Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We have to realize that technological growth is not linear, its exponential, we moved from agriculture to industrial revolution in 4000 years, and to the information age we are in, in less than a century, these changes will be possible in a few decades, not a century, but of course, just because we have the technology doesn't mean it will be implemented. We need to understand, I think, how quick things are progressing nowYou may very well be right, of course when people get free things, they would like more free things, that is true. And while some people may be motivated to still finding more meaningful work or advancing themselves in life, many would simply not see the point. All correct points.I will say this one quick thing, and I hope you can forgive my ideological madness. If one day through the advance of technology we come to a time when production of goods is incredibly easy and cheap and millions of workers are not needed, there may come a time when we as a people provide basic amenities to anyone, regardless. A base standard of living if you will. I know this sounds inherently Marxist. People should still be rewarded for their ingenuity, jobs will still exist, but there should be no reason that housing, food, water and basics should not be provided. This sounds like the redistribution of wealth, and in a sense it may be, but wealth will be so plentiful, so available, when you can print products off a machine, energy advances to be cheaper, cleaner, THROUGH the engine of free enterprise, we may come to a place where the relative cost for providing basic human needs is so little, there's no reason not to do it. Those with ambition, who want more than the status quo will continue to innovate and mankind can focus on things other than just eking a living. Many of those economic principles you listed that failed, you are exactly right for the most part. Socialism doesn't work without a whole lot of money flying around, but what if through innovation, it becomes more costly not to do it. 30-50 years. That's all.
Here is the problem with your idea... Whenever we provide basic essentials for all as you envision... there is no more motivation to work. Why bother, if everything is going to be provided for you? Sure, some will want to have more... but... think about that for a minute... the same people who are screaming about inequality now would still be screaming the same thing. Why can't we all have a yacht? Why can't we all take a vacation to the Bahamas? We need to provide that too, for everyone to be equal... right?
I think one of our biggest problems with social entitlement programs (not talking about SS or SSI)... is the fact that there is no motivational factor. No one is motivated to do better. We will never be able to resolve the wealth disparity problem because that's natural in a free market system... but in order to mitigate it or diminish it, we have to lift people up by motivating them to succeed. You don't motivate anyone by giving them a check every month.
However, the main heart of the problem will not be motivation, it will be that there are not enough jobs for nearly close to the population, maybe 1 in 3.
I agree that if I had a production plant running on automation making me a fair bit of money, expansion looks good. However, I would also be much more receptive to the idea of replacing more manpower with automation. Why bother with mechanics when a new company is making a making a robot that does diagnostics and repairs? Hook it up to the plants network and it will find problems and address them quicker than a human mechanic.
There is a software company working to develop an A.I. program that aids programmers in compiling code. The goal is to allow one programmer to write code that may take days in an hour or two. Many of these supplemental
Technologies will reduce the need for more technical jobs.
So, if hundreds of millions of people want to find work and human manpower is obsolete, what then? If their jobs are nonexistent, how do you handle a population that can't find jobs? They can be motivated all they want and still starve in slums.
I know I am playing devil's advocate here, and one bonus for capitalism is this, average people will often be able to be competitive with large companies like never before, a single musician could write masterpieces of record company quality at his computer and sell them, micro businesses would see a huge boom. A programmer could design a product without ever needing to produce it and sell it as intellectual property that could be printed. But realistically, this still could not sustain hundreds of millions.
So I ask again, how do we prepare as a society for what should really be viewed as an inevitability. When human jobs become more and more unnecessary and counter productive even?
I guess I see what you're saying but it's sort of like asking... What happens when we run out of oil? I'm hoping future generations find a solution and we aren't dependent on fossil fuels in the future. But just like the issue of raising up the poor... people have to be motivated to find the solutions and make those changes.
I think, realistically, what you are talking about isn't going to happen in the next century. Yes, we are already seeing a boom in technology like never before, but no reason to start fearing the sky is falling. We have a very long way to go before everything is done by robots and computers. AND... something we haven't considered... cataclysmic events. Old Mother Earth is currently beating her odds with that. We are overdue for a major cataclysmic event. Before we reach this Utopian world where no one has to work... I suspect nature will have her way with us and we'll be set back a century on technology... or maybe even more.
100% stupid and liberal of course... The result is ZERO jobs in the US.
.. We are allowing corporatists to get rich.
Steve Jobs created a product that no one else had and everybody wanted. Supply and demand.
Let's hear it for protectionism and goods you can no longer afford!
To increase the rate of pay for labor, you have to increase the demand for labor.
100% stupid and liberal of course... The result is ZERO jobs in the US.
Unemployment in US.is 5.3%, not 100%.
Its hard to imagine you didn't know that. Sorry to rock your world, but today is the first day of the rest of your life. Hopefully you don't want to be a stupid liberal all your life.
They are paying unemployment compensation merely for being unemployed?.. We are allowing corporatists to get rich.
100% stupid as always. Corporations existed before China switched to Republican capitalism, eliminated 40% of the world's poverty, and became the world's manufacturer.
Do you understand?
Here is my statement in full:
We can't freely compete with China who pays their labor $1 a day and a bowl of rice. The result is ZERO jobs in the US.
.. If we tried to have a complete and total free market trade with China across the board, there would be no US jobs.
Our companies simply cannot compete with China who pays their labor almost nothing.
Here is my statement in full:
We can't freely compete with China who pays their labor $1 a day and a bowl of rice. The result is ZERO jobs in the US.
100% stupid since we don't have ZERO jobs we have 95% jobs or 5% unemployment.
Do you understand??
.. If we tried to have a complete and total free market trade with China across the board, there would be no US jobs.
dear, we do have a virtual free market with all 7.3 billion people on earth and we are doing well despite the liberal interference. Every country has an advantage, China has labor, we have education and hi tech, SA as free bananas that grow on trees. This is why the world's economist all believe in free trade and not protectionism
Do you understand?
Our companies simply cannot compete with China who pays their labor almost nothing.
100% stupid of course. We are competing, unemployment is 5%, and most Americans have smart phone toys at $140/ month.
Do you understand now??
nobody said we did stupid liberal. But, from NAFTA to TPP the world is moving toward free trade and away from protectionism because that is how we increase our standard of living.. NO... we certainly don't have a worldwide free market system.
. Protectionism is required in order to have fair trade.
nobody said we did stupid liberal. But, from NAFTA to TPP the world is moving toward free trade and away from protectionism because that is how we increase our standard of living.. NO... we certainly don't have a worldwide free market system.
Do you have the IQ to understand?
of course that's a stupid liberal lie. Millions of people shop at Walmart everyday and improve their standard of living thanks to lower prices and free trade with China and other countriesA handful of very wealthy people are making out like bandits while the typical American struggles to survive.
, but in most of their governments the wealth is controlled by the same people who rule them, so the people don't actually benefit. We certainly don't benefit.
We certainly don't benefit.
