The next few decades and the end of work (v2)

Generali

Sardo_Numpsa wrote: »

I don't think this is the same. This unprecedented, this is not the "the coach drivers" or "the weavers", this is happening across every industry....right now. Can you really not see that?

Do honestly believe tens of thousands of 20 something's with art degrees will be employed as recruitment agents in 10 years when there is LinkedIn?

I will leave it at that, honestly did not expect to be having this conversation.

To be fair, every single time this has happened in the past people have moved on and found other work. We managed the move from horses to the internal combustion engine and the rise of electricity perfectly well so why not the robot zombie apocalypse?

Sardo_Numpsa

Generali wrote: »

AIUI, the reason for the decreasing share of GDP going to workers is that Government is spending ever increasing amounts.

I strongly suspect that the future of work as the various zombie robot apocalypses happen is that people will find jobs doing other things. Ultimately, if everyone is broke nobody can buy stuff from the plutocrats. I think people forget the extent to which the economy is all about consumption.

Hang on, you are suggesting companies will employ people just so those same people will buy the companies products even though these is no work for them?

They could just say "Hey sit at home doing nothing at at the end of every month we will send you a cheque you can use to come and buy stuff from us".

You could be on to something.

Sardo_Numpsa

Generali wrote: »

To be fair, every single time this has happened in the past people have moved on and found other work. We managed the move from horses to the internal combustion engine and the rise of electricity perfectly well so why not the robot zombie apocalypse?

Well, firstly I believe you are making a logical error, is it the black swan fallacy?

Secondly we have already covered numerous jobs which are currently under threat in this thread, and I doubt it is exhaustive. I believe this is unprecedented in history so yes I believe, to be fair, this this time it is very likely to be different.

There is no way, in my opinion, that the labour market can adjust to this level of disruption.

Time will tell.

In the mean time, for the lack of better suggestions, I will teach myself how to hunt foxes.

Generali

Sardo_Numpsa wrote: »

Hang, you are suggesting companies will employ people just so those same people will buy the companies products even though these is no work for them?

They could just say "Hey sit at home doing nothing at at the end of every month we will send you a cheque you can use to come and buy stuff from us".

You could be on to something.

No, I'm suggesting that people will find other work to do. It's happened every other time that technology has caused a massive displacement of workers so why not this time?

If we can manage the rise of cars, electricity and the end of employment in farming I think we can get through this. In 1900, 40% of Americans were employed on the land. Now it's less than 2% and production has soared. Nobody worries about hoards of unemployed farm labourers.

Sardo_Numpsa

Generali wrote: »

No, I'm suggesting that people will find other work to do. It's happened every other time that technology has caused a massive displacement of workers so why not this time?

If we can manage the rise of cars, electricity and the end of employment in farming I think we can get through this. In 1900, 40% of Americans were employed on the land. Now it's less than 2% and production has soared. Nobody worries about hoards of unemployed farm labourers.

You said "Ultimately, if everyone is broke nobody can buy stuff from the plutocrats. I think people forget the extent to which the economy is all about consumption."

But it does not matter.

Generali

Sardo_Numpsa wrote: »

You said "Ultimately, if everyone is broke nobody can buy stuff from the plutocrats. I think people forget the extent to which the economy is all about consumption."

But it does not matter.

Yes I did because it's correct, the economy is making stuff for people to consume.

If people are displaced from one line of work they'll do another. It's what happens.

Sardo_Numpsa

Generali wrote: »

Yes I did because it's correct, the economy is making stuff for people to consume.

If people are displaced from one line of work they'll do another. It's what happens.

I agree with you that people are consumers, I just don't see how that backs your argument. Yes, if people don't have an income to consume the goods and services produced in a market economy then the market economy is in trouble, that backs up my point. It does not follow that because people who are consumers lose their jobs they they will find other jobs...I don't get it.

Ah I see, it always happens. OK, tricky. Over how long has it "always happened" I wonder? Clearly as it has "always happened" over this given time period we can safely say it will always be thus. You nailed it, I'll get my coat.

I always wake up in the morning, I look forward to my immortality.

System

[QUOTE=CLAPTON;6783777
if the goods and services w need are effectively free then the only problem is to find ways of occupying our time[/QUOTE]


The main problem will be ensuring that there exists a mechanism for distributing them to everybody.
It's all very well an elite having access to an island of plenty, but why should they chose to let everybody else in?

Generali

Sardo_Numpsa wrote: »

I agree with you that people are consumers, I just don't see how that backs your argument. Yes, if people don't have an income to consume the goods and services produced in a market economy then the market economy is in trouble, that backs up my point. It does not follow that because people who are consumers lose their jobs they they will find other jobs...I don't get it.

Ah I see, it always happens. OK, tricky. Over how long has it "always happened" I wonder? Clearly as it has "always happened" over this given time period we can safely say it will always be thus. You nailed it, I'll get my coat.

I always wake up in the morning, I look forward to my immortality.

It's been going on since the start of the industrial revolution so 1750 (centralisation of brewing). If something is going to stop happening that has happened for 265 years it's not good enough to say flatly 'It's different this time', you need a rather more compelling argument.

.

Thrugelmir

Sardo_Numpsa wrote: »

Wiki basic income (sorry I can't post links)

That's an answer but not the solution to the question I posed.

PS. We already have a welfare system. That's unsustainable.