SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-many-robots-does-it-take-to-screw-in-a-lightbulb dept.
Digital technology has been a fantastic creator of economic wealth, particularly in the twenty years since the Internet and World Wide Web were unveiled to the masses. And with non-trivial applications of artificial intelligence (such as Apple's Siri) finally reaching the mainstream consumer market, one is tempted to agree with pundits asserting that the Second Machine Age is just getting underway.
But Yale ethicist Wendell Wallach argues that growth in wealth has been accompanied by an equally dramatic rise in income inequality; for example, stock ownership is now concentrated in the hands of a relative few (though greater than 1 percent). The increase in GDP has not led to an increase in wages, nor in median inflation-adjusted income. Furthermore, Wallach says technology is a leading cause of this shift, as it displaces workers in occupation after occupation more quickly than new career opportunities arise.
This piece led to the latest iteration of the 'will robots take all of our jobs' debate, this time on Business Insider, with Jim Edwards arguing that the jobs lost tended to be of the mindless and repetitive variety, while the increase in productive capacity has led to the creation of many new positions. This repeated earlier cycles of the industrial revolution and will be accelerated in the decades ahead. Edwards illustrated his point with a chart of UK unemployment with a trend line (note: drawn by Edwards) in a pronounced downward direction over the past 30 years. John Tamny made a similar point in Forbes last month.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by rondon on Tuesday June 09 2015, @12:18PM
Distorting local economies with free goods can and does have a negative impact to the sector that used to produce that good. For example, we continually cry foul when the Chinese dump goods below cost in the United States in order to run their competitors out of business. Unfortunately, the US has been at that game far longer than the Chinese.
Just because trade can be positive, and likely has been an overall net positive, doesn't mean that it can't be used for evil. In fact, I'm leaning (heavily) towards the conclusion that all new trade agreements are aimed at making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 09 2015, @09:32PM
Recall that I posted in the first place in response to:
You can't make money, and in long term, jobs, with trade as the backbone of a civilization.
I think that particular quote is profoundly ignorant of history, economics, and how civilization operates. Just because we can point out places where trade, or group activities like "trade agreements" can harm others, doesn't mean that trade somehow this time isn't a fundamental, core part of civilization or something that usually works to our advantage.
It seems to me like talking about how useful hammers are and all the wonderful things you can make with one, and then someone says that "but you can whack people over the head with one too". It's as if the presence of a drawback is supposed to counter all the good things one can do with a hammer.