Posted on 01/15/2013 9:35:42 AM PST by ksen
Easy, train people to design and or repair robots.
Yeah. The primary goal should be a return to Limited Government. If government is moved out of the way, I think a good outcome is quite likely. But as of right now, our country is failing badly at the task of “returning to Limited Government”. Sigh.
“We were sold a bill of goods saying that if the “job creators” just had more then it would trickle down to us in the form of more and higher paying jobs. Well, the “job producers” have more now than have ever had and corporate profits are through the roof but the rest of us are stuck with stagnating wages, longer hours and high unemployment. “
I’ve only seen this happen because the government took more and more from the economy- destroying growth. As in the last 20 years or so.
When are you talking about?
The author has purposely muddied the waters with the assumption that labor’s share has declined as a result of some inequity.
When we consider the magnitude of wealth gained by a very select few vs the middle class it is evident the that a spevial class of great minds have earned beyond the ability to grasp the magnitude.
First are the creators...... Microsoft,Google, Apple, Amazon etc. Then there are the entertainers, Actors, football,basketball, golf, baseball players.
None of these fantastically wealthy classes are robots. None of these put others out of work. To they contrary, millions owe their jobs to these wealthy.
The author is totally full of crap.
This unlimited concentration of capital actually is a characteristic of socialism, and is incompatible with the gains of the division of labor in a free society. In a free society 100% control of capital by a few is against the self interest of everyone. It is against the self interest of the few owners of capital because they will have to self sacrifice and use force to prevent competition. It is impossible for them to know everything, and so there will always be opportunities for new competition. At some point is will be less costly for them to allow some new competition rather than try to completely control everything and wipe out every other competitor. It will just not be worth the time and trouble.
or it means more “suit” jobs for people. Why should uneducated flotsam be handed a living? No uneductated scourge means no labor unions, no union thugs, no union boses, no corrupt union pensions, etc.
It also means more opportunity since the power of production is not imprisoned to those who have factories or have “unionized slaves” into a bottleneck for creativity.
more robots means more freedom.
You know that taxes as a percent of GDP has been trending down over the past 20 years, right?
So where is your evidence of the government "taking more from the economy - destroying growth" because I have yet to see any.
Duh, do you know GDP includes government spending so your statement is circular and therefore meaningless?
I believe over 25% of the GDP is government spending now!
If you care to find a meaningful statistic, and there must be one, let’s both look at it.
It's not about the concentration of capital right now. It's about the concentration of wealth and income and I don't see how that is a characteristic of socialism. In countries way more socialist than ours income and wealth is not nearly as concentrated as it is in today's United States.
Well, I’ve asked you for proof of your assertion that “government taking” = “destroyed growth” so the ball is in your court.
How Democrat-ic of you!
If you can’t respond that’s fine. Economics is a bear of a subject. I imagine a ratio of gov spending to national income would be definitive.
Over on DailyKos or the like they’re probably drooling for soaring GDPs based on 100% government spending- and all paid for with debt, since there would be nothing to tax LOL!
And then stupid liberals like you bitch about some "wealth gap."
I don’t mean to sound harsh but you’re not making any sense to me. I’m sure it’s on my end but would you mind explaining what you meant by government = destroyed growth as if I were in the fifth grade?
In the end robots will not eliminate human labor.
In the final analysis robots help bring down the relative cost or relative increase in cost of goods. While a particular factory needs less workers, the goods it makes become more easily available to more people at less cost, or at least at a slower rate of cost increases; profits and capital have other places to go and invest in new businesses and new production; the information-intensive requirements of life become expanded as the labor-intensive requirements decrease; and, over time though not overnight, whole new categories of less labot intensive work come to be needed.
In the end robots will not eliminate human labor as much as they will change what kind of labor is needed.
Since the 70’s- 80’s I’ve seen incomes plummet for most people, while government spending skyrocketed.
Since government can only get money from private wealth they are a competitor with workers for money.
And, simply put, they are winning- we are losing.
Naturally the rate of growth of the economy has fallen concomittently with our incomes.
(Of course gov debt, regulation and other factors- like out-sourcing in the 90’s- apply)
This point of view obviously is very foreign to you.
I don’t understand your point of view either frankly.
I assume you don’t fantasize that taxes come from a different source than do wages and investment, but that somehow government spending the money is better than it going to investment and wages???
Government spending is at an all time high. Under Obama we should be an economic juggernaut. But we aren’t, of course. Government spending is a fool’s game.
“In the end robots will not eliminate human labor.”
This will not be a problem so long as robots continue to pay their dues to SEIU.
Great article in Wired about this....just watch CNBC ...Ultimate Factories
Government spending isn’t necessary for economic growth but it certainly can help jump the economy during times of weak demand.
And in good times spending levels should be cut back.
I am told that the idiot Krugman has already suggested we need to start looking at getting businesses to pay “payroll taxes” for their robots. I proposed that as a joke recently and then someone responded that they had read it in a suggestion from Krugman. I knew he was nuts; now I know that is certifiably so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.