Massive Unemployment Incoming

[Field Marshall Bradley]

This sentence highlights that you may not understand the seriousness of this situation. And you have the audacity to end it with "pretty simple"

Timestamp 0:18

That dude is trying to be the smartest cat in the room and its backfiring...... I got a cousin who is a general contractor who told me about this machine last year......... dude is completely out of touch

 

[David_TheMan]

This sentence highlights that you may not understand the seriousness of this situation. And you have the audacity to end it with "pretty simple"

Timestamp 0:18

Yeah it is pretty simple, again needless fear mongering, you post a video where you still have a site full of bricklayers working. SMH.
On top of that you ignore the fact that the machine still needs people to operate and set parameters for it as well or for the brick moving/loading and seperate mortar mixing machine that will surely come next..
This is what Im talking about though, a general attitude of fear and helplessness. You see something new and it scares you to death, I hope one day you grow out of that mindset. It can't be healthy.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

US, UK, China, Germany, and France off the top of my head. All 5 went though rapid industrialization that destroyed established industries and increased national productivity and increased employment.

Nope.... you're referring to a movement away from industrialization in these cases..... that's not what's happening here...... this is something completely different...... but I knew you would push this in a different direction.....

The funny part is you show your lack of common sense in asking me to predict the future. Its not for me to say what an in demand marketable skill will be, just that a person if you are displaced will need to develop a marketable skill so that you can find work in the new market. Which, with regard to me, is as rational as saying you need air to breathe.

and the irony in this is that there isn't an industry that can be created to replace jobs that were held by "unskilled laborers" so this bullshyt rhetoric of developing a "marketable skillset" will not apply to those with that type of work background..... but you aint got enough walk around sense to realize that

 

[David_TheMan]

That dude is trying to be the smartest cat in the room and its backfiring...... I got a cousin who is a general contractor who told me about this machine last year......... dude is completely out of touch

Again projecting again, I'm having a discussion with you, simple as that. You seem to be taking a difference of opinion as personal and projecting your own attitudes of inferiority or attempts to be superior on me. I don't know you at all, I don't care what you do or don't do. I'm having a conversation.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

Again projecting again, I'm having a discussion with you, simple as that. You seem to be taking a difference of opinion as personal and projecting your own attitudes of inferiority or attempts to be superior on me. I don't know you at all, I don't care what you do or don't do. I'm having a conversation.

No... You wish it was projection...... you showed your hand... and people are calling you out on it.... pretty simple.....

 

[David_TheMan]

Slightly msinformed. I have seen algos(automated programs) run a store with one person and as opposed to the ten it used to employment. Seen algos run a fund that used to require eight people wiggle down to two people. 2 Two people breh running millions of dollars. The change is real.

Not misinformed at all.
I literally talk about jobs that will come about to create the programs, to write code, and to create the automation and maintain it and you respond talking about the loss of low skilled jobs that I said would get replaced.

Again try a bit better to read what is written.

 

[David_TheMan]

Nope.... you're referring to a movement away from industrialization in these cases..... that's not what's happening here...... this is something completely different...... but I knew you would push this in a different direction.....

No I'm refering to industrialization in these cases.
I think we might have different definitions of what industrialization means. Industrialization ,as I know it is, the move from agriculture and artisan manufacturing to manufacturing jobs based on mass production, using assembly lines and automation.
So to me this is just continuing the trend of automation and mass production, but with even better machinary to aid in automation.
So your statement makes no sense to me using the words under the definitions I'm used to.

 

[David_TheMan]

No... You wish it was projection...... you showed your hand... and people are calling you out on it.... pretty simple.....

I don't argue facts breh, I told you my attitude with regard to the situation.
If you want to go based off how you feel thats on you, but it isn't my reality.

 

[LordOfTheManor]

1. Computers don't become better at coding than humans. There are people developing computers that become code at coding, and you will still need people evaluate that coding and test before putting it into production. So I find it hard to understand your point because it argues or makes an assumption on a belief or idea I don't support. Your neighbor had surgery, her surgeon was a human being who used a robot to assist in the operation. This is what I'm talking about though, a lot of you look at technology as magic that exist in a vacuum, computers and programs, you don't seem to understand there are people that push the development in these fields, programs don't just think about thinks and operate, they need instruction. AI doesn't just work and you have a program capable of thought like a person, it needs instruction, it needs constant refinement, these are things that people do because only people can do it. As for you example of the calculator, that should tell you how much the fearmongering being done here is worthless. Did the calculator remove the neccesaity or value of math as a high level discipline? No, it increased the complication and ability to do even higher level math and made those in that field even more valuable thanks to the processing advantage they gained with it. It improved society on a whole, even if it took the abacus, punch card, and slide rule industries and their workers out the game.

2. Yes people should develop marketable skills for the environment they live in. Humans were replaced in physical markets and in more intellectual markets where computers were able to automate the ability to neeed an engineer or before, especially with regard to some building software. We have already been outperformed in high skill area by machines, higher skilled people though generally know they have to develop their skills to stay competitive. Per your example lets concede and say only 10 have the aptitude to be programmers and do that, the other 90 filter into fields that they can compete in, there are more fields to name, some with high skills some that are low skilled, that onus is on those 90 people though, not on "society" or anything. The law of averages by the way has nothing to do with people being able to develop skills to enter certain fields, or that those people are intelligent enough (in this case truckers) to all develop marketable high skills that are in demand.. You are using that term entirely wrong.

You seem to think you have the ability to be able to plan out society, that doesn't exist, you have to recognize you are talking about people and those people will have their own interests, passions, hobbies, aptitudes, and mental makeup which will direct them and contribute to what fields they go into. So trying to act like any breakdown where you say 10 people go to _____ and 20 people to ______ and 60 to ______ and etc is a waste of time. We can only talk in generalities here, not specifics.

And again with regard to automation, factories that use machinary to build vehicles have a lot of people, I see my local hyundai plant employing people and its highly automated, same with the Mercedes Benz plant in Vance, AL. They need workers and they pay well because automated mechanization doesn't mean no people, you need people to program and run the machines. For example, MBUSI - Mechatronics Program

You are all literally fear mongering, and you say you aren't scared of technological advancement but you then say you are scared of the effects of technological advancement. Like I said before, your arguments are identical to the arguments of the luddites. You are scared of your employment due to the rise of technology in replacing workers, again this fear has been proven time and again to be unfounded. Stop being afraid and look at the new tech for what it is, new opportunities.

Its not the job of technology advocates to worry about the number of jobs, its about the ability to generate profit and wealth. Like Murray Rothbard said to the chinese, you want jobs get rid of execuvators and trenchers, give everyone a shovel, you'll have your jobs, you won't generate wealth though, and the overall effect will be an increase in cost of living and lowering of standard of living ,but hey millions of people will have jobs right?
SMH

Jobs don't exist for people to have jobs, they exist to provide value to the owner who is in turn trying to provide value to customers. If you don't look at working or being productive as what can I do to increase my value as an employee or worker so I can generate more money, you are doing it wrong.

I agree that there's still need for human input and instructions. That's not actually what I'm arguing. We're fundamentally agreeing, but I just don't think you're seeing it all the way through. As we agree, it's all about effectivization - well, what happens when effectivization hits all sectors? What took 100 men now takes 10. You say people should adapt their skillset, but effectivization hits all sectors. I'm not sure why "new jobs in the future" are exempt from that.

We're not arguing new markets aren't being created, we're just pointing out the fact that they don't seem to require as much manpower as "new markets" of the past did. That may change, but we don't know that as of now.

Automated technology hits worldwide, and at the same time there's population growth in third-world countries. Somehow these people are just going to adapt and become coders, programmers and engineers? Maybe in a couple of generations, but certainly not soon. This needs to be addressed assertively and has nothing to do with me being scared. I welcome new technology.

 

[David_TheMan]

I agree that there's still need for human input and instructions. That's not actually what I'm arguing. We're fundamentally agreeing, but I just don't think you're seeing it all the way through. As we agree, it's all about effectivization - well, what happens when effectivization hits all sectors? What took 100 men now takes 10. You say people should adapt their skillset, but effectivization hits all sectors. I'm not sure why "new jobs in the future" are exempt from that.

We're not arguing new markets aren't being created, we're just pointing out the fact that they don't seem to require as much manpower as "new markets" of the past did. That may change, but we don't know that as of now.

Automated technology hits worldwide, and at the same time there's population growth in third-world countries. Somehow these people are just going to adapt and become coders, programmers and engineers? Maybe in a couple of generations, but certainly not soon. This needs to be addressed assertively and has nothing to do with me being scared. I welcome new technology.

Streamlining and increase of efficiency (what you stated as effectivization) is ongoing in every single field. If it wasn't it was simply because the tech didn't exist at a price point that made it financially viable. the question and application of greater efficiency has always been present in all sectors, and the greater efficiency has never lead to what you are trying to claim it will lead to now. Why? because people adapt, the new efficiencies lend to workers going to areas that their economy is more optimized to take them into. Nothing is exempt from this and I haven't argued that they are.

Earlier mechanization removed even more people from than the current mechanization. Mechanization itself took millions out of agriculture worldwide. Automated looms took 100,000s out the market in single countries,in the textile fields. these are taking jobs out of smaller fields and again its nothing new.

Automated technology isn't going to be financially viable in the 3rd world over human labor until the human labor prices go up, so the talk as if its automatic seems to be an unjustified leap. That said as we've seen from the rapid industrialization in China a few generations is all it needs to be done if it does occur, and in doing so it hasn't lead to massive unemployment, but in a aggressively growing economy that needs workers, not the opposite.

There is nothing that needs to be addressed at all, let alone assertively. New technology comes along, adapt or don't and fall to the wayside, in the competition to provide to people. Simple as that.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

That said as we've seen from the rapid industrialization in China a few generations is all it needs to be done if it does occur, and in doing so it hasn't lead to massive unemployment, but in a aggressively growing economy that needs workers, not the opposite.

Isn't China still a communist country?

 

[David_TheMan]

Isn't China still a communist country?

It is, has nothing to do with industrialization. Soviet Union under Stalin rapidly industrialized as well.
Industrialization doesn't equal capitalism, its mainly the transition from agriculture to manufacturing and machinary production.

 

[sayyestothis]

Sales = freedom.

Sales = guaranteed income.

Sales = job security.

There will always a place for a sales person in ANY line of work.

No one want to listen though...

 

[LordOfTheManor]

Streamlining and increase of efficiency (what you stated as effectivization) is ongoing in every single field. If it wasn't it was simply because the tech didn't exist at a price point that made it financially viable. the question and application of greater efficiency has always been present in all sectors, and the greater efficiency has never lead to what you are trying to claim it will lead to now. Why? because people adapt, the new efficiencies lend to workers going to areas that their economy is more optimized to take them into. Nothing is exempt from this and I haven't argued that they are.

Earlier mechanization removed even more people from than the current mechanization. Mechanization itself took millions out of agriculture worldwide. Automated looms took 100,000s out the market in single countries,in the textile fields. these are taking jobs out of smaller fields and again its nothing new.

Automated technology isn't going to be financially viable in the 3rd world over human labor until the human labor prices go up, so the talk as if its automatic seems to be an unjustified leap. That said as we've seen from the rapid industrialization in China a few generations is all it needs to be done if it does occur, and in doing so it hasn't lead to massive unemployment, but in a aggressively growing economy that needs workers, not the opposite.

There is nothing that needs to be addressed at all, let alone assertively. New technology comes along, adapt or don't and fall to the wayside, in the competition to provide to people. Simple as that.

It's fundamentally different because we could move to other fields where we weren't outperformed. Humans are unique in that the job market's demand for intelligence could only be met by us. This is hasn't been seriously challenged until now, so I don't agree with you using history as an example for the future. We simply don't know.

Autmated technology may very well hit the third-world, although to a lesser degree than here. You don't think there's a genuine possibility companies such as Nike will start using machines for certain tasks in third-world factories? If machines work faster and longer hours, then there's increased production. For some companies that will make more sense financially. In addition, they don't need to be concerned about workers rights etc.

China was able to rise precisely because there was demand for unskilled labour. If that demand changes to engineers, coders and programmers I don't see how China is a relevant example for what's about to come

 

[David_TheMan]

It's fundamentally different because we could move to other fields where we weren't outperformed. Humans are unique in that the job market's demand for intelligence could only be met by us. This is hasn't been seriously challenged until now, so I don't agree with you using history as an example for the future. We simply don't know.

Autmated technology may very well hit the third-world, although to a lesser degree than here. You don't think there's a genuine possibility companies such as Nike will start using machines for certain tasks in third-world factories? If machines work faster and longer hours, then there's increased production. For some companies that will make more sense financially. In addition, they don't need to be concerned about workers rights etc.

It isn't fundamentally different, because today you can still move to other fields. Also mechanization put people in fields where they were outperformed and largely put them in fields where they still were outperformed but they put them in control or trained them how to use the machinary. Same principle in play here.

What you are talking about now isn't seriously challenging anything, there is literally no difference in what is happening now and what happened then. Same process occuring more advanced machinary.

Automated will hit underdeveloped countries, when it makes financial sense to do so. As long as its cheaper to hire more people and continue along the status quo than it is to make the switch, there is no monetary gain to make from making the switch. This applies for domestic producers and international producers that go to these countries, its a cost benefit trade off whether to make the jump