64 replies to this topic

[jamon g]

unless they're supersonic travelling on high capacity battery powered flight that costs next to nothing after taking their pill to cure cancer!

[Mike]

Which is why hypotheticals is such an abstract game to play.

[craggy]

pshwa! Flying is for chumps. If we're being hypothetical, I'm taking a Door.

[jamon g]

Yeah man open your mind to the doors of perception.
Ok then, circumstance specific case no.1:
You run a small business that employs ten people. A new company starts up that you can outsource your production to, for the same cost and quality product to what you're producing, but because of various payroll taxes, factory rents etc. you would actually be much further ahead financially if you sacked your staff and outsourced. You would also have more time for your family, and much less stress with regard to running the company. The problem is, besides the loss of employment for those ten people, your industry employs thousands of people in small companies identical to yours, and if they follow suit it will cause thousands to lose their jobs. Do you choose yourself and your family over society?

case no. 2:
This one's pretty specific for Mike - A Doctor runs a general practice and comes across an unused technology that allows him to see the same number of patients and keep records just as well without the need for administrative staff. It will result in less stress to the doctor with regard to HR issues, payroll, training etc. as well as putting another 100 thousand pounds in his bank account each year. If other doctors catch on, and the system becomes widely used, tens of thousands of administrative jobs will be lost. Does he choose himself and his family over society?

[Christian U]

Cheap fossil fuel air travel and effective antibiotic use are the two things the I think future generations will look back at our time and comment on how we did not know how lucky we were will be.

On the other hand, if plane travel gets too expensive, they may get to ride in zeppelins.

Yeah man open your mind to the doors of perception.
Ok then, circumstance specific case no.1:
You run a small business that employs ten people. A new company starts up that you can outsource your production to, for the same cost and quality product to what you're producing, but because of various payroll taxes, factory rents etc. you would actually be much further ahead financially if you sacked your staff and outsourced. You would also have more time for your family, and much less stress with regard to running the company. The problem is, besides the loss of employment for those ten people, your industry employs thousands of people in small companies identical to yours, and if they follow suit it will cause thousands to lose their jobs. Do you choose yourself and your family over society?

It is difficult to choose society over yourself and your family. It's one of those choices where your moral choice doesn't have an impact anyway (and yes, that's the kind of thinking that causes the detrimental effect, but it's also pragmatically true), not compared to the impact it has on your personal choice. I think what might clinch it is the workers I would have to let go, all of whom I've probably known for years. That's a direct personal consequence.

I'd keep the company in this scenario, but then I've always gravitated towards making this kind of decision on anything but money.

case no. 2:
This one's pretty specific for Mike - A Doctor runs a general practice and comes across an unused technology that allows him to see the same number of patients and keep records just as well without the need for administrative staff. It will result in less stress to the doctor with regard to HR issues, payroll, training etc. as well as putting another 100 thousand pounds in his bank account each year. If other doctors catch on, and the system becomes widely used, tens of thousands of administrative jobs will be lost. Does he choose himself and his family over society?

That'll be a bit lonely, won't it?

Edited by Christian U, 30 April 2012 - 06:30 AM.

[Ogul]

You run a small business that employs ten people. A new company starts up that you can outsource your production to, for the same cost and quality product to what you're producing, but because of various payroll taxes, factory rents etc. you would actually be much further ahead financially if you sacked your staff and outsourced. You would also have more time for your family, and much less stress with regard to running the company. The problem is, besides the loss of employment for those ten people, your industry employs thousands of people in small companies identical to yours, and if they follow suit it will cause thousands to lose their jobs. Do you choose yourself and your family over society?

This is a bit unreasonable if only because if there is an industry of thousands, they wouldn't be looking to my ten employee operation to see which way the wind is blowing. A portion of the industry either would or would not go that route regardless of my actions. Better to just cut to the chase as say "you employ thousands of people, and etc." So in that latter case, probably not. It all comes down to the fiddly details, like do I like my employees, how much benefit are we talking about, etc., but chances are I would not take the more pragmatic and selfish choice.

Now, the tricky thing is, it doesn't really matter what I want to do. The way industries work, if I have a handful of competitors, and even a few of them choose this more efficient model, then they could out compete me, which means that unless I'm much better at what we do than they are, I'd lose. I'd be forced to either join them in the more efficient option, or squeeze my workers somehow to make my shop as profitable as theirs', or we'd just get shut down and everyone would lose their job.

Capitalism is made up entirely of individual choices, and yet is practically immune to them.

case no. 2:
This one's pretty specific for Mike - A Doctor runs a general practice and comes across an unused technology that allows him to see the same number of patients and keep records just as well without the need for administrative staff. It will result in less stress to the doctor with regard to HR issues, payroll, training etc. as well as putting another 100 thousand pounds in his bank account each year. If other doctors catch on, and the system becomes widely used, tens of thousands of administrative jobs will be lost. Does he choose himself and his family over society?

Similar situation, but I'm more likely to lean towards this one, if only because it might lead to better outcomes. On the other hand, you still need physical staff for the personal touch, just perhaps less of them.

The thing is, this is where we're going. Every year we need more and more jobs being done to support more and more people, but we need less and less people to do those jobs because we're making them more efficient to perform. I still believe that within my lifetime we'll reach the point in which most menial, non-creative tasks are performed by some form of machine, whether that be a vending machine or a humanoid robot, and humans are only needed in the relatively few roles that require adaptive behavior, leaving the vast majority of the population unemployable. We need to be prepared for that, prepared to accept that the vast majority of people will be unnecessary to the economy, and if they're meant to survive, they'd need to do so on the dole.

[jamon g]

Don't try to out think the model Ogul! I can't give you all the specifics, but just assume the particular industry is built around hundreds of small businesses that cater to a particular niche, essentially the market's too small for a big company, but too big and variable for one small business to take over everything with price competition. The benefit to you is working 6-8 hour days five days a week as opposed to 10-12 hours a day 6 days a week and and extra 200k each year in the bank.
As for the doctor model, there will still be clinic staff such as nurses and other doctors sharing rooms like most gp clinics, plus don't forget patients are people too, so loneliness isn't an issue.

[Ogul]

The benefit to you is working 6-8 hour days five days a week as opposed to 10-12 hours a day 6 days a week and and extra 200k each year in the bank.

Assuming that's less than doubling my salary, I think I'd put up with it, of course hours that long might wear away at my better nature. Now, if I were to go from my current salary to $200K+, then I might be forced to consider my options.

[Todd Gross]

The thing is, this is where we're going. Every year we need more and more jobs being done to support more and more people, but we need less and less people to do those jobs because we're making them more efficient to perform. I still believe that within my lifetime we'll reach the point in which most menial, non-creative tasks are performed by some form of machine, whether that be a vending machine or a humanoid robot, and humans are only needed in the relatively few roles that require adaptive behavior, leaving the vast majority of the population unemployable. We need to be prepared for that, prepared to accept that the vast majority of people will be unnecessary to the economy, and if they're meant to survive, they'd need to do so on the dole.

If you look at old movies or TV shows set in an office, you would see a secretarial pool with dozens of people typing, filing, copying, etc.

Nowadays, you have a fraction of the amount of people doing the same amount of work or more because computers have become part of the workplace. Even management personnel do tasks that would have been given to support staff years ago. With the constant improvements to mobile technology, even more work is being done by fewer people.

Support now is for the technological components, not the administrative. Even there, you are still using far less people.

So what happened to all those people?

Over the years, new opportunities opened up and they moved into new areas. The people were redistributed.

[jamon g]

so is that a yes?

[Arjan Dirkse]

On principle, I'd say that I'd always do the morally right thing, in every conceivable situation.

However that is a non-binding commitment.

[garjones]

So what happened to all those people?

Over the years, new opportunities opened up and they moved into new areas. The people were redistributed.

I've had this argument with Ogul many times, from the invention of the Spinning Jenny we have found tools to cut labour but in actuality there are more people working now than 50 years ago. Then 51% (or higher post war and male death toll) of the population didn't work, or to save the Ann Romney attack they were not employed with a salary. Now almost all women do. In the early 2000s in the UK, a country that famously manufactures next to nothing and is the largest outsourcer per capita to India in the world, they had full employment (this means 2% or less as apparently however good times are you never get lower than that).

We invent things to fill the gaps. How many of us work in job that couldn't exist 30 years ago? I'm one.

I love Judge Dredd with its 90% unemployment dystopia but as the Manic Street Preachers said "libraries gave us power, then work came and set us free', society as depicted there could not work. It's not just about money, it's about a sense of worth and purpose. If everyone were sat on their arse all day it would all collapse. You see this with footballers and rock stars that have huge sums of money but have to be monitored closely because the boredom and lack of routine drives them to drink, drugs and gambling.

[Ogul]

Over the years, new opportunities opened up and they moved into new areas. The people were redistributed.

I just don't believe that new opportunities will approach the increased efficiencies for long. I mean, in theory there can always be work found for people to do, but at a certain point, most of the low-skilled work could be done faster and cheaper by machines, so it becomes charity to make them people jobs, just as it would be charity for someone to operate a factory in Detroit when they could do so at half the cost in Shenyang.

I've had this argument with Ogul many times, from the invention of the Spinning Jenny we have found tools to cut labour but in actuality there are more people working now than 50 years ago.

Yes, but I feel that it's two different curves. Supply and demand. As the human population has grown, the need for "stuff" has also increased, which led to a need for jobs to make that stuff (and associated professions). And for a long time, those two curves stayed fairly close. As something was made more efficient, different jobs came along. But that doesn't always have to be the case, there's no rational reason for that always to be the case. The machines we have today can't do this, but the machines we'll have a decade or two from now certainly could, and another decade after that they'll be cheap enough to pick up on a whim, much less a capital investment.

In the early 2000s in the UK, a country that famously manufactures next to nothing and is the largest outsourcer per capita to India in the world, they had full employment (this means 2% or less as apparently however good times are you never get lower than that).

I'm not saying manufacturing is the only type of job, service industry makes up a lot of it, but think about retail. We've gone form having a bunch of little, privately owned bookstores that each employed maybe 2-8 people, to having big block bookstores that served several times as many people, but needed a dozen or two people to staff them. But then we moved to Amazon, a site which needs highly technical people to function, but very few menial labororers. Their products are distributed via warehouse, which currently involves people moving boxes around, but every day the process becomes more and more automatic, to the point where soon each massive Amazon warehouse would only need a handful of people involved, to oversee the maintenance drones, one to make sure nothing explodes, and the drivers (until we have automated highways, of course). In Mass Effect the stores are just digital kiosks with people behind the counter only to fill product service, but even this is an inefficient way of doing things. We'll be past that phase within the century.

I love Judge Dredd with its 90% unemployment dystopia but as the Manic Street Preachers said "libraries gave us power, then work came and set us free', society as depicted there could not work. It's not just about money, it's about a sense of worth and purpose. If everyone were sat on their arse all day it would all collapse. You see this with footballers and rock stars that have huge sums of money but have to be monitored closely because the boredom and lack of routine drives them to drink, drugs and gambling.

Then what would you propose? Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that I'm right, and that we will soon enough reach a point in which the vast majority of humans are unnecessary to the workforce. A world in which a chain like Walmart or McDonalds could be equally as efficient as they are today, while only employing about as many people as they have in their home offices, plus a handful of people at each physical location, if that, representing a massive cut in the workforce. So assume that's true, whether you agree or not, how you you fix that, such that people could do "meaningful work," even if anything they were remotely qualified to do would be completely unnecessary? Would you subsidize labor? Make it so that instead of paying Joe Dole $20K per year in welfare, you pay Dole Pineapple $20K per year to employ him for $20K per year, when a machine could do it for a much lower cost over time and at least equally as well?

[garjones]

I don't propose anything, we wouldn't stand for it. There'd be revolution, there are violent protests now at 8%. The majority unemployed is a ridiculous concept, you'd more likely see the US turn communist.

For all your Amazon example there aren't any examples of technology hitting strong ecomomies. Wage levels I'll concede but not unemployement. The Dutch have the same tech as the US, in broadband they are better, they have half the dole stats. We have fish defoliation, pilates, karoake, X-Box, none of which works if only 10% have any money.

You quote Mass Effect, how many millions did that make for an industry that didn't exist before?

Our entire history is packed with defunct jobs. More people are working. Fact. Present me with an example outside an economic slump and I may reconsider.

[Jim Ohara]

Majority unemployment is utter tosh. People work, people have to work to live a fulfilling life, and they invent services to give themselves something to do. At best we'll have a nicer working environment where 25 hours a week is enough to have a livable wage.

Jamon's examples are a bit extreme. A bonus $200k in your pocket and loads of free time, or hiring 10 people and having your company go down the river? Some choice.

The simple truth is that most people take care or themselves and try to help others but only to a certain extent. You'll help someone move house for a few hours. You won't dedicate an entire week to it. You'll babysit the neighbor kids. You won't take care of them for 3 weeks while their parents go on vacation. You pay someone a decent salary. You don't give them extra money if they have a sudden gambling debt.

[garjones]

Majority unemployment is utter tosh.

It's balls. Ogul likes it though.

[Ogul]

I don't propose anything, we wouldn't stand for it. There'd be revolution, there are violent protests now at 8%. The majority unemployed is a ridiculous concept, you'd more likely see the US turn communist.

Maybe, maybe. Would there be as much concern though about the current unemployment rate if the alternative to employment were a steady, livable wage? The real strife behind the current unemployment situation is that the alternative to employment is practically nothing. People worry about having no security that they will be able to continue to eat and have a decent place to sleep. If they are guaranteed these things, they may be less anxious about not having a job.

For all your Amazon example there aren't any examples of technology hitting strong ecomomies. Wage levels I'll concede but not unemployement. The Dutch have the same tech as the US, in broadband they are better, they have half the dole stats. We have fish defoliation, pilates, karoake, X-Box, none of which works if only 10% have any money.

Right now. And I didn't say that only 10% would would have money, only that 10% would have meaningful jobs. Money would need to be redistributed to the masses in some form. Wages have remained fairly static over my lifetime, even as employment previously kept pace with demand for it. Really a large chunk of the employment rate in the US for the last decade was in building houses that nobody actually needed.

[David Meadows]

If you look at old movies or TV shows set in an office, you would see a secretarial pool with dozens of people typing, filing, copying, etc.

Nowadays, you have a fraction of the amount of people doing the same amount of work or more because computers have become part of the workplace. Even management personnel do tasks that would have been given to support staff years ago. With the constant improvements to mobile technology, even more work is being done by fewer people.

Support now is for the technological components, not the administrative. Even there, you are still using far less people.

So what happened to all those people?

Over the years, new opportunities opened up and they moved into new areas. The people were redistributed.

My mate was recently telling me about "keyers" where he worked. There were people whose sole job was to type data from forms received (in this case, from GPs and pharmacists) into the computer that did their data processing. Now the data entry is done at source, through scanning and barcode reading and people with tablets and whatever else. All the keyers have been laid off or had to re-train. And the accuracy of the data in the computer is much worse than it was.

Automation has produced worse results than a bunch of guys at a keyboard.

We don't need to look at specialist roles like "keyers" to see that that is true, we can all see it when we get letters or memos at work. In the old days, letters were typed by secretaries who were specifically trained to type letters. Now they are typed by managers, who aren't. And they are rubbish.

Trained people are better than untrained people aided by computers. That's not reactionary luddite sloganeering, it's simple observation of how crappily day-to-day business is conducted in this country.

[jamon g]

Majority unemployment is utter tosh. People work, people have to work to live a fulfilling life, and they invent services to give themselves something to do. At best we'll have a nicer working environment where 25 hours a week is enough to have a livable wage.

Jamon's examples are a bit extreme. A bonus $200k in your pocket and loads of free time, or hiring 10 people and having your company go down the river? Some choice.

The simple truth is that most people take care or themselves and try to help others but only to a certain extent. You'll help someone move house for a few hours. You won't dedicate an entire week to it. You'll babysit the neighbor kids. You won't take care of them for 3 weeks while their parents go on vacation. You pay someone a decent salary. You don't give them extra money if they have a sudden gambling debt.

ahem - my example isn't tosh! It's not loads of free time, it's a normal 40 hour working week as opposed to the 50-60 hour week you work running your own business. And the 200k extra is a reasonable amount for the size business described which would have a turnover of about 2-4 million each year, whith a company profit of about 50-100k after tax and directors wage. And the alternative isn't for the company to go down the river - nothing would change if you don't outsource, even if everyone else did you would still be competitive in your niche. The question is, would you choose a better option for yourself, over the well being of others? How much do you owe to society to be concerned about the wider implications of your actions? If the situation was reversed, would you expect others to sacrifice for your benefit?

[Jim Ohara]

We don't need to look at specialist roles like "keyers" to see that that is true, we can all see it when we get letters or memos at work. In the old days, letters were typed by secretaries who were specifically trained to type letters. Now they are typed by managers, who aren't. And they are rubbish.

In the old days a letter used to take 30 minutes of a trained professionals time. Per letter. These days you can send out 10,000 letters at the click of a button. As a result people are more informed than ever before, and have more exposure to the services they receive from the various businesses they interact with. I think you're focused on a few extreme examples and ignoring the vast majority of professional clear communications that's created each day.

I don't believe that automation makes things worse either. That's just a bad deploy in a specific situation. Automation has revolutionized quality control in all aspects of business.

And the 200k extra is a reasonable amount for the size business described which would have a turnover of about 2-4 million each year, whith a company profit of about 50-100k after tax and directors wage.

That's a pretty good company if it's a service industry and you're pulling in $300k per employee. With the numbers you just described you don't off shore all the jobs - if you're pulling $3mil it shouldn't be that hard to squeeze and extra $2000k net from the operation.