What To Do About The Long-Term Implications of Automation

I think that when you ask when government should interfere, the answers people give you will depend much more on their personal situations and politics rather than the best for the nation and future considerations.

I am a supporter of a simple theory. Lets call our a nation a house, or wall or structure of some sorts. The people are the building blocks- the bricks, and the relationships between us, both individual and government, are the mortar that holds us together.

In this situation, the bricks are also the makers of the mortar, as well as the makers of the bricks- because we do not start out as bricks. Neither do real bricks, they start out as block of clay mud.

It is the firing process that turns a mud block into a brick- makes it independently strong and able to bond to others in ways that makes the bricks reinforce each others.

With people the firing process is facing responsibility- learning to be independently strong, both for yourself and so that you are not a burden on others. This of course is where our weakness enters the picture. The real job of parenting is to "build" a strong adult person- one who hopefully is strong enough to handle life on their own by age 18. The weaker the parents, the less likely that will happen. While the relationship isn't absolute it's generally true. Stronger parents raise better prepared children- weaker ones less prepared.

While one can't teach or give what they don't have, the real job for each of us is to take what we are given, sort out the trash and discard it, and add the best we can to pass on to our own kids. Rich or poor, regardless of education or background, this is everyone's proper role.

Strong bricks and good mortar build strong houses. However, mud blocks and mud mortar build terrible ones. Weak people are needy- they have little to give, they need everything they have inside for themselves, because they don't know how to make themselves strong.... or simply lack the motivation to do so. They also have no ability to form good relationships, for the same reason; they are preoccupied with their own need.

A strong nation is good for everyone- rich, poor, old young, all of us. It's not only great for today- it's the insurance for the future and future generations, our children. Thus, we should see raising strong children and building strong people as fundamental to all of us. High priority. It is also life's greatest challenge, mastering yourself. With that comes control over your own life- awesome stuff.

It's human nature for many to be lazy, to take the easy road, to procrastinate, to avoid responsibility- and that has consequences. Consequences are natures great teacher, and it works quite well- and people learn, unless you interfere and shield the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions. Once you do that, you not only deprive the irresponsible person of the education of consequences, you teach him that somebody else will be there to cover for him. You make him dependent on others for support, and in doing so you deprive him of the ability to gain self-esteem- pride in who he is, in his ability to be independent. It takes a strong person to refuse free help that shields him from his own weakness.

Now- how does the determine where we help, and where we don't?

We are a generous people- perhaps too generous. Many simply see need and try to help, without realizing that helping can sometimes do great harm.

Everyone knows about the farm communities where someone is injured and his neighbors show up and bring in his crop. That happens all the time- and it's done because they know that if they were the one hurt, the person they are helping would be there for them as well.
When we help people who are in need for reasons beyond their control, people who actually want to be back on their own as quickly as possible- everyone wins. The person we help knows he has real friends, and appreciates them- and will no doubt pay it forward. The people who help are proud of themselves too. Both sides win.

However, when we give support to those who won't support themselves- or at least make their best effort to do so- everything changes. We foster dependence in them, and while they take our money- they resent the dependence, and actually blame their frustration on the people who help them. They tend to accept the idea that society owes them, and the payments aren't enough to make them happy. Not only does the world owe them (we confirmed it by the fact we paid, in their opinion, ie entitlement) but our payments are late and less than they think they are owed. Both sides lose- and worse, it creates an ongoing problem instead of solving a temporary one.

While individuals can make a pretty accurate judgment of when help will actually be helpful, Governments are lousy at it. Governments run on paper rules, administered by people with little personal concern for the case- and thus we use sort of a blanket approach and try to determine a level of worthiness with numbers and claims. We see applicants that learn to play the game, say the right words to get benefits. The lower their self respect the easier that is. Dependence doesn't build self respect, but only cultivates more dependence. It simply doesn't work.

One approach is time limits. Physically fit people with legitimate sounding cause get benefits for a fixed time. However nobody that is fit should be on welfare indefinitely. There should be no multi-generation welfare recipients. Tough love so to speak, is part of the answer- and that's sink or swim. Let natures' process take it's course, and sooner or later, they will find motivation.

We need more bricks- and fewer mud blocks in the wall.

That's what should be, but I doubt our society has the strength to do it. We feel sorry too easy for people who feel sorry for themselves, and they are always the first ones in line.

 

Unemployment compensation at one dollar an hour less than the minimum wage; simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for this dilemma.

The left has a fine capital solution; where is the better alternative choice at lower cost, from the right wing? Don't be slackers.

 

People have no idea how many robots they already own. They may not move about, but they have computer controlled motors that accomplish tasks. Most homes likely already have half a dozen.

Automation is everywhere, I know this because I fix robots. Printers, blood cell counters, blood chemistry analysers, infusion pumps, autoclaves, and lots of other devices.

I see the World through a tech's eye and I see automated toll roads, buildings, Distribution Centers, and offices. I don't see it slowing down, but you can always get a job fixing robots.

If they ever build a robot to do my job, I'll get a job fixing that robot.

 

Mechanical Automation is nothing, we're entering into the age of intellectual automation. We won't need Engineers, Architects, MBAs, Marketing Specialists, Copywriters, Lawyers, Accountants, Teachers, and just about any other professional position.

With Tax Software and online Education we've seen the jobs of Accountants and Teachers go away somewhat. With the rise of more powerful computers and AI you'll be able to teach a computer to not only create, but to create faster and better.

 

The left already has several solutions and we are moving forward on several fronts.

Whence Any solutions from the right wing?

 

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed is a simple solution. The legal and physical infrastructure already exists in our Republic.

What objection can there be to a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour simply for being unemployed?

The inflation canard won't work; higher paid labor will pay more in taxes and create more in demand. And reduce the need for social services.

 

I think what everyone is missing here is that automation will come for you too. There isn't a degree you can earn that will keep you safe.
Outside of being fabulously wealthy, (nice work if you can get it) there isn't a job or profession that insulates you from AI and automation.

 

Our legislators are slackers. They prefer to command feel good public policies, to addressing the exigencies.

 

Anyway, thanks for having no objections to the actual policy, and hope for your vote, when it should come up.

 

How does that work? Only our legislators are delegated the power to make laws.

 

I like some of the ideas in the list, but I think it misses the core issue.

At one time our economy was based on agriculture. When we transitioned to manufacturing we recognized that our system of 8th grade education wasn't meeting what was needed by our new center of competitiveness. So, we made HS a requirement and provided it to all.

I think what we're seeing is another similar transition. We need to make sure Americans are ready to compete as that transition progresses.

The Clinton plan for that involved attention to vocational education on a continuing basis. Surely the last election demonstrated that we can't afford to leave significant numbers of workers and vocational professionals behind.

It also means that an increasing percentage of jobs will require academic education. For example, there are positions in manufacturing today, but they are more weighted to engineers who can design, install and operate automated systems. The guys who do that are highly likely to have degrees and/or training in systems engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and other design related fields.

We can't afford having those in vocational or academic programs having to go into tens of thousands of dollars of debt. That reserves education for the wealthy at a time we need all the brain cells we've got. High education costs mean those coming out are less able to afford to chances - to help advance risky new technology or try to open a new business.

We're spending a lot of focus on manufacturing where other nations are already competitive with us, while I suspect we're not focused enough on high tech, information, clean energy, and other areas where we could have a competitive edge. And, we can't afford to have the high schoolers of today become the left behind workers of tomorrow.

 

Automation eliminates the need for drudgery. Did you know that, because of automation, people make a living playing video games? That would never have been an option in the twelfth century. Everyone, except a very small minority, would have had to be a farmer. Thanks to automation, people can be writers, therapists, bloggers, etc.

Thank God for automation.

 

Your chart on jobs and on social paradigm shift are incredibly important.

I haven't seen it presented that clearly before!!