Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    It's kind of vague. I think that ~1% annual GDP per capita growth will continue. After 100 years that will make society look a lot different. On the other hand I do not believe that we are about to see anything unprecedented in terms of growth; society of 100 years ago looked a lot different to our current society too.


    I don't think it will, because peoples' definition of what constitutes food and shelter will just increase, or more things will be added to that bundle of "necessities".

    Basic JSA is greater than the per capita GDP of some countries and of this country in 1800. In that sense, you don't need to work today to have food and shelter. But what has happened is that JSA has come to be considered unliveably meagre, rather than that work has come to be considered superfluous.

    The per capita production of the country will continue to be well below what people considered "more money than I care about" for centuries.
    This is silly, those countries have much lower cost of living.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by get schlonged m8)
    This is silly, those countries have much lower cost of living.
    They have a much lower standard of living. A B&Q shed costs only 200GBP or so and is better than a lot of the accommodation in sub-Saharan Africa.


    edit: Although it's probably illegal to live in a shed, here is someone who retired after less than 10 years in work - http://earlyretirementextreme.com/

    He lives in a shared camper van. In reality, most people rather have a big house full of iPads and a 40 hour work week than 'poverty' and a 50 year retirement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They have a much lower standard of living. A B&Q shed costs only 200GBP or so and is better than a lot of the accommodation in sub-Saharan Africa.
    You're still thinking about this the wrong way.


    "People in other countries have tougher lives, so we shouldn't help the poor in this country"


    It's a pathetic shaming tactic the Tory right uses to shut down debate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Automation is an ancient trend and it doesn't correlate with increased unemployment. People are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
    It doesn't really matter whether it is an inherent problem or not from my side on what increased automation due to increased computing power should result in for humans.

    You're view is Scientific insofar as you analyse it all from your frame of reference of economics and politics. There is no reason why that frame of reference is the one truth. The NHS did not and would not have just spontaneously erupted out of the complex actions of individuals all abiding by the rules you use in your simulations of capitalist human societies. Yet it was still created. I don't see the direction of where automation has to take us is fixed to being your politics only. I've said this a millions times but economies and trying to model humans in their economic interactions and how their societies change in the future is not like predicting the movement of planets. The frame of reference in mechanics of F=ma is much more solid and certain than the reference frame of say liberal economics. The only way someone can be as confident as the physicist is if you are so deep inside your own idealogical box to be blind to flimsiness of your "science".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by get schlonged m8)
    You're still thinking about this the wrong way.


    "People in other countries have tougher lives, so we shouldn't help the poor in this country"


    It's a pathetic shaming tactic the Tory right uses to shut down debate.
    That has nothing whatsoever to do with what you or I have said.

    What you have said is that productivity is now high enough that people could survive without working nearly as much as they do. This is true, but people prefer to work more and use the money to buy comfort. People rather work 40 hour/45 years and have a big house than 10 hour/20 year and live in a shed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    That has nothing whatsoever to do with what you or I have said.

    What you have said is that productivity is now high enough that people could survive without working nearly as much as they do. This is true, but people prefer to work more and use the money to buy comfort. People rather work 40 hour/45 years and have a big house than 10 hour/20 year and live in a shed.
    Right now this is true, but within 10-20 years this won't be true, in India there is the £5 smartphone, when 3d printing goes ahead, people will be able to create their own luxuries.

    and again you're missing the big point which is that the work won't exist when creation is fully automated.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by get schlonged m8)
    Right now this is true, but within 10-20 years this won't be true, in India there is the £5 smartphone, when 3d printing goes ahead, people will be able to create their own luxuries.

    and again you're missing the big point which is that the work won't exist when creation is fully automated.
    I don't think it is true. I think GDP per capita will continue to grow by about 1% per year. 3D printing might radically reduce costs in manufacturing goods - it also may not - but it won't bring back Moore's law. Things tend to average out. 20 years of compound 1% growth gives you a pay rise of 22% for the same work. Not bad at all, but not life changing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    btw, if you disagree, we could always bet. If you are right, money will be pretty cheap in the future, so you're not really risking anything.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I don't think it is true. I think GDP per capita will continue to grow by about 1% per year. 3D printing might radically reduce costs in manufacturing goods - it also may not - but it won't bring back Moore's law. Things tend to average out. 20 years of compound 1% growth gives you a pay rise of 22% for the same work. Not bad at all, but not life changing.
    Grrr


    Back to the DM with you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    btw, if you disagree, we could always bet. If you are right, money will be pretty cheap in the future, so you're not really risking anything.
    I don't care, I have my *****y Bitcoin money which I sold out for.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by get schlonged m8)
    I don't care, I have my *****y Bitcoin money which I sold out for.
    I am happy to accept a bet in bitcoins, though would like some forfeit if the value of the bitcoin drops more than say 90%.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:



    Look how amazing it will be
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:


    Behold!

    Now, where are my pre-molded plastic rooms...?
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by get schlonged m8)
    Why should we need to if machines can do the jobs?

    If machines can work 24/7 better than a human for zero pay, rather than making humans work for the sake of it, it would surely make sense to allow technology to advance and give every human a basic income.
    If machines become smarter than us... can you really trust them not to turn on us?

    It only takes one glitch or oversight in the programming
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    If machines become smarter than us... can you really trust them not to turn on us?

    It only takes one glitch or oversight in the programming
    That is one of the major issues, they will take their programming completely literally so could certainly kill us all if that is the logical outcome of the coding.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Much has been made recently of the coming robotic revolution. Every sector will see some form of automation, from retail to medicine and the legal profession. This raises some issues, chief among them employment. Unlike previous changes, like the industrial revolution, this will be unlikely to see a transition of jobs from one area to another, some lost out but more people gaining something. We are far more likely to see large numbers of people become unemployed, with little scope for them to move elsewhere. Alongside this, the same revolution will drive down costs, making living generally cheaper. Which brings into play the possible solution to this problem, constant welfare.

    Are we going to have to accept a permanent welfare state, where large numbers of people are simply expected to live off welfare? Or would we see a system like Saudi Arabia, where the state simply creates large numbers of non-jobs and an expanded civil service to give citizens some sense of purposes. Or finally, and most optimistically, will we simply see another large transition from one sector to another of jobs? Will many people find a way to remain in well paid purposeful jobs?

    Thoughts?
    A third of retail jobs are going in the next ten years.

    It started some time ago but it's accelerating.

    There will be a transition period where we treat the unemployed like we do currently but eventually we will have a citizens income.

    I think what's more interesting is what will happen to taxation across the world and ownership of business


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    X
    (Original post by Observatory)
    X.
    (Original post by get schlonged m8)
    X.
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    X
    I think most of the posts in this thread fail to understand human motivations. It is my belief that we have a natural drive to seek struggle. It may not be as pronounced as the sex drive, but it is every bit as primal. The pursuit of food and shelter fulfilled that need for our ancestors. It still does for many in undeveloped societies. Our reality has evolved however. Development of industry and advances in agriculture have enabled us to master our environment to an extent that actual survival is seldom in jeopardy. So we seek substitutes. Sport is a simplified and abbreviated attempt to simulate struggle. Our lives assume a more prolonged and complex version. We no longer hunt for food and shelter so we work for status and privilege. What remains the same is the perpetual desire to improve our circumstances.

    Modern society is on the verge of evolving to a point where traditional work as we understand it becoming obsolete. Thinking that our species can thrive in a technological paradise that caters to our every need without any ability to distinguish ourselves amongst our peers is a fallacy. Our experience is judged relative to those around us. That is how we judge failure and success. We surpassed true poverty so we replaced it with relative poverty. Does it not stand to reason that wealth means little unless it is relative wealth? Life without that experience is as unfulfilling as life without sex.

    My theory: Just as technology such as automation, drones, and AI will do more of our work for us, technology such as VR, social media, cloud computing, live streaming, and online gaming will fuse into a new virtual universe. As humans become less relevant to the physical world they will retreat to the virtual one. We will continue to seek validation and fulfillment through recognition. Material items of the physical world will lose their value and reputations of virtual avatars will become precious. The ability to be interesting, provocative, and entertaining will will become the new must have skills. Combine today’s youtube stars, internet bloggers, and reality tv stars, then give them a virtual platform with few limitations. That will become what we aspire to.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    I think most of the posts in this thread fail to understand human motivations. It is my belief that we have a natural drive to seek struggle. It may not be as pronounced as the sex drive, but it is every bit as primal. The pursuit of food and shelter fulfilled that need for our ancestors. It still does for many in undeveloped societies. Our reality has evolved however. Development of industry and advances in agriculture have enabled us to master our environment to an extent that actual survival is seldom in jeopardy. So we seek substitutes. Sport is a simplified and abbreviated attempt to simulate struggle. Our lives assume a more prolonged and complex version. We no longer hunt for food and shelter so we work for status and privilege. What remains the same is the perpetual desire to improve our circumstances.

    Modern society is on the verge of evolving to a point where traditional work as we understand it becoming obsolete. Thinking that our species can thrive in a technological paradise that caters to our every need without any ability to distinguish ourselves amongst our peers is a fallacy. Our experience is judged relative to those around us. That is how we judge failure and success. We surpassed true poverty so we replaced it with relative poverty. Does it not stand to reason that wealth means little unless it is relative wealth? Life without that experience is as unfulfilling as life without sex.

    My theory: Just as technology such as automation, drones, and AI will do more of our work for us, technology such as VR, social media, cloud computing, live streaming, and online gaming will fuse into a new virtual universe. As humans become less relevant to the physical world they will retreat to the virtual one. We will continue to seek validation and fulfillment through recognition. Material items of the physical world will lose their value and reputations of virtual avatars will become precious. The ability to be interesting, provocative, and entertaining will will become the new must have skills. Combine today’s youtube stars, internet bloggers, and reality tv stars, then give them a virtual platform with few limitations. That will become what we aspire to.
    Perhaps but that isn't exactly a dystopian future where people strive to be funny and interesting


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    My theory: Just as technology such as automation, drones, and AI will do more of our work for us, technology such as VR, social media, cloud computing, live streaming, and online gaming will fuse into a new virtual universe. As humans become less relevant to the physical world they will retreat to the virtual one. We will continue to seek validation and fulfillment through recognition. Material items of the physical world will lose their value and reputations of virtual avatars will become precious. The ability to be interesting, provocative, and entertaining will will become the new must have skills. Combine today’s youtube stars, internet bloggers, and reality tv stars, then give them a virtual platform with few limitations. That will become what we aspire to.
    How has anything I said contradicted your "vision"?

    That's what I said. Like how in Ancient Greece philosophers, artists and general thinkers were free to do so on the backs of women, a working class, slaves and so on. Makes machines do all the slave work and we can all be philosophers.

    If I won the lottery tomorrow I wouldn't go into a coma.

    I'd continue mountain biking, volunteering, learning physics (I could just self fund a phd in an area of my choice no longer constrained with concerns of funding or employability), play video games, do things with friends, find a girlfriend, read books. I'd have more things to do that distinguishes me from other humans without having to spend most of my life in a ****ing warehouse being treated like dirt. What you are desiring is more true for other people as it is for others. In a feudal system the serfs spend all their time working for their lord. A poor Victorian proletarian spends most of his life in the factory. The wealthy aristocrat that can live of his families wealth is free to peruse his own individuality. Faraday came from a poor background. He got lucky and we all benefited as a result from his experiments with electromagnetism (still had to rely on Maxwell who had the privileged of being able to learn advanced maths). How many people cable of something like that have we pissed away over the last 2000 years due to rigid class systems and oppressive regimes?

    Yours is what we should be aiming for and we aren't doing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Much has been made recently of the coming robotic revolution. Every sector will see some form of automation, from retail to medicine and the legal profession. This raises some issues, chief among them employment. Unlike previous changes, like the industrial revolution, this will be unlikely to see a transition of jobs from one area to another, some lost out but more people gaining something. We are far more likely to see large numbers of people become unemployed, with little scope for them to move elsewhere. Alongside this, the same revolution will drive down costs, making living generally cheaper. Which brings into play the possible solution to this problem, constant welfare.

    Are we going to have to accept a permanent welfare state, where large numbers of people are simply expected to live off welfare? Or would we see a system like Saudi Arabia, where the state simply creates large numbers of non-jobs and an expanded civil service to give citizens some sense of purposes. Or finally, and most optimistically, will we simply see another large transition from one sector to another of jobs? Will many people find a way to remain in well paid purposeful jobs?

    Thoughts?
    Marx has forsee this problem. The solution is communism

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.