[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by Oswy)
Unemployed people without money can't buy stuff (not even even 'cheap' machine-made stuff) and in the absence of a welfare state are reduced to begging and reliance on whatever charity might or might not be available.

Well obviously unemployed people are poor, but my point is that labour saving technology does not lead to unemployment.

[Mbob]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Technological progress does not create unemployment. It destroys certain jobs in certain sectors, but creates new ones in other, more productive sectors.

For example, let's say I'm a capitalist. I own a factory, but for sake of simplicity say wages are my only cost and I have no fixed costs. I employ 10 people at £10 each to make 10 widgets, which I sell for £12 each, so I make a profit of £20. Then, a man comes to me and says that he will loan me his work-O-matic android for £10, and that will do the job of my entire workforce. I accept the man's offer and fire my entire workforce (the robot is so great that it doesn't need maintenance workers) and replace it with the android. My costs are now £10, my revenue is still £120, so I make £110 pounds profit.

If we stop the story here, it would appear that I have created unemployment, but it doesn't. I have a choice of what to do now, I could either: enjoy my profits, and hire a full cleaning staff for my house; or I could increase production and cut prices closer to cost. If I do the former, then I will have created the jobs for a cleaning staff, if I do the latter, then the profits have been passed onto consumers, who can buy things they want with the savings which will increase employment in those sectors.

If technological progress really did destroy jobs without creating any, then we would all be unemployed by now.

Presumably that's only true as long as there is sufficient economic growth. That's why we need growth to sustain a constant level of unemployment and counter-act the effect of increasing productivity.

If growth were to be curtailed, either through lack of available resources or some other reasons, while productivity continued to increase, then there would have to be a rise in unemployment (or at least in man-hours worked).

[WelshBluebird]

The main problem isn't overall unemployment, but regional / country specific unemployment.
Yes new technologies mean new jobs, but those jobs are often in different areas of the country, leading to the old former industrial areas to be areas of large unemployment. We see that is this country already in many former mining areas. Plus, quite often those new jobs are created in other countries, sometimes even the other side of the globe, so those new jobs are of no use to the people who lost their jobs thanks to the new technology.

[Rakas21]

Personally i think that people are far too limited in their views relating to unemployment.

If we accept that people in the UK generally have a higher level of education than the global average and that there is a surplus of 'skilled' jobs globally then logic dictates that people should move.

Frankly i would rather get a job in a poor country and be paid much less than sit on the dole unemployed for a decade.

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by Mbob)
Presumably that's only true as long as there is sufficient economic growth. That's why we need growth to sustain a constant level of unemployment and counter-act the effect of increasing productivity.

If growth were to be curtailed, either through lack of available resources or some other reasons, while productivity continued to increase, then there would have to be a rise in unemployment (or at least in man-hours worked).

But economic growth is an increase in productivity.

[TheHansa]

Who would create, run and maintain these robots?

[onda]

This thread is so depressing

This was posted from Nexus 7 Dolphin browser

[Mbob]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
But economic growth is an increase in productivity.

I mean productivity of the individual, not average productivity over the whole economy.

If I double my productivity and there is no overall growth, then I have done the equiavalent of putting someone out of a job.

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by Mbob)
I mean productivity of the individual, not average productivity over the whole economy.

If I double my productivity and there is no overall growth, then I have done the equiavalent of putting someone out of a job.

If the productivity of the individual increases, by definition the productivity of society as a whole increases since the individual is a part of society.

Imagine we're stranded on a desert island, and we're each catching 2 fish a day with our hands, so the size of our economy is 4 fish. Then you learn how to make a spear or a net and suddenly you can catch 4 fish a day. The size of the economy increases to 6 fish a day and no one is out of the job.

[Mbob]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
If the productivity of the individual increases, by definition the productivity of society as a whole increases since the individual is a part of society.

Imagine we're stranded on a desert island, and we're each catching 2 fish a day with our hands, so the size of our economy is 4 fish. Then you learn how to make a spear or a net and suddenly you can catch 4 fish a day. The size of the economy increases to 6 fish a day and no one is out of the job.

Yes, but the situation that I was talking about, as I said, was when growth was limited by some factor.

If the sustainable amount of fish you can remove is four per day, and I catch those four fish due to my spear and net, the amount you can catch is zero - hence you have no job. My productivity has doubled, yours has gone to zero and there has been no growth.

[Lukfisto]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Technological progress does not create unemployment. It destroys certain jobs in certain sectors, but creates new ones in other, more productive sectors.

For example, let's say I'm a capitalist. I own a factory, but for sake of simplicity say wages are my only cost and I have no fixed costs. I employ 10 people at £10 each to make 10 widgets, which I sell for £12 each, so I make a profit of £20. Then, a man comes to me and says that he will loan me his work-O-matic android for £10, and that will do the job of my entire workforce. I accept the man's offer and fire my entire workforce (the robot is so great that it doesn't need maintenance workers) and replace it with the android. My costs are now £10, my revenue is still £120, so I make £110 pounds profit.

If we stop the story here, it would appear that I have created unemployment, but it doesn't. I have a choice of what to do now, I could either: enjoy my profits, and hire a full cleaning staff for my house; or I could increase production and cut prices closer to cost. If I do the former, then I will have created the jobs for a cleaning staff, if I do the latter, then the profits have been passed onto consumers, who can buy things they want with the savings which will increase employment in those sectors.

If technological progress really did destroy jobs without creating any, then we would all be unemployed by now.

This is just brilliant. I would rather see all of us working in manufacturing sector which tbh pays much more than cleaning houses. What you written is just simple capitalist dogma of making everyone better off, when meanwhile - everyone is worse off.

[Oswy]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Well obviously unemployed people are poor, but my point is that labour saving technology does not lead to unemployment.

But just think about what you're saying here. By 'labour saving' you mean 'human labour saving'. The only limit to machines replacing human labour under capitalism is the technological one and which is being constantly pushed away - albeit in some sectors quicker than others. What happens when machines can, for example, pick and pack fruits as well as humans at half the cost? What happens when machines eventually replace call-centre personnel, at half the cost? What happens when cheap and effective robots can replace office cleaners and security guards, at half the cost? What happens when self-service payment machines replace till operators at supermarkets, at half the cost? You can't just reply with some vague reference to 'new sectors' as all sectors, new and old, are always looking to replace human labour with machines and autromation when it becomes cost effective and the trend is one-directional. Obviously, the world is a big place and the transition from human labour to machine labour will be a long and conplex one, but if one job that was formerly done by a human can be replaced by a machine then it's not unreasonable to suggest most of them can be.

[Oswy]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Who would create, run and maintain these robots?

Ultimately, other robots.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Oswy)
But just think about what you're saying here. By 'labour saving' you mean 'human labour saving'. The only limit to machines replacing human labour under capitalism is the technological one and which is being constantly pushed away - albeit in some sectors quicker than others. What happens when machines can, for example, pick and pack fruits as well as humans at half the cost? What happens when machines eventually replace call-centre personnel, at half the cost? What happens when cheap and effective robots can replace office cleaners and security guards, at half the cost? What happens when self-service payment machines replace till operators at supermarkets, at half the cost? You can't just reply with some vague reference to 'new sectors' as all sectors, new and old, are always looking to replace human labour with machines and autromation when it becomes cost effective and the trend is one-directional. Obviously, the world is a big place and the transition from human labour to machine labour will be a long and conplex one, but if one job that was formerly done by a human can be replaced by a machine then it's not unreasonable to suggest most of them can be.

It's a lovely and perhaps unrealistic idea, but so long as the people were shareholders in businesses which used robots and create unemployment, this wouldn't be a problem because instead of getting £60 per weak unemployment money they would get dividends. Is the problem the idea of using robots to people lose their jobs or is it ownership?

[Alexok]

Virtual reality and gaming will be our lives in the furthest future

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by Lukfisto)
This is just brilliant. I would rather see all of us working in manufacturing sector which tbh pays much more than cleaning houses. What you written is just simple capitalist dogma of making everyone better off, when meanwhile - everyone is worse off.

That's funny, because in my example everyone's real wages increased.

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by Mbob)
Yes, but the situation that I was talking about, as I said, was when growth was limited by some factor.

If the sustainable amount of fish you can remove is four per day, and I catch those four fish due to my spear and net, the amount you can catch is zero - hence you have no job. My productivity has doubled, yours has gone to zero and there has been no growth.

Not necessarily, you now have a surplus of fish which you can trade with me. I might start making shoes and clothes in exchange for two fish a day, or maintain your spear and net.

[Mbob]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Not necessarily, you now have a surplus of fish which you can trade with me. I might start making shoes and clothes in exchange for two fish a day, or maintain your spear and net.

In which case there has been economic growth!

The (hypothetical) scenario I was discussing was an increase in productivity without an increase in GDP.

I didn't suggest a mechanism for that, I was merely pointing out that such a thing might be possible if there are sufficient external factors - the most obvious one being availability of energy and raw materials at a reasonable cost.

[miser]

Traditionally, new technologies that obsoleted job sectors also created new sectors, for example the industrial revolution provided factories for the unemployed farmers. However, I don't see this trend continuing forever. Even today we could get by on a four hour workweek, only as a society we choose not to because we demand a higher quality of living than that provides.

Certain jobs will probably never be obsoleted - various services mostly. Production can be automated, but fields like law, policing, etc., perhaps can never be. But eventually there will come a point when so few employed people are needed, and the skill levels required so high, that it will be unfeasible to demand that everyone work. It is a social hangup that most people think that employment is necessary; it isn't. If the production of some item becomes automated, we shouldn't think of it in terms of jobs lost but work gained. What we need is a better mechanism for the redistribution of wealth. As companies automate their production, they will increase their profits and decrease their spending on employees, the effect being that money is pooled by the ultra-rich owners of industry, and the unemployed become poorer and poorer.

There won't be jobs around forever. As technology obsoletes jobs, the number it creates in replacement will always be fewer. It takes fewer people to design and maintain a robot than the people the robot will be able to replace. If we want to maintain high quality of life, we will need to adjust our tax systems accordingly, and gone will be the prejudice about the unemployed being lazy or scroungers.

[Oswy]

(Original post by TheHansa)
It's a lovely and perhaps unrealistic idea, but so long as the people were shareholders in businesses which used robots and create unemployment, this wouldn't be a problem because instead of getting £60 per weak unemployment money they would get dividends. Is the problem the idea of using robots to people lose their jobs or is it ownership?

But without a job (because they've been replaced by a machine in some way or other) an individual will have no income to buy such shares.

The flip side of all this is that as greater and greater numbers of people lose work-based income so a greater and greater number of people will be unable to actually buy the products and services increasingly generated by machines. It seems to follow that the pool of substantive workers/consumers will shrink with an ever greater population of people on the 'outside' of the system.

I also tend to think that underemployment will show itself to be as much of the product of automation as unemployment, at least initially, as the movement away from human labour is in many cases gradual. It's already the case that many sectors only offer part-time and/or fixed-term contracts no doubt in part because the levels of automation introduced have so reduced reliance on human labour per unit of production.