• 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!

50% of occupations today will no longer exist in 2025: Report

There are creative computers, for example this one can compose music.

How many critically acclaimed records has it come out with? Listen, any computer can put a few numbers together and create something. That's not in question. What is in question is whether it will replace a human. Creation doesn't mean it's going to be embraced by a general public and to this day, they haven't been embraced anymore than the invention of animatronic dogs have replaced real dogs in any sense of the word. So yes, a computer can put a few notes out and make it sound like something. It's not going to put emotions behind it and then be able to explain the meaning of that creation any time soon.
 
There are creative computers, for example this one can compose music.


Yup.

My son is a commercial music major, and he uses software that allows him to compose the melody line and the harmony part is automatically created based upon the melody line. The thing about western music is that it's mathematical in nature, which allows for the ability for software to project what the next note should be based upon standard western music theory.

Right now, the higher income earners in the music field are into EDM (electronic dance music) where it is all computer generated. It still takes someone with skills, but one person can now do in minutes what used to take hours.
 
I feel sorry for my kids and their kids (when they have them).

Then why are you a libertarian? It's the libertarian mindset that's most likely to keep us from advancing the economic changes that we will need in the future.

I expect that their lives will be much more fulfilling. We just need to work out the economic details first, the libertarian ideal would doom our kids in the future, the solution doesn't have to be communist or socialist, but it will involve significant government regulation of the workplace.
 
Strippin and hookin are safe.

You would think so, but if we don't solve the distribution of income issues that are approaching us, there will not be enough customers with money to support many strippers or hookers.
 
so what we'll need is either a massive welfare state or government provided employment, or a government mandate to employ. if trends continue like they are government is the only solution.
 
How many critically acclaimed records has it come out with? Listen, any computer can put a few numbers together and create something. That's not in question. What is in question is whether it will replace a human. Creation doesn't mean it's going to be embraced by a general public and to this day, they haven't been embraced anymore than the invention of animatronic dogs have replaced real dogs in any sense of the word. So yes, a computer can put a few notes out and make it sound like something. It's not going to put emotions behind it and then be able to explain the meaning of that creation any time soon.

That's a good point, but composers and songwriters don't make good money anymore. If someone needs a song, let's say for a movie, then all they have to do is go to itunes, and they can listen to millions of songs by millions of writers (most of who have never sold any music at all because there is simply more music creators these days than there are music buyers), and select whatever seems to work best. An artist friend of mine recently posted a letter that he got from a movie producer who asked for the rights to use his music - with no compensation for the music. The producer pitched this on the bases that the music writer would get free publicity and status for having his music in a major film.

Another friend of mine recently got his first royalty check from some music he wrote and recorded decades ago, I think it was something like $5.37 (itunes won't mail checks until you have at least $5 due).
 
You would think so, but if we don't solve the distribution of income issues that are approaching us, there will not be enough customers with money to support many strippers or hookers.

Ridiculous. There is no distribution of income problem, at least not one that can be solved by taxation.
 
so what we'll need is either a massive welfare state or government provided employment, or a government mandate to employ. if trends continue like they are government is the only solution.

Government will be part of the solution, but it doesn't have to be a massive welfare state. Nor does it have to involve communism or socialism. We can simply modify the rules of capitalism to fit our needs.

There are lots and lots of alternatives to the welfare state, we just have to figure out how to make them politically viable.

Since we can safely assume that there will always at least some need for human labor, then it's really all about reducing the working hours per lifetime, to the point that there are enough jobs that every family can have at least one. So lets say that the unemployment rate become 50% due to advances in technology (hopefully we will resolve this issue far before we get to that point), and the average worker worked 34 hours per week. All we would need to do is to reduce the hours work to 17 hours a week, and the issue of unemployment. Government could mandate a maximum work week, or it could require quadruple pay for overtime, etc. It could make our income tax system much more progressive (thus disincentivizing people from working more than their fair share). And with employers having to compete for employees just as hard as they do now, wages would naturally rise so that a 17 hour worker could make just as much as a 34 hour worker does today, and since the reason for the decrease in work hours is due to increases in efficiency and productivity, the employer could afford to pay a full week's pay for a partial week's labor.

There's a million and one ways to make this happen.
 
That's a good point, but composers and songwriters don't make good money anymore. If someone needs a song, let's say for a movie, then all they have to do is go to itunes, and they can listen to millions of songs by millions of writers (most of who have never sold any music at all because there is simply more music creators these days than there are music buyers), and select whatever seems to work best. An artist friend of mine recently posted a letter that he got from a movie producer who asked for the rights to use his music - with no compensation for the music. The producer pitched this on the bases that the music writer would get free publicity and status for having his music in a major film.

Another friend of mine recently got his first royalty check from some music he wrote and recorded decades ago, I think it was something like $5.37 (itunes won't mail checks until you have at least $5 due).
Music isn't gotten that way. A license has to be obtained from whomever has the licencing rights which is held by a publishing company. And no Computer based music will never improve upon human beings picking up a real instrument and playing music.
 
Ridiculous. There is no distribution of income problem, at least not one that can be solved by taxation.

Sorry, I don't remember saying anything about taxation, but I have to disagree about the distribution of income. Also, we are talking about in the future, more so than today, and with the assumption that in the future there will be far less need for human labor due to improvements in our technology.

Once there are no longer enough jobs so that every family can have one, then the masses will be absolutely broke (barring a massive welfare state), and thus they will not be able to afford hookers and strippers. I'd call that an income distribution problem.

So why do YOU think that there will be no distribution of income problem, and why do you not think that it could be solved (at least in part) by taxation? Do you have a different vision of the future?
 
Music isn't gotten that way. A license has to be obtained from whomever has the licencing rights which is held by a publishing company. And no Computer based music will never improve upon human beings picking up a real instrument and playing music.

I agree that no computer can ever improve upon human musical performances, but the economy disagrees with both of us. Thousands of musicians have been replaced by music recording and playback, and by computerized music. Seriously, how many trumpet players do you know who make a living wage just playing trumpet?

EDM DJs are currently the highest paid music performers. Some of them make in excess of $35 million a year. These are guys litterally "playing" computers on stage.

And most music writers today aren't going through any licensing company, they are litterally self publishing and selling their music on a pay for download bases. Often, the pay for the fruits of their labor is $zero or pennies.
 
Then why are you a libertarian? It's the libertarian mindset that's most likely to keep us from advancing the economic changes that we will need in the future.

I expect that their lives will be much more fulfilling. We just need to work out the economic details first, the libertarian ideal would doom our kids in the future, the solution doesn't have to be communist or socialist, but it will involve significant government regulation of the workplace.

Me self-identifying as a Libertarian has what to do with me feeling bad for my kids and grandkids that 50% of today's occupations will no longer exist in 2025?
 
You would think so, but if we don't solve the distribution of income issues that are approaching us, there will not be enough customers with money to support many strippers or hookers.

People always have money for strippers.
 
Me self-identifying as a Libertarian has what to do with me feeling bad for my kids and grandkids that 50% of today's occupations will no longer exist in 2025?

Libertarians generally oppose government intervention into our economy.

In the future, probably much sooner than what most people think, unless we have more government intervention in our economy, there will not be enough income opportunities for every family to be able to have at least one income earner.

So basically, by being a libertarian, you are dooming your kids and grandkids to a life of poverty. Unless of course libertarians evolve as our economy does.

I have a very strong libertarian streak, I absolutely hate government intervention, and I oppose socialism and communism. I don't even agree that we should have means tested welfare, or subsidize anything for any reason. But I realize that due to changes in technology, the world is going to be a terrible place if we don't have appropriate government intervention to change the rules of capitalism so that they will work for most everyone as our economy changes.
 
I agree that no computer can ever improve upon human musical performances, but the economy disagrees with both of us. Thousands of musicians have been replaced by music recording and playback, and by computerized music. Seriously, how many trumpet players do you know who make a living wage just playing trumpet?

EDM DJs are currently the highest paid music performers. Some of them make in excess of $35 million a year. These are guys litterally "playing" computers on stage.

And most music writers today aren't going through any licensing company, they are litterally self publishing and selling their music on a pay for download bases. Often, the pay for the fruits of their labor is $zero or pennies.

You're right about one thing in that there is not as much revenue generated in music sales today due to technology, MP3 and the internet. Where bands have compensated for this lost revenue is live performance. You can use pro-tool and cakewalk to your hearts content in a studio but no one is going to go to a venue to watch some dude push buttons on a stage. Do you really think that the Boston Symphony Orchestra could be replaced by two guys with synthesizers? Never happen. And all of this top 40 pop **** that is over produced with pro-tools is marketed to teens to twenty somethings who haven't developed an ear for what's real yet. People will always hunger for organic music. I'm in a Rockabilly roots band. Lead guitar, Acoustic rhythm and an upright bass. We record analog to two track. There is no ****ing way you can fake that real sound. I've heard records where bands try to replicate that warm tube sound digitally, I always know, you can't fool me. And if the **** ever hit the fan. I'd grab My guitar and start busking. Good buskers make pretty good money. My point is there will always be money to be made by musicians playing real instruments.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I don't remember saying anything about taxation, but I have to disagree about the distribution of income. Also, we are talking about in the future, more so than today, and with the assumption that in the future there will be far less need for human labor due to improvements in our technology.

Once there are no longer enough jobs so that every family can have one, then the masses will be absolutely broke (barring a massive welfare state), and thus they will not be able to afford hookers and strippers. I'd call that an income distribution problem.

So why do YOU think that there will be no distribution of income problem, and why do you not think that it could be solved (at least in part) by taxation? Do you have a different vision of the future?

There is no distribution of income problem. We live in a global economy. The wages of workers overseas are growing as a result of their increased productivity. You just are falling victim to the American arrogance that we are entitled to something over someone who is not an American. American manufacturing will die unless the transportation/import costs for their goods are increased or Americans will produce for competitive costs. Taxing the wealthy does nothing but perpetuate a broken worldview. There will be plenty of jobs to go around. Projections are that we will have a shortfall of unskilled labor. Be lazy and pick apples, be an innovator who adapts to an ever changing marketplace, show initiative and become a doctor or a lawyer, or marry a Walton heir. The choice is there and will continue to be there. You are doing nothing but playing into class warfare nonsense perpetuated by the Democratic Party to keep the unions pulling the D lever instead of looking for or starting something better for workers.
 
Me self-identifying as a Libertarian has what to do with me feeling bad for my kids and grandkids that 50% of today's occupations will no longer exist in 2025?

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

What's worse, nine out of the top ten occupations in the US today pay less than $35,000 a year! If this is a trend, it sure isn't the brightest outlook for this Country! We can't compete with countries across the world that pay their workers $5 a day, so this has cost America over 20 million jobs over the past 25 years, mostly in the manufacturing sector. I feel sorry for all our children and grandchildren. :boohoo:
 
There is no distribution of income problem. We live in a global economy. The wages of workers overseas are growing as a result of their increased productivity. You just are falling victim to the American arrogance that we are entitled to something over someone who is not an American. American manufacturing will die unless the transportation/import costs for their goods are increased or Americans will produce for competitive costs. Taxing the wealthy does nothing but perpetuate a broken worldview. There will be plenty of jobs to go around. Projections are that we will have a shortfall of unskilled labor. Be lazy and pick apples, be an innovator who adapts to an ever changing marketplace, show initiative and become a doctor or a lawyer, or marry a Walton heir. The choice is there and will continue to be there. You are doing nothing but playing into class warfare nonsense perpetuated by the Democratic Party to keep the unions pulling the D lever instead of looking for or starting something better for workers.



Be lazy and pick apples?


Ever done any farmwork? I doubt it... or you wouldn't use "lazy" in the same sentence....
 
...You can use pro-tool and cakewalk to your hearts content in a studio but no one is going to go to a venue to watch some dude push buttons on a stage....

Like HELL you say...




Guess I proved you wrong. 250,000 people paid $400 each to watch some dudes push buttons on a stage last month in Georgia.

By the way, my kid is in this video.
 
Last edited:
We have to be careful with this. Technology has traditionally had a short-term negative impact for labor when implemented, but humanity has adopted. I understand that many now are challenging this model, because the relative performance of computers is substantially greater than machines in centuries past, but I find a doom and gloom scenario incredibly unlikely. We find means of adjusting to technological advances and we do not desire to have persons out of work (and worse yet, destitute).
 
Be lazy and pick apples?


Ever done any farmwork? I doubt it... or you wouldn't use "lazy" in the same sentence....

If you are lazy when it comes to your education and planning, then you will be picking apples. Yes I have done farm work. Quite a bit of farm work and if the choice was to do it or be unemployed or living off other people, I would still choose farm work.
 
We have to be careful with this. Technology has traditionally had a short-term negative impact for labor when implemented, but humanity has adopted. I understand that many now are challenging this model, because the relative performance of computers is substantially greater than machines in centuries past, but I find a doom and gloom scenario incredibly unlikely. We find means of adjusting to technological advances and we do not desire to have persons out of work (and worse yet, destitute).

Labor is only one aspect of production costs. There are other factors that can give businesses competitive advantage over cheaper labor. The market will sort itself out.
 
There is no distribution of income problem. We live in a global economy. The wages of workers overseas are growing as a result of their increased productivity. You just are falling victim to the American arrogance that we are entitled to something over someone who is not an American. American manufacturing will die unless the transportation/import costs for their goods are increased or Americans will produce for competitive costs. Taxing the wealthy does nothing but perpetuate a broken worldview. There will be plenty of jobs to go around. Projections are that we will have a shortfall of unskilled labor. Be lazy and pick apples, be an innovator who adapts to an ever changing marketplace, show initiative and become a doctor or a lawyer, or marry a Walton heir. The choice is there and will continue to be there. You are doing nothing but playing into class warfare nonsense perpetuated by the Democratic Party to keep the unions pulling the D lever instead of looking for or starting something better for workers.

Manufacturing has been migrating back to the US. Unfortunately, manufacturing jobs haven't.

Computers and robots can be operated just as cheaply in the US as in any country in the world. As we continue to automate and computerize, no country will have a particular economic advantage in the cost of production, so international trade will actually likely decrease.

Even China has been loosing manufacturing jobs, not to cheaper labor countries, but to automation.

I have no idea why you are trying to make this a political issue. I'm not a liberal, or even a democrat. It's not a political issue, it's a technology issue.
 
We have to be careful with this. Technology has traditionally had a short-term negative impact for labor when implemented, but humanity has adopted. I understand that many now are challenging this model, because the relative performance of computers is substantially greater than machines in centuries past, but I find a doom and gloom scenario incredibly unlikely. We find means of adjusting to technological advances and we do not desire to have persons out of work (and worse yet, destitute).

Exactly.

Of course one of the ways that we adapted is that we reduced our work hours.

A hundred years ago there really was no such thing as retirement while one still had their health. Most people entered the work force as a young child, and worked pretty much vacationless for the rest of their lifetime. The standard work week was 70 hours in most manufacturing plants.

I believe this trend to be the best direction, although I'm not so sure that it's going to occur if all we rely on is the invisible hand.
 
Back
Top Bottom