Fast food automation...

[Kshartle]

BTW evidence from the current economy is always extremely shaky because economic truths are distorted by misallocations that would not occur absent force.

I hope we can discuss civilly, (I'm genuinely quite curious), why is that evidence "shaky" if that is our reality? I'm genuinely trying to learn your point of view. To my mind, the evidence from the economy is reality (albeit distorted). When these "economic truths" are distorted, they are no longer "true," by definition.

We have millions of unemployed. Tens of millions. This would be completely impossible 200 years ago because human productivity was not sufficient to provide the food clothing and shelter neccessary for so many unemployed.

Now the economic truth that people work to their own benefit would suggest it impossible for tens of millions to live off the sweat and labor of others. Why would voluntary sloth and non-productive work that no one values (hordes of government work and the like) be tolerated? It would certainly not be, except there is a group of people who have all the guns and dungeons. They promise to steal for the voluntarily unemployed. Their theft and "redistribution" of productivity makes this possible. It also makes us all poorer because it created incentive to not be productive and disincentive to produce.

This disrupts how things actually work and trains us to distrust actual economic principles (like technology always being a net positive).

[Pointedstick]

We have millions of unemployed. Tens of millions. This would be completely impossible 200 years ago because human productivity was not sufficient to provide the food clothing and shelter neccessary for so many unemployed.

Now the economic truth that people work to their own benefit would suggest it impossible for tens of millions to live off the sweat and labor of others. Why would voluntary sloth and non-productive work that no one values (hordes of government work and the like) be tolerated? It would certainly be true, except there is a group of people who have all the guns and dungeons. They promise to steal for the voluntarily unemployed. Their theft and "redistribution" of productivity makes this possible. It also makes us all poorer because it created incentive to not be productive and disincentive to produce.

This disrupts how things actually work and trains us to distrust actual economic principles (like technology always being a net positive).

Other thread please. Let's not get side-tracked here.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... overnment/

[Kshartle]

We have millions of unemployed. Tens of millions. This would be completely impossible 200 years ago because human productivity was not sufficient to provide the food clothing and shelter neccessary for so many unemployed.

Now the economic truth that people work to their own benefit would suggest it impossible for tens of millions to live off the sweat and labor of others. Why would voluntary sloth and non-productive work that no one values (hordes of government work and the like) be tolerated? It would certainly be true, except there is a group of people who have all the guns and dungeons. They promise to steal for the voluntarily unemployed. Their theft and "redistribution" of productivity makes this possible. It also makes us all poorer because it created incentive to not be productive and disincentive to produce.

This disrupts how things actually work and trains us to distrust actual economic principles (like technology always being a net positive).

Other thread please. Let's not get side-tracked here.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... overnment/

Got it, I was already replying. With civility. 

[MediumTex]

If the most profitable way of operating a factory was to screen children at age 7 for IQ and select low IQ children and pay them $1.50 an hour, what would be wrong with that?

How about slavery?  By what authority would a government confiscate the private property slave workforce of an entrepreneur?

If the meddling of the government in the economy is so destructive, how do we explain the astonishing and explosive growth of the U.S. economy in the 20th century?  The government has been meddling in the economy more or less continuously for over 100 years, and yet the U.S. has created vast productive capacity and wealth over this period. 

[Kshartle]

If the most profitable way of operating a factory was to screen children at age 7 for IQ and select low IQ children and pay them $1.50 an hour, what would be wrong with that?

(without a hint of snark) I assume this is rehtorical. If not, please correct me.

How about slavery?  By what authority would a government confiscate the private property slave workforce of an entrepreneur?

By the authority vested in a theif with a gun. That is to say...by no legitimate authority.

If the meddling of the government in the economy is so destructive, how do we explain the astonishing and explosive growth of the U.S. economy in the 20th century?  The government has been meddling in the economy more or less continuously for over 100 years, and yet the U.S. has created vast productive capacity and wealth over this period.

If it's provable that force gives us what we don't want (which is self-proving since we choose what we want, it's not forced), then the astonishing and explosive growth is in spite of and not because of the violent theft and force employed by the government. It's because despite the government's immoral meddling, this was still the most free time in human history. What humans acheive with even a semblence of freedom and the right to a decent portion of the benefits is amazing.

[doodle]

Kshartle,

Lets say that we have a huge advancement over the next year in automation. Suddenly 40 million Americans (cooks, janitors, drivers, cashiers etc) are displaced from their jobs and have no skills that the economy requires. These people are honest and hardworking individuals but they aren't blessed with a great deal of creative intelligence. They also have trouble reading past an 8th grade level and they get easily confused with basic math problems.

What do you tell these people to do? Should they just start eating bugs? Should they just move out to the national parks and start living like cavemen? What do you recommend?

[doodle]

Also realize the economic effect of this on the wealthy capital owning producers. Suddenly, people that were able to generate an income and rent apartments, buy iphones, and maybe own a car suddenly have no income to consume anything. The producer suddenly finds himself with less demand for his products.

While it was to his individual benefit to replace his workforce with cheap robot technology, when everyone follows suit and does the same thing there are no longer any customers.

[MediumTex]

If it's provable that force gives us what we don't want (which is self-proving since we choose what we want, it's not forced), then the astonishing and explosive growth is in spite of and not because of the violent theft and force employed by the government.

I understand that this is dogma in Austrian economics and I tend to agree with it in theory.

However, the idea that the U.S. would have been even more wealthy with less government involvement in the economy in the 20th century seems a little fishy. 

What seems to happen when you have these periods of reduced government involvement in the economy, such as the 1920s and the 1980s, what you get are vast accumulations of wealth in the hands of relatively few people who then engage in speculative activities that can damage the whole economy when they turn sour.

I look at periods of high taxes on accumulations of wealth such as we saw in the 1940s and 1950s and the vibrant economic growth of those periods, and it's hard to reconcile that with the idea that the economy would have been better off without those policies.

I know that flies in the face of many principles of Austrian economics, and it is also challenges many of my own beliefs, but that's what actually happened and it's worth exploring to understand why it happened.

I think that ultimately the narrative of "less government = more economic output = more wealth = higher standards of living" may be simplifying things a bit too much.

What would a slave who also happened to be a fan of Austrian economics say to the bureaucrat who came to free him?

[Mdraf]

Kshartle,

Lets say that we have a huge advancement over the next year in automation. Suddenly 40 million Americans (cooks, janitors, drivers, cashiers etc) are displaced from their jobs and have no skills that the economy requires. These people are honest and hardworking individuals but they aren't blessed with a great deal of creative intelligence. They also have trouble reading past an 8th grade level and they get easily confused with basic math problems.

What do you tell these people to do? Should they just start eating bugs? Should they just move out to the national parks and start living like cavemen? What do you recommend?

Changes don't happen abruptly so there is a period of adaptation. For example how many on this forum were in the office workplace environment 40 years ago?  What happened to the multitude of secretaries who took dictation in shorthand and then went to type the letter, gave the draft back to the manager for correction and then re-typed the final version ?

[Pointedstick]

What happened to the multitude of secretaries who took dictation in shorthand and then went to type the letter, gave the draft back to the manager for correction and then re-typed the final version ?

My grandmother was such a person. When widely-learned typing skills and then finally computers rendered her labor obsolete, she found that she had no marketable skills and could not find another job. It didn't help that the was a terribly difficult person to get along with, but she just wasn't going to change. She retired, spent down her savings, and died alone and penniless in a death house (nursing home).

[Kshartle]

I understand that this is dogma in Austrian economics and I tend to agree with it in theory.

Either it's provable with logic and reason or not. I am fine with true dogma. Not an austrian over here, don't even really know what that means.

However, the idea that the U.S. would have been even more wealthy with less government involvement in the economy in the 20th century seems a little fishy. 

We have been trained from birth that the government makes us free. The opposite is true.
That's why logic and reason should be our guide, not dogma taught since kindergarden.

What seems to happen when you have these periods of reduced government involvement in the economy, such as the 1920s and the 1980s, what you get are vast accumulations of wealth in the hands of relatively few people who then engage in speculative activities that can damage the whole economy when they turn sour.

The 20s were a period of bubbles blown up by the violent countiefiting of the money supply. This was more involvement not less. You must see the gun in the room and it's effects. Violence and theft consolidates wealth. Free and voluntary exchage grows it and spreads it around.

I think that ultimately the narrative of "less government = more economic output = more wealth = higher standards of living" may be simplifying things a bit too much.

Let's call it "less violence/force/theft = more economic output = more wealth = higher standards of living" then.

What would a slave who also happened to be a fan of Austrian economics say to the bureaucrat who came to free him?

"Thanks I'm tired of working for that guy who takes 90% of my output. Ohhh you want only 50%? Ok it's a deal.......a55hole"

Totally guessing on the last one.

[Mdraf]

What happened to the multitude of secretaries who took dictation in shorthand and then went to type the letter, gave the draft back to the manager for correction and then re-typed the final version ?

My grandmother was such a person. When widely-learned typing skills and then finally computers rendered her labor obsolete, she found that she had no marketable skills and could not find another job. It didn't help that the was a terribly difficult person to get along with, but she just wasn't going to change. She retired, spent down her savings, and died alone and penniless in a death house (nursing home).

I'm sorry. Same thing happened to my mother although with a better ending

[doodle]

Kshartle,

Lets say that we have a huge advancement over the next year in automation. Suddenly 40 million Americans (cooks, janitors, drivers, cashiers etc) are displaced from their jobs and have no skills that the economy requires. These people are honest and hardworking individuals but they aren't blessed with a great deal of creative intelligence. They also have trouble reading past an 8th grade level and they get easily confused with basic math problems.

What do you tell these people to do? Should they just start eating bugs? Should they just move out to the national parks and start living like cavemen? What do you recommend?

Changes don't happen abruptly so there is a period of adaptation. For example how many on this forum were in the office workplace environment 40 years ago?  What happened to the multitude of secretaries who took dictation in shorthand and then went to type the letter, gave the draft back to the manager for correction and then re-typed the final version ?

What does this graph indicate to you?

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/ ... son12.html

[Kshartle]

What happened to the multitude of secretaries who took dictation in shorthand and then went to type the letter, gave the draft back to the manager for correction and then re-typed the final version ?

My grandmother was such a person. When widely-learned typing skills and then finally computers rendered her labor obsolete, she found that she had no marketable skills and could not find another job. It didn't help that the was a terribly difficult person to get along with, but she just wasn't going to change. She retired, spent down her savings, and died alone and penniless in a death house (nursing home).

I'm sorry. Same thing happened to my mother although with a better ending

Sorry, this is about automation. No more responses from me on anything other than automation. It's difficult to resist when asked direct questions.

[Pointedstick]

Sorry, this is about automation. No more responses from me on anything other than automation. It's difficult to resist when asked direct questions.

I think it's relevant. She was a direct victim of automation. And I, as a kid who learned how to use computers growing up, was a beneficiary.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't ignore the victims at the same time that we should celebrate the benefits on a macro level.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

Lets say that we have a huge advancement over the next year in automation. Suddenly 40 million Americans (cooks, janitors, drivers, cashiers etc) are displaced from their jobs and have no skills that the economy requires. These people are honest and hardworking individuals but they aren't blessed with a great deal of creative intelligence. They also have trouble reading past an 8th grade level and they get easily confused with basic math problems.

What do you tell these people to do? Should they just start eating bugs? Should they just move out to the national parks and start living like cavemen? What do you recommend?

Changes don't happen abruptly so there is a period of adaptation. For example how many on this forum were in the office workplace environment 40 years ago?  What happened to the multitude of secretaries who took dictation in shorthand and then went to type the letter, gave the draft back to the manager for correction and then re-typed the final version ?

Yes the scenario is unrealistic. Industries employing millions with millions more waiting to join don't disapear in a flash. The price that people are willing to pay for the labor drops which signals the market to reduce the supply of workers for it. Sometimes the prices drop faster and sometimes it's too fast for a small few.

I hope they have a back up plan. I hope they have loved ones who will help them. If they have demonstrated value to others they will be loved and will not starve. Empowering people to steal for them is not the solution though (I know no one has stated this exact wording but I sense the implication).

[doodle]

Kshartle,

What does this graph indicate to you?

[Kshartle]

Sorry, this is about automation. No more responses from me on anything other than automation. It's difficult to resist when asked direct questions.

I think it's relevant. She was a direct victim of automation. And I, as a kid who learned how to use computers growing up, was a beneficiary.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't ignore the victims at the same time that we should celebrate the benefits on a macro level.

Capitalism is the only moral system. It is the most compassionate system. The benefit of all the increased wealth is it's much less expensive to care for the needs of the needy.

Look at the tens of million who do not work and did not save. They do not starve. It's not because government redistributes although that's what the government would like everyone to think. It's because the market is productive enough to provide for everyone with only part of the population working.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

What does this graph indicate to you?

Technology (mainly computers and the internent lately) is making humans extremely productive.

[doodle]

Kshartle,

What does this graph indicate to you?

Technology (mainly computers and the internent lately) is making humans extremely productive.

Yes, but notice how productivity has decoupled from employment. We are doing more with less. This is a problem when our economic system makes employment and a wage the only way possible to consume this increased production. If this trend continues you will have an economy with enormous productive capacity and half of the population unemployed and unable to purchase anything.

[MediumTex]

Kshartle,

I am well aware that everything the government does is backed by the implicit threat of violence.

I have posted about this idea for years and I find the coercive nature of government deeply distasteful.

I'm just trying to look at the problem of displaced workers more broadly than just saying that the government should have no role in dealing with structural unemployment.

Once structural unemployment reaches a certain threshold (especially among the young) it begins to destabilize an entire society.  This is a point that really ought to be taken seriously.  I'm not arguing for more government in any sphere of life.  What I am arguing is that structural unemployment ought not be ignored because it can have far more harmful effects than just a few people living in poverty.

[doodle]

Kshartle,

What you are saying is that in the future we will have the capacity to produce a lot of things, but we will constrain that production of things because many people are not capable of contributing to it. Those that are not capable of contributing because they were not born with the mental capacity to do so, will just be left out in the cold to die.

Have you seen the movie Elysium? I think it is a pretty good picture of what a world run according to your philosophies would turn into...a polarized hell hole.

[Kshartle]

We are doing more with less. This is a problem when our economic system makes employment and a wage the only way possible to consume this increased production. If this trend continues you will have an economy with enormous productive capacity and half of the population unemployed and unable to purchase anything.

People are not unemployed because there's nothing to do. They're unemployed because the gun in the room either prevents someone from employing them at an economical wage or they are better off getting stolen handouts.

Getting more by doing less is what makes our lives better than our parents, grandparents....cave men....etc.

Understand the principles and it becomes very clear.

[Pointedstick]

They're unemployed because the gun in the room either prevents someone from employing them at an economical wage or they are better off getting stolen handouts.

Are you so sure about that? Let's imagine that I am a business owner and there is no government, but everything else about our present society is the same. So no minimum wages, no payroll tax, no unemployment insurance tax, no obamacare health insurance mandate, etc.

What am I going to employ someone with low IQ, little creativity, and few skills to do? Wouldn't it be so much easier to just get a machine that almost always works, never complains, demands no wage, has no personality, and so on and so forth?

Why would I bother to employ a secretary if software can do the job better? What would be the point of employing shipping managers if I could buy a pick-and-place machine that worked 100-times faster and never made mistakes?

[Kshartle]

I'm just trying to look at the problem of displaced workers more broadly than just saying that the governmentviolence/coercion/theft should have no role in dealing with structural unemployment.

Is this a more clear way of defining your position? This is what I hear and it sounds like a contracdiction against basic economic principles as well as agreed upon effects of said violence/coercion/theft.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. This is very possible. Perhaps the principles are not agreed upon and I haven't done a good job in demonstrating their truthfulness.