Are jobs obsolete?

David · 09-07-2011, 01:51 PM

Are jobs obsolete? - CNN.com

An interesting point.

DosEquis · 09-07-2011, 02:25 PM

As communication gets cheaper and easier (data/voice), i think the concept of the traditional office building is going to be obsolete for a number of businesses.

For example I can do 99.5% of anything I need to do currently from home.

That means this for the company I work for:
No energy bill to power the lights, coffee pot, computer, a/c, etc.
No rent to pay for the physical space I occupy.
No cost for cubicals, chairs, etc.
No high dollar networking and phone systems for an entire office.

Etc etc.

notquiteright · 09-07-2011, 07:40 PM

it will increase unemployment as there will be no need to clean or maintain the building. No need for the security personnel or the company that maintains the security equipt. No need for the cafeteria's personnel or the company that stocks it.

Might help ease the immigrant problem as the grounds will not need to be maintained

Might increase the profits to corporations and their downtrodden, much maligned Corporate Officer/board class who will be under even more pressure to pay taxes at the rate they did back when the economy was exploding.

But I don't see how the dispersal of the workforce creates more jobs. might endanger sensitive data in many corporate propriety data streams.

I don't see how the author's idea creates significant jobs. Thinking more jobs will be created setting up job training and job referral sites. Part-time gourmet cooks for everyone.

David · 09-07-2011, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by notquiteright

it will increase unemployment as there will be no need to clean or maintain the building. No need for the security personnel or the company that maintains the security equipt. No need for the cafeteria's personnel or the company that stocks it.

Might help ease the immigrant problem as the grounds will not need to be maintained

Might increase the profits to corporations and their downtrodden, much maligned Corporate Officer/board class who will be under even more pressure to pay taxes at the rate they did back when the economy was exploding.

But I don't see how the dispersal of the workforce creates more jobs. might endanger sensitive data in many corporate propriety data streams.

I don't see how the author's idea creates significant jobs. Thinking more jobs will be created setting up job training and job referral sites. Part-time gourmet cooks for everyone.

If you totally automate the economy you no longer have to pay labor costs. No labor costs + automation = no production costs. No production costs means no overhead costs. No overhead costs + no production costs + no labor costs = no need for money. No need for money means no need for wage jobs/slavery thus unemployment becomes a non-issue and everyone can spend all their energy on scientific/technological innovation and enjoying life. That possibility is what he was hinting at.

wanna be drummer · 09-07-2011, 09:21 PM

People would still have jobs though...someone has to design and fix the machines making everything

DosEquis · 09-07-2011, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by David

If you totally automate the economy you no longer have to pay labor costs. No labor costs + automation = no production costs. No production costs means no overhead costs. No overhead costs + no production costs + no labor costs = no need for money. No need for money means no need for wage jobs/slavery thus unemployment becomes a non-issue and everyone can spend all their energy on scientific/technological innovation and enjoying life. That possibility is what he was hinting at.

I did watch a couple of the Star Trek's that were on Cinemax the other day. Picard explained to the gal that economics of the future are different in that they don't do anything for money.

WickedLou9 · 09-08-2011, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by David

If you totally automate the economy you no longer have to pay labor costs. No labor costs + automation = no production costs. No production costs means no overhead costs. No overhead costs + no production costs + no labor costs = no need for money. No need for money means no need for wage jobs/slavery thus unemployment becomes a non-issue and everyone can spend all their energy on scientific/technological innovation and enjoying life. That possibility is what he was hinting at.

That's fantasy garbage. At best you are talking about decentralizing the workforce, but you still need people to work. There are still labor costs and infrastructure costs. They are just different. IF you don't work, you don't have any means to buy a computer, a house, a car, electricity, etc.

If you take money away, there is no way to ration scarce resources. If you could automate the production of things, you still have to ration the raw materials that go into producing the goods. The free market handles this through price/cost. The only way to avoid this issue is if the government gets to decide how much beer, bread, meat and coca-cola every person gets. It's a very foolish and unenlightened idea.

David · 09-08-2011, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's fantasy garbage. At best you are talking about decentralizing the workforce, but you still need people to work. There are still labor costs and infrastructure costs. They are just different. IF you don't work, you don't have any means to buy a computer, a house, a car, electricity, etc.

If you take money away, there is no way to ration scarce resources. If you could automate the production of things, you still have to ration the raw materials that go into producing the goods. The free market handles this through price/cost. The only way to avoid this issue is if the government gets to decide how much beer, bread, meat and coca-cola every person gets. It's a very foolish and unenlightened idea.

Most of our ore cold be harvested from the Asteroid Belt and food is so plentiful already we have to destroy the stuff to keep prices high. It's doable if you're willing to accept that the economy will suffer during the transition.

notquiteright · 09-08-2011, 02:01 PM

I think it is HIGHLY optimistic to believe the capitalist race to be the top dawg will smoothly transform to a classless, cashless society. (I didn't wash Star Trek while high so I guess I don't believe their vision of the future)

I doubt the elite, the few others employed to maintain the machines, and the servant class will be as easy going with the idea of huge numbers of thinkers sitting around at home exchanging ideas on the interwebz.

I maybe a cynic in my old age, but I think this path is more a slippery slope to 19th century England's Classical liberalism that calculated the unemployed underclass would 'dissipate'.

We chuckle at Scrooge in 'A Christmas Carol' but the sentiment is alive and well. There is quite an isulary layer between those who sit atop the heap and those who would best serve society by 'dissipating'.

Perhaps it is time to bring back Jonathan Swift's, 'A Modest Proposal'.

We are undergoing another shift in our economy and there will be a surplus of workers in the middle class.

I don't see the current political trends leaning toward any sort of classless, cashless, communal society.

Every notice how hard some are going after anything they think even smells of universal, ie communal, coverage?

The counter argument is we didn't spend all these many generations climbing toward the top only to give it all away.

DosEquis · 09-08-2011, 08:46 PM

What?

notquiteright · 09-08-2011, 11:37 PM

I don't think the current political climate will allow anything even vaguely smelling of socialism.

Capitalism won the cold war and no way, no how any classless, cashless, we work for sense of accomplishment society is going to replace wages and the current measure of success, money.

In here was the classic response an elitist gives when discussing most anything- "your just jealous because I make more money".

Gipper's Classical Liberalism is no kind of liberal. They give us such jems as the invisible hand that guides the market place. The unemployed lower classes would simply dissipate. CL isn't new, it had a moment in the sun in Victorian England. Jonathan Swift wrote 'A Modest Proposal' as a counter to CL.

Perhaps society will crash to the point the super wealthy will lose the electronic wealth and end the counting coup game Forbes highlights each year.

But I don't think most wage slaves will like the civil strife that would most likely occur. I don't see us sliding into only a select few do actual work and the vast majority stay home and network.

David · 09-08-2011, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by notquiteright

I don't think the current political climate will allow anything even vaguely smelling of socialism.

Capitalism won the cold war and no way, no how any classless, cashless, we work for sense of accomplishment society is going to replace wages and the current measure of success, money.

In here was the classic response an elitist gives when discussing most anything- "your just jealous because I make more money".

Gipper's Classical Liberalism is no kind of liberal. They give us such jems as the invisible hand that guides the market place. The unemployed lower classes would simply dissipate. CL isn't new, it had a moment in the sun in Victorian England. Jonathan Swift wrote 'A Modest Proposal' as a counter to CL.

Perhaps society will crash to the point the super wealthy will lose the electronic wealth and end the counting coup game Forbes highlights each year.

But I don't think most wage slaves will like the civil strife that would most likely occur. I don't see us sliding into only a select few do actual work and the vast majority stay home and network.

I wouldn't say the Capitalist won, the 2nd World is seeing a resurgence while the 1st World is falling apart. Africa of all places is doing better then the West economically (they're just starting from so low it's not obvious unless you compare the numbers). Hell even the Soviet Union didn't really collapse, they lost a few frontier republics (most of which are begging to rejoin) and had a name change.

Also, can you really blame me for seeing this the way I do?

notquiteright · 09-09-2011, 11:10 AM

I don't blame anyone for thinking the way they do, we need differing opinions to foster creativity.

I don't see the emerging 2nd world bringing with it socialism, or egalitarianism. Seems to me most are emerging under the thumb, errrr auspices of multinational corporations. Being a member of the 2nd world doesn't make you pure of heart. Makes you hungry for what the fat, lazy, self absorbed 1st world has.

Maybe the trend will end, but traditionally every nation has longed for their place in the sun. Many wars have resulted from that friction as the Oaks can't help how they are made but the Maples still want the sun. (name that tune)

You are correct, capitalism didn't win, the game continues. But Capitalism did win a major battle, even if it drove the winner to a new massive debt. While Joe 6pack celebrated the victory, more sober souls thought another 'victory' like that and we will be undone. Then along came Bush the Younger. We seem blessed with leaders willing to spend any amount and have our children bear any burden.

Anywho, Russia has always been an Oligarchy, no matter the political trappings. I doubt it will be the well spring of any classless, cashless society.

One thing i have noticed most Sci-Fi writers do is hop far enough into the future before showing us a classless, cashless society to allow the explanation to be acceptable because it is way in the future.

I would like a society where life, liberty and the pursuit are not so cash dependent. Where justice doesn't have an ATM machine up her dress, and the color of most of our skins is a warm brown hue but those who are darker or paler are met without a second thought.

But by all means dream your dream and hope for the better mankind to rise to the top. Don't mind the rest of us.

David · 09-09-2011, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by notquiteright

I don't blame anyone for thinking the way they do, we need differing opinions to foster creativity.

I don't see the emerging 2nd world bringing with it socialism, or egalitarianism. Seems to me most are emerging under the thumb, errrr auspices of multinational corporations. Being a member of the 2nd world doesn't make you pure of heart. Makes you hungry for what the fat, lazy, self absorbed 1st world has.

Maybe the trend will end, but traditionally every nation has longed for their place in the sun. Many wars have resulted from that friction as the Oaks can't help how they are made but the Maples still want the sun. (name that tune)

You are correct, capitalism didn't win, the game continues. But Capitalism did win a major battle, even if it drove the winner to a new massive debt. While Joe 6pack celebrated the victory, more sober souls thought another 'victory' like that and we will be undone. Then along came Bush the Younger. We seem blessed with leaders willing to spend any amount and have our children bear any burden.

Anywho, Russia has always been an Oligarchy, no matter the political trappings. I doubt it will be the well spring of any classless, cashless society.

One thing i have noticed most Sci-Fi writers do is hop far enough into the future before showing us a classless, cashless society to allow the explanation to be acceptable because it is way in the future.

I would like a society where life, liberty and the pursuit are not so cash dependent. Where justice doesn't have an ATM machine up her dress, and the color of most of our skins is a warm brown hue but those who are darker or paler are met without a second thought.

But by all means dream your dream and hope for the better mankind to rise to the top. Don't mind the rest of us.

Thanks!

As to the bolded, it turns out we're diverging as a species. Seems globalization, rather then blending us all together, has instead sped up the spread of mutations and thus sent us all going in wildly different evolutionary directions. Fast forward a million odd years (assuming the trend continues unchanged) and we'll no longer be a single species.

notquiteright · 09-09-2011, 06:30 PM

I read somewhere that when we invented glasses we stopped evolution.

Would be interesting to hang around a few dozen centuries to see if our minds can trump our little heads. See if mental evolution leads us to Bill and Ted's or the Matrix.

If for no other reason, those Sci-Fi writers sure make soldier chicks smokin hot! I can see Feb 14th, Will you be my battle buddy?

stolz25 · 09-10-2011, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

If you take money away, there is no way to ration scarce resources.

Ding Ding.

Technically incorrect though, there is no good way to ration scarce resources.

The idea is scarcity, which we will always have until someone figures out how to produce something from nothing.

stolz25 · 09-10-2011, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by David

Most of our ore cold be harvested from the Asteroid Belt and food is so plentiful already we have to destroy the stuff to keep prices high. It's doable if you're willing to accept that the economy will suffer during the transition.

What is this fantasy about harvesting ore from an asteroid belt being the end to scarcity? You still have to go harvest it, how is that different than harvesting it from earth, except it being massively more expensive, and time consuming to do?

David · 09-10-2011, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

What is this fantasy about harvesting ore from an asteroid belt being the end to scarcity? You still have to go harvest it, how is that different than harvesting it from earth, except it being massively more expensive, and time consuming to do?

Time consuming yes but dragging a mountain sized peace of rock filled with gold, iron, carbon, etc. would repay itself at once. As an example, if all the gold harvested throughout human history were melted down, it would only fill a few Olympic sized pools, suffice it to say a 1/2 slab of gold would beat that in 1 go.

stolz25 · 09-10-2011, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by David

Time consuming yes but dragging a mountain sized peace of rock filled with gold, iron, carbon, etc. would repay itself at once.

No, it wouldn't. You'd still have to mine it from the mountain and process it. Not to mention the logistics of having a mountain sized piece of whatever crashing into earth.

Originally Posted by David

As an example, if all the gold harvested throughout human history were melted down, it would only fill a few Olympic sized pools, suffice it to say a 1/2 slab of gold would beat that in 1 go.

Gold isn't used for much other than being used as a storage for wealth. Gold isn't magic. If you made gold completely ordinary then people would simply find something else which is rare to store wealth in.

David · 09-10-2011, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

No, it wouldn't. You'd still have to mine it from the mountain and process it. Not to mention the logistics of having a mountain sized piece of whatever crashing into earth.

And yet the shear amount of ore in the Asteroid Belt negates those costs. Hell you could use that ore to build the ships and equipment to mine more ore. Nor would you need to bring the asteroid home, you could mine it all on site then ship it back.

Gold isn't used for much other than being used as a storage for wealth. Gold isn't magic. If you made gold completely ordinary then people would simply find something else which is rare to store wealth in.

Ya not useful for much else but wealth storage except for medicane and industry.