Coming to an Office Near You - Technology And Economy

[Michael Hardner]

The effect of today’s technology on tomorrow’s jobs will be immense—and no country is ready for it.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21594298-effect-todays-technology-tomorrows-jobs-will-be-immenseand-no-country-ready

This may be the most complete article I've read on technology and the economy.

The call-to-action:

"Yet however well people are taught, their abilities will remain unequal, and in a world which is increasingly polarised economically, many will find their job prospects dimmed and wages squeezed. The best way of helping them is not, as many on the left seem to think, to push up minimum wages. Jacking up the floor too far would accelerate the shift from human workers to computers. Better to top up low wages with public money so that anyone who works has a reasonable income, through a bold expansion of the tax credits that countries such as America and Britain use."

What I like about the article is it leaves behind such tired arguments as "pull up your socks" "retraining will fix everything" or "the rich are robbing us". The fact is that massive technology changes such as we're seeing now result in massive social changes, and we're just seeing the start now; I was in the first group of domestic workers to lose their career (not job) to these global changes and I'm seeing it start to hit my friends and family now. If it hasn't hit you, it will - if not in the same way it hit me, then somehow.

The only quibble I have with the article is this: "Technology’s impact will feel like a tornado, hitting the rich world first, but eventually sweeping through poorer countries too."

Technology hit those countries first, when capital went digital and started sniffing out opportunities on other shores. The results were quite different in China than here where a huge middle class was created.

[bush_cheney2004]

The effect of today’s technology on tomorrow’s jobs will be immense—and no country is ready for it.

Meh...this article could have just as well been written in 1880....or 1935...or 1980. Every country is ready for it, because there is no other choice. If this be yet another scam to shake down the rich for more taxes, then forgeddaboutit.

Edited January 18, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Meh...this article could have just as well been written in 1880....or 1935...or 1980. Every country is ready for it, because there is no other choice. If this be yet another scam to shake down the rich for more taxes, then forgeddaboutit.

Yes, the great thing about it is that it could have been written at those times; they didn't write about such things, I suspect, even though change was bearing down on them. If we talk about these things as they happen, then we can mitigate.

"More" taxes aren't needed, just taxes as they were say 30 or 40 years ago, before the decline. There's still plenty enough for the investor class to profit.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, the great thing about it is that it could have been written at those times; they didn't write about such things, I suspect, even though change was bearing down on them. If we talk about these things as they happen, then we can mitigate.

No, of course they wrote about such things. Ever heard of a "cotton gin" ? There is nothing special about this place and time along the continuum of technological advances and exploitation of labour / resources. We will "mitigate" nothing.

"More" taxes aren't needed, just taxes as they were say 30 or 40 years ago, before the decline. There's still plenty enough for the investor class to profit.

Nice doublespeak...taxes and higher tax rates are more taxes. Remember, it is not and never has been the government's money. It is not "left over".

[eyeball]

Why be worried? (from the OP's article)

The usual hard-assed moral imperative to produce that only seems to grow in the face of increased unemployment, but nothing new there I suppose.

What's changed is how far the natural capital of our planet has been drawn down now compared to past waves of economic change. We just don't have the planet for the taking that we used to have.

The revolution could be a lot more ferocious than in any previous time if we're not careful.

Edited January 19, 2014 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

eyeball, why don't you just hit the quote button on the posts that you are replying to? You always seem to delete people's names and the links back to their original posts. If you hit the quote button, it automatically tacks their post into the box at the bottom of the page for your reply.

Edited January 18, 2014 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

No, of course they wrote about such things. Ever heard of a "cotton gin" ?

You can't prove a negative, but I highly suspect that there was a dearth of understanding of the effects of technology on society and economy, since those topics only became realized in academia in the 20th century.

There is nothing special about this place and time along the continuum of technological advances and exploitation of labour / resources. We will "mitigate" nothing.

That's like saying there's nothing special about this season's worst tornado. To the people who are hit by it, yes it is in fact something of significance.

Nice doublespeak...taxes and higher tax rates are more taxes. Remember, it is not and never has been the government's money. It is not "left over".

Nobody has ever been able to sell to the mob that tax cuts were moral, only that they were good for the economy. If that turns out to be not true, then look for the mob to bring taxes back where they were with the flick of a switch.

[Michael Hardner]

The usual hard-assed moral imperative to produce that only seems to grow in the face of increased unemployment, but nothing new there I suppose.

What's new is after one, two generations of this our cultural memory is starting to final tell us that it doesn't work. The latest manifestation is the revelation that fast food workers rely on welfare stamps instead of salaries paid by the wealthy companies that employ them.

What's changed is how far the natural capital of our planet has been drawn down now compared to past waves of economic change. We just don't have the planet for the taking that we used to have.

The path to righteousness is indeed long, but it is also steep and hard to turn back. Even in this environment of pulling up your socks, they aren't able to knock down the basic social programs from the new deal. Once television falls, they will no longer have an easy way to buy airtime and opinions.

[bush_cheney2004]

You can't prove a negative, but I highly suspect that there was a dearth of understanding of the effects of technology on society and economy, since those topics only became realized in academia in the 20th century.

It doesn't matter when "academia" realized such things. The impact of technological change doesn't really care about the navel gazers who write books and blogs. Human development to this point would not have been possible without technological advancement, and that includes the printing press.

That's like saying there's nothing special about this season's worst tornado. To the people who are hit by it, yes it is in fact something of significance.

Not next year...or the year after that. This years tornadoes will join all the rest in the past. If mankind was paralyzed by fear of tornadoes, then Oklahoma would be empty.

Nobody has ever been able to sell to the mob that tax cuts were moral, only that they were good for the economy. If that turns out to be not true, then look for the mob to bring taxes back where they were with the flick of a switch.

The mob will always be the mob, but capital has been set free to move wherever it can work its magic. There is no such thing as a tax cut...it is not the mob's (government's) money. Millions of people uproot themselves and their families to seek and find opportunities driven by technological change, while others sit and hope that the "mob" can save their dinosaur asses.

[eyeball]

eyeball, why don't you just hit the quote button on the posts that you are replying to? You always seem to delete people's names and the links back to their original posts. If you hit the quote button, it automatically tacks their post into the box at the bottom of the page for your reply.

I was quoting a question in the story Michael linked to - point taken though.

Edited January 19, 2014 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

I was quoting a question in the story Michael linked to - point taken though.

Sorry. There's a poster who consistently misuses quotes, but it's not you. My bad.

[Michael Hardner]

It doesn't matter when "academia" realized such things. The impact of technological change doesn't really care about the navel gazers who write books and blogs. Human development to this point would not have been possible without technological advancement, and that includes the printing press.

Ignore history at my peril.

If mankind was paralyzed by fear of tornadoes, then Oklahoma would be empty.

But the changes that come from technology can be discussed and controlled, you see. It's different.

The mob will always be the mob, but capital has been set free to move wherever it can work its magic. There is no such thing as a tax cut...it is not the mob's (government's) money. Millions of people uproot themselves and their families to seek and find opportunities driven by technological change, while others sit and hope that the "mob" can save their dinosaur asses.

And millions more will be left behind, until the optimism dies a sudden and proper death, and they vote to take it from those who have it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ignore history at my peril.

Technology is applied history, not applied sympathy.

But the changes that come from technology can be discussed and controlled, you see. It's different.

Discuss away, but you will control nothing. It is not different.

And millions more will be left behind, until the optimism dies a sudden and proper death, and they vote to take it from those who have it.

Ooooo...scary. Didn't work for the Germans, and won't work now. Technology doesn't give a damn about politics.

[Michael Hardner]

Ooooo...scary. Didn't work for the Germans, and won't work now. Technology doesn't give a damn about politics.

It may not work now, but wait a year or two. Like I say, a welfare state needs an election or two. If you think it won't happen, you've got a short memory.

If nothing else works, they will go there.

[bush_cheney2004]

It may not work now, but wait a year or two. Like I say, a welfare state needs an election or two. If you think it won't happen, you've got a short memory.

If nothing else works, they will go there.

A year or two ? What happens in Canada for 2015 won't impact me or my "mob". Remember, down here we maced the Occupy Movement and kicked them out of the parks so real taxpayers' dogs could do their business in peace.

[Michael Hardner]

You're old enough to remember longer ago.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're old enough to remember longer ago.

And that's why I am not concerned about your dubious predictions. The U.S. has riots for your entertainment in Canada.

[On Guard for Thee]

A year or two ? What happens in Canada for 2015 won't impact me or my "mob". Remember, down here we maced the Occupy Movement and kicked them out of the parks so real taxpayers' dogs could do their business in peace.

Spoken like a true redneck. Mace away if it makes you feel good.

[Michael Hardner]

Spoken like a true redneck. Mace away if it makes you feel good.

OGFT: play the argument, not the man.

[Topaz]

As more companies use technology, say like robots to replace human workers, that will create less workers, which will create less revenues in income taxes for governments, and then with very low revenues coming to the government from the low and middle-classes, then the high income-earners will become the target of the governments. Besides, the country will have many many poorer people, what happens to them?? I think we better think 3x before using certain technology and its effects on human workers.

[Michael Hardner]

As more companies use technology, say like robots to replace human workers, that will create less workers, which will create less revenues in income taxes for governments, and then with very low revenues coming to the government from the low and middle-classes, then the high income-earners will become the target of the governments. Besides, the country will have many many poorer people, what happens to them?? I think we better think 3x before using certain technology and its effects on human workers.

As BC points out, there simply is no stopping technology - nor should there be. Think about the early part of the 20th century when there were large numbers of agricultural workers. The economy as a whole benefits from reduced resources being required to produce food.

However, there is no easy path to distributing the cost benefits. In the past, simply allowing it to happen naturally resulted in conflict, including violent conflict. People like BC can't see a future where that would happen again but history does repeat as they say.

One of the ways in which governments can distribute money is to fund public ventures that benefit all of us by improving infrastructure, services and so on. There is a benefit to putting people to work rather than just cutting them a cheque to sit at home; but even then - if the public good isn't being met by having private sector allocation of resources then it will be met otherwise. Trickle down is supposed to work for all of us, and when it doesn't then it's the ballot or the bullet.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Trickle down is supposed to work for all of us, and when it doesn't then it's the ballot or the bullet.

No it's not....the majority of the world's population is "poor" with no expectation that Canada should systematically redistribute income on their global behalf. Ballots and bullets (we already have both in play) will not change basic economic dynamic(s).

[GostHacked]

As BC points out, there simply is no stopping technology - nor should there be. Think about the early part of the 20th century when there were large numbers of agricultural workers. The economy as a whole benefits from reduced resources being required to produce food.

Think about the resources now needed to feed a population several times the size of what it was during that agricultural revolution. Some places we do not need technology. Some stuff still requires that nice interaction between humans.

Topaz is hitting on something big here. The reduced income to the government because less people, mean less taxes paid. Are we moving to a society where we rely on the government for everything no matter what? The less you and I make, the less everyone else makes. We cannot afford the things we could before, without a job. Some people are going to fail huge because they won't be able to adapt quickly enough. The technological changes are coming at an exponential speed. We are not prepared for that.

However, there is no easy path to distributing the cost benefits. In the past, simply allowing it to happen naturally resulted in conflict, including violent conflict. People like BC can't see a future where that would happen again but history does repeat as they say.

Because people don't learn from history. Or we have been taught something that is not entirely true. But more people just need to become aware of what is most likely around the corner.

One of the ways in which governments can distribute money is to fund public ventures that benefit all of us by improving infrastructure, services and so on. There is a benefit to putting people to work rather than just cutting them a cheque to sit at home; but even then - if the public good isn't being met by having private sector allocation of resources then it will be met otherwise. Trickle down is supposed to work for all of us, and when it doesn't then it's the ballot or the bullet.

So where is that money going to come from if you have a new huge batch of unemployed that cannot pay taxes? The only trickle down is that we pay for it, and we continue to pay for it. More to your point about infrastructure, there should NEVER be a need for toll roads. But alas, built with taxpayer money, in the form of government contract, or subsidy, and yet hand it over to a private corporation to collect fees for the use of the road. That does not seem like much of a benefit to me. A government should operate at 'cost', where as a private contractor will always seek profit. Can a corporation last without making a profit? Shareholders say no.

The only way I can see this working is to use technology to really benefit humanity instead of investing it into billion dollar armies and globesquatting for resources. Since less and less are working meaning less taxes/revenue for the government means the idea of money will be changed or eliminated. Back to a barter type system, or you have a real socialistic society where you could get an allowance. The notion of monetary debt would vanish as well.

[Michael Hardner]

Think about the resources now needed to feed a population several times the size of what it was during that agricultural revolution.

Yes, they're a fraction of what they were.

Some places we do not need technology. Some stuff still requires that nice interaction between humans.

Agreed on both.

Topaz is hitting on something big here... We are not prepared for that.

Yes - that's what my link says.

So where is that money going to come from if you have a new huge batch of unemployed that cannot pay taxes?

The money is there, but it's invisible.

The only way I can see this working is to use technology to really benefit humanity instead of ...

It's a nice idea, but I don't think there are publics to discuss allocation of resources. Since that can't happen, I think debt should increase as should taxes.

[GostHacked]

Yes, they're a fraction of what they were.

How so? You are going to need many more resources to feed 7 billion now than you would at 1/4 of that only a century ago. Energy, land, feed, equipment. The human resource factor may have dropped, but the other resources needed have dramatically increased. So no they are not a fraction of what they were.

The money is there, but it's invisible.

Then the money might as well be non existent if it's invisible.

It's a nice idea, but I don't think there are publics to discuss allocation of resources. Since that can't happen, I think debt should increase as should taxes.

Increasing debt and taxes is not a solution. That has already been tried many times. We need to move away from debt, that way we can reduce taxes.