Re: Technological unemployment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Limited
I work for two reasons, the majority of it is for income, so I can afford to live, have a bed to sleep in and to enjoy life. The other reason is to keep myself occupied. Anyone that has a full time job, and then goes to unemployment will after a few weeks crave for something to do. Crave for some direction and managing.
The labor for income game is obsolete, so I'm not going to respond to anything about how you can buy things with money, that's irrelevant. Anyway, so you're telling me that if you didn't have someone telling you what to do all the time, you'd be incapable of finding things to do? You're not making a very good argument here for why employment is a good thing for people lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Limited
Theres a difference between machine made and robot made. How are iPhones made? Okay probably part of the process is robot made (CPU, GPU etc) however a lot of the production is hand made.
First off what? Machines are robots, and robots are machines. Also as for your example, if I go and make a pencil without the use of ANY technology, it's going to take me forever to make a pencil, whereas a machine can make millions in the same amount of time. Just because people are currently being allocated to these tasks, does not somehow mean they are required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Limited
Maybe where you live everyone is a dick to each other, and thats why you dislike the personal touch. Until you experience a traditional English village, you will never fully understand what I mean.
For starts, no, they're not. Second, where did I say I disliked human touch? Third, I live in fucking Ottawa bro, we're pretty rural as far as cities go, and I've spent a vast majority of my time in small villages where other members of my family live, so I assume I have your approval on my level of understanding what you mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Limited
Look at McLaren company, cars are 100% hand made.
This is like saying that because I built my computer it's 100% handmade.
You mean to tell me they go out and extract the minerals, by hand, without shovels, or any tools. Then they go and process the minerals into the parts they need for their car, by hand, without any tools whatsoever, and so on? That's impressive, and a total waste of human time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KingFisher
I took an economics course in high school. Not once did it actually talk about anything other than rules Capitalism set out, and never touched on it's flaws, or any other system. I find it pretty doubtful that there's many (if any) courses that are very different from that.
Re: Technological unemployment
Sel, your inconsistent with your argument. You keep mentioning robots are making out jobs obsolete. Like I have already mentioned a machine is not a robot. A robot however, is a machine.
Machine: An apparatus using or applying mechanical power to perform a particular task.
Robot: A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically.
Your basically saying, robots are now doing everything. No they arent.
So living in a small village you will understand that everyone knows everyone, it is the true meaning of a community. You go to the shop to see your friend (owner), you say hello, ask how the kids are. Maybe he asks you to drop a letter off to a house on the way home. That is human interaction, people need that in some form.
Re: Technological unemployment
May I just point out that Life itself consists of machines, chemical processes and the such.
If you look at it that way machines have always been the ones performing tasks, only now they're not all biological.
Re: Technological unemployment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Limited
Like I have already mentioned a machine is not a robot. A robot however, is a machine.
woops, you're right, I sped through that and didn't read that part of my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Limited
Your basically saying, robots are now doing everything. No they arent.
Uhh, what, I'm not. Read my posts again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Limited
human interaction, people need that in some form.
I won't argue with that, if you're a kid and you're never touched ever, you will die. Regardless of whether you're fed, watered, etc. You seem to have this misconception, that if we eliminated the requirement our system has for everyone to be as employed as possible, we would suddenly not have human interaction. That is not what anyone here is suggesting, and while it is a possibility, it's a ridiculously unlikely one.
ps king I am f5ing like crazy here bbe
Re: Technological unemployment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rainbow Dash
There's this bizarre idea that a lot of people hold (I suspect a lot of people here hold it too!) where they believe that we need to be employed, and that not having as close to 100% employment as possible, is a bad thing. This is especially funny coming from libertarians (hi king) who value freedom above all else. A lot of these people actually believe that freedom from private dictatorships (companies, employment) is a bad thing, and also believe that Capitalism which forces them to submit to a private dictatorship gives them a lot of freedom.
Who is arguing we need ~100% employment? If you're under the assumption that that is a libertarian ideal, you're confused. The clamor for full employment by any means is a socialist plank. They are the ones who make it their goal. Libertarians' primary concern is maximizing production. Though something near full employment could be the by-product of such a goal, it is not the goal itself. Maximizing production is the end. Employment is the means. Constant 100% employment is not realistic even in an ideal free market, because it would constantly be reconfiguring itself in order to maximize production and efficiency.
Your "capitalism forces them to submit" and "private dictatorship" nonsense is not really worth responding to. There is no "force" in a true free market; any claim of such is a perversion of the word for effect.
Ask yourself which side of this argument is actually advocating the use of force.
Re: Technological unemployment
College is WAY different from high school. I highly doubt a college level professor teaching microeconomics and macroeconomics is the same as a high school teacher teaching you basic economics. But I'll let you know how it goes next fall semester when I'm required to take those two courses. The professors I have so far enjoy individuals who are open minded about the subject.
Re: Technological unemployment
I for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
Re: Technological unemployment
You called me, Freelancer?
Re: Technological unemployment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
king_nothing_
Who is arguing we need ~100% employment?
What is almost always required in our Capitalist society to allow people to support themselves in it? Employment. When we don't have high employment, with decent wages, people have a difficult time supporting themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
king_nothing_
If you're under the assumption that that is a libertarian ideal, you're confused.
Don't worry, I don't think it's a libertarian value, I have however come across several libertarians who hold the view that as high as possible employment is generally a good thing, because they believe it means people will be able to support themselves because they have jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
king_nothing_
The clamor for full employment by any means is a socialist plank. They are the ones who make it their goal.
*looks at libertarian socialism*
You're painting an entire group with one brush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
king_nothing_
Libertarians' primary concern is maximizing production.
That's odd, I thought their primary concern was liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
king_nothing_
Your "capitalism forces them to submit" and "private dictatorship" nonsense is not really worth responding to. There is no "force" in a true free market; any claim of such is a perversion of the word for effect.
Whether you like it or not, companies are equatable to private dictatorships. You go there, you get told what to to, you do it, or you don't receive the means to support yourself.
As for the free market system, answer these questions for me.
Will people in it have to submit to jobs they do not want to do to survive in it's system, when it is operating normally?
How will it deal with Capitalism's infinite growth paradigm, aside from collapsing when further growth becomes impossible?
How can you seriously advocate a market economy, which is based around supply and demmand, when we now have digital goods which have infinite supply?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
king_nothing_
Ask yourself which side of this argument is actually advocating the use of force.
You have a real issue with projected dualities. Every time you post, you always have this presumption that anyone who is against the "free market", must be against freedom itself, or that everyone who does not support Capitalism, is a Socialist.
I have told you this time and time again, I am not a socialist, nor am I against freedom (heck I'd probably qualify as a libertarian), I support The Venus Project's Resource Based Economic model.
Re: Technological unemployment
I don't know if you forgot outsourcing, but a primary reason for a weak job market is that companies/corporations go elsewhere than Western civilizations for cheaper labor.
