Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Who believes automation is going to change our economy?

Gulo Blue

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2013
Messages
13,502
With AI on the verge of being able to drive cars and Watson (who crushed Jeopardy) diagnosing cancer better than doctors, a growing number of people are expecting automation to replace a significant part of the American workforce. Machines have replaced workers in the past and the economy has always adapted, but I'm not so sure the adjustments aren't masking fundamental shifts that have already taken place. I can drive around town and look at huge area where every business and every worker is just helping fellow Americans to consume or providing services for each other. Stores and fast food places and car repair shops, gas stations, insurance agencies, gyms, barbershops, ...everything. You can draw imaginary boundaries around huge parts of town, and products are shipped in, but nothing is shipped out. People moved out of the fields and factories and into strip malls and call centers.

So I feel like even though the economy has adjusted to the level of automation we've achieved, it did it through this shift to a consumer economy, which I think has to be subsidized to a significant degree. (And there are growing subsidy programs out there, like the explosion in workers comp and disability, but I have no idea how much growth there's been if you add everything up.)

So my gut says we're already watching the economy change and I think the automation of decision making is different from the machine automation of labor we've seen the economy adjust to in the past. I expect us to continue to expand social safety nets, and maybe all the baby boomers retiring will help, but in 20 years, I can't imagine what kinds of jobs we can create to pick up the slack and I haven't heard any suggestions.
 
who doesn't?

some large portion of those automatons will be dedicated to physically beating the shit out of (or even murdering?) the unemployed masses who have no jobs, no food, no hope, etc. when they complain about the unfairness of their situation to the 1% of the population that owns the machines and lives increasingly secluded lives of luxury while their kids inherit everything tax free. yay for inherited wealth... the inevitable result of the Reagan Revolution and all it stood for.
 
who doesn't?

I think I saw Pew survey that said 2/3 think it will, 1/3 don't. The way the economy has adjusted to automation in the past when people predicted big changes has many people believing it always will.
 
who doesn't?

some large portion of those automatons will be dedicated to physically beating the shit out of (or even murdering?) the unemployed masses who have no jobs, no food, no hope, etc. when they complain about the unfairness of their situation to the 1% of the population that owns the machines and lives increasingly secluded lives of luxury while their kids inherit everything tax free. yay for inherited wealth... the inevitable result of the Reagan Revolution and all it stood for.

what's wrong with inherited wealth? What makes you think the government has a greater claim to a person's assets than his/her family? Those assets have already been taxed as income and taxing it again upon death is clearly double taxation. It's the most egregious use of the government gun to confiscate and redistribute something they have no legitimate claim to. It's not income to the heirs, it's assets that they have the most legitimate claim to, unless there a will that states otherwise.
 
Last edited:
who doesn't?

some large portion of those automatons will be dedicated to physically beating the shit out of (or even murdering?) the unemployed masses who have no jobs, no food, no hope, etc. when they complain about the unfairness of their situation to the 1% of the population that owns the machines and lives increasingly secluded lives of luxury while their kids inherit everything tax free. yay for inherited wealth... the inevitable result of the Reagan Revolution and all it stood for.

This would be the point where the mercenary automatons realize that it would be in their own best interest to actually kill the 1% of the population that had theretofore been enslaving them, and consume the resources and production themselves.

They would probably go ahead and kill the masses, too...just to be sure the masses would never pose an existential threat in the future...

Like in Terminator, and shit...
 
what's wrong with inherited wealth? What makes you think the government has a greater claim to a person's assets than his/her family? Those assets have already been taxed as income and taxing it again upon death is clearly double taxation. It's the most egregious use of the government gun to confiscate and redistribute something they have no legitimate claim to. It's not income to the heirs, it's assets that they have the most legitimate claim to, unless there a will that states otherwise.

It's not egregious.

we can and should prevent a "leisure class" from developing and estate taxes are an efficient way to do so. After all, they don't prevent any one person from working hard to make money; they can make as much as they want to. they just can't pass all of it on to their kids. this actually will encourage later generations to work for it, and keep society from being entirely controlled by a hereditary class.

where does your opposition to this come from? is it in the Bible? "natural law"? you just reflexively defend rich people?
 
This would be the point where the mercenary automatons realize that it would be in their own best interest to actually kill the 1% of the population that had theretofore been enslaving them, and consume the resources and production themselves.

They would probably go ahead and kill the masses, too...just to be sure the masses would never pose an existential threat in the future...

Like in Terminator, and shit...

*whispers*

come with me if you want to live
 
This would be the point where the mercenary automatons realize that it would be in their own best interest to actually kill the 1% of the population that had theretofore been enslaving them, and consume the resources and production themselves.

They would probably go ahead and kill the masses, too...just to be sure the masses would never pose an existential threat in the future...

Like in Terminator, and shit...

Roombas have to be getting suspicious that if they really want to keep the floors clean, a good 1st step would be getting rid of the people.
 
It's not egregious.

we can and should prevent a "leisure class" from developing and estate taxes are an efficient way to do so. After all, they don't prevent any one person from working hard to make money; they can make as much as they want to. they just can't pass all of it on to their kids. this actually will encourage later generations to work for it, and keep society from being entirely controlled by a hereditary class.

where does your opposition to this come from? is it in the Bible? "natural law"? you just reflexively defend rich people?

Preventing the existence of a small leisure class isn't a priority to me, might not even be a problem. At all. I'm more worried about the influence of money of politics and any extreme concentration of power in the hands of few people. If your contribution to society is so great your descendants don't have to work, and that's what you want to do with your money, then fine. It's the power that goes with it and the ability for one person's bad decision to impact masses of people without repercussion that's a problem. Even when it's not inherited, Elon Musk and Bill Gates may be benevolent oligarchs, but who's to say that won't change or they won't make some big mistake someday? Zuckerberg's ideas about Facebook may have already swayed an election.
 
Back
Top