What To Do About The Long-Term Implications of Automation

It's been many years since I read it. I quick search turned up a variety of studies, but not that one in particular. Here's a clip from a Heritage Foundation paper that reviewed 38 studies on the effects of unions: "Economic theory consequently suggests that unions raise the wages of their members at the cost of lower profits and fewer jobs, that lower profits cause businesses to invest less, and that unions have a smaller effect in competitive markets (where a union cannot obtain a monopoly). Dozens of economic studies have examined how unions affect the economy, and empirical research largely confirms the results of economic theory." http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-la...-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy

I'll look some more tomorrow.

 

Heritage is a source for anti-union right wing disinformation and thus has zero credibility on this issue.

 

So, read the 38 reports it summarizes. Dismissing information based on the source is a logical error, an ad hominem argument even if the "person" is an organization. It's not enough to say, "That study was funded by the tobacco industry!", you have to point out why the study itself is flawed.

 

the free market is governed by lawful government force and the people choose how they want to be governed in a free country.

those left behind who are unable or unwilling to compete in an innovative and automated market place are many, and they find dignity in gainful employment as opposed to welfare unfortunately.

the people have spoken with tariffs and a huge wall which is not my suggestion, so please do not shoot the messenger.

 

and that is why socialism is not the solution to automation in America, the people who lost their jobs to robots are the ones who will be drafted into the revolution for survival.

in socialist countries it is easier to control the people left behind by placing them on welfare, that way you can make them 'keep busy' by taking away their means of survival.

this is called financial domination and blackmail. it is actually an alternative lifestyle, but it should not be backed by lawful government force for people who do not consent to it.

 

I think a combination of socialism and capitalism will be a reality of the future, whether we like it or not, companies will make enormous amounts of money with automation, it would be fair for government to tax them on it.....on what scale is the question. I don't particularly like the doomsday predictions for automation, I believe government will intervene to stop catastrophic consequences.

 

To be honest I do not believe the government would be very good at the four phase approach. The free market approach will end up very ugly so the four phase approach may be the best option. It would be great if we could evolve to a point that government could supply everyone with a decent standard of living but any time in history that a government gains this kind of control it ends badly. An approach where the people have the power would be best.

 

the four phased approach won't work because it begins by meeting 'basic needs'

Americans pursue happiness with the dignity of gainful employment, not by meeting their basic needs. that is what made America great.

the solution to automation is menial work with high wages that generously compensate for inflation, which can be accomplished with tariffs and a huge wall.

 

Not a bad idea but I do not know how that could be accomplished. I saw this coming a few decades ago and kept on advancing myself to keep up with technology. Things advanced slower than I thought they would but I have seen some pretty impressive advancements. I do not believe technology will be in place before I am ready to retire so I probably will not have to deal with huge problems. The next generation? Not so much.

 

WHat you said. This is the issue. FOlks haven't evolved as the world has. They took it for granted.

 

The sticking point in any solution is the assumption that only a portion of society will be affected. Truth is, the economy is like an eco system. If one part dies off it affects the whole system.

How can the government hire people when taxes will dwindle down? With more people out of work who can afford goods and services? Who will have money to pay taxes? So where will the government get the money to facilitate any change?

They call it the manufacturing "base" for a reason. It has been the foundation of the economy for many, many years. What happens to house when the foundation goes away? It crumbles.

Forget maintaining the standard of living. That is a pipe dream. Folks better focus on being self sufficient. At least when the industrial revolution hit, people still knew how to raise their own food. How many can do that today? There are many people who will be suffering. I do not expect them to be standing around waiting to starve to death.

 

Heritage has no credibility and since you only provided Heritage as a source the onus still remains on you.

I am under no obligation to do your source research for you. You made the bogus allegation so it is up to you find credible sources to support it.

 

Handwaving is not a logical argument. Just because you don't find Heritage credible (and most of the world does, by the way) doesn't mean their papers can be safely ignored.

 

We need Americans ready for this change that has been going on and will only pick up speed.

If we leave them behind, it means we'll be subsidizing them.

FAR better that we make sure America is fully ready for the increasingly more technical job market.

 

There are factories that are pretty much fully automated. Computer software can do many other type jobs. Who will be doing the subsidizing? What are these technical jobs?

 

Apparently the rest of the world agrees with me that Heritage is biased.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heritage-foundation/

 

Again, handwaving. "I think they suck and other people do, too, so I don't have to listen to them, lalalalalala." Childish.

 

Ironic projection on your part!

Not surprising since you can't come up with anything remotely credible that actually supports your utterly bogus allegation.

 

Personally, I generally agree with your proposals and think we should already be dealing with things like infastructure and education. Although I'm not bought into universal income yet as to me that is something I'd consider desperate. Also, I'm not the one you will have to convince. How do we pitch the future to a bunch of old farts on capitol hill?

Designing a new economy is tough and society has to want it to change, this might be on the horizon, but those sorts of things are always hard to predict. Our current path doesn't seem to take the future into any kind of consideration, so we seem more likely to have a hard crash and then have to fix the problem.

 

I do not think this is possible, or even good
Technology will certainly march on... if not here, then elsewhere
Our economy cannot remain competitive with such artificial handicaps... regardless of the lofty intent

I am not familiar with this to express an opinion
Sounds good, and perhaps we could provide a competitive advantage for such firms. But it seems unlikely that this approach should be feasible for large scale corps like
Apple, GM, GE, WALMART

This is very complicated.... and has little to do with the challenges of automation. A topic or two by itself

Again these are interesting topics... but outside THIS topic

Infrastructure investment is important, but no magic bullet
There are a few aspects to infrastructure investment
—yes it employs people, but a trivial number in the larger picture
—economic stimulation is also limited
—a project needs to be evaluated on the economic need, a bridge to nowhere is a waste of money

Again a very broad topic with uncertain relevance to this topic

Generally this seems good..we .should look at the German model
But, job training is pointless if the trainees do not buy into the idea of earning a living by industrious work... you can lead a horse...?

Again, it depends if the workers actually buy into this idea
A lot of people are very short sighted and just live to party on whe week end, etc. also... I think the economy is becoming much more fluid. If you switch jobs every few years, I doubt you would think much about stock implications

I suppose this might work to some minimal degree
But IMO people mostly need to take responsibility for directing their own lives and meeting their own needs. Certainly the government can encourage and facilitate such efforts...

Probably a good idea in some form