Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Economic Recovery May Miss Unemployed


Recommended Posts

Wrong - they can only 'capture' an amount equivalent to how difficult it is to make the machine they have.

However, the alleviation of the difficulty of providing the machine is what they give others by providing the machine- so they can only receive what they provide

I think it might be difficult to start a phone manufacturing /PC manufacturing/Utility(Gasand Elect)/Airline machine for the average citizen if that's what you mean by 'machine'. I don't quite understand your second sentence BTW so difficult to reply.

Are there not figures available to show the rise in corporate profits over the last thirty years and for the rise in productivity from the human operatives? And presumably the rise in salaries? Oh yes there wer'nt any in real terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think it might be difficult to start a phone manufacturing /PC manufacturing/Utility(Gasand Elect)/Airline machine for the average citizen if that's what you mean by 'machine'.

Yes it would be difficult to do this.

And that's why the person who supplies the machine can charge.

Are there not figures available to show the rise in corporate profits over the last thirty years and for the rise in productivity from the human operatives? And presumably the rise in salaries? Oh yes there wer'nt any in real terms.

It depends what you mean by 'in real terms'. People have more food, clothes, cars etc due to the progress of technology. The reason workers still struggle to pay their costs is because the price of land rises with the gains in their productivity (they are trapped in a kind of hampster wheel)

Edited by Stars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steady on Asimov.

There will almost always be things that people can do for each other. If the robot AIs overtake all of the work, then humans will be able to lead lives of leisure - marvellous!

It must happen at some point. As advances in tech improve geometrically then there comes a point where tech will go obselete before a human can become trained in it, so the process must be given over to the AI.

A Turing Test can be applied to everything humans provide, except the spiritual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must happen at some point. As advances in tech improve geometrically then there comes a point where tech will go obselete before a human can become trained in it, so the process must be given over to the AI.

A Turing Test can be applied to everything humans provide, except the spiritual.

If there is nothing left for a human to do, then all human problems have been solved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong - they can only 'capture' an amount equivalent to how difficult it is to make the machine they have.

That's a zero sum argument that would make all forms of technological improvement self defeating, surely?

The point of automation is that it increases profit- that's why it's used. It achieves this by reducing costs- the primary one being labour costs. Even if we assume that an automated factory makes no more profit than one manned by a lot people, it's still true to say that the profit from the automated one is less widely distributed- more of it goes to fewer people, and most of it to the capital owner.

So this nice idea that automation will simply displace demand into a long tail pattern overlooks the reality that without income to spend this pattern of demand never happens- the ex workers may indeed have all sorts of esoteric demands, but lack the cash to pay for them.

The difference between the IT revolution and previous industrial revolutions is that what is being challenged here is not human labour, but human intellect and information processing power.

The current solution to this threat is to point out that computers are essentially dumb, which is true- but neglects to recognise that most jobs are essentially dumb as well and so lend themselves quite well to the 'expert system' model where routine problems can solved by the brute force method.

Of course there are many tasks that require more than the ability to organise and regurgitate information on demand- but not that many. In reality how many jobs are there that require true intuitive intelligence to perform?

Can the worlds population really all be employed in high end occupations? Is the destiny of our race to sit in air conditioned offices, sipping cappuccino and doing Architecture, or Aircraft design?- yes these jobs exist, but not in the millions required to replace the jobs being lost to technology.

However, the alleviation of the difficulty of providing the machine is what they give others by providing the machine- so they can only receive what they provide

The machine is invisible to the end user in most cases- who cares how their car was made? The point is that less people needed to make it means that the profit from it's production is shared amongst less people.

The striking concentration of wealth at the top over the last decades is the result of productivity gains that have allowed capital to capture more of the economic pie than labour, whose ability to bargain for more has been reduced. A short term fix for this was cheap lending to keep demand going, but now this has gone away the absence of demand- amplified by debt- is becoming clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a zero sum argument that would make all forms of technological improvement self defeating, surely?

Nothing zero sum about it

At the end of making the machine, we have an extra new machine. We haven't transfered a machine off someone else.

The point of automation is that it increases profit- that's why it's used. It achieves this by reducing costs- the primary one being labour costs.

Which means we have more for less effort - yes?

Even if we assume that an automated factory makes no more profit than one manned by a lot people, it's still true to say that the profit from the automated one is less widely distributed- more of it goes to fewer people, and most of it to the capital owner.

I would expect capital (capital goods) to get it's typical competed down return (whatever that happens to be at the time)

So this nice idea that automation will simply displace demand into a long tail pattern overlooks the reality that without income to spend this pattern of demand never happens- the ex workers may indeed have all sorts of esoteric demands, but lack the cash to pay for them.

They don't need cash. If they have demands, ability and time, trade will happen naturally between them. The cash will happen to facilitate this. This is a description of a nonesense scenario, because the process of human trade would not stop or falter and need to restart - there is no reason for it to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wonder what they are offering to pay for these skills?

Why bother when they can get them for free from EE, India, Aus/Nz, Africa etc etc, ie the global market as they desired it.

sure the unemployed are going to miss this recovery.

this recovery is pure additional public spending...the GDP looks just positive, but no jobs are required, indeed price competition from abroad and still as yet unfailed weak companies supported by handouts, makes life harder for all.

In other words, Public borrowing has been used to hide a fall in real wealth creation.

still, the figures look OK...thats all we need to know.

Once again, this is the outcome that the mega-rich, big business etc required when they set about the business of globalisation back in the 80's, hand in hand with bank deregulation etc. If you are rich you are not only on top of the money tree, you are in a better position to 'own' people (this was also part of the deal). If you are in the middle you are going to have to work your bum off to keep your bit and if you are in the bottom, then your also fulfilling your obligation as the 'whipping boy' ie to be blamed and punished for the wrong doings of your masters (governemnt, big business and the banks). Daily mail will just call this class the 'benefit spongers'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the same in the industrial revolution - automation removed the need for huge numbers of spinners, weavers etc.

Worked out ok in the end though.

That was definitely true in the past but I do not think it is so true anymore.

Like 150 years ago nations thought if only we could get our farmers more productive we could move the labour that would free up to other ventures. The luddites feared that the machines increasing productivity would be the end of their jobs. And they were wrong back in 1900.. there were other and better opportunities that opened up with the rising productivity.

Today the western industrialized nations are shedding net jobs. Many good jobs are being lost every year, but much fewer jobs are opening up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who is going to employ disabled people? Many are losing their benefits and told to find work, yet they have out-ofdate skills and usually less experience to offer.

Not all are the 'dodgers' so reviled on these threads, but ARE a special case if they are to find jobs.

Very big issue is the unemployment is naturally hitting those groups most vulnerable. Disabled, visible minorities, young and immature, older, etc.. Its completely rational for companies if you have 100 people to choose from for 1 position. Do you hire the person who is disabled or has a history of health problems? Obviously not if you can get someone just as smart who is healthy.

Same with disabilities like innumerate.. who would hire them with such a surplus of labour?

Edited by aa3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure the unemployed are going to miss this recovery.

this recovery is pure additional public spending...the GDP looks just positive, but no jobs are required, indeed price competition from abroad and still as yet unfailed weak companies supported by handouts, makes life harder for all.

In other words, Public borrowing has been used to hide a fall in real wealth creation.

still, the figures look OK...thats all we need to know.

Bloo,

Can you please give me a rough example of the input of stimulus into GDP?

Basically if GDP = 10 in year 0 and GDP = 11 in year 1, then VarGDP = 10%

Now, had the government borrowed 1 more in the first year, and built a hospital with it then would VarGDP = 20%

What is the government had used the 1 to beef up GP's pay packets?

Ta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was definitely true in the past but I do not think it is so true anymore.

No it's true continuously.

People have one problem solved and their attention moves to the next problem and then the next. This translates into exactly what we have seen; people changinh what they do as technology makes certain activities unneccessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's true continuously.

People have one problem solved and their attention moves to the next problem and then the next. This translates into exactly what we have seen; people changinh what they do as technology makes certain activities unneccessary.

Today I see rising unemployment everywhere in the industrialized world. In some cases severely rising unemployment.

I believe a phase change happened around 2001 where automation went beyond just changing what jobs people did, to outright leading to net job loss.

One of the noteable things about the new economy tech companies is how few people they employ. Google is the superstar of the internet for example and it employs just 20,000 worldwide. Some of the big steel complexes in Britain employed that in one complex back in industrial Britain of the 1960's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I see rising unemployment everywhere in the industrialized world. In some cases severely rising unemployment.

I believe a phase change happened around 2001 where automation went beyond just changing what jobs people did, to outright leading to net job loss.

One of the noteable things about the new economy tech companies is how few people they employ. Google is the superstar of the internet for example and it employs just 20,000 worldwide. Some of the big steel complexes in Britain employed that in one complex back in industrial Britain of the 1960's.

Not quite what happened. The physical tech jobs producing manufactued goods increasingly went abroad and with them all the support/infrastructure/service/supply/design/integration/facilities/warehousing/materials jobs went with them too. Just because the machine is sitting in the middle of the shop floor unattended doesn't mean that that all the other jobs have gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet as I posted earlier, signing on for the first time today the staff outnumbered claimants 3 to 1 at the jobcentre!

I would be happy to just to go in, go to a pc, enter my details, let them scan a fingerprint to prove my identity. No staff required.

You don't get this automation thing do you? Why go to the jobcentre to have your fingerprint scanned? You can do that from home and the jobcentre can be a virtual one. No staff required, no physical jobcentre needs to exist, thus no heating, lighting, furniture, building trades etc will be required. No bus/train/car need take you to the job centre that isn't there and much money can be saved. Far more efficient.

Next step is to eliminate the jobless.

Let's hope that's done by getting you a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.