• 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

Goshin said:
We're in the same ballpark here, I reckon. I am generally reluctant to increase the size, scope or powers of government if it can be avoided, but something is going to have to be done, and "investing in education" is an established gov't function (even if debatable in some venues).

If the choice is going to be between having half the workforce be unemployable, or putting some tax dollars into making education/ job-retraining more accessible to the down-and-out, I'm going with the latter.


Now you bring up state colleges and tech, vs subsidizing private universities.... and here's some interesting problems:

Gov't subsidies of universities appear to translate into much higher tuition rates, rather than large increases in attendance. Oops. Greedy buggers....

There aren't currently enough "slots" in the state U machine to educate everyone, and especially give extra time/help to those from academically disadvantaged situations...

Are there enough JOBS for all the graduates, if almost EVERYONE starts getting a degree of some kind?


Not saying I know the answers, just that all this stuff gets complicated when you start trying to fix it....
Click to expand...


You wouldn't need to expand the scope. That is part of the problem in higher education. The cost of administration and extraneous activities have overtaken the cost of instruction in a great many universities.
 
Education isn't going to fix this problem, guys.

The simple fact of the matter is, no matter how educated our populace gets, as our technology improves, we require less labor to achieve the same or superior results. This has been going on for some 10,000 years or so, now...with the current exception being that we are now at a point were technology can quite literally do 50% or more of all the work needed for us.

At some point, we're going to have to accept the fact that SOME people are simply NOT going to be employed, at all, ever, and that number is going to grow as our ability to automate the tasks needed grows. No amount of education, no amount of hard work or discipline, is going to change that for some people, period. So, what to do? Do the "haves" let them starve, bemoaning the fact that they don't work, so why should they receive any of the goods? Or do we radically alter out concepts of work? Redefine the work week? Change our society to better suit the times we live in?

Someday....SOON....a farm is only going to need about 30 people. A car factory possibly even less. A construction crew, less. All of the things we depend on to live (food, water, housing) are going to be provided for half the labor or less due to technology. Does that mean the final products will be cheaper? Or will it mean prices remain the same, or increase, and we slide further into a divided land between those with means and those without? Individually, company owners could give a damn about you or me, or anyone else. Their first priority is to their company, to their bottom line. And well it should be, that's their damn job. But at SOME point, the people of this country are going to have to accept that an individual attitude towards economics is a huge steamy pile of fail. That we are going to need SOMEONE to oversee the group, to ensure the health of the society. And that SOMEONE, whoever it is, is going to have to do things that, on the face it, aren't fair, in order to keep this machine rolling. Socialism, you cry! Fascism! Communism! All the spooky boogyman words will be used, liberally. But at the end of the day, it's save the asses of that 1%, too. Because it's NOT their job to ensure a healthy, robust economy and society, even though having such is surely a benefit to them. A requirement, even.
 
KevinKohler said:
...
In the end, the ONLY reason why we should fear less work is because it would equal less pay with a constant cost of living....
Click to expand...


But it doesn't have to be like that. If we are producing more per work hour, the employer can afford to pay more per work hour.

All we have to do to make that happen is for government to create mechanisms which disincentivizes both the employer and the worker from desiring to work long hours. At that point, employers will have to compete just as hard for employees as they do today, and incomes will thus be just as high as they are today.

I'd much prefer some sort of natural private sector disincentive to exist for long working hours, so that the necessity of creating such disincentives doesn't have to be created by government, but no such private sector mechanism exists.
 
imagep said:
but it doesn't have to be like that. If we are producing more per work hour, the employer can afford to pay more per work hour.

All we have to do to make that happen is for government to create mechanisms which disincentivizes both the employer and the worker from desiring to work long hours. At that point, employers will have to compete just as hard for employees as they do today, and incomes will thus be just as high as they are today.

I'd much prefer some sort of natural private sector disincentive to exist for long working hours, so that the necessity of creating such disincentives doesn't have to be created by government, but no such private sector mechanism exists.
Click to expand...

socialism!!! Communism!!!! Fascism!!!!!!
 
KevinKohler said:
...Their first priority is to their company, to their bottom line. And well it should be, that's their damn job. But at SOME point, the people of this country are going to have to accept that an individual attitude towards economics is a huge steamy pile of fail. That we are going to need SOMEONE to oversee the group, to ensure the health of the society. And that SOMEONE, whoever it is, is going to have to do things that, on the face it, aren't fair, in order to keep this machine rolling. Socialism, you cry! Fascism! Communism! All the spooky boogyman words will be used, liberally. But at the end of the day, it's save the asses of that 1%, too. Because it's NOT their job to ensure a healthy, robust economy and society, even though having such is surely a benefit to them. A requirement, even.
Click to expand...

You are right (or maybe I should say "far left"), but it's going to be mighty hard to overcome the politics. There are those who would prefer to live in an impoverished world of pain, than to accept any degree of socialism and live like kings in a world where there is little if any scarcity.

I fear that we will have a virtual collapse of our economy and society before we will wise up.
 
KevinKohler said:
socialism!!! Communism!!!! Fascism!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Fascism maybe, but certainly not true communism or true socialism. I don't advocate for the government to own everything, or for the government to own the means of production. Only to create a set of rules that will work for everyone's benefit.

I expect that we will have to have more of a mixed economy in the future.
 
imagep said:
But it doesn't have to be like that. If we are producing more per work hour, the employer can afford to pay more per work hour.

All we have to do to make that happen is for government to create mechanisms which disincentivizes both the employer and the worker from desiring to work long hours. At that point, employers will have to compete just as hard for employees as they do today, and incomes will thus be just as high as they are today.

I'd much prefer some sort of natural private sector disincentive to exist for long working hours, so that the necessity of creating such disincentives doesn't have to be created by government, but no such private sector mechanism exists.
Click to expand...

Your analysis is always too manufacturing oriented. Shorter work weeks would damage the service sector of our economy.
 
Declan said:
Your analysis is always too manufacturing oriented. Shorter work weeks would damage the service sector of our economy.
Click to expand...

Why? (ten characters)
 
Goshin said:
We're in the same ballpark here, I reckon. I am generally reluctant to increase the size, scope or powers of government if it can be avoided, but something is going to have to be done, and "investing in education" is an established gov't function (even if debatable in some venues).

If the choice is going to be between having half the workforce be unemployable, or putting some tax dollars into making education/ job-retraining more accessible to the down-and-out, I'm going with the latter.
Click to expand...

yep, i agree.
 
Deuce said:
What response do you want? Do you want the government step in and enforce a lack of automation so that more bank tellers are required to run a bank?

No focus on retraining? Democrats put forward bills like that all the time. Seven bills aimed at retraining veterans specifically, all shot down by the GOP. Because SPENDING IS BAD
Click to expand...



Huh.....

Where did I even hint at such foolishness?

I strongly suggest you ratchet it down a tad
 
I think in order for a paradigm shift to happen, we will have to hit rock bottom. Until then, the trend will stay the same.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I think in order for a paradigm shift to happen, we will have to hit rock bottom. Until then, the trend will stay the same.
Click to expand...

Great minds think alike.

I hope that we are both wrong about this.
 
imagep said:
Why? (ten characters)
Click to expand...

Because a shorter work week would require businesses to pay more overtime, hire more employees and pay more benefits to more people, or reduce their hours in the service sector. There is no economic upside for the majority of these type businesses to shorter work weeks.. Hotels need someone at the front desk 24/7 for instance.
 
Declan said:
Because a shorter work week would require businesses to pay more overtime, hire more employees and pay more benefits to more people, or reduce their hours in the service sector....
Click to expand...

Exactly, they will have to hire more workers, essentially spreading out the work that is available between more workers, so that there are enough jobs that every family can have an earned income. That perfectly illustrates my plan.
 
KevinKohler said:
Here's a question for everybody.

Do you believe that the captains of industry, the owners, the 1%, whatever you want to call them, in this country, would let us slide into a near permanent depression if it meant adding a little more to their bottom line?
Click to expand...

I think we are being conditioned to accept a second world lifestyle now.

And if they can get the government to protect them, and they continue to harvest profits at an acceptable rate, they don't really give a **** about the rest of us.
 
Declan said:
Because a shorter work week would require businesses to pay more overtime, hire more employees and pay more benefits to more people, or reduce their hours in the service sector. There is no economic upside for the majority of these type businesses to shorter work weeks.. Hotels need someone at the front desk 24/7 for instance.
Click to expand...
I don't think so....require business to only offer full time jobs as the norm. If the employee WANTS to work a shorter week, it is on them. Penalize companies who use part time work and overtime to avoid more hiring.
Employers should not be required to offer benefits, but pay enough that the employee can buy their own retirement plans and health care insurance.
 
UtahBill said:
I don't think so....require business to only offer full time jobs as the norm. If the employee WANTS to work a shorter week, it is on them. Penalize companies who use part time work and overtime to avoid more hiring.
Employers should not be required to offer benefits, but pay enough that the employee can buy their own retirement plans and health care insurance.
Click to expand...

If the overtime rate was high enough (like changing it from "time and a half" to doubletime or tripletime), then the higher pay rate would be the penality, no need to penalize more.

I do agree about the benefits though. It amazes me how some people complain that they don't want the government to be their nanny, but they don't mind their employer being their nanny. Personally, I like being able to make my own financial decisions, to decide what insurance plan I am going to purchase, and how I am going to save/invest for my retirement. Just pay me the cost of the benefits, and I will pick my own perks.
 
imagep said:
If the overtime rate was high enough (like changing it from "time and a half" to doubletime or tripletime), then the higher pay rate would be the penality, no need to penalize more.

I do agree about the benefits though. It amazes me how some people complain that they don't want the government to be their nanny, but they don't mind their employer being their nanny. Personally, I like being able to make my own financial decisions, to decide what insurance plan I am going to purchase, and how I am going to save/invest for my retirement. Just pay me the cost of the benefits, and I will pick my own perks.
Click to expand...

Single-payer sounds simpler.
 
Deuce said:
Single-payer sounds simpler.
Click to expand...

Simpler yes, but for a variety of reasons, I'm not a huge advocate of socialized healthcare.

I do support socialized health insurance though (big difference).
 
imagep said:
Exactly, they will have to hire more workers, essentially spreading out the work that is available between more workers, so that there are enough jobs that every family can have an earned income. That perfectly illustrates my plan.
Click to expand...

A business that is open 24 hours will not have any additional revenue but have additional costs. Your plan is economically destructive to the service sector which proves my point.
 
UtahBill said:
I don't think so....require business to only offer full time jobs as the norm. If the employee WANTS to work a shorter week, it is on them. Penalize companies who use part time work and overtime to avoid more hiring.
Employers should not be required to offer benefits, but pay enough that the employee can buy their own retirement plans and health care insurance.
Click to expand...

No sick days, no vacation days, no paid holidays will really seem attractive to the masses, no jobs for students, no opportunity to work to meet unexpected bills will be wonderful in Neverneverland.
 
Declan said:
No sick days, no vacation days, no paid holidays will really seem attractive to the masses, no jobs for students, no opportunity to work to meet unexpected bills will be wonderful in Neverneverland.
Click to expand...
and where did I say that?
going to the 40 hour work week in the olden days did a lot to create jobs for those who now have leisure time....
 
HenryChinaski said:
It'll backfire. When too many people are replaced with too many machines, those lower operating costs will mean nothing as people won't have jobs to earn money to buy whatever they're selling.
Click to expand...

But I thought the progressive argument was that welfare produced twice as much economic activity that it costs to put out, or some such BS...?
 
UtahBill said:
and where did I say that?
going to the 40 hour work week in the olden days did a lot to create jobs for those who now have leisure time....
Click to expand...

"Employers should not be required to offer benefits..."
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I think in order for a paradigm shift to happen, we will have to hit rock bottom. Until then, the trend will stay the same.
Click to expand...

Ideologues will blame it on something else and find a way to dig us deeper even then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom