Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
I honestly do not understand much about economics or employment. Accepted theories seem contradictory. For example, economists are always telling us Americans need to save more, then when people save more -- as they are doing now -- economists say we need to spend more to stimulate the economy. Which is it?!? I have read that there are more unemployed people in China than the entire U.S. workforce. So I do not see how free trade can fix the employment problem. It seems like a giant game of musical chairs in which only large corporations can win, and even they cannot win for long, because if they lower wages too much, they will have no customers. My father knew a thing or two about factories. In the 1960s I saw a video of the GM assembly plant production line and said to him: it looks like they could automate a lot more of that. He said sure, everyone knows they can, but as the president of GM once put it, machines can't buy cars. Then again, in my book, chapter 20, I wrote: There is already a great deal of unemployment for reasons that have always baffled me. Everywhere you look, you see work crying out to be done. Houses, buildings and streets need repair. Children in schools need more time with teachers, tutors and mentors. Software is sloppy and written in haste. Mechanics and repairman work long hours. All of the scientists and researchers I know work 10 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week, even when they are supposedly retired and are no longer paid. I know little about economics, but employment seems to have little or no connection with the amount of work that actually needs to be done. These problems have been discussed for over a century. I do not know much, but I have read some economics and I know that Marx and others described the paradoxes, such as the fact that capitalist enterprise tends to succeed too well and drive itself out of business. For example, IBM sold so many personal computers it turned that product into a profitless commodity, which eventually forced IBM out of the market. (Say what you like about Marx, he made some brilliant and original observations, and accurate predictions about the future of capitalism.) I have read the classic economists such as Adam Smith, Marx, Thornsein Veblen, Keynes, Schumpeter and others, so I know the basics. Plus things such as P. Krugman's recent book The Return of Depression Economics and various books about employment such as J. Rifkin, Technology, Jobs and Your Future, the End of Work (yes, that Rifkin -- kind of a nitwit), K. S. Newman Declining Futunes and so on. I do not understand the technical details of economics, and my knowledge is probably 50 years out of date but . . . Even though these capitalist and socialist economic theories are very different, and reach vastly different conclusions and recommendations, they are all predicated on one thing: that most people must exchange labor for money. Most people do not have great wealth so they must work for a living. I do not recall any classic economist who addressed the fundamental problem of what to do when human labor becomes worthless. Before the late 19th century people did not even imagine that was possible. Even in the 1950s, it was widely assumed that people will be driving taxies, farming the land with tractors, and doing other manual labor far into the indefinite future. Whereas I cannot imagine such labor will be needed a century from now. As far as I can tell, that throws the whole of economic theory out the window. It makes both capitalism and socialism unworkable. I suppose there must be some modern economists trying to come to grips with these problems. But I have not heard of any. Krugman did not address the problem. Aristotle said we shall need slaves so long as the shuttle will not run in the loom by itself. Giorgio de Santillana described this as a great mental block and said that Aristotle should have grasped the possibilities of applied science. I think that is asking too much from someone living in 300 BC. It is not surprising that Aristotle never imagined that a shuttle might run by itself, or that it might be economical to pay people to run the shuttle rather than force them. Roger Bacon (13th century) was the first to grasp this sort of thing. Modern people should know better. People have been predicting that automation will drastically reduce employment since the 1870s. It did not happen, and did not happen, and eventually some people concluded that it will never happen. The predictions have been so wrong so many times they accuse the pessimists of crying wolf. This reminds me of predictions that oil production will peak and then decline rapidly. People have been saying this since the 1920s. They were wrong again and again, and today's cornucopians say they will be wrong again now. This does not follow. A prediction might be made too early. It might be wrong 100 times in a row and
RE: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
I spent an appreciable fraction of my career in the early days of robotics with mechanization and robotics applications at RCA. Naïve chatter about human-less culture and artificial intelligence overlooks fundamental things. 1] brains are fundamentally different from computers. Brains learn, can be taught, but dont run on algorithms. Progress in ,say. household robots, is made with electronically simulated neural networks. These can learn tasks like a child or pet, but even the designers do not know exactly **how** the brain does its job. Same with synthetic, computer-simulated evolution by natural selection. It is incredibly efficient, but not something that can be programmed. A computer algorithm can create the illusion of intelligence, but it is a fake. Real electronic brains [where are you, Isaac?] may be built, but they be no more manageable than children or pets. Jack Williamson [?] wrote a story for Analog With Folded Hands and a sequel novel And Searching Minds. At first, androids run by a central computer-brain programmed To serve and obey, and guard Men from harm provided everything but took all the fun out of Life. In the second story, men developed mental powers. As for economics, beware of ..isms, for none reflect what actually goes on in commerce. ..isms are political and academic constructs and do not reflect reality. The idea of providing everyone with what they runs afoul of the human tendency for unlimited discovered need, which is encouraged by advertising. Actually, *wealth* is well defined not by how much you *have*, but how little you *need*. A saint can have the whole world [sharing it with others] and need only sandals, robe and his begging bowl. Mike Carrell From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 6:47 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like I wrote: We will have to find a way to give everyone what they need and want with a new kind of economy. Not communism, socialism or capitalism. All three are ways of allocating human labor, and they would be equally unworkable in a world where human labor is useless. I did not mean to suggest that communism, socialism and capitalism are equally good, or equally effective, or that these are the only economic systems ever invented. They are the main three still surviving in the modern world. They are mostly in mixed configurations depending on market sector; i.e., Japan is mostly big-corporate capitalist but their healthcare sector is socialist. Someone in the New York Times wrote a letter in response to this column, about unemployment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10herbert.html The letter says what I had in mind. It is well written. QUOTE: . . . There was a time in the early years of this country in which 90% of employed people worked on farms. An economy that did not have agriculture as the main source of livelihood was beyond imagining. . . . Our world is increasingly becoming one in which more and more jobs do not really require people at all. Productivity per worker is not a function of expertise, which is at an all-time low. Rather, it is the product of the automation of the workplace and of the tools at hand. This process could be much farther along than it is, but people are still somewhat cheaper than new technology. That will not remain the state of the workplace much longer. It is becoming increasingly necessary envision how an economy would work in which every job could be performed without humans at all. Who would own the means of production? How would people acquire purchasing power? Would these concepts even be relevant? Author John Varley described such an economy on the moon in Steel Beach. Further exploration is definitely in order. We are taking the first baby steps into an economic landscape in which workers are increasingly superfluous. As Artificial Intelligence becomes a viable alternative, that phenomenon will spread into management. How to make such a world habitable for the average citizen is an intellectual challenge of the highest order, and urgency. . . . - Jed This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
Mike Carrell wrote: I spent an appreciable fraction of my career in the early days of robotics with mechanization and robotics applications at RCA. Naïve chatter about human-less culture and artificial intelligence overlooks fundamental things. 1] brains are fundamentally different from computers. Brains learn, can be taught, but dont run on algorithms. Progress in ,say. household robots, is made with electronically simulated neural networks. These can learn tasks like a child or pet, but even the designers do not know exactly **how** the brain does its job. Same with synthetic, computer-simulated evolution by natural selection. It is incredibly efficient, but not something that can be programmed. A computer algorithm can create the illusion of intelligence, but it is a fake. Real electronic brains [where are you, Isaac?] may be built, but they be no more manageable than children or pets. I do not think that is a forgone conclusion. There are life forms with advanced brain functions that are completely pre-programmed, manageable, and never unruly, such as a hive of bees. They gather materials from the environment, construct honey combs and other complex structures, and perform complex care of eggs and so on. Those are real brains but they do not learn. They exhibit no curiosity. They never rebel against authority or waste time, any more than your respiratory system does, which is also controlled by brain tissue. Bees have many remarkable mental capabilities, such as the ability to distinguish people and other animals from inanimate objects. They can do this better than the best artificial intelligence robots today. A similar level of artificial intelligence could perform many useful tasks, such as clearing the dishes from table and driving automobiles. The 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge automobile managed to drive 300 miles autonomously in 7 hours. I do not know if it employs any artificial intelligence, or only ad hoc solutions to the problem. But it is capable of doing useful labor that only people could do a few years ago. The addition of artificial intelligence to the level of a bee-hive would enhance this performance, and reduce the likelihood of accident. I think we can accomplish this much in the next 50 to 100 years, even if we cannot make machines as smart as, say, Labrador retrievers. (When I say a bee-hive I mean the total brain tissue and aggregate capabilities of a hive of bees. They are capable of actions as a group far beyond the abilities of individual members.) Whether these machines are actually intelligent or only act that way strikes me as irrelevant -- even meaningless. Google's translation software and the DragonSpeak voice input software do not understand language in any deep sense. I doubt they understand as much as a hive of bees would. But they are capable of useful language-related work so what difference does it make? Simulated intelligence is as good as the real thing, for practical purposes. I do not think we will need to worry about simulated intelligent machines disobeying orders any more than a queen bee has to worry about rebellious worker bees, pace Maya the Bee. Perhaps if simulated or artificial intelligence reaches the level of a Labrador retriever we will need to worry about this. Dogs are in many ways as smart as we are, and a lot smarter when it comes to specific tasks and knowledge such as tracking and hunting down small animals or herding sheep. This is akin to saying that a peregrine falcon or a bat can outfly the best human airplane pilot. I can't imagine any pilot would dispute that! A bat does not have much brain tissue but gram for gram that particular tissue happens to be better at flying than human brain tissue can be, no matter how much training we subject it to. This is getting off topic but . . . A recent issue of Time magazine has several articles about animal intelligence: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2008759,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2008759,00.html It addresses the Big Question: Do Animals Think? That is a really dumb question, in my opinion. Of course they think! Do you suppose bees gather honey and build combs by magic? It is a function of their brain, and brains think. I guess what the Time authors mean is, are animals sentient (self-aware), or creative, and can they form thoughts, or talk. I studied these topics at Okayama U. Dept. of Biology 35 years ago, and nobody there doubted that animals think. Not only do they think, they sometimes outthink and outwit a professor. As I said here before, try keeping a Japanese badger (Nyctereutes procyonoides) from eating your watermelon and you will soon learn who is smarter when it comes to garden fences. I doubt they can disguise themselves as beautiful women or teapots as they do in Japanese folktales . . . This Time article discusses a male bonobo
Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
Mark Goldes wrote: The Brooklyn Project: see www.aesopinstitute.com includes the statement: That's dot-org, not dot-com. Direct link: http://www.aesopinstitute.org/the-brooklyn-project.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
I wrote: We will have to find a way to give everyone what they need and want with a new kind of economy. Not communism, socialism or capitalism. All three are ways of allocating human labor, and they would be equally unworkable in a world where human labor is useless. I did not mean to suggest that communism, socialism and capitalism are equally good, or equally effective, or that these are the only economic systems ever invented. They are the main three still surviving in the modern world. They are mostly in mixed configurations depending on market sector; i.e., Japan is mostly big-corporate capitalist but their healthcare sector is socialist. Someone in the New York Times wrote a letter in response to this column, about unemployment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10herbert.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10herbert.html The letter says what I had in mind. It is well written. QUOTE: . . . There was a time in the early years of this country in which 90% of employed people worked on farms. An economy that did not have agriculture as the main source of livelihood was beyond imagining. . . . Our world is increasingly becoming one in which more and more jobs do not really require people at all. Productivity per worker is not a function of expertise, which is at an all-time low. Rather, it is the product of the automation of the workplace and of the tools at hand. This process could be much farther along than it is, but people are still somewhat cheaper than new technology. That will not remain the state of the workplace much longer. It is becoming increasingly necessary envision how an economy would work in which every job could be performed without humans at all. Who would own the means of production? How would people acquire purchasing power? Would these concepts even be relevant? Author John Varley described such an economy on the moon in Steel Beach. Further exploration is definitely in order. We are taking the first baby steps into an economic landscape in which workers are increasingly superfluous. As Artificial Intelligence becomes a viable alternative, that phenomenon will spread into management. How to make such a world habitable for the average citizen is an intellectual challenge of the highest order, and urgency. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
The Brooklyn Project: see www.aesopinstitute.com includes the statement: “the current economic turmoil is lighting up the huge errors and abuses in the financial system. Correcting these problems at their root could conceivably open a path to a far wider distribution of wealth and opportunity.” TARGET A 20 HOUR WEEK BY AGE 50 – SUPPLEMENTED BY INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS! As Jed has pointed out, utomation is accelerating and eliminating millions of jobs. Computers replace entire professions, for example, office secretary and elevator operator. The 500 largest firms in the world have sharply increased production and sales, while reducing the workforce. Jobless growth is leading toward one billion unemployed worldwide. The time has come to consider new ideas and open a path, consistent with democracy, freedom and enterprise, to generate widespread prosperity. As Herbert Marcuse suggested in Eros and Civilization, define toil as work not freely chosen, no matter how simple. Work we choose, no matter how difficult, falls under the psychological category of play. We can encourage efforts to gradually reduce the time people spend -- at work not chosen -- to twenty hours weekly. Money displaced from the nominal forty hour week will need to be replaced with sound, diversified investment income that is not dependent upon savings. As difficult as this may be to accomplish, the odds are great that it can be done. By age 50, a future work week consisting of five four hour days is one obvious possibility. As a thought experiment, examine the possibility of two ten hour days – with five days each week to employ and enjoy as you wish. The positive (and a few negative) implications will quickly become obvious. Most people are trapped by mortgage payments, car payments, etc., in jobs they do not love. There is a simple test: Would they continue to do the same work without pay? Only a few fortunate individuals have the freedom to learn who they are, and more important, who they might become, given the time for both spiritual reflection and inner growth, as well as genuine opportunities to prosper and contribute to the greater material good of mankind; not just in a narrow financial sense. Such truly free citizens would also help to insure an ongoing, enlightened, political discourse, not easily manipulated. Expanded ownership opportunities, such as those initiated by the late Louis Kelso (who initiated the goal of adjusting to automation by having half of one’s income derived from investments) and the Center for Economic and Social Justice, open doors to substantial second incomes. As a consequence the toil component of the work week can gradually diminish. See: www.cesj.org Perhaps, that might open the possibility of the most genuinely free society in human history. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 3:46:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like I wrote: We will have to find a way to give everyone what they need and want with a new kind of economy. Not communism, socialism or capitalism. All three are ways of allocating human labor, and they would be equally unworkable in a world where human labor is useless. I did not mean to suggest that communism, socialism and capitalism are equally good, or equally effective, or that these are the only economic systems ever invented. They are the main three still surviving in the modern world. They are mostly in mixed configurations depending on market sector; i.e., Japan is mostly big-corporate capitalist but their healthcare sector is socialist. Someone in the New York Times wrote a letter in response to this column, about unemployment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10herbert.html The letter says what I had in mind. It is well written. QUOTE: . . . There was a time in the early years of this country in which 90% of employed people worked on farms. An economy that did not have agriculture as the main source of livelihood was beyond imagining. . . . Our world is increasingly becoming one in which more and more jobs do not really require people at all. Productivity per worker is not a function of expertise, which is at an all-time low. Rather, it is the product of the automation of the workplace and of the tools at hand. This process could be much farther along than it is, but people are still somewhat cheaper than new technology. That will not remain the state of the workplace much longer. It is becoming increasingly necessary envision how an economy would work in which every job could be performed without humans at all. Who would own the means of production? How would people acquire purchasing power? Would these concepts even be relevant? Author John Varley described such an economy on the moon in Steel Beach. Further exploration is definitely in order. We
Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
Whow Jed, Could you be correct? When I was in the 5th grade my teacher, Mrs. Biggs, was going over the history of Johnstown PA. We reviewed the steel industry. She explained that in times past the workers at Cambria Iron works would 60 to 80 hours a week. They had to get dressed up in there Sunday best to pick up there pay check. Today (in the early 1960's ) the work week at Bethlehem Steel is 40 hrs. When you graduate and go to work for Bethlehem you will only have to work 30 hrs a week because the robots will be doing the work for you. Today Bethlehem Steel is long bankrupt and Johnstown is becoming a town of old people. I do see help wanted signs at, Lows, Panerra Bread, and Lonestar. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 10, 2010 6:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like I wrote: We will have to find a way to give everyone what they need and want with a new kind of economy. Not communism, socialism or capitalism. All three are ways of allocating human labor, and they would be equally unworkable in a world where human labor is useless. I did not mean to suggest that communism, socialism and capitalism are equally good, or equally effective, or that these are the only economic systems ever invented. They are the main three still surviving in the modern world. They are mostly in mixed configurations depending on market sector; i.e., Japan is mostly big-corporate capitalist but their healthcare sector is socialist. Someone in the New York Times wrote a letter in response to this column, about unemployment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10herbert.html The letter says what I had in mind. It is well written. QUOTE: . . . There was a time in the early years of this country in which 90% of employed people worked on farms. An economy that did not have agriculture as the main source of livelihood was beyond imagining. . . . Our world is increasingly becoming one in which more and more jobs do not really require people at all. Productivity per worker is not a function of expertise, which is at an all-time low. Rather, it is the product of the automation of the workplace and of the tools at hand. This process could be much farther along than it is, but people are still somewhat cheaper than new technology. That will not remain the state of the workplace much longer. It is becoming increasingly necessary envision how an economy would work in which every job could be performed without humans at all. Who would own the means of production? How would people acquire purchasing power? Would these concepts even be relevant? Author John Varley described such an economy on the moon in Steel Beach. Further exploration is definitely in order. We are taking the first baby steps into an economic landscape in which workers are increasingly superfluous. As Artificial Intelligence becomes a viable alternative, that phenomenon will spread into management. How to make such a world habitable for the average citizen is an intellectual challenge of the highest order, and urgency. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
I used to work 40 hrs a week in the 70's, 80's and 90's. I told my boss that I would like to work 40 hrs a week again. He replied, What you don't want to work! In todays economy you either work all of the time or don't work at all. Frank Z By age 50, a future work week consisting of five four hour days is one obvious possibility. As a thought experiment, examine the possibility of two ten hour days – with five days each week to employ and enjoy as you wish. -Original Message- From: Mark Goldes overton...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 10, 2010 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like The Brooklyn Project: see www.aesopinstitute.com includes the statement: “the current economic turmoil is lighting up the huge errors and abuses in the financial system. Correcting these problems at their root could conceivably open a path to a far wider distribution of wealth and opportunity.” TARGET A 20 HOUR WEEK BY AGE 50 – SUPPLEMENTED BY INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS! As Jed has pointed out, utomation is accelerating and eliminating millions of jobs. Computers replace entire professions, for example, office secretary and elevator operator. The 500 largest firms in the world have sharply increased production and sales, while reducing the workforce. Jobless growth is leading toward one billion unemployed worldwide. The time has come to consider new ideas and open a path, consistent with democracy, freedom and enterprise, to generate widespread prosperity. As Herbert Marcuse suggested in Eros and Civilization, define toil as work not freely chosen, no matter how simple. Work we choose, no matter how difficult, falls under the psychological category of play. We can encourage efforts to gradually reduce the time people spend -- at work not chosen -- to twenty hours weekly. Money displaced from the nominal forty hour week will need to be replaced with sound, diversified investment income that is not dependent upon savings. As difficult as this may be to accomplish, the odds are great that it can be done. By age 50, a future work week consisting of five four hour days is one obvious possibility. As a thought experiment, examine the possibility of two ten hour days – with five days each week to employ and enjoy as you wish. The positive (and a few negative) implications will quickly become obvious. Most people are trapped by mortgage payments, car payments, etc., in jobs they do not love. There is a simple test: Would they continue to do the same work without pay? Only a few fortunate individuals have the freedom to learn who they are, and more important, who they might become, given the time for both spiritual reflection and inner growth, as well as genuine opportunities to prosper and contribute to the greater material good of mankind; not just in a narrow financial sense. Such truly free citizens would also help to insure an ongoing, enlightened, political discourse, not easily manipulated. Expanded ownership opportunities, such as those initiated by the late Louis Kelso (who initiated the goal of adjusting to automation by having half of one’s income derived from investments) and the Center for Economic and Social Justice, open doors to substantial second incomes. As a consequence the toil component of the work week can gradually diminish. See: www.cesj.org Perhaps, that might open the possibility of the most genuinely free society in human history. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 3:46:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like I wrote: We will have to find a way to give everyone what they need and want with a new kind of economy. Not communism, socialism or capitalism. All three are ways of allocating human labor, and they would be equally unworkable in a world where human labor is useless. I did not mean to suggest that communism, socialism and capitalism are equally good, or equally effective, or that these are the only economic systems ever invented. They are the main three still surviving in the modern world. They are mostly in mixed configurations depending on market sector; i.e., Japan is mostly big-corporate capitalist but their healthcare sector is socialist. Someone in the New York Times wrote a letter in response to this column, about unemployment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10herbert.html The letter says what I had in mind. It is well written. QUOTE: . . . There was a time in the early years of this country in which 90% of employed people worked on farms. An economy that did not have agriculture as the main source of livelihood was beyond imagining. . . . Our world is increasingly becoming one in which more and more jobs do not really require people at all. Productivity per worker is not a function of expertise, which is at an all-time low. Rather
Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
I'm not suggesting any limit would apply to work you choose. Only to work you do not care to do. From: fznidar...@aol.com fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 5:58:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like I used to work 40 hrs a week in the 70's, 80's and 90's. I told my boss that I would like to work 40 hrs a week again. He replied, What you don't want to work! In todays economy you either work all of the time or don't work at all. Frank Z By age 50, a future work week consisting of five four hour days is one obvious possibility. As a thought experiment, examine the possibility of two ten hour days – with five days each week to employ and enjoy as you wish. -Original Message- From: Mark Goldes overton...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 10, 2010 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like The Brooklyn Project: see www.aesopinstitute.com includes the statement: “the current economic turmoil is lighting up the huge errors and abuses in the financial system. Correcting these problems at their root could conceivably open a path to a far wider distribution of wealth and opportunity.” TARGET A 20 HOUR WEEK BY AGE 50 – SUPPLEMENTED BY INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS! As Jed has pointed out, utomation is accelerating and eliminating millions of jobs. Computers replace entire professions, for example, office secretary and elevator operator. The 500 largest firms in the world have sharply increased production and sales, while reducing the workforce. Jobless growth is leading toward one billion unemployed worldwide. The time has come to consider new ideas and open a path, consistent with democracy, freedom and enterprise, to generate widespread prosperity. As Herbert Marcuse suggested in Eros and Civilization, define toil as work not freely chosen, no matter how simple. Work we choose, no matter how difficult, falls under the psychological category of play. We can encourage efforts to gradually reduce the time people spend -- at work not chosen -- to twenty hours weekly. Money displaced from the nominal forty hour week will need to be replaced with sound, diversified investment income that is not dependent upon savings. As difficult as this may be to accomplish, the odds are great that it can be done. By age 50, a future work week consisting of five four hour days is one obvious possibility. As a thought experiment, examine the possibility of two ten hour days – with five days each week to employ and enjoy as you wish. The positive (and a few negative) implications will quickly become obvious. Most people are trapped by mortgage payments, car payments, etc., in jobs they do not love. There is a simple test: Would they continue to do the same work without pay? Only a few fortunate individuals have the freedom to learn who they are, and more important, who they might become, given the time for both spiritual reflection and inner growth, as well as genuine opportunities to prosper and contribute to the greater material good of mankind; not just in a narrow financial sense. Such truly free citizens would also help to insure an ongoing, enlightened, political discourse, not easily manipulated. Expanded ownership opportunities, such as those initiated by the late Louis Kelso (who initiated the goal of adjusting to automation by having half of one’s income derived from investments) and the Center for Economic and Social Justice, open doors to substantial second incomes. As a consequence the toil component of the work week can gradually diminish. See: www.cesj.org Perhaps, that might open the possibility of the most genuinely free society in human history. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 3:46:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like I wrote: We will have to find a way to give everyone what they need and want with a new kind of economy. Not communism, socialism or capitalism. All three are ways of allocating human labor, and they would be equally unworkable in a world where human labor is useless. I did not mean to suggest that communism, socialism and capitalism are equally good, or equally effective, or that these are the only economic systems ever invented. They are the main three still surviving in the modern world. They are mostly in mixed configurations depending on market sector; i.e., Japan is mostly big-corporate capitalist but their healthcare sector is socialist. Someone in the New York Times wrote a letter in response to this column, about unemployment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10herbert.html The letter says what I had in mind. It is well written. QUOTE: . . . There was a time in the early years of this country
Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
Jones, what is a Mac job? iPoni sent dis message. Esa Ruoho wrote it. On 8 Aug 2010, at 18:57, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: fznidar...@aol.com the end of Mac-jobs, and the end of despair for middle class youth who have no real future.
RE: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
From: Esa Ruoho . what is a Mac job? This is my misspelled version of the entry-level service job in the USA usually in food service: i.e. McDonalds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McJob From: John Berry .Ok, I'm missing something here, how does having robotic factories give people jobs? John obviously the two are counter-effects (no pun intended vis-à-vis the McJob :-) and any satisfactory National solution must become a fundamental part of the political process that is, if we intend to have full employment as a national priority. My effort to tie robotics and human employment into a package along with restricted international trade would be to demand ownership rules which allowed both to happen at the same time. Do we want full employment or not? That is a main question for the years to come, and it clearly divides conservatives from progressives. The attempt to tie human ownership directly to human replacement robotics introduces a structural inefficiency into the system, but it would work (probably) yet admittedly has zero chance of actually happening, despite what I perceive as a logical basis Ayn Rand types and Teabaggers would much prefer to see increasing legions of displaced workers on the street rather than to limit the capitalists prerogative in any way. Jones
Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
Jones Beene wrote: The new paradigm for a factory job, and there can be tens of millions of this type of job - will be to own, maintain, and supervise a handful of industrial robots 24/7. We can give every worker a personal stake in this by forcing business to give equity stakes to workers as the ONLY permitted owner of robotics. That is an intriguing idea, but I do not think it would work, for several practical reasons: Robots are not discrete objects, and they are not likely to become stand alone discrete items in the future. There may be some general purpose ones, but most will be built into equipment such as machine tools, or clothes washers. Such equipment is networked together and no one can say where one robot ends and the next begins. (The other day my brother-in-law installed a washer-dryer combination for an upscale customer that had to be networked together with a computer connection or neither would work. Arguably they more resemble robots than they resemble my mechanical analog washing machine, which is more or less a 1920s design.) You might set up a law arbitrarily defining one robot as, let us say 1 CPU, one or more storage devices, no more than 8 attachments . . . Equipment manufacturers and factory owners would quickly find ways to get around the definition, and you would see large factories with only 2 or 3 legally defined robots, whereas by a common sense definition they would have hundreds. Robots will become cheap commodities, like laptop computers. It will be impossible to keep track of them. A factory owner will be able to buy a dozen general purpose ones, claim they for his home domestic use, and then bring them into the factory when no one is looking. Eventually, places of work where robots are used will be as common as places where telephones and computers are used today, which is to say: everywhere. So, to enforce this law you would have to have draconian and unprecedented government access to the records, management and decisions made at factories, bakeries, restaurants, farms, hospitals, offices, churches, discos, bars, houses of prostitution, and anywhere else robot labor will be used. I think there are only two ways to share the profits from computer labor: 1. Divvy up shares of corporations to everyone. I guess that is de facto communism. 2. Collect taxes from wealthy factory owners and give everyone else lots of welfare benefits, such as free food, free Internet, free education, free libraries, and rent vouchers. That is also socialism I guess. We are halfway there, what with public education and federal support for cheap food. The fundamental problem is that economics is based on the fact that most people have no capital or extensive property, so most people trade their labor for wages. Human labor is valuable, so we have a working economy. As I pointed out in Cold Fusion and the Future most jobs do not call for much intelligence. A robot with as much intelligence as a chicken could do most jobs we pay people to do. So when we have millions of cheap robots both general purpose and dedicated, human labor will be essentially worthless. We will have to find a way to give everyone what they need and want with a new kind of economy. Not communism, socialism or capitalism. All three are ways of allocating human labor, and they would be equally unworkable in a world where human labor is useless. As I see it, the only practical way forward is to gradually make just about everything free, or so cheap that most people will not need to work more than a few hours a week at some job or other. That is the direction we have been moving for the past 200 years. Look at the cost measured in labor to buy a loaf of bread or illumination for 8 hours, and you will see that the necessities of life are asymptotically approaching zero cost. Electricity really will be too cheap to meter someday. With robot food factories and cultured meat, someday it will not be worth keeping track of which groceries you buy. The store will charge a flat fee of 10 cents per kilogram, whether you buy 1 kg of filet mignon, carrots, bread flower, rutabaga or laundry detergent. (Actually, you yourself will not be buying these things in the sense of going to the store. You will tell your computer; the automated grocery store robots will assemble your order; the automated delivery truck will bring it; and your domestic robots will put the stuff away in the kitchen and by the washing machine.) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
From: fznidar...@aol.com http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/careers/japans-economic-stagnation-is-crea ting-a-nation-of-lost-youths/19580780/ This is scary, and sadly it is not unlike the way the USA is heading. However, as an optimist I can see that Japan is poised to lead the way to a viable solution, which we in the USA can emulate this time around. It would be a nice role-reversal for them to repay a 50 year old favor (of re-industrializing their economy, which we first ravaged of course). The biggest international lie and fiasco of all times is so-called the free trade myth, which we in the USA brought into existence primarily to spread the wealth to an impoverished post-war world - and it did work for that. Permit me to rant-on about this for a while, as it is entirely overlooked as a political agenda of anyone. Japan was a prime early beneficiary of free trade, and they later reciprocated to allow the rest of Asia to industrialize. But the limit of international wealth redistribution (via this particular method) has been reached, and we must now find viable alternatives. But first we must eliminate this colossal impediment to progress - and ditch free trade altogether - in order to maintain our place. Enough is enough. We do not need to continue this level of generosity. I expect Japan to do this shortly. Call it isolationism if you must - who cares what label is put on it. Free trade is not free and never was anything more than a way to bring the rest of the world out of poverty - which methodology was then quickly bastardized by the mega-financiers (like Goldman Sachs), to maximize their own profits by creating an illusions of efficiency (via currency manipulation), and to prolong the myth by providing temporarily cheap goods in place of lost factory jobs. We have a window of opportunity to change this idiotic structural deficiency, however, so it is not inevitable that we sink to the depth of grass-eaters - but alas it will probably take more political will-power than any group here can muster. Japan owes us a favor, and this could be it. Honda to the rescue (to be explained). In my opinion (warped and idealistic as it may be) - this structural change in eliminating a myth must involve a returning to a neo-industrial society, where we make a clean break with the past and to actually dump China, Europe and Japan as trading partners !! and instead we reindustrialize America, using robotics. This will be painful at first. Under the new rules of trade, we are not really isolated - so any foreign country can invest freely here in factories to produce goods they design - but they will no longer be allowed to import goods made elsewhere. Yes, it will mean the end of dirt cheap consumer goods, but it will also mean the end of layoffs, the end of the wild swings in the business cycle, the end of Mac-jobs, and the end of despair for middle class youth who have no real future. Well-paid neo-industrial workers will be able to afford higher priced US made goods. And they will not be confined to a life of drudgery either. We can force capitalism to make an important new place for them. The new paradigm for a factory job, and there can be tens of millions of this type of job - will be to own, maintain, and supervise a handful of industrial robots 24/7. We can give every worker a personal stake in this by forcing business to give equity stakes to workers as the ONLY permitted owner of robotics. This will be an on-call job and will require a specialized but NOT high-tech re-education. The skill level will be approximately that of video game enthusiast or machinist - and much of the work can be done at home by LAN or smart-phone, with occasional real visits to the factory for hands-on maintenance. Farm, mining and some service jobs will be similar. The entire economy will shift to robotics, but not necessarily because they are really needed to save money - but because they are desirable in the long term for social goals of full and meaningful work to human robo-tenders. This will cost more at first - but not as much as a needless war, for instance. And in a decade it will be much cheaper. Free trade is a lure that always turns against the importer - when the currency degrades, which is inevitable and as the dollar continues to do, and that is the hidden cost that is going to kill us if we do not ditch the present system now. But the one necessary prime rule that avoids conglomerate control at this level - is that NO non-human entity, including corporations will be allowed to own robots (to ensure human employment to the robo-tenders). Businesses must contract out for robotic labor, and the new unions will be the trade co-ops that operate as middle-men in the three-way process between business - neo-worker - and lender. These trade co-ops can be run by the neo-Lawyers, a group which will be forced out of their present work by new laws demanding
Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
I think this report is accurate. It is in line with reports in the Japanese mass media. Perhaps it is too pessimistic. Mass media reports in both Japan and the U.S. tend to be lurid and they generalize from anecdotal evidence. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:what our post industrial society may look like
Ok, I'm missing something here, how does having robotic factories give people jobs? Oh wait, I know http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFR07vsnWjA On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* fznidar...@aol.com http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/careers/japans-economic-stagnation-is-creating-a-nation-of-lost-youths/19580780/ This is scary, and sadly it is not unlike the way the USA is heading. However, as an optimist I can see that Japan is poised to lead the way to a viable solution, which we in the USA can emulate this time around. It would be a nice role-reversal for them to repay a 50 year old favor (of re-industrializing their economy, which we first ravaged of course). The biggest international lie and fiasco of all times is so-called the “free trade” myth, which we in the USA brought into existence primarily to “spread the wealth” to an impoverished post-war world - and it did work for that. Permit me to rant-on about this for a while, as it is entirely overlooked as a political agenda of anyone. Japan was a prime early beneficiary of free trade, and they later reciprocated to allow the rest of Asia to industrialize. But the limit of international wealth redistribution (via this particular method) has been reached, and we must now find viable alternatives. But first we must eliminate this colossal impediment to progress – and ditch free trade altogether - in order to maintain our place. Enough is enough. We do not need to continue this level of generosity. I expect Japan to do this shortly. Call it “isolationism” if you must – who cares what label is put on it. Free trade is not free and never was anything more than a way to bring the rest of the world out of poverty – which methodology was then quickly bastardized by the mega-financiers (like Goldman Sachs), to maximize their own profits by creating an illusions of efficiency (via currency manipulation), and to prolong the myth by providing temporarily cheap goods in place of lost factory jobs. We have a window of opportunity to change this idiotic structural deficiency, however, so it is not inevitable that we sink to the depth of “grass-eaters” - but alas it will probably take more political will-power than any group here can muster. Japan owes us a favor, and this could be it. Honda to the rescue (to be explained). In my opinion (warped and idealistic as it may be) – this structural change in eliminating a myth must involve a returning to a neo-industrial society, where we make a clean break with the past and to actually dump China, Europe and Japan as trading partners !! and instead we reindustrialize America, using robotics. This will be painful at first. Under the new rules of trade, we are not really isolated – so any foreign country can invest freely here in factories to produce goods they design - but they will no longer be allowed to import goods made elsewhere. Yes, it will mean the end of dirt cheap consumer goods, but it will also mean the end of layoffs, the end of the wild swings in the business cycle, the end of Mac-jobs, and the end of despair for middle class youth who have no real future. Well-paid neo-industrial workers will be able to afford higher priced US made goods. And they will not be confined to a life of drudgery either. We can force capitalism to make an important new place for them. The new paradigm for a factory job, and there can be tens of millions of this type of job - will be to own, maintain, and supervise a handful of industrial robots 24/7. We can give every worker a personal stake in this by forcing business to give equity stakes to workers as the ONLY permitted owner of robotics. This will be an “on-call” job and will require a specialized but NOT high-tech re-education. The skill level will be approximately that of video game enthusiast or machinist - and much of the “work” can be done at home by LAN or smart-phone, with occasional real visits to the factory for hands-on maintenance. Farm, mining and some service jobs will be similar. The entire economy will shift to robotics, but not necessarily because they are really needed to save money – but because they are desirable in the long term for social goals of full and meaningful work to human robo-tenders. This will cost more at first – but not as much as a needless war, for instance. And in a decade it will be much cheaper. Free trade is a lure that always turns against the importer – when the currency degrades, which is inevitable and as the dollar continues to do, and that is the “hidden cost “that is going to kill us if we do not ditch the present system now. But the one necessary prime rule that avoids conglomerate control at this level – is that NO non-human entity, including corporations will be allowed to own robots (to ensure human employment to the robo-tenders). Businesses must contract out for
