Friendly reminder that neither capitalism nor communism takes into account having a workerless economy.
Nobody has a plan of what to do when 50% unemployment hits and there aren't jobs for people
How can a capitalistic society even run without a large lower class who buy goods with money they got from jobs
How can a communist society even try to allocate goods failry when 50% of the economy still needs skilled labor. "Oh sorry sir but you need to work 40 hr a week because youre smart but that guy is too dumb and worthless so he gets paid to do nothing"
The worst part of this is the transition into full automation (probably 100 or fewer years away)and we're heading straight into it with no plan
DATA:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-predict-that-one-third-of-jobs-will-be-replaced-by-robots-2015-5&ved=0ahUKEwi9xoeF-NPLAhVSz2MKHW3mCpQQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNF2dFpm_K9RRsa9Cw4NoYEc0Avo-w&sig2=6-fH7f5ZW4H8MtYoBw_xeg
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2012/02/2-billion-jobs-to-disappear-by-2030/&ved=0ahUKEwi9xoeF-NPLAhVSz2MKHW3mCpQQFggjMAI&usg=AFQjCNGYYnOFx2C0e0Bfevx8KDJa9j9AAQ&sig2=roV2TuHMLQoX-2B_tMqD7A
Discus...
What's the solution?
Robots will make communism work.
Too bad we are heading for the cyberpunk future where few megacorps control everything.
>>56711625
guaranteed income desu
Just print more money.
>>56711815
There's a solution, it's final though.
>>56711815
Because people now love welfare Queens so much
>>56711815
I wish I knew, but I dont. But something will have to change. Either 50% of the developed work starves to death or there change. If change is not allowed revolution will ensue, remember that every country is 3 missed meals away from riots in the streets
>>56711910
OK Zimbabwe
>>56712111
>>56711910
idea: printing more money in venezuela could solve their toilet paper shortage
>>56711849
Dredd confirmed
>>56712188
We need non Indian centric solutions here
![resource[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/dtaG0rC.png "resource[1].png")
>>56711625
The median income stagnation problem seems like a US-specific thing rather than a problem with capitalism
>>56712871
To clarify that is for the UK
Trend is completely different to the US
>>56711625
how is productivity measured?
![Growth-in-household-income-and-GDP-per-person[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/D5KcWHY.jpg "Growth-in-household-income-and-GDP-per-person[1].jpg")
Seems that divergence began in the 80s with Reagan
>>56711815
We make jobs via robotic warfare; both against self-aware AI robots and between human opponents using robotic proxies.
>>56713284
forgot pic related
>>56713035
I think it has to do with hours worked vs gdp or it may be just gdp. But I think that take away is that the thing that raises wages (supposedly) in a capitalistic system (full employment/lack of workers) hasn't happened in a whileso either eople are getting really screwedon wages cuz the wealth is there, or automation is filing in the gap of productivity of low wage workers and robotic skill is only increasing
>>56713381
It's not the fault of automation because the median income is rising in other advanced capitalist economies
There must be a reason it is stagnating in the US and not in other places
>>56712871
>>56713066
>>56712914
Interesting stuff
>>56711625
Distribute remaining non-automated work between everyone, people get assigned to whatever they are qualified for and there's a rotation where nobody actually works for most of the year or something since you're sharing a job with like 50 other people. And improve economic opportunity for hobbies (and 'hobbies' here refers to everything from developing unmanned drones in your workshed to scuba diving) so that people can still do stuff instead of having nothing to do.
>>56712871
You day that but you're lucky to live in a nice democratic socialist society where the job earners are paid failry, but even you have real unemployment of 7-8% so the idea that capitalism hasn't hit full employment in quite a while, coupled with the fact that the world gdp is increasing failry steadily makes me think that automation is picking up the slowly at first but soon maybe 10-16% unemployment with gdp growth could be a reality
>Article with 7-8% unemployment
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/11/11/uk-unemployment-rate-now-lower-than-us-unemployment-rate/%235a1c181d2101&ved=0ahUKEwjE0_rsi9TLAhVL3GMKHaXfA9sQFggcMAE&usg=AFQjCNFWQdNmX1C6PMiTigM0SsSbqIkGkg&sig2=TqylqayKLD_x5Px-t1Yk9A
>>56711815
every year take the poorest 1% of people in each country. Partition them off in groups of 10,000 each and stick them in 10 square kilometers of desert with various forms of non deadly weapons and tell them the last 10 people standing get $100,000. We could make a reality TV show about it
>>56711625
>a workerless economy.
A thing that can't and won't ever be real.
The tech can increase the relative power of the capital. That happened early in industrialization. The answer was militant labour activism, which brough high wages and high demand for labour.
>>56713666
The problem isn't that I think all humans become irrelevant in wealth production. But it's the idea that 50% or even half that being unemployable is a scary thought
>>56712111
So the land reforms represented the first big contraction in potential output. A rapid demand contraction was required but impossible to implement politically given that 45 per cent of the food output capacity was destroyed.
The situation then compounded as other other infrastructure was trashed and the constraints flowed through the supply-chain. For example, the National Railways of Zimbabwe (NRZ) has decayed to the point the capacity to transport its mining export output has fallen substantially. In 2007, there was a 57 percent decline in export mineral shipments (see Financial Gazette for various reports etc).
Manufacturing was also roped into the malaise. The Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries (CZI) publishes various statistics which report on manufacturing capacity and performance. Manufacturing output fell by 29 per cent in 2005, 18 per cent in 2006 and 28 per cent in 2007. In 2007, only 18.9 per cent of Zimbabwe’s industrial capacity was being used. This reflected a range of things including raw material shortages. But overall, the manufacturers blamed the central bank for stalling their access to foreign exchange which is needed to buy imported raw materials etc.
The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe is using foreign reserves to import food. So you see the causality chain – trash your domestic food supply and then have to rely on imported food, which in turn, squeezes importers of raw materials who cannot get access to foreign exchange. So not only has the agricultural capacity been destroyed, what manufacturing capacity the economy had is being barely utilised.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3773
Money printing was not the cause, destruction of productive capacity and need for foreign exchange was.
>>56713617
>the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
>a democratic socialist society
>>56713720
>t 50% or even half that being unemployable i
https://modernmoney.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/what-causes-masses-unemployment/
Never going to happen. The world is full of human need and desire. It's the lack of demand that causes unemployment.
>>56713794
Compared to murica friend.
Free healthcare is like a myth to us
>>56713869
free healthcare is a meme to literally everbody you dip
Isn't the 'natural rate of unemployment' a thing? Like cyclical, structural, or frictional cases of unemployment? Maybe if you prove that there is an upward trend in unemployment rates (both 'natural' and not) across several developed countries then maybe your argument holds some ground.
>>56713617
The UK is not "democratic socialist". The government we have is more economically right-wing than Thatcher. The only real "socialist" aspect of the UK compared to the US is the healthcare, but that has nothing to do with median income so it's irrelevant to this. The size of the British State is falling to levels close to the size of the State in the US and this government means to take it below 40% GDP.
Now, something that is relevant is the British government's "national living wage" which is actually a higher minimum wage, they are raising it to £9 per hour by 2020. At the same time the government is cutting corporation tax dramatically so businesses are spared much pain.
I don't think the lowest paid workers in America have something like that. But then again, we're talking about the median income. I think this is something a problem with the American "middle class", they are struggling to earn much and like you said the wealth is there. It's not robots that are the problem. Not yet anyway.
Also your point about unemployment shooting up in the near future is just speculation. There's no good argument to say that will happen
>>56713832
Exactly so what happens when we become productive enough to meet those needs with less than fill employment. It seems you are under the impressions that no matter how efficient we are at producing goods people will literally want infinite goods so that means they will work to make and to buy them. They're are so many goods humans need. Hell look at all the excess and waste the west produces just now. We long passed the production to sustain our society. Now our economies run on goods and services that aren't necessary for life but are just nice things like phones and xboxs. But how much does a society need to produce until it needs are met and how much of a percent will robots producing
>>56713832
Contrary to popular belief, business opportunity is finite.
>>56713869
>>56713983
Public healthcare is irrelevant to the median income issue.
>>56713869
Single payer healthcare is not socialism.
Next time you want to call a country socialist, you should ask yourself: "Does the people control the means of production?"
If the answer is "no", you should not call it socialist.
>>56714005
What do you mean there's no reason to think there will be unemployment. I know the numbers are all theory but from what seems like smart people I hear anywhere from 20-50% of jobs will be gone by 2045
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-predict-that-one-third-of-jobs-will-be-replaced-by-robots-2015-5&ved=0ahUKEwi9xoeF-NPLAhVSz2MKHW3mCpQQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNF2dFpm_K9RRsa9Cw4NoYEc0Avo-w&sig2=6-fH7f5ZW4H8MtYoBw_xeg
>>56711625
Islam is the answer desu.
Just create some stupid jobs, like babysitting people on 4chan for un-free.
>>56714053
Thank you based finn
>>56714171
The reason I'm sceptical is because automation has been killing jobs for a long time, for decades. Factories employ way less people than they used to, if the work wasn't shipped overseas. Then since 2010 the government has been culling public sector jobs like crazy in their austerity drive to trim down the State
The robots have already taken millions of jobs. But employment is at historic record highs in the UK. What's happened? More jobs have been created - at a faster rate than jobs have been lost
>>56713990
I know that this seems very pie in the sky stuff but I wanted to discuss and talk about the articles making the claims of unemployment and discuss what it means when real unemployment in the US is something like 12-16% but gdp and stocks keep rising. So either we have a massive bubble or real gains being made without almost an eighth of the workforce
>>56713381
if productivity is tied to gdp, then it is also tied to wages, right? Because higher wages would imply higher consumption -> higher gdp. does it make sense to compare them this way?
>>56714304
You say that robots have already taken millions of jobs but what's implied in your statement is that millions more jobs will be created or come about. Business opportunity is finite and how many years of robots taking millions of jobs do we need until we start feeling the squeeze
>>56713603
>Distribute
>Sharing
I thought all commies in Finland had already been killed in the civil war, but then there's this retard. I bet you worship Stallman too.
>>56714460
I haven't actually read anything by Stallman but I'm sure he has made some worthwhile points about the state of software development.
>>56714460
At least the Finns didn't yet their country rofl stomped by the reds
>>56714447
I don't buy this notion that business opportunity is finite. Because what you're doing is you're putting limits on the creativity and innovative potential of the human mind. I agree with Adam Smith that the creation of wealth is not a zero-sum process
>>56714514
Die, Commie scum. Finland shed their blood against Soviet Commie traitors like you. What next? Degeneracy and Cultural Marxism?
>>56714589
I know right? And now this goy wants the rapefugee and Jewish cultural enrichment too.
>>56714614
So then realistically you think that the end of capitalism will be infinite production capacity with infinite consumption? How hard is it to understand that that is unsustainable. Not to mention how many new industries that require humans are there that are useful. Once self driving cars and near fully automated factories take low paying jobs How many artists poets and twitch streamers can society support before it collapses
>>56713035
Usual definition is Additional value added per worker
Capitalism's solution is really elegant.
We have a surplus population, so they find work doing retarded shit, or go colonize mars and do work there.
They could go be farmers too. They would produce food we could send as aid to other countries, or at least be subsidence farmers.
Alternatively, they die, which I would like.
>>56714890
The world already makes more food than it needs from automated farmers friend(when I say automated I mean highly mechanized,most modern farms are huge corporate ones). Also so what the liberation of work ends with me becoming a fucking farmer cuz jobs don't exist? Fuck that
>>56714995
We make more than we need but we don't use it. We can always make more for private use or aid like I said. You could also grow fun things like peppers or dragonfruit.
If you don't want to become a farmer it's simple. Either get real skills that aren't automated, go to mars like I said, invent something, or die of starvation for being a pussy ass bitch.
>>56714806
No I don't think there will be infinite production and consumption, that isn't what I said
>>56715220
Traditionally, telling the poor to fuck off and die hasn't worked out well for anyone involved.
>>56712871
Not inflation adjusted.
Also median real household income in Europe is down worse than America.
>>56713645
paying people do nothing is not a solution to the lack of jobs
>>56713066
Is this nominal?
% change isn't as meaningful when it is since 1984, and not an absolute change.
Catch up effect, nominal fluctuations, etc.
>>56715437
See >>56713066 for a direct comparison between the US and UK. The UK one doesn't look lower to me
>>56715376
We could kill them then.
Alternatively, have them join the military and start a ton of wars.
>>56715600
It's inflation-adjusted. Here is the source
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/03/18/uk-incomes-more-closely-tied-to-growth-than-those-in-us/
>"The Office for National Statistics used inflation-adjusted data..."
Now I would like to see data to back up the claim you made here >>56715437
>>56715222
Well what you are saying, I think, is that displaced workers will always find new areas of work regardless of increases in automated efficiency because there are always more things to be created and done. What that doesn't take into account is that low skill jobs are being taken over slowly by automation. So these new jobs will have to be high skill or human only. But normal capitalist thinking accounts for a low skilled workers as the base of corporate income to sustain economies. Ergo either everyone will be a have to be a CEO, highly trained and skilled, or human based jobs explode in growth from some unknown new area. I can't find the graphic rn, but I remember seeing on a CPGgrey video him explains that between 1700 and now jobs fields are relatively similar as transportation, food prep, etc are at the top of the list as the largest careers people have, but new 21th century jobs that have been created with today's tech (eg software engineer) was 10th on that list of number of people in that career. The point I'm making is that new 21st century jobs aren't being created quick enough to replace the millions of displaced people from jobs that have been around for centuries
>>56715923
Sorry to interrupt. Do you count services as products or not? Never come across any economic theories that include services in the category of production, though. I'm not sure I understand what you mean, because the Brits said 'infinite business opportunities', not 'infinite production'.
>>56715729
ow the edge
>>56715923
Here in Finland unemployment is already being 'tackled' by telling people to become entrepreneurs, even though it's completely unrealistic for hundreds of thousands of people to somehow start their own businesses with no capital, not to mention the highly questionable existence of promising markets especially abroad where the competition is already harsh and saturated. Expecting people to resort to loans in the current economic climate is very condescending as well.
>>56715923
I see where you're going with this but you make a big mistake, and the rest of your argument doesn't follow. This is your mistake imo:
>low skill jobs are being taken over slowly by automation
No. SOME low skill jobs are being taken over by automation. Only some of them. The ones that machines can do, such as the less complex factory jobs. There are many low skill jobs that robots CAN'T do. Many of these are in the service sector and retail.
People like human interaction. When you go into a shop to buy a suit, the conversation with the shop assistant makes you feel comfortable and informed. When people go anywhere and take their money, they enjoy good service. It makes all the difference. Human interaction. Making the customer FEEL good. This is stuff that machines cannot do.
The market for these jobs is massive, it's not just shops and retail it's every kind of service that people will want to spend their money on. Machines are not taking those jobs.
This is the fundamental flaw in your argument. "Low skilled" job creation is happening and will continue to happen because there's that link to the wealth in other parts of the economy.
>>56711625
>mfw tradesman
>even in the event of total societal collapse, I will be a useful person
Feels good
>>56715220
>>56715729
>>56714890
t.spoiled little brat in daddy's mansion, sitting on his ass all day and posting on a mongolian forum for onanists
>>56716403
Not if it's a robot uprising, and tradesdroids take your place.
>>56716309
>People like human interaction. When you go into a shop to buy a suit, the conversation with the shop assistant makes you feel comfortable and informed.
This is the smartphone generation. People can look up information online and would rather not deal with strangers at all
The obsolete workers can be left to starve. If they rebel, we can just use our robots to kill them.
>>56711849
>we are heading for the cyberpunk future where few megacorps control everything.
>Too bad
>bad
>>56716522
Blame robot bullies. #notallhumans
>>56716077
All services necessitate some material equipment, and more importantly you cannot create infinite demand no matter how good your marketing is, especially in a future scenario where the service sector employs almost everyone.
This ends the humanity.
>>56716549
Nope, people crave human interaction more than ever. Also it's becoming increasingly rare to call customer service and find a robot these days, because firms worked out that people prefer to talk to a human. The only reason why "alternative medicine" bullshit like homeopathy became a thing is that there's increased human interaction between "doctor" and patient compared to regular health checks. It provides more reassurance.
>>56716710
>>56716774
>he hated robots, wished they'd die
>only problem, they didn't really exist
>so he created them, then hated them!
>that's when it all began...
>>56716309
I think really its more than you are saying but less than our american friend. This is something thats been discussed for decades, see Magnus Pyke's Slaves Unaware written in 1958 iirc as a good starter. Automation within the workplace is something that you see happening over a long period of time, and society usually adjusts for it as it happens because of the time scale. With progress being at a speed which outstrips the entirety of human progress before a few decades ago the adjustments will possibly take a lot longer due the shocks coming harder and with less time between them. This may have further unknown effects down the line good or bad, its simply not possible to know in advance.
>>56716077
1. I combine them in this case just to simplify things and potential job sources.
2. Well if the goal of capitalism is to increase efficiency or get the most profit for little cost, and if there are infinite amounts of things to make/do (business opportunity) it would stand to reason that eventually we would reach a point where we make huuuge amounts of stuff for little cost. So let's say we had full employment in this fake economy. What brit bong doesn't understand is that the only way to account for this new theoretical amount of untold production is more demand yes? Or there is no reason for this new growth. What I'm saying is that demand isn't infinite so if we get too efficient mass unemployment ensues. And the unemployed don't find jobs because all the goods they want are already being made or are in the markets.
3. The part where I talk about infinite production is a little out of hand and not really relevant but the point I was making is that if you believe that capitalism makes more stuff better as time goes on where does it stop cuz. You can't have infinite production obviously. But infinite production is needed to satisfy infinite want that brit man suggests there is. Otherwise saying that there is infinite business opportunity means nothing if infinite want isn't assumed
>>56716824
See that's where I disagree. I don't think there is data to say that there will be enough low skill jobs to saturate the worker count in the future. The whole point of me saying how real unemployment in the US is 16% and the fact that GDP and the stock market have grown shows in and off itself that the economy can grow without plenty of people. How much longer until it can grow with less and less people
>>56713617
>but even you have real unemployment of 7-8%
>Article with 7-8% unemployment
Sorry, but I just read your article and it doesn't say what you suggest. The UK rate is 5.3% and the US equivalent is 7-8%. Here's the relevant paragraph:
>So, when we correct all of this we get a US U6 measure of some 7-8%, a UK one of that reported 5.3%. UK unemployment is now lower than US. And what is so surprising about this is that for decades it was the other way around. The US typically had little to no long term unemployment, while the UK did have some. Thus the total UK rate was, for decades, higher than the US one: the short term unemployment rates in both countries being pretty similar (rolling with the flow of the business cycle, obviously).
The author of your article is shocked because the UK has lower long-term unemployment than the USA.
>>56717031
One of capitalism's biggest problems today is cannibalisation. The uneven wealth distribution is in fact accelerating, which affects not just people who are already poor but the primary consumer base as well. While poverty theoretically shrinks (total poverty has apparently increased and the only real decrease in poverty is entirely due to China, whose economic growth isn't sustainable either) the definition of the 'average' or the demographic that is not considered rich or poor and is the driving force of consumption gradually shifts towards the poor. Who is the customer of the future? If anything it seems like people will be working longer, for less pay, or become part of the poor who cannot afford most products or services.
Capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based.
Modern fossil fuel economies work best at post-tax income inequality Gini is between 0.25 and 0.35, and to keep wealth inequalities between 0.70 and 0.80. Many countries are way above that.
>>56717227
Can you post a reliable source for the claim that the "real" US unemployment rate is 16%?
>>56717274
Yeah you're right I read the article.wrong I though the 7-8% wan for britain. But could I ask you this. Can new low skill jobs take over the enough of the displaces millions from old human jobs quick enough in the near term? Because if transportation and factory automation take away millions in the next couple decades it seems like too big of a shock to the system for it to be able to cope, in my view
>>56717611
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.cnbc.com/id/49056201&ved=0ahUKEwi_hdu0ptTLAhUC5GMKHWcbDNcQFggmMAQ&usg=AFQjCNHbT-iCmx167I-W4ac1Rz1bO_mYNw&sig2=xXfLsC0060Z65GzZ_cJlHA
Just make more jobs. It worked in the 30s
>>56715847
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/gdp-and-beyond/quality-of-life/median-income
>>56717764
I think it depends on how the government embraces reforms and allows the pivot to the service sector. I think it's entirely possible but short term shocks are probable like the nasty recession and huge spike in unemployment in Britain during Thatcher's reforms in the 80s. But then things improved quickly.
The UK is a good example for what you're talking about because the country is further along this path than any other major advanced economy. Manufacturing is a smaller part of the economy here than countries like France, Germany, Japan and the USA. Many of those automated jobs are already gone. However employment prospects are better than most.
It might also be worth looking at Japan's model as they have very low unemployment but also lots of manufacturing. It would be interesting to compare the Japanese economy to the UK economy.
>>56718124
That article is dated 2012. They seem to be talking about the U6 longer term unemployment measure, which your previous Forbes article mentioned. So it looks like that 16% has gone down to 7-8% in the past few years.
>>56717764
The richer the people are, the more services (fugg, don't know if this is the correct word) like travels, healthcare, happy merchants and whatnot are demanded. Tell me a single developed country (and even here) where the service employ less than the industry
>>56718263
Does that work for you? I'm getting most of the map in grey and data "not available".
BTW, "net median income" is not the same thing as "median income"
>>56717764
Further to my last post, I wondered what is the ACTUAL share of UK employment accounted for by manufacturing. I found an answer and it's fascinating. This might even answer your question directly.
>Looking at a longer term comparison, between June 1978 (when comparable records began) and December 2015:
>the proportion of jobs accounted for by the manufacturing and mining and quarrying sectors fell from 26.4% to 8.1%
>the proportion of jobs accounted for by the services sector increased from 63.2% to 83.1%
Also pic related in the last 5 years which represents many jobs lost
>>56719187
Source
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/march2016
>>56714445
Higher wages also lead to higher productivity. Whne labour is expensive, capital has an incentive to invest in labour saving and productivity improvement. If the aggregate demand is kept high, this causes the labour released from jobs made obsolete to be pulled to new jobs and the scarcity of labour provides an incentive to train and retain the labour.
>>56717031
So you mean the TRPF?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall
Are you sure the trend is toward catastrophe or is it a business cycle? I'm always skeptical to this, really, ever since I watched that TED video. Correct me if I'm wrong.
