The future of capitalism

[pinqy]

How so.

You directly claim that the participation rate has nothing to do with automation.

I point out that it does and point to a time before automation when all people had to work.

You directly claimed that machines cannot think.

I post that they can.

You call this a non sequitur.

What, exactly, makes it a non sequitur?

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be. People can. Therein is the difference.

And I do not think the low labor participation rate is a good thing and I do not think automation has anything to do with it. Automation changes the way we work and the types of work available to us, but I see technology as making many different types of work available that were not available before that technology and that it has not diminished the ability of the people to earn a living in any sense other than how they do that.

1. That is false. Again, LOOK at what I posted and do some goole-fu on learning machines. People are programming machines to learn tasks that are NOT programmed in through sensory feedback. Exactly what you and I do to learn a task.


2. So you think that labor participation rates of previous centuries being near 100% are better than say modern rates at 65%? 100 years ago you basically worked until death. Today you retire at 65 and take the next 20 years off. Perhaps labor participation rate is the incorrect term to use here – that is my fault. I am referring to the overall population vs. the number of people that work or try to work.

The labor participation rate is the number of people who would work if there is work; i.e. it is based on the able bodied people who are still of working age and need income to support themselves. So if you have been referring to any other group, then yes, you used the wrong term to describe that.

No it's not. The Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is not in the military, prison, or an institutuion who is either working or trying to find work. "Need" is irrelevant.

Same thing. The point is they need income--I did edit my previous post to reflect that more clearly--and that is why they are included in the labor participation rate.

A lot of them don't need income...which is one reason why the participation rate has dropped. When I was a teenager my father earned enough to support the family, but my sister, my mother, and I all worked as well for extra income. We didn't "need" it, but were still in the labor force.

 

[FA_Q2]

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be. People can. Therein is the difference.

And I do not think the low labor participation rate is a good thing and I do not think automation has anything to do with it. Automation changes the way we work and the types of work available to us, but I see technology as making many different types of work available that were not available before that technology and that it has not diminished the ability of the people to earn a living in any sense other than how they do that.

1. That is false. Again, LOOK at what I posted and do some goole-fu on learning machines. People are programming machines to learn tasks that are NOT programmed in through sensory feedback. Exactly what you and I do to learn a task.


2. So you think that labor participation rates of previous centuries being near 100% are better than say modern rates at 65%? 100 years ago you basically worked until death. Today you retire at 65 and take the next 20 years off. Perhaps labor participation rate is the incorrect term to use here – that is my fault. I am referring to the overall population vs. the number of people that work or try to work.

The labor participation rate is the number of people who would work if there is work; i.e. it is based on the able bodied people who are still of working age and need income to support themselves. So if you have been referring to any other group, then yes, you used the wrong term to describe that.

No it's not. The Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is not in the military, prison, or an institutuion who is either working or trying to find work. "Need" is irrelevant.

Same thing. The point is they need income--I did edit my previous post to reflect that more clearly--and that is why they are included in the labor participation rate.

A lot of them don't need income...which is one reason why the participation rate has dropped. When I was a teenager my father earned enough to support the family, but my sister, my mother, and I all worked as well for extra income. We didn't "need" it, but were still in the labor force.

And that is important. One of the advantages of increased production is that fewer people actually need to work.

 

[pinqy]

1. That is false. Again, LOOK at what I posted and do some goole-fu on learning machines. People are programming machines to learn tasks that are NOT programmed in through sensory feedback. Exactly what you and I do to learn a task.


2. So you think that labor participation rates of previous centuries being near 100% are better than say modern rates at 65%? 100 years ago you basically worked until death. Today you retire at 65 and take the next 20 years off. Perhaps labor participation rate is the incorrect term to use here – that is my fault. I am referring to the overall population vs. the number of people that work or try to work.

The labor participation rate is the number of people who would work if there is work; i.e. it is based on the able bodied people who are still of working age and need income to support themselves. So if you have been referring to any other group, then yes, you used the wrong term to describe that.

No it's not. The Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is not in the military, prison, or an institutuion who is either working or trying to find work. "Need" is irrelevant.

Same thing. The point is they need income--I did edit my previous post to reflect that more clearly--and that is why they are included in the labor participation rate.

A lot of them don't need income...which is one reason why the participation rate has dropped. When I was a teenager my father earned enough to support the family, but my sister, my mother, and I all worked as well for extra income. We didn't "need" it, but were still in the labor force.

And that is important. One of the advantages of increased production is that fewer people actually need to work.

But what I don't get is why you think the Labor Force Participation Rate went from near 100% in 1900 to 58.3% in 1947. That is a huge drop.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. That is false. Again, LOOK at what I posted and do some goole-fu on learning machines. People are programming machines to learn tasks that are NOT programmed in through sensory feedback. Exactly what you and I do to learn a task.


2. So you think that labor participation rates of previous centuries being near 100% are better than say modern rates at 65%? 100 years ago you basically worked until death. Today you retire at 65 and take the next 20 years off. Perhaps labor participation rate is the incorrect term to use here – that is my fault. I am referring to the overall population vs. the number of people that work or try to work.

The labor participation rate is the number of people who would work if there is work; i.e. it is based on the able bodied people who are still of working age and need income to support themselves. So if you have been referring to any other group, then yes, you used the wrong term to describe that.

No it's not. The Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is not in the military, prison, or an institutuion who is either working or trying to find work. "Need" is irrelevant.

Same thing. The point is they need income--I did edit my previous post to reflect that more clearly--and that is why they are included in the labor participation rate.

A lot of them don't need income...which is one reason why the participation rate has dropped. When I was a teenager my father earned enough to support the family, but my sister, my mother, and I all worked as well for extra income. We didn't "need" it, but were still in the labor force.

And that is important. One of the advantages of increased production is that fewer people actually need to work.

Then you are supporting what seems to be your concept that machines will replace humankind as a good thing? I didn't take that from your OP, but if that is what you are arguing, then okay. I don't see it, but oh well. Eye of the beholder and all that.

 

[FA_Q2]

The labor participation rate is the number of people who would work if there is work; i.e. it is based on the able bodied people who are still of working age and need income to support themselves. So if you have been referring to any other group, then yes, you used the wrong term to describe that.

No it's not. The Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is not in the military, prison, or an institutuion who is either working or trying to find work. "Need" is irrelevant.

Same thing. The point is they need income--I did edit my previous post to reflect that more clearly--and that is why they are included in the labor participation rate.

A lot of them don't need income...which is one reason why the participation rate has dropped. When I was a teenager my father earned enough to support the family, but my sister, my mother, and I all worked as well for extra income. We didn't "need" it, but were still in the labor force.

And that is important. One of the advantages of increased production is that fewer people actually need to work.

But what I don't get is why you think the Labor Force Participation Rate went from near 100% in 1900 to 58.3% in 1947. That is a huge drop.

I would not say near 100 percent in 1900 – earlier than that when the economy was based mostly on farming. Almost everyone worked. Higher education was rare, children helped work the fields and you died before retiring for a significant amount of time.

 

[FA_Q2]

The labor participation rate is the number of people who would work if there is work; i.e. it is based on the able bodied people who are still of working age and need income to support themselves. So if you have been referring to any other group, then yes, you used the wrong term to describe that.

No it's not. The Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is not in the military, prison, or an institutuion who is either working or trying to find work. "Need" is irrelevant.

Same thing. The point is they need income--I did edit my previous post to reflect that more clearly--and that is why they are included in the labor participation rate.

A lot of them don't need income...which is one reason why the participation rate has dropped. When I was a teenager my father earned enough to support the family, but my sister, my mother, and I all worked as well for extra income. We didn't "need" it, but were still in the labor force.

And that is important. One of the advantages of increased production is that fewer people actually need to work.

Then you are supporting what seems to be your concept that machines will replace humankind as a good thing? I didn't take that from your OP, but if that is what you are arguing, then okay. I don't see it, but oh well. Eye of the beholder and all that.

We will not be ‘replaced’ completely – just replaced in the labor force for the most part. Would you think that is a bad thing?

If it is bad then why was it good that we were replaced in the crop fields? How about when automated processes mostly took man out of assembly lines?

In each instance, quality of life rose. This will be no different – in the end. HOWEVER, I think that this shift is going to be like the industrial revolution – very painful. It took a lot of learning for our society to adjust to the new economics of an industrial world over an agrarian one. There was rampant poverty and horrible work conditions. While this time will be different – I believe it will require a shift in how we run our economy and I think that the last time this occurred supports this.

 

[SwimExpert]

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be.

Machine learning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

No it's not. The Labor Force is everyone age 16 and older who is not in the military, prison, or an institutuion who is either working or trying to find work. "Need" is irrelevant.

Same thing. The point is they need income--I did edit my previous post to reflect that more clearly--and that is why they are included in the labor participation rate.

A lot of them don't need income...which is one reason why the participation rate has dropped. When I was a teenager my father earned enough to support the family, but my sister, my mother, and I all worked as well for extra income. We didn't "need" it, but were still in the labor force.

And that is important. One of the advantages of increased production is that fewer people actually need to work.

Then you are supporting what seems to be your concept that machines will replace humankind as a good thing? I didn't take that from your OP, but if that is what you are arguing, then okay. I don't see it, but oh well. Eye of the beholder and all that.

We will not be ‘replaced’ completely – just replaced in the labor force for the most part. Would you think that is a bad thing?

If it is bad then why was it good that we were replaced in the crop fields? How about when automated processes mostly took man out of assembly lines?

In each instance, quality of life rose. This will be no different – in the end. HOWEVER, I think that this shift is going to be like the industrial revolution – very painful. It took a lot of learning for our society to adjust to the new economics of an industrial world over an agrarian one. There was rampant poverty and horrible work conditions. While this time will be different – I believe it will require a shift in how we run our economy and I think that the last time this occurred supports this.

I've already argued that point. For every job that has been eliminated due to automation and technology, two or more have been created to replace it. My argument has been that we are in no danger of being replaced by machines. If anything machines have made work much more enjoyable and satisfying and stimulating than it was before because it has expanded our capacity to innovate, create, and experiment. And though people enjoy more leisure than they once did, that too has created hundreds of thousands of jobs to give people something fun and interesting to do with that leisure.

But a people with no work to do? That is not something I see that as something to aspire for or to think of as a good thing. Work is enobling, character building, and to be useful and necessary is built into the human psyche in a way that it is essential for true happiness and satisfaction.

 

[Foxfyre]

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be.

Machine learning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You can call it anything you want, but if a human being with a sense of purpose does not program it into the machine in a way that the machine can do it, the machine ain't gonna learn it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Same thing. The point is they need income--I did edit my previous post to reflect that more clearly--and that is why they are included in the labor participation rate.

A lot of them don't need income...which is one reason why the participation rate has dropped. When I was a teenager my father earned enough to support the family, but my sister, my mother, and I all worked as well for extra income. We didn't "need" it, but were still in the labor force.

And that is important. One of the advantages of increased production is that fewer people actually need to work.

Then you are supporting what seems to be your concept that machines will replace humankind as a good thing? I didn't take that from your OP, but if that is what you are arguing, then okay. I don't see it, but oh well. Eye of the beholder and all that.

We will not be ‘replaced’ completely – just replaced in the labor force for the most part. Would you think that is a bad thing?

If it is bad then why was it good that we were replaced in the crop fields? How about when automated processes mostly took man out of assembly lines?

In each instance, quality of life rose. This will be no different – in the end. HOWEVER, I think that this shift is going to be like the industrial revolution – very painful. It took a lot of learning for our society to adjust to the new economics of an industrial world over an agrarian one. There was rampant poverty and horrible work conditions. While this time will be different – I believe it will require a shift in how we run our economy and I think that the last time this occurred supports this.

I've already argued that point. For every job that has been eliminated due to automation and technology, two or more have been created to replace it. My argument has been that we are in no danger of being replaced by machines. If anything machines have made work much more enjoyable and satisfying and stimulating than it was before because it has expanded our capacity to innovate, create, and experiment. And though people enjoy more leisure than they once did, that too has created hundreds of thousands of jobs to give people something fun and interesting to do with that leisure.

But a people with no work to do? That is not something I see that as something to aspire for or to think of as a good thing. Work is enobling, character building, and to be useful and necessary is built into the human psyche in a way that it is essential for true happiness and satisfaction.

Surely you cannot deny that the American economy the lowest number of jobs relative to population size since the Great Depression.

 

[Foxfyre]

A lot of them don't need income...which is one reason why the participation rate has dropped. When I was a teenager my father earned enough to support the family, but my sister, my mother, and I all worked as well for extra income. We didn't "need" it, but were still in the labor force.

And that is important. One of the advantages of increased production is that fewer people actually need to work.

Then you are supporting what seems to be your concept that machines will replace humankind as a good thing? I didn't take that from your OP, but if that is what you are arguing, then okay. I don't see it, but oh well. Eye of the beholder and all that.

We will not be ‘replaced’ completely – just replaced in the labor force for the most part. Would you think that is a bad thing?

If it is bad then why was it good that we were replaced in the crop fields? How about when automated processes mostly took man out of assembly lines?

In each instance, quality of life rose. This will be no different – in the end. HOWEVER, I think that this shift is going to be like the industrial revolution – very painful. It took a lot of learning for our society to adjust to the new economics of an industrial world over an agrarian one. There was rampant poverty and horrible work conditions. While this time will be different – I believe it will require a shift in how we run our economy and I think that the last time this occurred supports this.

I've already argued that point. For every job that has been eliminated due to automation and technology, two or more have been created to replace it. My argument has been that we are in no danger of being replaced by machines. If anything machines have made work much more enjoyable and satisfying and stimulating than it was before because it has expanded our capacity to innovate, create, and experiment. And though people enjoy more leisure than they once did, that too has created hundreds of thousands of jobs to give people something fun and interesting to do with that leisure.

But a people with no work to do? That is not something I see that as something to aspire for or to think of as a good thing. Work is enobling, character building, and to be useful and necessary is built into the human psyche in a way that it is essential for true happiness and satisfaction.

Surely you cannot deny that the American economy the lowest number of jobs relative to population size since the Great Depression.

I have argued that the percentage of labor participation is currently at the lowest since at least the Carter administration. I have also argued that has absolutely nothing to do with technology or 'smart' machines.

 

[SwimExpert]

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be.

Machine learning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You can call it anything you want, but if a human being with a sense of purpose does not program it into the machine in a way that the machine can do it, the machine ain't gonna learn it.

That's what you're not understanding, your premise is false. Advances are taking machines to the point where they can and do learn on their own. They can even teach other machines, and learn how to learn on their own. That is to say, while most machine learning relies on human created algorithms which are then fed to the machines, we are also starting see the development of machine generated algorithms that enhance the machine's preexisting learning abilities. We are also starting to see machines that can teach their algorithms to other machines in lieu of human involvement.

It currently is in rudimentary stages. Nonetheless it is now a reality. You adhere to a long held idea that basically boils down to the notion that machines can create hardware but only humans can create software. But this is in fact untrue. Machines can create software. Machines are creating software. And it's only going to continue. Right now, humans remain the primary contributor to technological development, but every single day that passes brings us closer to the technological singularity. At this point, we are already beyond the point of no return. It is now an eventuality.

 

[SwimExpert]

I have argued that the percentage of labor participation is currently at the lowest since at least the Carter administration. I have also argued that has absolutely nothing to do with technology or 'smart' machines.

But now you are saying that for every job displaced by technological advancements there have been even more jobs created as a result. This is an impossible juxtaposition. Your statement cannot be true while also acknowledging the scarcity of jobs in the modern American economy.

 

[Foxfyre]

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be.

Machine learning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You can call it anything you want, but if a human being with a sense of purpose does not program it into the machine in a way that the machine can do it, the machine ain't gonna learn it.

That's what you're not understanding, your premise is false. Advances are taking machines to the point where they can and do learn on their own. They can even teach other machines, and learn how to learn on their own. That is to say, while most machine learning relies on human created algorithms which are then fed to the machines, we are also starting see the development of machine generated algorithms that enhance the machine's preexisting learning abilities. We are also starting to see machines that can teach their algorithms to other machines in lieu of human involvement.

It currently is in rudimentary stages. Nonetheless it is now a reality. You adhere to a long held idea that basically boils down to the notion that machines can create hardware but only humans can create software. But this is in fact untrue. Machines can create software. Machines are creating software. And it's only going to continue. Right now, humans remain the primary contributor to technological development, but every single day that passes brings us closer to the technological singularity. At this point, we are already beyond the point of no return. It is now an eventuality.

When you have a machine that can invent something to replace itself, you'll have an argument. Until then, I will stand on my argument.

 

[SwimExpert]

A machine cannot do anything other than what it is programmed to do. It cannot choose to be anything different from what it is 'taught' to do however remarkable, brilliant, and complex that may be.

Machine learning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You can call it anything you want, but if a human being with a sense of purpose does not program it into the machine in a way that the machine can do it, the machine ain't gonna learn it.

That's what you're not understanding, your premise is false. Advances are taking machines to the point where they can and do learn on their own. They can even teach other machines, and learn how to learn on their own. That is to say, while most machine learning relies on human created algorithms which are then fed to the machines, we are also starting see the development of machine generated algorithms that enhance the machine's preexisting learning abilities. We are also starting to see machines that can teach their algorithms to other machines in lieu of human involvement.

It currently is in rudimentary stages. Nonetheless it is now a reality. You adhere to a long held idea that basically boils down to the notion that machines can create hardware but only humans can create software. But this is in fact untrue. Machines can create software. Machines are creating software. And it's only going to continue. Right now, humans remain the primary contributor to technological development, but every single day that passes brings us closer to the technological singularity. At this point, we are already beyond the point of no return. It is now an eventuality.

When you have a machine that can invent something to replace itself, you'll have an argument. Until then, I will stand on my argument.

So, it won't happen because it hasn't happened yet. Right....

I'm not the one who lacks an argument here.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have argued that the percentage of labor participation is currently at the lowest since at least the Carter administration. I have also argued that has absolutely nothing to do with technology or 'smart' machines.

But now you are saying that for every job displaced by technological advancements there have been even more jobs created as a result. This is an impossible juxtaposition. Your statement cannot be true while also acknowledging the scarcity of jobs in the modern American economy.

I simply don't have time to give a lesson in economics today. So you'll have to research that yourself. The jobs did not go away because of machines or technology. The jobs have gone away because of some very bad decisions made by those elected or appointed or hired in government leadership positions.

But to illustrate the new ways people are able to work and earn a living, here are examples of ten jobs employing thousands and thousands of people that didn't exist just 10 to 15years ago. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of many more that didn't exist 25 to 50 years ago and almost all are a result of advancing technology. I think we've only scratched the bare surface on that.
10 Jobs That Didn t Exist 10 Years Ago - Forbes

 

[SwimExpert]

I simply don't have time to give a lesson in economics today. So you'll have to research that yourself.

Perhaps you can spend your time researching logic.

The jobs did not go away because of machines or technology.

It doesn't matter why. You are claiming two things are true, both of which cannot be true.

Every job displaced by technological development has been replaced with one or more jobs.

The United States economy supports the lowest number of jobs relative to population in decades.

If the first is true, the latter cannot be true because that would lead to more jobs in the economy. If the latter is true, the former cannot be true. Why the US has lost jobs is irrelevant. These two beliefs are logically incapable of being simultaneously true.

 

[Foxfyre]

I simply don't have time to give a lesson in economics today. So you'll have to research that yourself.

Perhaps you can spend your time researching logic.

The jobs did not go away because of machines or technology.

It doesn't matter why. You are claiming two things are true, both of which cannot be true.

Every job displaced by technological development has been replaced with one or more jobs.

The United States economy supports the lowest number of jobs relative to population in decades.

If the first is true, the latter cannot be true because that would lead to more jobs in the economy. If the latter is true, the former cannot be true. Why the US has lost jobs is irrelevant. These two beliefs are logically incapable of being simultaneously true.

It is problematic only if you try to make technology the reason that we have fewer jobs now and refuse to look for the real villain which is an oppressive, overreaching, meddling, and incompetent government.

 

[SwimExpert]

It is problematic only if you try to make technology the reason that we have fewer jobs now and refuse to look for the real villain which is an oppressive, overreaching, meddling, and incompetent government.

Logic fail.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is problematic only if you try to make technology the reason that we have fewer jobs now and refuse to look for the real villain which is an oppressive, overreaching, meddling, and incompetent government.

Logic fail.

I agree. Your logic failed.