The Future of Working.

[Sir Og]

The way I see it in 50-100 years(if the world/civilization ramains relatively stable) we are going to have machines capable of doing every job that humas do a lot better and cheaper.
At that point people would have to think of things to do. And I think that most people would engage in arts, sports etc. since these are going to be the only things that simply don't make sence if done by machines.

[Lorizael]

The problem is that there aren't enough jobs out there to employ the millions and millions of people who formerly did cheap labor type jobs.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Sir Og
The way I see it in 50-100 years(if the world/civilization ramains relatively stable) we are going to have machines capable of doing every job that humas do a lot better and cheaper.
At that point people would have to think of things to do. And I think that most people would engage in arts, sports etc. since these are going to be the only things that simply don't make sence if done by machines.

If machines take all the jobs, then many more people will be jobless. They can't all be painters and writers. God knows we have enough of them already. Though they could all be lawyers. Lawyers will never be out of work.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Sir Og
The way I see it in 50-100 years(if the world/civilization ramains relatively stable) we are going to have machines capable of doing every job that humas do a lot better and cheaper.

People said this 50 years ago also. It wasn't true then and I doubt it will be true now.

There are certain jobs that will always get done cheaper by paying some illegal immigrant minimum wage rather than installing a full computer and machine system.

[DaShi]

Well, they thought that vacuum cleaners and washing machines would make housework slide by, but still people spend about the same amount of cleaning house, which in my personal experience seems to be about 10 minutes so I don't know what all the fuss is about.

But in industry and farming, machines can greatly improve effeciancy. America has fewer farmers than China, but can greatly out produce them by its technology. And what the Japanese have done is truly amazing.

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet


People said this 50 years ago also. It wasn't true then and I doubt it will be true now.

There are certain jobs that will always get done cheaper by paying some illegal immigrant minimum wage rather than installing a full computer and machine system.

How do you know they were wrong? The top margin gives us 50 years more to prove them right.

Anyway all I'm saying is that in the long run all WORK is going to be done by machines at lower costs than human work.
People might sweep their floors if they feel like it but they won't have to, because they would be able to afford a machine that would do the same faster and better.

[Kropotkin]

There's a huge supply of immigrants all over the poor parts of the world. There's no chance in hell that the supply of cheap labour for unqualified manual work will run out in many, many years to come. At the moment most rich countries are trying to keep migration down but if there's to be a shortage of labour there's no real problems in changing the rules and policies for labour migration.

[DanS]

But in industry and farming, machines can greatly improve effeciancy. America has fewer farmers than China, but can greatly out produce them by its technology.

Chinese agriculture greatly outproduces that of the United States. But then the United States doesn't have a third of its population working on the farm, but rather about 1%.

[The diplomat]

Re: The Future of Working.

Originally posted by Sn00py
that rich people, don't want to do all the REALLY important jobs that matter.

This statement is erroneous. "low" paying jobs are NOT the only important jobs. "rich" jobs are also quite neccessary. For example, society needs doctors, professors, lawyers, judges, CEO's, bank managers, etc... These are all very important high paying jobs. Without them, you'd be a third world nation.

In fact, it can be argued that these "rich" jobs are more important than "low" paying jobs. For example, a doctor is much more important than a Wal Mart cashier. You can automate the cashier job, and some places even have self-serve check-out lines where everything is automated. You can't automate the job of doctor. Furthermore, a doctor saves lives which requires expertise and skills which will deserve a higher income.

This idea that the rich don't contribute or that their jobs are not important, is one of the biggest fallacies in leftist economic thinking.

If you want a well-developped and advanced society, you MUST have the high paying jobs.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Our standard of living is already very high -- Kings from centuries ago couldn't afford to live the way even our poor do now -- entertainment on demand, travel where ever, when ever, good food supplied from all over the world, etc.

Either you have no idea what it's like to be poor or you are thinking of some very poor kings. I suspect, like most people who make this stupid claim, you have no clue what it's like to be poor.

[:) Smiley]

Automation is not just about not having to pay wages though, another big reason for automation is improving quality and efficiency. Additionally, machines won't go on strike, don't have personal problems, don't require health insurance, and can be fired without any consequence.

[rah]

ALL rubbish.
If those low paying jobs were paid a lot better, a lot of people would be willing to do them.
(as pointed out by the higher pay of garbage collectors. it's now a highly desirable job)
I think a lot of people would prefer to be doing something instead of nothing. And if you paid them more, the negative stigma that is attached to some of these jobs would dissappear. These people already know they contribute and a higher pay would reinforce it.

RAH

[Caligastia]

What about robot rights? Don't they have a right to a living wage?

[Ben Kenobi]

Supply and demand.

Lots of workers for these jobs = low pay

Fewer workers means that to fill these positions, they will have to increase the pay.

[Evil Knevil]

Or you'll get what happens in Britain. The economy doesn't grow fast enough to supply high-end jobs to those qualified. This leads to a depression in wages for many skilled jobs. There is also a surfeit of skilled workers.

Meanwhile, menial PT jobs have replaced many FT jobs as the economy has restructured. This means that, in many cases people are earning less than they would have 20 years ago. Also many skilled people are forced to work these menial jobs, while at the same time collecting state benefit to even get a living wage.

Our Economy is fucked. We have legions of 1:1 Supermarket Managers.