SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Today's 6th graders will hit their prime working years in 2030.
By that time, the "robot apocalypse" could be fully upon us. Automation and artificial intelligence could have eliminated half the jobs in the United States economy.
Or, plenty of jobs could still exist, but today's students could be locked in a fierce competition for a few richly rewarded positions requiring advanced technical and interpersonal skills. Robots and algorithms would take care of what used to be solid working- and middle-class jobs. And the kids who didn't get that cutting-edge computer science course or life-changing middle school project? They'd be relegated to a series of dead-end positions, serving the elites who did.
Alternatively, maybe Bill Gates and Elon Musk and the other big names ringing the alarm are wrong. A decade from now, perhaps companies will still complain they can't find employees who can read an instruction manual and pass a drug test. Maybe workers will still be able to hold on to the American Dream, so long as they can adjust to incremental technological shifts in the workplace.
Which vision will prove correct?
30 years into the Information Revolution and schools are only just now realizing they should teach kids how to code...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 15 2017, @09:07PM (10 children)
For that I had the almost year old observation:
Moving on to something you wrote later in this thread
compared to when you wrote [soylentnews.org]
My response applies just as well now as it did then:
And I then quote directly twice from Das Kapital where Marx does this very thing:
and
Perhaps you should learn from these discussions, aristarchus, rather than continue to make the same mistakes again?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday December 16 2017, @12:32AM (9 children)
The obvious rebuttal, my dear and fluffy khallow, is that I, unlike some others here with their "multivalent" dictionaries, do not change my position to appear to be "winning" a discussion.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 16 2017, @03:11AM (8 children)
Who would those be? I've occasionally run afoul of the English language, but I've improved since I more routinely consult dictionaries. But I have noticed that Marxists have unusual problems adhering to standard definitions. Further, the errors I brought up go well beyond mere semantics. Capital intensification is simply a matter of technology development. It's not at all particular to Capitalism. Nor is it a matter of semantics what Marx's opinion is on Capitalism versus Communism. He quite clearly shows one-sided support for the latter.
Then why are you posting now? It's certainly not to discuss anything, else you would have gone beyond half-hearted innuendo.
As for me, I have no problem with competition in debate. It sharpens the wits and gets people thinking harder. Further, that's a huge part of the Greek tradition of philosophy, with which you should be familiar. If you aren't willing to own your beliefs, then why should we care? I own my opinions even when I'm trying out a devil's advocate argument. You don't have to be that way - a lot of people aren't and that's fine.
But when people make a strong claim and then post passive aggressive nonsense when challenged? You're a grown up, you should act like it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday December 16 2017, @04:58AM (7 children)
And I, in turn, cannot help by notice that you have said nothing other than what you said before: that you disagree. Your objections are noted, but since you drag in quotes that were meant to establish quite another point (Marx as moralizer, I believe it was? Those repugnant, deplorable capitalists!!), I see no reason to address them here. Robots, khallow, it's all about the robots! And in Slavic Languages, the word for "slave" is
"otrok" or "раб" or "рабыня". See?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 16 2017, @05:07AM (6 children)
Even if that were true, and it's not, you don't even go that far.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday December 16 2017, @06:18AM (5 children)
khallow! You slippery eel in debate! (There is a Sanskrit word for this.) Do you, or do you not, agree that the increasing automation of industrial production under a capitalist system will provoke a crisis of demand for the products of such automation? Simple question, answer yes, or no. We will wait.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 16 2017, @06:26AM (4 children)
I don't agree. Some nuance needs to be made here. A temporary issue, which we could choose to call a crisis, does indeed happen in that more of such products are produced resulting in a drop in price and a modest amount of turmoil in the industry sector in question. Then demand increases as people figure how what to do with the greater supply of the products and life goes on.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday December 16 2017, @06:57AM (3 children)
You are a fool, khallow. What are the basic principles of economics, as a social science? Yes, the study of production. But then you say something as ignorant as this!
Can you not read, khallow? Are your ideological blinders on so tight that you are unable to understand those who constern you? This is not a temporary issue, according to Marx, it is a systemic and endemic feature of capitalist economics, one beloved by bone-headed conservative economists, because they only see that competition (theoretical, ceterus paribus) will lower costs of production, and thus prices, and thus social value. But we are considering only one part of that, the distribution of effective demand (money, wages) that supports the entire system. So when you say:
Are you deaf, khallow? Do you even know what discussion thread on SoylentNews you are in? Is your location app from the mothership working? People figure out what to do with the greater supply by not buying it. Capitalists then cut back on production, to avoid losses. And then even fewer workers have ready cash to take advantage of the surplus, and so more are laid off, until some enlightened Keynsian says: Prime the ferking Pump!. That is a short-term problem, and a short-term solution. Marx is talking about something else with Capital Intensification. The greater the percentage of production that is done by capital, the less margin there is to make profit by paying the working class less than their actual contribution to the productive process. No a problem, because of the savings on labor in production. But systematically, this will in fact undermine the entire system of production and consumption, by removing wage-labor from the system. Do you understand, khallow? Of do we need to write a bot that can do your job on SoylentNews better than you do, at 1/35 of the cost?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 16 2017, @08:01AM (2 children)
As a science, our answers should be driven by empirical observation not 19th Century feelz.
Doesn't matter. What matters is what sort of issue it is, according to reality. And according to reality, oversupply is indeed a temporary thing. We have numerous examples throughout the industrial age where something was temporarily in excessive production and then people figured out what to do with the excess.
Such as agricultural products, steel, electricity, art, etc? Didn't happen that way. It's a cool story, bro, but reality isn't following the script. Among other things, rather than having massive levels of unemployment, we're presently about 5% [stlouisfed.org] of the population shy of the highest employment rate in the US ever. Wouldn't have happened that way, if your story was true.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday December 16 2017, @03:54PM (1 child)
Finally someone mentions the industrial age. Fun though that discussion about medieval serfdom was, I was thinking the Industrial Revolution is a better parallel to circumstances today. Medieval times was very much "it's good to be the king", a member of the nobility, while terrible for everyone else, the 99%.
In the early 19th century, people could be independent farmers, scratching a living from the land. They were very self sufficient. Grew their own food, even made their own clothes, aka homespun. But wow, was homespun a massive labor sink. Grow your own flax or cotton crop, then women spent hours and hours at the spinning wheels to turn the plant fibers into individual threads, which were then woven into usable bolts of cloth with more hours of labor at a hand loom. The Industrial Revolution ended all that. Mechanized clothing manufacturing and a whole lot of other things. Took a while longer to replace the horse, but that eventually happened too.
Formerly independent farmers were forced into taking factory jobs and worked mercilessly. Had stuff like 12 hour work days 6 or even all 7 days of the week. Manufacturing upended the economy, driving prices down on things the farmers could produce. The ones who tried to stay on the farm were then unable to produce enough to afford the services and goods they still needed, and to pay taxes and raise a family.
More wealth was being produced than ever before, but the lion's share was going straight into the pockets of a few wealthy industrialists. Our capitalist system doesn't have really any policies at all to rein in the irresponsible and destructive greed, arrogance, and contempt of the super rich. Workers were driven to organize themselves into unions and go on strikes. It took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get these foolish owners to see that it wasn't good for anyone, even them, to have such wealth inequality, and to acknowledge that 40 hours was about the maximum a work week should be. The 40 hour work week is backed by scientific studies that show that workers pushed to work longer hours than that are so much less productive that they accomplish less than if they'd worked only 40 hours. But now we seem to have a new generation of super rich who don't know that and if they do hear about it, don't believe it.
The robot apocalypse could easily go the same way as the Industrial Revolution. Just when we need policies to keep society and civil norms from being shredded, the greedy super rich are hell bent on tearing apart everything they see as an "unfair" restriction on their ability to ruthlessly exploit the masses, if not outright liquidate them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 16 2017, @05:27PM
In other words, as labor became more valuable, workers had more power to get the things they wanted from employers. Perhaps we should think about ways to make labor more valuable rather than less? It's working for the rest of the world.
Currently, it is. The majority of people throughout the world are becoming more prosperous, knowledgeable, and healthier, just like in the industrial revolution. But that isn't the narrative you wish to spin, eh?