'Young people these days ...'

[Wilber]

Exactly. Just one step to go.

But so far they have just automated the easy stuff. Nothing that involves actual decision making.

[Michael Hardner]

Look at agriculture over the last century as an example.

[Wilber]

Look at agriculture over the last century as an example.

What of it. I don't see why you think eliminating jobs is a good thing in itself. You have to replace them with something.

[overthere]

So what do people do for a living? Certainly new fields will open up but it is a leap of faith to assume they will completely make up for those lost to automation and outsourcing. So far, it doesn't seem to be happening.

Doesn't seem to be happening?

The population of the US was about 40 million in 1870, compared to about 320 million today.

Are you saying those farmers who lost their livelihood in the last 144 years are still looking for jobs milking cows?

[eyeball]

Vapid generalizations about generations aside, driving a truck is not a good career choice. Truck driving will be automated (self-driving) within ~10 years.

Not a chance in hell. There are to many old people and old people typically vote for conservative parties. Automated driving is a non starter with old conservatives. You'll have to wait until the pry my steering wheel-from-my-dead-hand's generation dies before your's will be allowed to embrace the future. They won't tolerate any automated driving initiative because it'll be viewed as a slippery slope.

In any case, I don't know why we'd have to wait ten years, we could start automating tomorrow if we wanted to.

[Wilber]

Not a chance in hell. There are to many old people and old people typically vote for conservative parties. Automated driving is a non starter with old conservatives. You'll have to wait until the pry my steering wheel-from-my-dead-hand's generation dies before your's will be allowed to embrace the future. They won't tolerate any automated driving initiative because it'll be viewed as a slippery slope.

In any case, I don't know why we'd have to wait ten years, we could start automating tomorrow if we wanted to.

Couldn't disagree more. Seniors stand to benefit the most from automation. I love cars and driving them but automated vehicles could allow me to use a car long after I should no longer be driving. I'm just hoping they will be available and affordable before my time comes.

[Wilber]

Doesn't seem to be happening?

The population of the US was about 40 million in 1870, compared to about 320 million today.

Are you saying those farmers who lost their livelihood in the last 144 years are still looking for jobs milking cows?

They mostly got replaced with manufacturing jobs. They are now disappearing. For every job lost to automation, another of equal quality has to be created somewhere else and that doesn't provide for population increases.

On edit:

Just looked up some stats for BC which you don't think of as an agricultural province because only 5% of its land can be farmed and only about 1% is prime farm land.

36,000 directly employed in farming

280,000 employed in food related jobs

2.4 B in annual farm cash receipts

115 M spent annually at farmers markets.

It's a pretty big deal.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Wilber

[eyeball]

Couldn't disagree more. Seniors stand to benefit the most from automation. I love cars and driving them but automated vehicles could allow me to use a car long after I should no longer be driving. I'm just hoping they will be available and affordable before my time comes.

You may be a senior Wilber but it's clear you never completely gave up thinking with your heart.

I hope I'm wrong about automated cars too. I've always had this fantasy about saluting the cops with my bottle of beer as they go by.

[Wilber]

You may be a senior Wilber but it's clear you never completely gave up thinking with your heart.

I hope I'm wrong about automated cars too. I've always had this fantasy about saluting the cops with my bottle of beer as they go by.

I believe on this issue I am thinking with my head.

I'd be careful on the beer front. Even if the vehicle is automated, you will be responsible if it does something stupid.

[eyeball]

Why? Surely I won't be expected to have my hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road in anticipation I may need to take over at a moment's notice in the event of a glitch in the car's software or a cat wanders into the road. Just how capable do you think people are at maintaining such vigilance in terms of time? After 15 years of taking people whale watching I think I'm pretty qualified to say that less than half won't be able to stay focused for more than about four minutes and the one's that last that long are well above average - the attention span of a human being and the breathing cycle of a whale are closely matched and the whales usually win. And then there is the reaction time, when the whale finally does surface by the time the person swings their head around to focus on it, it's already half finished and going down.

I think if automated driving is going to be predicated on people remaining as vigilant as you're implying, and especially considering the time we spend on the road then we will not see it happen in our or anyone else's lifetime. It defies human nature and the physics of our reaction time. I suspect even more death and injury would occur on our roads. How long are we expected to retain our driving skills in the event glitches requiring instant intervention occur only once a month a year or decade etc? If we can't develop a truly hand's free car in a fully automated and integrated driving environment, there's really no point unless we resign ourselves to driving at walking speed. Human intervention at the much higher speeds most automated road designs call for would probably result in a disaster as people suddenly reacted to things they suddenly see out of the corner of their eye or that they simply imagined they saw. The chain reaction to that could make a present multi-vehicle pileup look like a day at the fair at the bumper car track,

[Michael Hardner]

What of it. I don't see why you think eliminating jobs is a good thing in itself. You have to replace them with something.

I shouldn't use the term 'good', so please excuse me if I do. But it's 'progress'.

The jobs are replaced, as I pointed out with agriculture. Think about the jobs that are around today versus only 30 years ago. The thing that isn't clear is how or whether the benefits of progress will be distributed among the people instead of just investors.

The interesting thing is that the same 'progress' that allows capital to stroll across borders, to automate jobs, also allows the people to communicate without the need for a large industrial plant (newspaper, radio station, or TV station) and will allow them to unite and call for a better world.

I'm hopeful, but also it should be noted that such large changes that we've seen often result in huge steps back before we go forward again.

[Michael Hardner]

They mostly got replaced with manufacturing jobs. They are now disappearing. For every job lost to automation, another of equal quality has to be created somewhere else and that doesn't provide for population increases.

If you look at it on a small scale, you've just figured out how to do something 'easier'. The investor has found a machine to replace the person, so they are now able to achieve the same goal with fewer resources. The collective (the country, the world, society, what have you) how has more resources to spend, so they have to figure out what to do to help the displaced person with those extra resources.

The western world was hit with the industrial revolution, and didn't appreciate what was happening to people. The resources weren't shared, and so some wise intellectuals invented a philosophy and ideology to force the benefits to be shared. Eventually, Europe and America had to acknowledge the superiority of that system and adopt many of its policies in order to keep up.

Today, we're not in danger of starving so it's hard to motivate people to revolt. Manufacturing jobs continue to die and people are displaced, with varying degrees of support from governments. It's a tough thing to go through, I was displaced myself. My experience is that most people who complain about the new order of things haven't been displaced yet. The optimistic part is that the new jobs will probably be healthier and more spiritually rewarding (though less materially rewarding) than factory work; my new line of work certainly is.

[Wilber]

You speak of "progress" but progressing toward what? You are actually talking about change and not all change is progress. Righr now the gap between rich an poor is increasing and real incomes for the average person are not.

[Michael Hardner]

You speak of "progress" but progressing toward what?

The whole of humanity ascending Maslow's hierarchy of needs... meeting physical needs first, then comfort, then self-actualization... that is our conscious and unconscious goal IMO.

You are actually talking about change and not all change is progress. Righr now the gap between rich an poor is increasing and real incomes for the average person are not.

But the number of absolute poor people is actually decreasing too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a blind optimist but the real story is that outcomes are getting generally better even as the gaps increase.

But that's leaving out the environment, which we shouldn't ignore either...

[Michael Hardner]

Here's an example of a new internet-based business that has popped up:

http://www.amazon.ca/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=alex+and+ani+bangles&tag=googcana-20&index=aps&hvadid=37951941786&hvpos=2t3&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=720676602862639075&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6t4fwtfwxg_b

Alex & Ani makes bangles and braces and sells them on the internet.

[Wilber]

Here's an example of a new internet-based business that has popped up:

http://www.amazon.ca/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=alex+and+ani+bangles&tag=googcana-20&index=aps&hvadid=37951941786&hvpos=2t3&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=720676602862639075&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6t4fwtfwxg_b

Alex & Ani makes bangles and braces and sells them on the internet.

If they are making them on their own, they won't make a living at it. Maybe if they can get them made in China or Bangladesh and are good at marketing. People who are into crafts do it for the love of it and if they are lucky and good, make a little money on the side, not to make a living. Trust me, I know.

[Michael Hardner]

If they are making them on their own, they won't make a living at it. Maybe if they can get them made in China or Bangladesh and are good at marketing. People who are into crafts do it for the love of it and if they are lucky and good, make a little money on the side, not to make a living. Trust me, I know.

I set you up for this one. Wait for it... their company is now valued at near $1B...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/08/alexani-lion-idUSL1N0TS1NQ20141208

[Wilber]

It was a new company set up by another company that had been in business since 1966. Of course new technologies will offer new opportunities but it is a leap of faith to assume they will make up for jobs that are lost to those technologies and outsourcing. They may or may not.

[overthere]

They mostly got replaced with manufacturing jobs. They are now disappearing. For every job lost to automation, another of equal quality has to be created somewhere else and that doesn't provide for population increases.

On edit:

Just looked up some stats for BC which you don't think of as an agricultural province because only 5% of its land can be farmed and only about 1% is prime farm land.

36,000 directly employed in farming

280,000 employed in food related jobs

2.4 B in annual farm cash receipts

115 M spent annually at farmers markets.

It's a pretty big deal.

Yes, but the question was what happens to jobs when the economy restructures? Do people die of hunger, disappear into the mist... or?

What actually happens is what will happen to the 'young people' of the OP: they will adapt because they don't have a choice. The not so funny thing is that the economy didn't do it to them, they did it to themselves.

There is no need for the replacement job to be of "equal quality". That is a subjective term and has little meaning really. What is needed is that there be another job, and clearly there are other jobs right now in Canada. Unemployment overall is at a reasonable level, the turnover is healthy for any economy.

Sure, there are a lot of people in manufacturing jobs that cannot find semi-skilled work for the same pay, but the obvious way out is to gain skills and move, or move and gain skills. Twas ever so. Macroeconomics 101.

[Wilber]

Yes, but the question was what happens to jobs when the economy restructures? Do people die of hunger, disappear into the mist... or?

What actually happens is what will happen to the 'young people' of the OP: they will adapt because they don't have a choice. The not so funny thing is that the economy didn't do it to them, they did it to themselves.

There is no need for the replacement job to be of "equal quality". That is a subjective term and has little meaning really. What is needed is that there be another job, and clearly there are other jobs right now in Canada. Unemployment overall is at a reasonable level, the turnover is healthy for any economy.

Sure, there are a lot of people in manufacturing jobs that cannot find semi-skilled work for the same pay, but the obvious way out is to gain skills and move, or move and gain skills. Twas ever so. Macroeconomics 101.

Of course you have to deal with what is dealt but to blame young people because the good paying semi skilled jobs their parents and grand parents enjoyed no longer exist makes no sense. How did they do it to themselves?

[PrimeNumber]

Of course you have to deal with what is dealt but to blame young people because the good paying semi skilled jobs their parents and grand parents enjoyed no longer exist makes no sense. How did they do it to themselves?

Not only do older generations in this country blame younger generations for losing jobs to the technology they pioneered they expect them to afford the most expensive educations in the history of this country while managing to have a family, buy a home in the most expensive housing market this country has ever had and to boot foot the bill for their retirement. All while having no promise of a CPP , and often times being encouraged to diversify their own retirement investments because the older political generation wasn't economically smart enough to manage the money to begin with.

Everything young people in this country have to deal with is a direct result of older generations not caring about the long term future of Canada, just their own short term gains. it's going to come-back to bite this country in the ass. And the older generations will be the first ones to complain.

Edited December 12, 2014 by PrimeNumber

[Wilber]

There is some truth to that but don't kid yourself about older generations being the only ones concerned about their own short term gains.

[Michael Hardner]

It was a new company set up by another company that had been in business since 1966. Of course new technologies will offer new opportunities but it is a leap of faith to assume they will make up for jobs that are lost to those technologies and outsourcing. They may or may not.

Historically, the way it works is that there's an initial economic hit against those who are displaced, which eventually is erased as people find new employment. Overall, the economy improves and the quality of life improves however this transition is made much easier with a public understanding that unemployment is not just a problem for displaced individuals but for all of us who gain economically from these transitions.

Indeed during the days of the industrial revolution and the depression, there was a pervasive theme of "lazy unemployed people" among those who benefited. It seems to me that we have seen less of that sentiment since 2008.

[Wilber]

Historically, the way it works is that there's an initial economic hit against those who are displaced, which eventually is erased as people find new employment. Overall, the economy improves and the quality of life improves however this transition is made much easier with a public understanding that unemployment is not just a problem for displaced individuals but for all of us who gain economically from these transitions.Indeed during the days of the industrial revolution and the depression, there was a pervasive theme of "lazy unemployed people" among those who benefited. It seems to me that we have seen less of that sentiment since 2008.

It's not about "lazy unemployed people" Working conditions and wages were pretty crappy during the industrial revoulution until labour unions and other social activists demanded better. It's also not just replacing one jub with another. Replacing good paying jobs that produce wealth with service jobs that just redistribute it is no solution. We can't improve our standard of living by just selling each other stuff that others produce.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not about "lazy unemployed people"

I said that it was a pervasive theme, and didn't make any comment on the validity of that idea as you have here.

Replacing good paying jobs that produce wealth with service jobs that just redistribute it is no solution.

That's a false dichotomy. Manufacturing is a service so what are you referring to ?

We can't improve our standard of living by just selling each other stuff that others produce.

We can, and in several ways. For one thing industrial work is difficult, unhealthy and environmentally damaging. Of course, if you push that kind of work to another country then you're saddling them with those problems but to the point it does have a positive effect on some levels to lose that kind of work.