Why do machines and robots have to take our jobs, why?

Post Reply New Topic

For all the cheap-shots at 'capitalism' it's been the only working model of any success at bringing people out of poverty in developing countries and keeping liberal republican-democracies afloat. I'd never call it the best system in the world, a more accurate way to phrase it is that's its been the least pernicious system compared to the alternatives.

What we're probably looking at in the future is some sort of have-roof that recycles funds downward, most primarily because plutocracy ends up being a very short part of a country's lifespan before you're in late 18th century Paris. If we get to the point where over 25% of the people out there simply aren't needed in the labor market and can't be retrained into what's available we get to that point where if life becomes unbearable for these people we're closer and closer to that point. Capitalism seems to do something like a 30-year dance where in times of real danger when it's close to overthrow it'll favor labor and discipline capital, then if inflation starts getting too high it disciplines labor and favors capital, and I think this dance will be inevitable for a long time because the moving parts of any economy tend to seek reward and in that there's always winners and losers - the losers generally stay in that position until things get bad enough, for enough of them, that they organize and are able to exert enough power on the system to turn things back toward a state of balance. That's probably the best thing about capitalism - it's chaos means that it's also plastic and flexible enough to buffer a lot of bumps in the road whereas centrally planned economies are practically made of glass.

I don't at all think we want to say 'that's capitalism', otherwise I really think you have to tell us what's the better alternative. We clearly see that the best way to make a plutocracy not just hold power but be a truly criminal elite holding power for longer than five decades - Communism's the way to go. I think the way we've really done a number on ourselves intellectually is upholding the value of ideological purity. It doesn't work, life is sloppy, and the purer you get to one overarching economic, political, or social principle the more you create a situation that benefits a small few and damages the majority.

So getting back to topic - we're in a situation where automation won't just be taking over for machine press operators, box-throwers, or migrant chili-pickers in Texas, we're talking about a lot of jobs including the fields of medicine, law, pharmacology, and IT where we'll be seeing jobs disappear. With the automation of vehicles you'll also see professional truck driving and taxi driving evaporate and to the extent that they might need a person in the vehicle to handle demurrage, the signing of freight bills, etc.. at the other end that person won't be paid nearly as much as the guys are who manually drive various goods or chemical supplies across regions of a country rain or shine.

If one way of doing things is more efficient and we're in a situation where the existence of a business rests on its efficiency, then we truly are slaves to technological progress and these jobs must be offloaded and replaced by machines. What do we do then with the people we're left with whose natural talents or abilities have been sold off to computers? About all you can do is give them some type of basic income, whether it's enough to survive comfortably or whether it's enough to supplement a near minimum-wage service job for them to live comfortably (I think the later will be more likely). Either way I think it'll have to be done because short of that we're back to things getting bad enough for a taste of late 18th century France.

In all of that I think capitalism-bashing will be utterly useless, capitalism-modifying however will be mandatory for its own survival as a system.

Mark Blyth has been kicking a lot of ass with respect to nailing the current economic and political climate. Somewhat similar to my analogy earlier to 18th century France, he offers a similar analogy - the Hampton's aren't a defensible position.

Fair and equitable capitalism is a great thing, but, when Mitt Romney (who now lives just about four miles south of me) was being scrutinized for his Bain Capital dealings, I wouldn't call his brand of capitalism fair and equitable.

Machines won't take all of our jobs. Our jobs will just change. They may make machines to perform certain tasks, but there has to be people to design the machines, produce them, and maintain them. So the jobs don't go away; there are just different kinds of jobs.

Robots can do tasks that are simple boring and repetitive, never need sick days or take vacation time, and can take on tasks that are too dangerous for humans. I really couldn't care less about slaving away in a factory all day where all there is to do is put caps on ketchup bottles, and it wouldn't earn much money anyhow.

Although I do worry that CGI animation is replacing people who can actually draw 2-D cartoons by hand. Especially free hand with no tracing or special tools other than a pencil and some paper.

If your competition is using automation to produce the same product you'd better be using it too or lose business.

Seems to me that despite automation, there are more people than ever being credited for working on movies.

https://stephenfollows.com/how-many-peo ... wood-film/

Are there actually more people working on those movies or are they just giving everyone credit so they won't feel marginalized. Same as giving every kid a "participation trophy"?

People are foolish to think the future will treat them so kindly because of the false belief of that what was in the past will continue to be true, if automation really does kill 50% of all jobs then that is essentially a declaration of war on the working class as there will never be a society so altruistic where half the population does all the work while the other half sits in idleness. You expect the same people who think of you as a 'useless eaters' and they themselves as the more evolved winners in this righteous global meritocracy to see value in supporting your continued existence, ignoring the realities of human nature at this juncture does not seem like a very good idea.

My first time seeing Dambisa Moyo interviewed. She's got some very interesting perspectives although I really hope the future of political-economic models isn't China because they've still got a lot of Orwellian crap up their sleeve.