We're a lot closer to the commercialization of space travel/exploration/mining, than a technological singularity. AI Robots would have to be extremely sophisticated to do what humans do. Even then, if that technology was somehow "nationalized", we could all just sit on our duffs and let the robots do the work. Of course, that would never happen.
Job Creation, where is it going to come from.
- Thread starter KINGOFSHORTS
- Start date
We're a lot closer to the commercialization of space travel/exploration/mining, than a technological singularity. AI Robots would have to be extremely sophisticated to do what humans do. Even then, if that technology was somehow "nationalized", we could all just sit on our duffs and let the robots do the work. Of course, that would never happen.
Because the savings enjoyed by the customers of say, a paper machine, is much larger than the wages of the 50 men that were displaced.
Say 50 men earn 10,000 dollars a day.
But the cost savings afforded to customers of that paper is MORE than 10,000$. Say 15,000$. So the broader economy just created 5,000$ in growth.
What happens is that 15,000$ in savings is spent on some other product, which creates more than the equivalent of 50 jobs in another industry.
That's how improvements in productivity create jobs and wealth. Technological improvements usually destroy jobs in the industry they're implemented. But create jobs in other industries via cost-savings.
If you are white and jobless, here is one of the most interesting job created...you can be an acting CEO, Director, VIP, etc of MNCs.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINES...ite.people/index.html?hpt=C1&fbid=A1fAFbYJRVM
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINES...ite.people/index.html?hpt=C1&fbid=A1fAFbYJRVM
The age of discovery peaked with the Industrial Revolution - and it took some time for that technology to come to the masses. Let's think of it this way. Imagine 3 children, all ages 10. For their time, they are called "middle class," i.e. the median lifestyle.
One child lives in the year 1920. If he's not working on a farm, he will likely be working in a coal mine, or a factory - very soon. He is witnessing the dawn of the industrial lifestyle. Odds are, he's not going to college, but technology is definitely improving. Access to that technology is scarce, however. If he doesn't live on a farm, he likely lives in a crowded, stinking tenement building in a major city. Indoor plumbing and electricity exists, but is scarce and shared by many.
One child lives in the year 1960. He is a baby boomer. In this decade he will witness a music revolution and a moon landing. He will not need to work until he is 18 or maybe even 22 if he likely goes to college. His mom is always near him - no daycare. His dad makes enough for him and his siblings. They eat well. He has the leisure to ride a bike, play ball with his friends, and collect baseball cards. He watches TV. He lives in a suburb and his family has a car. They also have a phone, a washing machine, and a refridgerator!
And one child lives in the year 2000. I don't need to describe this child's decade. We all know the tech advances, the family situation, etc...
Now, let's compare the two jumps in lifestyle changes. The first jump is between the child from 1920 and the child from 1960.
The second comparison is between the child in 1960, and the child in 2000.
Which jump in technology, job creation, and lifestyle was the most significant? The 1920-1960 transition? Or the 1960-2000 transition? Why?
In terms of gadgets and novelties, the child living in 2000 trumps all. But that's it. The winner, in my view? The child of 1960. He witnessed the "democratization" of REAL technological progress that also produced REAL jobs for all levels of economic status.
The child in the year 2000 witnesses medical advances, communications advances, and the "democratization" of airline flight. But overall, the things enjoyed by the child in 1960 were mostly improved upon. Cars changed, airplanes changed, communication changed. But that's it.
What I'm trying to say is going from horse to car is real change. Going from gas fueled car to hybrid is not really significant in the grand scheme of things. Going from a telegraph used by a few, to a phone in every household is real change. Going from a phone in every household to an iPhone in your hand is merely an improvement - a wonderful novelty. Going from a black and white TV with three channels to a high def flat screen with 500 channels sounds great. But the real change was going from no TV to a TV, that is, from 1920 to 1960.
Think of it this way: in 1920 how many TV factories per capita existed? How many TV factories existed per capita in 1960? In 2000? Where was the real change that affected employment and quality of life? I say it was between 1920 and 1960 - not from 1960 to 2000.
Don't get me wrong - I don't eschew technological progress - I think it's great. But let's put it in perspective and understand how tech changed historically in the various decades, and how it REALLY affected humanity, in both work and leisure. And then, we will see that technology is not some panacea that grows with the same effects on society. It's effects on society, I would say, changes.
Right now, China and India are experiencing a 1920-2000 revolution. They are skipping 1960 altogether. That's change. Here in the US and Western Europe? Not so much.
I know what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree with most of it, but I don't like the definitive "we have peaked" statements. Nobody knows what the future will bring.
Before the TV was invented, do you think people such as you or me were sitting there, envisioning this new invention called a TV that would create such an industry? Before the internet was invented, I doubt people were sitting around envisioning the jobs this new invention would create, envisioning a brighter future and better economy. Most were likely talking about how we've peaked in our technological advancements and innovation, and were probably wondering "where is the job creation going to come from?".
My point is, only in hindsight do we know if a technological breakthrough or some type of innovative process improvement will produce big results or not in terms of the overall impact on the economy and the industry it creates. For all anyone knows, some scientist or some engineer will discover some breakthrough tomorrow that in five years will be a booming industry.
I think you're a great economic mind, Mithos. But I don't share the glass-half-empty/fatalistic bent evident in your posts.
Humanity is closing in on revolutionary breakthroughs in gene therapy, nanotechnology, stem cell treatment, free(er) energy, propulsion and robotics that could open up entire new industries and up living standards dramatically.
Many of the applications are in life sciences - disease cures and regenerative treatments. Some have more industrial applications like cheaper energy, nanotech (stronger, cheaper composites), and robotics. Humanities knowledge of the physical world is nowhere near complete. And our ability to manipulate what we do know is many orders smaller. Human ingenuity and creativity can still bring us a long, long way.
Where I am pessimistic is the role career politicians and their Corporate masters have in smothering the natural upward drive of free humanity. It's these fuckers that are sorely intent on running us all into the ground via taxation and graft to keep their clique infused with cash, feasting on the producers like a gigantic parasitic tick. It's the Federal Governments, the Big Oils, Defense Contractors and Wallstreet flippers of the world that are the real blight on humanity. And the reason why most of our productive efforts are squandered away in some shitty third world escapade, or suckered into reiterative tulip manias, only to be saddled with even more debt to bailout it's progenitors. That is the real problem. Not the free markets. Not capitalism.
Consumer confidence crashed. maybe the job thing is important.
That is mostly true. Human beings are not logical, but BioLogical. That is not just a tautologous statement.
The biggest problem humanity faces is fighting its own adaptation optimized to succeed in a environment that no longer exists. Human beings biggest challenge imo is bridging the old with the new.
I have mentioned this before. The world is in terrible need of an "Ultra New Testament" that speaks to the modern world. At the same time, people are reaching back to a more spiritual life. I consider situation similar to what exists in physics: We have two very successful theories that are completely incompatible with each other at very high energies, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. At the human level, we also have two completely and highly successful incompatible memes, Religion that deals with the spirit and non-material life, and the modern trend to monetize and put a physical value on everything. Individuals have solved this problem for themselves, but no moral theory of both together exists. The Declaration of Independence is the closest thing we have. The chasm occurs because religion and not morality represents our spiritual needs, and governments want no part of religion in their constitutions. But should that extend to morality? The golden rule should be part of the Constitution, imo.
This is rather misguided. The 2000 child has Internet, PCs/laptops at home that the 1960 child hardly even dreamed about. A lot of medical advances allow the 2000s child to thrive when the 1960s child would be dead or disabled, such as advanced prostheses. The 1960 child lived in daily fear of nuclear annihilation. The scientific advances and understanding from 1960 to 2000 were breathtaking. Minorities in 1960 were viewed with suspicion but in 2000 as relatively integrated into society. And a very lengthy list beyond that.
You cannot pick a set of changes that favor one generation over another.