Why didn't combines and massive tractors ruin agriculture jobs in the United States? I mean, they clearly replaced the work of many men and the same could be said then: "Many farm hands, in short, are losing the race against the machine." The combines got bigger and faster and more efficient and suddenly you even needed fewer operators!
Well, the fact is that at first there were people that lost their jobs (the generation undergoing restructuring in their trade)... I thought in economics they calle
I think you're begging the question. Even if there was always more work to do in the past, that doesn't necessarily mean there will be in the future. However I don't even agree with that assumption.
Your grandparents were farmers and you are not, but that doesn't mean that machines destroying farming as a job leads to "more work." It just means that you found work elsewhere; somebody else very well may have not. You "took" somebody else's job, the machines didn't magically create it for you out of the rubble of the jobs they replaced.
I do agree with you partially: There is always work to be done, but not necessarily more work. Short of some extremely advanced and downright scary AI, there will always be jobs in this hypothetical world for programming the robots, and always work for mechanics repairing the robots. There will always be work to do in research. There will always be some degree of a service sector -- especially once we decide that those sorts of jobs are where we stick people to say they have a job. But all these things will shrink. They will not support hundreds of millions of workers in the US, and even if they magically could not everybody is suited for these jobs.
And that's assuming most of the jobs left actually stay in the country, which there is little reason to believe that they will for areas like software.
There will always be work, but there won't always be enough work, and our system of values and economy will have to change in ways I can't even fathom the workings of.
He is no longer a dirt farmer, he is most likely doing an activity humans were not doing before or doing much less of before. Before the industrial revolution most people spent most of their time working in agriculture. Some people were producing metal works, constructing buildings, practicing law, manufacturing soft beds, elegant woven patterns in cloth of many colors, etc, and nobody was writing software.
Along comes the industrial revolution and all its labor saving devices. Suddenly you and I can affo
I have no idea which post to begin with, but how about here for a start. The reactionary claim that technology (or outsourcing) destroys more jobs than it creates is categorically false. On the consumption side, given a middle-class which can actually consume what it produces, say that item A undergoes outsourcing/automation/efficiency optimization. Thus A becomes cheaper due to competition. The consumer can now afford A and B for the former cost of the pre-optimized item A. The producer spends less labor t
Frankly I think, in the future, the "repairing robots" jobs will be similar to the "repairing washing machines" jobs of today -- not worth the time of the people who own them, and only performed by scrap scavengers on a less-than-economical basis.
If there's not going to be "enough" work to support everybody on a full-time basis but there's enough productivity to supply everyone's needs, why keep people working? This whole notion of a "job threat" is absolute bullshit. What happened to the days when automation would create a utopia of ease and leisure, eh?
In the past, automation has nearly always opened up new opportunities. However, there is no mathematical equation that says that will always continue. Whether we reached the "end" or not is hard to tell, almost like trying to figure out if you are in an economic bubble before it pops. Machines are getting smarter, but humans are not. Is there a point where machine smarts ruin the usual trend?
I just want to say that make-work labor ("those sorts of jobs are where we stick people to say they have a job") is one of the worst ideas ever.
Work (as opposed to productive play) is a degrading part of human life. With the exception of a few people who love their jobs (and are thus spending their days playing), the time a person spends working drains from the precious little time they have on this Earth. Work has always been an awful necessity in the past, something that had to get done or else things wou
My goodness, extra kudos for proper use of "begging the question". But I have to disagree, at least with this example. It sounds like he is a programmer, so his job was literally genesised from the void. That job simply didn't exist in his parents' and grandparents' time. While it could be possible that at one day there's nothing left that needs doing for us meatbags to do, I'm pretty sure we'll find way to fill the void. Let's say with art, or politics, or research. I imagine we'd move entirely to a servic
Measure with a micrometer. Mark with chalk. Cut with an axe.
There is Always More Work to Do (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the fact is that at first there were people that lost their jobs (the generation undergoing restructuring in their trade)
Re:There is Always More Work to Do (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're begging the question. Even if there was always more work to do in the past, that doesn't necessarily mean there will be in the future. However I don't even agree with that assumption.
Your grandparents were farmers and you are not, but that doesn't mean that machines destroying farming as a job leads to "more work." It just means that you found work elsewhere; somebody else very well may have not. You "took" somebody else's job, the machines didn't magically create it for you out of the rubble of the jobs they replaced.
I do agree with you partially: There is always work to be done, but not necessarily more work. Short of some extremely advanced and downright scary AI, there will always be jobs in this hypothetical world for programming the robots, and always work for mechanics repairing the robots. There will always be work to do in research. There will always be some degree of a service sector -- especially once we decide that those sorts of jobs are where we stick people to say they have a job. But all these things will shrink. They will not support hundreds of millions of workers in the US, and even if they magically could not everybody is suited for these jobs.
And that's assuming most of the jobs left actually stay in the country, which there is little reason to believe that they will for areas like software.
There will always be work, but there won't always be enough work, and our system of values and economy will have to change in ways I can't even fathom the workings of.
Re: (Score:2)
He is no longer a dirt farmer, he is most likely doing an activity humans were not doing before or doing much less of before. Before the industrial revolution most people spent most of their time working in agriculture. Some people were producing metal works, constructing buildings, practicing law, manufacturing soft beds, elegant woven patterns in cloth of many colors, etc, and nobody was writing software.
Along comes the industrial revolution and all its labor saving devices. Suddenly you and I can affo
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea which post to begin with, but how about here for a start. The reactionary claim that technology (or outsourcing) destroys more jobs than it creates is categorically false. On the consumption side, given a middle-class which can actually consume what it produces, say that item A undergoes outsourcing/automation/efficiency optimization. Thus A becomes cheaper due to competition. The consumer can now afford A and B for the former cost of the pre-optimized item A. The producer spends less labor t
Re: (Score:1)
Frankly I think, in the future, the "repairing robots" jobs will be similar to the "repairing washing machines" jobs of today -- not worth the time of the people who own them, and only performed by scrap scavengers on a less-than-economical basis.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's not going to be "enough" work to support everybody on a full-time basis but there's enough productivity to supply everyone's needs, why keep people working? This whole notion of a "job threat" is absolute bullshit. What happened to the days when automation would create a utopia of ease and leisure, eh?
Re: (Score:1)
In the past, automation has nearly always opened up new opportunities. However, there is no mathematical equation that says that will always continue. Whether we reached the "end" or not is hard to tell, almost like trying to figure out if you are in an economic bubble before it pops. Machines are getting smarter, but humans are not. Is there a point where machine smarts ruin the usual trend?
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to say that make-work labor ("those sorts of jobs are where we stick people to say they have a job") is one of the worst ideas ever.
Work (as opposed to productive play) is a degrading part of human life. With the exception of a few people who love their jobs (and are thus spending their days playing), the time a person spends working drains from the precious little time they have on this Earth. Work has always been an awful necessity in the past, something that had to get done or else things wou
Re: (Score:2)