The future of capitalism

[FA_Q2]

Here's the irony, capitalism will force companies to hire people, since if no one else has a job, they can't buy the products. LOL

That is not how it works.

Ok then, enlighten me, what happens when 99% of the people don't have a job and no one can buy the products/services being offered by the owners/bosses of businesses/companies?

Economic collapse.

You seem to think that companies will hire people they don't need purely to create customers. That simply does not happen and you know it. That is why repossessions and depressions happen - it feeds back on itself. People lose money and demand decreases. Then businesses slim down because the demand is not there. Then people have even less so...

At no point are businesses going to say 'hey, we have no customers so lets hire more people to create them.'

That is also the entire idea about government spending to spur the economy - government supposedly injects money into the system so that people have more money to rive demand. This actually does work in the short term but is harmful in the long.

So, what's your Keynesian proposal to fix the Keynesian created problem?

Considering that I do not agree with the current take on what constitutes 'Keynesian' economics (we do not save during the good times to transfer some of that to the bad times) your question is rather pointless. It is also loaded so why would I answer it? Nor is it accurate to state that economic cycles are Keynesian problems considering that there have always been those cycles and that the were even larger in nature before we spent in the manner that we do now. The problem presented in the OP has nothing to do with Keynesian economics at all either - whatever economic theory you happen to believe is accurate does not matter to the issue of making human labor obsolete in the majority of the economy.

Ultimately I created this thread to address possible solutions because I am unsure of what the solution is. I do not buy into fixing this with government handouts or control over the economy. Nor do I agree with the supposed fix in the video presented in the OP. That leaves me with a conundrum though - how are we going to face this issue?

 

[pinqy]

Information on ful time jobs are available. Nothing can show "permanent jobs." How many people are unable to find work is the Unemployment level...so of course the UE rate shows that....i'm not sure why you think it doesn't. And since the UE rate is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, then the inverse shows the the ratio of employment to the increase in the total labor force.

Because the UE doesn't show how many people have given up and are no longer actively trying to find work.

The question was why do you think that the UE rate does not show how many people are unable to find work. If someone has given up trying, then we don't know if she could find work or not.
That someone who is not trying to work does not have a job tells us nothing. Adding them or some of them in with those who are actually trying and failing just distorts the picture.

And from what I am reading, those folks number in the millions.

In March, there were 756,000 people who say they wanted to work, could have started work, had looked sometime in the last year but not the last 4 weeks and stopped looking because they didn't think they'd find a job. Where are you getting millions from?

I read about it everywhere from the business magazines to major newspapers and I pay attention. Here is one source--the guys who run this site are heavily credentialed and, to eliminate any appearance of anti-Obama propaganda, they are Democrats.

Unemployed Join 31 million laid off Americans

Their numbers are meaningless since they don't define their terms. It looks like at minimum they're including people working part time for economic reasons....meaning they're calling people who have jobs "real unemployed." And they're including people who stopped looking for work because they had to look after a family member, or were unable to work for whatever reason, and are now able but haven't looked yet.

That's not honest.

No, not really honest. I was rather surprised that this was a clearly left leaning site though. Usually do not see this from the left because they want to place Obama in a good light (like the republicans that kept asking 'what rescission' under Bush)

Oh, I saw it all the time in 2008 by the Left. Argued with them, too.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I may have not articulated myself well here (and a lot of posters are going to trash this without even reading it) but I would like to hear some of your thoughts on what the future might hold and what you think it might take to get there.

Hi FA,
I can think of several outcomes :
1) People with no jobs and no assets would live on wellfare, while the remaining 1% develop a lavish life style.
2) Large corporations are socialized with the help of the government , the plan would be to distribute shares of the top 10,000 companies equally among the population.
3) The welfare state is completely eliminated , this would eventually create a sharp drop in consumption, which in turn would bring an economic collapse. After that there would probably be an agreement on how to distribute corporate proffit in such a way that no future economic collapses occur.

 

[Foxfyre]

I may have not articulated myself well here (and a lot of posters are going to trash this without even reading it) but I would like to hear some of your thoughts on what the future might hold and what you think it might take to get there.

Hi FA,
I can think of several outcomes :
1) People with no jobs and no assets would live on wellfare, while the remaining 1% develop a lavish life style.
2) Large corporations are socialized with the help of the government , the plan would be to distribute shares of the top 10,000 companies equally among the population.
3) The welfare state is completely eliminated , this would eventually create a sharp drop in consumption, which in turn would bring an economic collapse. After that there would probably be an agreement on how to distribute corporate proffit in such a way that no future economic collapses occur.

History is full of examples of the reluctance of people to work at all, or their propensity to work just enough to avoid being punished, when others claim the rights to what the laborer earns and/or working smarter, harder, etc. is of little or no benefit to the laborer and/or everybody receives the same benefits regardless of their productivity.

Who among us would put his/her wealth at risk to start and grow a business and create a corporation if others would have the power to distribute the profts from that corporation as such people saw fit?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I may have not articulated myself well here (and a lot of posters are going to trash this without even reading it) but I would like to hear some of your thoughts on what the future might hold and what you think it might take to get there.

Hi FA,
I can think of several outcomes :
1) People with no jobs and no assets would live on wellfare, while the remaining 1% develop a lavish life style.
2) Large corporations are socialized with the help of the government , the plan would be to distribute shares of the top 10,000 companies equally among the population.
3) The welfare state is completely eliminated , this would eventually create a sharp drop in consumption, which in turn would bring an economic collapse. After that there would probably be an agreement on how to distribute corporate proffit in such a way that no future economic collapses occur.

History is full of examples of the reluctance of people to work at all, or their propensity to work just enough to avoid being punished, when others claim the rights to what the laborer earns and/or working smarter, harder, etc. is of little or no benefit to the laborer and/or everybody receives the same benefits regardless of their productivity.

Who among us would put his/her wealth at risk to start and grow a business and create a corporation if others would have the power to distribute the profts from that corporation as such people saw fit?

Exactly.... with risk must come reward. It is really that simple.

 

[CultureCitizen]

History is full of examples of the reluctance of people to work at all, or their propensity to work just enough to avoid being punished, when others claim the rights to what the laborer earns and/or working smarter, harder, etc. is of little or no benefit to the laborer and/or everybody receives the same benefits regardless of their productivity.

Who among us would put his/her wealth at risk to start and grow a business and create a corporation if others would have the power to distribute the profts from that corporation as such people saw fit?

Reluctance to work. Yes, that would include most of the royal families ( both historical and actual).
But , yes , I've certainly known co workers with the aforementioned propensity. Nevertheless , we are talking of an extreme case in a not very far future ( some say as early as 2035, others put it a bit farther by 2075) when computers are able to perform any task that humans can do at a fraction of the cost.

What would exatly be the value of labour then ? Sure , there would still be some jobs, mostly R&D, and there might be still room for arts. But the rest of the people ?

Now , I am not suggesting a completely hostile takeover of companies. But rather a gradual shift of share transfer. Since corporations are increasing their wealth , it seems logical that a way to transfer power would be to allow people to own shares. Now any middle class citizen can do that with little effort, the only problem are lower 20% they might just need a little help to do that. It could be through the government , but it could also be achieved through crowdfunding.

That still leaves the decision making part open, still, I think it is something that could be addressed using social networks.

 

[Foxfyre]

History is full of examples of the reluctance of people to work at all, or their propensity to work just enough to avoid being punished, when others claim the rights to what the laborer earns and/or working smarter, harder, etc. is of little or no benefit to the laborer and/or everybody receives the same benefits regardless of their productivity.

Who among us would put his/her wealth at risk to start and grow a business and create a corporation if others would have the power to distribute the profts from that corporation as such people saw fit?

Reluctance to work. Yes, that would include most of the royal families ( both historical and actual).
But , yes , I've certainly known co workers with the aforementioned propensity. Nevertheless , we are talking of an extreme case in a not very far future ( some say as early as 2035, others put it a bit farther by 2075) when computers are able to perform any task that humans can do at a fraction of the cost.

What would exatly be the value of labour then ? Sure , there would still be some jobs, mostly R&D, and there might be still room for arts. But the rest of the people ?

Now , I am not suggesting a completely hostile takeover of companies. But rather a gradual shift of share transfer. Since corporations are increasing their wealth , it seems logical that a way to transfer power would be to allow people to own shares. Now any middle class citizen can do that with little effort, the only problem are lower 20% they might just need a little help to do that. It could be through the government , but it could also be achieved through crowdfunding.

That still leaves the decision making part open, still, I think it is something that could be addressed using social networks.

There were those who thought the cotton gin would put too many people out of work. It didn't.

There were those who thought the advent of the automobile would destroy the wagon makers and buggy whip industries. In fact it pretty well did, but so many new industries were developed to support the automobile that nobody paid much attention to the lost industries.

In the entire history of the world we have never seen such rapid and prolific advancement of anything as we have seen in the electronic industry. So many tasks that once were done tediously by hand are now done by computer and machines, yet there are more jobs supporting those industries than ever existed before that advent.

Humans are in no danger of being replaced by machines. Every new technology and innovation only frees us up to develop new possibilities.

 

[CultureCitizen]

There were those who thought the cotton gin would put too many people out of work. It didn't.

There were those who thought the advent of the automobile would destroy the wagon makers and buggy whip industries. In fact it pretty well did, but so many new industries were developed to support the automobile that nobody paid much attention to the lost industries.

In the entire history of the world we have never seen such rapid and prolific advancement of anything as we have seen in the electronic industry. So many tasks that once were done tediously by hand are now done by computer and machines, yet there are more jobs supporting those industries than ever existed before that advent.

Humans are in no danger of being replaced by machines. Every new technology and innovation only frees us up to develop new possibilities.

Comparing a weaving machine or an automobile with a nearly sentient machine which will probably have several trillions of transistors, several billions of lines of code and a several terabytes of information is stretching analogy to its limits.

But you are right , many jobs have been created supporting the electronic industry. People without the proper skills are having a hard time. Allow me sharing with you a couple of charts

 

[FA_Q2]

History is full of examples of the reluctance of people to work at all, or their propensity to work just enough to avoid being punished, when others claim the rights to what the laborer earns and/or working smarter, harder, etc. is of little or no benefit to the laborer and/or everybody receives the same benefits regardless of their productivity.

Who among us would put his/her wealth at risk to start and grow a business and create a corporation if others would have the power to distribute the profts from that corporation as such people saw fit?

Reluctance to work. Yes, that would include most of the royal families ( both historical and actual).
But , yes , I've certainly known co workers with the aforementioned propensity. Nevertheless , we are talking of an extreme case in a not very far future ( some say as early as 2035, others put it a bit farther by 2075) when computers are able to perform any task that humans can do at a fraction of the cost.

What would exatly be the value of labour then ? Sure , there would still be some jobs, mostly R&D, and there might be still room for arts. But the rest of the people ?

Now , I am not suggesting a completely hostile takeover of companies. But rather a gradual shift of share transfer. Since corporations are increasing their wealth , it seems logical that a way to transfer power would be to allow people to own shares. Now any middle class citizen can do that with little effort, the only problem are lower 20% they might just need a little help to do that. It could be through the government , but it could also be achieved through crowdfunding.

That still leaves the decision making part open, still, I think it is something that could be addressed using social networks.

There were those who thought the cotton gin would put too many people out of work. It didn't.
There were those who thought the advent of the automobile would destroy the wagon makers and buggy whip industries. In fact it pretty well did, but so many new industries were developed to support the automobile that nobody paid much attention to the lost industries.
In the entire history of the world we have never seen such rapid and prolific advancement of anything as we have seen in the electronic industry. So many tasks that once were done tediously by hand are now done by computer and machines, yet there are more jobs supporting those industries than ever existed before that advent.
Humans are in no danger of being replaced by machines. Every new technology and innovation only frees us up to develop new possibilities.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that this has always occurred because people have been able to outthink machines. People moved from labor to jobs centered around thought. Machines are getting to the point that they THINK better than people. Where do those jobs go next? Creativity and innovation are NOT large enough sectors to employ everyone.
It is also false that there are more jobs now than before. That is blatantly false. Go back a few 100 years and you find that EVERYONE had to work. There was not a question of 'labor participation rate' because virtually everyone was in the labor pool in one manner or another. Now, I believe, we are at a participation rate that is almost under 60%. Fewer people are working. This is one of the major advantages of automation, people are fee to pursue other things be it becoming an at home parent or higher education or retirement. There is a problem, however, when that number tips too low in a capitalist society.

 

[Foxfyre]

History is full of examples of the reluctance of people to work at all, or their propensity to work just enough to avoid being punished, when others claim the rights to what the laborer earns and/or working smarter, harder, etc. is of little or no benefit to the laborer and/or everybody receives the same benefits regardless of their productivity.

Who among us would put his/her wealth at risk to start and grow a business and create a corporation if others would have the power to distribute the profts from that corporation as such people saw fit?

Reluctance to work. Yes, that would include most of the royal families ( both historical and actual).
But , yes , I've certainly known co workers with the aforementioned propensity. Nevertheless , we are talking of an extreme case in a not very far future ( some say as early as 2035, others put it a bit farther by 2075) when computers are able to perform any task that humans can do at a fraction of the cost.

What would exatly be the value of labour then ? Sure , there would still be some jobs, mostly R&D, and there might be still room for arts. But the rest of the people ?

Now , I am not suggesting a completely hostile takeover of companies. But rather a gradual shift of share transfer. Since corporations are increasing their wealth , it seems logical that a way to transfer power would be to allow people to own shares. Now any middle class citizen can do that with little effort, the only problem are lower 20% they might just need a little help to do that. It could be through the government , but it could also be achieved through crowdfunding.

That still leaves the decision making part open, still, I think it is something that could be addressed using social networks.

There were those who thought the cotton gin would put too many people out of work. It didn't.
There were those who thought the advent of the automobile would destroy the wagon makers and buggy whip industries. In fact it pretty well did, but so many new industries were developed to support the automobile that nobody paid much attention to the lost industries.
In the entire history of the world we have never seen such rapid and prolific advancement of anything as we have seen in the electronic industry. So many tasks that once were done tediously by hand are now done by computer and machines, yet there are more jobs supporting those industries than ever existed before that advent.
Humans are in no danger of being replaced by machines. Every new technology and innovation only frees us up to develop new possibilities.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that this has always occurred because people have been able to outthink machines. People moved from labor to jobs centered around thought. Machines are getting to the point that they THINK better than people. Where do those jobs go next? Creativity and innovation are NOT large enough sectors to employ everyone.
It is also false that there are more jobs now than before. That is blatantly false. Go back a few 100 years and you find that EVERYONE had to work. There was not a question of 'labor participation rate' because virtually everyone was in the labor pool in one manner or another. Now, I believe, we are at a participation rate that is almost under 60%. Fewer people are working. This is one of the major advantages of automation, people are fee to pursue other things be it becoming an at home parent or higher education or retirement. There is a problem, however, when that number tips too low in a capitalist society.

I am not ignoring anything. Machines can perform many functions more quickly and efficiently that people once did yes, but they cannot think. They cannot create. They cannot appreciate. They cannot anticipate possibilities or their own future needs. And they cannot deviate from their programming. What they do is open the door for more possibilities for the humans who create the machines.

Just look at all the jobs in technology that did not exist 50 years ago just as a result of the electronic age. Of course there are more jobs than ever. The only reason the labor participation rate is so low is because of human error and flawed thinking, not machines.

 

[FA_Q2]

History is full of examples of the reluctance of people to work at all, or their propensity to work just enough to avoid being punished, when others claim the rights to what the laborer earns and/or working smarter, harder, etc. is of little or no benefit to the laborer and/or everybody receives the same benefits regardless of their productivity.

Who among us would put his/her wealth at risk to start and grow a business and create a corporation if others would have the power to distribute the profts from that corporation as such people saw fit?

Reluctance to work. Yes, that would include most of the royal families ( both historical and actual).
But , yes , I've certainly known co workers with the aforementioned propensity. Nevertheless , we are talking of an extreme case in a not very far future ( some say as early as 2035, others put it a bit farther by 2075) when computers are able to perform any task that humans can do at a fraction of the cost.

What would exatly be the value of labour then ? Sure , there would still be some jobs, mostly R&D, and there might be still room for arts. But the rest of the people ?

Now , I am not suggesting a completely hostile takeover of companies. But rather a gradual shift of share transfer. Since corporations are increasing their wealth , it seems logical that a way to transfer power would be to allow people to own shares. Now any middle class citizen can do that with little effort, the only problem are lower 20% they might just need a little help to do that. It could be through the government , but it could also be achieved through crowdfunding.

That still leaves the decision making part open, still, I think it is something that could be addressed using social networks.

There were those who thought the cotton gin would put too many people out of work. It didn't.
There were those who thought the advent of the automobile would destroy the wagon makers and buggy whip industries. In fact it pretty well did, but so many new industries were developed to support the automobile that nobody paid much attention to the lost industries.
In the entire history of the world we have never seen such rapid and prolific advancement of anything as we have seen in the electronic industry. So many tasks that once were done tediously by hand are now done by computer and machines, yet there are more jobs supporting those industries than ever existed before that advent.
Humans are in no danger of being replaced by machines. Every new technology and innovation only frees us up to develop new possibilities.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that this has always occurred because people have been able to outthink machines. People moved from labor to jobs centered around thought. Machines are getting to the point that they THINK better than people. Where do those jobs go next? Creativity and innovation are NOT large enough sectors to employ everyone.
It is also false that there are more jobs now than before. That is blatantly false. Go back a few 100 years and you find that EVERYONE had to work. There was not a question of 'labor participation rate' because virtually everyone was in the labor pool in one manner or another. Now, I believe, we are at a participation rate that is almost under 60%. Fewer people are working. This is one of the major advantages of automation, people are fee to pursue other things be it becoming an at home parent or higher education or retirement. There is a problem, however, when that number tips too low in a capitalist society.

I am not ignoring anything. Machines can perform many functions more quickly and efficiently that people once did yes, but they cannot think. They cannot create. They cannot appreciate. They cannot anticipate possibilities or their own future needs. And they cannot deviate from their programming. What they do is open the door for more possibilities for the humans who create the machines.

Just look at all the jobs in technology that did not exist 50 years ago just as a result of the electronic age. Of course there are more jobs than ever. The only reason the labor participation rate is so low is because of human error and flawed thinking, not machines.

It is not low because of flawed thinking - that is silly. IT IS GOOD FOR IT TO BE LOW. That is unless you think that we had things better 200 years ago when every able body was forced to work past the age of 14.

And it is not a question weather or not productivity through better tools allowed this to happen - that is fact. Do you really dispute that?

Lastly, watch the vid in the op - machines can very well think right now. You would be amazed at what a good program can do these days including learning a task without a single line of instruction. This is the reality - not science fiction.

 

[Foxfyre]

History is full of examples of the reluctance of people to work at all, or their propensity to work just enough to avoid being punished, when others claim the rights to what the laborer earns and/or working smarter, harder, etc. is of little or no benefit to the laborer and/or everybody receives the same benefits regardless of their productivity.

Who among us would put his/her wealth at risk to start and grow a business and create a corporation if others would have the power to distribute the profts from that corporation as such people saw fit?

Reluctance to work. Yes, that would include most of the royal families ( both historical and actual).
But , yes , I've certainly known co workers with the aforementioned propensity. Nevertheless , we are talking of an extreme case in a not very far future ( some say as early as 2035, others put it a bit farther by 2075) when computers are able to perform any task that humans can do at a fraction of the cost.

What would exatly be the value of labour then ? Sure , there would still be some jobs, mostly R&D, and there might be still room for arts. But the rest of the people ?

Now , I am not suggesting a completely hostile takeover of companies. But rather a gradual shift of share transfer. Since corporations are increasing their wealth , it seems logical that a way to transfer power would be to allow people to own shares. Now any middle class citizen can do that with little effort, the only problem are lower 20% they might just need a little help to do that. It could be through the government , but it could also be achieved through crowdfunding.

That still leaves the decision making part open, still, I think it is something that could be addressed using social networks.

There were those who thought the cotton gin would put too many people out of work. It didn't.
There were those who thought the advent of the automobile would destroy the wagon makers and buggy whip industries. In fact it pretty well did, but so many new industries were developed to support the automobile that nobody paid much attention to the lost industries.
In the entire history of the world we have never seen such rapid and prolific advancement of anything as we have seen in the electronic industry. So many tasks that once were done tediously by hand are now done by computer and machines, yet there are more jobs supporting those industries than ever existed before that advent.
Humans are in no danger of being replaced by machines. Every new technology and innovation only frees us up to develop new possibilities.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that this has always occurred because people have been able to outthink machines. People moved from labor to jobs centered around thought. Machines are getting to the point that they THINK better than people. Where do those jobs go next? Creativity and innovation are NOT large enough sectors to employ everyone.
It is also false that there are more jobs now than before. That is blatantly false. Go back a few 100 years and you find that EVERYONE had to work. There was not a question of 'labor participation rate' because virtually everyone was in the labor pool in one manner or another. Now, I believe, we are at a participation rate that is almost under 60%. Fewer people are working. This is one of the major advantages of automation, people are fee to pursue other things be it becoming an at home parent or higher education or retirement. There is a problem, however, when that number tips too low in a capitalist society.

I am not ignoring anything. Machines can perform many functions more quickly and efficiently that people once did yes, but they cannot think. They cannot create. They cannot appreciate. They cannot anticipate possibilities or their own future needs. And they cannot deviate from their programming. What they do is open the door for more possibilities for the humans who create the machines.

Just look at all the jobs in technology that did not exist 50 years ago just as a result of the electronic age. Of course there are more jobs than ever. The only reason the labor participation rate is so low is because of human error and flawed thinking, not machines.

It is not low because of flawed thinking - that is silly. IT IS GOOD FOR IT TO BE LOW. That is unless you think that we had things better 200 years ago when every able body was forced to work past the age of 14.

And it is not a question weather or not productivity through better tools allowed this to happen - that is fact. Do you really dispute that?

Lastly, watch the vid in the op - machines can very well think right now. You would be amazed at what a good program can do these days including learning a task without a single line of instruction. This is the reality - not science fiction.

In all honesty FA, your post is so non sequitur to the argument I was making, I'm not sure what you are arguing anymore.

 

[FA_Q2]

How so.

You directly claim that the participation rate has nothing to do with automation.

I point out that it does and point to a time before automation when all people had to work.

You directly claimed that machines cannot think.

I post that they can.

You call this a non sequitur.

What, exactly, makes it a non sequitur?

 

[SwimExpert]

People moved from labor to jobs centered around thought. Machines are getting to the point that they THINK better than people.

Ding, ding, ding! Now we're winning chicken dinners.

But it does raise the question: Are the machines just that good at thinking now, or do people just suck at it that badly? The answer is that it's a little of both, and that as the former continues to increase it inevitably forces the latter to continue its decrease.

 

[Foxfyre]

How so.

You directly claim that the participation rate has nothing to do with automation.

I point out that it does and point to a time before automation when all people had to work.

You directly claimed that machines cannot think.

I post that they can.

You call this a non sequitur.

What, exactly, makes it a non sequitur?

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be. People can. Therein is the difference.

And I do not think the low labor participation rate is a good thing and I do not think automation has anything to do with it. Automation changes the way we work and the types of work available to us, but I see technology as making many different types of work available that were not available before that technology and that it has not diminished the ability of the people to earn a living in any sense other than how they do that.

 

[regent]

Capitalism is not designed to help nations, governments,or people, capitalism is designed to make money. So far our governments has slowly passed laws that use the capitalist money to aid the American people. It is always a battle as capitalists can also use their money to fight the laws, convincing the people the proposed laws are bad, are un-American, communistic, socialistic and can lead to the destruction of capitalism, but so far we still have an America, a form of capitalism and money is still the biggie.

 

[FA_Q2]

How so.

You directly claim that the participation rate has nothing to do with automation.

I point out that it does and point to a time before automation when all people had to work.

You directly claimed that machines cannot think.

I post that they can.

You call this a non sequitur.

What, exactly, makes it a non sequitur?

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be. People can. Therein is the difference.

And I do not think the low labor participation rate is a good thing and I do not think automation has anything to do with it. Automation changes the way we work and the types of work available to us, but I see technology as making many different types of work available that were not available before that technology and that it has not diminished the ability of the people to earn a living in any sense other than how they do that.

1. That is false. Again, LOOK at what I posted and do some goole-fu on learning machines. People are programming machines to learn tasks that are NOT programmed in through sensory feedback. Exactly what you and I do to learn a task.


2. So you think that labor participation rates of previous centuries being near 100% are better than say modern rates at 65%? 100 years ago you basically worked until death. Today you retire at 65 and take the next 20 years off. Perhaps labor participation rate is the incorrect term to use here – that is my fault. I am referring to the overall population vs. the number of people that work or try to work.

 

[Foxfyre]

How so.

You directly claim that the participation rate has nothing to do with automation.

I point out that it does and point to a time before automation when all people had to work.

You directly claimed that machines cannot think.

I post that they can.

You call this a non sequitur.

What, exactly, makes it a non sequitur?

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be. People can. Therein is the difference.

And I do not think the low labor participation rate is a good thing and I do not think automation has anything to do with it. Automation changes the way we work and the types of work available to us, but I see technology as making many different types of work available that were not available before that technology and that it has not diminished the ability of the people to earn a living in any sense other than how they do that.

1. That is false. Again, LOOK at what I posted and do some goole-fu on learning machines. People are programming machines to learn tasks that are NOT programmed in through sensory feedback. Exactly what you and I do to learn a task.


2. So you think that labor participation rates of previous centuries being near 100% are better than say modern rates at 65%? 100 years ago you basically worked until death. Today you retire at 65 and take the next 20 years off. Perhaps labor participation rate is the incorrect term to use here – that is my fault. I am referring to the overall population vs. the number of people that work or try to work.

The labor participation rate is the percentage of people working among all the people who could work if there is work; i.e. it is based on the number of able bodied people who are still of working age and need an income. So if you have been referring to any other group, then yes, you used the wrong term to describe that.

And the argument of whether technology has created more jobs than it has eliminated--I say yes, you say no--has become quite circular. I believe I have adequately made my argument and you reject it. I think you're wrong but so be it.

 

[pinqy]

How so.

You directly claim that the participation rate has nothing to do with automation.

I point out that it does and point to a time before automation when all people had to work.

You directly claimed that machines cannot think.

I post that they can.

You call this a non sequitur.

What, exactly, makes it a non sequitur?

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be. People can. Therein is the difference.

And I do not think the low labor participation rate is a good thing and I do not think automation has anything to do with it. Automation changes the way we work and the types of work available to us, but I see technology as making many different types of work available that were not available before that technology and that it has not diminished the ability of the people to earn a living in any sense other than how they do that.

1. That is false. Again, LOOK at what I posted and do some goole-fu on learning machines. People are programming machines to learn tasks that are NOT programmed in through sensory feedback. Exactly what you and I do to learn a task.


2. So you think that labor participation rates of previous centuries being near 100% are better than say modern rates at 65%? 100 years ago you basically worked until death. Today you retire at 65 and take the next 20 years off. Perhaps labor participation rate is the incorrect term to use here – that is my fault. I am referring to the overall population vs. the number of people that work or try to work.

The labor participation rate is the number of people who would work if there is work; i.e. it is based on the able bodied people who are still of working age and need income to support themselves. So if you have been referring to any other group, then yes, you used the wrong term to describe that.

No it's not. The Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is not in the military, prison, or an institutuion who is either working or trying to find work. "Need" is irrelevant.

 

[Foxfyre]

How so.

You directly claim that the participation rate has nothing to do with automation.

I point out that it does and point to a time before automation when all people had to work.

You directly claimed that machines cannot think.

I post that they can.

You call this a non sequitur.

What, exactly, makes it a non sequitur?

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be. People can. Therein is the difference.

And I do not think the low labor participation rate is a good thing and I do not think automation has anything to do with it. Automation changes the way we work and the types of work available to us, but I see technology as making many different types of work available that were not available before that technology and that it has not diminished the ability of the people to earn a living in any sense other than how they do that.

1. That is false. Again, LOOK at what I posted and do some goole-fu on learning machines. People are programming machines to learn tasks that are NOT programmed in through sensory feedback. Exactly what you and I do to learn a task.


2. So you think that labor participation rates of previous centuries being near 100% are better than say modern rates at 65%? 100 years ago you basically worked until death. Today you retire at 65 and take the next 20 years off. Perhaps labor participation rate is the incorrect term to use here – that is my fault. I am referring to the overall population vs. the number of people that work or try to work.

The labor participation rate is the number of people who would work if there is work; i.e. it is based on the able bodied people who are still of working age and need income to support themselves. So if you have been referring to any other group, then yes, you used the wrong term to describe that.

No it's not. The Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is not in the military, prison, or an institutuion who is either working or trying to find work. "Need" is irrelevant.

Same thing. The point is they need income--I did edit my previous post to reflect that more clearly--and that is why they are included in the labor participation rate.