Technological Unemployment: The Real Reason This Elephant Ch
You're talking about niches and the 'artisan economy', with a lower cost of production I think there will be a lot less room for niches as big business would just squeeze every bit of revenue out of a previously underserved markets so what I think it really comes down to is people choosing to pay more for human labor which won't be a luxury most people will have. I don't see how the middle class can survive in the future, I think we'll see a few more very rich and a lot more very poor. Where are the jobs? Repeating nonsense about the industrial revolution and channeling Jeff Goldblum by saying 'life finds a way' is not an argument; there is no future for a lot of the planet so what I see being left for them is war, famine, disease, and death.
seeing as this is a site for those on the autism spectrum, attempting to provide support for such individuals...belittling and ridicule of an autism DX in this way runs afoul of rules 1 and 2 and is not cool:
Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members.......
2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect.
and would be better off stamped out. this goes for all involved.
you missed LoveNotHate breaking rule 1 by comparing the poor to animals that breed mindlessly. the moderation staff here are as atrocious as always I see.
Spoken like a true Luddite.
Markets will change, new markets will appear and people will adapt.
What value robotic labour if there remains nobody to sell their products to?
I don't think people look that far ahead and the ones that do tend to hold some rather ugly opinions on 'useless eaters.' People don't really care if they got theirs. You act as if I am being the unreasonable person here by thinking about it logically while you cling to platitudes from previous times with religious fervency, 'life ughhhhh finds ughhhhhhhhh way' isn't a solution! I see a return to feudal serfdom for a good many of people but I see any utopia. They're not just going to give people money for existing, they'd rather you die!
http://sherline.com/
http://sherline.com/about/
Here is a really good example. These guys have been making machine shop equipment in Vista California for decades!
Sure, you can buy cheap Chinese imports that do basically the same thing. But, they have a loyal following of customers that keep them busy, year after year! They have monthly specials so you can buy something on sale every month. Sort of like the book of the month club that was a popular way of selling books when I was a kid.
"One of the things that sets Sherline apart from other machine tools is the complete instructions we have prepared on all our machines and accessories. A full-color Instruction Guide comes with each machine. In addition, each accessory purchased comes with its own complete instructions when they are needed. If you are not sure how to locate the name of the accessory you are looking for, there is a cross-referenced list by usage at Sherline Part-Number Finder."
Those are your words.
I said that humans will breed comparatively, based on available resources.
This is probably a well-known scientific principal.
This is relevant to the concept of "basic income" of giving people ample available resources.
Those are your words.
I said that humans will breed comparatively, based on available resources.
This is probably a well-known scientific principal.
p.s. they're also your words:
It's the same principal in the "Don't feed the X" signs ...

Nor do humans lay eggs in nests, have wings or feathers.
Stressing an unintended meaning of your own interpretation, simply because it suits your purpose to do so, is no more than a man of straw. Not to mention it springs from your own mind.
Your argument appears to be "don't worry, humans aren't like those inferior, "mindless animals", they won't over-populate".
That's not what's happening. We are going to put this blue ball to the test and see how many humans can fit on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Your argument appears to be "don't worry, humans aren't like those inferior, "mindless animals", they won't over-populate".
That's not what's happening. We are going to put this blue ball to the test and see how many humans can fit on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
2) you're citing a wiki page with this on top of it

3) the UN's own graphs disagree with your numbers

4) I'm not making that argument, i'm just debunking your argument that poor people are a) living in a natural environment, b) that they somehow threaten other people because something something overpopulation something something
The most recent UN estimate is that the world population will double in the next 83 years.
There are an estimated 7.49 billion humans on the planet now.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
"The United Nations will warn this week that the world's population could more than double to 15 billion by the end of this century"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... -15bn-2100
this could be I have no idea.
jrjones9933
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage
Enough with people trying to apply Econ 301 to complex situations. Arrow is rolling in his grave.
Also, look at the evidence. Trials by researchers with Give Directly do not show price inflation.
_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade
this could be I have no idea.
jrjones9933
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage
Our bizarre tax code creates bad incentives all over the place. One dramatic simplification is to tax people for whatever they spend above healthy subsistence. This disincentivizes conspicuous consumption and encourages saving and investment.
Giving money to people who spend it increases economic activity in the short run more than giving it to people who save it. Savings increase investment, under most circumstances, and increases economic activity over the long run. However, concentrating money into a few hands won't support a complex, interdependent, agile, modern manufacturing sector.
Also, surveys of production managers indicate they learned about the marginal price of producing a unit of their product, but have no numerical value for it and only remember it from class. Also, executives make decisions based on so many factors that outweigh the tax rate that the possibility of changes in the tax rate don't even make the list of serious concerns. They don't decide what to build based on taxes, but economists have convinced politicians, and it sounds simple enough for the public to eat it up.
_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade
Last edited by jrjones9933 on 17 Mar 2017, 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The difficult part is convincing rich leaders that they have enough talented workers. I think a lot of them have fantasies about what they could do if they just had a few more hard working brilliant geniuses to solve their problems or create new products. Or design the perfect weapon system.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Random thing you hate for no particular reason |
Yesterday, 9:55 pm |
AI will surpass all real digital entertainment |
23 Jun 2025, 5:47 pm |