Robots Will Create 'Permanently Unemployable Underclass'

[flintlock]

Re: Maintenance robots

Was talking to a customer yesterday about his company. Seems they use automatic welders. Set up a track and the welding machine just runs about doing it's business in fuel storage tanks, buildings, etc. Pretty amazing what tech there is out there today. He said they are not that much quicker than humans after set up time is considered, but more precise, can work longer hours, and don't get sick or lay out of work.

[don]

Re: Greenspan the Un-Rand

Is the 'Huxley Period' over?

[Woodsman]

Re: Greenspan the Un-Rand

...The only job growth I see in this scenario is private security and prison guards.

Surely men of a certain organizational bent would thrive.

[Woodsman]

Re: Getting People to work

It this is correct, what country has used this policy? Any historical examples?

Czarist Russia had a good run while it lasted.

[Polish_Silver]

In the beginning!

. . .


In the beginning there were hunter-gatherers. They lived like they were on a permanent camping/hunting trip. Carrying a lot of extra stuff was a pain in the ass. They didn't have private property. They didn't own land. They didn't have law. Everything was shared within the tribe. Just like you might share everything in your house with your family without charging them any money now.

Then came the agricultural revolution. And people grew crops. But to do this they had to stay in one spot. And they had to protect that spot. Staying put let them generate and store surplus food. The farmland was held in common and food and everything else was shared. But the surplus could be traded with other tribes outside. The beginning of the gift/reciprocity economy formed.

And so the seeds were sown with those first fields for governments and trade both. Warriors needed to protect an exclusive geographic area from other men and other animals. Surplus existed for the first time and allowed pre-market gift-style trading. All because people learned how to farm.

So law and trade arrive around the same time.

Both as natural as farming ever was for man.

The two go together like peas and carrots.

I think that's an excellent starting point for thinking about economics and our responsibility to each other.

You didn't mention how the agricultural revolution led to gender inequality, inheritance of social status, plague diseases, sexual repression, and 10 other things. But that's a matter for full length books. Empathy is the only thing keeping us going, tempering the dynamics of both Darwinism and capitalism.

[Polish_Silver]

Getting People to work

You can only throw away the welfare state if you also throw away the various forms of working "protection" enacted in law. The major protection afforded by the law is to protect people from employment.

With the abolishment of the minimum wage, labor laws, and the various forms of social safety nets, you will see a huge calamity immediately, followed by coping and then ultimately thriving as people adjust to the new normal. . . .
Throwing away the welfare state and seeing the initial reaction doesn't prove that some people have been replaced to some degree. All it would prove is that some people are accustomed to not needing to do anything meaningful to survive. . ..
e.

It this is correct, what country has used this policy? Any historical examples?

Many of those unemployed now I would not want in my house as a nanny, though as lawn mower they might be acceptable.

I have been around homeless people and some will just not fit in due to chronic mental illness: schizophrenia, manic-depression, etc.

On the other hand, I agree that the system discourages some capable people from working. The only viable solution I see is to make work a better alternative than welfare, by subsidizing low wage work.

Countries with no safety net usually have tons of beggars. Taiwan is the only one I have seen that doesn't have this problem, and they do have some beggars. I doubt that the US could replicate Taiwan's policies. Taiwan has these advantages:

1) strong extended families
2) minimal regulations and taxes
3) highly cost effective health care.
4) low cost living alternatives
5) mild climate (no need for heating in winter)


It's somewhat like the argument that, if you take away the humane society, all the stray dogs will find owners.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Greenspan the Un-Rand

"Remove the safety nets" and people will find jobs "to some extent". And the rest? What happens with the safety nets gone? I wonder what your acceptable success rate is.

You might ask what happens to "the rest" after minimum wage laws increase and bring new people into the ranks of the permanently unemployable.

Enough of the poor in America live in poverty by choice as to make my statement valid. You can misconstrue what I've said as much as you want, but the facts speak for themselves--when welfare is reduced, people suddenly find jobs as if by magic. People often take care of themselves pretty effectively, ...

Thank you for not rising to my pokes and keeping things civil. I apologize for my tone.

But, respectfully, some of the things you posted sound to me more like hardcore belief in an ideology than thoughtful solutions. Yes, people often find a way to survive during true hardship. But other people die. And people are softer, more numerous and less cooperative than they were in, say, the Great Depression era.

Removing the safety nets would encourage some fraction of the unemployed to take any job for any wage. But I don't see how hungry workers and lower wages creates 10's of millions of jobs for unskilled workers. DOING WHAT???

The only job growth I see in this scenario is private security and prison guards.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Greenspan the Un-Rand

Ghent12: I agree with you generally that IP protections go on for too long. But I don't see another practical way to do it just yet other than to keep IP law, but shorten the timeframe. Otherwise, what's to prevent you from copying Star Wars, changing one scene slightly, and selling it for $1 per copy the day after it comes out? What's to stop you from taking all of the Windows code and putting out an operating system that's identical with a line or two different in the background and selling it to IBM clones for cut rate prices? Or what's to stop Dell from copying it and just putting it out as it's own? Clearly there needs to be something there. It's not fair otherwise.

Obviously this condition almost assuredly can't happen and is perfectly theoretical, but it doesn't negate its usefulness as a principle or from a philosophical perspective

This was the same argument that Marxism used. And so I'm very, very wary of it.

Name a monopoly you think exists without the aid of some law which restricts competition in its relevant markets, and anyone will likely be able to point towards the law which restricts that monopoly's competition.

I'll say it for the third time: Name a market you think exists without the aid of some law which protects private property and establishes relevant markets, and anyone will likely be able to point towards the law that allows free market competition.

[Ghent12]

Re: Greenspan the Un-Rand

How did public policy create the AT&T monopoly on phone service? Activities which have large economies of scale can become monopolies without any political/legal action. If AT&T had raised rates too much, competition might have appeared. But the difficulty of putting an an alternative network of phone lines would have given them lots of margin to play with.

Regional railroads might have been in a simlar state before autos arrived.

That is the textbook case, and yes it is true that large capital barriers to entry can tend towards some monopoly. However, as markets develop and "mature" it is almost impossible for a monopoly to exist for very long without the aid of governments. AT&T or "Ma Bell" essentially formed as the market for telephones was under rapid development, and it metastasized as a government sanctioned monopoly ironically as a result of anti-trust efforts in 1913.

Theoretically, if a private enterprise were to assemble the capital for something big enough, like a space ladder, there likely would be a monopoly for an indefinite period of time. These large accumulations of capital do occur on smaller scales in smaller markets, and the risk of a long-running monopoly is accordingly much smaller.

[Ghent12]

Re: Greenspan the Un-Rand

I assume you're saying you believe private property is a Natural Right handed down from God a la John Locke. Even then, there's a social contract component once money comes into the picture and theological components against letting surplus spoil and starving out the poor through property ownership. That's the basis of the Two Treatises.

Regardless, let's say you do believe that you own yourself as private property, like any other slab of beef or slave on the auction block at the slave market.

And let's say from there that you believe you own the fruits of your labor since God granted man dominion in Genesis. Why would you not also own the fruits of your intellectual labor? Is your brain not part of you? Are your thoughts not your own? Do you not have the same right to intellectual labor as you do physical labor?

These are excellent questions and I appreciate the engagement. The answers, in order, are that you do own the fruits of your intellectual labor, your brain is a part of you, your thoughts are your own (though ideas can be shared at very little cost), and you do have the same right to [the fruits of and the effort of] intellectual labor as you do to for physical labor. However, none of these matters can ethically (or practically) be used to thwart another from deriving on their own or learning of through other means your idea (as the domain of the mind is fairly private and may be influenced by many, but only controlled by one person), nor can it be ethically used to stop the creation of an object either entirely based upon your idea or based on an improvement, modification, or permutation of your idea by others, regardless of how that idea came to find its way into the minds of others. As a practical matter, defining exactly what you can deny others the ability to do based upon you making a certain discovery is arbitrary and can be absurd.

To clarify why you simultaneously have a right to the fruits of your intellectual labor yet have no ethical right to prevent others from enjoying the fruits of their labor (even if a blatant copy of your idea), is that the fruits of your intellectual labor are specifically the actual idea itself and the opportunity to exploit the world's ignorance of your idea. Failing to exploit the advantage you create for yourself by "being first" does not entitle you to use men with guns to stop others from working, just as failing to exploit the resources you own in any physical sense as effectively as someone does not entitle you to be able to halt the exploitation of their resources.

If you create an object, can you patent creation itself? If you create an object out of iron, can you patent all metalwork? Obviously these are not recent discoveries, but in the course of patent law there are a number of cases where the arbitrary legal nature of the act of denying people the ability to create things has been taken to absurd extremes. The Wright brothers created aircraft which utilized wing-warping as the means to effect controlled flight, yet the effect of their patents were to de facto outlaw controlled flight itself except through license.

Imitating someone or their work is not a form of theft. You do not deprive someone of their idea by utilizing their idea--all you deprive them of is the opportunity for monopoly of their idea. You seem to be against monopolies (evidenced by you casting them in negative light and defending assertions that capitalism and/or a free market can not only create them but encourage them), yet being in favor of intellectual property rights is, in reality, being in favor of (possibly temporary) monopolies. That is a seemingly contradictory position to hold. Perhaps you make an exception for someone who has "earned" such a monopoly privilege?

Of course a free and unfettered market would have laws. You need contract laws. You need laws banning theft and fraud. You need laws establishing a medium of exchange. In the end of the day, you probably even need a couple naval groups to keep tariffs out, ensure trade, and deter piracy. As they like to say in the service, "Freedom isn't free."

There is no free market in a vacuum. Never has been. Never will be. It always comes with a government attached.

So I don't see to much point in arguments that begin, "Well, if laws just did not exist, then..."

That doesn't mean you can't take on laws or regulations you feel are wrong or unnecessary as they come up.

A truly free and unfettered market, at least by the definition I am using, means that there is no political transaction between people and there are exclusively economic or social transactions between people. A truly free and unfettered market, in order to actually be truly free, must be free from all laws which regulate or affect the market (what else would a free market be free from?). No contract laws, no laws against theft or deceit, etc. Obviously this condition almost assuredly can't happen and is perfectly theoretical, but it doesn't negate its usefulness as a principle or from a philosophical perspective. It's an "ideal" if you want to call it that, similar to utilizing "massless, frictionless pulleys of zero radius" in the study of elementary physics to see the bigger picture items of work, mechanical advantage, and etc. (As an aside, a purely free market can theoretically function and include regulation, but not via the law. Perfectly voluntary regulation by means of brands, reputation, and the relationships between supply, demand, and prices serve to keep markets regular and would still be in effect to various degrees in a purely free market. However, this digression is not pertinent and not the point I'm trying to make.)

Laws which cover exclusively the "no harm" principle, depending on how you define it and who you ask, can turn a purely free market society into a capitalist one--essentially any society where political power is used almost exclusively to outlaw harm and protect all economic activity (i.e. contract law) can be considered a fairly pure capitalist society. In other words, a capitalist society is a society which protects the formation of capital, and a free market society is a society based upon markets solely and free of laws. But these distinctions aren't necessary for the points I've been making. American laws reach far beyond that scope and, to varying degrees, restrict economic activity. Can a society be a free-market society when so many markets (some drugs, some foods, some sex services, some weapons, virtually all very cheap labor, etc.) are outright illegal or very heavily restricted? Can a society be a capitalist society when so many laws exist to restrict the formation of capital in and entrance into so many markets (i.e. licensing of all kinds)?

Specifically, monopolies exist largely because it is government policy that they exist. The monopolist is protected from competition directly by government policy within that monopolist's market, or indirectly through necessary secondary markets. There need not be laws overtly stating "Time Warner Cable shall be the only cable provider in Corpus Christi" for TWC to be the monopolist in the Corpus Christi cable market as a direct result of government policy.

This isn't an unfair game at all. Name a monopoly you think exists without the aid of some law which restricts competition in its relevant markets, and anyone will likely be able to point towards the law which restricts that monopoly's competition.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Greenspan the Un-Rand

The best and most useful definition of monopoly is the state of concentration reached where price competition is essentially over, replaced by competition for market share between a handful of large corporations. It heralds the rise of advertising as an outlet for traditional investment capital which has fewer places to go in a monopoly environment.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/dai...t-outage.print

[don]

Re: Greenspan the Un-Rand

The best and most useful definition of monopoly is the state of concentration reached where price competition is essentially over, replaced by competition for market share between a handful of large corporations. It heralds the rise of advertising as an outlet for traditional investment capital which has fewer places to go in a monopoly environment.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Greenspan the Un-Rand

Monopoly isn't inevitable or even likely under capitalism. Monopoly requires complete ownership of something unique or complete ownership of all the means to produce and acquire a good or service within an economy of a given size. Monopolies in the United States are almost exclusively government-sponsored, government-supported, or otherwise products of political practices and not capitalist economic ones.

Let's play a game. You name a monopoly you think is a result of capitalism, and then you can take a turn explaining how that monopoly is not a product of the legal environment it resides in. Look to the laws which restrict competition and it should become apparent really quickly.

How did public policy create the AT&T monopoly on phone service? Activities which have large economies of scale can become monopolies without any political/legal action. If AT&T had raised rates too much, competition might have appeared. But the difficulty of putting an an alternative network of phone lines would have given them lots of margin to play with.

Regional railroads might have been in a simlar state before autos arrived.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Greenspan the Un-Rand

By the way, Lucas will own Star Wars for 75 years after his death

Recent trade agreements force countries to rewrite intellectual privacy laws to match America’s. The agreements dissolve worker rights and screw up court systems for decades. The need for IP is clear, but the pendulum has swung so far toward corporate monopoly, libertarians are making a good case for no IP at all.

Ideology vs. Ideology. Compromise and common sense are dumped.

As any Thai rice farmer would tell you the world has gone screwy. Texas “Jasmati” took market share with a tweak, a patent, and multiple lawsuits.

Government and corporate/business interests have always had tremendous overlap, but currently one circle seems to fit perfectly on top of the other. The revolving door is spinning at RPM’s up there in the red zone. Corruption is an amazing thing…the tolerance of it, its creeping expansion, the new markets it creates, the way people see it in other cultures, but not their own.

[touchring]

Re: Robots Will Create 'Permanently Unemployable Underclass'

With a few different decisions in the past (or now, I would guess) from our leaders, we would have tons of jobs. The U.S. government can borrow trillions. Those trillions could be spent to modernize our infrastructure. China has demonstrated that it can be done. There is at least $20 trillion worth of improvements that could be made in the infrastructure in the U.S. After that is done, perhaps we can talk about jobs springing into existence.

China has shown how to pull 100's of millions of people out of poverty, not through hand-outs, but through jobs. I cannot believe the U.S., with all its current resources (including credit), could not make a few tens of millions of jobs. It is laughable.

Can individual state governments go ahead and begin their own massive investment in infrastructure? Just wondering. Especially California and state of New York?