Robots Could Push Unemployment To 50% In 30 years

Liberalism has nothing to do with Communism. Even Socialism has nothing to do with Communism. Liberalism actually precedes Communism and Socialism by quite a bit of time.

Historically even today's Conservatives would be considered Liberals believe it or not. Liberalism was originally formed in response to (as a ideal alternative) monarchies which haven't been relevant in a long time so it isn't really thought of in that way today in popular media but words do have meaning and there is a lot of history that gets handwaved or ignored here by doing that.
I was referring to modern day liberals who want the government to fix all of the worlds problems and control everyone and hunt for every single criminal, give out handouts, and so on and so on and so on. Most of what they advocate is allowing the government to control about everything....which is communism.
 
I don't know why, but this just gives me the image of a civilization like on Wall-E....Human beings need something to strive for...The alpha-male got that way because he worked to be the strongest/best in the tribe.... There's always been the "rich vs the poor" even before money
Wall-E was a kids movie, a funny one, but not realistic. Also plenty of people already have weight problems today irregardless of how much they work. Diet is more important for maintaining a healthy BMI really.

Working to make rich people richer isn't all that motivating to most people FYI and holding reproduction hostage at the cost of productivity is just a way to turn everyone into slaves for a elite few.

Historically "alpha males" we're generally politicking and back stabbing bastards who were good at playing opposing powers against eachother. At least for a while until they mis-stepped or someone betrayed them first on a given deal. The ideal of merit automagically selecting the most able and intelligent to be leaders is a fantasy that has virtually never played out in the real world. You might as well wish to be ruled by Philosopher Kings.

Sure there has always been a rich or poor but it was far worse to be poor under Feudalism or as a Hunter-Gather Tribe than in modern day society or a more Egalitarian one where more of the wealth is spread around via taxes and redistribution.
 
If that's the level it finds, then yes.
population is a major issue...there is no doubt there. I can't live in close spaces. I miss living on a farm. I know the planet can support 20 bil but that will suck. We need space colonization.

Historically "alpha males" we're generally politicking and back stabbing bastards who were good at playing opposing powers against eachother. At least for a while until they mis-stepped or someone betrayed them first on a given deal. The ideal of merit automagically selecting the most able and intelligent to be leaders is a fantasy that has virtually never played out in the real world. You might as well wish to be ruled by Philosopher Kings.

Sure there has always been a rich or poor but it was far worse to be poor under Feudalism or as a Hunter-Gather Tribe than in modern day society or a more Egalitarian one where more of the wealth is spread around via taxes and redistribution.
yea getting good leadership is a joke...look at history. It is the masses fault and again why i saw society is stupid as a whole.
 
This is fine! A genuine free slave labor class without any suffering is what humans have been striving for for 1000s of years.

but during the transition, we need to give the people that work higher wages and fewer hours. work needs to be more cerebral and less physical.
 
I was referring to modern day liberals who want the government to fix all of the worlds problems....which is communism.
Then you are referring to a strawman. Communism also has nothing to do with allowing the govt. to control everything, its about ownership of the means of production and property to create a classless society which would be mostly ruled by arbitrary groups that would be created or destroyed as needed.

You're thinking of a Totalitarian state of some sort, some which historically (ie. China or USSR or N. Korea) have had Communist trappings. Just bear in mind there have be Totalitarian states that had Capitalist or even Liberal trappings too (ie. 1960's era S. Vietnam, modern China, Pinochet's Chile, etc).

Models of govt. aren't models of economics though they're often blended together in people's minds.
 
The Government needs to step in right and now and have more control of the factories and Establishments we have now and keep people alive doing well.
Robots are cute until they take your job away.
 
you are attributing this like worker protection as a source of the best years in the US...hardly. numerous things played a role and the 70/80s were shit BTW and so were the 30s...forgot the depression and the recession?
I specified the 30's to 70's and yes even with the Depression the avg. worker's life improved thanks the New Deal in 1933. Wages improved with productivity all throughout that time and the standard of living and life span increased quite a bit. 80's was when things started to get worse thanks to Reagan's policies and the dual income earner household + more debt became the norm. Now the standard of living is dropping even with high debt and people are dying sooner.
 
Then you are referring to a strawman. Communism also has nothing to do with allowing the govt. to control everything, its about ownership of the means of production and property to create a classless society which would be mostly ruled by arbitrary groups that would be created or destroyed as needed.

You're thinking of a Totalitarian state of some sort, some which historically (ie. China or USSR or N. Korea) have had Communist trappings. Just bear in mind there have be Totalitarian states that had Capitalist or even Liberal trappings too (ie. 1960's era S. Vietnam, modern China, Pinochet's Chile, etc).

Models of govt. aren't models of economics though they're often blended together in people's minds.
When you gave modern liberal leaders like hilary, sanders, tons of liberal media people talk about the government controlling labor, wages, prices, energy, science, schools, medical, stores, and basically everything. It reminds me of all the totalitarian communist countries of history. Thats why i call it communism. May not be dictionary communism but the end result is about the same in real world sense....a shitty existence.
 
yea getting good leadership is a joke...look at history. It is the masses fault and again why i saw society is stupid as a whole.
Society is stupid but as bad as it is now it was worse in the past and so was life in general for even the rich and doubly so for the poor.

No sense in letting perfect be the enemy of good or better.
 
I specified the 30's to 70's and yes even with the Depression the avg. worker's life improved thanks the New Deal in 1933. Wages improved with productivity all throughout that time and the standard of living and life span increased quite a bit. 80's was when things started to get worse thanks to Reagan's policies and the dual income earner household + more debt became the norm. Now the standard of living is dropping even with high debt and people are dying sooner.
you really are attributing things is all sorts of fucked up ways and its really not worth the effort to reeducate you in this. The blindness to the entire large picture of history is astonding.
 
When you gave modern liberal leaders like hilary, sanders, tons of liberal media people talk about the government controlling labor, wages, prices, energy, science, schools, medical, stores
Labor, wages, prices (price controls), industrial and scientific development, schools, etc. have all been either directly influenced or heavily controlled or even created as public institutions by govt. in this country well before modern Liberals showed up.

Are you trying to suggest we've always had a Totalitarian govt? I wouldn't agree with that but whatever.
 
you really are attributing things is all sorts of fucked up ways and its really not worth the effort to reeducate you in this. The blindness to the entire large picture of history is astonding.
You can always link showing the American economy and standard of living didn't improve during that time period.

This isn't possible of course but don't act like you don't have the time to google up stuff on a subject you supposedly know quite a bit about in 2016.
 
Labor, wages, prices (price controls), industrial and scientific development, schools, etc. have all been either directly influenced or heavily controlled or even created as public institutions by govt. in this country well before modern Liberals showed up.

Are you trying to suggest we've always had a Totalitarian govt? I wouldn't agree with that but whatever.
my point is your attributing todays grow and fails to to few thing and being fairly ignorant of the larger picture. Again i am not getting into this here because this is epicly huge topic and not the place. (your deing with the macro of the entire world and choosing a select few and saying they caused it when millions of variables are responsible in their own right and 1000s play critical roles)

No we have progressive become a totalitarian government and its a turn key waiting to happen. Our founding documents are mostly gone.

My point is modern day liberals are statist pigs and are not even liberals by text book definition. They are statist. Jesus some of the shit that has some out of Rubio, Trump, Kasich, Hillary, and Sanders is scary as Zooterkins. I loathe what they and the Sumpreme court has done to this country. Granted, shit started going down hill as soon as they tried to justify the first american bank but whatever.
 
my point is your attributing todays grow and fails to to few thing and being fairly ignorant of the larger picture...They are statist.
Without some concrete evidence this is pretty much just name calling or hand waving though. The word "statist" is made up insult to attack strawman in Rand's books that caught on with Right wing bloggers and the like BTW. They don't even exist. If they do they certainly aren't Liberals, Socialists, or even Communists. Or probably even sane.
 
Without some concrete evidence this is pretty much just name calling or hand waving though. The word "statist" is made up insult to attack strawman in Rand's books that caught on with Right wing bloggers and the like BTW. They don't even exist. If they do they certainly aren't Liberals, Socialists, or even Communists. Or probably even sane.
-_- yea your honestly not worth the time if your that oblivious to the shit that has gone on in this country in regards to elites thinking they did nothing wrong by leaking top secret information by shear incompetence and negligence. Or being able to realize that nearly every debate the candidates are more than glad to piss away the bill of rights for their own agenda. (except for 2 of them) The fact you don't even realize the bill of rights is basically dead. 4th amendment in particular. Thanks USSC! If you dont know what i am talking about you really are beyond ignorant. Go google and read some recent case law like police are allowed to be completely ignorant of the law and thats totally cool and can void the 4th amendment. A million and one other examples i can easily pull out of my ass....I can just give you 10,000 links if you like as a start to various case law and events.

Also in regards to various liberals being statist/totalitarian tyrants or whatever you want to call it....wtf do you want? Did you not listen to the words coming out of bernie and clinton? I dont need to quote them. If you cant comprehend that wow....wow.


if you cant understand the absurdity of claim 5 things as the entire reason the econemy and the world was good or bad you fail to understand basic logic and how the world is affected by an enumerable amount of events.
 
Without some concrete evidence this is pretty much just name calling or hand waving though. The word "statist" is made up insult to attack strawman in Rand's books that caught on with Right wing bloggers and the like BTW. They don't even exist. If they do they certainly aren't Liberals, Socialists, or even Communists. Or probably even sane.

If you are living in a rand book it is you exercising a straw man.
 
-_- yea your honestly not....
Please quote where I said any of that thanks.

Bernie and Clinton both have their flaws but neither fit your definition of statist. Clinton is generally Center Right in terms of economic and foreign policy and Bernie would also only be considered Center Left in terms of his policies too (he is a Democratic Socialist, not a total no hold's barred Socialist). You're just name calling and banging away on strawmen at this point.
 
If you are living in a rand book it is you exercising a straw man.
But I'm not and no one is so I don't see the point of your post.

If you're not just trolling a bit and are actually somehow serious: Her books are bad and she is a horrible person for loving and idolizing a child murdering scumbag as the pinnacle example of her ideology so nothing she ever wrote or any ideas or words she invented should be used seriously.
 
Re: mesyn

I have had about 10 million people claim my arguments are from Ayn rand and I've not read a single book from her.

I'm saying people can use words out in the real world and they can apply to real life.

There are people advocating higher taxation, higher compulsory wages, state intervention, whatever. Statism is a pretty capable word and people filling those attributes exist.
there are people insisting that a slight slowing of state expansion in USA equals Austerity. Pretty terrifying worldview in my opinion.

I don't need a class on communism vs socialism either. That seems to happen in every economic thread on the Internet already.
 
Unemployment is technically not a bad thing... if everyone can still live their life....... like in a utopian society. Too bad we are far from that.
 
Re: mesyn
They're using her words as an insult though. And that is at best. At worst they're beatin' on strawmen, which is why i was doing "class" posting just in case some people were trying to be serious and not understanding some details.

There are also lots better and more accurate words to use and that was also a part of the reason for my "class" posts.

Big part of the reason why those "class" posts keep popping up in discussions like this all the time is because people don't know and others are trying to tell them why they're wrong or what this or that really means. There is nothing wrong with that especially if people keep making the same mistakes over and over on topics like this.

Why don't you link to where people are saying a slight slowing of state expansion=austerity? Is that is what is really being said or is that someone's interpretation?
 
If no one has jobs then no one will buy all the nice shiny shit the robots make. Something has to give. Either we dig holes and pay people to fill them, or we abandon capitalism. I personally would not mind a future where humans are free from having to work to earn money to live. Total automation could bring us that future, and it would be pretty sweet, assuming any such society is also a relatively free one akin to what we enjoy today or better. Therein lies the rub I guess.
 
Yup.

Nothing wrong with robots taking all the jobs so long as we have strong social safety nets like a Mincome and Universal Healthcare.

Without those thing a future where robots take all the jobs would mean only a tiny few hyper rich people would exist and everyone else would be screwed. Basically a return to Feudal/Roman times but instead of humans as slaves you'd have robots as "slaves" and most of the rest of humanity would have to go find a ditch to die in. Or go kill those hyper rich people and redistribute their wealth but they already got murder bots now so you know they'd have better improved Elysium-esque ones in the future to guard their wealth so maybe that doesn't work.
 
They're using her words as an insult though. And that is at best. At worst they're beatin' on strawmen, which is why i was doing "class" posting just in case some people were trying to be serious and not understanding some details.

There are also lots better and more accurate words to use and that was also a part of the reason for my "class" posts.

Big part of the reason why those "class" posts keep popping up in discussions like this all the time is because people don't know and others are trying to tell them why they're wrong or what this or that really means. There is nothing wrong with that especially if people keep making the same mistakes over and over on topics like this.

Why don't you link to where people are saying a slight slowing of state expansion=austerity? Is that is what is really being said or is that someone's interpretation?

We never contracted. We've expanded bankrupted entitlements with record debt in the background.
We are diving a car with duct tape over the check engine light, whistling.
 
Truly the paradigm of society will be rocked by then.

Capitalism will probably be dead before that

I doubt that the current version of the barter system will die so easily.

Let's see if it passes the sniff test?

I want to specialize in making clothing but if I do, I can't raise enough crops to feed my family so I trade clothing for things I need.

Then, in order to make it easier to do the trading, we all come up with a representative system of currency, this way I don't have to actually trade my clothes for squash and pees, I can offer some coppers and earn a few as my clothes sell.

And in a further development, this new form of commerce, when practiced solely between the principles involved, earns the name capitalism which in tern, over the years, grows into the art of making money from making money. In fact, the very best capitalists are able to make their fortunes without ever actually producing any goods themselves.

Obviously some people find this a bit unfair, as humans are won't to do. They see these capitalists as evil greedy people who are keeping everyone down when there is more than enough to go around for everyone.

Now several centuries later someone has created a way to manufacture laborers who will work for the capitalists making them more money while replacing the low paid serfs of the world.

Some people see this as an end to the entire capitalist system, or that the end is near regardless. Some might see this as a boon to free men from common labors and perhaps this will be the end of capitalism. Yet when examined we find a problem still remains, how does one "earn" or in other words acquire, his living?

If he does not hunt it, gather it, plant it, or make it, how is he to have it with seemingly no effort involved?

Perhaps, with the advent of the ultimate robot, every man will know how to fish, plant, sew, replicate, and be free from all these choirs as his own personal robot does everything the individual might need. What a truly remarkable and valuable tool such a robot would be. A very valuable possession indeed.

How will I get mine? or who will give me mine? Why would someone give me one? And the finally really big question, if I had one, what would I do with myself for over 100 years as my life expectancy soars, the population explodes, no one needs anything so there are no wars and no want.

I suppose I can still kill my neighbor and take his woman :)
 
I'll be dead long before then so personally do not care.

p.s. There is now an edit button on the news page - yay!
 

Actually that is pretty rare that it is "wiped" out. If that happens the people involved have been broken the law, and usually end up in jail.
Usually in these cases, they might be a cut in benefits, but that's not the same as wiped out.


Generally 401K's and 403b's are worse than the old defined benefit pensions that companies used to offer at providing for people's retirement.

The Great 401(k) Experiment Has Failed for Many Americans
401Ks are a disaster: Column
You might actually be one of the lucky few and have somehow had your 401K perform well but most have been screwed over by them so they cannot be brought up as a serious and effective option to defined benefit pensions. At least not honestly.

I'll agree with you on that point, however the biggest problem is that people tend to cash out their 401k's when they loose their jobs or quit, even paying IRS penalties. Instead they should be rolling them into their own retirement account and invested in appropriate securities. I've had a number of jobs over the years, always participated in the 401ks. Every time I left a job I rolled it into my own account. Even when I was unemployed after the dot com bubble, I didn't pull anything out of my 401k.
My biggest issue is that the party on the left want to start taxing retirement account. Lets punish the responsible people who saved for their retirement.


Hahahaha "house rich". You sound like a Real Estate agent on TV or something who sells reverse mortgages. There is no such thing as "house rich" though there certainly is such a thing as a housing bubble or boom.
[/QUOTE]

Actually I'd consider myself house rich. I've lived in the same house for over 20 years, and it's almost paid for.
It's worth way more than I could ever afford on my current pay, and if I sold it and moved to a state with lower housing costs (like a decent house for $250K), I would have enough left over to pay for half my retirement needs.
As I said, reverse mortgages might work for some people, but I'd never use one, just as I'd never use a pay day loan or any of the other expensive money services many people use.
 
Even Socialism has nothing to do with Communism.

I don't remember where I originally heard this, but to quote
"The difference between a socialist and a communist is ....the difference between seduction and rape"
 
Most jobs did exist in some form way back when...and those are going away. No amount of "educate yourself" and "move forward" will change that. You're in denial just like the horses were in the 1800s when they thought horseless carriages would create more opportunity for horses if they'd just quit being lazy and re-educate themselves. Sounds silly when I phrase it like that, don't it? What do you educate yourself in? Huh? There are 4 MILLION college kids graduating every academic year (Including associates, bachelor, master, and doctoral degrees)-there are not 4 million vacant jobs that pay a living wage lying empty. People especially on H love to harp on getting massive increases in STEM degrees in the USA when the reality is that there aren't that many STEM jobs out there, not for the yearly turn out of college graduates we have. And the problem is getting worse not better.

Corporations don't want to employ anyone anymore. People are expensive-they expect "wages" and "health care" and an office that isn't a deathtrap. They are inefficient. They aren't perfect and make mistakes quite often (statistically). Robots don't need to be perfect, they just have to be slightly better than humans-which is pretty easy for any automaton. Corporations don't think about 10 years from now when people are generally unemployable and they no longer have customers that can buy anything-they worry about the stock market next week.

Horses are a bad example, as they are not people and do not have even close to the same ability to adapt.

As for those 4 MILLION college kids graduating every academic year, most DO find a job. I have a niece who graduates this year, and she already has a job waiting, if she want it. A friend's kid has already received a high 5 figure offer, plus a huge bonus to relocate.
However, if they graduate with a degree in minority studies, marine biology, or basket weaving, they might have a problem finding a job.

I work for a software company and the biggest problem is finding qualified people who can do the work.

As for Stem degrees, there are plenty of jobs out there. The problem is 2 fold.
Too many people think that having a stem degree means they can expect $100K+ to start. Not going to happen until you can prove yourself.
The other problem is all the people coming in to the country on H1B Visas. To many companies are not willing to pay a living wage and are outsourcing to service companies bringing in foreign labor.
 
I think skilled jobs like IT and engineering will be around far longer than that. The kind of jobs that will be affected in the near future would be the likes of factory operators, as we move towards fully automated factories. But we'll still need the likes of engineers and IT to support the system.
 
We never contracted. We've expanded bankrupted entitlements with record debt in the background.
Contracted? What are you referring to?

The entitlements aren't bankrupt either and are far from unviable. Most of the debt is long term and analogous to a mortgage on a house: so long as you keep making payments you're not bankrupt.
 
Actually that is pretty rare that it is "wiped" out.
No it happens all the time. The company just has to declare bankruptcy and then they can go after the pensions as a "regnegotiation" and then the funds get used to keep the company going which most bankruptcy courts are fine with.

however the biggest problem is that people tend to cash out their 401k's when they loose their jobs or quit
No. The biggest problem is they don't provide enough security for the money invested as a retirement option and frequently get wiped out due to the market taking a dump when people need them the most. Your situation is the not the same as everyone else's so you can't give your experience as proof of its effectiveness here. Especially when those articles both gave evidence showing 401k's widespread failure for most everyone in the entire nation. If it can only work for a few at best then its not a viable option.

My biggest issue is that the party on the left want to start taxing retirement account. Lets punish the responsible people who saved for their retirement.
No they don't. That is a meme that gets repeated on Conservative blogs all the time but both Clinton and Bernie have said they want to raise taxes on the rich, in different manners, there is nothing about taxing retirement funds.

Actually I'd consider myself house rich.
You could consider yourself a billionaire but that doesn't make it so. Economically speaking homes are pretty lousy investments and most of the appreciation we've seen has been due to bubbles over the last 10-15 yr. If you can sell for lots more than you paid then great for you but that doesn't mean it make sense for people to buy at that price too.
 
I don't remember where I originally heard this, but to quote
You could replace the words Socialism and Communism in that quote with almost any 2 vaguely similar things and it'd be about as true. Its not a good quote really.
 
It's a paradox.

If we live in a world driven by monetary systems then who will buy the products and services rendered by the automated workers when half the masses have no money? If no products or services are being purchased then there are no needs for the factories and automated workers. If this does happen then we would actually regress back to society as it was before the industrial age. You would find close knit communities where people work together to provide basic necessities to each other.

The other option could be the Star Trek future of space communism (and I may be wrong since I am basing this off memory) where monetary compensation has been discarded and people are given jobs based on their strengths and weaknesses.

Either way the future looks like shit but all we can do is take it day by day.
Your post reminds me of this meme:

Libertarian-Society-Utopian-Society.jpg



Smashing Young Man said:
If that's the level it finds, then yes.
And I take it you would be totally cool if the natural order found that you weren't part of that 500,000?


SomeGuy133 said:
My point is modern day liberals are statist pigs and are not even liberals by text book definition. They are statist. Jesus some of the shit that has some out of Rubio, Trump, Kasich, Hillary, and Sanders is scary as Zooterkins.
You're conflating a bunch of different issues then calling everything statist, I think that's a pretty narrow-minded approach. Trying to compare a liberal like Sanders or Jill Stein is a completely different animal than someone like Clinton. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be taking this "government = evil" approach, when the reality is a lot more complicated than that. Funding pointless overseas wars to keep the military industrial complex greased is not the same thing as printing food stamps to try and reduce child hunger among impoverished families. Likewise, repairing bridges and highways is not the same thing as giving corporate welfare to companies already worth tens of billions, but you seem to be lumping this all together as "statist."

News flash: people DO want roads, clean drinking water, schools and libraries, and other basic services to help everyone get a leg up, that's why we pay taxes to fund those things. They DON'T want corruption and regulatory capture, even if that's what we currently have. Again, feel free to clarify things, but you're acting like this is all the same thing. If that's what you think, why not go down to the post office and tell the clersk how upset you are over the bailout of the banks? Afterall, they're the government too, so they all must be evil statists, right?
 
I specified the 30's to 70's and yes even with the Depression the avg. worker's life improved thanks the New Deal in 1933. Wages improved with productivity all throughout that time and the standard of living and life span increased quite a bit. 80's was when things started to get worse thanks to Reagan's policies and the dual income earner household + more debt became the norm. Now the standard of living is dropping even with high debt and people are dying sooner.
So much revisionism in such a little package, impressive. We were one of the last to pull out of the Depression so absolutely no reason to conclude the New Deal helped in any way. In fact. thanks to other countries recovering first and pulling us out both with their prosperity and pre WWII military build ups which we directly, indirectly, or clandestinely supplied all sides, we likely pulled out not only not because of the new deal but probably in spite of it.

The only thing the New Deal did was introduce a slow poison the political landscape by establishing the use of the federal coffers to buy votes to achieve the social policies of the rich at the expense of the working Poor and Middle Class.

Social Security is the perfect example. The rich have no part of it. It is a tax on the working classes, primarily the Middle Class, to give money to the poor to assuage the guilt of the rich. Not only did it do that, the same rich used it as a slush fund to avoid paying taxes, with the federal government stealing every dime of this alleged, savings plan, to spend even more government programs we couldn't afford.
 
So much revisionism in such a little package, impressive. We were one of the last to pull out of the Depression so absolutely no reason to conclude the New Deal helped in any way. In fact. thanks to other countries recovering first and pulling us out both with their prosperity and pre WWII military build ups which we directly, indirectly, or clandestinely supplied all sides, we likely pulled out not only not because of the new deal but probably in spite of it.

The only thing the New Deal did was introduce a slow poison the political landscape by establishing the use of the federal coffers to buy votes to achieve the social policies of the rich at the expense of the working Poor and Middle Class.

Social Security is the perfect example. The rich have no part of it. It is a tax on the working classes, primarily the Middle Class, to give money to the poor to assuage the guilt of the rich. Not only did it do that, the same rich used it as a slush fund to avoid paying taxes, with the federal government stealing every dime of this alleged, savings plan, to spend even more government programs we couldn't afford.
you can blame war hawks and liberals for the massive military and welfare spending that has made the country nearly 20 trillion in the whole with 2-3tril last i heard created by the fed "printing" money.
 
Back
Top