Even when Orientals are poor they have low crime rates.
To prove that black sociopathology is caused environmentally one would need to create an environment where blacks perform and behave as well as whites. There is no where in the world where they do. Those who assert innate genetic racial equality assert something for which there is no evidence at all.
Take it to a different thread. Do not post more on this topic in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
I already started one.
Mr. HYDE says he is a fan of free markets. Please give an example of such a thing. Almost all countries have protections for industries they feel are important to their nation. We have tariffs.
Do China and India have free markets? If you believe they do ,you have not tried to sell cars there.
There is no free market. China has a tariff on American poultry. We have one on Chinese tires. Most countries have them on agricultural product.
Yet we allow China to sell unsafe products in America. Free markets, what are they?
We’re already there. A huge percentage of* industrial-era *jobs have been eliminated by machines; it has not affected employment rates.
Gosh, do people not remember in the 1980s when people - sane people, people who were not kidding around - were saying robots would cause the unemployment rate to rise to Depression-era levels?
If you make products cheaper, you will simply free people up to do other things, and people will be able to afford those things.
There’s no doubt some jobs will be eliminated, but there is just such a gigantic mountain of evidence that people will find other things to do. Something like 97% of telephone switchboard operators were put out of work by computerized switches and yet hordes of unemployed operators are not roaming the streets. In the next decades other jobs will be eliminated, too. Real estate agents - REALTORS! as they style themselves - will be cut back pretty severely, but then it’ll be cheaper to buy and sell a house, and that money will be spent and/or invested elsewhere.
We’re there already.
Look, what do you really need? You need shelter, food, and medicine. We could quite easily provide everyone with those things with a fraction of our current GDP. We don’t NEED video games, fast food, reality TV, People magazine, iPads, disposable diapers, multiplex cinemas, Blu-Ray discs, or houses nearly as big as what we now have. We don’t really need hairdressers, the Children’s Aid Society, animal shelters, indoor playgrounds, bowling alleys and pet sweaters. ** We’re already employing most people to produce products and services we simply do not need and, not all that long ago, didn’t even think we ever would need.** But because we’ve advanced to the point that we need so few people to produce what we need, we’ve simply started wanting more.
If you take automation further and make things cheaper, people will simply want more. If you suddenly made all the things I’m now consuming half as cheap, I wouldn’t sit on my ass with a pile of money, I’d spend it, or some of it.
Now, what could happen in the very long run is the standard for a week’s work could go down, as in fact it already has. Now the standard is 40 hours, usually worked in five days. It used to be 60-70 hours worked over six days. Perhaps in 50 years it will be 30 hours worked over 4 days. I really don’t see any conceivable problem with that, to be honest. Give me Fridays off and I’ll find lots of things to do.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
They do just that on a regular basis.
[/QUOTE]
(With regards to energy costs.)
No, they quite plainly do not. What do you pay for electricity? I actually pay LESS THAN IT COSTS TO PRODUCE IT, because of the flat-out stupidity of the governmetn of Ontario, but let’s look at electricity prices in the USA.
The price of electricty has gone up and down with demand. It has not been “jacked up.” The silliness of saying “well, if the cost goes down they’ll come up with an excuse to jack it up” is that “they” will not wait for an excuse; if they could raise the prices, they already would have raised the prices. Historically, however, electricity prices have varied the way you’d expect the price of any common thing to vary.
In fact, electricity in the USA today (averaged out, it varies from place to place) is cheaper than it had been at several times in the past:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/rep/
So I ask again; if “they” will use something as an excuse to jack up prices, why don’t they jack up prices now? Why is electricty cheaper than it used to be?
I’m not really talking about what we’ve seen but speculating about changes that are fundamentally different from what we’ve seen. I’m talking not about machines that increase just our productivity but machines that increase their own productivity.
Essentially I’m talking about machines that we create that eventually become better at creating new machines than human designers and engineers. Once that happens I genuinely do think most humans will not be able to contribute anything meaningful outside of artistic/creative fields, certain government service sectors, and as high level organizers of industry.
If I could return to the OP for a moment . . .
I think the problem here is that you are assuming that the usual opponents of capitalism around here have actually though out their position and have a viable alternative.
Well, they haven’t and they don’t. All they know is that the current way society works does not promote “social justice” (and all that means is they don’t like it), so it must be changed. They’ll tell you when it’s changed enough to suit them. And the change they mean is that more wealth flows to their favored groups.
This thread so far has shown the truth of my thesis here.
I haven’t read through the whole thread, but did anyone else answer ‘hunting and gathering’?
-XT
Machines already do elements of machine design better than we do.
The more the merrier. It shall free us up to do other things. There will be a LOT of high level organizers of industry… the material wealth we could create would be unbelievable.
I’m not really sure what the means. Evolutionary Psychology is not science.
Do you have a cite for that?
Arguing for something on the scale of engineering a society, when it has never been done before, is not logical. Especially since it’s been tried many times without success.
Well, let’s think about that for a moment. In the US we have already had the equivalent of a robotic wipeout of our manufacturing labor force, as all the work has been shipped overseas. But there has been no replacement of these jobs with similar jobs … it’s almost all been low-paying service sector work. The standard of living of many Americans has fallen, and it has not gotten back up! So let’s dial it back a bit on the free market Pollyanna shit, all right?
I don’t know why you didnt go with the standard buggy whip maker here. Sure, when people lose jobs they seek other jobs. Over time, and often with GREAT pain for individuals and their families, new jobs get found, or arrangements get made, or the person dies sooner than they would have otherwise, their kids go on to lives of crime or drug abuse or grinding poverty … all sorts of options here! You are OK with that pain. I am not. That is the essential difference between us.
I had no idea that we could solve all our economic problems by simply wanting more! Tell me more!
The work week has gone down because lots of companies keep their employers below 35 hours a week so they dont have to pay them insurance and other benefits. So even our employed people are struggling in low-income jobs. Huzzah!
Here in the states, the price of gas jumps as soon as news that it MIGHT go up because of some calamity (Libya, whatever) long before it could possibly manifest itself in higher prices for the distributor. And it goes down very, very, very slowly. Dont tell me they are not jacking prices up. And in a more meta sense, there is a natural limit on the price of gasoline, and that is the cost of alternative sources of energy. That is the real competitor of Big Oil, and the real reason we need to be pursuing alternative energy sources like there is no tomorrow. But they are not selling at the LOWEST price they can and still be competitive, they are selling at the HIGHEST price they can and still be competitive. In case you haven’t noticed, there is this thing called OPEC that does just that.
Yes, it is.
No, it’s my opinion.
Of course societies have been engineered before, it happens all the time. all that changes is who does the engineering.
How are we defining success? Capitalism’s pretty successful, for instance, and it’s definitely engineered society towards its own ends.
I actually doubt it. In fact I suspect that the only people involved in industry will be a hereditary class of super wealthy, and I suspect that they will mostly be superfluous.
The history of labor:
Dawn of Civilization – 1890 A.D
Most of human beings spend most of their effort generating enough food for themselves and a surplus for the small class of individuals who aren’t farmers.
This goes later than most people might suspect, as late as the 1870s over 70 percent of Americans were still employed in the agricultural sector. So think of all those famous American lawyers, inventors, merchants and et cetera of the 19th century. Think of the growth of the oil industry, large scale mining, the steel industry and et cetera. Even with all that by the year 1900 41% of America was employed in agriculture.
1890 – 1985 A.D.
The 20th century saw us move from a society that mostly grows and raises things to eat into a society that creates finished products along with a significant increase in the portion of individuals employed in the service sector. The reduction in agricultural employment occurred due to advances in technology that significantly reduced the need for farm labor. The growth in manufacturing was a result of technological progress and demand. Society began manufacturing complex finished goods, machines, chemicals, and a huge variety of consumer products that could only be manufactured on the craft level previously. While 20th century manufacturing technology made individual workers more productive, it still dramatically increased the need for people working in factories. The general progression of society, technology, and the economy also lead to a larger service sector. Medicine evolved from poorly trained individuals who would travel around treating a whole region (often its livestock too) into a field with highly trained professionals and a huge demand for technicians, nurses, and administrative staff. Finance became ever more complex and generated a large class of new jobs. Businesses became much more complicated entities than they were in the past, requiring larger numbers of professional white collar workers.
Essentially we went from a society that mostly grew and raised things to a society that made things and a the people who supported that society (everyone from service professionals like dentists and optometrists to truck drivers and trail guides to retail cashiers.)
Interestingly while many view this time period as the age of manufacturing, agriculture was not replaced by any one thing. Manufacturing to my knowledge never represented more than 50% of the U.S. workforce.
1985 - Present
1979 was the peak year for manufacturing employment. As the years have gone by many have said we are entering a post-production society in which most people will be employed in the “service” sector, basically individuals who are not directly creating finished products but are instead providing some form of service. Be it the service of scanning your purchases at a cash register, building your house for you, or giving you a vasectomy.
I think that will be the case.
However in my hypothetical world 500 to 600 years from now, I don’t believe that “new jobs” will just magically come up to fill the void created by complex and advanced machines that do most of the labor and thinking for us.
I would actually have a hard time imagining any jobs that wouldn’t be filled by the role of automation aside from certain administrative roles that I believe humanity’s conservatism would demand remain in the hands of human beings.
Firstly eliminate all jobs relating to production of anything. Including agriculture (which employs only a small number of people in any case), all craft industries, all manufacturing.
I don’t just mean people working in plants or shops. I mean the people who clean the floors in plants or shops, the people who do the accounting at plants, the people who decide how to invest the plant’s money, design the building the plant will be in, all the people who work for the design company, all the people who worked for the payroll company, all the people involved in getting electricity and water to the plant.
I’m talking about even the people who work at the company and decide if a plant needs to be closed or if a new one needs to be opened, and if so where and when.
About the only production that would still exist might be that of art works.
I understand people of say, 1850 would not on the whole be able to predict the jobs of 1990. However, in that case you had a very technologically simple society in which a huge portion of people had to be involved in farm labor just to keep society alive. In our case I’m positing a society in which all the complexities we saw created by human technological innovation in the 20th century, and all the jobs created through that process, would instead be created by machines. If it was machines driving technological innovation at a level superior to that of the human mind, then the reality is any additional work that would come up due to that complexity would be done by machines. Machine designers wouldn’t design and would intentionally not design any process that would be human labor intensive, because machines would recognize its inefficiency compared to using more efficient machines.
In 1900 people were losing their farm jobs. Just a “for an example” replacement job would be anything involving cars. Henry Ford developed an assembly line process for automobile production. This required lots of laborers working on the assembly line. But it also required people to analyze the work flow and actually increase its productivity. It also required a large white collar staff to track shipments, collect receivables, pay for all the parts that came in. It also required various parts in a semi-finished or finished state to come into the factory to be assembled into a car. All of those parts were made in factories of their own, that created all those jobs that went along with it.
Essentially, we ramped up production dramatically and immensely increased efficiency per worker on the plant floor. However, this created a hugely complicated enterprise with lots of inputs, a complicated payment processing structure and all kinds of ancillary work had to be done to keep those laborers on the plant floor working. Machine designers that would be superior to human designers would be sufficiently advanced to intentionally avoid creating any process which would require ancillary processes be staffed with human beings. These machine designers would not have been invented for the purpose of creating processes so complicated that it would require more human labor. Rather, they would be created to develop process beyond what humans would be capable of themselves, with greater speed and fewer errors, the results of such a design process would almost by nature have to be reductive in how much human labor would be required.
I’m down with that analysis, but the thing is, I don’t see the “haves” giving up their role as the owners of all that the machines can produce, once the infrastructure is in place. They’ll still own it, they’ll still want some sort of return for what their machine enterprises produce, and they’ll be kinda OK with it if the rest of the world starves. Of course, they DO face a problem … if practically everyone who isn’t a member of the wealthy elite is unemployed and unemployable, who will buy their products? Who will have something to exchange for their goods? You can only employ so many maids, chaffeurs, sex slaves and whatnot.
It will be a gradual process, though. I think that long before we get to a complete automation society we may end up at a place where too many individuals are squeezed out of the workforce by the advance of technology. This will create resentment and anger on a large scale, I believe the ruling elites will actually create social welfare to preserve themselves. Sort of the same approach Otto von Bismarck took in Prussia/Germany.
Social democracy.
Industrial sabotage viruses would bring such a system to a grinding halt.
Of course there are plenty of people who believe that STUXNET doesn’t exist or that it didn’t do damage to Iran’s nuclear facility. They think that industrial sabotage viruses are right out of “Escape from LA”. And it’s people like that who’ll get caught with their pants down.
As for the unemployed, capitalism has an easy remedy for them: starve them. People die of poverty-related issues all the time in America and no one gives a shit. You don’t even want to ask about Mexico: they’re already a plutocracy, with an arguably small government to boot.
Another interesting thing to watch is this figure:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33593&Cr=international+labour+organization&Cr1
THIS is why labor has lost power. The owners of capital have rigged the system so that the world now has AT LEAST 212 million unemployed people fighting for jobs. Plus those who are underemployed, like so:
One can only hope that a global revolution occurs, overwhelming the world’s military forces and forcing a replacement of the capitalist system.
Replacing it with what?
It doesn’t need replacing as much as it just needs a resetting.
Hopefully once reset, it’ll remain stable long enough for our sentient AI overlords to implement and enforce a better system. I assume they’ll just give us all an allowance, and keep us out of their way.