If the System Architect's job could be automated enough that the former cashiers could handle it, then yes. Think that can't happen? Just wait, even without strong AI we're going to see all kinds of interesting problems as expert systems extend to ever larger portions of the economy.
Stop that and start rewarding employers who ACTUALLY create jobs.
Jobs are not a social good. Automation and the elimination of jobs is a good thing. The problem is a social system that only distributes resources based off of income and that we've created a situation where it's pretty hard for the majority of people to make income if they don't have a job. Ideally we should want a society where no one has to work unless they feel like it. Are we ready for that sort of society now? No, but we're headed in that general direction so it's time to start thinking about how to adapt our society to cope.
The IRS frowns on that sort of thing, and when the IRS frowns on things, people get heavily penalized.
Of course PEOPLE get penalized, the rules are for the little people after all. Large corporations on the other hand are free from such burdensome oversight.
The main problem with space travel so far has been a combination of custom parts and lack of scale. Get a cheap, rugged design made with commodity parts and then run it mass production style and you can really bring the cost down.
There's a highway near me that was designed for traffic to do 70mph but the road can't be signed for it because the state police won't sign off. So it sits at 55mph and everyone does 70mph anyway, and a few get ticketed each day. Same thing with surface streets.
We have great roads in Oregon but restrictive speed signs. In general everyone now treats that as the posted MINIMUM SPEED rather than the maximum. For example, HWY 26 has long stretches where the highway is broad, straight and has great sight lines, posted speeds should be about 80mph instead they're set at 55mph.
No, you apparently don't. In every state I'm aware of yellow means "stop if you can". It's effectively red, but lenient enough that if you're close to it and can't stop when it appears, then you're still fine.
Perhaps they've changed the definition but when I learned to drive yellow was "proceed with caution but be prepared to stop if the light changes". That's not the same thing as "stop if you can".
Again, you're assuming that the worldwide supply of STEM workers is elastic (i.e., high salaries generate more STEM workers)
It is somewhat elastic, see the 1990s for an example of more people coming into the STEM field due to wages. I'm also saying that we currently graduate more STEM workers than the field can absorb.
and that the demand for STEM workers is inelastic (i.e., fewer STEM workers means significantly higher salaries).
It's somewhat inelastic. Many companies have business models that rely on creating new products. Apple isn't going to stop making new iPhones just because engineers get a bit more expensive.
You're incorrectly assuming that the demand for toilet paper is inelastic.
It's certainly not 100% inelastic, but then few things are. Still, people have a strong preference for it over the alternatives. Yes, obviously people won't pay $1000 a roll, but the price would never get that high in the first place. In order to explore what would happen we'd have to specify more details about why the price was rising. For example, if trees used for paper production became more expensive then alternative base materials might be employed.
Again, same wrong assumption. The demand for STEM workers is elastic; people who would make money by employing STEM graduates have many other ways of making money and they switch to those.
Sure, but the demand for the things produced with STEM workers doesn't go away. It's not like people are going to stop wanting better televisions for example. Yes, if people refuse to pay sufficient prices for televisions to allow the manufacturer to make a profit then they won't make them but what would happen instead is you'd get either lower quality televisions, or the quantity of total televisions would be reduced while the target customer would be higher market.
In many cases, a shortage of something doesn't cause prices to rise, it causes people to substitute.
Yes, that's a valid point and to the extent possible STEM workers are being replaced by automation & process improvements that makes the existing workers more productive. Still, we're hardly to the point yet where STEM workers can be completely replaced.
Here you are also assuming that the supply of STEM graduates is elastic.
Yes, there is a limit of how many STEM workers we could possibly have, but currently we're no where near the limit.
If toilet paper was $1000 a roll, investors would open toilet paper factories in massive numbers, supplies would increase and costs would come down. That's how economics works.
If there were a shortage of STEM workers pay would increase, massive numbers of people would see the big paychecks and enroll in STEM courses, the new graduates would increase the supply and wages would come back down, that's the market at work.
Makes no money for the propertied class? Look at the standard of living now and in the past.
For the rich it actually hasn't improved that much. Travel is faster and medical care is better but otherwise I'm hard pressed to come up with many things that are better for the wealthy than they were in the past. Average living standards have improved enormously, but that's a different subject.
Either shorten it to TEM or mention that there are many jobs under the STEM categories, but S-cience is experiencing total glut.
You can drop the math, they have a glut as well. Oh and many fields of engineering are pretty full. Technology is not as bad though it skews heavily towards the most talented end of the work force. So really it's "Hey we need some more of the brightest in technology and a few specialized forms of engineering but if you're not in the top 10% and pick the right field then don't bother".
Yes, money is limited: if we were to devote more of our economy to scientific progress then less of our economy would be available to make designer handbags for rich people. But given the choice between having our grandchildren grow up in a world where they no longer have to fear dying slowly and painfully before their time from cancer - or rich people in the present having a few extra designer handbags - do we really prefer that the rich people have their designer handbags?
It does seem strange doesn't it? As it turns out central planning, which is what you're suggesting, has built in inefficiencies that often are worse than the proposed benefit, even in the case of redirecting funds from seemingly frivolous uses to what seem like better purposes. I'm not saying that increasing government funded science is bad per se, but you have to be really careful about how you set it up or you can actually make things overall worse instead of better.
Actually it is how economics works. If they can't hire someone and make a bigger return then their pay then there isn't a shortage is there? If you want to look at what a shortage looks like check out the hiring environment for tech workers in the 1990s, and yes salaries were increasing sharply.
Perhaps but you're forgetting about the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Yes, it's true humans have unlimited wants, but since fulfilling those wants results in less and less additional happiness the actual effects are non-linear.
Sure, but what if they replaced the most repetitive third of your job and used those gains to reduce headcount? Don't assume they have to have a 100% robotic worker replacement in order for this problem to occur.
There are three main sectors to the economy: Resources, Manufacturing, Service. When we automated resources people moved to manufacturing. When we automated manufacturing people moved to service. When we automate service there isn't really anywhere for them to go. The first signs of this happening would be stagnant wage growth amidst a growing economy and a declining labor force participation rate, which coincidentally is exactly what's going on right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Companies would automate jobs if they were being paid $2/hour.
Only if the project had a positive Net Present Value.
Thank goodness the economy will crash and people will revolt before literally only the rich have money to spend on things beyond basic survival.
Don't worry citizen, automated security drones will solve that problem!
If the System Architect's job could be automated enough that the former cashiers could handle it, then yes. Think that can't happen? Just wait, even without strong AI we're going to see all kinds of interesting problems as expert systems extend to ever larger portions of the economy.
Stop that and start rewarding employers who ACTUALLY create jobs.
Jobs are not a social good. Automation and the elimination of jobs is a good thing. The problem is a social system that only distributes resources based off of income and that we've created a situation where it's pretty hard for the majority of people to make income if they don't have a job. Ideally we should want a society where no one has to work unless they feel like it. Are we ready for that sort of society now? No, but we're headed in that general direction so it's time to start thinking about how to adapt our society to cope.
The sane thing to do would be to institute a minimum basic income.
We don't have time for rational solutions!
And only rarely attack the wrong people.
As long as the false positives are only the poor then that's not really a problem now is it?
The IRS frowns on that sort of thing, and when the IRS frowns on things, people get heavily penalized.
Of course PEOPLE get penalized, the rules are for the little people after all. Large corporations on the other hand are free from such burdensome oversight.
They spent years saying how college education needed to be more practical and job oriented, then when that happened they don't like the consequences.
Education is a civil right
Education is a public good, that isn't the same thing as a civil right.
The main problem with space travel so far has been a combination of custom parts and lack of scale. Get a cheap, rugged design made with commodity parts and then run it mass production style and you can really bring the cost down.
There's a highway near me that was designed for traffic to do 70mph but the road can't be signed for it because the state police won't sign off. So it sits at 55mph and everyone does 70mph anyway, and a few get ticketed each day. Same thing with surface streets.
We have great roads in Oregon but restrictive speed signs. In general everyone now treats that as the posted MINIMUM SPEED rather than the maximum. For example, HWY 26 has long stretches where the highway is broad, straight and has great sight lines, posted speeds should be about 80mph instead they're set at 55mph.
No, you apparently don't. In every state I'm aware of yellow means "stop if you can". It's effectively red, but lenient enough that if you're close to it and can't stop when it appears, then you're still fine.
Perhaps they've changed the definition but when I learned to drive yellow was "proceed with caution but be prepared to stop if the light changes". That's not the same thing as "stop if you can".
Wait, what? I don't have to write a text parser there are tons of well known tools already in existence. Binary != Improvement
Again, you're assuming that the worldwide supply of STEM workers is elastic (i.e., high salaries generate more STEM workers)
It is somewhat elastic, see the 1990s for an example of more people coming into the STEM field due to wages. I'm also saying that we currently graduate more STEM workers than the field can absorb.
and that the demand for STEM workers is inelastic (i.e., fewer STEM workers means significantly higher salaries).
It's somewhat inelastic. Many companies have business models that rely on creating new products. Apple isn't going to stop making new iPhones just because engineers get a bit more expensive.
You're incorrectly assuming that the demand for toilet paper is inelastic.
It's certainly not 100% inelastic, but then few things are. Still, people have a strong preference for it over the alternatives. Yes, obviously people won't pay $1000 a roll, but the price would never get that high in the first place. In order to explore what would happen we'd have to specify more details about why the price was rising. For example, if trees used for paper production became more expensive then alternative base materials might be employed.
Again, same wrong assumption. The demand for STEM workers is elastic; people who would make money by employing STEM graduates have many other ways of making money and they switch to those.
Sure, but the demand for the things produced with STEM workers doesn't go away. It's not like people are going to stop wanting better televisions for example. Yes, if people refuse to pay sufficient prices for televisions to allow the manufacturer to make a profit then they won't make them but what would happen instead is you'd get either lower quality televisions, or the quantity of total televisions would be reduced while the target customer would be higher market.
In many cases, a shortage of something doesn't cause prices to rise, it causes people to substitute.
Yes, that's a valid point and to the extent possible STEM workers are being replaced by automation & process improvements that makes the existing workers more productive. Still, we're hardly to the point yet where STEM workers can be completely replaced.
Here you are also assuming that the supply of STEM graduates is elastic.
Yes, there is a limit of how many STEM workers we could possibly have, but currently we're no where near the limit.
If toilet paper was $1000 a roll, investors would open toilet paper factories in massive numbers, supplies would increase and costs would come down. That's how economics works.
If there were a shortage of STEM workers pay would increase, massive numbers of people would see the big paychecks and enroll in STEM courses, the new graduates would increase the supply and wages would come back down, that's the market at work.
Makes no money for the propertied class? Look at the standard of living now and in the past.
For the rich it actually hasn't improved that much. Travel is faster and medical care is better but otherwise I'm hard pressed to come up with many things that are better for the wealthy than they were in the past. Average living standards have improved enormously, but that's a different subject.
Either shorten it to TEM or mention that there are many jobs under the STEM categories, but S-cience is experiencing total glut.
You can drop the math, they have a glut as well. Oh and many fields of engineering are pretty full. Technology is not as bad though it skews heavily towards the most talented end of the work force. So really it's "Hey we need some more of the brightest in technology and a few specialized forms of engineering but if you're not in the top 10% and pick the right field then don't bother".
Yes, money is limited: if we were to devote more of our economy to scientific progress then less of our economy would be available to make designer handbags for rich people. But given the choice between having our grandchildren grow up in a world where they no longer have to fear dying slowly and painfully before their time from cancer - or rich people in the present having a few extra designer handbags - do we really prefer that the rich people have their designer handbags?
It does seem strange doesn't it? As it turns out central planning, which is what you're suggesting, has built in inefficiencies that often are worse than the proposed benefit, even in the case of redirecting funds from seemingly frivolous uses to what seem like better purposes. I'm not saying that increasing government funded science is bad per se, but you have to be really careful about how you set it up or you can actually make things overall worse instead of better.
Actually it is how economics works. If they can't hire someone and make a bigger return then their pay then there isn't a shortage is there? If you want to look at what a shortage looks like check out the hiring environment for tech workers in the 1990s, and yes salaries were increasing sharply.
Ok, if that's your argument then I want a reasonably accurate cost benefit analysis.
Let's just hope that happens before the creation of robotic security forces.
THE HUMAN DEMAND IS INFINITE.
Perhaps but you're forgetting about the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Yes, it's true humans have unlimited wants, but since fulfilling those wants results in less and less additional happiness the actual effects are non-linear.
Sure, but what if they replaced the most repetitive third of your job and used those gains to reduce headcount? Don't assume they have to have a 100% robotic worker replacement in order for this problem to occur.
There are three main sectors to the economy: Resources, Manufacturing, Service. When we automated resources people moved to manufacturing. When we automated manufacturing people moved to service. When we automate service there isn't really anywhere for them to go. The first signs of this happening would be stagnant wage growth amidst a growing economy and a declining labor force participation rate, which coincidentally is exactly what's going on right now.