Fast food automation...

[doodle]

We are doing more with less. This is a problem when our economic system makes employment and a wage the only way possible to consume this increased production. If this trend continues you will have an economy with enormous productive capacity and half of the population unemployed and unable to purchase anything.

People are not unemployed because there's nothing to do. They're unemployed because the gun in the room either prevents someone from employing them at an economical wage or they are better off getting stolen handouts.

Getting more by doing less is what makes our lives better than our parents, grandparents....cave men....etc.

Understand the principles and it becomes very clear.

If a machine costs 2 dollars an hour to flip burgers, should workers offer their services for 1.50? I understand your principles. Im just saying that humans are emotional creatures that when pushed to such ends have the tendency to start revolutions which can become very destructive to society as a whole including those at the top. Remember, we are just apes.

[Kshartle]

They're unemployed because the gun in the room either prevents someone from employing them at an economical wage or they are better off getting stolen handouts.

Are you so sure about that? Let's imagine that I am a business owner and there is no government, but everything else about our present society is the same. o no minimum wages, no payroll tax, no unemployment insurance tax, no obamacare health insurance mandate, etc.

What am I going to employ someone with low IQ, a bad attitude, and few skills to do? Wouldn't it be so much easier to just get a machine that almost always works, never complains, demands no wage, has no personality, and so on and so forth?

Why would I bother to employ a secretary if software can do the job better? What would be the point of employing shipping managers if I could buy a pick-and-place machine that worked 100-times faster and never made mistakes?

Why should I bother hiring 100 guys to shovel dirt when an excavator can do it in a fraction of the time.

You have to see the gun and it's effects before you can understand the dynamics in the economy. if you leave it out you will draw the wrong conclusions about they we have so many unemployed.

Why don't we have full service gas stations anymore or ushers at most movie theaters? We used to? Can you think of a reason why?

[Kshartle]

Have you seen the movie Elysium? I think it is a pretty good picture of what a world run according to your philosophies would turn into...a polarized hell hole.

I haven't seen it but I must not be doing a very good of describing my philosophy that violence/theft/force makes us poorer and worse off. I will re-examine my posts and figure out where I was lacking.

If you can point out where you came to this hell-hole conclusion based on my philosophy that would help me a lot since you know and I don't.

[Mdraf]

Somebody has to build the automation machines. Somebody else has to write the code for the software that displaced the secretaries.

[Pointedstick]

Why should I bother hiring 100 guys to shovel dirt when an excavator can do it in a fraction of the time.

Exactly. And that's great for you if you want earth moved faster. It'll get done super quick. But what if the shovelers can't find any other labor? What if you move the earth and make a beautiful for-profit park, but discover that the people you were hoping to sell access to were the former shovelers who now can't afford to pay?

We're not talking about governments and guns here. We're talking about the ability of simple people to adapt in a complicated world where simple tasks are easily done by machines.

It's fine as long as people displaced by machines can find other tasks to do. But what happens when that's no longer the case. Again, no governments and guns. Just human adaptability we're discussing here.

[MediumTex]

I'm just trying to look at the problem of displaced workers more broadly than just saying that the governmentviolence/coercion/theft should have no role in dealing with structural unemployment.

Is this a more clear way of defining your position? This is what I hear and it sounds like a contracdiction against basic economic principles as well as agreed upon effects of said violence/coercion/theft.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. This is very possible. Perhaps the principles are not agreed upon and I haven't done a good job in demonstrating their truthfulness.

Please address my point about excessive structural unemployment destabilizing a society.  That's the problem I am really concerned about.  I'm not arguing for any government action.  I'm simply trying to make it clear that ignoring structural unempoyment is a dangerous thing to do.

Do you see the point I am trying to make in my Saudi Arabia example?

One response to structural unemployment in the U.S. has been to build storage facilities for the structurally unemployed in the form of prisons, but I'm sure that it's obvious to everyone that this is a VERY expensive government sponsored solution to the problem of structural unemployment.  We just don't see it because the prisons tend to be located away from cities and the "law and order" narrative tends to dominate news coverage of what we are really doing through the prison system.

[doodle]

Somebody has to build the automation machines. Somebody else has to write the code for the software that displaced the secretaries.

Yes, but one code writer can eliminate a million secretaries who don't have the ability or training to learn how to write complicated code.

[Kshartle]

Remember, we are just apes.

I'm an athiest but I certainly wouldn't call humans apes. I think we're slightly more capable of voluntary cooperation that makes us all better off.

[Pointedstick]

Somebody has to build the automation machines. Somebody else has to write the code for the software that displaced the secretaries.

Yes. People like you and me and MT and Kshartle and Gumby and all of us. But what about the shovelers? The secretaries? The burger flippers? The Janitors? Are they going to retrain to be robot repairers and pick up C++ textbooks and become software developers?

If someone can convince me that people who do routine tasks and manual labor will be able to become knowledge workers, I will totally stop worrying about this. But so far I haven't been convinced of that.

[doodle]

I'm just trying to look at the problem of displaced workers more broadly than just saying that the governmentviolence/coercion/theft should have no role in dealing with structural unemployment.

Is this a more clear way of defining your position? This is what I hear and it sounds like a contracdiction against basic economic principles as well as agreed upon effects of said violence/coercion/theft.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. This is very possible. Perhaps the principles are not agreed upon and I haven't done a good job in demonstrating their truthfulness.

Please address my point about excessive structural unemployment destabilizing a society.  That's the problem I am really concerned about.  I'm not arguing for any government action.  I'm simply trying to make it clear that ignoring structural unempoyment is a dangerous thing to do.

Do you see the point I am trying to make in my Saudi Arabia example?

One response to structural unemployment in the U.S. has been to build storage facilities for the structurally unemployed in the form of prisons, but I'm sure that it's obvious to everyone that this is a VERY expensive government sponsored solution to the problem of structural unemployment.  We just don't see it because the prisons tend to be located away from cities and the "law and order" narrative tends to dominate news coverage of what we are really doing through the prison system.

yes, please answer this.

[Kshartle]

Please address my point about excessive structural unemployment destabilizing a society. 

The point is excessive structural unemployment comes from the violence/theft/force, not innovation and increased productivity.

We only need to address the violence/theft/force. The other one sorts its self out. If you are worried about the tiny fraction of displced workers that can't find anything productive to offer anyone else then start a charity with all the increased wealth. Don't ask guys with guns to steal for them or in some other way retard human/technolgical progress.

Again you might not have expressed that exact last statement but I am sensing the implication.

[Pointedstick]

The point is excessive structural unemployment comes from the violence/theft/force, not innovation and increased productivity.

We only need to address the violence/theft/force. The other one sorts its self out. If you are worried about the tiny fraction of displced workers that can't find anything productive to offer anyone else then start a charity with all the increased wealth.

I'm not sure I agree with you that it's just government violence. What about the burger machine that can make burgers for $0.50/hour and structurally unemploys all the burger flippers who can't live on $0.49/hour? There's no government force there. They need to adapt, sure... but can they? Again, there's no government force here.

Don't ask guys with guns to steal for them or in some other way retard human/technolgical progress.

I don't think anyone is asking for that.

[MediumTex]

If someone can convince me that people who do routine tasks and manual labor will be able to become knowledge workers, I will totally stop worrying about this. But so far I haven't been convinced of that.

If they can't find anything else to do, they can always go to prison, right?

Prison in the U.S. is really the ultimate social safety net.  When I read about "poor houses" in Britain from the 19th century, they don't sound any worse than life in U.S. prisons where you get taxpayer-provided food, housing and medical care.

All you need to do to apply for benefits under this program is to inhale the smoke from a certain plant a few times.  It's really pretty easy to do.

[Kshartle]

Somebody has to build the automation machines. Somebody else has to write the code for the software that displaced the secretaries.

Yes. People like you and me and MT and Kshartle and Gumby and all of us. But what about the shovelers? The secretaries? The burger flippers? The Janitors? Are they going to retrain to be robot repairers and pick up C++ textbooks and become software developers?

If someone can convince me that people who do routine tasks and manual labor will be able to become knowledge workers, I will totally stop worrying about this. But so far I haven't been convinced of that.

Why do they have to become knowledge workers? Why can't they do something else of (greater) value?

Think of how many professional athletes we have. If not for the combines and harvestors.....many would be working in fields....many of us too I'm afraid.

Thank god for technology and innovation! It will get better and not worse.

I'm sure when the car came along many people working to shoe horses were displaced. Somehow we made it without a revolution.

[Pointedstick]

You're not really addressing my concern, kshartle. You're saying, "it went smoothly in the past" and "there will always be something for them to do" but those are not very satisfying answers to me. I'd like a bit more meat! Professional athletes require exceptional talent in the physical realm, just like knowledge workers require exceptional talent in the mental realm. My question remains: what will become of people with no exceptional talents?

[MediumTex]

Kshartle,

I think you're hung up on unemployment being solely the creation of coercive governmental policies. 

That's simply not what I'm talking about.  The coercion you are describing is what happens in RESPONSE to the structural unemployment.

What I'm talking about is what society might want to do about structural unemployment in the absence of coercive governmental policies when the structural unemployment is created by technological changes (or in some cases simply because a large part of society gets too old to work).

You may say that the private sector should just open up its wallet and help some of these people out, especially the severely disabled and elderly.  What we find in countries with intense concentrations of wealth and little in the way of a social safety net, as we see today in Saudi Arabia, China and Russia and as we saw in the U.S. 100 years ago, sometimes the wealthy are not quite as generous as we would like them to be, which is fine, it's their property, but when this social arrangement causes a society to begin to disintegrate it hurts everyone, not just the rich.

[Kshartle]

If they can't find anything else to do, they can always go to prison, right?

I work with a lot of socialists. I joked a few months ago that the solution to unemployment is just to make it illegal. Send people to prison if they don't have a job in a certain amount of time.

50% of the people listening thought the idea was really worth exploring.

[Kshartle]

You're not really addressing my concern, kshartle. You're saying, "it went smoothly in the past" and "there will always be something for them to do" but those are not very satisfying answers to me. I'd like a bit more meat! Professional athletes require exceptional talent in the physical realm, just like knowledge workers require exceptional talent in the mental realm. My question remains: what will become of people with no exceptional talents?

I will work harder to be more clear about this but I have to take a work break. You are answering your own question though by expressing your concern.

Other humans will also be concerned. They will want to help. They will desire that their fellow man not starve. The market will satisfy this desire there is absolutely no question. The market always strives to satisfy desire and add value because some will provide what others want through voluntary trade.

I will ponder how to best communicate this in provable terms. It's be a long time since I was convinced so I will have to try to remember what convinced me. I assure you it was reason and logic and not emotion.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

I think you're hung up on unemployment being solely the creation of coercive governmental policies. 

That's simply not what I'm talking about.  The coercion you are describing is what happens in RESPONSE to the structural unemployment.

What I'm talking about is what society might want to do about structural unemployment in the absence of coercive governmental policies when the structural unemployment is created by technological changes (or in some cases simply because a large part of society gets too old to work).

You may say that the private sector should just open up its wallet and help some of these people out, especially the severely disabled and elderly.  What we find in countries with intense concentrations of wealth and little in the way of a social safety net, as we see today in Saudi Arabia, China and Russia and as we saw in the U.S. 100 years ago, sometimes the wealthy are not quite as generous as we would like them to be, which is fine, it's their property, but when this social arrangement causes a society to begin to disintegrate it hurts everyone, not just the rich.

I will try my best to address all of this as nicely as possible with logic and reason I promise but I must break now.

[Mdraf]

I know this is anecdotal but... I often have problems getting a plumber.  And when I finally find one he is late, often incompetent and charges $80/hour.  Why aren't there more plumbers? Why don't some of these workers displaced by automation become plumbers and charge, say, $50/hour?

[Pointedstick]

I know this is anecdotal but... I often have problems getting a plumber.  And when I finally find one he is late, often incompetent and charges $80/hour.  Why aren't there more plumbers? Why don't some of these workers displaced by automation become plumbers and charge, say, $50/hour?

I would guess that one IS at least partially an issue of governments and guns, since in most places plumbers need licenses and certifications and things like that.

Another issue is culture and perception. Plumbing is seen as a "low" profession among the educated. I'm thinking of two college-educated people I know who have been out of work forever and would make fine plumbers, but thumb their noses at that kind of work.

[Libertarian666]

I know this is anecdotal but... I often have problems getting a plumber.  And when I finally find one he is late, often incompetent and charges $80/hour.  Why aren't there more plumbers? Why don't some of these workers displaced by automation become plumbers and charge, say, $50/hour?

I would guess that one IS at least partially an issue of governments and guns, since in most places plumbers need licenses and certifications and things like that.

Another issue is culture and perception. Plumbing is seen as a "low" profession among the educated. I'm thinking of two college-educated people I know who have been out of work forever and would make fine plumbers, but thumb their noses at that kind of work.

How do they stay alive?

[Pointedstick]

How do they stay alive?

God only knows, honestly.

One is married to a working woman, and her income is just barely enough to make rent + food + debt service. Whenever they don't have enough, they borrow more. They are more than $150k in debt, most of them student loans...

As for the other, his mother bails him out whenever he's broke and gets kicked out of wherever he's living. He has a lot of debt too, from whenever his pride gets in the way of asking his mother for help.

Their stories are unfortunately not nearly as rare as I would prefer among members of my generation.

[Mdraf]

I have a friend in a European country.  He has a PhD in Archaeology. He's been unemployed pretty much his whole life. The country he lives in provides decent unemployment benefits basically enough to live on. Furthermore the law there says that he is entitled to unemployment until the government can find him a job commensurate with his education level, within his field of expertise, and within a certain radius of his residence.  So the only job he's ever had was as a part-time curator at a small local museum.

Is this where we are headed?

[MediumTex]

I have a friend in a European country.  He has a PhD in Archaeology. He's been unemployed pretty much his whole life. The country he lives in provides decent unemployment benefits basically enough to live on. Furthermore the law there says that he is entitled to unemployment until the government can find him a job commensurate with his education level, within his field of expertise, and within a certain radius of his residence.  So the only job he's ever had was as a part-time curator at a small local museum.

Is this where we are headed?

No.  Not at all.

I don't think there is any will in this country for an arrangement like that.

I'm thinking more in terms of what would happen if we were to scrap Social Security, which for many older people is just a refuge for the structurally unemployed.