​

 

For every IT job computer technology creates it destroys many more clerical or blue collar jobs. Computer technology makes automation possible. It also makes it possible to send jobs to other countries.

During the 1930s in the United States industrialists did not like to recognize labor unions, but they had no choice. Now they can move manufacturing to third world countries with weak nor non existent labor unions, and few or no laws protecting work conditions and the environment.

 

I was merely answering your point about technology NOT creating any better paid jobs than it destroyed. You were wrong. There are myriad issues surrounding the globalisation of business of which I am sure you know very little.

 

​

 

It entitles them to life? Or does it entitle them to pursue in their lives?

 

Article 3 "The right to life..."

 

This sentence

could also be written this way: For every well paying job computer technology creates it destroys many more middle income jobs. Those who lose those jobs need to take low paying jobs.

That is the thesis of the article that begins this thread. The thesis is accurate.

 

Here is what it gives them and it has nothing to do with all the crap The USA Muslim President wants to give away...

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

 

I shall repeat (for the second time) because it doesn't seem to be getting through your thick skull.

I was answering what you said, above. I was telling you that what you said above was wrong. Please try and admit it before moving on to another point. Or....just move onto another point, as you do.

 

tenguy & RandyKnight,

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but both of you seem to be gloating about the disappearance of middle income jobs. If you are it is because both of you are on the right side of the income divide.

What, if anything, do you think the government should do about the disappearance?

 

What is going on is just beginning...

When Your President is finished printing 4 trillion more in funny money it is going to get really nasty...

It is not the govt place to do anything....it is the people place to go after the changes that are happening...

Things have being changing for 40 years and every time something in the economy that I was in fucked up I headed in a different direction that was working...

 

Are you blaming "my president" for the decline in middle class jobs? Would things be better for those losing the middle class jobs if your president had been elected?

 

Sorry but after all the welfare takers vote I will never have a president again untill it all blows up...

Hope you are well fixed cause it is gonna get really bad...good luck...

 

Or a fraction of those living in this world will revert to a barter system. Many disenfranchised by technology will suddenly hope for the days when human interaction was necessary to buy and sell goods. What took nearly nothing to produce won't sell because those who it's being marketed to won't respond to the advertisements. They aren't going to buy their unhappiness if an alternative to that way of life exists.

This is true. Many countries, even today, are seeing their governments change. Industry is experiencing an upheaval that it hasn't seen since the revolution that spawned it.

Women are being allowed to serve in the US military. I heard this over the radio recently. Yes, they were allowed to before. But this includes positions that would put them on the battlefield in the line of fire. Specifically, armed patrols which in some cases are in countries that don't view women as worthy of respect. This alone is changing the face of the military. More women being able to serve their country, as well as what you've mentioned ITME, will definitely have an impact not just on the general population but women as a whole. Their view of themselves will change and they'll start to see physical strength as a positive trait. I am sure these societal anomalies will allow nature to trim the excess from it's human ranks.

A corporation will design machines to produce a product. People will buy said product and a profit will be acquired. Having an employee that you don't pay means you pocket 100% does it not? Other than purchasing raw materials, you aren't hiring a workforce and you don't need to provide medical benefits nor vacation days.

A handful of maintenance people would be employed per diem per company.

I see that happening. Particularly in the food service industry. Mundane tasks would be the first ones eliminated because they are the least cost effective. Porters, dishwashers, waiters, valet services. All of it is wasteful because there is downtime. Workers are being paid to wait for their work and that isn't generating a profit for the company. There could still be private duty workers that are hired by the elite 5% or those who exist among the wealthiest of the world's population. They wouldn't want to have machines in their homes, would they?

 

You sound like you are looking forward to it, thinking that you can ride it out. What could happen is that Obama could raise taxes on the winners of this process. The rest of the country could benefit. The Democratic Party could rise in the polls, and dominate the country like it did for three decades after 1932.

I am not saying it will happen that way. I really do not know.

Toward a Democratic Left was written in 1968 by Michael Harrington. Like most on the left at the time Harrington saw the election of Richard Nixon as a regrettable, but temporary detour on the road toward a social democratic economy, like the economies that are working pretty well in Nordic countries in Europe.

(Documentation available upon request.)

Nevertheless, he did see the possibility of what was for those of his persuasion a nightmare scenario. Low income whites could struggle politically with lower income blacks as the rich got richer.

That is what did happen. It could continue to happen.

Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that by increasing productivity computer technology is increasing per capita gross income. Whether or not this wealth is to be distributed in a more equitable fashion is a political question that will be decided by whether the Democrats or the Republicans are best able to exploit what is going to be a volatile political situation.

 

Sorry that I missed this post ITME.

Japan's population is shrinking, China growth has slowed to a point where it soon will be static. The growth in population will be in the third world countries and in certain South and Central American countries. Population growth in Europe has been decreasing for a couple of decades, but it still growing. The birth rate is not what is driving the population growth, it is the extended lifespan of those already here.

We have an extremely rapid growth in those over 60, in all sections of the world. This is the crux of the problem, not only are there more elderly, there are less employment opportunities for them.

The projected decline in population is not likely to occur until damn near 200 years down the road, a hell of a lot can happen in those two centuries.

 

After reading all of this, I'm screwed! and not in a good way.

 

Most of what is posted here is what the projections are for the next century, so unless you're planning to stick around 'til then, you should be just fine. The people who are really screwed is our next generation and the ones that follow them.

Unless someone figures out a way to feed, shelter and cloth another couple of billion people on this small planet, the population will diminish all by its self.

 

I don't disagree at all.

The greatest thing is that by eliminating all of the jobs, you are also eliminating consumers, so eventually the fat bastards who are getting richer off using "technology" and "robots" will have to sell their products to those same "robots", because humans can't afford them.

The result WILL be revolution as mass starvation sets in and mobs go after the wealthy to tear them limb from limb. Oh, the wealthy will have their own private armies to slaughter the masses, but that won't solve their problems. They'll be sitting on mounds of cash that is worthless to them as the remaining 2 million people on the planet try to figure out ways to screw each other, just like they screwed over the rest of humanity.

 

China's birthrate is NOT static. It WAS static and for the last 10+ years, having children has actually been encouraged, to a limited degree.