You guys afraid of Luddites when automation destroys everybodies jobs and plunges society into depression, chaos...

Automation will make everything nearly-free. If I don't need to pay someone to deliver my food, why would I need to earn money?

It started a process that took this long (though probably longer) to come to fruition. Think about what the ultimate aim of industrial technology is. It is to do away with work.

i think i heard it once in a youtube vid but
you are not important enough to have a drone sent out for you.
drones are used for more serious things, same thing with the space elevator. its just not useful to the average person

>You are not important enough to hold a complicated computer machine that used to take up an entire room in the palm of your hand

You don't realize that managerial positions require far more work than whatever you're doing right now. You don't have time to spend all day answering calls. That's why you pay someone to do it, otherwise you'd get no work done.

managers don't produce anything. they do business and this is why they should pick up the phone and not waste the company's money.

only something like a president should have a secretary because he is getting mindfucked all day long and its necessary to have an aid

>If I don't need to pay someone to deliver my food
Well that's a false premise, you still have to pay money for automated services. The drone deliveryboy costs money to build, maintain, power etc.

It's cheaper than hiring a human, but its not free and you'll still need to pay for it

Have you ever held a job higher than entry level in your life?

>people will no longer have to work to survive and afford nice things
>they'll riot because they love working so much
you're retarded

but working is human nature, what else will we do to occupy time?

well i worked alongside managers.
don't try to extended the meaning of "manager". they usually give you tough shit and that's about it. business skills aside

>philosophical "problem"
>Veeky Forums

Tell that to the hordes of unemployed people crowding into cities and living in the worst slums imaginable.

The fencing of the commons and industry ruining the artisans really did ruin a huge number of lives. Industrialization made things worse for a long time before things got better.

You really underestimate the greed and stupidity of humanity. It will never work.

>people will no longer have to work to survive and afford nice things.

People don't have to work, and people can survive on very little. But doing what you are saying requires taxes to be raised, which also doesn't have to happen. Strictly speaking.

What would end up happening is a bunch of people living in commie blocks with food stamps.

This was meant for this

I'm majoring in EE specifically as a mean to this end. I want to automate as many jobs as possible

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

>The Luddites were a group of English textile workers and weavers in the 19th century who destroyed weaving machinery as a form of protest. The group was protesting the use of machinery in a "fraudulent and deceitful manner" to get around standard labour practices.[1] Luddites feared that the time spent learning the skills of their craft would go to waste as machines would replace their role in the industry.[2] It is a misconception that the Luddites protested against the machinery itself in an attempt to halt progress of technology. However, the term has come to mean one opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general.[3] The Luddite movement began in Nottingham and culminated in a region-wide rebellion that lasted from 1811 to 1816. Mill owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was brutally suppressed with military force.

no because the ones opposing the automation mechanisms don't know how to shut them down

>You guys afraid of Luddites when automation destroys everybodies jobs and plunges society into depression, chaos, and anarchy?
t. someone who no knowledge of how economics works
Wow you're so smart! so why would a manager pay someone to provide that service for him? It cant be because he actually finds the service worthwhile?

Why arn't you CEO of a fortune 500 company with that innovation and money saving attitude!

seriously did Veeky Forums fail their economics classes?
this

well generally speaking managers are incompetant and have abusive relations with their workers. that's why 95% of all businesses don't last past 5 years.
so you make it sound like people in management are some kind of geniuses that know exactly what they are doing.

Startup business' don't have secretaries.

>t. someone who no knowledge of how economics works

Are you implying there were no immediate downsides to the industrial revolution that caused lots of misery to the disenfranchised? And are you aware that we live in a time of democracies, not authoritarian monarchies that can shut down anti-industrialization movements by using bullets? Are you aware the only reason Luddites never happened in the United States is because of the vast amounts of virgin land that people could move to when factories destroyed their livelihoods back home? Which doesn't exist anymore. Are you aware that people loosing their jobs in a climate of wealth consolidation is the primary motivation for voting in Trump? Are you aware that wealth consolidation is the cause for the Roman Republic falling to despotism via the Caesars? Do you think the price resources often derived from third world countries stays static and indefinite?

Are you that naive? Because your utopia fantasies are derived from Star Trek and not actual Human history.

t. someone who no knowledge of how economics works
t. whiny crybaby asking rhetorical questions as an argument in a subject he has no formal knowledge in

Loss of Jobs equates to that Job being outdated and it frees out labor for other jobs. thats why in the 1600's 5000 tonnes of copper mined was a lot while now its ~18 million. Imagine having a billion workers having mining with pick-axes because you didn't want to destroy their jobs. Yes boohoo people are unemployed, thats inefficiencies in the economy and they'll find work elsewhere.

Let me explain to you the phenomenon in Boom Boom math a la Robinson Cruesoe economics

I can produce 5 apples or 5 Bananas with time I allocate to work per day.
I decide to produce 4 apples and 1 Banana because thats how I maximize my utility function

Thus the market has 4 apples and 1 Banana

After 1 year I find that I can smack the tree with a Iron stick that I found which will allow me to produce 50% more in my time per day

Thus I will produce 6 Apples and 1.5 Bananas and that will be on the market for me to consume. I of course only consume 4 apples and 1 Banana so I could spend less time working in a day (less human labor needed) OR

Now lets get out of a RC economy and add a third good and another producer, wood for fire. my neighbor has firewood and will trade with me 2 apples and .5 a Banana a day for a day for firewood. Before I was not able to trade for this as I would starve but now due to the stick I now have

4 Apples 1 Banana 1 day of fire

Thus my total utility has increased.

Lets give a example for your whiny crybaby argument. My factory produces textiles at 10 units per unit of man-hour. The artisan produces textiles at 1 unit per unit of man-hour. The factory will ONLY drive down the cost of the good until it becomes uneconomical for the artisan to produce textiles. The factory does not arrive at the persons house and destroy their job. It literally just lowers the price.

>Democracies prevent violence being used to supress worker movements
So not only are you economically ignorant, but historically as well.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)

>Loss of Jobs equates to that Job being outdated and it frees out labor for other jobs.

What other jobs? How many more fast food employees do we need? Assuming fast food isn't automated too. What you are failing to take into consideration is that labor also is devalued if there is more people but less jobs overall. Your whole premise is built on new jobs replacing old jobs, but that is not the case. Less jobs exist and even fewer new jobs are replacing them. Just like how there is a whole let less horses now that automobiles have replaced most of the horses jobs, those horses didn't get new jobs when cars came about.

>Lets give a example for your whiny crybaby argument. My factory produces textiles at 10 units per unit of man-hour. The artisan produces textiles at 1 unit per unit of man-hour. The factory will ONLY drive down the cost of the good until it becomes uneconomical for the artisan to produce textiles. The factory does not arrive at the persons house and destroy their job. It literally just lowers the price.

Lack of scarcity won't give good profit margins if other factories lower their prices lower than yours. It would reach the point where nobody can sell any lower and stay in business. Cheep American clothes getting donated to Africa is preventing any domestic clothes industries from popping up there, because why bother? You can't make any money off of that, only lose it. We would have to literally collectivist the factories and have them be run by the state if that happens. All the while taxing people like you so that the unemployed masses can afford to live AND pay for all the aspects of the state.

>So not only are you economically ignorant, but historically as well.

I was referring more to governments being able to not listen to the general populace, rather than regular labor issues. This new wave of automation and AI is different because it effects the whole population rather than just segments of the working class.

> Just like how there is a whole let less horses now that automobiles have replaced most of the horses jobs, those horses didn't get new jobs when cars came about.
This example is just so damn retarded I don't even want to argue with you anymore.

>Lack of scarcity won't give good profit margins if other factories lower their prices lower than yours. It would reach the point where nobody can sell any lower and stay in business.
and its obvious you've literally never stepped foot in University economics class. Your retarded argument is addressed in Microeconomics 2.

please just take ONE economics class, JUST ONE

PLEASE

>This example is just so damn retarded I don't even want to argue with you anymore.

That is fittingly, not a counter argument. What, you think high-tech or artistic jobs will replace the jobs that have been erased? You want even more people taking STEM classes they have no chance at succeeding in? Everybody is going to be either an engineer or an Artist? They hell are you trying to say? What happens when the self driving car displaces truckers and everybody else who drives for a living? Are they going into IT?

>automation destroys everybodies jobs

I'm not arguing with you because you obviously have no economic education.

Intuition is a fools argument.

OK, not literally every-bodies jobs, just enough people to convince politicians to enact 'protectionist' policies.

>you obviously have no economic education.

Neither does the average voter, especially unemployed ones. Its a democracy, the collective is overlord of you and sets the tax policy and industry regulations. We just pulled out of the Paris accords because of this very issue we are talking. Its actually happening right now.

Goodbye unskilled labor!

I don't think you do have an answer.

I just want you to let you know you're arguing with feelings right now, aka arguing in the present for an argument that requires you to argue for the future.
>but but muh feelings are important!
OP said WHEN signifying a future occurrence

This is why people need education to be experts in a field. With your logic we wouldn't mind a car mechanic being head of the EPA because he can say "Uprooting this tree makes me and the local people mad!", even though the land would be used to smooth congestion of a busy interstate and we can replant the tree without long term damage to the ecosystem.

>muh democracy!
People elected Hoover
My answer was already given , the rebuttal to my answer was a topic addressed in Microeconomics II which is widely accepted without Controversy in the Economic Curriculum, why would I sit down and explain it to someone who thinks he is right? Do your professors go in the class ready to argue with the students?

Imagine trying to explain Dy/Dx isn't a fraction with the D's canceling out equaling y/x to a Algebra Student who thinks he is right.

>I just want you to let you know you're arguing with feelings right now, aka arguing in the present for an argument that requires you to argue for the future.

I'm not arguing that it needs to be prevented, I'm saying collapse is an inevitability.

>This is why people need education to be experts in a field. With your logic we wouldn't mind a car mechanic being head of the EPA because he can say "Uprooting this tree makes me and the local people mad!", even though the land would be used to smooth congestion of a busy interstate and we can replant the tree without long term damage to the ecosystem.

I wasn't arguing for that. I was arguing that things are going to fall apart because we can't handle automation, and the effects of it are already being felt. You mentioned the EPA, you know Scott Pruitt was just selected to run it, right?

> I'm saying collapse is an inevitability.
Then why are you typing all over the place with your arguments? Seriously reread what you are typing, have better organization, and stop using so much intuition.

let me help you structure your argument because you have not written any academic papers

Thesis: Economic collapse is Inevitable for a society that allows automation and super-efficiency of labor

Now why do you believe so? be sure to back up your claim with applicable sources and economic theory. If you actually stay academic in your response I will reply in an academic manner for the Anti-thesis otherwise I will not waste my time.

>Now why do you believe so?

Because its the current-year United States.

Hang on, I will type it up. May take some time.

>Because its the current-year United States

First of all, its not so much an economic theory so much as its a power dynamic theory based on observable trends. I will begin by stating comparisons to historical events with similarities to modern events in an attempt to explain trends. The most obvious comparison to modern technology revolutions is the industrial revolution. Now you can clearly see from historical documentation that industrialization didn't help the common person at first. Yes, the industrial revolution and agricultural revolution did make things better after a while, but it required the disenfranchisement of many people, not just the artisans but also the rural folk. Vast tracks of public land was fenced off and made private property of rich people and thus taking away the livelihoods of vast numbers of rural folk, sending them to the cities or to the mines. Clearly you would think that the government would compensate the displaced masses, but nope, they starved to death in the streets of London. And was also in effect a genocide of the highlanders of Scotland, as old people starved to death in the woods.

This is a clear example of efficiency not always being an immediate good, and one that had huge social drawbacks. Now I'm not saying it will be that dramatic, but saying things will get instantly better with massive automation has no precedent with historical trends, but rather the trend is a sudden and major dip in the quality of life followed by a steady rise out of the hole. You conveniently never answered 'what do all the soon to be unemployed truckers do?", because if you think a sudden dip in quality of life to massive numbers of people will always turn out alright because of increased productivity, then you are in fact waging war on the lower class, and ignoring their power.

>continued

I would also like to mention I have about the late roman republic and how it relates to modern times. During the Kingdom and early republic era the Roman society was primarily composed of small farmers, the backbone of the rome. Farming and war were the only acceptable occupations for respectable people. They paid for their own equipment when they went to war and provided Rome with food. Now the aristocratic classes were landowners as well, and as wars went on and slaves were collected, their estates grew to huge sizes, the industrial farming complexes known as the latifundia, read the writings of Pliny the Elder if you want details, but I argue that it was the Walmart VS mom and pop stores issue of the day. In the empire the entirety of Egypt was the personal property of the emperor.

Now the huge consolidation of land by the wealthy few and efficiency brought on by massive amounts of slaves has lots of parallels to industrialization of today, and the roman state did institute a sort of welfare, in the form of free bread and games. The unemployed farmers would idly sit around in the city of Rome and the state gave them free food. So a lot less people could afford the war kit because traditional roman rural society was basically dead, so the Marian reforms were enacted, so that poor people could be allowed into the army and the state had to provide them with equipment.

And the generals often got their soldiers and the peoples loyalty by giving them stuff. So people became more loyal to sub-national groups and individuals rather than to the state, even though the republic had democracy in the form of the peoples assemblies and got free food and essentially everything you need to live. Because the roman people had less power, and there-were more and more landless people, or Proletarii (peoples whose only worth to the state is the ability to breed).

>continued

Essentially, rich people owning so much land and being so efficient backfired significantly, because the legions now supported the individuals who gave them stuff rather than the institutions, and because it was through these people that the average poor person can get land as a reward for joining the army. The wealth inequality of the late republic allowed a populist like Caesar take control of the republic and transform it into an empire.

Efficiency, led to inequality and loss of power to the lower classes, that led to civil war, and then dictatorship. A tyrant can give handouts even more efficiently than an elected government.

>ITT TL;DR
What in the actual fuck Veeky Forums?!
Did you just read Atlas and How Economy Grows and you think you are edgy experts in economics?

everytime when I come here to /g/ I'm awed by the average IQ here. I usually browse Veeky Forums and /b/ tho so it's probably related.
Basic income should help mitigate the negative effects of automation. And/or make companies pay tax on each machine which is put into basic income.

Because the resources we have on Earth are infinite, evenly dispersed and don't cost anything.

How much of stuff do we have anyway? I've never seen it discussed.

>using analogies about the Roman Empire to make your argument
>it boils down to Ricardian land rentiering and tyranny

C-, apply yourself.

Efficiency didn't lead to inequality in either the Roman Empire or today, but rather tax policy choices. The key difference being that policy choices can be reversed, which is good for when you want to use those efficiency gains to reduce income inequality rather than increase it.

Your book is bad and you should feel bad.

>depression, chaos, and anarchy
>anarchy
So sad, so repressed. Anarchy is a cool guy, don't belive the propaganda.

people however, *will* commit mass suicide when we'll have machines that can fix other machines. and when mill software will add random errors to make it look like something was handmade

99% of predictions never come true.

100% of accurate predictions come true.

Shitpost, watch anime and play video games

I'll respond to this later, but I will give a response with actual sources.

btw you lack any citation or sources, This is a big no-no in academia.

anyway ill leave this here for you to read
ourworldindata.org/economic-growth