[BostonCard]

Once upon a time, most of humanity’s labor was devoted to securing food (hunting, gathering, and eventually farming).  At some point farming became efficient enough that a small fraction of human labor (in the US, less than 1% of the population is employed in farming and we make mire food than we need)



But that didn’t mean that 99% of the population went unemployed.  Instead, the labor force migrated to the city and we started to make things.  But of course, eventually we started making things more efficiently, as production methods improved and productivity increased, so we have been able to make enough stuff for most people (distribution is still a major issue).  Employment in manufacturing in the US is down to less than 10% of the economy. So now the labor force has migrated to service jobs; doing things for other people.  Some of that, too will be automatable, and while I don’t claim to know what will happen to baristas when a robot starts making fancy coffee drinks with minimal human input, I do know that the urge to work is strong and the and that never before in history has automation reduced the work force (if anything, it has increased it as home automation: washers and dryers and vacuum cleaners has freed women to join the work force), even though automation has made specific jobs obsolete.  As has been noted before, employment at banks actually increased even as ATM’s eliminated almost all the jobs of human tellers.  Is there a world in which machines could replace humans for all tasks?  It’s possible, though I wouldn’t bet against human inginuity and desire to do meaningful work.

At every prior labor revolution, the social contract has been modified to reflect the realities, whether it was the end of feudalism that coincided with the migration to cities or the welfare state that arose as a response to mass production. I expect that something similar will also happen if/when the robots eat many of our current jobs, whether it is a UBI or wealth tax or some other way to enable people to have a meaningful life.  I don’t claim to know what it will be, and I would be surprised if it happened under a Biden or even a Harris administration, but i have a feeling it will happen.

BC

[BostonCard]

Once upon a time, most of humanity’s labor was devoted to securing food (hunting, gathering, and eventually farming).  At some point farming became efficient enough that a small fraction of human labor (in the US, less than 1% of the population is employed in farming and we make mire food than we need)



But that didn’t mean that 99% of the population went unemployed.  Instead, the labor force migrated to the city and we started to make things.  But of course, eventually we started making things more efficiently, as production methods improved and productivity increased, so we have been able to make enough stuff for most people (distribution is still a major issue).  Employment in manufacturing in the US is down to less than 10% of the economy. So now the labor force has migrated to service jobs; doing things for other people.  Some of that, too will be automatable, and while I don’t claim to know what will happen to baristas when a robot starts making fancy coffee drinks with minimal human input, I do know that the urge to work is strong and the and that never before in history has automation reduced the work force (if anything, it has increased it as home automation: washers and dryers and vacuum cleaners has freed women to join the work force), even though automation has made specific jobs obsolete.  As has been noted before, employment at banks actually increased even as ATM’s eliminated almost all the jobs of human tellers.  Is there a world in which machines could replace humans for all tasks?  It’s possible, though I wouldn’t bet against human inginuity and desire to do meaningful work.

At every prior labor revolution, the social contract has been modified to reflect the realities, whether it was the end of feudalism that coincided with the migration to cities or the welfare state that arose as a response to mass production. I expect that something similar will also happen if/when the robots eat many of our current jobs, whether it is a UBI or wealth tax or some other way to enable people to have a meaningful life.  I don’t claim to know what it will be, and I would be surprised if it happened under a Biden or even a Harris administration, but i have a feeling it will happen.

BC

[Goose]

At every prior labor revolution, the social contract has been modified to reflect the realities, whether it was the end of feudalism that coincided with the migration to cities or the welfare state that arose as a response to mass production. I expect that something similar will also happen if/when the robots eat many of our current jobs, whether it is a UBI or wealth tax or some other way to enable people to have a meaningful life.  I don’t claim to know what it will be, and I would be surprised if it happened under a Biden or even a Harris administration, but i have a feeling it will happen.


BC

Something will evolve alright. What it will be is a big question. It "used to be" that no matter who you were, you could always find some kind of a job. It may be digging ditches, operating the mechanical brakes on a string of railroad cars, taking in laundry, etc, but there was something. The population of the planet has risen substantially, while as you point out, the efficiency of production has increased greatly. The simple fact is that we have many, many. more people than we "need" to run our society, and this is becoming more true every day. We have gone from train crews of 15 to 20 down to 5, then down to 2, and now we are discussing 1 or possibly 0.

In order to mitigate this effect, we have done several things. First, we have invented jobs for people to do. Employment at banks has increased in the face of automation because they have hired people to do things that are of little or no real value. This is done because empire building is a way to enhance managers income. It is not really in the interest of the bank, or of the customer. It is in the interest of managers who want promotions.
Second, we have created a "service economy". This involves many employees providing "services" to those who can afford to pay them. However, if everybody is in the "service" business, they are just passing around the same money. It is a zero sum game. If there are "rich" people who are creating wealth in some other fashion, the service economy can function. As the number of people doing that decreases, the service economy becomes less and less viable.

The concept of a UBI relies on a "surplus value" argument, namely that there are a few people that are so productive that their productivity will support an essentially arbitrary number of other people. I strongly suspect that 1) The actual surplus value is totally inadequate to actually do that to the extent that the increasing population is making necessary, and 2) Those people who cannot define their success in the form of gainful employment will be so miserable that they will eventually revolt against the system. As was pointed out, the desire to "work" is strong. Most of us are defined in large measure by what we do, like it or not. Doing nothing isn't going to work. Everybody becoming an armchair social critic won't either.

All this said, I figure it must be Terry rule time. COVID-19 may push this process ahead by purging out some of the unnecessary and pointless activities in government and private industry. The recovery will be slowed down because the "dead wood" will have demonstrated their lack of utility and will not be replaced. However, at the end of the day we will still have increasing numbers of people with no job, no prospects, and no clear "purpose". Not a good situation, evolution wise.

[Goose]

At every prior labor revolution, the social contract has been modified to reflect the realities, whether it was the end of feudalism that coincided with the migration to cities or the welfare state that arose as a response to mass production. I expect that something similar will also happen if/when the robots eat many of our current jobs, whether it is a UBI or wealth tax or some other way to enable people to have a meaningful life.  I don’t claim to know what it will be, and I would be surprised if it happened under a Biden or even a Harris administration, but i have a feeling it will happen.


BC

Something will evolve alright. What it will be is a big question. It "used to be" that no matter who you were, you could always find some kind of a job. It may be digging ditches, operating the mechanical brakes on a string of railroad cars, taking in laundry, etc, but there was something. The population of the planet has risen substantially, while as you point out, the efficiency of production has increased greatly. The simple fact is that we have many, many. more people than we "need" to run our society, and this is becoming more true every day. We have gone from train crews of 15 to 20 down to 5, then down to 2, and now we are discussing 1 or possibly 0.

In order to mitigate this effect, we have done several things. First, we have invented jobs for people to do. Employment at banks has increased in the face of automation because they have hired people to do things that are of little or no real value. This is done because empire building is a way to enhance managers income. It is not really in the interest of the bank, or of the customer. It is in the interest of managers who want promotions.
Second, we have created a "service economy". This involves many employees providing "services" to those who can afford to pay them. However, if everybody is in the "service" business, they are just passing around the same money. It is a zero sum game. If there are "rich" people who are creating wealth in some other fashion, the service economy can function. As the number of people doing that decreases, the service economy becomes less and less viable.

The concept of a UBI relies on a "surplus value" argument, namely that there are a few people that are so productive that their productivity will support an essentially arbitrary number of other people. I strongly suspect that 1) The actual surplus value is totally inadequate to actually do that to the extent that the increasing population is making necessary, and 2) Those people who cannot define their success in the form of gainful employment will be so miserable that they will eventually revolt against the system. As was pointed out, the desire to "work" is strong. Most of us are defined in large measure by what we do, like it or not. Doing nothing isn't going to work. Everybody becoming an armchair social critic won't either.

All this said, I figure it must be Terry rule time. COVID-19 may push this process ahead by purging out some of the unnecessary and pointless activities in government and private industry. The recovery will be slowed down because the "dead wood" will have demonstrated their lack of utility and will not be replaced. However, at the end of the day we will still have increasing numbers of people with no job, no prospects, and no clear "purpose". Not a good situation, evolution wise.

[BostonCard]

I guess the market realized that the second stimulus is not coming until January.

BC

[BostonCard]

I guess the market realized that the second stimulus is not coming until January.

BC

[magnus]

I guess the market realized that the second stimulus is not coming until January.

BC

Then again the more the market drops,  the more Trump will act.   Hopefully aligned with covid safety

[magnus]

I guess the market realized that the second stimulus is not coming until January.

BC

Then again the more the market drops,  the more Trump will act.   Hopefully aligned with covid safety

[OutsiderFan]

I guess the market realized that the second stimulus is not coming until January.

BC

Then again the more the market drops,  the more Trump will act.   Hopefully aligned with covid safety

It's Mitch McConnell standing in the way. The Senate could pass a bill with Dem votes, but that isn't allowed in the dysfunctional Senate under his management.

He's trying to tee up (fake) concern over deficit spending in the next Congress so the Grand OLD Party can all of a sudden pretend to find its religion about government spending with a new POTUS that it has forgotten about for the last 4 years.

[OutsiderFan]

I guess the market realized that the second stimulus is not coming until January.

BC

Then again the more the market drops,  the more Trump will act.   Hopefully aligned with covid safety

It's Mitch McConnell standing in the way. The Senate could pass a bill with Dem votes, but that isn't allowed in the dysfunctional Senate under his management.

He's trying to tee up (fake) concern over deficit spending in the next Congress so the Grand OLD Party can all of a sudden pretend to find its religion about government spending with a new POTUS that it has forgotten about for the last 4 years.