Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No.. you are wrong... It is Consumer spending. When people have to worry about necessities... they don't really give a shit about smartphone technologies.
You are wrong.... face it. I am very far from a narcissist... after all... what is more narcissistic than saying..."why should I have to pay"?
After all... my tax dollars help to pay my own salary... how 'bout yours? If you are a private sector employee... you are beggin for a decent life.... "please Mr. Man... don't outsource my job and make me a ward of the state... or a Greeter at Walmart"/
Seriously.. I've laid my career out in the open for your scrutiny to the general public... what do you do to help our world?
your just like Obama. You got yourself on some kind of pedestal because your a public servant. Your such a saint because of your job? Give me a break. Last time I checked the clergy (community organizers) liked little boys. Your job doesn't dictate your prestiege, its just your job. You chose it, deal with it. A person that brags about their charity or honor has none at all.
No....This is where you are dead wrong. I support public assistance for those incapable of caring for themselves as well as those who cannot work due to physical or mental incapacities.Obama's ties to what?!!!! What the fuck are you blabbering about?
It is not consumer spending that is low. It is consumer confidence. People see the price of gas, the rising food prices and they hunker down and slam shut their pocketbooks.
Why? People are not confident in the current administration's handling of domestic policy and the economy.
Why are you telling us about your job? Do you realize you're not phasing anyone?
Your job is a CHOICE....You took the job for the benefits and retirement. That's what every self pity party government employee says.
So really..You can stop bitching about your job. You can also stop crowing how you are the hardest worker on the planet. Because, ya know what, this thread was never about you.
However, you're liberal. And liberals are narcissists.
You know exactly what I am talking about....
Why did I speak of my job? Because my JOB deals with the people you deem "wastes of space". They can't work, they can't make money for some rich asshole. So you want to cut their services to the bone. Just like in the 80's when Mental patients were kicked out of Institutions across the country because ol' Ronnie decided to lower taxes for his Corporate buddies....Just like the situation is now... just like it's Been since Ronnie.
I took the job because I needed one. I stayed all these years because I love it. Not the pay or the benefits... but the people I work with. It wasn't a pity party... but that's all you can see... black and white.
BTW.... what is more narcissistic than the term "Why should I have to pay for someone else"? That's about as selfish and narcissistic as it gets.
Generally the objection to welfare and other social spending is the outright disgusting waste of taxpayer dollars. The bureaucracy, the over employment in those bureaucracies, the incredible waste and of course those who game the system.
Again you take the opportunity to take a shot at those who have succeeded. Your problem.
If you like the people you work with, you have a strange way of showing it.
You people think because we want accountability and an end to wasteful spending we want to end social programs. That's the all or nothing straw man argument you libs use to keep your precious budgets intact.
Just like the rest of us, you people in the public sector will just have to get used to working with less and get used to smaller budgets.
If you don't like it, you are free to join the private sector.
Marx -- a brilliant lunatic -- respected the power of capitalism.
He likened it to a bulldozer.
Meaning:
Whatever stands in the way of profit -- science, truth, justice -- ultimately gets sacrificed to the bottom line.
For example:
If your company is polluting the Hudson River with PCBs, and science proves that it causes cancer -- and people start dying -- than the bulldozer pays an unscrupulous scientist to disprove the link between PCBs and cancer.
Meaning:
When the war is between truth and money . . . money always wins.
The Republican information machine has placed an entire generation of under-educated Americans in a moron bubble.
Inside the bubble we hear nothing of oil geopolitics.
Ask a moron inside the bubble to describe America's involvement in Iran's politics in the 50's or Reagan's relationship to Hussein, and they stare at you blankly.
What is the National Anthem of Planet Moron?
Mechanization and atomization have not lead to the loss of blue collar jobs.
The bulldozer is powerful.
We are doomed.None of your arguments have anything to do with technology resulting in job loss.
Um yeah..they do.
The recent spike in unelpoyment is largesly the result of the monetary metldown brought to us by the BANSTERS, not by techology.
In the longer run, however, advances in technology are creating an entrenched and growing class of unemployable, economically unviable citizens..
And if the farmer buys more land because of the tractor and uses the same amount of work, he is not creating more jobs if he bought that land and hired workers to use a plow. Maybe that land was used by another farmer, but the tractor made the other farmer less efficient so he went out of business and lost his job. Technological advances in production always function to reduce the amount of people it takes to do a job. But my argument is that because of the resources it frees up, there will be more jobs everywhere else, so on net balance employment will not decrease and people may simply get jobs somewhere else. Do you agree with that?
No, the emboldened sentence is where you're missing the point.
That is NOT what is happening.
Back when the USA was migrating from an agricultural nation to an industrialized nation, the folks coming off the farms could find work in the expanding industrial base.
Additionally, they were qualified to assume those positions because factory work was something most people could do.
But the advances in technology now are NOT creating opportunities for as many workers as those advances are displacing.
And WORSE, the advances in technology are moving UP THE EMPLOYMENTS SKILLS FOODCHAIN, TOO.
We are systenmatically making an increasingly larger percentage of our population (and this IS happening worldwide, too) ECONOMICALLY unviable.
IN the 19th century it was farm laboring jobs that machines and technology eliminated.
In the later half of the 20th century it was industrial and clerical jobs that advances in technology started replacing.
In the beginning of THIS CENTURY we're seeing advancing technology replacing formerly highly skilled workers.
And the number of jobs that are created to service this techological society is a pittance compared to the numbers of jobs that the technology is replacing.
In the last 15 year techology has replaced 6 workers in my tiny tiny operation. While I am able to increase my output my laboring force went down 75%
Multiply my experience by thousands and thousands of small and medium and large businesses, and you discover that we are created an ENTRENCHED SYSTEMIC class of people who are virtually UNEMPLOYABLE.
Now how does that effect every one of us, regardless of how secure we might be in our current billets?
The under and unemployable do NOT pay taxes, they do NOT purchases goods and they do become a drag on society precisely because, while willing to work, there is no job that will pay them enough to BE good citizens and consumers in this CONSUMER DRIVEN economy.
We are creating a SYSTEMIC problem in this society and aren't even talking about it realistically
Every time this issue comes up, people dismiss it by proposing that people just need more education.
But as I have already point out, even EDUCATED people are being effected by this problem, because techological advances in THINKING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS are making even well educated people REDUNDANT.
It's time to START thinking about how we deal with a problem that is now manifesting and threatening not just the stupid and skilless, but the well educated and highly skilled workers, too.
This problem will not go away because techological advances are taking jobs from people such that there is no educational path that any worker can take that will INSURE that they won't be reducatant TOMORROW.
Many software programmers are just now beginning to feel that pinch.
I can assure you that sooner or later most people who depend on working (be it with their hands or with their heads) for their rice bowls are going to become redundant.
The ONLY socultion to this is a radical RETHINK of the social contract.
Market forces do NOT have a solution for this problem, folks.
Why not?
Because our economic system is based on a theory of SCARCITY AND WANT.
But techology is creating a system of PLENTY produced by less and less workers.
Unhappily, one needs to be linked into that economy system with economically viable employment to garner the income to take advantage of it.
But as the PROFITS go only to the CAPITALISTS, the working classes grow poorer and poorer until the economy we have in place no longer SERVES the people in it.
Right now I'd say about 20% of the population of all workers are basically REPLACEABLE by machines.
In ten years? Add some more percent of the workforces to that problem
In twenty years, most of you who are feeling so sanguine because you currently have marketable skills?
You're hosed, too.
And believe me when I tell you that very few of your will have the resources or even the mental acuity to retrain for a job that you can do better or more cheaply than a thinking machine.
I don't mean to be rude, but when every sentence is a new line it is hard to read.
Understood. Some people prefer it to large blacks of text.
And if you don't agree with what I said...then you can't really be for technology, because you believe it will ultimately result in net unemployment.
Not really. One can be for techological advances and still understand that they have negative consequences on society, too.
What do you mean that is not what is happening? Again, I don't see massive unemployment correlating with modern technological advances.
The fact that you don't see it proves nothing. When was the last time you talked to a telephone operator to make a long distance call?
My guess is you never have had to do that.
Current unemployment is not caused by technology.
The currently SPIKE in unemployment is, I agree, not much related to the problem of techology making workers reductant, I agee.
Again, people will not be perpetually unemployed. You keep forgetting that people have to be hired to build and design the machines.
And apparently you keep forgetting that if that technology costs more to operate and maintain than having a purely human workforce in place, it would NOT be implemented.
Do the math.
Industries make capital investments in techology and machines to replace workers or to insure that their prodcutivity will go up without having to hire new workers.
Either way those capital investments mean less humans are needed to produce goods and services
And if goods are cheaper to produce/cheaper to buy because of technology, people will have more money to spend or invest on everything else.
Yes, that is true...assuming that the people have jobs to buy these cheaper products.
Even if you have an ecnomy where all production is done by machines, and there are only a few workers working at one time, standards of living would still be higher.
Really? How will the people with no biable employment improve their standards of living?
WELFARE?
Because of the massive increase in supply due to cheap production, goods would be ridiculously cheap.
Nothing is cheap if you have NO income.
Maybe a day's wage in such a future could cover a year's worth of expenses.
Maybe....IF you have a job.
The point of technology is to reduce the amount of work we have to do ourselves. Again, that is why children no longer have to work. Unemployment is not necessarily a bad thing if people do not need to constantly work to support themselves.
It is a bad thing if you liove in a CAPITALIST society that doesn't need YOUR labor.
Either way, we are not at that point right now.
We are reaching that point, which was sort of the thing I was pointing out
There is still no net job loss caused by technology, and job restructuring.
Most of what you say is just dramatic rhetoric.
You keep telling us that, but offer no evidence to support your theory. I can give you the names of six people I let go in the last ten years thanks to improving techology.
Such as? And do you have proof those workers are now unemployable as you claim?In the beginning of THIS CENTURY we're seeing advancing technology replacing formerly highly skilled workers.
Such as the six people I let go due to improving techology in my business.
Here are your logical fallacies:
1. To have a strong economy with high standards of living, everyone must be employed. (this is not true. The whole purpose of economic expansion is ultimately to work less and enjoy life more. Would we all be better off working 24/7?)
This isn't a logical fallacy.
2. Machines create a class of people that cannot be employed. (Really? Because I am not seeing that at all...)
The fact that you're not seeing proves exactly nothing.
I didn't say that
(before you say strawman, reread your argument. Technology increases production. That is a fact. But then you say it creates unemployment, and lower standard of living. You ignore the rise in standard of living that cheaper products and a growing economy bring, and are thus implying that with increased production we are worse off. It is labor saving machinery and cost reducing methods that allow for increased production to occur).
What I said, was that increasing technology is creating a class of laborers who are economic unviable.
That is not at ALL the same thing as saying:
"Increased production lowers the standard of living."
And what technological advances of the 21st century are you even talking about that destroy jobs unlike any other past advances? It has only been 10 years, after all.
The techological advances that are making some laborers economically unviable started long before the 21st century.
Luddites will be Luddites.
I know you think you know what a luddite is. You clearly do not. Try reading the history of what the REAL Luddites were all about.
Throughout history, people have been trying to blame technology for unemployment and economic problems, predicting doomsday in the future.
Well that is NOT what I am doing
And time and time again they are proven wrong. Yet people still arise with the same technophobic arguments, only they try to say somehow this time it is "different" for some concocted reason. You new reason is that there is somehow no new work in the economy, as if work is limited, and machines are taking away jobs as if the economy is a zero sum game. That is not how it works.
NO wonder you object to my post. You clearly didn't read it.
In 30 years, there will not be any more involuntary unemployment caused by technology than there has been in the past. But I guarantee that then the same technophobes will be making more excuses to blame problems on technology.
STop living in a FAITH BASED DREAM WORLD, and start looking at the stats, amigo.
My living is made because of techology, dude.
Your posting to someone who embraced techology probably before you were born.
Nevertheless, the advances in techology are a double edged sword.
They bring us postive effects in some areas, and they cause disruption of the social fabric in other ways.
Try thinking more subtly than a cheerleader.
Start looking at the WHOLE picture.
You embrace technology yet your post indicates you oppose it?No, the emboldened sentence is where you're missing the point.
That is NOT what is happening.
Back when the USA was migrating from an agricultural nation to an industrialized nation, the folks coming off the farms could find work in the expanding industrial base.
Additionally, they were qualified to assume those positions because factory work was something most people could do.
But the advances in technology now are NOT creating opportunities for as many workers as those advances are displacing.
And WORSE, the advances in technology are moving UP THE EMPLOYMENTS SKILLS FOODCHAIN, TOO.
We are systenmatically making an increasingly larger percentage of our population (and this IS happening worldwide, too) ECONOMICALLY unviable.
IN the 19th century it was farm laboring jobs that machines and technology eliminated.
In the later half of the 20th century it was industrial and clerical jobs that advances in technology started replacing.
In the beginning of THIS CENTURY we're seeing advancing technology replacing formerly highly skilled workers.
And the number of jobs that are created to service this techological society is a pittance compared to the numbers of jobs that the technology is replacing.
In the last 15 year techology has replaced 6 workers in my tiny tiny operation. While I am able to increase my output my laboring force went down 75%
Multiply my experience by thousands and thousands of small and medium and large businesses, and you discover that we are created an ENTRENCHED SYSTEMIC class of people who are virtually UNEMPLOYABLE.
Now how does that effect every one of us, regardless of how secure we might be in our current billets?
The under and unemployable do NOT pay taxes, they do NOT purchases goods and they do become a drag on society precisely because, while willing to work, there is no job that will pay them enough to BE good citizens and consumers in this CONSUMER DRIVEN economy.
We are creating a SYSTEMIC problem in this society and aren't even talking about it realistically
Every time this issue comes up, people dismiss it by proposing that people just need more education.
But as I have already point out, even EDUCATED people are being effected by this problem, because techological advances in THINKING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS are making even well educated people REDUNDANT.
It's time to START thinking about how we deal with a problem that is now manifesting and threatening not just the stupid and skilless, but the well educated and highly skilled workers, too.
This problem will not go away because techological advances are taking jobs from people such that there is no educational path that any worker can take that will INSURE that they won't be reducatant TOMORROW.
Many software programmers are just now beginning to feel that pinch.
I can assure you that sooner or later most people who depend on working (be it with their hands or with their heads) for their rice bowls are going to become redundant.
The ONLY socultion to this is a radical RETHINK of the social contract.
Market forces do NOT have a solution for this problem, folks.
Why not?
Because our economic system is based on a theory of SCARCITY AND WANT.
But techology is creating a system of PLENTY produced by less and less workers.
Unhappily, one needs to be linked into that economy system with economically viable employment to garner the income to take advantage of it.
But as the PROFITS go only to the CAPITALISTS, the working classes grow poorer and poorer until the economy we have in place no longer SERVES the people in it.
Right now I'd say about 20% of the population of all workers are basically REPLACEABLE by machines.
In ten years? Add some more percent of the workforces to that problem
In twenty years, most of you who are feeling so sanguine because you currently have marketable skills?
You're hosed, too.
And believe me when I tell you that very few of your will have the resources or even the mental acuity to retrain for a job that you can do better or more cheaply than a thinking machine.
Understood. Some people prefer it to large blacks of text.
Not really. One can be for techological advances and still understand that they have negative consequences on society, too.
The fact that you don't see it proves nothing. When was the last time you talked to a telephone operator to make a long distance call?
My guess is you never have had to do that.
The currently SPIKE in unemployment is, I agree, not much related to the problem of techology making workers reductant, I agee.
And apparently you keep forgetting that if that technology costs more to operate and maintain than having a purely human workforce in place, it would NOT be implemented.
Do the math.
Industries make capital investments in techology and machines to replace workers or to insure that their prodcutivity will go up without having to hire new workers.
Either way those capital investments mean less humans are needed to produce goods and services
Yes, that is true...assuming that the people have jobs to buy these cheaper products.
Really? How will the people with no biable employment improve their standards of living?
WELFARE?
Nothing is cheap if you have NO income.
Maybe....IF you have a job.
It is a bad thing if you liove in a CAPITALIST society that doesn't need YOUR labor.
We are reaching that point, which was sort of the thing I was pointing out
You keep telling us that, but offer no evidence to support your theory. I can give you the names of six people I let go in the last ten years thanks to improving techology.
Such as the six people I let go due to improving techology in my business.
This isn't a logical fallacy.
The fact that you're not seeing proves exactly nothing.
I didn't say that
What I said, was that increasing technology is creating a class of laborers who are economic unviable.
That is not at ALL the same thing as saying:
"Increased production lowers the standard of living."
The techological advances that are making some laborers economically unviable started long before the 21st century.
I know you think you know what a luddite is. You clearly do not. Try reading the history of what the REAL Luddites were all about.
Well that is NOT what I am doing
NO wonder you object to my post. You clearly didn't read it.
In 30 years, there will not be any more involuntary unemployment caused by technology than there has been in the past. But I guarantee that then the same technophobes will be making more excuses to blame problems on technology.
STop living in a FAITH BASED DREAM WORLD, and start looking at the stats, amigo.
My living is made because of techology, dude.
Your posting to someone who embraced techology probably before you were born.
Nevertheless, the advances in techology are a double edged sword.
They bring us postive effects in some areas, and they cause disruption of the social fabric in other ways.
Try thinking more subtly than a cheerleader.
Start looking at the WHOLE picture.
You are an idealist. You want everything both ways.
Doesn't work that way.
It took you several sentences to get to the root of your agenda. "Social fabric"....Uh uh.....
All of your side's buzz words and rhetoric leads to one conclusion. That is you want the US to become a nation where central planning creates a womb to tomb secure Utopian society.
Sorry Charlie. That is incompatible with liberty and freedom. Socialism is a failed experiment.
I think you quoted it weird because it looks like you are responding to me. I in no way support central planning lol. Quite the opposite.You embrace technology yet your post indicates you oppose it?Understood. Some people prefer it to large blacks of text.
Not really. One can be for techological advances and still understand that they have negative consequences on society, too.
The fact that you don't see it proves nothing. When was the last time you talked to a telephone operator to make a long distance call?
My guess is you never have had to do that.
The currently SPIKE in unemployment is, I agree, not much related to the problem of techology making workers reductant, I agee.
And apparently you keep forgetting that if that technology costs more to operate and maintain than having a purely human workforce in place, it would NOT be implemented.
Do the math.
Industries make capital investments in techology and machines to replace workers or to insure that their prodcutivity will go up without having to hire new workers.
Either way those capital investments mean less humans are needed to produce goods and services
Yes, that is true...assuming that the people have jobs to buy these cheaper products.
Really? How will the people with no biable employment improve their standards of living?
WELFARE?
Nothing is cheap if you have NO income.
Maybe....IF you have a job.
It is a bad thing if you liove in a CAPITALIST society that doesn't need YOUR labor.
We are reaching that point, which was sort of the thing I was pointing out
You keep telling us that, but offer no evidence to support your theory. I can give you the names of six people I let go in the last ten years thanks to improving techology.
Such as the six people I let go due to improving techology in my business.
This isn't a logical fallacy.
The fact that you're not seeing proves exactly nothing.
I didn't say that
What I said, was that increasing technology is creating a class of laborers who are economic unviable.
That is not at ALL the same thing as saying:
"Increased production lowers the standard of living."
The techological advances that are making some laborers economically unviable started long before the 21st century.
I know you think you know what a luddite is. You clearly do not. Try reading the history of what the REAL Luddites were all about.
Well that is NOT what I am doing
NO wonder you object to my post. You clearly didn't read it.
STop living in a FAITH BASED DREAM WORLD, and start looking at the stats, amigo.
My living is made because of techology, dude.
Your posting to someone who embraced techology probably before you were born.
Nevertheless, the advances in techology are a double edged sword.
They bring us postive effects in some areas, and they cause disruption of the social fabric in other ways.
Try thinking more subtly than a cheerleader.
Start looking at the WHOLE picture.
You are an idealist. You want everything both ways.
Doesn't work that way.
It took you several sentences to get to the root of your agenda. "Social fabric"....Uh uh.....
All of your side's buzz words and rhetoric leads to one conclusion. That is you want the US to become a nation where central planning creates a womb to tomb secure Utopian society.
Sorry Charlie. That is incompatible with liberty and freedom. Socialism is a failed experiment.
If I posted to you in error, apologies all around.I think you quoted it weird because it looks like you are responding to me. I in no way support central planning lol. Quite the opposite.You embrace technology yet your post indicates you oppose it?
You are an idealist. You want everything both ways.
Doesn't work that way.
It took you several sentences to get to the root of your agenda. "Social fabric"....Uh uh.....
All of your side's buzz words and rhetoric leads to one conclusion. That is you want the US to become a nation where central planning creates a womb to tomb secure Utopian society.
Sorry Charlie. That is incompatible with liberty and freedom. Socialism is a failed experiment.
What is your opinion of my comments? Just curious....Thanks
Not me lol. But you can do whatever you want, it wont change your argument.Understood. Some people prefer it to large blacks of text.
Negative social consequences, sure. When it comes to economics, technology will always have positive consequences for everyone.Not really. One can be for techological advances and still understand that they have negative consequences on society, too.
Never. Where is your data that all previous phone operators have become permanently unemployed?The fact that you don't see it proves nothing. When was the last time you talked to a telephone operator to make a long distance call?
My guess is you never have had to do that.
Egad! Agreement!The currently SPIKE in unemployment is, I agree, not much related to the problem of techology making workers reductant, I agee.
Correct, but I am not forgetting that at all. Again you are assuming the labor will not be hired by another industry. And if the machines still use some form of human labor, the company may simply expand production and keep the same amount of workers. In the past, when new technology was implemented, employment in those industries actually increased. Workers were not being replaced, machines were simply added to expand production. Of course that is not always the case, especially in bad economic times when the primary goal is cutting production costs to stay in business, not necessarily expanding production.And apparently you keep forgetting that if that technology costs more to operate and maintain than having a purely human workforce in place, it would NOT be implemented.
Less humans needed in those specific industries. Other industries will hire the newly available workers, especially if those workers have experience. Cheaper production ultimately results in cheaper goods, meaning people have more money to spend in other industries, which is another way of saying demand for all other goods has increased. Increased demand necessitates and increase in production and employment in all other industries. This is what you are forgetting. You are looking at the economy as an aggregate rather than a collection of millions of individual companies and businesses.Do the math.
Industries make capital investments in techology and machines to replace workers or to insure that their prodcutivity will go up without having to hire new workers.
Either way those capital investments mean less humans are needed to produce goods and services
Which they will. Even so, if products are cheap enough, it may once again be possible for the wife to stay at home unemployed (although the job of a mom is enough work in itself) and the man works, or vice versa depending on societal/individual preferences. Again, everyone doesn't have to be employed to enjoy a good standard of living. We all desire to work less and still live better. Technology allows this.Yes, that is true...assuming that the people have jobs to buy these cheaper products.
It is possible for society to advance in technology so much that a single day's work could pay for a year's worth of life. So people could simply retire at a very early age, or work part time. Ultimately, less people will be needed to work. But that is a good thing. The whole purpose of economic growth is so individuals in society work less but still get more. People worked much harder in the 18th century, but had meager standards of living.Really? How will the people with no viable employment improve their standards of living?
WELFARE?
I have already refuted that. If it takes less income to produce, the next logical conclusion is that it will take less work to get the same amount of real wages.Nothing is cheap if you have NO income.
Is that your only argument? If a day of work can provide for a year, you would only have to work for a few months to support yourself for your entire life, or work one day every year. You are simply splitting the work.Maybe....IF you have a job.
Not really a response to my quote. If you can work less and still earn the same or higher real wages, why on earth would it be a bad thing if everyone worked less? To me that seems great.It is a bad thing if you liove in a CAPITALIST society that doesn't need YOUR labor.
I am using logic right now, but you only need to look at history to see how technology has not resulted in net unemployment. Again, if that were the case, nearly everyone would be unemployed.You keep telling us that, but offer no evidence to support your theory.
And they probably already have or soon will find new jobs. They wont be unemployed forever. Your reduced cost of production will eventually allow for the expansion of other industries.I can give you the names of six people I let go in the last ten years thanks to improving techology.
How on earth does the fact you let them go mean they are unemployable? They can just find another job.Such as the six people I let go due to improving techology in my business.
Care to explain why? Or are you just going to restate it? Unless your definition of standard of living=every man woman and child working full time. Children no longer have to work as they did in the 19th century. If you still included children in the workforce, yes unemployment would be hirer. But unemployment only includes people who actually want to be employed. When I say technology does not result in net unemployment, I mean that if people end up not in the long term it is because they do not need to. Those that do will find work in the industries that have the increased demand.This isn't a logical fallacy.
In otherwords, I was asking you to provide evidence.The fact that you're not seeing proves exactly nothing.
It is not the same, you are right. But in a way you seem to be arguing against production made possible by technology.I didn't say that
What I said, was that increasing technology is creating a class of laborers who are economic unviable.
That is not at ALL the same thing as saying:
"Increased production lowers the standard of living."
Once again...such as? You are avoiding the question.The techological advances that are making some laborers economically unviable started long before the 21st century.
Luddites protested against mechanization using similar arguments that you use. That is all I am saying.I know you think you know what a luddite is. You clearly do not. Try reading the history of what the REAL Luddites were all about.
If that is not what you are doing, then you agree that technology does not cause economic and unemployment problems. Which I highly doubt is the case.Well that is NOT what I am doing
I didn't read it yet I quoted every word you said in little sections? BTW, you didn't actually argue why what I said was wrong.NO wonder you object to my post. You clearly didn't read it.
Faith? When did I mention anything about faith? Do you mean reason? Because the two are not the same. If you want to criticize my logic approach, go ahead. All it takes is a look at historical data to see the actual results of technology, but remember statistics mean nothing without analysis and explanations.STop living in a FAITH BASED DREAM WORLD, and start looking at the stats, amigo.
Pretty much all ad hominem there with no viable argument. Basically, you are saying "I embraced technology before you, and therefore I know more about the effects of technology than you and you are a cheerleader." Pathetic.My living is made because of techology, dude.
Your posting to someone who embraced techology probably before you were born.
Nevertheless, the advances in techology are a double edged sword.
They bring us postive effects in some areas, and they cause disruption of the social fabric in other ways.
Try thinking more subtly than a cheerleader.
Start looking at the WHOLE picture.
