|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 29, 2014 12:14:33 GMT
No, I certainly did not enjoy getting up at 5:00 AM--more like 4:00 AM for the last two-and-a-half years of my working life--and neither did I enjoy the daily grind (which could not be described as a career, in any meaningful sense of the term). Nonetheless, a future in which almost no one has a job would certainly not be utopian, as I see it. (That is why I described it, instead, as a dystopia.) But what mainstream publications have you read in which this is predicted to be humanity's (near and inevitable) future?
I don't know what you'd consider to be "mainstream" but the impact of technology on the workforce is certainly well documented.
One of the better examples I would point to is the loss of relatively high paying manufacturing jobs in the US. All too often I read of people lamenting the loss of American manufacturing jobs where they typically say these jobs are being outsourced to third world countries but they're fundamentally wrong. The problem isn't that the jobs are going to other countries but instead the problem is that jobs in the manufacturing sector are being replaced by technology. World-wide the number of manufacturing jobs has dropped by about 40% since 1970 and it's not something that's just happening in the US. The world consumes far more manufactured goods today per capita than it did in 1970 but it requires a far smaller percentage of the population to produce those goods.
motorcitytimes.com/mct/2011/05/interesting-graph-decline-in-manufacturing-is-not-just-an-american-thing/
My whole career was in manufacturing and I've not only watched it happen but was also personally involved in making it happen. That was why I received the "big bucks" is because stayed well informed on the technological innovations that replaced workers with machines and computers. From the aerospace assembly mechanic the the mechanical engineer we've been replacing them with technology for decades already.
Thinks about that. 40% of manufacturing jobs (per capita) have simply disappeared because of technology and those were all upper middle income jobs typically.
Look at the graph on the above link and all you have to do is follow the line into the future to see that virtually all of these upper middle income jobs are going to virtually disappear in another 40 years or so. Yes, for awhile some might remain but they'll be the low cost manufacturing jobs because enterprises will continue to employ technology to replace the higher paid workers simply because that is where they get the best "return on investment" in employing the technology.
But this hasn't been happening just in manufacturing. As noted we have ATM's that replaced the tellers at the bank. Call many companies to address an issue or concern and you get the machine saying, "Press One if...." and you never actually talk to a person (which is really annoying if you actually need to talk with someone).
The jobs currently targeted on the middle and upper middle income jobs because that is where the return on investment is best for the enterprise. As the technology improves then enterprises will target the even higher paying jobs because the technology can accomplish the tasks. I've seen that with some of the highest paying engineering jobs being replaced by computer software. High paid "Stress Engineers" have been replaced by computers that can calculate the stress loads based upon a simple, lower paid, draftsman's designing a part as a solid model. They don't even have to be an engineer to design the parts and the computer does all of the engineering calculations. It's actually quite amazing.
Anyway, I'll provide just a couple of links for your information purposes. Some of the best sources require membership, such as MIT publications where I had access when working but don't today, so I can't provide those.
www.nbcnews.com/id/42183592/ns/business-careers/t/nine-jobs-humans-may-lose-robots/#.U9eOamd0xMs
www.converge.org.nz/pirm/nutech.htm
And when all of the high paying jobs are replaced with technology, because it's "cost effective" to do so, then the low paying jobs (like the janitor that cleans the air filter for the room that houses the computer) will be the final jobs targeted for replacement because those will be only jobs left to replace.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 29, 2014 23:41:28 GMT
No, I certainly did not enjoy getting up at 5:00 AM--more like 4:00 AM for the last two-and-a-half years of my working life--and neither did I enjoy the daily grind (which could not be described as a career, in any meaningful sense of the term). Nonetheless, a future in which almost no one has a job would certainly not be utopian, as I see it. (That is why I described it, instead, as a dystopia.) But what mainstream publications have you read in which this is predicted to be humanity's (near and inevitable) future?
I don't know what you'd consider to be "mainstream" but the impact of technology on the workforce is certainly well documented.
One of the better examples I would point to is the loss of relatively high paying manufacturing jobs in the US. All too often I read of people lamenting the loss of American manufacturing jobs where they typically say these jobs are being outsourced to third world countries but they're fundamentally wrong. The problem isn't that the jobs are going to other countries but instead the problem is that jobs in the manufacturing sector are being replaced by technology. World-wide the number of manufacturing jobs has dropped by about 40% since 1970 and it's not something that's just happening in the US. The world consumes far more manufactured goods today per capita than it did in 1970 but it requires a far smaller percentage of the population to produce those goods.
motorcitytimes.com/mct/2011/05/interesting-graph-decline-in-manufacturing-is-not-just-an-american-thing/
My whole career was in manufacturing and I've not only watched it happen but was also personally involved in making it happen. That was why I received the "big bucks" is because stayed well informed on the technological innovations that replaced workers with machines and computers. From the aerospace assembly mechanic the the mechanical engineer we've been replacing them with technology for decades already.
Thinks about that. 40% of manufacturing jobs (per capita) have simply disappeared because of technology and those were all upper middle income jobs typically.
Look at the graph on the above link and all you have to do is follow the line into the future to see that virtually all of these upper middle income jobs are going to virtually disappear in another 40 years or so. Yes, for awhile some might remain but they'll be the low cost manufacturing jobs because enterprises will continue to employ technology to replace the higher paid workers simply because that is where they get the best "return on investment" in employing the technology.
But this hasn't been happening just in manufacturing. As noted we have ATM's that replaced the tellers at the bank. Call many companies to address an issue or concern and you get the machine saying, "Press One if...." and you never actually talk to a person (which is really annoying if you actually need to talk with someone).
The jobs currently targeted on the middle and upper middle income jobs because that is where the return on investment is best for the enterprise. As the technology improves then enterprises will target the even higher paying jobs because the technology can accomplish the tasks. I've seen that with some of the highest paying engineering jobs being replaced by computer software. High paid "Stress Engineers" have been replaced by computers that can calculate the stress loads based upon a simple, lower paid, draftsman's designing a part as a solid model. They don't even have to be an engineer to design the parts and the computer does all of the engineering calculations. It's actually quite amazing.
Anyway, I'll provide just a couple of links for your information purposes. Some of the best sources require membership, such as MIT publications where I had access when working but don't today, so I can't provide those.
www.nbcnews.com/id/42183592/ns/business-careers/t/nine-jobs-humans-may-lose-robots/#.U9eOamd0xMs
www.converge.org.nz/pirm/nutech.htm
And when all of the high paying jobs are replaced with technology, because it's "cost effective" to do so, then the low paying jobs (like the janitor that cleans the air filter for the room that houses the computer) will be the final jobs targeted for replacement because those will be only jobs left to replace.
Certainly, it is true that robots have been replacing humans for some time now, in some areas. (Just look at automobile manufacturing, for instance.) But your earlier insistence that even doctors would soon replaced by robots just went a bridge too far, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 30, 2014 10:22:33 GMT
Certainly, it is true that robots have been replacing humans for some time now, in some areas. (Just look at automobile manufacturing, for instance.) But your earlier insistence that even doctors would soon replaced by robots just went a bridge too far, in my opinion.
We already have robotic surgery where a doctor with a computer controls the robot. It's not hard to imagine that soon the computer can perform the surgery unassisted when the computers know far more than the doctor could ever possibly know.
www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007339.htm
We're also seeing significant breakthroughs in artificial intelligence being used in medical diagnosis.
groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/ftp/psz/SchwartzAnnals.html
Advancements in computer capability has been exponential over the last 40 years and will continue to be into the future. Think of how far we've come since the beginning of the "computer age" and it becomes hard to imagine what will happen in the next 30 years or more.
Compare it to the development of aviation technology. By analogy we're probably at the WW II stage of aviation accomplishment where we were still basically limited to propeller driven aircraft with just the first hits of jet technology. 30 years later we'd landed men on the moon and today we have people routinely fly to outer space, super-sonic flight is common, and aircraft that can fly precision missions without any human control at all.
I don't think it's at all that hard to imagine computers and artificial intelligence eventually replacing even medical doctors and doing a far superior job when compared to what a human doctor could do. The computer would know almost instantly about the latest developments in medical science but the human doctor may not know about a development for years or maybe never at all. My personal doctor had no knowledge of the connection between Agent Orange and type 2 diabeties, for examply, until I brought it up a full 30 years after the medical science established the linkage.
No, I don't believe it should be hard to imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 30, 2014 17:55:21 GMT
Certainly, it is true that robots have been replacing humans for some time now, in some areas. (Just look at automobile manufacturing, for instance.) But your earlier insistence that even doctors would soon replaced by robots just went a bridge too far, in my opinion.
We already have robotic surgery where a doctor with a computer controls the robot. It's not hard to imagine that soon the computer can perform the surgery unassisted when the computers know far more than the doctor could ever possibly know.
www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007339.htm
We're also seeing significant breakthroughs in artificial intelligence being used in medical diagnosis.
groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/ftp/psz/SchwartzAnnals.html
Advancements in computer capability has been exponential over the last 40 years and will continue to be into the future. Think of how far we've come since the beginning of the "computer age" and it becomes hard to imagine what will happen in the next 30 years or more.
Compare it to the development of aviation technology. By analogy we're probably at the WW II stage of aviation accomplishment where we were still basically limited to propeller driven aircraft with just the first hits of jet technology. 30 years later we'd landed men on the moon and today we have people routinely fly to outer space, super-sonic flight is common, and aircraft that can fly precision missions without any human control at all.
I don't think it's at all that hard to imagine computers and artificial intelligence eventually replacing even medical doctors and doing a far superior job when compared to what a human doctor could do. The computer would know almost instantly about the latest developments in medical science but the human doctor may not know about a development for years or maybe never at all. My personal doctor had no knowledge of the connection between Agent Orange and type 2 diabeties, for examply, until I brought it up a full 30 years after the medical science established the linkage.
No, I don't believe it should be hard to imagine.
I can certainly imagine doctors being assisted by robots to an even greater degree than is already the case. But a future in which the creator is replaced by the creation, and in which the creator is subordinated to the creation--that sounds like a cross between Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 31, 2014 10:06:48 GMT
I can certainly imagine doctors being assisted by robots to an even greater degree than is already the case. But a future in which the creator is replaced by the creation, and in which the creator is subordinated to the creation--that sounds like a cross between Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
That artificial intelligence will become "smarter" than any human and cummulatively more knowledgeable than all of mankind and that robots will be able to perform any tasks that man can do and many we can't is a given. It's going to happen.
That does not imply we will become subordinate to the machines. That, I believe, is simply science fiction. The AI will be compartmentized based upon applicational needs.
It does mean that human labor and intelligence that creates goods and provides services will become obsolete though but even that doesn't imply that human endeavors will cease. Human endeavors such as the arts and philosophy will thrive. A machine can make a tea cup but it can't make a Tom Coleman (a famous potter) tea cup. A machine can paint a house but it can't paint a Picasso. A machine can raise or catch fish but it can't experience the joy of "fish on" that a fly-fisherman feels.
As I noted though this does introduce the problem we're experiencing today and that will only get worse when it comes to the "economy" because only the wealthy can afford the machines and the machines are making human labor that provides us with personal income required for survival obsolete. Every machine that replaces a worker gives the owner of the machine the wealth that the worker would have created with their labor.
In a very real sense we have a "redistribution of wealth" from the workers to the wealthy because the machines are taking the labor away from the workers.
What I see is that we need to address this is by re-visiting the arguments for the "Natural Right of Property" that John Locke established. The machine does not establish "human sweat equity" nor does the machine have a "Right of Survival" and that was the foundation of Locke's arguments.
That is not an easy task to do. Locke's arguments were so concise, logical, and well established that to modify them to incorporate an understanding of machines and AI that initially provided a multipler effect to human labor and that is now replacing human labor completely is perhaps the most challenging task I can imagine. It is a task that needs to be done and like any task the first challenge is simply accepting that the task must be done and then to start working on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 1, 2014 0:24:08 GMT
I can certainly imagine doctors being assisted by robots to an even greater degree than is already the case. But a future in which the creator is replaced by the creation, and in which the creator is subordinated to the creation--that sounds like a cross between Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
That artificial intelligence will become "smarter" than any human and cummulatively more knowledgeable than all of mankind and that robots will be able to perform any tasks that man can do and many we can't is a given. It's going to happen.
That does not imply we will become subordinate to the machines. That, I believe, is simply science fiction. The AI will be compartmentized based upon applicational needs.
It does mean that human labor and intelligence that creates goods and provides services will become obsolete though but even that doesn't imply that human endeavors will cease. Human endeavors such as the arts and philosophy will thrive. A machine can make a tea cup but it can't make a Tom Coleman (a famous potter) tea cup. A machine can paint a house but it can't paint a Picasso. A machine can raise or catch fish but it can't experience the joy of "fish on" that a fly-fisherman feels.
As I noted though this does introduce the problem we're experiencing today and that will only get worse when it comes to the "economy" because only the wealthy can afford the machines and the machines are making human labor that provides us with personal income required for survival obsolete. Every machine that replaces a worker gives the owner of the machine the wealth that the worker would have created with their labor.
In a very real sense we have a "redistribution of wealth" from the workers to the wealthy because the machines are taking the labor away from the workers.
What I see is that we need to address this is by re-visiting the arguments for the "Natural Right of Property" that John Locke established. The machine does not establish "human sweat equity" nor does the machine have a "Right of Survival" and that was the foundation of Locke's arguments.
That is not an easy task to do. Locke's arguments were so concise, logical, and well established that to modify them to incorporate an understanding of machines and AI that initially provided a multipler effect to human labor and that is now replacing human labor completely is perhaps the most challenging task I can imagine. It is a task that needs to be done and like any task the first challenge is simply accepting that the task must be done and then to start working on it.
Well, I certainly do not "accept" your view that just about all human endeavors (except for "the arts and philosophy") are about to become "obsolete." To reiterate, there are some manual-labor jobs that have been replaced by machines--and this is especially true of low-skill jobs--but to extrapolate from that that all jobs, outside of "the arts and philosophy," are about to go the way of the brontosaurus (or apatosaurus, as it has more recently been termed), is a bit too avant-garde for my tastes... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 1, 2014 10:54:36 GMT
Well, I certainly do not "accept" your view that just about all human endeavors (except for "the arts and philosophy") are about to become "obsolete." To reiterate, there are some manual-labor jobs that have been replaced by machines--and this is especially true of low-skill jobs--but to extrapolate from that that all jobs, outside of "the arts and philosophy," are about to go the way of the brontosaurus (or apatosaurus, as it has more recently been termed), is a bit too avant-garde for my tastes...
Low skilled jobs? I hardly see how replacing highly trained mechanical engineers in aerospace with computers is addressing "low skilled" jobs. I hardly see how replacing a surgeons with a robot to perform delegate surgeries is addressing low skilled jobs. I hardly see how replacing advanced mathmaticians with a computer is addressing low skilled jobs. I hardly see how computer-based instruction in colleges replacing college professors is addressing a low skilled job. Millions of most advanced jobs there are have already been replaced by artificial intelligence today.
My expertise is in aerospace design and manufacturing and the work of 100 aerospace engineers that was required in the 1970's is now accomplished by a team of perhaps 8-10 engineers with highly advanced computers doing most of the work. Machining of parts that used to take a highly trained machinist to accomplish are now produced by a single mill/turn center where the operator is little more than a material loader and an "emergency shut-off switch" if the machine malfunctions. The "machine and computer" do all of the actual "thinking and work" that was once the responsibility of the machinist. The "machine operators" now oversee two or more "machines" because the machines are doing all of the thinking and all of the work. In many enterprises there isn't even an "machine operator" anymore because they are obsolute based upon current technology.
The more advanced the AI becomes the more advanced the jobs they replace. I've been personally watching it happen over the last 40 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 2, 2014 0:46:40 GMT
Well, I certainly do not "accept" your view that just about all human endeavors (except for "the arts and philosophy") are about to become "obsolete." To reiterate, there are some manual-labor jobs that have been replaced by machines--and this is especially true of low-skill jobs--but to extrapolate from that that all jobs, outside of "the arts and philosophy," are about to go the way of the brontosaurus (or apatosaurus, as it has more recently been termed), is a bit too avant-garde for my tastes...
Low skilled jobs? I hardly see how replacing highly trained mechanical engineers in aerospace with computers is addressing "low skilled" jobs. I hardly see how replacing a surgeons with a robot to perform delegate surgeries is addressing low skilled jobs. I hardly see how replacing advanced mathmaticians with a computer is addressing low skilled jobs. I hardly see how computer-based instruction in colleges replacing college professors is addressing a low skilled job. Millions of most advanced jobs there are have already been replaced by artificial intelligence today.
My expertise is in aerospace design and manufacturing and the work of 100 aerospace engineers that was required in the 1970's is now accomplished by a team of perhaps 8-10 engineers with highly advanced computers doing most of the work. Machining of parts that used to take a highly trained machinist to accomplish are now produced by a single mill/turn center where the operator is little more than a material loader and an "emergency shut-off switch" if the machine malfunctions. The "machine and computer" do all of the actual "thinking and work" that was once the responsibility of the machinist. The "machine operators" now oversee two or more "machines" because the machines are doing all of the thinking and all of the work. In many enterprises there isn't even an "machine operator" anymore because they are obsolute based upon current technology.
The more advanced the AI becomes the more advanced the jobs they replace. I've been personally watching it happen over the last 40 years.
I really cannot address the matter of the effects of robotics on the aerospace industry--you are far better informed about that than I am--but I shall just note that robots have certainly not made doctors obsolete. (Just yesterday, I saw my primary-care physician for my semi-annual physical--or "wellness exam," as it is now termed--and she did not use a robot. And I had minor surgery just this past January--unassisted, so far as I am aware, by a robot.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 2, 2014 2:02:31 GMT
I really cannot address the matter of the effects of robotics on the aerospace industry--you are far better informed about that than I am--but I shall just note that robots have certainly not made doctors obsolete. (Just yesterday, I saw my primary-care physician for my semi-annual physical--or "wellness exam," as it is now termed--and she did not use a robot. And I had minor surgery just this past January--unassisted, so far as I am aware, by a robot.)
I'm not implying that medical doctors are already obsolete but when a robot can perform a surgery that a human can't (which is what robotic surgeries are today) then they can certainly perform one that a surgeon can perform in the future. We also have computers performing medical diagnostics today and that is certainly going to increase in the future.
So no, weren't not there yet nor did I mean to imply that but we're unquestionably headed in that directing and the only real question is "when" and not "if" we will get there.
Once again I don't look negatively on this except how in impacts human labor and thought which is being replaced with mechanical technology and artificial intelligence. How do we, mankind, adapt to take full advantage of these advances? How can we all benefit from them? When we answer those questions then the future becomes very rosy.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 2, 2014 23:20:43 GMT
I really cannot address the matter of the effects of robotics on the aerospace industry--you are far better informed about that than I am--but I shall just note that robots have certainly not made doctors obsolete. (Just yesterday, I saw my primary-care physician for my semi-annual physical--or "wellness exam," as it is now termed--and she did not use a robot. And I had minor surgery just this past January--unassisted, so far as I am aware, by a robot.)
I'm not implying that medical doctors are already obsolete but when a robot can perform a surgery that a human can't (which is what robotic surgeries are today) then they can certainly perform one that a surgeon can perform in the future. We also have computers performing medical diagnostics today and that is certainly going to increase in the future.
So no, weren't not there yet nor did I mean to imply that but we're unquestionably headed in that directing and the only real question is "when" and not "if" we will get there.
Once again I don't look negatively on this except how in impacts human labor and thought which is being replaced with mechanical technology and artificial intelligence. How do we, mankind, adapt to take full advantage of these advances? How can we all benefit from them? When we answer those questions then the future becomes very rosy.
There was a 1996 book by Jeremy Rifkin entitled The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era. I have not yet read it--the book that I am now reading is vintage 1993--but, judging from its title, I rather suspect that it dovetails (loosely, at least) with your own thesis on this matter. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 3, 2014 12:08:51 GMT
There was a 1996 book by Jeremy Rifkin entitled The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era. I have not yet read it--the book that I am now reading is vintage 1993--but, judging from its title, I rather suspect that it dovetails (loosely, at least) with your own thesis on this matter.
The title does imply that.
What I see is perhaps the greatest blessing or the greatest curse. The technology and advancements in AI promises a world where the drudgery of labor no longer exists and that would be a blessing but if it doesn't benefit all of mankind and instead only benefits the top 1% driving everyone else into poverty then it is a curse.
So how do we address this and turn it into the greatest blessing for mankind in history? The only way I know how to begin to address it is by re-addressing the Right of Property that existed in nature based upon the labor of the person (i.e. sweat equity).
The "machine" that replaces the labor of the person is, in a real sense, stealing the labor of the person (i.e. the person's property) and giving that to the owner of the machine.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 3, 2014 21:23:50 GMT
There was a 1996 book by Jeremy Rifkin entitled The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era. I have not yet read it--the book that I am now reading is vintage 1993--but, judging from its title, I rather suspect that it dovetails (loosely, at least) with your own thesis on this matter.
The title does imply that.
What I see is perhaps the greatest blessing or the greatest curse. The technology and advancements in AI promises a world where the drudgery of labor no longer exists and that would be a blessing but if it doesn't benefit all of mankind and instead only benefits the top 1% driving everyone else into poverty then it is a curse.
So how do we address this and turn it into the greatest blessing for mankind in history? The only way I know how to begin to address it is by re-addressing the Right of Property that existed in nature based upon the labor of the person (i.e. sweat equity).
The "machine" that replaces the labor of the person is, in a real sense, stealing the labor of the person (i.e. the person's property) and giving that to the owner of the machine.
How might "address[ing]" the matter of "the Right of Property" help anyone who has had his (or her) job displaced by a machine? I continue to believe that this would almost certainly never occur on such a massive scale as you have suggested, as there would be almost no one left with enough money to purchase anything--either goods or services. (Perhaps for one generation, there would be a few--the so-called Trust Fund Babies--but that is not a very large percentage of the overall population. And by the next generation, even these would disappear.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 4, 2014 11:18:36 GMT
The title does imply that.
What I see is perhaps the greatest blessing or the greatest curse. The technology and advancements in AI promises a world where the drudgery of labor no longer exists and that would be a blessing but if it doesn't benefit all of mankind and instead only benefits the top 1% driving everyone else into poverty then it is a curse.
So how do we address this and turn it into the greatest blessing for mankind in history? The only way I know how to begin to address it is by re-addressing the Right of Property that existed in nature based upon the labor of the person (i.e. sweat equity).
The "machine" that replaces the labor of the person is, in a real sense, stealing the labor of the person (i.e. the person's property) and giving that to the owner of the machine.
How might "address[ing]" the matter of "the Right of Property" help anyone who has had his (or her) job displaced by a machine? I continue to believe that this would almost certainly never occur on such a massive scale as you have suggested, as there would be almost no one left with enough money to purchase anything--either goods or services. (Perhaps for one generation, there would be a few--the so-called Trust Fund Babies--but that is not a very large percentage of the overall population. And by the next generation, even these would disappear.)
I'm not exactly sure how addressing the Right of Property will resolve the issue but that is where I see the problem. John Locke's arguments were based upon "sweat equity" (i.e. the labor of the Person) establishing the Right of Property but machines don't provide "sweat equity" as they actually reduce or eliminate it completely.
When I look at Locke's arguments, for examply, his proposition is that a person can only establish a very limited ownership of land because they can only expend a limited amount of "sweat" related to the land. I would use the example of "40 acres and a mule" as establishing the maximum amount of land that one "person" can own because that's about all of the land that they can "mix their labor" with unassisted (although the mule did assist in that labor). Locke's arguments also established that the person had to keep re-investing their "sweat" to maintain ownership. It wasn't based upon working the land for one year and then owning it forever.
A "machine" (today's modern tractors) can plow a thousand acres and doesn't techically even require an operator and there is no "sweat equity" involved at all. Locke's arguments don't address this problem because it didn't exist in the 17th Century.
You present the problem for the very wealthy that they need to address which is the flip side of the "no jobs" argument. It is beneficial to both the worker and the owner of enterprise to seek a solution to the problem. Unfortunately the "wealthy" don't seem to care at this point because there remain enough "poor people" to purchase the goods and services that the owners of enterprise provide. We're still stuck in the "screw the workers for profit" mold of capitalism because the "owners" can get away with it. They're looking very short term in trying to accumulate as much wealth today as possible without caring about the future. In the end it will bite them in the ass, which is what you correctly point out, but right now they really don't care.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 4, 2014 20:46:27 GMT
How might "address[ing]" the matter of "the Right of Property" help anyone who has had his (or her) job displaced by a machine? I continue to believe that this would almost certainly never occur on such a massive scale as you have suggested, as there would be almost no one left with enough money to purchase anything--either goods or services. (Perhaps for one generation, there would be a few--the so-called Trust Fund Babies--but that is not a very large percentage of the overall population. And by the next generation, even these would disappear.)
I'm not exactly sure how addressing the Right of Property will resolve the issue but that is where I see the problem. John Locke's arguments were based upon "sweat equity" (i.e. the labor of the Person) establishing the Right of Property but machines don't provide "sweat equity" as they actually reduce or eliminate it completely.
When I look at Locke's arguments, for examply, his proposition is that a person can only establish a very limited ownership of land because they can only expend a limited amount of "sweat" related to the land. I would use the example of "40 acres and a mule" as establishing the maximum amount of land that one "person" can own because that's about all of the land that they can "mix their labor" with unassisted (although the mule did assist in that labor). Locke's arguments also established that the person had to keep re-investing their "sweat" to maintain ownership. It wasn't based upon working the land for one year and then owning it forever.
A "machine" (today's modern tractors) can plow a thousand acres and doesn't techically even require an operator and there is no "sweat equity" involved at all. Locke's arguments don't address this problem because it didn't exist in the 17th Century.
You present the problem for the very wealthy that they need to address which is the flip side of the "no jobs" argument. It is beneficial to both the worker and the owner of enterprise to seek a solution to the problem. Unfortunately the "wealthy" don't seem to care at this point because there remain enough "poor people" to purchase the goods and services that the owners of enterprise provide. We're still stuck in the "screw the workers for profit" mold of capitalism because the "owners" can get away with it. They're looking very short term in trying to accumulate as much wealth today as possible without caring about the future. In the end it will bite them in the ass, which is what you correctly point out, but right now they really don't care.
I agree that too many people nowadays think short-term. I disagree, however, with your equating a businessperson's (quite reasonable) desire to maximize his (or her) profits with a "screw the workers" mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 5, 2014 8:59:39 GMT
I agree that too many people nowadays think short-term. I disagree, however, with your equating a businessperson's (quite reasonable) desire to maximize his (or her) profits with a "screw the workers" mindset.
Personally I believe there is a fundamental problem with the philosophy of "maximizing profits" to begin with as I would contend that "maximizing income" based upon a mutually beneficial relationship between the customer(s), worker(s), and the owner(s) of the enterprise is far more important.
|
|
