China sets up first unmanned factory; all processes are operated by robots - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48408389] [B] remember that automating a factory means that a company can choose to either cut prices or increase investment[/B][/QUOTE] Or the company pockets the money to its shareholders. Wich is more realistic. Cutting prices rarely happen, especially for brands with popularity, and investments are done more by mergers and aqusitions than by actually building up fresh new stuff.

[QUOTE=godfatherk;48408854]Or the company pockets the money to its shareholders. Wich is more realistic. Cutting prices rarely happen, especially for brands with popularity, and investments are done more by mergers and aqusitions than by actually building up fresh new stuff.[/QUOTE] Wealthier shareholders spend more money. What people ought to be concerned about is the rate at which the money moves, rather than it not moving at all (because it always moves). Can I get a source on the shareholders pocketing all of the difference btw, and secondly if the shareholders all refuse to spend the money?

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48406962]People use middle class like some sort of force on nature universal constant. The erosion of middle class in the west shows, if nothing else, that the current economic fucntioning simply doesn't harbor something like that. China is skipping creation of middle class because they are very rapidly adapting to the current socio-economical environment, it's a symptom, not cause of something horrid and scary. This makes no sense. Their demographic problem is literally "We don't have enough people capable of productive work", you literally do fix it by filling the labour void with non-human workers, increasing the productivity per capita. The only remaining challenge is figuring out a stable and defensible way of re-allocating that productivity to people who are out of work, but that's again a global problem and China won't face it much harder than the rest of the world. [editline]8th August 2015[/editline] "I don't have a problem with automated industry but I don't think the society will work with it." "You don't live to work but you do live to work" [editline]8th August 2015[/editline] Which is ideal for everyone as the ecological and economical cost of hauling stuff around can be cut. China will also feel relief from carrying the hefty chunk of ecological burden they carry for the west through the production for us.[/QUOTE] I don't think you get my point. If people don't aren't being productive, they're just sitting. It might be leisurely, but we haven't structured society to work like that yet.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48408389]automation isn't going to create unemployment because it hasn't done that for the past two centuries. remember that automating a factory means that a company can choose to either cut prices or increase investment. if they choose to cut prices, then consumers will have more money to spend on other goods and services, which will require a corresponding demand in labour. if the company chooses to increase investment, this means they will have to employ more people (either to build or maintain the machinery, work in quality control, etc).[/QUOTE]What. [b]What?[/b] Not only are you seeing the effects of that [i]right now[/i] with unemployment rates but historically automation has displaced millions of workers and it's fucked [i]everything[/i] up. Do you not fucking get where the term "luddite" even came from? They didn't just smash machines because they wanted to, the worker riots happened because they were all out of a fucking job. Why do you even think that "oh more jobs will come along!!!" when that has never fucking happened? No, you don't take a factory worker and then somehow magically turn him into a robot repairman, especially not if he's barely literate. Holy fucking shit what would even make you think this ever? Also if people have more money to spend that doesn't magically create a higher demand in labor, that means people will buy more shit, the labor demands remain the same until the companies and corporations responsible for employing them decide that it's time to expand based off of demand from the market. (or because they want to because they think it might be a good idea) Wealthy consumers don't automatically generate demand this isn't a goddamn video game, you have to have something they want and that usually means shifting production to that thing [i]not[/i] expanding your fucking workforce. Example: where the fuck is Pepsi Blue? Under your logic they wouldn't have stopped producing that but instead would have made a different kind of Pepsi or Mt. Dew to meet the new consumer demand. That did not happen, it floundered on the market and despite some demand for it and consumers having cash to spend on it they still cut that product. No, automation is [i]not[/i] going to shift workers to different occupations. That's not how the world works and I really wish all the naive people who greet the total upheaval of society with open arms would stop being so fucking delusional. Our societies are [i]not[/i] set up to handle losing most of the jobs available, it won't magically make things into some utopia straight out of science fiction it'll quickly lead to [i]more[/i] riots, [i]more[/i] civil unrest, and [i]more[/i] desperate people suffering. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48408867]Wealthier shareholders spend more money. What people ought to be concerned about is the rate at which the money moves, rather than it not moving at all (because it always moves). Can I get a source on the shareholders pocketing all of the difference btw, and secondly if the shareholders all refuse to spend the money?[/QUOTE]Um. The entire economic divide in the United States is a great example of wealthy people hoarding money, you said in another thread about the subject that you didn't understand why they would be doing that. I'm not going to dig it up because I'm on a satellite internet connection capped to dialup speeds, you probably remember saying it and if you don't you can search your posts. (it was last year, sometime around May if I recall correctly) [editline]8th August 2015[/editline] In fact the only time things have improved after massive unemployment has been the economy rapidly expanding or because most of the poor people were killed off. Both things usually happened at the same time in the form of two global wars, the period after both wars was a great time economically. Seriously there isn't any way to solve this without killing lots of people in one way or another.

Relevant random quote: The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48405401]Average wages in China have risen more than thirty-fold since 1980. There aren't people working for slave wages anymore, hasn't been for years. [/QUOTE] Yeah, on top of that many Chinese families have achieved the American dream despite not even being in America. They live in a suburb in a decent house and make decent money. And that's just the burgeoning middle class. There are an increasing amount of Chinese businessmen who are FILTHY rich. It's at the point where my dad got involved in a covert operation to buy a luxury car as a favor for a Chinese trader friend of his who makes hella money importing luxury cars from California. He's actually been banned from the dealerships here which is why he needed my dad's help. That his customers are so rich that they would rather import a luxury car for double the money than buy a Chinese market model of lower quality really says something about the growing wealth in China. We also know a guy who is responsible for 1/5 of the walnut exports in America, and all that goes to China. You can bet he's making a pretty penny because his co-owner exploited a legal loophole and stole all his assets and he was able to get right back on his feet and continue exporting. Bottom line is, some people in China these days are rolling in the $$$

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48409482]Not only are you seeing the effects of that [i]right now[/i] with unemployment rates but historically automation has displaced millions of workers and it's fucked [i]everything[/i] up. Do you not fucking get where the term "luddite" even came from? They didn't just smash machines because they wanted to, the worker riots happened because they were all out of a fucking job. Why do you even think that "oh more jobs will come along!!!" when that has never fucking happened? No, you don't take a factory worker and then somehow magically turn him into a robot repairman, especially not if he's barely literate. Holy fucking shit what would even make you think this ever?[/quote] Because employment levels show no consistent trend upwards or downwards when you are looking at timescales of decades and centuries. [img]http://blog.alphaarchitect.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/US_Unemployment_1890-2011.gif[/img] [quote]Also if people have more money to spend that doesn't magically create a higher demand in labor, that means people will buy more shit, the labor demands remain the same until the companies and corporations responsible for employing them decide that it's time to expand based off of demand from the market.[/quote] Yes it does. The point is that we are ignoring depressions (which are more short term) and we are looking at the long run here (decades worth). There are entire industries which didn't exist twenty years ago that employ millions today. [quote]No, automation is [i]not[/i] going to shift workers to different occupations. That's not how the world works and I really wish all the naive people who greet the total upheaval of society with open arms would stop being so fucking delusional.[/quote] How can you say this when it already has? Agricultural workers moved into industries, and then industrial workers moved into services. This has been a process which has changed little (besides the rate at which it happens) since the 18th century. [quote]In fact the only time things have improved after massive unemployment has been the economy rapidly expanding or because most of the poor people were killed off. Both things usually happened at the same time in the form of two global wars, the period after both wars was a great time economically. Seriously there isn't any way to solve this without killing lots of people in one way or another.[/QUOTE] so kill all the poor is your solution or?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48408389]automation isn't going to create unemployment because it hasn't done that for the past two centuries. remember that automating a factory means that a company can choose to either cut prices or increase investment. if they choose to cut prices, then consumers will have more money to spend on other goods and services, which will require a corresponding demand in labour. if the company chooses to increase investment, this means they will have to employ more people (either to build or maintain the machinery, work in quality control, etc).[/QUOTE] These economic theories were created in a different world. In this world it's possible to have your factories in one location, and sell your product on the other side of the world, and many corporations are doing exactly that. This means cutting prices only affects the people in the country you are selling in, not the country doing the manufacturing. Increasing investment could mean in another country, so the people currently doing the manufacturing and the people currently doing the buying likewise don't benefit. An example would be if Chinese robots allowed greater profits for the owners of the factories. Those owners invest that money in the US, establishing a distribution network for Chinese robot made products. This does not benefit the Chinese worker one bit. That's an example of how old economic rules don't apply since the playing field has completely changed.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48409645]Because employment levels show no consistent trend upwards or downwards when you are looking at timescales of decades and centuries. <graph>[/QUOTE]Nice job on throwing out the United States as an example, the white unicorn of economics. You're missing the fact that during the 1800's millions of people came to the United States because Europe had no jobs and you're also missing the fact that the reason why unemployment was so low was due to the [i]entire United States being mostly uninhabited.[/i] Settlers moved West because it allowed economic freedom. In fact you've inadvertently proved my point here, so great job. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48409645]Yes it does. The point is that we are ignoring depressions (which are more short term) and we are looking at the long run here (decades worth).[/QUOTE]I didn't mention depressions, so whatever. I'm talking about how the world works [i]right now[/i] and no if people have more money it doesn't magically mean more demand in labor. That's not how the world works, that's not how it's worked for a long time. People have disposable income, they either invest in the stock market (which is largely automated btw lol) or they buy things they've wanted but never had, that money goes to existing establishments and it isn't spread on some ambiguous new pool of jobs like you're assuming it does. Companies expand at their own rate, in fact the drop in consumer prices quite often causes layoffs because unprofitable ventures are cancelled which causes the prices to increase and then the workers are brought back ad nauseam. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48409645]There are entire industries which didn't exist twenty years ago that employ millions today.[/QUOTE]And there's far more industries that don't exist anymore, you can't point to technological progress and go "SEE!? MORE JOBS!!!!" No, that doesn't fucking happen unless a new technology comes out and frankly I don't see us inventing the airplane, automobile, or televisions all over again any time soon. Robotics are steam engines all over again, it's going to be [i]decades[/i] before the consequences of their widespread adoption is going to be fully realized. You're going to have to accept that common sense (or history) doesn't support your narrative at all. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48409645]How can you say this when it already has? Agricultural workers moved into industries, and then industrial workers moved into services. This has been a process which has changed little (besides the rate at which it happens) since the 18th century.[/QUOTE]Wow, laborers going going from one job that requires little skill to another job that requires absolutely no skill. How does this apply anymore when we're talking about something that [i]entirely replaces unskilled labor completely?[/i] People don't magically gain valuable skills just because you want them to, assembling dildos does not fucking translate into fixing a goddamn robot at all, it especially doesn't translate into [i]programming[/i] one which is what you're saying will happen. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48409645]so kill all the poor is your solution or?[/QUOTE]No, my solution is to step the fuck back and let society catch up, [i]your[/i] solution is essentially "fuck it the poor people will figure it out." So yeah, when people inevitably die from the riots and massive unrest I guess you'll still be saying it'll all work out [i]somehow.[/i]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48409924]you're also missing the fact that the reason why unemployment was so low was due to the entire United States being mostly uninhabited. Settlers moved West because it allowed economic freedom.[/quote] unemployment is completely unrelated to population numbers, this is economics 101 [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy[/url] [quote]I didn't mention depressions, so whatever. I'm talking about how the world works [i]right now[/i] and no if people have more money it doesn't magically mean more demand in labor. That's not how the world works, that's not how it's worked for a long time. People have disposable income, they either invest in the stock market (which is largely automated btw lol) or they buy things they've wanted but never had, that money goes to existing establishments and it isn't spread on some ambiguous new pool of jobs like you're assuming it does.[/quote] Except you're saying the literal exact opposite of what we have observed in history. I mean can you explain why unemployment (long term) isn't rising? [quote]And there's far more industries that don't exist anymore, you can't point to technological progress and go "SEE!? MORE JOBS!!!!" No, that doesn't fucking happen unless a new technology comes out and frankly I don't see us inventing the airplane, automobile, or televisions all over again any time soon. Robotics are steam engines all over again, it's going to be decades before the consequences of their widespread adoption is going to be fully realized. You're going to have to accept that common sense (or history) doesn't support your narrative at all.[/quote] Can i just ask if you've picked up a book or article which goes into any degree of economic analysis at any point in your entire life? I'm not even talking about economics specifically, but even a history book or something which deals with sociology or? [quote]Wow, laborers going going from one job that requires little skill to another job that requires absolutely no skill. How does this apply anymore when we're talking about something that [i]entirely replaces unskilled labor completely?[/i] People don't magically gain valuable skills just because you want them to, assembling dildos does not fucking translate into fixing a goddamn robot at all, it especially doesn't translate into [i]programming[/i] one which is what you're saying will happen. No, my solution is to step the fuck back and let society catch up, [i]your[/i] solution is essentially "fuck it the poor people will figure it out." So yeah, when people inevitably die from the riots and massive unrest I guess you'll still be saying it'll all work out [i]somehow.[/i][/QUOTE] Since when is my solution ever that? I'm not some cruel heartless bastard industrial syndicate. I think that we don't do enough to support the most vulnerable and poor in society and that welfare reform should seek to cover the basic needs of everyone. I mean what the hell do you mean people dying in riots or massive unrest? I mean Judge Dredd is an interesting comic book series based on a cyberpunk future but you're going kind of far in assuming that its our future.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48405401] Yeah, it'll cause just as much unemployment when people stopped working on farms in the 19th century.[/QUOTE] Bad argument. This was used to create a conditioned buyers market of labor for rising industries, a class of dispossessed small farmers turned disorganized proletarians (which wasn't necessarily a leg up). Automation, just like endemic unemployment, will serve a similar function of enforcing labor competition on workers, creating a predictable and lopsided labor market for employers, and breaking manifestations of solidarity or unionism. Generally socialists prescribed automation and other motions towards abundance as a means to achieve an end to the need for work and a classless society, and labor becoming more of a creative hobby than a lifetime necessity. In capitalism, being a class society where the majority of people rely on the sale of labor, it's just a means to displace and atomize labor under the threat of starvation. Also, generally capitalism doesn't really need to cause more unemployment since it's endemic and always exists, usually enough to keep labor costs down and unionism under threat. A reserve army of labor along with automation are two useful tools for capital in the class struggle as well as proof positive of the contradictory interests of capital and labor. It raises the question of whether private property and commodity production is in the interests of (the majority of) society.

[QUOTE=Conscript;48410182]This was used to create a conditioned buyers market of labor for rising industries, a class of dispossessed small farmers turned disorganized proletarians. Automation, just like endemic unemployment, will serve a similar function of enforcing labor competition on workers, creating a predictable and lopsided market for employers, and breaking manifestations of solidarity or unionism through targeted automation. Generally socialists prescribed automation and other motions towards abundance as a means to achieve an end to the need for work and a classless society, and labor becoming more of a creative hobby than a lifetime necessity. In capitalism, being a class society where the majority of people rely on the sale of labor, it's just a means to displace and atomize labor under the threat of starvation. Also, generally capitalism doesn't really need to cause more unemployment since it's endemic and always exists, usually enough to keep labor costs down and unionism under threat. A reserve army of labor along with automation are two useful tools for capital in the class struggle as well as proof positive of the contradictory interests of capital and labor.[/QUOTE] The above doesn't actually address my argument. Unemployment was not significantly influenced long term, and remains stable. There is no long term trend towards increasing unemployment.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48410215]The above doesn't actually address my argument. Unemployment was not significantly influenced long term, and remains stable. There is no long term trend towards increasing unemployment.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should read the post then. The point wasn't that increases unemployment, but that such things in history were used to create a buyers market of labor and you yourself prescribe automation, this very topic, to do so. It begs the question of 1) if this is in the interests of labor, the majority of society and 2) if this and modern capitalism in general is in the interests of a nation and healthy society, should it only destabilize such from class conflict The latter is probably why most nationalists today reject the EU, international finance, and neoliberalism.

[QUOTE=Conscript;48410265]It begs the question of 1) if this is in the interests of labor, the majority of society[/quote] Well longterm it's certainly in the interests of the majority of society. [quote]2) if this and modern capitalism in general is in the interests of a nation, should it only destabilize such from class conflict and threaten any profit making at all.[/quote] Does it matter if its in the interests of the nation or not? We're looking at people here. If England ceased to exist as a nation in return for improved living standards, healthcare, happier people, etc it's not hard to say which one I'd pick.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48409924]You're missing the fact that during the 1800's millions of people came to the United States because Europe had no jobs and you're also missing the fact that the reason why unemployment was so low was due to the [I]entire United States being mostly uninhabited.[/I] Settlers moved West because it allowed economic freedom. [/QUOTE] Hold on, so what you're saying is that the unemployment rate in the 1800s was low because of the availability of the frontier, and that if conditions were comparable to today (with all the country already occupied) it would actually have been higher? So, discounting the employment possibilities provided by colonization, the actual unemployment rate would have been higher, and therefore higher than it is today? Isn't that, like, literally proving his argument? If he says 'unemployment has remained pretty much constant' and you say 'it would have been higher in the past were it not for this specific economic condition' then that's kind of supporting the argument that machines won't put everyone out of work. Not to mention you're saying that unemployment in Europe was much higher- okay, and following a period of economic unrest, it eventually dropped, and unemployment is much lower today. Sure seems to suggest that the result of rapid industrialization is a period of economic instability, followed by a return to normalcy with a higher standard of living, not the death of civilization at the hands of machine labor as the Luddites predicted. I'm not really understanding your argument here because you're giving examples that seem to contradict your claims. On another note, and I'm not accusing you in particular, but the prevailing opinion in this thread is very interesting to me considering we just had a thread last week in which people lamented that you can get a college degree and still wind up being forced to flip burgers for a living. Puts a little bit of perspective on the idea of skilled labor replacing unskilled labor IMO.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48405350]China should be striving to become a leader in technology. Its population is expected to actually decline in the future.[/QUOTE] Well of course the population is going to decline. Once the robotic uprising begins, they'll be sending everyone to death camps.

Ideally this is going to make everyone's life better, but it's going to be a hell of a bumpy road to get there. I really think unemployment is going to some day become the norm for most people, and not some dirty underclass that deserves our scorn. We're just going to have to hope that when that day comes, we can set up some proper minimum income, and social services for everyone, or else the people who own the machines are going to end up being the ones with all the money.

[QUOTE=Pythagoras64;48410880]Ideally this is going to make everyone's life better, but it's going to be a hell of a bumpy road to get there. I really think unemployment is going to some day become the norm for most people, and not some dirty underclass that deserves our scorn. We're just going to have to hope that when that day comes, we can set up some proper minimum income, and social services for everyone, or else the people who own the machines are going to end up being the ones with all the money.[/QUOTE] I wonder how will that happen. Countries already have huge issues with welfare. Giving decent money to every jobless person seems unrealistic.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48411054]I wonder how will that happen. Countries already have huge issues with welfare. Giving decent money to every jobless person seems unrealistic.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's probably going to be our biggest challenge for the next few generations. I'm hopeful that a working system can be found some day, although it's going to take a huge paradigm shift in the way we treat our wealth.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48410070]unemployment is completely unrelated to population numbers, this is economics 101[/QUOTE]Literally the entire reason why the West was settled was lack of economic opportunity on the East Coast. (well, mostly, see below) [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48410070]Except you're saying the literal exact opposite of what we have observed in history.[/QUOTE][i]What?[/i] That's exactly what happens in the United States, there's a whole market around catering to people who have disposable income and want to invest. Plus if you're in the lower classes you always buy shit that you always wanted if you come into a lot of money, that's literally the reason why the poor stay poor because they don't save money. You can argue this point all you want until the cows come home but I'm telling you this is how it is because [i]I've lived it.[/i] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48410070]Can i just ask if you've picked up a book or article which goes into any degree of economic analysis at any point in your entire life? I'm not even talking about economics specifically, but even a history book or something which deals with sociology or?[/QUOTE]Yeah, I have, plus I'm actually aware what's going on around me and all of this tells me everything you're saying is entirely wrong. There has been less and less compensation as technology has progressed and fewer and fewer jobs have been opened when workers get displaced. Example: a single train can be operated by a single person these days, you don't even really need that person to actually do anything most of the time except literally press a button. Thirty years ago you had a crew of three, minimum. Sixty years ago you had no less than five. When steam locomotives were in their prime a train typically had a minimum crew of eight. There's been less and less jobs available on trains themselves [i]despite[/i] the larger number and greater complexity of rail traffic. Largely the reason why the number of crew has gone down is because of safety features and automation, that's why you don't see cabooses anymore because they've been thoroughly replaced along with their crews. You're expecting the job market to grow because something is deliberately shrinking it and that doesn't make any fucking sense at all. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48410070]Since when is my solution ever that? I'm not some cruel heartless bastard industrial syndicate. I think that we don't do enough to support the most vulnerable and poor in society and that welfare reform should seek to cover the basic needs of everyone.[/QUOTE]Okay cool, but let's cut the foreplay and call it like it is: automation's going to happen either way and unless the heavens part and politicians grow a heart, there will be no safety net for all the displaced workers. You've been saying this whole time that things will just work out "because they have in the past" (no they haven't!) and you haven't said one fucking peep about supporting the most vulnerable and poor in society. Re-read your posts, you sure as hell sound like you don't give a goddamn about the people this is going to hit which set the mood for me. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48410070]I mean what the hell do you mean people dying in riots or massive unrest? I mean Judge Dredd is an interesting comic book series based on a cyberpunk future but you're going kind of far in assuming that its our future.[/QUOTE]Riots happen. People die in riots. When you replace, what, 40-50% of the entire workforce with automation and robots what do you think is going to happen to all those people suddenly on welfare? Oh and mind you, those same people are going to be demonized and vilified by the rich who will be expected to foot the bill for them. There will probably be strict welfare legislation (oh I know for sure it'll happen in the United States) and it'll definitely not end well. You do realize why we have the 2nd Amendment right? We've already had economic unrest and while that didn't turn into a "revolution" it certainly could have gone way worse than it did. I think there needs to be a basic income and I think there needs to be government subsidy for small businesses that take most of the risk of startup out of the equation. I also think the economic protections that large corporations have should be effectively revoked, and the free market should decide if they fail. No bailouts (what for when they won't even employ anyone anymore?) and certainly no open-ended loans, if they fall they fall, let the smaller companies gobble them up and rise to the top. [QUOTE=catbarf;48410789]Hold on, so what you're saying is that the unemployment rate in the 1800s was low because of the availability of the frontier, and that if conditions were comparable to today (with all the country already occupied) it would actually have been higher? So, discounting the employment possibilities provided by colonization, the actual unemployment rate would have been higher, and therefore higher than it is today?[/QUOTE]Yes, because the amount of jobs couldn't match the population. A lot of people were coming over to the United States to escape poverty and persecution (ironic given the rampant xenophobia here) and they displaced "natives" that wanted a fair wage and fair economic conditions because they would work for less. That's why there were pretty big labor riots and ethnic clashes during the 19th century, the Irish were called "green niggers" for a reason. [QUOTE=catbarf;48410789]Isn't that, like, literally proving his argument? If he says 'unemployment has remained pretty much constant' and you say 'it would have been higher in the past were it not for this specific economic condition' then that's kind of supporting the argument that machines won't put everyone out of work. Not to mention you're saying that unemployment in Europe was much higher- okay, and following a period of economic unrest, it eventually dropped, and unemployment is much lower today. Sure seems to suggest that the result of rapid industrialization is a period of economic instability, followed by a return to normalcy with a higher standard of living, not the death of civilization at the hands of machine labor as the Luddites predicted. I'm not really understanding your argument here because you're giving examples that seem to contradict your claims.[/QUOTE]That proves my point, there was economic incentive for people to pack up their shit and move West. Every single state of the Louisiana Purchase and further West was settled largely by largely two kinds of people: Americans who needed a fresh start and immigrants who heard of economic opportunity. Minnesota's Scandinavian roots are tied directly into the second, it was largely an effort to get people to move West and claim as much as they could for the US of A. It was literal economic expansion, the economic power of the US was greatly increased by the mines, quarries, and lumber operations carved out of the frontier which allowed for unemployment to be kept in check. Without this expansion, (you could argue settling on untamed land creates a job for you and whoever else has come along) there would have been severe social and economic consequences given the completely unchecked immigration of the time. I'm not saying the Luddites were right about basically everything they were saying, but I am saying that the movement started because of recklessness on the part of factory owners in replacing their workers (who were displaced from farms by the way and already angry) on top of treating them like shit. They had good reasons for acting out. Still, comparing the displacement of [i]some[/i] workers in a time where you could freely move from one unskilled position to the next to what's happening now doesn't work. You already can't get an entry-level position in certain places because you need "workplace experience" which is bullshit, the effects are already being seen and people are already angry. What we're talking about is removing all of those menial jobs completely, there is no easy way to float from your old job of factory worker to the limited few jobs of robot repairmen and robot programmers and it [i]will[/i] cause problems. [QUOTE=catbarf;48410789]On another note, and I'm not accusing you in particular, but the prevailing opinion in this thread is very interesting to me considering we just had a thread last week in which people lamented that you can get a college degree and still wind up being forced to flip burgers for a living. Puts a little bit of perspective on the idea of skilled labor replacing unskilled labor IMO.[/QUOTE]Which adds another layer to the situation, with our current system secondary education would become an absolutely pointless endeavor if you have no way to pay off the loans or get a job. Not that I expect people to immediately know of the economic conditions of tomorrow, but I can see how that would cause a lot of unhappy feelings especially among young and emotional people who are being told "well you need to just GRAB YER BOOTSTRAPS!" at every turn when they don't even have boots in the first place.

[quote]Literally the entire reason why the West was settled was lack of economic opportunity on the East Coast. (well, mostly, see below)[/quote] You firstly contradict yourself and then you don't expand on the point. What do you mean the lack of opportunity on the east coast? The east coast saw sustained and rapid economic growth. People moved out west because of the potential wealth out there, not because of the lack of opportunities in the east (people were given free land, railways were given generous government support, and the US government expended considerable resources on encouraging people to move west by either making it safer or easier for people to move and live there). [quote]Yeah, I have, plus I'm actually aware what's going on around me and all of this tells me everything you're saying is entirely wrong.[/quote] I'd like to hear which books these are. Or authors or articles. I mean I doubt you're a dipshit but virtually all of academia disagrees with you. [quote]You've been saying this whole time that things will just work out "because they have in the past" (no they haven't!) and you haven't said one fucking peep about supporting the most vulnerable and poor in society. Re-read your posts, you sure as hell sound like you don't give a goddamn about the people this is going to hit which set the mood for me.[/quote] I'm saying it'll work out because in the long run it isn't a problem. In the short term, unemployment can rise due to X factor, but this can be alleviated through policy. Longer term, it doesn't matter at all because technological unemployment doesn't exist. It's a myth in economics that had to be dragged out and beaten to death years ago. Even today it still crops up and is used to justify banning immigration. [quote]Yes, because the amount of jobs couldn't match the population. A lot of people were coming over to the United States to escape poverty and persecution (ironic given the rampant xenophobia here) and they displaced "natives" that wanted a fair wage and fair economic conditions because they would work for less. That's why there were pretty big labor riots and ethnic clashes during the 19th century, the Irish were called "green niggers" for a reason.[/quote] Employment is not tied to population. They are both independent of one another. Increasing population (in the long run) will not increase unemployment. Decreasing the population won't reduce unemployment either.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48412129]You firstly contradict yourself and then you don't expand on the point. What do you mean the lack of opportunity on the east coast? The east coast saw sustained and rapid economic growth. People moved out west because of the potential wealth out there, not because of the lack of opportunities in the east (people were given free land, railways were given generous government support, and the US government expended considerable resources on encouraging people to move west by either making it safer or easier for people to move and live there).[/QUOTE]Yeah that stuff existed but it wasn't the sole reason for moving out West and I already elaborated on that. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48412129]I'd like to hear which books these are. Or authors or articles. I mean I doubt you're a dipshit but virtually all of academia disagrees with you.[/QUOTE]I don't know off the top of my head and, again, I'm on a really limited connection so I'm not going to start looking shit up. I'm mostly going from what should be common sense and decades of experience, at some point I'm sure things that I've read and my education play into it but I'm not going to start weeding out what comes from where for you. If it makes you feel any better, assume I'm a crazy dipshit. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48412129]I'm saying it'll work out because in the long run it isn't a problem. In the short term, unemployment can rise due to X factor, but this can be alleviated through policy. Longer term, it doesn't matter at all because technological unemployment doesn't exist. It's a myth in economics that had to be dragged out and beaten to death years ago. Even today it still crops up and is used to justify banning immigration.[/QUOTE]Well in the long term the entire universe is going to grow cold and die, so it's all pointless in the end. Man what the fuck, the short term is a huge problem if half the people are going to be fucked out of a job and have no way to support their families. You can't fucking ignore that. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48412129]Employment is not tied to population. They are both independent of one another. Increasing population (in the long run) will not increase unemployment. Decreasing the population won't reduce unemployment either.[/QUOTE]If you have 50 people and 5 jobs [i]yes employment is tied to population holy shit.[/i] You need 45 other jobs, if you have less people you will have less unemployment. Like that's basic goddamn numbers, you're pointing at societal trends which are really complex and not even remotely what I'm getting at. You can say that population and unemployment are independent but [i]on some level[/i] they do touch because people need to work and jobs need people, so stop trying to pretend like they don't overlap at all.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48412476] If you have 50 people and 5 jobs [i]yes employment is tied to population holy shit.[/i] You need 45 other jobs, if you have less people you will have less unemployment. Like that's basic goddamn numbers, you're pointing at societal trends which are really complex and not even remotely what I'm getting at. [/QUOTE] Let me stop you right there. More people means more potential revenue which can be gotten by selling goods and services. Supply grows as demand grows because that's just how things work; nobody is going to pass up a chance to make some money. Even though there might be 500 people in an economy and only 50 jobs, eventually other jobs will be created as producers realize that there are potential markets that they can be selling to. In essence, common sense says that more people means more markets which means more jobs to create more stuff. With your model, an economy with five jobs will forever have only five jobs because employment is inversely proportional to population apparently. Don't try to say it's basic numbers if your numbers don't even add up.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48410070]unemployment is completely unrelated to population numbers, this is economics 101 [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy[/url].[/QUOTE] Just wanted to point out thats not what that fallacy means. The fallacy is when you base unemployment completely on population numbers, not when you think it's related. Because it is.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48412129]You firstly contradict yourself and then you don't expand on the point. What do you mean the lack of opportunity on the east coast? The east coast saw sustained and rapid economic growth. People moved out west because of the potential wealth out there, not because of the lack of opportunities in the east (people were given free land, railways were given generous government support, and the US government expended considerable resources on encouraging people to move west by either making it safer or easier for people to move and live there). I'd like to hear which books these are. Or authors or articles. I mean I doubt you're a dipshit but virtually all of academia disagrees with you. I'm saying it'll work out because in the long run it isn't a problem. In the short term, unemployment can rise due to X factor, but this can be alleviated through policy. Longer term, it doesn't matter at all because technological unemployment doesn't exist. It's a myth in economics that had to be dragged out and beaten to death years ago. Even today it still crops up and is used to justify banning immigration. Employment is not tied to population. They are both independent of one another. Increasing population (in the long run) will not increase unemployment. Decreasing the population won't reduce unemployment either.[/QUOTE] Your counter arguments in the whole discussion are so cheap, I think you are actually trolling the guy. [QUOTE=BFG9000;48413765]Let me stop you right there. More people means more potential revenue which can be gotten by selling goods and services. Supply grows as demand grows because that's just how things work; nobody is going to pass up a chance to make some money. Even though there might be 500 people in an economy and only 50 jobs, eventually other jobs will be created as producers realize that there are potential markets that they can be selling to. In essence, common sense says that more people means more markets which means more jobs to create more stuff. With your model, an economy with five jobs will forever have only five jobs because employment is inversely proportional to population apparently. Don't try to say it's basic numbers if your numbers don't even add up.[/QUOTE] Let me stop YOU right there, you are saying "Even though there might be 500 people in an economy and only 50 jobs, eventually other jobs will be created as producers realize that there are potential markets that they can be selling to." So, where the hell do these 450 people get the money to be even considered a new potential market for the other 50 ?

[QUOTE=AntonioR;48414682]Your counter arguments in the whole discussion are so cheap, I think you are actually trolling the guy. Let me stop YOU right there, you are saying "Even though there might be 500 people in an economy and only 50 jobs, eventually other jobs will be created as producers realize that there are potential markets that they can be selling to." So, where the hell do these 450 people get the money to be even considered a new potential market for the other 50 ?[/QUOTE] Bwahahaha if you think like that then the economy shouldn't even exist because nobody had any money to begin with. Look, functioning off of mere hundreds of people is a bad place to start because an economy of only 500 people is hard to come by in the real world. What we're looking at here is large scale populations much higher than that with a much higher employment rate. And how do populations grow if social welfare is so low that people cant afford to marry and start a family? A more realistic situation would be that an economy starts out with 50 people and 35 or so jobs. Then the population grows and both figures increase. You're really oversimplifying this. Here you're trying to use simple reasoning to explain a complex situation which isn't always bad, but in a case like this it is because the conditions you've set up in your model are so unrealistic. There never will be an economy with 10 percent of the people employed because that other 90 percent of the population could never exist without good social welfare. Not to mention that there's a financial service called loans, and companies have every reason to give those out in a hypothetical market of 450 unemployed people.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;48415282][b]Bwahahaha if you think like that then the economy shouldn't even exist because nobody had any money to begin with.[/b] Look, functioning off of mere hundreds of people is a bad place to start because an economy of only 500 people is hard to come by in the real world. What we're looking at here is large scale populations much higher than that with a much higher employment rate. [b]And how do populations grow if social welfare is so low that people cant afford to marry and start a family?[/b] A more realistic situation would be that an economy starts out with 50 people and 35 or so jobs. Then the population grows and both figures increase. You're really oversimplifying this. Here you're trying to use simple reasoning to explain a complex situation which isn't always bad, [b]but in a case like this it is because the conditions you've set up in your model are so unrealistic[/b]. There never will be an economy with 10 percent of the people employed because that other 90 percent of the population could never exist without good social welfare. [b]Not to mention that there's a financial service called loans, and companies have every reason to give those out in a hypothetical market of 450 unemployed people.[/b][/QUOTE] And you are wrong already in the first sentence because everybody had money to begin with; it was simply time, physical labor and natural resources you could use. But money doesn't work that way in modern society and everything is already owned by someone. You can't just go to the woods to feed your family, catch fish and exchange the rest for a new axe or something. We are in a cursed loop where you need actual "paper" money to make money, to live. Many populations HAVE stopped growing, because people CAN'T afford to marry and start family. And they were growing before because of what I said above. I live in a country like that. Production stopped, was replaced by import, or was simply modernized. People lost jobs, you can' just pull out 200 000 new jobs out of a magic hat in a country of just 4 million. And loans... yeah, now the whole world owns unexisting future money to someone, we still have to see how that goes.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48412476]I don't know off the top of my head and, again, I'm on a really limited connection so I'm not going to start looking shit up. I'm mostly going from what should be common sense and decades of experience, at some point I'm sure things that I've read and my education play into it but I'm not going to start weeding out what comes from where for you. If it makes you feel any better, assume I'm a crazy dipshit.[/quote] I've already been assuming that for a while. To go against decades of both academia and what has been observed in reality is a curious stance to take. [quote]Well in the long term the entire universe is going to grow cold and die, so it's all pointless in the end. Man what the fuck, the short term is a huge problem if half the people are going to be fucked out of a job and have no way to support their families. You can't fucking ignore that.[/quote] We're talking about the scale of decades here, not billions of years. The point is that unemployment isn't steadily rising year-on-year. If unemployment isn't steadily rising year-on-year, and is instead variable and displays no consistent trend then the entire basis of your argument is wrong. [quote]If you have 50 people and 5 jobs [i]yes employment is tied to population holy shit.[/i] You need 45 other jobs, if you have less people you will have less unemployment. Like that's basic goddamn numbers, you're pointing at societal trends which are really complex and not even remotely what I'm getting at.[/quote] If a society of 50 people needs 25 people to do the work, would it not be logical to assume that based upon simple numbers, that a society of 100 would need 50 people to do the work? The point is that the number of jobs in an economy isn't fixed, it changes all the time. Having more people doesn't mean more unemployment. [QUOTE=Mattk50;48414525]Just wanted to point out thats not what that fallacy means. The fallacy is when you base unemployment completely on population numbers, not when you think it's related. Because it is.[/QUOTE] The way the guy argues it seems to work on the assumption that if a lot of poor people suddenly died, then there would be less unemployment.

This doesn't really make any sense. The factory I work at as a part of the maintenance staff is automated and has been like this for years. Except for testing a certain percentage of the product, most of our products aren't touched by human hands until they are recieved by the petrol companies. But a factory can't [I]really[/I] be absolutely automated yet, because whenever a robot crashes either physically or in programming, there's nothing in the programming that can save it. You can't just program it to restart the cycle as it's incredibly likely to destroy itself or something around it,

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48415505]I've already been assuming that for a while. To go against decades of both academia and what has been observed in reality is a curious stance to take. We're talking about the scale of decades here, not billions of years. The point is that unemployment isn't steadily rising year-on-year. If unemployment isn't steadily rising year-on-year, and is instead variable and displays no consistent trend then the entire basis of your argument is wrong. If a society of 50 people needs 25 people to do the work, would it not be logical to assume that based upon simple numbers, that a society of 100 would need 50 people to do the work? The point is that the number of jobs in an economy isn't fixed, it changes all the time. Having more people doesn't mean more unemployment.[/QUOTE] I think you have completely forgotten what you are arguing about, and you also contradict yourself. And no, if a society of 50 people needs 25 people to do the work, it's not logical anymore that society of 100 needs 50 people to work, that's the point of the whole discussion, the number will decrease, we are heading to an automated future. We are not completely there yet, but we are getting there. And when we get there it would be logical to throw away all the old academia studies down the toilet, because most of it wont apply anymore. Also your graphs will be updated. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48415505]The way the guy argues it seems to work on the assumption that if a lot of poor people suddenly died, then there would be less unemployment.[/QUOTE] That was completely put out of context, not to mention you are completely ignoring past historical events he references, current situations in other countries your books don't talk about, you are putting words in his mouth and not elaborating any of your arguments.