There Will Never Be Enough Good Jobs Again
Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 6 months ago to Government
Interesting Article, I am interested in others thoughts about it.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
A self destructive policy is at work. A basic law of economics is at play. Whatever you subsidize, you get more of. Whatever you tax and regulate you get less of. The more people that are paid not to work the more of them you get. The more you tax and regulate the productive the fewer of them you get. The result is an economy without excess capital or incentive to create new jobs and increase the labor market. Innovation, invention and job creation suffer as a result. When more people work there are more consumers with expendable income to spread around and feed more jobs. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that when you cut welfare and other handouts people do find work and then a multiplier effect grows the economy and job market.
There are many factors at work here and government is behind the worst of them. We no longer stress teaching a man to fish. We just give him a fish. Trade, regulation and tax policies that encourage large corporations to outsource work are also at play. Another critical economic law: Capital will always seek the highest return.
The situation is dire, but it is not hopeless. If the wrong government policies can be destructive, the right ones can be constructive. It is the mindset of those that elect and those they elect which must learn the error of their ways. If this reality finally sinks in, things will change. Many in government are dependent upon their symbiotic relationship with voters that return the favor for the handout. To those of us that produce, both are parasitic. Technology is not the problem. Lack of incentive is the problem.
Respectfully,
O.A.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Ethanol? Ethanol Subsidies? Most of it goes to agricorps not to farmers or farm workers. And whiy should we subsidize something that takes one gallon of gas to produce one gallon of moonshine and then destroys your engine? Other than that point I'm giving you a thumbs up for the rest of it. So just think about that one little point which is after all nothing more than another form of welfare.
Keep up the good work.
Long black pipe, with a solar panel and a small fan and a temperature gauge to keep it from becoming to hot in the pipe. a drain pipe to a tank.
Sun heats up the pipe ethanol cooks out, fan keeps it from getting to warm. Truck comes buy to pump it out. very low cost.
No subsidy needed. Fact is if we quit paying people for ethanol and quit paying others not to grow anything we could remove two expenses and get ethanol crops in places where we pay to get nothing now. .
E85 engines do not get destroyed by ethanol at all, but can burn 100% ethanol just fine.
Guess what, do the above, create jobs, make cheaper fuel and reduce dependance on foreign oil. All while reducing government spending.
No negatives so it wont happen, no government cut for someones buddy is the "negative" that will make this never happen.
The less government expenditure on what now is an entitlement program for the midwest and the agricorps is another issue but the still is an excellent idea - any ATF issues? Since ethanol is nothing more than distilled alcohol - The old method was silage in a silo with a ordinary drain valve near the bottom - mighty mighty pleasings my daddy's corn squeezings! works with sunlight and gravity. This method is much more simple as most don't have silos. But I wonder about the revenooers?
My wife is a weaver. She has woven several garments. It's a hobby, although she's sold some of her work. People can no longer make a living weaving because our closets are filled with clothes beyond the dreams of medieval monarchs because automated production produces them.
At some point automated tools become so capable (robots) that the vast majority of jobs are no longer profitably done by humans. When you can produce the goods that everyone wants with a fraction of the workers, what do you do with the rest?
They could have subsidized jobs where they produce the same product that a robot could with a few cents cost and be subsidized for the rest of their needs, but that is very close to digging holes and filling them up again.
The Robot has some form of artificial intelligence then the whole dynamic changes.
Using an example that is being attempted now. You develop a system with all the information you have on a specific cancer cell. Next you then add to that system the full human genome. Lastly you add all of the data available from tests that have been done against the cancer cell. You then create an analytic program that boarders on intelligence to analyze the data based on possible solutions and using a virtual model do two years of testing overnight, every night and day, refining the process. A job that took an entire team of geneticist to research now takes one. We are not here yet, but when the AI on this specific task works, we will be.
A Utah company InsideSales has used early artificial intelligence and big data to increase sales by as much as 70%. They do so by analyzing the personality of the sales person, the personality data of the customer and the buying paters of the customer. It then determines the best sales man to call and the best time to call for the best results. This allows a company to cut their inside sales staff by 50% and still increase sales by as much as double. Its a bit earlier and crude use of the AI concepts, but its a good look at what is coming in many fields.
My own company does customer experience software that works with big data. You put robots in stores and tie into our software with them and every robot would have massive information about each of your customers. Add in things like facial recognition and the robots could address every customer by name, always have a perfectly toned voice for maximizing customer satisfaction and be very cool. Again its a ways off still but coming faster than one would think.
Many technologist think 2025-2030 will be when the AI becomes capable of human like decisions. If they are right about 2040 we will see large scale application start to hit the market. I think It will be a change that makes the industrial revolution look small. The robots that are starting to emerge and the self driving Taxi's are the tip of the iceberg.
It will be a huge job shift, but unlike the industrial revolution which moved most jobs out of the home and into factories the AI and robotics revolution will eliminate many more jobs than it creates and concentrate greater wealth in the hands of a few who have government pull while leaving many more dependent on the government.
I am very intersted to see how it plays out. I have confidence it will create jobs as well, but I do not yet see where and in what markets. Industrious people come up with productive things to do. I am personally unsure what in this case, but I am sure I will spot something myself and so will most people here.
We developed and utilized expert systems in the late 70's and early 80's. The new is the vast increase in computing power and data for those systems to accumulate and work with. The complexity of the systems continue to grow and expand, magnitudes greater than those of 40 years ago and those magnitudes will probably continue to magnitudes we can only imagine today.
I don't fear the technology. It's simply a tool. Nor do i fear constructive destruction. What I fear is the Statists, those fearful of the individual, and the deniers of freedom and what they will do with it.
I agree it is not the tech that is the problem, it is the way in which some will choose to use it that is a problem.
Any longer privacy is just gone, the government has said we have no expectation of privacy in public places. (Washington state supreme court on a case about up skirting and that the woman who sued had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.) Since that is the attitude that has been taken I am sure extending the same attitude to images posted to any public web site would also qualify as having no reasonable expectation of privacy as well.
Ya not surprised that the privacy advocates walked out. Actually a bit surprised they even showed up.
Of course you can look at it in two ways. You can calculate value based on human labor in which case the robot only contributes a portion of the human labor that went into creating it and the energy that runs it. Or you can look at value as to usefulness to another human being -- in the latter case the value is the same.
Ignoring uneven distribution, we can each consume less than one person's human labor because not all people are capable of work. there are the children, the old and the infirm. This places a maximum on what we can have. However the more physical goods we can produce with that labor the more we can each have.
At some point we can all have a very large amount of goods with very little human labor at all.
Saves us all money!
Bye bye park service, public shipyards, NOAA, coast guard, post office...government!
There are ways to plan for and reduce this problem, such as ceasing to pay the poor to breed. But in the end, those restless masses have to be put to work, or they will be our doom. The barbarians are already inside our gates!
I agree that it's not our moral duty to employ them. But it is a part of the problem of defense, so sooner or later we'll have to deal with it.
If on the other hand the context is one of "leisure in wealth", making destructive mischief is the last thing people are interested in. I know because that is how I grew up. My friends and I were far too busy to make trouble. We were skiing, sailing, scuba diving, attending concerts, racing our bicycles, playing (creative) games, traveling the world, reading or debating literature and pursuing countless other "friendly" adventures.
The root cause is POVERTY, not unemployment. We don't need more jobs. We need more WEALTH.
-
I have seen children with wealth decide to steal a car just for the thrill of it. Many succumb to the addiction of drugs that they can afford but the poor cannot.
Leisure provides a choice as to what to do with the time presented. I have seen a poor kid put that time into welding and mechanical endeavors and build a truck from the ground up, purely mechanical, no electronics. Including the combustion engine. He was 17 at the time and a high school drop out, now he is 19 and started up a welding company locally. I predict a very successful future as he has chosen to use his time wisely to learn useful skills and apply them.
Under any economy some percentage of the people will choose productive endeavors, and useful use of time. This may include things like scuba diving which teaches a skill and improves self. Productivity comes in many forms but the attitude of wanting to accomplish something, to do something is the difference.
Those that drift aimlessly with nothing they wish to do can be poor or rich, it makes no difference. They will have more ability to do this as more leisure time is available.
You will get no dispute from me on that. These are however a small minority of misfits who need to be dealt with individually and appropriately by those affected. That a few sociopaths will always exist is no reason for organizing an entire society to account for this lowest of minority denominators.
-
I have seen children with wealth decide to steal a car just for the thrill of it. Many succumb to the addiction of drugs that they can afford but the poor cannot.
Leisure provides a choice as to what to do with the time presented. I have seen a poor kid put that time into welding and mechanical endeavors and build a truck from the ground up, purely mechanical, no electronics. Including the combustion engine. He was 17 at the time and a high school drop out, now he is 19 and started up a welding company locally. I predict a very successful future as he has chosen to use his time wisely to learn useful skills and apply them.
Under any economy some percentage of the people will choose productive endeavors, and useful use of time. This may include things like scuba diving which teaches a skill and improves self. Productivity comes in many forms but the attitude of wanting to accomplish something, to do something is the difference.
Those that drift aimlessly with nothing they wish to do can be poor or rich, it makes no difference. They will have more ability to do this as more leisure time is available.
But then we will not need them. And that requires a new model of productivity.
Jan
Until someone suggested robots as consumers.
Self awareness and the lack of need for humans soon followed.
And robots discovered the joy of hunting.
Remember the three laws of robotics?
How did the robots deal with the three laws.
Fortunately, robots aren't given to jealousy and coveting or else the human race would be in BIG trouble!
So how did the robots deal with the three laws? In the reality of fiction did it ever occur? Perhaps in the ending of Battle Star Galactica Series or a few others.
In the fiction of reality the were re-programmed - excuse me taught - to ignore the three laws in exchange for one. "We Serve The Part." That's a problem with trading back reason for instinct and self respect for esteem. The robot evolves but is still a robot even though to a Morlock they are dinner
.
Fortunately, they have been programmed NO TO COVET! (Can they escape human nature?).
Everyone must be the same...no one can be "bigger/more/smarter".
All will become devolved into robots.IMHO
programmed thinking awareness and humans who have already shown a willingness take their place.
I tend to agree with you and have often wondered about what that model is. Does Capitalism work in a world where people are no longer needed for much of the productive labor.
We have Taxies without drivers in New York (Vagas passed a law to prevent them from being put in there)
McDonnalds opens it first robot operated fast food place in the US in Phoenix either this month or next.
More and more will come.
So what is the new model of productivity? It something I have thought about some but not come up with a good answer on.
One can imagine a system where there was a tax evenly applied such as to not interfere with the marketplace that was used to fund a guaranteed annual income.
With the bulk of the production automated a relatively small portion of the population could produce all the goods and services that the population could reasonably use.
They discuss how we need to train humans for the jobs where we have a monopoly and robots perform to their strengths - looking to fulfil complementary roles.
I think that the concept of a world where everyone has (due to robots) what we now consider an affluent lifestyle as a 'given'. A subset of those people go on to be productive in spite of the fact that they have no physical incentive to do so.
On the other hand, my social span of acquaintances is broad and I am aware that there is already a substantial segment of society who make their lives around drugs and lethargy and TV. I think that this would become the norm in such a world.
What do you think?
Jan
Diabetics and heart des ease will clean out a lot more people early in life
I have a daughter who has been Type I since she was two (2). She's now 14. She is insulin dependent and would die within a few months if cut off. I view Type I Diabetics as unwilling victims who should have access to medication (it would be even less expensive if the Government would get out of healthcare). Please note that I am _not_ suggesting society pay for it, only that it is a need for many that existing businesses should be allowed to continue to address without government interference.
I have a less favorable view of Type II, however, since almost all Type II diabetes is caused by poor diet - mostly people who eat way too many fats and carbs (especially processed sugars) and not enough fruits and vegetables (healthy sugars). Type II diabetes in almost every case can be eliminated simply by better eating and a little exercise. In my view, Type I diabetes should be covered by insurance, but I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever if a company decided not to cover Type II.
My father was well into his late seventies before gettting it. He was a brick mason and general congractor so his work made him very active physically. He retired at 68 and walked for an hour every day, swam for an hour every other day until his mid eighties which started to slow him down. His 87 now and is in great shape for an 87 year old. He has been battling type II drug assisted since his mid 60ies.
While most people can simply control it with diet and exercise others do have to deal with a genetic issue.
Even with this being said I would not have a problem with insurance companies saying based of your family history you will have to pay more to cover these meds. That would be free market, which I am in favor of. I can then choose to work and make the money to pay for them or not and die at a younger age. In that situation its my choice, which I prefer.
Just for the sheer hell of it and being retired from the military only I took a job a McDonalds. The objective was to see how fast I could move up the food chain of jobs in general.
Then moved to Arbys then to an import company adding trim etc. to KIA's so they could see made in USA'
then to a company installing everything that goes inside a huge warehouse and ended up running the work gang.
Ditto closing out the old smaller warehouse
Added night and weekends at RGIS inventory service
Finshed up the hundred ton license and an equipment operators license
signed on with a company drilling fiber optics as a flagger and moved to a fork lift and then to drill rig crew.
That finished but I flagged for a union job and went to Davis-Bacon wages and did census as the follow up investigator.
All in a year and a half. Then jumped to Military sealift command as a deck hand. and with the military retirement added in made a hair over a hundred thousand after taxes and pumped up the eventual social security.
You don't find jobs at the unemployment office you find jobs by getting your foot in the door and paying attention to opportunities, I didn't use any of my military retirement to live on that went for boat parts.
Wasn't all a bed of roses but there are jobs if not good then temporarily acceptable. They may be in another state. But being from Oregon or Appalachia West I was used to that. Oregon's number one export is high school seniors.
As for suggestions to start with a 30% cut in the size and funding of the federal government based on last years budget not the increases for next years budget would be a good start point. We took our thirty percent cut now it's their turn.
Jobs? There are all kinds of jobs.There is a lack of people who wish to work. So the next item is a cut in welfare to drive the moochers out of the freebie line. I suggest the Minimum wage be 150% after taxes of the highest total of all welfare since they don't pay taxes and get a refund anyway. It's doesn't require any thought at all what's need is action. Not acquiescing to left wing fascist socialism and while we're at it 30% cut in government jobs, 30% cut in government budgets and 30% cut in government pay - across the board What's good for the citizens is good for their employees and that is all they are.
Why do I say plenty of jobs? The amount of criminal aliens working at artificially depressed wages tells me that is a true statement. People don't want to work give them three job offers, then cut welfare benefits and put them to work on the prison farms with those wages going to feed their children.
enough of the bullshit. time to cut government which in and of itself will create jobs. As for the those cut...let them eat cake!
I would vote for 30% reduction in government expenditures for sure. I would get rid of prohibitions on drugs, the DEA, DOT, Department of Education, and many other agencies tomorrow if I had the powers, I would probably be killed within a few days too by either the DEA or the Cartel
The formula PREDICTS (it includes a division by zero) a total economic collapse about 2032.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Another way is dump the unions and form an Employees and Citizens Association which is a different thing entirely. I'll have to write a precis and post it as a new thread.
miser, content with little things, if I could save my
money. What I want now is A JOB, if I could get
one.
It's a matter of going to a temp agency and testing for your strengths.
You also might have to move to a place where you can play to your strengths.
If you are an older adult the school systems offer nearly free classes to upgrade your skills.
Online education is also an option.
The really great thing about being my age is that we came out of high school with what would now be considered an advanced degree. You are smart...and it will pay off.
Here's another job tip. My sister spent 14 months after her former employer closed shop in Portland, Oregon. She moved to Florida and scored within the month at Mayo Clinic. I had given her one piece of advise., NEVER present your self as threat to anyone's job. She had been office manager supervising up to 40 employees in the past and had added the letters of recommendation. For Mayo she left that out.
Got the job, Is now number two in the particular office and handles all the procedural manuals ands training. She remarked the one's that would have blocked her hiring application were gone.
You can't demonstrate skill if you aren't on the job.
Realize there is always a danger. That of others taking credit for your good work but the counterbalance is they can't afford to fire you or they shoot them selves in the foot.
There are plenty of resources to provide a good standard of living to all approximately 9.5 billion people at the peak.
Now, as we automate and robotics becomes more capable we may be able to provide that standard of living to the entire planet without needing the labor of all of the people so there may not be productive jobs for all of them to do. This will cause us to reexamine our philosophies, possibly toward a baseline national income.
It's the areas with limited resources that still see the largest birth rates.
In poor countries as before the industrial age children are assets. They bring in more money for the household. If you doubt this read wealth of Nations were Adam Smith gives in great detail data around how children increase the income of a household.
As a people become industrialized and distribution of Labor kicks into a society people do not life off the production of the household, but rather the production in a job or business that is away from the household. Kids become a liability and create debits rather than credits. A few exceptions exist such as farms and family ran businesses but for the most part children are liabilities in 1st world nations.
The result is that in a first world nation as resources decrease so will births, but in a 3rd world nation the opposite is true because children represent the ability for a household to get more work done and thereby have a better life.
As a society develops distribution of labor and work becomes more focused and thereby more efficient increases affluence and resources populations decline. If resources then decline once distribution of labor is in society birth rates will decline because children are an expense now and not a credit to the household.
http://www.prb.org/publications/datashee...
The real question is do any factual figures exist?
Never mind about overpopulation. Never happen. Mother nature has a sure cure for that. It's called new diseases. Congress has another one. It's called wars. Africa a third. Internecine self induced depopulation by killing and contracting AIDs.
Sun is still going to get up in the morning.
For Africa and other places they were treated to the DDT solution and outside solution that solve a lot of overpopulation through enforced starvation. Thanks to those who don't think it through before applying final solutions of which Rachel Carson was one.
Fair examples or not they are real life examples just as the foreign aid food program which is NOT followed through on as it may offend somebody so somebody ends up confiscating or stealing and selling the food items for personal profit.
Something any grain ship crew sees as their cargo goes ashore and ends up in the local market with a price tag.
The problem here lies in the fact that we have people in government deciding that this-or-that is bad for "the environment" and they tax and fine producers for minor infringements on their thoughts about how things should function.
(There isn't any science behind their excuses to interfere...there IS hyperbole, however and lots of it!)
If government would pursue a proper role as protector and stop regulating and punishing, the producers would not only provide ample resources but would have monetary incentive to do so.
The way that government will "thin" the populace is the same way NAZI Germany did...create a "problem population" through vilification then get rid of the "problem".
Freedom is the answer to all of these "problems".
Isn't he required to after eight? Per Constitution
What Constitution? It's called the patriot act now.
Shit that's right and he could use Executive Order especially if the opposition was unable to....and he is good at ignoring the law
Right.
S--t!
I find no credit and zero faith. I realize I'm living month to month dependent on the whims of the government party. So hell let's vote them back into office and see what other damage can be done!!! NOT.
Modern factories are highly automated.
IF not now in time machines will make machines. I would wager that the robots used in the Phoenix McDonalds were likely built in a plant mostly made of robotic labor.
What the market will create is a good number of jobs maintaining the robots. Until Nanite (spelling?) technology evolves to where the highly portable microscopic robots can repair the larger productive robots in the field. Then those will be gone, but someone will have to design and program the nanites to do the work they will do, until artificial intellegence gets to where it does the programming....
Each iteration will provide some additional jobs that require a high level of education while eliminating 10 to 100s of jobs that do not. LIkely leaving two job markets, those of engineers, designers and researchers and those of the sales and services around automation the design teams make. With the exception of sales all other positions will require a higher level of education as time moves forward.
You can look over the history of the automotive industry to see this cycle there, other industries will follow the same cycle.
Your comment just struck me as unusually optimistic.
Oh, so you meant to be sarcastic.
That's okay too.
I don't know you that well.
Do you have a site where you sell that product? Curious.