09 Apr '12 03:48>
Are we/they resonsible for creating unemployment. I wouldn't generally limit the crisis to this feild alone, but it serves as an obvious target...perhaps we can explore other fields that affect this phenomenon as well.
Originally posted by joe shmoUm... What?
Are we/they resonsible for creating unemployment. I wouldn't generally limit the crisis to this feild alone, but it serves as an obvious target...perhaps we can explore other fields that affect this phenomenon as well.
Originally posted by googlefudgeDevelopers of technology in general remove jobs (or they shift jobs around in the system). For instance, a car wash down the street from me is fully automated, I'm not even certain if the is any actual persons that are in the facility during operating hours. Before the advent of the technology, that carwash would have employed 5-10 people. It seems to me that we are moving toward replacing the entire service industry with robots. hope thats enough context to get the ball rolling.
Um... What?
I think you need to expand on this because it's far from obvious [to me at least] what you are talking about.
In what way do you think engineers are responsible for creating unemployment?
And what crisis are you talking about?
Context, we need some.
Originally posted by joe shmoNow, instead, you have 10-20 (B.S. number alert) people designing car washes or servicing and maintaining that car wash, and peoples' cars get washed in less than half the time.
Developers of technology in general remove jobs (or they shift jobs around in the system). For instance, a car wash down the street from me is fully automated, I'm not even certain if the is any actual persons that are in the facility during operating hours. Before the advent of the technology, that carwash would have employed 5-10 people. It seems to m ...[text shortened]... ng the entire service industry with robots. hope thats enough context to get the ball rolling.
Originally posted by joe shmoEventually we would all be replaced by machines which we cannot compete with in the job-market because machines do not even ask for the minimum wage nor need sleep nor go on strike. Then there would be almost 100% unemployment. Eventually A.I. machines will even be employed as politicians after being voted in by voters that finally got it into their thick skulls that the average human politician is stupid.
Developers of technology in general remove jobs (or they shift jobs around in the system). For instance, a car wash down the street from me is fully automated, I'm not even certain if the is any actual persons that are in the facility during operating hours. Before the advent of the technology, that carwash would have employed 5-10 people. It seems to m ...[text shortened]... ng the entire service industry with robots. hope thats enough context to get the ball rolling.
Originally posted by googlefudgeMaybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but I suspect he's talking about Shiller's deflection of blame from the financial sector to IT.
Um... What?
I think you need to expand on this because it's far from obvious [to me at least] what you are talking about.
In what way do you think engineers are responsible for creating unemployment?
And what crisis are you talking about?
Context, we need some.
Originally posted by joe shmoThis is the luddite fallacy.
Are we/they resonsible for creating unemployment. I wouldn't generally limit the crisis to this feild alone, but it serves as an obvious target...perhaps we can explore other fields that affect this phenomenon as well.
Originally posted by WoodPushI did wonder if this was the direction he was going in but the argument is fallacious.
This is the luddite fallacy.
Why has technological innovation not created unemployment in past major technological advances, but is the cause of long term unemployment now? Take for example the industrial revolution?
How have we been able to sustain two centuries of constant productivity improvements without creating unemployment?
Originally posted by forkedknightThats why I added that it may just shift jobs to a more technical side...
Now, instead, you have 10-20 (B.S. number alert) people designing car washes or servicing and maintaining that car wash, and peoples' cars get washed in less than half the time.
I fail to see the problem.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI disagree. I think it is quite clear that in many cases, technology replaces jobs with machines and does not necessarily create as many jobs as it takes away.
Technological development does remove jobs, but creates or allows for new ones.
....
Indeed the science and technology sector is creating jobs not destroying them.
Originally posted by WoodPushIt is still possible that technology replaced jobs. Computers were introduced in the 90's and 2000's. Most companies tend to allow a bloated work force during the good times. In 2008 due to the financial problems, companies shed all excess employees (that they might have had due to new technology such as computers). When finances become better they simply don't re-employ because they don't need to.
I don't think the high unemployment we're seeing is short term or caused by new technology. What new technology was introduced that caused unemployment to jump in 2008?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think you missed the part of the sentence that went "...creates or ALLOWS for new ones..."
I disagree. I think it is quite clear that in many cases, technology replaces jobs with machines and does not necessarily create as many jobs as it takes away.
I think the fact that there is always room for job creation elsewhere is a separate (though often overlooked) issue.
Originally posted by googlefudgeBut that seems rather ridiculous in context. You are just saying that unemployed people are available to work.
I think you missed the part of the sentence that went "...creates or ALLOWS for new ones..."
Obviously the introduction of mechanised farming removed huge numbers of jobs from farming.
However that meant that there were now people available to work in the factories making stuff.