Globalist Slave Labour

[LAOLONG]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/robots-to-replace-almost-half-of-jobs-over-next-20-years-expert-20150323-1m5oei.html

[dawei]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/robots-to-replace-almost-half-of-jobs-over-next-20-years-expert-20150323-1m5oei.html

 

What's the point?

 

Who is building the robots, sensors, electronics and maintenance?  

 

At least offer come commentary

[Karl]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/robots-to-replace-almost-half-of-jobs-over-next-20-years-expert-20150323-1m5oei.html

It's such an old story and absolutely true. The problem is that automation is seen as something terrible when it's absolutely brilliant. Automation reduces costs, improves quality and increases productivity. The is a straight net gain for humanity. It makes us wealthier.

 

Everyone worries about the lower skilled being unemployed, whilst they simultaneously deny them employment through minimum wages and workers regulation. The reason a guy isn't pumping your gas, cleaning the wind screen and checking the oil is because the cost of labour is higher than the market price. The government has effectively priced the low skilled out of the market and forced them into unemployment.

 

The first thing to understand about economics is that it is all about supply and demand. Demand is a given - despite Governments continually claiming it must be stimulated- there are hoards of people who would like a Ferrari, a penthouse in Manhattan, a yacht and to enjoy a dozen holidays a year whilst dining in Michelin star restaurants. The reason they don't have these things is not a problem if demand, but of affordability and affordability is related to price and price to supply. Produce more stuff and the price falls. Take any child who wants the latest toy-do they require 'stimulation' to nag there moms for it ?

 

Secondly, the economy isn't fixed. Prices in a wealthy, productive economy should always fall as competition continually drives entrepreneurs to become more efficient and automated. The automation doesn't fall out of the air, neither are the machines fixed capital -they break down and they must be replaced. In order to keep up with the competition a manufacturer must constantly innovate their product and increase productivity of their machines and reduce the energy/maintenance costs. This means there are millions of automation companies that are making new machines and competing with each other all marketing products which move the game along further.

 

Thirdly, there isn't a fixed number of things manufactured or services provided. Cars, motorcycles, mobile phones and the Internet have not always existed. There was no market for these things until someone began manufacturing them, then others began to purchase them. As numbers increased the number of jobs in those industries boomed. Once upon a time the people employed in those new companies would have ancestors that hand plowed the soil, scattered seeds from a sack and harvested with a scythe. Once they were freed from that harsh labour they could be productively employed in new industries.

 

This is the reason why entrepreneurs are vital to an economy and why capital accumulation to fund new businesses is the lifeblood of production. If we didn't have capitalism we would still be dying from starvation as feudal serfs and digging the soil with our bare hands for 20 hours a day and have lifespans less than 30 years. It is capitalism and automation that has saved us.

[dawei]

It's such an old story and absolutely true. 

 

The 'thank you' button doesn't convey enough at times...

[dust]

The 'thank you' button doesn't convey enough at times...

 

You don't worry about the potential long-term effects of ever more expansive automation?

 

I agree that machines have benefited humans in many ways. But it is foolish to ignore the many other ways in which they have harmed.

 

I won't be discussing this with Karl, as I'm utterly bored of the same argument (and I'd imagine he is too) about the evils of environmentalism and how being wary of unquestioned technological 'advance' is "anti-capitalist" and disgusting, but I'd feel remiss in not questioning this line of thought.

 

Even ignoring short-term unemployment, surely we can see problems with the idea of all aspects of human and non-human life being gradually and completely taken over by machines, and the few who create, maintain, and control them?

[Karl]

You don't worry about the potential long-term effects of ever more expansive automation?

 

I agree that machines have benefited humans in many ways. But it is foolish to ignore the many other ways in which they have harmed.

 

I won't be discussing this with Karl, as I'm utterly bored of the same argument (and I'd imagine he is too) about the evils of environmentalism and how being wary of unquestioned technological 'advance' is "anti-capitalist" and disgusting, but I'd feel remiss in not questioning this line of thought.

 

Even ignoring short-term unemployment, surely we can see problems with the idea of all aspects of human and non-human life being gradually and completely taken over by machines, and the few who create, maintain, and control them?

Didn't you read my rebuttal ?

 

The key here is the concept 'machine'. Let us think of the simplest of machines, a basic lever. One man can shift an enormous weight by himself. Think of many men using levers and each trading this increased production with one another. The lever is in all of nature, but it is mans mind that has applied its principles to his own production in order to improve his chance of survival and promote his own happiness.

 

The machines are human creations, products of human ingenuity designed for the sole purpose of improving life.

 

So, now are you really talking about machines ? Or are you actually talking about intelligence, independence, autonomy and free will ? Isn't this what is at the base of what you fear ? That it is man and mans mind in particular that gives the greatest concern. You should try and find what frightens you, because something in the philosophy you have learned has been internalised in a parrot fashion and you have failed to question its premise. This is not an easy thing to change, a philosophy is a working system like that of a complex computer which has a task to perform and has continually performed it. It is immensely difficult to find such a lever as to change minds because it requires a rational and critical redevelopment and adults minds are less open to change. Why should anyone embark on such a course ? Because they are sick of living with a sense of omnipresent fear and the sense of powerlessness and crushing doubt that it creates in the mind.

[LAOLONG]

☆☆☆☆

Edited October 19, 2016 by james bond

[Karl]

what we are 'collectively' willing to pay for.

The social 'compact'.

 

This man is an collectivist ideological idiot. He should take his sack of shit brain and emigrate to Venezuela where such ideas seem welcomed by the population. Not America. He isn't an American he is a communist.

[joeblast]

Wage suppression is merely a natural outcome of central bank counterfeiting

[dawei]

You don't worry about the potential long-term effects of ever more expansive automation?

 

I agree that machines have benefited humans in many ways. But it is foolish to ignore the many other ways in which they have harmed.

 

I won't be discussing this with Karl, as I'm utterly bored of the same argument (and I'd imagine he is too) about the evils of environmentalism and how being wary of unquestioned technological 'advance' is "anti-capitalist" and disgusting, but I'd feel remiss in not questioning this line of thought.

 

Even ignoring short-term unemployment, surely we can see problems with the idea of all aspects of human and non-human life being gradually and completely taken over by machines, and the few who create, maintain, and control them?

 

First off... I did a 'thank you' as he took the time to explain something instead of just posting a link.

 

Now, I'm not worried about any effect of machines taking over.  Someone has to build them and if if it is anything like the movies, we'll be doing less work and thus have more leisure time

 

Ok, no joking matter about this.  but again, the Way of the ten thousand will be ever evolving. I'm not going to argue economic theories for this reason.  But man is the maker of his destiny and that includes his destruction.  So be it, in my book.  

 

I think there is some concern over the concept of the "few who create, maintain, and control them" but that is likely outside of my lifetime and control.  If it comes to that, hopefully someone writes a history that shows mankind lives and dies by a sword of his own making and many foresaw it and they can quote TDB as well

[Jetsun]

When I heard about how little holiday you guys get in America from the companies you work for that seemed like slave labour. Here we get 4-5 weeks a year and public holiday which I consider quite a small amount, many other European countries get far more, which is better for society, family and the individual. Companies convince us that they need to squeeze everything out of you in the name of being competitive, yet studies have shown that you work far more efficiently doing about 6 hours work a day with decent holiday to keep you fresh and motivated. 

 

 

[Karl]

When I heard about how little holiday you guys get in America from the companies you work for that seemed like slave labour. Here we get 4-5 weeks a year and public holiday which I consider quite a small amount, many other European countries get far more, which is better for society, family and the individual. Companies convince us that they need to squeeze everything out of you in the name of being competitive, yet studies have shown that you work far more efficiently doing about 6 hours work a day with decent holiday to keep you fresh and motivated. 

 

 

I don't know exactly how you are drawing these conclusions. Companies have a contract with their employees for a specific amount of time performing a specific task for a specific amount of renumeration.

 

Germany for instance works shorter hours, but their employees work ethic would shock the average UK worker. There is no tossing it off and having a crafty look at Facebook or a chat with your workmate at the coffee machine. Germans workers just work and that's all, indeed there is concern that workers are now working well into their own time as they are expected to take calls at home.

 

Its also erroneous to average these things out as if they applied everywhere and anywhere and not to take into account the productivity/ subsidies of businesses as a whole in countries.

[Karl]

Wage suppression is merely a natural outcome of central bank counterfeiting

Joe that just ain't right my friend.

 

Wage suppression is a figment of the imagination. If there is more supply than demand then wages fall. Monetary expansion creates price inflation-eventually and then the chase of wage rises begins. Stagflation was a stagnant economy with rising wages and prices. This is what should have doomed Keynesian economics but unfortunately it came back even worse. Under Keynes wages and prices were supposedly 'sticky' in the reverse. Apparently, according to Keynes, manufacturers refused to cut wages and wages creating a glut of savings and low consumption. This is where the government had to intervene.

 

Now, if you mean wage deflation, in other words rising prices destroying the value of wages, then that would be partially correct, although it does reach an equilibrium at some point. What does not reach equilibrium is taxation. As wages rise, the worker goes into progressively higher tax brackets despite the fall in the true purchasing power of his money. The Government claims this extra revenue despite the worker not actually gaining in real term wages-this does effectively push the actual value of wages lower, but the quantitative amount is still higher.

[Jetsun]

I don't know exactly how you are drawing these conclusions. 

 

 As far as I can see nothing I have said contradicts anything you have said. If you work 9 hours a day you are far more likely to chat and go on facebook because you need a break, 6 hours a day not so much. The main thing I was pointing out is the difference between the USA and the rest of the OECD

[joeblast]

Joe that just ain't right my friend.

 

Wage suppression is a figment of the imagination. If there is more supply than demand then wages fall. Monetary expansion creates price inflation-eventually and then the chase of wage rises begins. Stagflation was a stagnant economy with rising wages and prices. This is what should have doomed Keynesian economics but unfortunately it came back even worse. Under Keynes wages and prices were supposedly 'sticky' in the reverse. Apparently, according to Keynes, manufacturers refused to cut wages and wages creating a glut of savings and low consumption. This is where the government had to intervene.

 

Now, if you mean wage deflation, in other words rising prices destroying the value of wages, then that would be partially correct, although it does reach an equilibrium at some point. What does not reach equilibrium is taxation. As wages rise, the worker goes into progressively higher tax brackets despite the fall in the true purchasing power of his money. The Government claims this extra revenue despite the worker not actually gaining in real term wages-this does effectively push the actual value of wages lower, but the quantitative amount is still higher.

one of these days you'll get outside the box you've read yourself into and realize when you go to play semantic games

[Karl]

As far as I can see nothing I have said contradicts anything you have said. If you work 9 hours a day you are far more likely to chat and go on facebook because you need a break, 6 hours a day not so much. The main thing I was pointing out is the difference between the USA and the rest of the OECD

You do have a very liberal kind of whimsical view of things. If you are contracted to work 9 hours you should be working 9 hours and not cheating your employer out of his money. If that should be 6 or 24 the same thing applies.

[Karl]

one of these days you'll get outside the box you've read yourself into and realize when you go to play semantic games

I will never leave the box, I have taped it closed and I will remain here for ever. It's a lovely box and I've decorated it very tastefully. One day you will find a box of your own-God willing.

[joeblast]

the walls of my box are illusory and permeable, in the same way that you can connect all 4 points of a square with 3 lines

[Karl]

the walls of my box are illusory and permeable, in the same way that you can connect all 4 points of a square with 3 lines

Not a proper box then. You are basically living on the street and calling it a window :-)

 

Seriously though, instead of your ad hominems why don't you refute my argument, or failing that, why don't you show how central bank money expansion compresses wages ? I mean you have made no attempt to explain it. All you appear to do is to blame everything on banks of which the central banks appear to you as the apex.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, but you don't appear to connect the dots. You surely understand the basics that monetary expansion is called inflation ? You know that generally more money chasing fewer good causes price inflation either generally, or specifically ? So, as wages are linked to prices, employers are forced to drive up wages in certain sectors or risk losing their employees. Indeed Jim Callaghan did a great speech on it.

 

Funnily enough we have another kind of inflation caused by asset bubbles and that is job inflation. This is where inflation creates a demand for services in an area and jobs are created as a result-as these jobs are based around wealthy asset holders they tend to be low skilled service sector jobs.

[joeblast]

Do I seriously have to explain all the outflows and outcomes of central bank counterfeiting to you?

[Karl]

Do I seriously have to explain all the outflows and outcomes of central bank counterfeiting to you?

I want to see how you explain wage compression in relation to monetary expansion. I have shown that it is not the case, but please convince me that I'm wrong as I'm genuinely curious how you can get there. I might well say 'yeah good one, never considered that'. The floor is yours.

[joeblast]

I dont know why you continue to frame counterfeiting as simply "monetary expansion"

 

it reminds of of when they came out with QE, and claimed it was just to help grease the bearings and specifically stayed away from mentioning that it was easing quantities of money out of everyone's pockets. 

 

go look at what the last hundred years of easing in counterfeiting measures has done to the value of the dollar (and let's leave aside the difference between a dollar and a federal reserve note for right now)....that is not simply "monetary expansion"....you couldnt have devalued the dollar better if that was one's intention.

 

(speaking of intention...devaluation of the dollar is part of the process.....dont you remember "first by inflation then by deflation, our descendants will wake up broke and homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered")

[Karl]

I dont know why you continue to frame counterfeiting as simply "monetary expansion"

 

it reminds of of when they came out with QE, and claimed it was just to help grease the bearings and specifically stayed away from mentioning that it was easing quantities of money out of everyone's pockets.

 

go look at what the last hundred years of easing in counterfeiting measures has done to the value of the dollar (and let's leave aside the difference between a dollar and a federal reserve note for right now)....that is not simply "monetary expansion"....you couldnt have devalued the dollar better if that was one's intention.

 

(speaking of intention...devaluation of the dollar is part of the process.....dont you remember "first by inflation then by deflation, our descendants will wake up broke and homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered")

Because monetary expansion is defined as inflation by all economists.

 

Monetary expansion (inflation) devalues the currency. Money is a commodity, a good, the more there is of it, the lower its value -supply/demand curve.

 

Anyway, you haven't presented your argument because you are so bound up in claims of counterfeiting that you aren't functioning objectively. Your entire thought process is riddled with ideas of cabals of evil globalists instead of sticking with the facts. Try and take the emotion out of your argument and it will be better for it. Stick to the facts.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Karl

[Brian]

I dont know why you continue to frame counterfeiting as simply "monetary expansion"

 

it reminds of of when they came out with QE, and claimed it was just to help grease the bearings and specifically stayed away from mentioning that it was easing quantities of money out of everyone's pockets.

 

go look at what the last hundred years of easing in counterfeiting measures has done to the value of the dollar (and let's leave aside the difference between a dollar and a federal reserve note for right now)....that is not simply "monetary expansion"....you couldnt have devalued the dollar better if that was one's intention.

 

(speaking of intention...devaluation of the dollar is part of the process.....dont you remember "first by inflation then by deflation, our descendants will wake up broke and homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered")

That TJ quote is almost certainly bogus despite being entered into the Congressional Record in the 1930s. This one is entirely legitimate, though, and also reflects his distrust of and disdain for this statist engine:

 

"And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

[Karl]

That TJ quote is almost certainly bogus despite being entered into the Congressional Record in the 1930s. This one is entirely legitimate, though, and also reflects his distrust of and disdain for this statist engine:

"And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

Good find.