• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There will never again be enough jobs...

Frank Apisa

Frank Apisa

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
15,932
Reaction score
4,220
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
...uhhh...lemme rephrase that first thought:

It is my opinion there will never, ever again, be enough decent-paying jobs available for all the people who need and/or want one. Never, ever again. Not in our country—nor anywhere else in the world. Free market dynamics will not produce them—nor will any president, congress, or legislative agenda either. The days when it makes sense to pay humans a living wage to do things that machines, robots, and computers can do more efficiently; at a greater rate of productivity; and at less cost than for humans—are over. They are a thing of the past and will NEVER return.

The reason I’ve stressed that point as much as I have—is to emphasize my next point, which is: We all really have to come to grips with that reality—and our leaders have to lead in a direction that takes this new economic fact of life into account—something that simply is NOT being done.

We are collectively in denial about it. We keep talking about re-training people or about “creating jobs”—we argue about how best to retain jobs now being out-sourced to relatively cheap labor overseas and refuse to recognize that robots, computers, and other machines will one day very soon make even those sources seem prohibitively expensive.

And make no mistake about it, folks, any job for which an efficient machine exists or can be devised—which includes the vast preponderance of all medium skill manufacturing jobs, eventually will be given over to machines for the doing. Anything less, like keeping the jobs open for humans just because we need jobs, is purposefully subverting productivity—which makes no sense.


(This is part 3 of the "observations of the human predicament" series I am attempting.)
 
There is a lot that needs to be done that machines can't do. The teaching force needs to increase so that one person is not expected to control and teach 30 children at the same time. The national forests are overgrown and prone to wildfire, and must be thinned. When those fires break out, someone must put them out. Our roads and bridges need to be repaired, replaced, and upgraded. Levies built a century ago need to be repaired. There are trails to build and invasive species to eradicate.

The problem is, none of the above makes a profit for anyone, which is why it isn't already being done.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There is a lot that needs to be done that machines can't do. The teaching force needs to increase so that one person is not expected to control and teach 30 children at the same time. The national forests are overgrown and prone to wildfire, and must be thinned. When those fires break out, someone must put them out. Our roads and bridges need to be repaired, replaced, and upgraded. Levies built a century ago need to be repaired. There are trails to build and invasive species to eradicate.

The problem is, none of the above makes a profit for anyone, which is why it isn't already being done.
Click to expand...

Yup...and the streets need to be cleaned.

I understand that.

But my point has to do with jobs that will pay people a decent living wage...are either drying up quickly...or have already dried up.

Do we agree on that, Ditto?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yup...and the streets need to be cleaned.

I understand that.

But my point has to do with jobs that will pay people a decent living wage...are either drying up quickly...or have already dried up.

Do we agree on that, Ditto?
Click to expand...

We do.

Which is why we need to address the things that need doing, and pay people a living wage to do them.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yup...and the streets need to be cleaned.

I understand that.

But my point has to do with jobs that will pay people a decent living wage...are either drying up quickly...or have already dried up.

Do we agree on that, Ditto?
Click to expand...

I would say they are slowly drying up.

I work in engineering and very little of the work going on in my office or out at the plants and refineries that we do work at can be automated. And everything that gets automated usually only makes things smoother, but not replacing any jobs.

There's not going to be as many jobs for low skilled workers. Now or in the future. That's why we need to train ad educate people and to fight for as many new jobs as possible.
 
There is more than enough evidence to support the idea that we are getting closer to that pivot point where we cannot create enough jobs for all of the population to "earn a living." And when we try it ends up with a standard of living that is extremely poor.
 
Dittohead not! said:
We do.

Which is why we need to address the things that need doing, and pay people a living wage to do them.
Click to expand...

Step by step, Ditto.

The solutions I suggest are way too complicated to allow it to come out in one piece. If I do it that way...everyone will be all over the place. Better to make the argument with a firm foundation. I want to establish a few building blocks first.

In the Observation #2, we pretty much agreed that increased productivity will result in more goods and services being available for everyone.

In this thread, I just want to establish, as closely as possible, that jobs that pay a living wage to humans for the kinds of jobs most of them are able to do...are either on their way (at an accelerated pace)...or already gone.

These are both building blocks...not the whole story.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There is a lot that needs to be done that machines can't do. The teaching force needs to increase so that one person is not expected to control and teach 30 children at the same time. The national forests are overgrown and prone to wildfire, and must be thinned. When those fires break out, someone must put them out. Our roads and bridges need to be repaired, replaced, and upgraded. Levies built a century ago need to be repaired. There are trails to build and invasive species to eradicate.

The problem is, none of the above makes a profit for anyone, which is why it isn't already being done.
Click to expand...


roughdraft274 said:
I would say they are slowly drying up.

I work in engineering and very little of the work going on in my office or out at the plants and refineries that we do work at can be automated. And everything that gets automated usually only makes things smoother, but not replacing any jobs.

There's not going to be as many jobs for low skilled workers. Now or in the future. That's why we need to train ad educate people and to fight for as many new jobs as possible.
Click to expand...

You are both absolutely wrong.

It's like the old song "anything you can do." Only the lyrics modified to: "Anything you can do a Robot can do better; A Robot can do anything better than you." You are both limiting your view to simple automated devices. You forget the leaps and bound occurring in the areas of Artificial Intelligence and android research.

There is no limit to the capability of Artificial Intelligence (AI). A machine with sufficient independence of thought can replace every human in any job you believe such capability is necessary. Everyone thinks their skillset is irreplaceable, right up until that skillset becomes obsolete and they are replaced. Perhaps in the short-term your engineering and teaching examples remain relatively secure, but in the long-term? Not so much.

Meanwhile, our population continues to grow at an accelerated rate. All the education in the world is not going to help when you are still competing for fewer and fewer jobs in market glutted with over-educated competitors.

The problem is not that far off. In the last 100 years human science has advanced further than the prior 5000. It is not slowing down. It is entirely possible that within the next 25 years we will see the kinds of advances the if left unchecked will replace us all. What will society do then?
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
You are both absolutely wrong. It's like the old song "anything you can do." Only the lyrics modified to "Anything you can do I, Robot can do better; A robot can do anything better than you."

(still typing, don't quote)
Click to expand...

I SUSPECT that robots will be able to do more than we think they will be able to do when AI moves full-mode.

I also SUSPECT Stephen Hawking may be right about the fact that once AI is here...it will be all over for humans.
 
Frank Apisa said:
...uhhh...lemme rephrase that first thought:

It is my opinion there will never, ever again, be enough decent-paying jobs available for all the people who need and/or want one. Never, ever again. Not in our country—nor anywhere else in the world. Free market dynamics will not produce them—nor will any president, congress, or legislative agenda either. The days when it makes sense to pay humans a living wage to do things that machines, robots, and computers can do more efficiently; at a greater rate of productivity; and at less cost than for humans—are over. They are a thing of the past and will NEVER return.

The reason I’ve stressed that point as much as I have—is to emphasize my next point, which is: We all really have to come to grips with that reality—and our leaders have to lead in a direction that takes this new economic fact of life into account—something that simply is NOT being done.

We are collectively in denial about it. We keep talking about re-training people or about “creating jobs”—we argue about how best to retain jobs now being out-sourced to relatively cheap labor overseas and refuse to recognize that robots, computers, and other machines will one day very soon make even those sources seem prohibitively expensive.

And make no mistake about it, folks, any job for which an efficient machine exists or can be devised—which includes the vast preponderance of all medium skill manufacturing jobs, eventually will be given over to machines for the doing. Anything less, like keeping the jobs open for humans just because we need jobs, is purposefully subverting productivity—which makes no sense.


(This is part 3 of the "observations of the human predicament" series I am attempting.)
Click to expand...

You do know that that has been being predicted since Marx? At that time, I believe it was the experience of the weavers losing their jobs that had given rise to the pessimism. That does not mean that you are not right and a new situation is around the corner that will leave humanity with all it needs without people intervening. This blissful state seems possible to me, but not yet at hand.

The low increases of income we are now seeing in the OECD has little to do with this problem, however, if I understand it correctly. It seems more a quite normal reaction of the economy to the introduction of more labor in huge quantity. This has made productivity enhancing capital and jobs that manage its transfer and use in the process of allocation relatively more valuable. This in turn has pushed up the price of capital and so the incomes of persons whose income derives from capital and its management. This should stop and turn around, when the levels of capital attached to labor around the world have normalized. In the mean time "rich" countries will have to resist popular backlash and avoid populist remedies.
 
Captain Adverse said:
You are both absolutely wrong. It's like the old song "anything you can do." Only the lyrics modified to "Anything you can do I, Robot can do better; A robot can do anything better than you."

(still typing, don't quote)
Click to expand...

There will come a time, perhaps. Sorrily, we will probably all be dead by then.
 
Dittohead not! said:
We do.

Which is why we need to address the things that need doing, and pay people a living wage to do them.
Click to expand...

That is exactly, what the US policy has been doing step by step since WW2. By allowing Americans to buy things from all around the world and produce things in any country they like, the number of jobs at "living wages" has gone up and up. This process has slowed American wage growth, but improved the standard of living for Americans at the same time.
 
joG said:
You do know that that has been being predicted since Marx? At that time, I believe it was the experience of the weavers losing their jobs that had given rise to the pessimism. That does not mean that you are not right and a new situation is around the corner that will leave humanity with all it needs without people intervening. This blissful state seems possible to me, but not yet at hand.

The low increases of income we are now seeing in the OECD has little to do with this problem, however, if I understand it correctly. It seems more a quite normal reaction of the economy to the introduction of more labor in huge quantity. This has made productivity enhancing capital and jobs that manage its transfer and use in the process of allocation relatively more valuable. This in turn has pushed up the price of capital and so the incomes of persons whose income derives from capital and its management. This should stop and turn around, when the levels of capital attached to labor around the world have normalized. In the mean time "rich" countries will have to resist popular backlash and avoid populist remedies.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree this is nothing new.

But I think it is a "problem" we have to deal with.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I certainly agree this is nothing new.

But I think it is a "problem" we have to deal with.
Click to expand...

That much is probably true. What we should do, however, is not quite so clear. Certainly we should try to explain, what has happened and why it is generally a positive development. Otherwise the discontent will fester.
 
roughdraft274 said:
You're absolutely wrong...

Ok.
Click to expand...

Frank Apisa said:
I SUSPECT that robots will be able to do more than we think they will be able to do when AI moves full-mode.

I also SUSPECT Stephen Hawking may be right about the fact that once AI is here...it will be all over for humans.
Click to expand...

joG said:
There will come a time, perhaps. Sorrily, we will probably all be dead by then.
Click to expand...

(SIGH) What part of "still typing, don't quote" is so hard to understand? :confused:

I do that to save a space in the thread so my first point does not disappear from the first ten responses (the ones people usually read, if they read anything after the OP at all). Patience will allow you to see the entire response before quoting and replying to a half-posted thought. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
joG said:
That much is probably true. What we should do, however, is not quite so clear. Certainly we should try to explain, what has happened and why it is generally a positive development. Otherwise the discontent will fester.
Click to expand...

I think "gaining mechanical advantage" IS a positive development...but all that will be handled in its turn.

For now, I am just interested in whether or not people agree with what was stated in the OP...and if there is disagreement...what that disagreement is.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yup...and the streets need to be cleaned.

I understand that.

But my point has to do with jobs that will pay people a decent living wage...are either drying up quickly...or have already dried up.

Do we agree on that, Ditto?
Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:
We do.

Which is why we need to address the things that need doing, and pay people a living wage to do them.
Click to expand...

I guess we'd all better plan to 'off' ourselves, or get used to living destitute lives then.
Or better yet, forcibly confiscate from those that have something, giving to those that don't.
I mean isn't this where all this is heading?
 
Captain Adverse said:
(SIGH) What part of "still typing, don't quote" is so hard to understand? :confused:
Click to expand...

What you added to your post changes nothing. It will be a slow encroachment on jobs. Not quick or fast paced at all. And the more automation we have, the more automation experts and supervisors we will need. And the more people installing and built these things we will need. I'm not saying that it's not going to happen, I'm just saying it's going to be slow sailing and that education and job training can limit the immediate effects of it for many many people. And that at no point in time will automation get rid of all jobs. That's like saying that all banks will get rid of employees because of internet banking and atm's. It's not reality.
 
eohrnberger said:
I guess we'd all better plan to 'off' ourselves, or get used to living destitute lives then.
Or better yet, forcibly confiscate from those that have something, giving to those that don't.
I mean isn't this where all this is heading?
Click to expand...

Isn't anything that does not follow what your masters dictate you must accept...always heading in the wrong direction, Eo?
 
Frank Apisa said:
I think "gaining mechanical advantage" IS a positive development...but all that will be handled in its turn.

For now, I am just interested in whether or not people agree with what was stated in the OP...and if there is disagreement...what that disagreement is.
Click to expand...

OKay. So I disagree with the timing.
 
roughdraft274 said:
What you added to your post changes nothing. It will be a slow encroachment on jobs. Not quick or fast paced at all. And the more automation we have, the more automation experts and supervisors we will need. And the more people installing and built these things we will need. I'm not saying that it's not going to happen, I'm just saying it's going to be slow sailing and that education and job training can limit the immediate effects of it for many many people. And that at no point in time will automation get rid of all jobs. That's like saying that all banks will get rid of employees because of internet banking and atm's. It's not reality.
Click to expand...

Don't have to get rid of all of 'em for it to be a MAJOR problem, Roughdraft.

We already are at a point where we do not have enough of the decent paying jobs for the less skilled...and as the machines get more sophisticated...they will take more jobs up the sophistication ladder.

We are in trouble. Best to handle it before it gets completely out of hand.
 
eohrnberger said:
I guess we'd all better plan to 'off' ourselves, or get used to living destitute lives then.
Or better yet, forcibly confiscate from those that have something, giving to those that don't.
I mean isn't this where all this is heading?
Click to expand...
...Isn't that better than mass suicide?
 
Frank Apisa said:
...uhhh...lemme rephrase that first thought:

It is my opinion there will never, ever again, be enough decent-paying jobs available for all the people who need and/or want one. Never, ever again. Not in our country—nor anywhere else in the world. Free market dynamics will not produce them—nor will any president, congress, or legislative agenda either. The days when it makes sense to pay humans a living wage to do things that machines, robots, and computers can do more efficiently; at a greater rate of productivity; and at less cost than for humans—are over. They are a thing of the past and will NEVER return.

The reason I’ve stressed that point as much as I have—is to emphasize my next point, which is: We all really have to come to grips with that reality—and our leaders have to lead in a direction that takes this new economic fact of life into account—something that simply is NOT being done.

We are collectively in denial about it. We keep talking about re-training people or about “creating jobs”—we argue about how best to retain jobs now being out-sourced to relatively cheap labor overseas and refuse to recognize that robots, computers, and other machines will one day very soon make even those sources seem prohibitively expensive.

And make no mistake about it, folks, any job for which an efficient machine exists or can be devised—which includes the vast preponderance of all medium skill manufacturing jobs, eventually will be given over to machines for the doing. Anything less, like keeping the jobs open for humans just because we need jobs, is purposefully subverting productivity—which makes no sense.


(This is part 3 of the "observations of the human predicament" series I am attempting.)
Click to expand...


I don't disagree...where all other variables are unchanged. The question is why are all of the other variables unchanged?. This is a matter of efficiency and we continue to improve in terms of efficiency every year. So why hasn't the work week shortened in almost 100 years? Why is the standard level of education still 12 years?

I guess im saying that rather than progress to a time where we fight over the very last jobs, why are we not progressing to something that's less work and more enlightenment?
 
Frank Apisa said:
...uhhh...lemme rephrase that first thought:

It is my opinion there will never, ever again, be enough decent-paying jobs available for all the people who need and/or want one. Never, ever again. Not in our country—nor anywhere else in the world. Free market dynamics will not produce them—nor will any president, congress, or legislative agenda either. The days when it makes sense to pay humans a living wage to do things that machines, robots, and computers can do more efficiently; at a greater rate of productivity; and at less cost than for humans—are over. They are a thing of the past and will NEVER return.

The reason I’ve stressed that point as much as I have—is to emphasize my next point, which is: We all really have to come to grips with that reality—and our leaders have to lead in a direction that takes this new economic fact of life into account—something that simply is NOT being done.

We are collectively in denial about it. We keep talking about re-training people or about “creating jobs”—we argue about how best to retain jobs now being out-sourced to relatively cheap labor overseas and refuse to recognize that robots, computers, and other machines will one day very soon make even those sources seem prohibitively expensive.

And make no mistake about it, folks, any job for which an efficient machine exists or can be devised—which includes the vast preponderance of all medium skill manufacturing jobs, eventually will be given over to machines for the doing. Anything less, like keeping the jobs open for humans just because we need jobs, is purposefully subverting productivity—which makes no sense.


(This is part 3 of the "observations of the human predicament" series I am attempting.)
Click to expand...

Automation will definitely lower demand for workers. Yep. I agree. Not sure I see it as the end of the world or anything like that. But, it will definitely shift power away from labor and into the hands of capital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom