefs, artists, etc. But that the direction we are going in, and we better figure out how to set up a new economy to adapt to the new realities. I envision a shift in the mind set. Personally, if I have more money then I could spend in a lifetime, and choose to work to make myself even richer, I don't care if 10 other families are living off my wealth. People will have a choice: do something productive for society, and live a slightly better lifestyle, or pursue more personal fulfillment. We'll see a lot more artists, and a lot less custodians. In the long run, I believe this shift will be a good thing, but it will require us to stop using terms like "moocher class".

john_b 12y ago
Austrian economists like to point out that human wants and needs are effectively infinite (mostly due to the "wants" part), so there is fundamentally no reason that our economy should cease functioning just because the "needs" portion becomes increasingly automated and efficient. The problem is getting people to pay for the "wants" part. I'm worried that the internet has accustomed people to treating creative content as a free resource by nature of being on the internet. It's the most efficient distribution mechanism for a lot of creative works, but the economics of an ad-filled internet experience with the user as product is very disturbing on a grand scale. The whole dream of economic progress since the Enlightenment was that our needs would become increasingly solved so that we could focus on what we really enjoy as human beings. To quote John Adams: > "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." But we live in a world with an ever expanding supply of people and a rapidly diminishing set of "necessary" jobs. If we want to avoid the end game of that situation (revolution) we need to find ways to get the economics of the unnecessary-but-still-valuable to work.
ThomPete 12y ago
I agree with you to some extent but I am not sure the professions you mention are actually as safe from automation as they might seem. For instance a radiologist who has a very long education behind them and make $300K is in bigger risk of being replaced by image recognition software than a house cleaner. With regards to art music is being made in large parts by machines and we are now at the point where humans can't hear the difference between a piece of music made by humans and machines.

john_b 12y ago

Austrian economists like to point out that human wants and needs are effectively infinite (mostly due to the "wants" part), so there is fundamentally no reason that our economy should cease functioning just because the "needs" portion becomes increasingly automated and efficient. The problem is getting people to pay for the "wants" part. I'm worried that the internet has accustomed people to treating creative content as a free resource by nature of being on the internet. It's the most efficient distribution mechanism for a lot of creative works, but the economics of an ad-filled internet experience with the user as product is very disturbing on a grand scale. The whole dream of economic progress since the Enlightenment was that our needs would become increasingly solved so that we could focus on what we really enjoy as human beings. To quote John Adams: > "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." But we live in a world with an ever expanding supply of people and a rapidly diminishing set of "necessary" jobs. If we want to avoid the end game of that situation (revolution) we need to find ways to get the economics of the unnecessary-but-still-valuable to work.

ThomPete 12y ago

I agree with you to some extent but I am not sure the professions you mention are actually as safe from automation as they might seem. For instance a radiologist who has a very long education behind them and make $300K is in bigger risk of being replaced by image recognition software than a house cleaner. With regards to art music is being made in large parts by machines and we are now at the point where humans can't hear the difference between a piece of music made by humans and machines.