Title is basically the question/s If automaitzation eliminates enough working jobs to cause an economic collapse, how else is the collapse rectified/prevented other than socialism/subsidized income, and why is socialism propogated to be opposed by soceity i.e media? In our current system, regardless of the automization factor, socialism is opposed by the media because it is a net loss for the wealthy as opposed to capitilism. Corporations pay far fewer taxes and have to contribute far less to society because people work for their money, and there is subsequently less welfare to pay, requiring less taxes for the rich. However with the implication of automization, there will be less workers and more welfare, requiring the rich to contribute much more. Does the money saved from automaitzation outweigh the taxes required, and what aspects of our social system need to change to rectify, or prevent, an economic collapse caused by automaitzation? A change to the monetary system for instance? I don't post here enough for my opinions to be known, but if anyone remembers, I advocated that everyone should have a fixed income and not be required to work to live. And people opposed me by saying that people need to work to contribute to soceity. However, I never even thought about automization literally phasing out jobs, requiring that contribution of work to not be nearly as necessary. So in the face of technological advance and automization, should we really be opposing socialism? Many economists are saying that government should be creating consumers, NOT workers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
Your forgetting that people will be payed to operate these machines, perform maintenance on these machines, to develop these machines as we become more technically inclined as generations move on. Your talking deep into the future because it will take a while for automization to really impact the market. By the time that happens, there will be new inventions and new jobs, people are creative, and there will always be new ideas being brought about in a capitalist culture, ( latest example being Uber) where people dont have the incentive to be innovative in socialist societies because businesses arent nearly as profitable. Thats why I doubt anyone can take socialism that seriously, it goes against everything that has made America great.
Ttbomk you are wrong on a couple points. The jobs created from the machines will be far far less than the jobs lost. Also, the technology is already here, this could happen in 30-50 years, not deep into the future. Times change. What made America great before could lead to its collapse now.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27995372 "A machine can do a certain function, but most people's jobs involve multiple different functions. You can't automate all of those tasks with a single machine." He adds that automation will only improve people's livelihoods: "My argument is that when a company saves costs, its extra revenue will inevitably feed back into the shareholders and employees. That increases consumer spending and creates more jobs." -So it sounds like these machines can only do so much, and the money saved can be spent on employees. Not to mention the extra jobs created to develop,manage and provide maintenance to the machines. -To me 50-60 years is deep into the future. I think that even if it did decrease jobs, the government would regulate businesses to employ a certain amount of human capital. -I doubt that, times change, but the craving of cheap luxury products and overabundance of resources never will.
The bolded is a fallicious statement that underestimates the capabilities of technology. And no. Cutting 1000 jobs to create 50, is not a positive net gain.
Your statements are nothing but speculation. You have no idea how many functions these machines will be able to perform. And your numbers arent based on facts just guesstimates. Your just assuming that machines can do everything a human can do, just not there yet. I think you've watched the Terminator too many times...go outside once in awhile.
Honestly I'd say you are ignorant of the capabilities of current technology, and the rate at which technology can progress, as we've seen in the last few decades, not to be rude or condescending. If I had told you 20 years ago about smart phones you would've told me I watch too much star trek
The question is based on a false premise. Two actuallly. First assumption that isn't proven is that there will indeed be a collapse. The second false premise is that automation will cause the collapse. Collapses are part of the natural buisnes cycle, for starters. Secondly, socialistic practices are actually the main thing that will cause the collapse. You can't indiscriminately steal money from the economy, and redistribute it, and expect it not to result in a net sink. Our taxes and entitlements and government spending are the primary reason the economy is likely doomed. Socialism? :lol::lol: good one op -yuri Machines don't take jjobs. The free up human hands for other work -yuri
You talk about assumptions, yet state ''Secondly, socialistic practices are actually the main thing that will cause the collapse.'' and ''Our taxes and entitlements and government spending are the primary reason the economy is likely doomed.'' also ''Machines don't take jobs. They free up human hands for other work'' this is based on what exactly? the same way outsourcing jobs freed up american hands for other jobs? It's correct to say it isn't proven there will be a collapse, but wouldn't you agree that automation replaces more jobs than it creates? and if so, that means that MANY MANY workers will be unemployed, leading to less consumers, leading to a worse economy because there's fewer people willing to buy what's produced by automation Also define steal money from the economy? Is taxing a corporation's net profit (which is not being used to create jobs/consumers due to automation) stealing from the economy?
they've got software that writes news articles. robots working in hotels. robots caring for the elderly. it took a group of people to build a Ford T at a time now machines pump out hundreds of thousands of camrys population increasing, number of jobs decreasing. everyone will be on welfare but it's fine. because every person will have their own 3d printer and all will be self sufficient
No matter the name, as long as the few at the top maintain their position of control, the rest of us are fucked
First of all, I didn't make assumptions. Only stated mathematics Its a mathematical fact that if you take money from the economy AND burden them with perpetual debt for the things the stolen money can't cover, eventually it will collapse. Hence its an objective fact that taxation, socialism, and unregulated out if control government spending, will drain the economy until its gone. Its not even complicated math. Its simple arithmetic. If you take more than they produce, they are fucked. Secondly, there is ALWAYS work to do. Just not people willing to pay for it. Its impossible for machines to take all the jobs. Again. Its math. -yuri The primary problem here is theft -yuri
' 'What i keep repeating is fact and mathematics and it's fact'' is basically the only thing you said in that whole post. If you're going to debate with me, atleast present evidence or logical reasoning beyond ''THIS IS JUST HOW IT WORKS'' Yes, taking money out of the economy is a bad thing. I am not arguing against that. I am arguing that socialism is not necessarily taking money out of the economy to the point where it collapses because people with enough money to live decently become consumers. I do not think that the government should completely take a corporation's profit margin, my opinion is that they should tax it more than it is if it's not creating jobs or consumers. Also, where do you take this ''there is ALWAYS work to do'' fact from? I've never argued that machines will take every job, only that they will take too many and that there will not be enough jobs for the economy to be sustainable. Please stop pretending this is a simple issue of simple arithmetics, this is a widely debated subject for many reasons. Neither you nor i will have the full answer, but at least I try to present reasoning.
"I am arguing that socialism is not necessarily taking money out of the economy to the point where it collapses because people with enough money to live decently become consumers." Yes, you do. Please refer to "If you're going to debate with me, atleast present evidence or logical reasoning beyond ''THIS IS JUST HOW IT WORKS'' and "Please stop pretending this is a simple issue of simple arithmetics, this is a widely debated subject for many reasons. Neither you nor i will have the full answer, but at least I try to present reasoning." <br style="color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: 'Proxima Nova', Helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);">
if I take your money how are you gong to survive? How can you justify mass theft? And how can you not see mass theft as a drain on the economy? -yuri
If automation takes people's money, how will they survive? Why do you keep insisting socialism is theft? Is it just that ingrained into your view? You do realize that socialism is not about taking from the people that need said money to survive, right? It's not about taxing the poor, it's not about draining money out of consumers/workers. It's about figuring out a way to give everyone what they need to survive and prosper. It's about a safety net to prevent the people from falling into poverty and having a miserable life. Yes. This does mean taking the money from somewhere, but there are sources that can be taken from that aren't ''the people that need money to survive''. Budget balancing, taxing the rich, taxing corporations.
Automation taking people money? ROFLMAO so buying a weedwhacker is stealing jobs from gardeners? Microwaves steal money from cooks? Factories take jobs from Chinese kids? Like do you even know what you are saying? <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > Why do you keep insisting socialism is theft? Is it just that ingrained into your view? </blockquote>Theft - the taking of something that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner. Not my world view. The literal objective definition. <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > You do realize that socialism is not about taking from the people that need said money to survive, right? It's not about taxing the poor, it's not about draining money out of consumers/workers. It's about figuring out a way to give everyone what they need to survive and prosper. </blockquote>by forcefully taking from those who have... <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > It's about a safety net to prevent the people from falling into poverty and having a miserable life. </blockquote>By taking money from people who have, to give to those who have not, without their consent (theft) <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > Yes. This does mean taking the money from somewhere, but there are sources that can be taken from that aren't ''the people that need money to survive''. </blockquote>Please provide even one such source of unowned money <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' > Budget balancing, taxing the rich, taxing corporations. </blockquote> Cause those evil rich people have more than they need right? Therefore theft is moral. -yuri
It's interesting constantly reading about socialism from an American perspective, and then from a rest-of-the-world perspective, kind of like soccer and football. BTW, bring about the Zeitgeist neo-Marixt utopia of automation, my holes are ready!