Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Jobs are becoming obsolete due to advances in technology

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 14, 2011, 9:06 p.m. EST by rbe (687)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

313 Comments

313 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Jobs are obsolete because it is more profitable to make money on money than it is to make money on labor.

[-] 1 points by maymyo97 (5) 2 years ago

American people must support and buy Made in USA products. Protest and Boycott foreign goods and products [ if so, corporations and companies will create factories and jobs here (USA) ] . U.S Government ban corporations and companies who are shipping jobs (factories jobs and companies jobs) to oversea ( China and India and other countries).

[-] 1 points by rootz (11) 2 years ago

All of you have a big elephant sitting in your sofa called technological unemployment and you didn't even noticed it. Now the elephant is hitting you in the head and you still talking about "Made in USA products". Is very funny how blind and naive the people can be.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

thousands of employees in india are working on call centers.. thats not anything but greed by the corporation.. not technological.. not production.. and the consumers have to deal with people you cannot understand on top of it!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yeah, but in most cases, to make money off of money, there has to be some underlying production of goods or service, and if production jobs and service jobs are being automated, then demand for human labor drops.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Not in the case of sovereign debt.

Also, leverage is now so out of proportion to assets that the asset has become insignificant.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I think the leverage is insignificant. At the end of the day, it's just a human invention that could, and should be done away with.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Leverage is a multiplier that was instrumental in both the Great Depression and the current one. Reduction of capital requirements and different (self-serving) ways of accounting capital requirments increased leverage and allowed Wall Street to make essentially unlimited bets.

[-] 4 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I understand that but what I'm saying is the whole concept of money and debt should and could be ancient history.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

rbe- yes this monetary system and the mindset that supports it have outlived their time. Something new is coming, and it will be entirely different.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

Yep, we have become disposable. They do not need us anymore.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes. The future should be interesting.

[-] 0 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

That's what the hunters and gathers said when people started farming. It's what gutters and alleyways said when people developed sewer systems. It's what candles and oil lamps said when electricity was manipulated. It's what the horses said when automobiles were invented. It's what typewriters said when computers where made.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

If you haven't noticed, there's a whole new level of technology out there now that is, or is about to, render human labor unnecessary.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

I've noticed, but I just don't think the sky is falling. If human labor is rendered useless and no one is making any money, that means either the technology producing all the goods will become unnecessary,or our current economic system(s) will have to change.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Can it change the tires and oil on my car?

Can it pave the street?

Can it give effective PT?

Can it build a better mouse trap?

Can it pay taxes?

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes for 1,2, and 4. I don't know what you mean by 3. Taxes won't be needed in the future, because there won't be a monetary system.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I haven't seen them do any of those things.

Not a one.

It sounds like wishful thinking.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Have you heard about Google's driverless cars? They're legal to drive in Nevada, and as of today in California as well. http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/07/nevada-lets-googles-driverless-car-hit-the-open-road/

http://www.webpronews.com/autonomous-vehicle-bill-cruises-through-the-california-senate-2012-05

If a car can drive itself, then road maintenance vehicles are not far behind. Technology wise, we are already there, there's just a lag in our 'know how' and what we are currently using.

If an automated assembly line can assemble a car, there's no reason why oil and tires can't be changed by machine.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

It's what the horses said when automobiles were invented? WTF? Are you kidding me? You are comparing apples and oranges. When automobiles were invented, people shifted from producing buggies to making autos. But, here is the key point - transportation was still being produced by humans.

When you start producing transportation almost solely by automated means and remove the human element almost entirely, except maybe for the creation and overseeing of the process, then you have effectively made the human disposable in the production of transportation vehicles.

Horses said? LOL.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

Do you think I'm saying that buggies were manufactured by horses? Because that's not what I meant at all and plus it's not even possible. I was saying that before the automobile, personal transport had to be powered by something, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't magic.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Horses really have nothing to do with it in the first place. Although I do see perfectly well the connection you are trying to draw between hunter/gatherer and farming, buggies and automobiles, etc, it is conceptually wrong.

Why? Because there is a vast difference between advancements in human labor (apples) and advancements in technological labor (oranges). Because there has historically been a symbiotic relationship - one benefits from the other - I can see where you get that idea that they are the same thing. However, the real concept here is that - THEY are not the same beasts. One is human labor and the other is technological labor.

Here is the fundamental problem. Human labor has limits on advancements. Unless we are going to start genetically engineering workers with six arms or something (eww gross!), human bodies will get left behind because - Technology, and the labor it can produce, has no limits.

Simply, in a competition between human labor vs technological labor. Human labor is screwed. So, we better start addressing what this means to civilization right now, and how we will adapt our ideas of labor going forward.

Advancement is not the issue. Adaptation is the issue. You can not adapt, if you can not even understand the problem.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

Actually the the connection I was drawing is that, ironically enough, without these advancements and discoveries we would be afforded luxury of doing most of the things we take for granted today on a daily basis.

As far as labor becoming obsolete due to technological advancements. Without enough people making any money to buy all the goods and services produced I guess the technology becomes obsolete as well because there's no incentive to create anything. I'm not sure if it will ever come to that. But either way, l totally agree that we need to start addressing these issues, and making adaptations--now.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

The underlying connection you tried to make, and are still trying to make, is that this progression of advancing technology is "natural" and therefore nothing we should be concerned with. You are drawing false conclusions ----- Because technological advances provide us with advancements, it somehow should nullify the fact that human labor cannot compete with technological labor infinitely. At some point, human labor, especially generalized labor, becomes absolutely unnecessary, and humankind will have to face this and adapt one way or the other.

Technological luxuries won't mean spit if nobody has a job and can't afford them.

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You have a surly habit of editing your posts after reading mine. In some neck of the woods, people would call that "chickenshit".

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

Calm down turbo. I didn't even see that you had replied until after I had edited. Although I do edit often, I wouldn't intentionally do it after someone has replied.

But it looks like we're on the exact same page anyways. I can understand your frustration though. You're looking for an argument and I'm agreeing with you.

[-] 0 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

The idea of working in the same job for a lifetime has become obsolete.

The idea of working only 1 full time job is also obsolete for most Americans.

Heck... if jobs become obsolete too... I do not think I want to imagine what a people with the right to bear arms and nothing better to do might decide to get up to...

[-] 3 points by rickMoss (435) 2 years ago

Do you know what real freedom is? OWS is fighting for something doesn't exist anymore. This is what we should be fighting for.

http://WeAreFree.osixs.org

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

i liked your link, but the idea that we are forced to work 40 hours a week, i believe is a false premise. I worked for a temp service all last year and was able to save enough money to forgo working for the last four months. now, i'm a frugal spender of my money and that is a chose i made. others, who like having new things all the time or who believe saving for the future, may not choose to take it easy every once in a while. now, i know it gets harder to find work when you are not loyal to your employer, but as a 30 year old man with no children that is a risk I still am willing to take.

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 2 years ago

You're lucky for now. A lot of people are living on fumes, no benefits or healthcare. One day it's likely you will end up like this also. Things are going to get much worse. Then you'll realy understand. Problem is, it will be too late -

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

well, i ant no fool, i see things changing, that is why i am participating here, going to protests in my city, and writing blogs about my ideas. it's not glamorous, but it is enough for a guy who ant too constrained and worried to smell the roses. did i mention I don't have kids, sow this one in '06.

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 2 years ago

Alright, take care -

[-] 3 points by mowakumba (2) 2 years ago

I was on unemployment for long time...then finally got a job. It doesn't pay what I was used to but my rent and utilities are paid and I am eating food but my car got repo'd so now I take bus. I do what I have to to survive. Should I be complaining too??

[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes!

[-] 2 points by mowakumba (2) 2 years ago

Why??

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Are you upset that you car was repo'd?

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

You get less for the same work and you ask why you should complain? When are you going to complain. when you can't afford your home anymore? when you can't afford food anymore? when are you allowed to complain? Never?

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

I was unemployed for a solid two years. I could not get medical care or food stamps. I had too much savings to qualify.

When the money ran out, CA would still not give me food stamps because I was a male. They would literally impute income to disqualify me.

I finally got a minimum wage job in UT. I have no debt, no medical insurance, do not qualify for food stamps, and minimal bills. I rent a room. I scrounge for food.

I cannot make ends meet even by limiting my eating habits to only one every day or two, avoiding going to a doctor, and more.

I used to make 100K per year. Then corporate America learned how to offshore my job as a programmer using the Internet. From there my pay was cut in half. Then there was nothing. Now I get to eat once per day or two to avoid death by starvation.

Am I complaining? No. I am just demanding justice from a government that has created a legal framework, which allows the 1% to commit mass-murder by starvation.

That's all. No big deal.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 2 years ago

NO! Be proud of yourself!

[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

When society acknowledges that this is happening, then solutions will have to follow. That's the key word: acknowledgement.

[-] 0 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Uppp!

[-] 2 points by Misaki (893) 2 years ago

The solution to efficiency increases is work conservation to evenly spread the available work.

http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/

[-] 2 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 2 years ago

This is a must read on the topic of automation replacing ALL jobs, blue or white collar.

http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/

The author claims that companies A and B which automate and get rid of all their workers are essentially parasitic on company C which still pays employees, because those employees are customers of A and B.

Right now, we're in a "race to the bottom" as firms seek to automate and get rid of labor costs, not looking at the big picture.

What happens in a totally automated economy with 100% unemployment? Very interesting....could be a dystopia or a utopia, depending on how it affects our notions of property.

[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes! Great book.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Other than the job of designing and building robots...

Pretty much all jobs are obsolete.

People don't need "jobs"... They need food, shelter, clothing, etc.

Guess it's time for us to pull our economic heads out of our 17th century asses and to start talking about a world where people no longer need to "work" to earn "money".

Money is obsolete.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes. Instead of creating technology to match our society, we need to create a society to match our technology.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Wow... Well said.

I take it 'rbe' stands for Resource Based Economy?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yep, resource based economy. I don't think it's perfect, but I like the general idea.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 2 years ago

"All jobs are obsolete"? And where does food , clothing and shelter come from? People ( farmes) produce food, shelter is built by capenters, electricians, plumbers, roofers, designed by architects. Clothing? Natural fibes have to be grown, harvested, woven, designed, cut and sewn. These things are called jobs. Do you expect everything to be free?

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

The Japanese have engineered and built robots that can break-dance, haul garbage and play Tchaikovsky.

There are robots that can perform dangerous underwater welding tasks that once required teams of expensive, highly skilled divers.

Major online news and outlets and blogs have begun using artificial intelligence software to automate the process of writing first-drafts.

There are robots that can look after elderly and developmentally disabled children.

Almost all assembly-line jobs have been replaced with machines.

Wealthy people now have robots that will walk their dogs

Computers now write computer programs.

Robots now build other robots.

Almost anything and everything that human beings ever put their hands to since the dawn of civilization can now be automated. This is not a bad thing - except that we are rapidly running out of jobs.

Which we only THINK we need, because we have such a hard time wrapping our brains around a world without them.

But it's coming.

Like it or not, jobs (at least as-we-know-them) are obsolete.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

if what you say is true.. the only result is a third world country in every country.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Not if we revamp our society!. The Venus Project has some good ideas that we could build off of.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

it isnt society you would have to change .. it is human nature.. and that will never change never until humans evolve to higher species..

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

That's crap.... Human nature is for a person to want to live in a stable community where their kids can go to school.

Capitalists always use the mantra of "rational self interest" to justify the worst behavior... No matter how irrational it really is.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

human nature is what you train babies from birth to suppress and control in order to make them believe that . you only have to watch kids before they are formed into people to see what human nature is.. selfish, covetish, etc, thats why you always hear in day care " you are have to share"

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Infants are born and nurtured with their every need catered to. They develop the sense that the world revolves around them. Which it does. It did in the womb and continued after they were born. As far as their tiny brains can tell, they believe that they are the center of the universe.

An infant's mother sees to it that this is the case. What mother does not go running when her baby cries? What mother does not anticipate her baby's every need and want, often before it even cries? What mother does not feed and nurture her baby and put her child's needs above all else?

It is therefore necessary, as they are capable of higher learning, to help them understand that they really are not the center of the universe as they have been treated so far. There is a bigger world around them to explore, with other little people and big people that they must learn to navigate successfully.

Selfishness is only baby nature to the degree that an infant does not have the capacity for understanding anything other than it's own needs and is indeed "taught" that it's needs are of the utmost importance. Of course an infant only considers it's own wants and needs. That is all it is capable of knowing or understanding.

Hopefully, you've developed beyond that stage.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

that doesnt change the fact that selfishness, self regard, envy, covetousness, territoriality, greed, desire for power over others, need for control, are human nature. if this were not true, there would be no self help books marketed to adults. there would be no religions teaching people to control these aspects of thier own nature. these are adult attributes. not there because of nurture but because of nature. we are taught and trained from birth that these aspects of our nature are not acceptable and not to be displayed it doesnt make it not true that they are a part of each human being on earth. you can see it everyday, how can you say it is not human nature?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I agree that these things are part of human nature. It's probably biological. Most of these things are part of our survival instinct. Thats a good thing. That's why we're still here.

Beyond survival, those things are mostly negative. But we need it to be part of us and I really don't think we want to completely lose those attributes.

I think most people keep things in check though. And really there is nothing wrong with some of those things, used the right way and in the right circumstances.

But as far as babies and selfishness , I still say nurture is part of it as well. Maybe a better way of thinking of it is nurturing reinforces nature and the survival instinct.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Babies are not miniature adults. They're selfish at two because they go through different stages of development on their way toward becoming well-rounded adults. A baby's mind is not fully developed at birth.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

thier selfish because that is human nature. you train them to not be selfish. their brains could develop for 50 year and if they are never told that it is wrong to be selfish they will be selfish 50 yr olds.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Everything you mentioned can and will be automated. I do expect everything to eventually be free because I believe we will no longer have a monetary system.

[-] 2 points by joe100 (306) 2 years ago

In the end, only 5% of the population will need to work to produce enough food and shelter and products and services for all of humanity. Right now, we are at about 50%. Only 50% of the population needs to work. Hence, the entire agenda of trying to create jobs makes no sense. Welcome to the Age of Abundance! That's not my name for it, that's the name intellectuals have given our era "Welcome to the Age of Abundance". The only answer is a (i) fair global marketplace system for labor, (ii) a system for volunteer work, and (iii) a method to subsidize correctly, all without excessive fraud, which is a kind of socialized capitalism.

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 2 years ago

The new life we created on the Internet 10 years ago will change the way the world works, forever. And ten years ago, we predicted it would take 30 years for the world to understand this new way of labor and embrace it. That means the world has another 20 years before we think it will adopt the balanced future global fair marketplace labor system. But I will certainly give you an example of a person's life in the future, after this all settles out:

Person A has four (4) different for-profit services they offer: (1) CPA Accountant (2) Violin teacher (3) Carpentry work (4) Soccer coach and two (2) different non-profits: (a) beach cleaning (b) environmental water distribution

If the person does not have any paid work, nor unpaid work, the person can use the global labor Internet system, and within 30 minutes, the person can find out if there is work for them, pair or unpaid, for the next day or week, or month. If the person cannot find work, a subsidy can be arrange if needed.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I agree for the most part. I think several centuries from now the number might be closer to 0%.

[-] 2 points by puppetsofsorros (70) 2 years ago

If I may repeat

Geez, the 99% have been voting for outsourcing with their wallets for over 30 yrs. We have all shopped for price never looking at the MADE IN label. Seems the chickens have come home to roost. Increase minumum wage and further reduce demand for MADE IN THE USA. I have been watching this phenomenom for over 30 yrs as a victim of outsourcing from a Fortune 100 company, watching as we closed US plants and first relocated in Mexico and later moved to the Far East chasing the cheap labor countries.

[-] 0 points by joe100 (306) 2 years ago

Nationalism is really outdated in today's global economic system, especially when it comes to labor. Trying to pull a few jobs to local USA businesses can be nice, certainly, but it has VERY little to do with solving our economic problems.

[-] 0 points by puppetsofsorros (70) 2 years ago

Agreed. Far too late to try and be isolationists or tariff imposers. We are the world. Because of this, $20/hr jobs or better for working in a factory that requires no special skills or education are history. Since the world is now a truly small place the only direction your 'everyday person's' standard of living can go is down. We are now raising the standard of living around the world and it is finite.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Since the world can not support a world-wide population living by corporatist (i.e. western) standards, we will now have to change these standards. I do not see the as a bad thing at all, the old jobs sucked, and people where growing disconnected and passive. We can live much richer lives by living lighter on the land, and we can gain new connectivity with the world and each other, keeping some of the nice high-tech communication tools and working to rebuild the eco-system so that it/we can sustain more and richer life.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 0 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

More jobs have been lost to automation than to outsourcing. Outsourcing, in some ways, is a precursor to automation.

[-] 1 points by puppetsofsorros (70) 2 years ago

Really don't know the numbets, so I'll agree. None-the-less, the jobs NOT suited to a robot are now done in 3rd world (instead of providing a living for the, gosh, how do I put this, "less fortunate" of our population. You know, the folks that barely finished high school?) Back in the mid 20th Century there was backlash and frustration over people that spent 8 hrs/day, 50 wks a year doing the same repetitive tasks. Mind and body numbing. There were still enough jobs for folks with a bit of skill on those assembly lines. I grerw up in the Calumet Region and witnessed first hand the decline and death of steel mills, heavy industry. If these industries didn't still require "dumb labor" to work along side robots, those plants would not have closed and moved over seas.

[-] 0 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yeah, I understand. I grew up around textile mills, which have pretty much all went overseas. There needs to be some big paradigm change.

[-] -1 points by puppetsofsorros (70) 2 years ago

We are witnessing the paradigm change. The people of the world that don't live in the "West" are starting to rise out of poverty. THEY are the 99% and no matter how poor you are in the US, you are part of the "Global 1%". Just a pragmatic person's view. The only way folks in Africa,. rural China, or takeyour pick can "thrive" (really, have a better CHANCE TO SURVIVE) is if we in the West knock off the conspicuous consumption. The only way THAT happens is if our standard of lviving declines, the middle class disapears.

[-] 0 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I agree that we are the Global 1%. I definitely feel that we consume way too much meaningless crap in this country, so I wouldn't mind seeing us getting weened off that. So you think the disappearing western middle class is a planned occurrence? Who's doing it and what is their goal?

[-] 0 points by puppetsofsorros (70) 2 years ago

NO, no conspiracy there. It's and unintended consequence of technology....As in airplanes and commiunications in general. We shrunk the world . Now they have tv's and the internet and they want a piece if a pie generations before them never knew existed.that';s why I think ows is totally idiotic. The folks chanting just don;t seem to get it.

I thank God every night he placed me in the US. A bad day here would be a best moment for the (sadly) majority of the world's population.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Shouldn't we be able to use our technology to ensure that everyone can get a piece of the pie? It seems like we are close to being able to put the bulk of our economy on autopilot. Technology is suppose to make our lives easier, but it seems that our lives have gotten harder over the past few decades.

[-] -1 points by puppetsofsorros (70) 2 years ago

Perhaps I oversimplify, but somebody has to clean the toilets. If we 'spread the wealth' there would no longer be any incentive to create any.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

Just a little 2min video based on your example on how technology can replace human labor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us5MMi_rguA

[-] 0 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

We could make toilets that are capable of cleaning themselves. I've also seen where some companies in asia (japan I think) have robots that do the cleaning. There was a study done by MIT that said that a monetary incentive has actually proven to hold people back when doing high level scientific work. In that capacity, people seem to work better by praise.

[-] -1 points by puppetsofsorros (70) 2 years ago

Okay...am beginning to think I see where you are coming from. We enslave robots/technology in effect. OK. Sounds like science fiction but may very well come to pass some day. Can't argue with that.

[-] 0 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yeah, I think we're coming close to having the ability to do it. Like Marshall Brain mentioned in the video that I posted in my original post. We could eventually have 'perpetual vacation'.

[-] 2 points by me2 (534) 2 years ago

Many crappy jobs have been made obsolete by technology. And many good jobs have been created by technology. Then, they were shipped overseas, leaving us with a dearth of crappy jobs AND a dearth of good jobs.

I believe that in the advanced countries, of which US is one, it's time to think way beyond "having a job" and focus instead on innovation and self sufficiency, which can take many different forms. Technological advances might increase the feasibility of suburban subsistence farming, for instance, and advances in the efficiency of small scale electric generation (solar, wind, who knows?) can take more people off the grid and increase independence and self sufficiency.

So I'm not down with the shortsighted "tech is bad" approach.

It's time to be clever and resourceful.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and you suppose the people that own the land are going to just let you take it over for this self sufficiency.. you think the guy that owns the apartment is just going to let you live there for free?? you talk a good game but bottom line is you have to have money to get to be self sufficient. how is that suppose to happen? it will not.. the streets will be lined with tin shanty towns card board homes because that is something that a guy who owns the land will allow you for free.. if this is the way of the future it has to be stopped.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Money was invented by humans, and it was a good invention for that time. Not that we have increased in knowledge, we can come up with a new system that doesn't involve money or jobs.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I agree... do you have any ideas how ?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

The Venus Project has some interesting ideas. It's not perfect, but it's a good start I think for a conversation.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

maybe those jobs already existed over seas

[-] 1 points by me2 (534) 2 years ago

Maybe monkeys might fly out of my butt.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

maybe the US is not at the center of the world

[-] 1 points by me2 (534) 2 years ago

I never said it was.

In fact, I said "...most advanced countries, of which US is one."

So what is your point? The jobs in Mumbai, in the Philippines, etc - those are jobs which were already there? The people working there now for US companies for example, who didn't work for US companies before but now do, those jobs "were already there?" I don't follow what you're trying to say. It makes no sense.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

why is this news?

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 2 years ago

Welcome to the Age of Abundance. There will NEVER be enough "jobs" for people, EVER again! Eventually only 5% of the population will need to work. Right now, only 50% of the population needs to work to supply EVERYTHING for everyone.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You might benefit from knowing that "rbe" stands for "Resource-Based Economy", and that the original poster is part of the Zeitgeist cult. That's what this thread is actually about.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I'm not a member of Zeitgeist. I do like the resource based economy idea though.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

Does that mean you don't even want to think about it?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I've done plenty of thinking about the Logan's Run techno-utopia vision that the Zeitgeist people are pimping. And the more I think about it, the more it seems like The Matrix, where the computers kept humans comatose so that their "resources" could be appropriated by the resource-based economy.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

The Matrix is a story, fantasy. not real. A doom scenario which is not really possible. I realize a lot of people fear technology because of movies like that. But if you really fear that machines will take over and wipe out or enslave humans. Then don't you think we should change society to a more sane model?

Because lets face it, drone planes already exists that wipe out human life without needing a pilot. And if it's up to the military–industrial complex, smart robotics will become increasingly effective in killing us. I don't want to add to the doom thinking. It's just that i think that if you happen to think in those terms, being against a rbe is not really the logical choice here.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

So you think it would be better to surrender all political power to machines, because you don't trust humans?

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

No that's not what i mean. I'm not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that i could have meant that. In fact, i do trust humans. When there is no greed motivator, i trust humanity to mature enough to actually become sustainable.

Machines are not meant to have power. They are simply tools to make our lives easier.

[-] 0 points by me2 (534) 2 years ago

Aha didn't make the rbe connection, thanks.

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 2 years ago

I feel similar, in that I have a technology and photography background myself. I don't readily subscribe to the tech is bad argument. If technology was used in more desirable ways, it could be a great thing. With some of what is going on in the world today, technology is probably needed to clean a lot of negative things up. Instead, it is often used to maximize corporate profit at the expense of both the workers and the public at large.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I agree.

[-] 1 points by maymyo97 (5) 2 years ago

American people must support and buy Made in USA products. Protest and Boycott foreign goods and products [ if so, corporations and companies will create factories and jobs here (USA) ] . U.S Government ban corporations and companies who are shipping jobs (factories jobs and companies jobs) to oversea ( China and India and other countries).

[-] 0 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

Agreed, i would actually go as far as to say 'tech is good'. We just have to learn how to make it work to everyone's advantage.

[-] 0 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I agree. We don't need to stop the advances, just adapt to them. We've always developed technology to revolve around our society, now we need to create a society that revolves around our technology.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Looks like the comments have came back.

[-] 2 points by 666isMONEY (348) 2 years ago

Modern machinery was supposed to make life easier for us. 150 years ago it took something like 100-man-hours to produce 100-bushels of corn, now it's something like six. Cotton Gin, tractors, etc.

More than half the ppl in U$A work at unnecessary jobs pushing papers (money): bankers, accountants, cashiers, manufacturing junk food, insurance, sales, advertising. very few ppl produce anything anymore.

With abundance, bartering, hoarding and money becomes unnecessary.

With all out free-time we could be creating nice communities.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I agree 100%. We've created all this technology and now we're suffering more. It's time to take our society to the next level.

[-] 2 points by 666isMONEY (348) 2 years ago

30-year mortgages (slavery) for cheap houses made of sheet-rock and 2x4's. The grid system of housing-tracts (blocks) is designed to pack ppl in.

Things could be sooo much better, we have advanced/evolved materially but not spiritually. Religion (as it is today) is irrational.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes, our whole housing market is currently a sham imo.

[-] 2 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

That's why we have to do something else..We may not need as much labor as before..So what do we do? Kill people? No, the system must change..and it can't be for personnel profit alone...It must be for the good of humanity also..Only when you produce something that is good for humanity should you be able to profit...Otherwise...you lose.

Imagine a world where everything is automated and there is no labor cost and there are no jobs comparative to the populace...What would we do?

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Have you heard of the Venus Project? http://www.thevenusproject.com/

I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's on the right track.

[-] 3 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Of course..

[-] 3 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Humanism..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism. We could do this..We will need to, we will destroy ourselves if we keep on the current path.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Cool. What do you think about it?

[-] 3 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

I always liked the idea..It truly depends on a rational species, that know that this earth is a finite place..I know we have work to do..

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yep.

[-] 2 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

This is true....But I'm certain we can find a way where all people can live in a more sustainable environment...If we act like animals and we compete like animals then I would expect animal like behavior in all areas.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I agree. There's a lot of animal behavior happening now. If we acknowledge what is happening, then we can work on a solution that benefits the whole society.

[-] 3 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Yes..we can and we have to..The people in charge are sociopaths..People must understand that their way is death (for you). Unfortunately the only thing we can do is kill them before they kill us and they will kill us all, if we don't stop them first..We are late..

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

The key question seems to be: reform or revolution? I don't think reform will work.

[-] 2 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

I tend to agree...It's too late..

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

This is a WAR..

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Jobs are becomming different.

Someone has to create and fix the robots. I would rather build or fix a robot than put caps on toothpaste tubes all day.

[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes, but increasingly, the robots are being created and fixed by robots.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

Somebody has to fix the robots that fix the other robots.

How many robots have actually encountered in your life??

To be honest, I'd rather see robots take over the most dehumanizing jobs. That way we can spend our time on more interesting pursuits. Art. Literature. Innovation.

Bring on the robots.

[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

When I say robots, I'm not necessarily referring to bi pedal robots, I'm mostly referring to the industrialized robotic machines.

I agree. We should and will eventually be able to have more leisurely lives.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

It's kinda funny how many people think about human-like robots when talking about robots, while clearly most robots are nothing like that at all :)

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Indeed.

[-] 2 points by Bambi (359) 2 years ago

.......... I would rather build or fix a robot than put caps on toothpaste tubes all day.........

That's why jobs have gone to other countries. They don't find that demeaning work.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

That's an arrogant argument. Do you think that any sentient human being would do that kind of work if they were not pressed into such forms of labor. Oh, yeah, Chinese are just naturally acclimated to perform demeaning factory work, forget that they have minds. Suicides at Foxconn? Oh, no need to change anything ... just install nets.

[-] 0 points by Bambi (359) 2 years ago

What's the problem? That IS work. THEY take pride in WORKING and would never find that to be demeaning. You think that working at a car assembly plant one person puts a car together? No. One person might be putting a few screws in. My nephew works in a car plant. Seems the youth of today would never think to do work on this. OMG no. How "demeaning". Many kids in today's world don't WANT to work sans robots do it.

Perhaps if Americans had better attitudes about WORK then jobs wouldn't be leaving the country.

[-] 1 points by frostfern (59) from Grand Rapids Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Also, there is no way American factory workers can compete with the Chinese factory workers. It's simply impossible to house and feed yourself on the equivalent wage in the US. In China the government leases cheap housing to workers.

[-] 1 points by frostfern (59) from Grand Rapids Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Then why are many of them striking?

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

The following is another piece of The Big American Lie:

"...Perhaps if Americans had better attitudes about WORK then jobs wouldn't be leaving the country...."

There is nothing wrong with American attitudes. There is a problem with the lies that are being told to Americans.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 2 years ago

Bull.. You are probably about 20 yrs old and have no idea about American attitudes towards work. I do. In other countries they work because they have pride. There is very little pride in THIS generation of kids.

Yes we are told lies but what does that have to do with Americans have bad attitudes about work?

[-] 0 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

Again, your arrogance is staggering. Who are you to bemoan the kids of today? American workers? Production isn't the problem!!!

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 2 years ago

I've been around many more years than you. That I am sure of.I CAN bemoan the kids of today because so many of you want everything...without working for it.

I'm not arrogant. I am telling it as it is. Maybe if you tried to get your head out of that hole in the ground, you might be a more productive person. Banging drums and hanging out in parks is a waste of time.

[-] 2 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

Consumer capitalism is terribly overrated, and I think a lot of the kids are wanting more, not necessarily the material. I've always been one of the most productive members in any workplace I've ever entered, ah yes, I have delivered profits unto others and not been paid fairly. I'm not banging drums and hanging out in parks. I marched in NYC on 11/17 and it was one of the most amazing experiences of my life. It's all about dialogue and participation, and not allowing "olders" (not elders, mind you, I have complete respect for my elders) to shout me down and force me into an empty, meaningless life devoid of any and all forms of true human connection.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes, and masturbating on this forum is a really good use of YOUR time.

I'm older than you, Grandpa, and I can remember a lot of slackers in my day too.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 2 years ago

Grandpa? LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the laugh of the day. Just how ahem old are you........21......24???

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

I'd be 48.

[-] 1 points by Bambi (359) 2 years ago

Beat you by 10 years. Respect your elders.........and women.........as I am both

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Yes mam.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

Obviously those jobs would not account for all the jobs they replace.

[-] 2 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

So would there be more Luddites? So should we change the design of the machine to allow some form of human interaction or work?

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I think there will be a lot more Luddites. I don't think we need to regulate technology. Marshall Brain has some interesting ideas on gradually cutting the work week down from 40 to 30 to 20, over a period of time. It was in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Z8TR4ToNs

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

uppp

[-] 1 points by mikeydubbs (40) 2 years ago

Traditionally wealth was redistributed through the labor markets, however, because of outsourcing and the mechanization of labor the old labor laws are becoming outdated. This could be fixed by reducing the workweek, and raising the minimum wage. This was what happened during the labor movement in the early 19th century. People were not making enough to get by, so they reduced the workweek to 40 hours, and raised wages. The real goal is income redistribution, and the same thing could be accomplished with a basic income guarantee. I think what we really need is international labor laws. This would make it no longer economicly viable to outsource labor to foreign markets. Also it would get children out of sweatshops, which in my opinion is similar to slavery.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

Fine with me I will just sit on my ass and hold a sign.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

uppp

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Robots are more precise than humans that is why they took jobs. Job loss due to technology has been going back to the roman times and maybe beyond that. The jobs that they are taking are mostly jobs that people do not want or do not find enjoyable

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

The old jobs are becoming or have become obsolete. Not all jobs become obsolete as new job types are always created as the old ones go away.

The key is preparing for these new jobs as the old ones go away.

Good post, this is a important subject to consider!

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

im in the technology sales, service an installation business, and my phone is ringing off the hook. Truth is though there is no schooling in what I do its all in house, and ive lost about half million dollars in training here today and gone tomorrow people, boy did i learn my lesson, never hire again, and try and recover from a net loss in my business after 9 years. But at least im eating and paying the rent / mortgage.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Just google job losses and layoffs 2011 and what else we're losing.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

uppp

[-] 1 points by EndTheFED (65) 2 years ago

did cars make walking obsolete? did the written word make talking obsolete? did schools and government make parenting obsolete?

technology and advancements and increasing efficiency is always a good thing.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFED (65) 2 years ago

they have been saying this forever.... this is nothing new. When they start making unemployed robots for the function of replacing unemployed people. Then i will start to worry.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

from the article:

"According to these authors, corporate spending on technology has increased 26 percent since 2009 while payrolls have remained essentially flat in that time period. This has contributed dramatically to the disparity of incomes between rich and poor."

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Up.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Most companies only automate jobs that are dangerous and undesirable. What this is creating is a need for a more skilled labor force as these undesirable and dangerous jobs become taken. Instead, this will increase levels of production as bottom of pyramid jobs are taken over by robots and people will move up to tasks of maintaining those robots and other engineering jobs. Also, jobs that require a human touch are unlikely to be replaced by robots anytime soon. Unfortunately, we lack a suitable education system for this system and many lower class Americans, I fear, will suffer. So I doubt robots will be taking over anytime soon unless our capitalist economic system is replaced by a Marxist resource-based economy, which is, thankfully, never going to happen.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

What about kiosks at airports? Is an airline clerk a dangerous and undesirable job? What about ATMs? I guess being a teller is dangerous. Paralegals are starting to be replaced, bookkeepers too. What about all of the retail jobs that have been lost due to online retail? Post office workers? My friend is a draftsman. His company has laid off lots of educated people because they were replaced by computer programs. Here is a recent article from the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/d5e861c4-0150-11e1-b177-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fbocgzHv

Capitalism IS the greatest system we've ever had, but it is on its way out. That's not a bad thing. Just goes to show you how far we've came as a civilization.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Doubtful but not improbable, it is up to the people of this earth and I don't know how much their on board. Markets also correct themselves, with new technologies comes new job opportunities, the reason the economy is so bad is not because of robots but because of banks. There have been robots that have taken over jobs before but more open up to keep unemployement low. It's all markets

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

I don't think danger is really a concern for companies unless it's costing them money. Most companies would automate if it is cost efficient. You can see that in the mining industry, a very dangerous job, yet it is still done by humans for the most part. Simply because automating it is very expensive.

"So I doubt robots will be taking over anytime soon unless our capitalist economic system is replaced" It's already happening on a daily bases that jobs get taken over by robots/machines. The question is not if it happens but how fast.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Exactly, most jobs that are dangerous tend to cost the employer more money as they have to pay the worker more who doesn't want to do it anyway. Labor jobs will eventually get overtaken by robots, but this instead requires a more skilled labor force in things like engineering and the cost effectiveness of the robots will increase production and expanding job opportunities for skilled laborers. OWS needs to use this to call for education reform as these skilled laborers are in short supply and some are being lured to abandoned engineering to work for big banks on Wall St because of heavy student debt. If we don't have the educated laborers, then many will lose their job and robotic development might be slowed.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

It is true that automation requires jobs for maintenance and operation. But the amount of jobs needed will be far less. In no way can skilled jobs replace all the lost non-skilled jobs.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

But if the robots are so cost effective then production would expand, providing more jobs as well as other jobs that revolve around the development of robotic technology.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

I understood your point the first time you made it. So my reaction would be the same also. Those jobs would not be even near the amount of jobs that would be replaced.

That said, innovation and creativity is still and most likely stay for a while the domain of humans. That is what we should encourage our children to pursuit instead of training them for jobs that will become obsolete anyways.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

How would it provide more jobs? Companies are already able to increase their output in most situations without having to increase labor.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Since manufacturing becomes cheaper with robots, mass production will increase providing engineering jobs in those factories as well as white collor jobs, e.i. Sales, management, for new snd expanding companies and construction jobs which robots cannot do.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

How many engineers are needed? Maybe a few more, but not enough to offset all of the lost labor. Management? To manage what? The robots?

I think we are at a tipping point where technology is eliminating waaaaaay more jobs than it's creating.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

I disagree, I think it's not something to be worried about and I don't think OWS will rally behind this either, but like I said, it's not improbable.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/d5e861c4-0150-11e1-b177-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fbocgzHv

Robots are finally capturing our jobs, argue Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Frizzle complains that “…writing something like 'it simply isn't valid' is kinda pointless, since you aren't willing or able to back that up…..”

Here are some conclusions I reached during my last four years of research into what has happened in the economy:

1) For computers to become intelligent will require a major new scientific discovery. That discovery will require that scientists be able to create a model, complete with the Calculus, which describes specifically the properties of intelligence. That discovery will not happen for at least a few centuries.

2) Another discovery that is required is the knowledge of the physical properties of "truth." Such a discovery will also require Calculus to describe how truth interacts with an intelligence. Currently, there are no such valid models.

3) Should such discoveries be made during our time, no responsible scientist would ever make it public. Such a scientist, if even slightly ethical, will keep the discovery secrete to protect the public. Such a scientist would know that such discoveries would be more powerful than an atomic bomb.

Such secret discoveries would not be published simply because the 1% has created a legal framework permitting them to murder most of the 99%. In other words, the 1% will use the current legal framework to use capitalism as a weapon against the 99% to commit mass-murder. We already see elements of this taking place today.

Those are my conclusions after many, many, years of research into this matter.

Artificial intelligence is not going to exists anytime in the near future. For these reasons, the current machine must be destroyed. A new machine that includes justice and prosecution of the 1% must exist before any responsible/ethical scientist will publish such a series of discoveries.

Finally, don't forget the doomsayers of Y2K. They were predicting that jets would suddenly fall out of the sky. It was all fear mongering for a profit. These articles are following the same pattern; selling fear/panic for a profit.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

I do absolutely agree that the current machine must be destroyed. (to use your words :) Or better yet, replaced by a better system that works to the benefit of all of humanity.

1) That said, i think you underestimate the speed of technological progress. Technological progress doesn't happen linear, but exponentially. That's because it build on top of existing progress which speeds it up. So i believe we will see the intelligence of machine increase in decades rather then centuries. Technology like http://alturl.com/6bpxx and http://youtu.be/BnTUOEwOKYA makes me think we will see smarter machines sooner rather then later. Maybe it won't be intelligent, that depends on how we define intelligence i guess. But what counts is, what it can do. And technology can already replace a lot of human labor. And the number of jobs it can replace will only increase.

2) I'm not sure i understand what you mean by that.

3) Money is a much bigger deciding factor in our current system then that ethics is. If technology is kept secret, then that's only because they want to keep the monopoly on it. Most likely a lot of technological progress is kept secret by the military–industrial complex. That's one of the reasons why i think it's so important that we move away from our current way of doing things. Because as long as money controls our actions, ethics will not be a big enough consideration to prevent harmful decisions.

And yes, never let fear guide your judgement. Totally in agreement there. I'm not fearful of smarter machines. I just think we should use it in our advantage and not let workers fight against them in the job market.

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Frizzle writes, "...Money is a much bigger deciding factor in our current system then that ethics is. If technology is kept secret, then that's only because they want to keep the monopoly on it. Most likely a lot of technological progress is kept secret by the military–industrial complex...."

This presumes that new discoveries are always made by the military, PhD's, corporations, and etc. That is not the case. Many discoveries are made independently. It is up to the individual to choose whether to introduce the discovery. There is no “law” that says all scientific discoveries must be made public.

While computing power does increase exponentially (Moore's law), it is still a necessary requirement that a major breakthrough must take place separate from the actions of Moore's law. Without that breakthrough computers will not have physical properties like initiative and creativity.

On money being a larger deciding factor than ethics. I believe that the scientist who discovers the physical properties of the intelligence and how it interacts with reality will have a tool with the potential to affect every human on the planet. The market value of such a discovery is well over five trillion dollars. That amount of money is so outrageous that such a scientist would realize that the following:

1) Managing $5+ trillion is very time consuming.

2) No individual deserves to possess this much influence to affect economic exchanges.

3)There is an enormous responsibility to the human race to assure a just and fair distribution of resources throughout the planet.

4)It is absurd that any person should control billions of dollars much less a trillion. Yet, capitalist will refuse to acknowledge this fact and will tell every lie, create any deception, to cause the public to believe that it would be okay for an individual to have that much influence.

5)Money is nothing more than a tool to measure an individual’s ability to affect an economic exchange. Realizing this, it would be understood that the current machine must be destroyed for the benefit of all humanity.

6)That capitalism is currently being used to commit mass murder and the current legal framework in America is allowing capitalism to be used as a weapon against millions of innocent people.

7)Using the game that Wall Street is playing, there is no law or legal framework that would prevent the discoveries from being used as a weapon to defend the public against the evil doers of Wall Street.

8)Keeping the discoveries secret allows for additional leverage to destroy the machine without breaking any laws. It is the same game that Wall Street played on us.

Unless such a person were outright evil, that person will use such a series of discoveries secretly to first, halt the progress of the machine then to oversee the destruction of the machine. It is kind of like Newton discovering the laws of gravity. Once gravity is understood, then the mathematical equations can be used to launch a missile to hit a target. If the discovery is kept secret then no laws can be made that make the actions illegal. Thus the Corporatists would be powerless to defend themselves against the attacks.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago
  • This presumes that new discoveries are always made by the military, PhD's, corporations, and etc. That is not the case. Many discoveries are made independently. It is up to the individual to choose whether to introduce the discovery. There is no “law” that says all scientific discoveries must be made public.

Oh i know, you are right on that. I was just pointing out on who would be most likely to use secrecy to hide their progress.

Of-course there need to be scientific breakthroughs to progress. Not even a single one but several. But research in that field is already being done, and progress continues to happen. I don't think there will be one single eureka moment. But rather a path of different discoveries (big and small), tests and enhancements that will lead to gradually smarter systems.

But maybe the misunderstanding between us lays in what we see as an intelligent system. Because i get the sense you think of it as a self-aware artificial life form. Correct me if i'm wrong. I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Just expressing the impression i'm getting.

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Frizzle intelligently notes, "….Because I get the sense you think of it as a self-aware artificial life form. Correct me if i'm wrong. I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Just expressing the impression i'm getting…."

Exactly. I am differentiating between smart systems that simply automate procedural tasks vs. a self-aware life form that will deserve rights. No responsible scientist would allow the 1% to have the knowledge required to make machines self-aware without demanding the destruction of the current legal framework. . We can already see that the 1% is using the current legal framework to commit mass-murder. The numbers to prove this are now surfacing. They are appearing in the form of a massive increase in homeless families and deaths. The 1% is standing idly by while intentionally, willfully, and with foresight while intentionally allowing the current legal framework is used to harm the innocent for a profit. Therefore, we have no reason to expect anything different in how the 1% would enslave a new life form. They would enslave it by claiming patents and property rights over the new life form. Any promises to the contrary by the 1% are just simply lies and deceptions designed encourage such a scientist to publish.

I agree that such a discovery may happen in a single "ah-ha" moment or it could be a series of incremental advances. I lean more towards that "ah-ha" moment because I have determined that there are no models that meet the requirements I've put forth. They are not even close. It took me over 27 years of independent research to draw such a conclusion.

Finally, the reason why they would have to know the physical properties of truth and the Calculus equations is that such a life form would require free will and the ability to make autonomous choices. Without that key (I call it the categorical order of the sphere of truth) they have nothing. The 1% is simply left with their lies, deceptions, and murderous plots. Do not ever forget that truth is orders of magnitude more powerful than an atomic bomb once it is properly understood. The 1% has no power to pass a law(s) that would make it illegal to use truth as a mechanism to target, launch, and hit the enemy. This fact is what the 1% fear most, and it is the reason the 99% will win this war.

This is why the machine must be destroyed. If the 1% will not respond to peaceful requests that comply with the demands of justice then their wealth will become the mechanism of their own destruction. It will be used as a weapon against them. The 1% is literally being required to stop hording wealth, which is causing mass-murder by starvation and denial of medical services. They know this fact, and they continue to refuse to comply. Thus, if they continue to refuse to submit to the demands of justice then they must be destroyed by turning their own weapons against them.

We can no longer tolerate 1% controlling the majority of the world’s wealth. There must be economic justice for humanity to move forward. We have literally arrived at that time in history where there will be change regardless of what the 1% desire.

Cheers!

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

On the topic of the distribution of wealth it would seem we would agree on most parts. In my opinion earthly resources should benefit all of humanity and not just a lucky few. The fact that there are people on earth that are starving to death in current time is unacceptable.

And on the topic of artificial life. When and if we will be able to create a new life form is a difficult subject to think about. Because what defines life?. When is something really self-aware and when is it just emulating life-like characteristics?

So yes, we might be a far time away from that still. Or not. It's hard to say. For the scope of replacing human labor it is not required nor preferred that machines are self-aware though. So yes, i was talking about intelligent machines in a totally different light it seems.

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Yes. We have pretty close agreement.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Prostitution cannot easily be outsourced or replaced with chinese robots

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I don't know. I've been on websites where people talk about sex/companion robots becoming available sooner than you may think.

[-] 1 points by NiceLovelyDay (55) 2 years ago

What about the creative arts and humanities? People are natuarally inclined to do these things...except that the government has skewed everything toward science & engineering during the Cold War. Also, computer gaming & movie production are large scale industries in California.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I would say our country is more skewed toward arts than science. We're #1 in the world in entertainment, but falling way behind in science. When jobs become obsolete, people will have more time to pursue arts from a leisurely, non-profit seeking angle.

[-] 1 points by Ratso (16) 2 years ago

Ya gotta make stuff!! We stopped making stuff !! We can't get it done with just technology ....Back to basics.....Make stuff, folks work...Folks work they make money....Folks make money they buy stuff....Stuff makes everybody happy !!...

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

We need to move away from jobs! No need to have them for the most part. The high unemployment rate is a positive development in civilization. We just need a new system.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

Hmm that's kinda what we don't need imho. Making stuff just for the sake of making money is kinda wasteful. And there is a lot of stuff being made that doesn't improve our lives at all. Some of it is even harmful.

So, no i don't agree we have to make more stuff. We have to think better what we really need and not let advertisement rule our lives.

[-] 1 points by screwtheman (122) 2 years ago

You are right. We should get off the internet and pass notes by hand to inform others. That would create millions of jobs tomorrow. Great work team.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

No, we don't need jobs, we need a new paradigm.

[-] 1 points by screwtheman (122) 2 years ago

We do need jobs you moron. Millions of people are out of work.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

That's a positive sign of progression in civilization. Jobs aren't coming back. Human labor isn't as needed as it once was. Time for a new system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Z8TR4ToNs

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

No jobs means no consumers.

No consumers means no one to sell the technology to.....

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Exactly! That's why it's important to talk about this so we can change our paradigm.

[-] 1 points by NiceLovelyDay (55) 2 years ago

When I first entered the workforce, I was told that people are the most important asset to a company. I still think that this is true. It is essentially what companies make money off of, a good creative person has the capacity to make billions for a company. What is wrong with business today? I am not that old. A company is merely a collection of people, and they would not be working if they is no profit in it. Companies are not charities. The basic rules will always apply.

[-] 3 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

The following is part of the big lie in America:

"...A company is merely a collection of people, and they would not be working if they is no profit in it. ..."

The entire medical industry used to be non-profit. It was an excellent system. Then Nixon happened and it became a for profit industry. Accounts even illustrate him applauding the fact that people would be denied medical care in America. From there it all went downhill.

I suggest looking around. There are untold numbers of non-profit organizations that are very successful.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I don't think so. I see a future without any companies and without any 'jobs.' There is no need to hire anyone when machines are available that are more efficient than any human can possibly be. This is a positive progression of society. We are just in this weird transition period people are suffering, and will continue to suffer until we acknowledge the change that is taking place, and adjust our society in the appropriate manner.

[-] 3 points by loveitall (8) from Willard, UT 2 years ago

nailed it right there.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

BS - Jobs are becoming obsolete because of "Free Trade Agreements"!!

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

That only explains why jobs are moved over sea's but that's just a part of the problem. And only views the problem from a local perspective. But unemployment is rising all over the world. So something different is clearly going on. And the only logical conclusion is that technology is replacing human labor.

It's been so clear that this was coming for years. But for some strange reason it's been ignored for a long time. And now that it's undeniable, some people still keep denying it.

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

This is an oversimplistic analysis. It simply isn't valid.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

That reaction is a bit over-simplistic also. Please elaborate.

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

Not possible. It took me four years of research to develop the knowledge that I currently possess. It cannot be summed up in a few paragraphs.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

Sure, fair enough.

But then writing something like 'it simply isn't valid' is kinda pointless, since you aren't willing or able to back that up.

[-] 1 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

robots replace people

[-] 1 points by sinthytechstudios (22) 2 years ago

That's why what occupy is doing by being self sufficient is a start they probably draft a Constitution before this government falls.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Creating a parallel government might not be a bad idea.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Automation brings wonders. A thresher can do the work of a score of serfs. I don't need them anymore. Why share? They did none of the work.

[-] 1 points by belltor (60) 2 years ago

Yes technology is robbing workers of jobs But what corporations have to realize is who will buy the product they are making via robots or advanced technology. Walter Ruther was Pres. of U AWduring the 60's He would negotiate for the auto workers with the big 3 Chey, Ford and Chrysler The big three would always threaten him with installing more robotics in the auto plants to replace the workers His response was "and are those robots going to buy your cars?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

When our economy starts to crash due to that very reason, then we will get a new system.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

This looks like a good place to start. http://www.osixs.org/home.aspx

[-] 1 points by forOWS (161) 2 years ago

Actually there are no jobs in the U.S. because they have all been shipped off-shore. Most manufacturing is now done in China and other Third World Countries. The jobs that are left in America for low skilled workers are minimum wage jobs. For slightly higher pay, you can work in a warehouse that stores all of that stuff made in China where it is redistributed. If you want to make some barely decent bucks then learn how to drive a tractor-trailer. Plenty of demand for truck drivers to ship all of that stuff across the country. However, those jobs are highly unregulated so there are great risks to your health and safety since there are so many people willing to drive trucks. High turnover. Few can put up with the extreme bullshit. And everything is on the driver. You get hurt on the job or lose your shipment in an accident or through theft. Sorry. You're fired. Next! Absolutely no job protection. And if you can get some kind of workman's comp. you will be red-taped until you give up or heal and get another job.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

yes. people should be working less hours per work, not more. Then suddenly the employment rate would drop. This isn't happening because of interest rate charges on all of the existing debt. It's really that simple.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

This would scare the bejeesus out of me if I were entering the job market with skills designed for a bygone era. I can only hope for all of you who are entering this era that new ways of doing absolutely everything and doing everything better will evolve from your exploration of ideas here and elsewhere. Keep up the awareness.

[-] 1 points by maymyo97 (5) 2 years ago

American people must support and buy Made in USA products. Protest and Boycott foreign goods and products [ if so, corporations and companies will create factories and jobs here (USA) ] . U.S Government ban corporations and companies who are shipping jobs (factories jobs and companies jobs) to oversea ( China and India and other countries).

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

That's all good and well, but that doesn't solve the technological unemployment problem.

[-] 1 points by julianzs (147) 2 years ago

As we automate, we reduce physical and mental efforts required to produce goods. If the workforce were not educated to handle the new conditions of production, they stay unemployable. This is what's happening to us right now. We neglected the link and urgency to advance the education of our people.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

I'm all for high education for everyone. But it won't help reduce the speed at which human labor is replaced by automation.

[-] 1 points by HelloHelloAll (16) 2 years ago

This is utopistic bullshit until we have created robots that are as smart and creative as humans who can also reproduce themselves without humans. However they should not have feelings.

Then we can just say to them, make world perfect, we are going to hang around at the pool.

[-] 2 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

It's not utopistic. It's looking at the trend and thinking ahead. Human labor is being replaced. it's fact. And that trend will not stop. We could keep our eye's closed to that and just keep going on as we always have, with all the problems that would cause. Or we could take those facts into account and start planning how we want a highly automated society to function.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Artificial intelligence is coming sooner than later i think.

[-] 1 points by hyarborough (121) 2 years ago

I'm a self-professed geek, and love the new technology, but feel that just because we CAN do something, it's not always a good idea to do it w/o exploring the consequences. IMO automation that has the sole purpose of increasing profits is not a good thing. Sometimes there need to be limits to preserve the quality of experience. For example, the technology to reliably increase the cornering ability of cars has existed for a while, but those types of devices are outlawed for professional racers. Not much competition if all you have to do is throw money at the cars.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

Then why are people working more to make ends meet? Should we consider a four or six-hour workday?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Because our system is outdated and it's not taking the current situation into account.

Reducing the work week is one idea that's been proposed. Marshall Brain mentioned it in the video I posted in my original post.

[-] 1 points by 666isMONEY (348) 2 years ago

This thread, with all the negative "dislikes" is an example of why this forum and democracy does not work. (DemoCrazy, mob rule. Plato considered democracy as one level above tyranny.)

EDIT: Looks like the webmaster for this forum changed the "collapse comments" code after I and others called their attention to it. Code used to collapse comments with 5 or more "dislikes". They must have scrubbed the Troll's history too. At one time all the comments were collapsed on this thread.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

It's a shame that people fight against their own self interests.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Upp!

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

upppp

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

Reminds me of the John Henry myth, I wonder what happens if John Henry was operating the machine he was competing with?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

The John Henry myth angle is interesting. problems in history tend to repeat.

Man competes with Automation * Man co-exists with Automation * Man lags behind Automation * Man competes with Automation * Man co-exists with Automation and so on...

We are in a new competition cycle. We are now John Henry fighting to hold onto his place in producing goods and services as newer tech is being introduced. So, over the coming years we will slowly enter into another co-exist cycle, until we eventually strike a new balance between man and automation's role in producing goods and services.

Where automation's role will fulfill more of the workforce needs in the process of producing goods and services, thus diminishing man's role, thus leading to . . .

the automation age?

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

Automation are just like enzymes once you use it they do not go away however they can denature (they can be melted or disassembled) however the some substrate (resources) are limited this means very limited product. Automation would speed up resource consumption. Sounds like unlimited labor but limited resources. So jobs would be more like locating resources instead of processing them. Even then might be replaced by machines.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Or we become like the borg and assimilate.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

In body not in mind. Compared to machines our body is fragile compared to them. We have emotions and creativity and they don't. Some of us formed a emotional bond with our electronics and might feel pain when it is taken away.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

my wife says that about her vibrator. just kidding.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes. But have those jobs been enough to replace the workers from other sectors that were replaced by machines?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I found this: http://www.automation.com/resources-tools/articles-white-papers/articles-by-jim-pinto/cheaper-better-faster-150-the-productivity-race

But productivity improvements have now caught up, and the drive for real-time operations and services is reshaping business and industry today. The resulting productivity boost is generating startling results. Indeed, this is perhaps the key factor behind the so-called jobless recovery. It’s not jobs being eliminated by automation, or jobs going offshore. It’s just that many jobs have simply disappeared, eliminated by productivity improvements.

Business Week estimates that 1% productivity improvement can eliminate up to 1.3 million jobs. With U.S. productivity growing at an annual rate of 3-5%, the reason for the jobs shortfall becomes clear. According to Forrester Research, of the 2.7 million jobs lost over the three years, only 300,000 have been from outsourcing.

Dick Morley explains it with his usual colorful flair, “Jobs are going down the silicon hole, not the outsourcing hole.” And the figures support this contention. Productivity resulting from industrial automation—not outsourcing—is the biggest culprit behind most manufacturing job losses. All industrialized countries are losing manufacturing jobs too – including China.

[-] 1 points by warbstar (210) 2 years ago

You are quite mistaken. Wall Street had a record busting year in 2010 with new IPO's and job creation......in China. We used to get IPO's in America. That is rare now.

Software jobs? You cannot possibly be this ignorant. Jobs like software development are being sent offshore because the entire world has access to corporate computers via the Internet. It is now very rare that there is an entry or mid-level programming job opening up. They only hire the most senior developers now…..to train their offshore counterparts. When that is done the job is gone. All that is left in IT is a skeleton crew now.

Go to Los Vegas and you'll see the future. They have card dealers in China connected via the Internet & Video Conferencing dealing cards. You get live interaction with that hot Chinese dealer via the Internet. No more need for the card dealer; Chinese card dealers are 1/10th the cost. Same thing is happening with teachers, R&D, all technical jobs (except repair), accountants, and more.

The only jobs that are targeted to remain in America are so-called mission critical jobs. That is a job like an attorney, business manager, etc. Every job that can be sent offshore via the Internet will be sent offshore to a virtual worker.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

One day everyone would be unemployed. The creative jobs are the last to go.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Yes, this is why people should be able to work LESS HOURS per work to afford their standard of living.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I don't understand why more people aren't talking about this. I think it's more important than Glass-Steagall. If we acknowledge that our whole society is being altered for the better due to our inventiveness, then the solutions will lead to a better life for ALL people. All 100%. The majority of our problems will fade away if we only accept that we are entering a new age. This should be the central theme for OWS. Get the country/world to acknowledge this, then the majority of our problems become moot.

[-] 2 points by Silica (51) from Suisun City, CA 2 years ago

The reason is that the first step to enacting any positive change is to first possess the ability to make it. As it stands, we don't have that power. Before we can even think of restructuring society we must first restore our ability to meaningfully affect the political process. For this reason, the central theme of OWS is, and should remain, getting the money out of politics. By disallowing private contributions and switching to a publicly funded system we can once again potentially have meaningful options as to who we feel best represents our collective interests.

To supplement this, we also need to build efficacy amongst voters. With exception to the aforementioned change, we need not push voters towards any one policy. We must simply continue to encourage awareness and active participation in the political process.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I think we have the ability to make change right now by getting the message out. The internet obviously playing a huge part of that. I think the political process is too corrupt to ever fix. As long as we have a monetary system, it will always be like that. If we manage to get a new law passed, then the elites will get one passed (maybe more covert), then the process will repeat itself.

The issue of job automation leading to massive job loss is starting to be covered by credible news sources (Forbes, NYT, CNN, etc.) but most people aren't aware of it, or in some cases, aren't able to put 2 and 2 together. Most people don't understand how corrupt our system is, or maybe they recognize it but just feel powerless against it, but they can understand that a self check out line eliminates a few jobs. I've even spoken with tea party members who agree that job automation is only going to increase and more jobs will be eliminated.

I think it should be at least neck and neck with getting money out of politics. People are demanding that jobs be created, but it's not happening. They don't understand why it's not happening, and automation is the main reason. Companies are not creating jobs mainly because they don't have a need to. They can increase their total output without having to hire anyone. When people understand this, they will demand action. When society comes up with a solution for this issue, other issues will fix themselves. I think it's up to us to spread the message. Like I said, the key word is "acknowledgement". If we can help people acknowledge what's happening, then things will start changing for the better.

[-] 2 points by Silica (51) from Suisun City, CA 2 years ago

How do you envision us bringing about this change? Awareness is only the beginning. As I said, the goal should be to create a political environment that facilitates change in favor of more than just a privileged minority. Any other meaningful change, I believe, relies on this.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Education. I think the links I posted in my original post, as well as others, do a good job of explaining the situation. I'm not sure how each of the occupy camps are organized, but I think they're leaderless? I'm not sure. If there are persons of contact for each camp, then we could reach out to them and explain to them the issue and see about creating awareness of it. The mainstream media is slowly coming around to this idea and if the occupy movement can spearhead the discussion, it would be a good look for them and could attract more supporters.

I think the outcome of an eventually, fully automated society would be a classless society. Not in a communist way, but in a new, practical way. We are not close to being able to fully automate our society, but we may be in less than a century. Are you familiar with the concept of technological singularity? Here's a wiki link if not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

I believe it's supposed to happen no later than 2045, barring any unexpected catastrophes.

Edit. Here's another good link: http://markii.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/kurzweils-singularity-time-line/

[-] 1 points by maymyo97 (5) 2 years ago

American people must support and buy Made in USA products. Protest and Boycott foreign goods and products [ if so, corporations and companies will create factories and jobs here (USA) ] . U.S Government ban corporations and companies who are shipping jobs (factories jobs and companies jobs) to oversea ( China and India and other countries).

[-] 2 points by Scout (729) 2 years ago

I can! How many times do you hear the politicians used the same old hackneyed expression " we need to create jobs " bla bla bla bla .... If they told the truth exactly how it is, what can they tell the people from their podium? that's why they are snake oil merchants the lot of them

[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I agree. The politicians are a huge part of the problem. So it's up to us to spread the message. If the people make a lot of noise about this, then the politicians will have to start talking about it.

I used to work in politics. Most politicians are very ignorant on most issues. They are just narcissistic and charismatic enough to charm the people.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

this is why it's important to both acknowledge our debts, but DEMAND that we have the right to restructure our debts without being placed into credit default by those who tanked the economy because of their laziness, fraud, and greed.

Squeezing the interest rates down on existing debt for those who can pay down their debts MUST happen. If this does, it frees up more of their income which in turn can help those out of work to find jobs.

As debt reduces, we all don't have to work as many hours, which is exactly a good thing since the odds are we will consume less, provided we don't go too crazy during the off hours.

don't forget to visit www.occupynews.net and support the 175 occupy blogs with RSS feeds that are listed on Occupynews.net

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

We could also acknowledge that our whole monetary system is flawed and then eliminate it in favor of something more modern.

I like the website!

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

thanks rbe!

Our monetary system was corrupted big time about 10 years ago when the government and the federal reserve simply took a step back and let shady wall street dealmakers in to deal with honest americans.

It sure looks like the government and federal reserve, with all that free time on their hands, continued printing money so we could go to war.

Shirking their duties to the american people enabled our government and the federal reserve to print money to go to war instead. This has to result in trials for government officials from the prior administration and possibly the present one for not "changing" back to how things were in the 90's.

[-] 1 points by mowakumba (2) 2 years ago

??? what do you mean? like... instead of getting A: 10 per hour and work 40 hours per week (400) B: 15 per hour and work 30 hours per week (450) C: 18 per hour and work 25 hours per week (450) D: 25 per hour and work 25 hours per week (625)

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

The exact numbers are not important to understand the logic behind sharing the workload if there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone to begin with.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Up!!!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Carnegie (9) 2 years ago

You also have a rapidly expanding population. More people; fewer jobs.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yep! 10 people wanting to sit down but there are only 7 chairs, and I think that every decade we will lose a chair, and maybe gain a person.

[-] 0 points by raines (699) 2 years ago

And no one buys buggy whips either. In the "olden days" people called the T.V. repairman when the set wasn't working. Now. people call computer repair people. Technology changes, new opportunies for business's arise.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yeah, but we seem to be at a tipping point now where newer technology is eliminating jobs much faster than creating them.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

True but not the end. New technology brought Apple jobs to China, no?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes, but they are automating as well.

Foxconn, the Taiwanese company that builds a lot of Apple products, is set to start automating.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/01/foxconn-to-automate-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/

Taiwanese technology giant Foxconn will replace some of its workers with 1 million robots in three years to cut rising labor expenses and improve efficiency, said Terry Gou, founder and chairman of the company, late Friday.

The robots will be used to do simple and routine work such as spraying, welding and assembling which are now mainly conducted by workers, said Gou at a workers’ dance party Friday night.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Oneofmany (85) 2 years ago

No - Johnny Cash even sang a song about it back in the 70's called "The legend of John Henry's Hammer".

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

No, but it's progressing faster than ever. Here's a quote:

"Business Week estimates that 1% productivity improvement can eliminate up to 1.3 million jobs. With U.S. productivity growing at an annual rate of 3-5%, the reason for the jobs shortfall becomes clear. According to Forrester Research, of the 2.7 million jobs lost over the three years, only 300,000 have been from outsourcing.

Dick Morley explains it with his usual colorful flair, “Jobs are going down the silicon hole, not the outsourcing hole.” And the figures support this contention. Productivity resulting from industrial automation—not outsourcing—is the biggest culprit behind most manufacturing job losses. All industrialized countries are losing manufacturing jobs too – including China."

One of OWS' main focuses is on jobs. Instead of demanding that corporations create jobs, it will be more effective to acknowledge the main reason why they are not creating jobs, then have a conversation about solutions.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yeah, but it's fairly obvious by the unemployment rate that the number of jobs eliminated are >>>>>than the ones being created.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Regardless of higher taxes or tighter regulations, if there's revenue to be earned by increasing costs, businesses will do it. Warren Buffett mentioned this on Charlie Rose I believe.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BobS (58) from Douglas, GA 2 years ago

And let us not forget that all you protesters who are blogging on your iPhones, iPads and Apple computers are supporting a company that has 2500 employees in the U.S.A and over 250K jobs that are off-shored!

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Foxconn, the Taiwanese company that builds a lot of Apple products, is set to start automating.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/01/foxconn-to-automate-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/

Taiwanese technology giant Foxconn will replace some of its workers with 1 million robots in three years to cut rising labor expenses and improve efficiency, said Terry Gou, founder and chairman of the company, late Friday.

The robots will be used to do simple and routine work such as spraying, welding and assembling which are now mainly conducted by workers, said Gou at a workers’ dance party Friday night.

[-] 1 points by BobS (58) from Douglas, GA 2 years ago

and your point is..... ???? Apple, now ranked as the number one company for profits, has been doing this for the past decade.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

My point is that outsourcing in general is a very small part of the problem compared to automation, and also that outsourcing is a precursor to automation.

"Business Week estimates that 1% productivity improvement can eliminate up to 1.3 million jobs. With U.S. productivity growing at an annual rate of 3-5%, the reason for the jobs shortfall becomes clear. According to Forrester Research, of the 2.7 million jobs lost over the three years, only 300,000 have been from outsourcing.

Dick Morley explains it with his usual colorful flair, “Jobs are going down the silicon hole, not the outsourcing hole.” And the figures support this contention. Productivity resulting from industrial automation—not outsourcing—is the biggest culprit behind most manufacturing job losses. All industrialized countries are losing manufacturing jobs too – including China."

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

If indeed the general populace's rights to own the fruits of their labor for a living are being systematically reduced by automation, then the balance must be adjusted accordingly, or in other words, I ask "If I am to be replaced by automation, should I not have the right to own the fruit of said automation's labor, which is only a substitute of me?"

[-] 1 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

So you see it is an employer's market now because the amount of people needed in the past to feed the "machine" is now a lot less. People are not needed anymore and our demands mean nothing to them. We have become disposal.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes, only because of the current system that we are in. I think we should replace the system with a new one.

Have you heard of the Venus Project? http://www.thevenusproject.com/

I think it's got some good ideas. Not perfect, but at least could somewhat guide a conversation.

[-] 1 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

Do not know a lot about the Venus Project although I have heard of it. My thoughts were along the lines of the Amish way of life (I guess some may call this socialism), but I doubt the majority of Americans will give up their greed and stuff. The majority of Americans are not enlightened and do not want to be. I am afraid that the majority of the people of OWS have taken the wrong approach and now most of the 99% are only laughing at OWS. I predict with tomorrows plan it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and OWS and for this I am sad.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

I deeply respect Amish for their way of life. But most of us, including myself wouldn't want to live like that :) But i do think most modern people would like to life in world where technology is used for the benefit of all people. Which would be the case in the world that rbe suggests.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Disposable items usually get discarded. We need to start a conversation about this to make the public aware of what's going on.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Yes, we have become disposal. When I hear companies say things like, 'we have jobs, we just don't have enough qualified people', I think they are just shifting the blame onto the citizens and refusing to acknowledge the shift in our system.

[-] 1 points by BobS (58) from Douglas, GA 2 years ago

well until someone figures out how to robotically flip a burger and put two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame bun and deliver it to my car in less then 2 minutes. I'm not sweating it.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

They're in the process of doing that now. ;)

Check the first video in my original post.

[-] 1 points by BobS (58) from Douglas, GA 2 years ago

Then I guess the jobs have switched to becoming an engineer who makes these machines huh?

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Not necessarily. In the short run, maybe a small bump, but in the long run, engineering work will mostly done by machines as well.

[-] 1 points by BobS (58) from Douglas, GA 2 years ago

I say get on the roller-coaster and ride it till the park closes down.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I say keep the park open forever.

[-] 1 points by BobS (58) from Douglas, GA 2 years ago

As long as the popcorn machine is operational and there is cold soda flowing, I say go for it.

[-] 1 points by Apercentage (81) 2 years ago

Its a wise business choice. Why the hell pay the high labor union wages here? Plus all the manufacturing for chip sets, displays, cell tech, and of those sorts of things are already made off in asia anyways By either foxcon or samsung. So its just a wise business decision.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Well if this were true, there would be no need to outsource labor - those are real factories and real jobs that are being outsourced. And this may be just one more attempt to psychologically minimize the anxiety and sense of urgency amongst the populace.

But is this is indeed the case, then we must eventually either require just compensation or destroy the machine.

[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

A lot of the jobs that have been outsourced are now being automated in foreign countries. There was a good book that came out that said that outsourcing is a precursor to automation,

I don't think we need to destroy the machines, I just think we need to adjust our society to accommodate the changes. The whole purpose of technology is to make our lives better, so we need to allow it to happen. Here's a link to the book (available to read online) that I mentioned:

http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/

[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Foxconn, the Taiwanese company that builds a lot of Apple products, is set to start automating.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/01/foxconn-to-automate-be-careful-what-you-wish-for/

Taiwanese technology giant Foxconn will replace some of its workers with 1 million robots in three years to cut rising labor expenses and improve efficiency, said Terry Gou, founder and chairman of the company, late Friday.

The robots will be used to do simple and routine work such as spraying, welding and assembling which are now mainly conducted by workers, said Gou at a workers’ dance party Friday night.

[-] 0 points by mowakumba (2) 2 years ago

Maybe you can get a smart enough person to run for congress and do your changing the way it should be done... Just a thought. :)

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

And when did that ever work?

[Removed]