Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…
Hopefully the worker gets another job so now you have a productive robot and a productive worker doing something else.
Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…
Doesn't all of the money that was going into the operating cost of the robot still end up in human pockets? Instead of going to the worker it goes to robot developers, robot maintainers, and energy companies. Then the argument it increases inequality, but that's been the case since industrial machinery happened, as Piketty showed.
Don't think about money, that only confuses things. Think about resources instead. Imagine that the worker burns oil to survive, and the robot also burns oil to function. Now replacing the worker with the robot makes the economy burn twice as much oil for the same amount of production (assuming the worker goes on welfare). If you think in terms of money and pockets, the picture will be more complicated, but the end result will be the same.
My current theory is that this “automation bomb” won't really happen in the sense that 5 million Truckers are going to get laid off all of a sudden. Especially in the case of Truckers the average age is getting higher and higher every year because Millennials have said that is not a job they want. So my theory is that as Baby Boomer/Early Gen Xers retire automation will step in and fill the employment gap. So there w…
That's how it works when the fundamentals shift, and it's hard to see because it's not like you lost a job - you just never got it to start with.
Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…
Doesn't all of the money that was going into the operating cost of the robot still end up in human pockets? Instead of going to the worker it goes to robot developers, robot maintainers, and energy companies. Then the argument it increases inequality, but that's been the case since industrial machinery happened, as Piketty showed.
Or into the pockets of the owners of the robots who develop, maintain, and power these robots.
Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…
And what does he think that having high living standard is about, other than burning resources?
By his definition of efficiency, a dead planet is the most efficient.
Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…
Hopefully the worker gets another job so now you have a productive robot and a productive worker doing something else.
Yeah, if you assume that workers never go on welfare, the argument falls down.
Simon Funk [1] makes a great point that in a mixed capitalist/welfare state, automation decreases efficiency. Imagine a worker, earning the bare minimum to survive, who gets replaced by a robot with slightly lower operating cost. Now the robot is consuming slightly fewer resources that the worker would have, but the worker doesn't stop consuming resources in turn! Unless you're willing to kill the worker, he goes on…
And what does he think that having high living standard is about, other than burning resources? By his definition of efficiency, a dead planet is the most efficient.
The burning of resources by robots doesn't by itself contribute to a higher living standard, unless you're measuring the living standard of robots :-)
My current theory is that this “automation bomb” won't really happen in the sense that 5 million Truckers are going to get laid off all of a sudden. Especially in the case of Truckers the average age is getting higher and higher every year because Millennials have said that is not a job they want. So my theory is that as Baby Boomer/Early Gen Xers retire automation will step in and fill the employment gap. So there w…
> So my theory is that as Baby Boomer/Early Gen Xers retire automation will step in and fill the employment gap. So there won't massive amounts of laid off Truckers sitting around.
Young workers used to take those jobs, though. The young (especially men) are underemployed right now. If you're right, they are the ones hurt the most in the long run by automation.
You think through the eyes of idealism. Consider this You are the owner of a fortune 500 company You need to hire enough people to fullfill 1600 hours a day, 14 days per paycheck. You want to hire the people as cheaply as possible. If the individual knows they only have to work 20 hrs per week to survive, they have the power to negotiate. If the individual believes that they have to work two jobs for 60 hrs per week…
Sorry, I don't understand your point in the historical context. Original labour conditions in factories were horrible. The conditions did not improve through economic rationalization but because society recognized it as wrong and forced factory owners to employ better working conditions.
You think through the eyes of idealism. Consider this You are the owner of a fortune 500 company You need to hire enough people to fullfill 1600 hours a day, 14 days per paycheck. You want to hire the people as cheaply as possible. If the individual knows they only have to work 20 hrs per week to survive, they have the power to negotiate. If the individual believes that they have to work two jobs for 60 hrs per week…
One may also pay pennies for bullets, likely better to move both you AND your money overseas while you still can.