the third great wave

M

Marc

has anyone read the article "the third great wave" from the economist? its scary stuff for us young guys. we are in the mist of a transition where it looks like technology is taking over some jobs and people aren't finding as many new jobs as technology is replacing. more so, we have great technology advances in the medical field to make doctors jobs easier but the cost of medical care aren't going down. i highly recommend this article and it poses the question if capitalism will survive this third great wave. i personally dont think so. i see more government providing relief to those who lost their jobs to computers. whats everyone's take on this technology issue.

heres the link to the article:
http://www.economist.com/news/speci...ns-inflicted-plenty-pain-ultimately-benefited
 
well, capitalism better survive, because socialism or any other economic system has always collapsed. Not sure why you are so worried, capitalism has many casualties along the way, but it is the only thing that makes sense. I can teach a kid capitalism in a few minutes on a hot sunny day. "If you can make a pitcher of lemonade for 50 cents, and sell 4 glasses for a quarter you have doubled your money." It takes 4 years and a college degree to understand socialism. A smart man would have bought a case of buggy whips when they invented the automobile, they would be worth a lot more today as antiques than they were as current utilitarian items. It's always changing, but capitalism always holds true. Don't worry, it will survive long after you and I are dead and gone.
 
Well, if technology starts taking peoples jobs, and the people find no replacement income/jobs, they wont be able to buy the fruits of the technology, thus the technology will stop advancing. Not going to happen
 
Technology

someone has to design / develop it
someone has to manufacture it
....someone has to provide the parts to manufacture it
someone has to install / deploy / integrate it
someone has to maintain it

And so it goes - nothing really changed from the advent of the automobile

RN
 
IAS_LLC said:
Well, if technology starts taking peoples jobs, and the people find no replacement income/jobs, they wont be able to buy the fruits of the technology, thus the technology will stop advancing. Not going to happen
More...
and if the people can't buy, who is going to pay? and why pay if nobody can buy?...see, here is how it works, it costs 50 cents to make a pitcher of lemonade, and you sell 4 glasses for a quarter each, and you double your money. Very simple, been going on that way since the beginning of time. Technology or no technology, good times and bad.

The greatest threat to the world is that everybody will become just like me. I already have everything I want, and a don't want anything more. Unless you are in the beans and rice business, it's going to be a tough row to hoe.
 
loyek590 said:
and if the people can't buy, who is going to pay? and why pay if nobody can buy?...see, here is how it works, it costs 50 cents to make a pitcher of lemonade, and you sell 4 glasses for a quarter each, and you double your money. Very simple, been going on that way since the beginning of time. Technology or no technology, good times and bad.

The greatest threat to the world is that everybody will become just like me. I already have everything I want, and a don't want anything more. Unless you are in the beans and rice business, it's going to be a tough row to hoe.
More...

Thats exactly my point. If know one can afford the technology that is taking jobs, the technology will die. Capitalism will survive and thrive. Supply and DEMAND.
 
I'm not saying we will turn to futalisum either but for instance, Sweden is about to vote on a base income for those who are unemployed equivalent to about 30k US dollars. I could see a situation where people such as can drivers are losing jobs to cars that drive themselves and have a long period where they are stalled and can't find a jobs. This could happen for many other profession, so If this dose happen I could see government havering to step in and do something similar to Sweden or just employing people in other lines of work. As for technology stopping it's growth I think that would be unlikely and a set back to society.
 
Marc said:
I'm not saying we will turn to futalisum either but for instance, Sweden is about to vote on a base income for those who are unemployed equivalent to about 30k US dollars. I could see a situation where people such as can drivers are losing jobs to cars that drive themselves and have a long period where they are stalled and can't find a jobs. This could happen for many other profession, so If this dose happen I could see government havering to step in and do something similar to Sweden or just employing people in other lines of work. As for technology stopping it's growth I think that would be unlikely and a set back to society.
More...
that's nothing new, It's an old Freidman idea, just give everybody a stipend. I'm not really worried about technology. I don't see it as the highest achievement of mankind. I don't see tech as the savior. I don't see how it is my job to make sure tech lives on and on forever. I'd rather own a low tech Rembrandt than a high tech youtube. To worry that if tech keeps going the way it has been going, all workers will be replaced and nobody will be able to fund new tech seems like a pretty screwed up worry.
 
loyek590 said:
that's nothing new, It's an old Freidman idea, just give everybody a stipend. I'm not really worried about technology. I don't see it as the highest achievement of mankind. I don't see tech as the savior. I don't see how it is my job to make sure tech lives on and on forever. I'd rather own a low tech Rembrandt than a high tech youtube. To worry that if tech keeps going the way it has been going, all workers will be replaced and nobody will be able to fund new tech seems like a pretty screwed up worry.
More...
Most deff. I'm not a tech obsessive person and it's not people like you and me in worried about, it's people that do see tech as the savior. By nature there is always someone trying to find an easier way to do something or a cheaper way to do something because there is some monetary compensation for marketing that idea. But facility to do something easier or less expensive will in someway depend on technological advancemt

And my concern and the one in the artical isent that tech will and is replacing all workers because that is not true. The concern is that tech is replacing some jobs at a higher rate than it is creating them. Just like when we had the industrial revolution we had workers going to work in factory's and to repair machinery. I don't see manny jobs like that being created with technological growth.
 
Marc said:
Most deff. I'm not a tech obsessive person and it's not people like you and me in worried about, it's people that do see tech as the savior. By nature there is always someone trying to find an easier way to do something or a cheaper way to do something because there is some monetary compensation for marketing that idea. But facility to do something easier or less expensive will in someway depend on technological advancemt

And my concern and the one in the artical isent that tech will and is replacing all workers because that is not true. The concern is that tech is replacing some jobs at a higher rate than it is creating them. Just like when we had the industrial revolution we had workers going to work in factory's and to repair machinery. I don't see manny jobs like that being created with technological growth.
More...
well, now you are getting into economics, and I'm no economist. So your worry is, there will be a bunch of people standing around with nothing to do because their jobs have been replaced by tech? Round and round we go. Who will the tech owners sell to? Why buy a robot to produce a good if there are no longer any customers with jobs. So won't the whole thing self regulate? Too much tech, not enough jobs, too little tech, human labor is too high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top