Question to RP supporters

[markuskentwood]

Hello all,

How do y'all feel about how technology is on the track to automating everything? I've heard the "technology creates other jobs" argument before but it does not seem like it will create nearly enough jobs. We no longer really need accountants (due to tax software, and like with anything on the internet, you can pirate for free), travel agents, cashiers, paralegals, customer service agents, fast food greeters, etc etc etc. Some jobs cannot be automated however a lot of these jobs can be simplified. Even surgeries are being automated by robots. Honda's Asimo is already looking to take over the home-care aides for their elderly population. Yes, this is years away but it is happening significantly and is increasing exponentially and not linearly as this is the pace of technology. It seems that under Ron Paul, the not only would the debt diminish, but the population would, too. Even if this isn't going to happen in 10 or 20 years, what about in 50 years?

Also, it has yet to be confirmed but the E-Cat by Andrea Rossi may revolutionize energy as we know it. And when, you may ask? Within a single year, folks. Do the research about this invention. Rossi was in Massachusetts last week with US Senator Bruce Tarr as well as MIT in talks about manufacturing it in the state. This could potentially eliminate dependence on fossil fuels. It wouldn't be free energy but it would be practically free, so free that you wouldn't even need to meter it. Even NASA had to release documents due to the Freedom of Information Act recently about how this technology has the potential to revolutionize the world. So, in a world of practically free energy, what happens?

Thank you for listening and I look forward to hearing back from you all.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Jobs aren't the goal. The goal is wealth, productivity, and increasing standard of living. Would you rather live in an age of abundant jobs, but rampant poverty, or in an age of limited jobs, but a high standard of living? Jobs insofar as they increase productivity and efficiency are good. Jobs for the sake of jobs is one of the dumbest ideas ever presented.

[AlexAmore]

You're looking at it with a very limited viewpoint. Technology does get rid of certain jobs in a sense, but it creates new ones and expands other sectors that we can't even imagine right now. It also creates jobs because people need to create this technology.

This whole book is incredibly well written, but read chapter 7 for an in-depth explanation of how technology affects jobs.
http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/

[CaptUSA]

Bastiat - that which is seen and that which is unseen. Look it up.

In each case you listed, the person who saved money from the automation, now has money to repair his roof or add a new deck. Efficiency creates wealth, it doesn't destroy it.

[LibertyEagle]

Markus, I'm sure people thought the same thing when we advanced from horse buggies to automobiles, kerosene lamps to electric lightbulbs, etc.

Some of the old jobs were no longer needed. For example, creating buggy wheels. But, new opportunities arose, right?


It seems that under Ron Paul, the not only would the debt diminish, but the population would, too.

I'm sorry, but where on earth are you coming up with this? In reality, getting America back on her feet economically, would lead to all kinds of opportunities opening up for all Americans.

[No Free Beer]

technology breeds competition, with help to create new jobs.

I suggest you read Road to Serfdom

It is a great book.

[No Free Beer]

Markus, I'm sure people thought the same thing when we advanced from horse buggies to automobiles, kerosene lamps to electric lightbulbs, etc.

Some of the old jobs were no longer needed. For example, creating buggy wheels. But, new opportunities arose, right?





I'm sorry, but where on earth are you coming up with this? In reality, getting America back on her feet economically, would lead to all kinds of opportunities opening up for all Americans.

Exactly, listen...when the free market is allowed to work, productivity shoots up, which gives people more free time, thus having the potential to have more babies!!! :D

[No Free Beer]

Jobs aren't the goal. The goal is wealth, productivity, and increasing standard of living. Would you rather live in an age of abundant jobs, but rampant poverty, or in an age of limited jobs, but a high standard of living? Jobs insofar as they increase productivity and efficiency are good. Jobs for the sake of jobs is one of the dumbest ideas ever presented.

the only way you could live in a time or place that gave its citizens limited jobs, but a high standard of jobs is in a bubble based economy...

...oh wait...!

[CaptUSA]

Exactly, listen...when the free market is allowed to work, productivity shoots up, which gives people more free time, thus having the potential to have more babies!!! :DWell, in actuality, the more liberty a people have, the slower the rate of population growth. In fact, the rates of highest population growth happen where economic liberty is suppressed. There are many reasons why this is, but the biggest reason is probably since wealth creation is greater, families need fewer offspring to assist with the burden of labor and there is a greater chance of survival of offspring to maturation. Regardless, the population won't decrease, the growth will just be slower.

Once again, liberty is the solution to every problem. Even population control.

[No Free Beer]

Well, in actuality, the more liberty a people have, the slower the rate of population growth. In fact, the rates of highest population growth happen where economic liberty is suppressed. There are many reasons why this is, but the biggest reason is probably since wealth creation is greater, families need fewer offspring to assist with the burden of labor and there is a greater chance of survival of offspring to maturation. Regardless, the population won't decrease, the growth will just be slower.

Once again, liberty is the solution to every problem. Even population control.

Haha, I was attempting to make the point that when productivity is high, it allows citizens the chance for more leisure time. Now, what they do with that extra time, they wouldn't other wise have, is up to them.

[markuskentwood]

sorry, but i just don't see technology creating any more necessary jobs. yes, it will create some. but it will get to the point where we won't need jobs. i mean, i'm happy with food/shelter/water/energy/internet. don't you think we reach a point where we don't need anything else? or that there is little left to desire? yes, we have to work for the things i just mentioned but to what degree? i mean, food is so automated and continues to be. there are robots picking out crops now in some places.

[No Free Beer]

sorry, but i just don't see technology creating any more necessary jobs. yes, it will create some. but it will get to the point where we won't need jobs. i mean, i'm happy with food/shelter/water/energy/internet. don't you think we reach a point where we don't need anything else? or that there is little left to desire? yes, we have to work for the things i just mentioned but to what degree? i mean, food is so automated and continues to be. there are robots picking out crops now in some places.

No, see you must understand 'man'. Man always wants to achieve more. Man rarely settles. Even man who has a job they enjoy, family they enjoy, etc, is always wanting either something else, or something greater. It is what is in us. All you have to do is look at history and you will see that. What do you think got us here? You would have thought that when electricity was created, people would have settled. When AC was created, everyone would settle. No, that's not true. Technology? Look at the internet and how many jobs have been created because of the internet. Innovation in technology always spurs growth and productivity.

[Elwar]

Imagine 20 men in the woods using wooden clubs banging away at a tree. After a week of this labor the tree finally falls.

Then imagine someone coming in with a metal pointy thing at the end of his club chopping down a tree every hour with his ax.

Did he just destroy the lives of those 20 men? Or did he give them opportunity to go out and become carpenters, cabinet makers, construction workers, etc. where they can now take the larger supply of wood and make things out of it?

Now imagine someone comes in with a chainsaw and can cut 20 trees an hour. Did he just kill the guy with an ax's career? Or does the fact that there are now 20 trees an hour that need to be transformed create jobs and prosperity for the community?

They had plenty of jobs in Star Trek and they can just replicate stuff...

[speciallyblend]

Haha, I was attempting to make the point that when productivity is high, it allows citizens the chance for more leisure time. Now, what they do with that extra time, they wouldn't other wise have, is up to them.

all this baby talk and work got me thinking, hmmmmm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEuKkcX1uKA<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEuKkcX1uKA">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEuKkcX1uKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEuKkcX1uKA) well i guess the wifey is in good trouble now,minus the baby stuff of course!!

[No Free Beer]

all this baby talk and work got me thinking, hmmmmm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEuKkcX1uKA<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEuKkcX1uKA">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEuKkcX1uKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEuKkcX1uKA) well i guess the wifey is in good trouble now,minus the baby stuff of course!!

I'm confused...

[Crystallas]

Technology has no impact on job, more or less. It is absolutely impossible. The bottom line is the old cliche; Time = Money. If technology saves you time, you still have time to use elsewhere. Thus you create other demands in the market. You create demands that have no official name, and many of those ideas may not exist, or they may not have a demand. The cycle never ends. If technology hurts jobs, then why haven't we seen 90% unemployment in an organic market?

The only way that technology eliminates jobs, is if action is artificially limited by force. In our case, our actions are limited by a very demotivating central planning configuration that we refer to, as the government. This is why the Lockean philosophy was adopted by many of our founders, because he and they understood that with each new era, all man recognizes new cultures that include all of our needs and wants.

[No Free Beer]

They had plenty of jobs in Star Trek and they can just replicate stuff...[/QUOTE]

http://i39.tinypic.com/z32pz.jpg

[speciallyblend]

I'm confused...

getting off work, making babies. feel like makin love, thought i brought it full circle;)

[No Free Beer]

Technology has no impact on job, more or less. It is absolutely impossible. The bottom line is the old cliche; Time = Money. If technology saves you time, you still have time to use elsewhere. Thus you create other demands in the market. You create demands that have no official name, and many of those ideas may not exist, or they may not have a demand. The cycle never ends. If technology hurts jobs, then why haven't we seen 90% unemployment in an organic market?

The only way that technology eliminates jobs, is if action is artificially limited by force. In our case, our actions are limited by a very demotivating central planning configuration that we refer to, as the government.

yes, you are making our point Mr. Crystallas. But either way, when time leads to other things and demands in the market, that leads to different and new jobs. That is zee point I was trying to make. :cool:

[No Free Beer]

getting off work, making babies. feel like makin love, thought i brought it full circle;)

ahhhhh...

babies...

[Crystallas]

yes, you are making our point Mr. Crystallas. But either way, when time leads to other things and demands in the market, that leads to different and new jobs. That is zee point I was trying to make. :cool:

Ah, I didn't read the whole thread. Just the OP. But I'm glad we have some agreement. Nevertheless, I would still support my statement, even if I were alone.

[DamianTV]

I am very strongly against the technology being used to track everything. Just read my sig.

Technology itself is neither good or bad, it is how it is used. I believe that for the most part, technology is being used to prevent us from communicating with each other freely, applies censorship, and installs a measure of control beyond what we can even influence. Technology today is being used to abuse, exploit, track, and take advantage of the people that it is supposed to free.

For example, Smart Meters. Oh hell, lets just look at California. They want every Thermostat in every new home to be remotely accessable from the Power Company so they can shut off your AC at their leisure, and you have no measure of recourse.

Most technology that we have today is already obsolete and has been for quite some time. We have technology that could make cars run a hundred miles on a gallon of gas or less, and this is crap that was invented in the 1950's. Where is it today? Supressed. Ok, change of pace. Take the iPhone. You think that the iPhone you just got, not only does it tell everyone everything they could ever possibly want to know about you. But lets take a look at just how advanced it really is. There really isnt any competition in the market, so Apple has very very little incentive to come out with a new incredible product. Year after year, they are going to release new versions of it that are just "slightly" better than last years. Oooh, last year, you had 40 gigs of space, next year you'll have 50! Big fucking whoop!

How about Medical Technology? Well, again, back in the 1920's, a brilliant man named Rife not only invented the modern microscope, but he also found ways to pretty much kill every infectious organism we have ever come across. Spanning from the Common Cold, to Aids, to Cancer. Where is his technology today? Again supressed, in favor of much less efficient, effective, and more profitable technologies, and we suffer as a species.

But the real problem isnt technology, or who invents it, or that there is no competition, it is that our structure of Government is completely controlled by Banking and Financial Interests. One of the things they do that maintains that power from a technology perspective is to pass laws that comletely prohibit competition. Thus, you come out with something truly revolutionary, you cant sell it because you dont have a license to compete. What we have is the exact opposite of teh Free Market.

Now, many jobs can be automated, but those jobs that are lost create more new jobs of maintenance, repair, and design of the next generation of automation. This cycle would normally continue until we eventually reach a point where A.I. can take over much of that as well. But it is not going to happen, because new technology is supressed, and the Financial Powers of the World have stolen the true Value of money from us by printing up more for themselves, which leaves us with less currency (not money, there is a big difference) with a lower value day after day after day. That is what is killing the jobs, that is what has killed the American Dream, and that is what will eventually end your life.

Poverty.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

the only way you could live in a time or place that gave its citizens limited jobs, but a high standard of jobs is in a bubble based economy...

...oh wait...!

Not necessarily. If all production was automated of course you would have engineers to oversee the operation, managers & accountants, marketing directors, supply chain coordination, etc. There would be a lot of human interaction that simply cannot be replaced, however, more productivity and efficiency means higher standard of living which means more people do not have to work as much as before. We are poorer off today than we were in our earlier periods when you take a look at how much you work compared to your purchasing power. So many times economists merely look at nominal values. Of course, there will always be jobs available for those who want one, but in an actual market society the amount of people whom need/seek a job would be far less than most people realize. In our early history it wasn't unheard of for a family to have one or two working in the household (this includes children which we need to repeal child labor laws) and live comfortably.

Nowadays, two household families have tremendous trouble living comfortable on the average salary / wages not because there isn't enough jobs, but because our economy is highly inefficient and contrary to most peoples thoughts unproductive. This is why Ron Paul talks about a restructuring of the economy through the restoration of property rights and the market society. Bankruptcies absolutely need to occur as do liquidation.

The point is that productivity & efficiency is the goal, not a job. I dream of the day when the average work week is in the single digits because of the efficiency and productivity that an actual market society produces. Households would only need one person to work to live comfortably and most people would not need a job at all. That is the goal. A job is not the goal. If that is the goal then just have people dig ditches and fill them in forever. There'll never be a lack of jobs in that case.

[CaptUSA]

sorry, but i just don't see technology creating any more necessary jobs. yes, it will create some. but it will get to the point where we won't need jobs. i mean, i'm happy with food/shelter/water/energy/internet. don't you think we reach a point where we don't need anything else? or that there is little left to desire? yes, we have to work for the things i just mentioned but to what degree? i mean, food is so automated and continues to be. there are robots picking out crops now in some places.Mark, do you understand that humans have unlimited wants. Once your needs are fulfilled, you begin to fulfill your wants. Once your wants are fulfilled, you want something else. That process NEVER stops. Even if you think you your material wants can easily be satisfied, there are still plenty of things you want to do. You will never do them all. Even if you could, you would want to do something else. In each case, there will be someone who will want to seel you something or help you do it.

The fact is, that the cheaper and easier you can satisfy your needs, the quicker you can move onto your wants. And the easier and cheaper you can satisfy your wants, the faster you can move onto your next wants. There are wants you can't even consider having, now.

I hope you take a little while to try to comprehend this, because you are missing the whole essence of humanity. Do you need examples? Look at travel. When people had to ride horses, the world was very inefficient. As transportation improves, people spend that time more productively than in the past. That increase in productivity helps the entire economy. Take the ATM. You could say that it put tellers out of business, but how much time does everyone save by not standing in line to make their banking transactions? What about direct deposit?! You used to go to the bank each payday. Now you do something else.

Bastiat really descirbes in the best way for you to easily understand. Give it a go.

[jtstellar]

sorry, but i just don't see technology creating any more necessary jobs. yes, it will create some. but it will get to the point where we won't need jobs. i mean, i'm happy with food/shelter/water/energy/internet. don't you think we reach a point where we don't need anything else? or that there is little left to desire? yes, we have to work for the things i just mentioned but to what degree? i mean, food is so automated and continues to be. there are robots picking out crops now in some places.

would you be better off with 100 engineers working their ass off and produce 100 units of good, or 1 super genius engineer coming up with all the ideas and rest 99 of them doing easy work just shuffling files, and produce 200 units of good? in the first case you get 1 unit product for each to share, in the second case, the super engineer gets 50 shares, and the rest 99 gets 150, as opposed to 99. even if the super engineer took 100 units, the rest still get about 1 each and doing relatively easier work. i'm not sure what's hard to understand here. liberal's way seems to prefer the first, where everybody is equally poor, rather than seeing somebody better off when everyone is richer. the unemployment you see today is created by other factors. technology is supposed to grant others easier jobs such as shuffling papers, not totally eliminate them. these easier jobs are barred by other factors to exist, such as minimum wage law.

it's also rather galling you're suggesting a halt to my living standard's advancement just because you potentially got competed out of a job you wanted..

[ForLiberty2012]

No wealth is destroyed by technology. Wealth is created. If people settled as you seem to think is the answer, we would have settled and had no cars, no planes, no computers, etc. These inventions and advancements may have killed jobs in the short term, limited view, however, if you look in hindsight, all advancements in technology have led to greater prosperity and greater standard of living for everyone. Would you rather bend over all day picking crops, or would you rather have a job maintaining the robot that does the work? Henry Hazlitt said the bad economist looks at the immediate cause and effect while the good economist can see the big picture.

[angelatc]

Hello all,

How do y'all feel about how technology is on the track to automating everything? I've heard the "technology creates other jobs" argument before but it does not seem like it will create nearly enough jobs. We no longer really need accountants (due to tax software, and like with anything on the internet, you can pirate for free), travel agents, cashiers, paralegals, customer service agents, fast food greeters, etc etc etc. Some jobs cannot be automated however a lot of these jobs can be simplified. Even surgeries are being automated by robots. Honda's Asimo is already looking to take over the home-care aides for their elderly population. Yes, this is years away but it is happening significantly and is increasing exponentially and not linearly as this is the pace of technology. It seems that under Ron Paul, the not only would the debt diminish, but the population would, too. Even if this isn't going to happen in 10 or 20 years, what about in 50 years?

Also, it has yet to be confirmed but the E-Cat by Andrea Rossi may revolutionize energy as we know it. And when, you may ask? Within a single year, folks. Do the research about this invention. Rossi was in Massachusetts last week with US Senator Bruce Tarr as well as MIT in talks about manufacturing it in the state. This could potentially eliminate dependence on fossil fuels. It wouldn't be free energy but it would be practically free, so free that you wouldn't even need to meter it. Even NASA had to release documents due to the Freedom of Information Act recently about how this technology has the potential to revolutionize the world. So, in a world of practically free energy, what happens?

Thank you for listening and I look forward to hearing back from you all.

I am an accountant, and I can assure you that you do not need to include me and my brethren in the list of people who are hurting for work. I did accounting before there were computers - using a system that words can't even begin to explain. The advances in technology meant that I had to specialize, therefore increasing my value, but it also meant that the customers who invested in technology had more money to spend on growing their business, and on me. That meant more things that needed accounted for. (I chose cost accounting, others choose things like forensic accounting, tax accounting, public accounting, payroll specialists....the list goes on and on.)

So before, while I was spending 45 hours a week on simple things like payroll and accounts payable, I can now spend 60 hours a week looking at places to cut costs and increase efficiency even farther while the computer does the work that I used to need a 10-key for.

[angelatc]

Mark, do you understand that humans have unlimited wants. Once your needs are fulfilled, you begin to fulfill your wants. Once your wants are fulfilled, you want something else..

Where's my damned jet-pack?

[angelatc]

Exactly, listen...when the free market is allowed to work, productivity shoots up, which gives people more free time, thus having the potential to have more babies!!! :D

Actually, when people are prosperous, the tend to multiply less. My personal theory is that it is because on a primitive level, we know the odds of our little heirs surviving into adulthood increases when we're not dirt poor.

[angelatc]

sorry, but i just don't see technology creating any more necessary jobs. yes, it will create some. but it will get to the point where we won't need jobs. i mean, i'm happy with food/shelter/water/energy/internet. don't you think we reach a point where we don't need anything else? or that there is little left to desire? yes, we have to work for the things i just mentioned but to what degree? i mean, food is so automated and continues to be. there are robots picking out crops now in some places.

Ok, let's look at that: So food gets cheaper because robots pick it. That means you can afford to buy something you want a little more often...a new car, a longer vacation, more clothes.... But suppose you're the guy that used to pick food for a living? You're still going to get cheaper food. Everybody shares that benefit. However, you're going to need a new skill set to provide a value to an employer. Start learning how to repair robots. Offer a pick-up and delivery service for the rent-a-robots. Hell, start a farm and use robots.

When prices go down, people are more prosperous. (Businesses....not so much. :) )

[AlexAmore]

sorry, but i just don't see technology creating any more necessary jobs. yes, it will create some. but it will get to the point where we won't need jobs. i mean, i'm happy with food/shelter/water/energy/internet. don't you think we reach a point where we don't need anything else? or that there is little left to desire? yes, we have to work for the things i just mentioned but to what degree? i mean, food is so automated and continues to be. there are robots picking out crops now in some places.

Of course you can't see it. You seem to be talking 400 years from now. There will be new jobs that have never even existed before, that we can't even comprehend. Who could comprehend the news anchor job 500 years ago?

[The Free Hornet]

sorry, but i just don't see technology creating any more necessary jobs. yes, it will create some. but it will get to the point where we won't need jobs. i mean, i'm happy with food/shelter/water/energy/internet. don't you think we reach a point where we don't need anything else? or that there is little left to desire? yes, we have to work for the things i just mentioned but to what degree? i mean, food is so automated and continues to be. there are robots picking out crops now in some places.

In addition to the other fine answers, consider why do you want a job? Do you want to work? There is no end of opportunities to volunteer.

However, I suspect you want to - or should want to - create wealth. One way to create wealth would be to gather wood and build yourself a nice toolshed. Add a lock for extra security!

Consider this, it may be illegal for you to erect this in many jurisdictions. Maybe you are good at this and want to start a business building custom tool sheds. If you are allowed, can you afford the business license and do you meet any onerous requirements for a permit (a physical address, a contact phone, insurance, the permit fee, does the inspector know you)? Do you pay yourself and your employers a "living wage" or whatever the hell is demanded? If you sell this shed, how much money goes towards paying sales and income taxes? Is this a union town?

Kids can't sell lemonaid and you're worried about technology not creating jobs? You need to understand how the state has destroyed jobs and made non-government-sanctioned work illegal.

[UtahApocalypse]

Yes technology will kill industry

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa299/Utah4RonPaul/BuggyBailout.png

[Mogambo Guru]

Where's my damned jet-pack?

ask and you shall receive!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM8kEHjQz9U

[Mogambo Guru]

Yes technology will kill industry

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa299/Utah4RonPaul/BuggyBailout.png

Cool pic, thanks for posting!

[Anti Federalist]

I'm very skeptical of this technological terror we're creating for ourselves, where man becomes superfluous and irrelevant.

Someone posted that the goal is not jobs, but creation of wealth and prosperity.

I disagree.

The creation of a society where otium is achieved, where work is no more, is thought by some to be the pinnacle of human existence, and that we'll peacefully enjoy our leisure while contemplating the vicissitudes of life and art and philosophy.

Rubbish.

We will become fat, stupid, lazy and intellectually vacuous, mindlessly stumbling from one increasingly bloodthirsty "entertainment" to another.

Take a look around you if you don't believe me.

Adversity makes men, prosperity makes monsters.

[jtstellar]

I'm very skeptical of this technological terror we're creating for ourselves, where man becomes superfluous and irrelevant.

Someone posted that the goal is not jobs, but creation of wealth and prosperity.

I disagree.

The creation of a society where otium is achieved, where work is no more, is thought by some to be the pinnacle of human existence, and that we'll peacefully enjoy our leisure while contemplating the vicissitudes of life and art and philosophy.

Rubbish.

We will become fat, stupid, lazy and intellectually vacuous, mindlessly stumbling from one increasingly bloodthirsty "entertainment" to another.

Take a look around you if you don't believe me.

Adversity makes men, prosperity makes monsters.

so you are not only anti free trade

you are also anti-technology

because it makes us lazy

jesus christ.. i thought i was being harsh on you sometimes and felt sorry afterward, but convince me, how can anyone take you seriously. what you're proposing isn't even debatable.

it's just your philosophy. none about it is even any functioning part of a real world economy, grounded in reality. men can't maneuver around the laws of nature, just because they rearrange trade policies or laws one way or another. they can only climb the ladder.

you are proposing we allocate the fight toward who gains more power to control trade policies, rather than letting nature take its place, where people driven by profit one way or another compete across the globe and create advantages and technologies.

instead you want the competition to focus on enhancing the ability to crack-downs and more central control of trade. ludicrous.

[Lothario]

I didn't read anything above, but as Peter Schiff said - what if technology became so advanced that no one had to work anymore?

To repeat the 2nd poster: "Jobs aren't the goal. The goal is wealth, productivity, and increasing standard of living."

[Toureg89]

Hello all,

How do y'all feel about how technology is on the track to automating everything? I've heard the "technology creates other jobs" argument before but it does not seem like it will create nearly enough jobs. We no longer really need accountants (due to tax software, and like with anything on the internet, you can pirate for free), travel agents, cashiers, paralegals, customer service agents, fast food greeters, etc etc etc. Some jobs cannot be automated however a lot of these jobs can be simplified. Even surgeries are being automated by robots. Honda's Asimo is already looking to take over the home-care aides for their elderly population. Yes, this is years away but it is happening significantly and is increasing exponentially and not linearly as this is the pace of technology. It seems that under Ron Paul, the not only would the debt diminish, but the population would, too. Even if this isn't going to happen in 10 or 20 years, what about in 50 years?

Also, it has yet to be confirmed but the E-Cat by Andrea Rossi may revolutionize energy as we know it. And when, you may ask? Within a single year, folks. Do the research about this invention. Rossi was in Massachusetts last week with US Senator Bruce Tarr as well as MIT in talks about manufacturing it in the state. This could potentially eliminate dependence on fossil fuels. It wouldn't be free energy but it would be practically free, so free that you wouldn't even need to meter it. Even NASA had to release documents due to the Freedom of Information Act recently about how this technology has the potential to revolutionize the world. So, in a world of practically free energy, what happens?

Thank you for listening and I look forward to hearing back from you all.
you should pay someone to buy milk from walmart and deliver it to your house. that would recreate the milk man and add more jobs. no?

[nayjevin]

How do y'all feel about how technology is on the track to automating everything?

There will always be that which automation cannot do, I believe. Even if the human element is replacable, we're nowhere close to that.


I've heard the "technology creates other jobs" argument before but it does not seem like it will create nearly enough jobs.

It seems like you're saying more jobs would be taken than would be created. I believe that's based on misconception. Each time a job is automated, an individual is then free to be productive elsewhere. That individual may not be able to find a job - but whatever that person does choose to do during what used to be worktime (be with family, work elsewhere, create) is what could not have been done before.


We no longer really need accountants (due to tax software, and like with anything on the internet, you can pirate for free), travel agents, cashiers, paralegals, customer service agents, fast food greeters, etc etc etc.

We're well on the way, but I see no reason to believe that more than the least specially skilled among these groups will become automated. I don't see the worry, H&R Block is hiring right now.


Some jobs cannot be automated however a lot of these jobs can be simplified. Even surgeries are being automated by robots. Honda's Asimo is already looking to take over the home-care aides for their elderly population. Yes, this is years away but it is happening significantly and is increasing exponentially and not linearly as this is the pace of technology. It seems that under Ron Paul, the not only would the debt diminish, but the population would, too. Even if this isn't going to happen in 10 or 20 years, what about in 50 years?

No one knows exactly what the state of things will be, but I see your point that it's worth addressing as the time may approach more quickly than expected.

What is most important is to avoid government reacting to the perceived problem - government 'solutions' are often scarier than the problem they aim to solve.


Also, it has yet to be confirmed but the E-Cat by Andrea Rossi may revolutionize energy as we know it. And when, you may ask? Within a single year, folks. Do the research about this invention. Rossi was in Massachusetts last week with US Senator Bruce Tarr as well as MIT in talks about manufacturing it in the state. This could potentially eliminate dependence on fossil fuels. It wouldn't be free energy but it would be practically free, so free that you wouldn't even need to meter it. Even NASA had to release documents due to the Freedom of Information Act recently about how this technology has the potential to revolutionize the world.

A news report like that seems to have been coming out every once in a while for decades, but they haven't turned out to be a force in the market yet. But if it does:


So, in a world of practically free energy, what happens?

First, it's unlikely that any better energy source we see in our lifetimes is free. It may be cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, or all of these, but doubtful free.

But to answer your question, what hypothetically happens if the cost is practically out of the equation?

- All monies that went to the former energy producer goes somewehere else (in the real world this will be the new energy producer, with a bit left over, but on with the hypothetical)
- All people surviving with the upkeep of the energy plants/manufacturing/offices and all up and down the lines of old production are free to produce elsewhere (in reality the new jobs are mostly with the new energy model companies)
- Standard of living rises, as a necessity became abundant, and free

Most important, in my mind, is holding decisionmakers responsible for ethical technology development, and avoiding legislative end-arounds like 'tort reform' which shield the corporation from liability when they hurt people with R&D or tech advancement.

We are overly scared of technology, and automation, because of dramatized science fiction and futurist prognosticating fear mongers. But there is an underlying truth, that technology can indeed be used for evil. But remember, forks don't kill people, people kill people.

[Working Poor]

I am sorry if this has been mentioned right now I do not have time to read the whole thread but, One thing that Ron would do is legalize hemp. This would create a lot of new jobs and new technology plus help so much with pollution

[light200763]

This is a good topic.

[moostraks]

I'm very skeptical of this technological terror we're creating for ourselves, where man becomes superfluous and irrelevant.

Someone posted that the goal is not jobs, but creation of wealth and prosperity.

I disagree.

The creation of a society where otium is achieved, where work is no more, is thought by some to be the pinnacle of human existence, and that we'll peacefully enjoy our leisure while contemplating the vicissitudes of life and art and philosophy.

Rubbish.

We will become fat, stupid, lazy and intellectually vacuous, mindlessly stumbling from one increasingly bloodthirsty "entertainment" to another.

Take a look around you if you don't believe me.

Adversity makes men, prosperity makes monsters.

I agree with a good bit of your assessment. The problem is in forcing people to purchase strictly from the factory players and destroying the ability for true craftsmanship and ingenuity to prosper. The factory producers are controlling the game (destroying competition) and squeezing out the human element. They are doing it on many levels intentionally. The food protection acts and legislation against handmade goods unless properly 'certified' come to mind right off the top of my head.

Those who doubt what befalls man without legitimate work to toil away with need to take a trip to the slums where welfare provides a similar scenario as what society will descend into if only limited job opportunities are available.

[Carole]

Markus:

I've read most of these comments and there is a lot of wisdom and information to be gleaned from them. Also read chapter seven of:

ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON
http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/

I really wanted to get into eight, but returned here to finish reading. Aside from all that has been said here, it seems important to look at another aspect of the question. IMHO (I am not an economist) I believe fervently in man and his ability to adapt to the consequences and circumstances of his surroundings.

I believe that when people try to control an economy artificially it leads to the most incidences of unintended consequences. When the conditions of an economy come about in the most natural way, I think it leads to better consequences. Take for example, NAFTA (managed trade) with all its rules and regulations, etc. interfering with the natural order of trade. Someone else would have to provide the proof, but I believe as I did when I first learned of it, that it would fail because of its rules and regulations promoting world-wide socialism, and ultimately benefit only a few as I feel it acts as an isolationist and protectionist policy for a few, whereas, truly free market trade does not pick the winners and losers, but allows people and companies and countries to succeed or fail on their own merit. Because a free market is an economy of freedom, it becomes up to the participants how well it works.

So I look at jobs in a similar way. When a working person is displaced by invention, it really is up to him to seek improvement in himself to prepare for another job in the same or another field. I think it is a fallacy to pre-suppose that a person is so specialized that he is capable of only performing one job function. When he is displaced, he then has the opportunity to improve himself or even discover a completely unrelated talent or ability. He may even become an entrepreneur in a related or unrelated business. Whatever the disadvantage of losing jobs, there are also opportunities as well.

I agree with the article in Chapter seven that such practices of creating make-work are both wasteful and expensive to the market users. Given that invention does increase productivity and multiplies the accessibility of products and makes them less expensive and creates new industries and jobs, it also creates through high or over-production the necessity of having to increase the market for those products. That leads to the new problem we have had of basing an economy on high and over-consumption, and planned obsolescence to keep customers returning for new products. Personally, I think these consequences only delay the inevitable breakdown of an economy. So interference to keep the market alive through artificial means led to many artificially created outcomes in an effort to “create” jobs.

With a saturated market a company must look for new markets in other countries. In all of that, managed interference in the whole process seems to create many more problems and stifles innovation and invention by attempting to control the status quo. So because of interference in the market to preserve jobs and customers through minimum wage laws and over-reaching union demands, and other government intrusions, businesses then have been forced to adapt again and go outside the country for their labor which ultimately has put many people out of work here, but kept product costs reasonable in theory.

It just seems to me that the more the government has intruded and tried to micromanage wages and other conditions in businesses and the economy, the worse the eventual outcome has become by default. Consumption economies become their own kind of bubble. When it bursts many people are hurt and face new realities and must adapt.

I have long held the view that because of so much effort expended upon maintaining the status quo and stifling new invention and innovation, our progress has come to a standstill in many areas. Why, for example, after a hundred years of maintaining our transportation industry basically the same except for “improvements”, are we still wasting so much energy and resources on providing roads, when by allowing invention we might now be traveling without the necessity of having to do it on roads. Some new form of transportation (think Disney) might have come along to totally replace what in many ways seems an old-fashioned mode of individual transportation. Perhaps we would all be using jetpacs or some sort of electromagnetic energy to fuel our “vehicles”. :D

We spent so many decades attempting to "maintain" certain industries, that we probably wasted a lot of limited resources and totally stifled progress.

Hope someone else can offer better thoughts than I, but I like to muse about these things.

[juleswin]

Well, in actuality, the more liberty a people have, the slower the rate of population growth. In fact, the rates of highest population growth happen where economic liberty is suppressed. There are many reasons why this is, but the biggest reason is probably since wealth creation is greater, families need fewer offspring to assist with the burden of labor and there is a greater chance of survival of offspring to maturation. Regardless, the population won't decrease, the growth will just be slower.

Once again, liberty is the solution to every problem. Even population control.

I think its simpler than that. Places where the electricity is off at night, couples tend to have more sex and hence leads to increase in population. Its that simple. I guess cold regions should produce the same result especiallly if heating is expensive

[jtstellar]

I am an accountant, and I can assure you that you do not need to include me and my brethren in the list of people who are hurting for work. I did accounting before there were computers - using a system that words can't even begin to explain. The advances in technology meant that I had to specialize, therefore increasing my value, but it also meant that the customers who invested in technology had more money to spend on growing their business, and on me. That meant more things that needed accounted for. (I chose cost accounting, others choose things like forensic accounting, tax accounting, public accounting, payroll specialists....the list goes on and on.)

So before, while I was spending 45 hours a week on simple things like payroll and accounts payable, I can now spend 60 hours a week looking at places to cut costs and increase efficiency even farther while the computer does the work that I used to need a 10-key for.

do you specialize in tax code for traders, stock trading, etc?

[jtstellar]

also to add, technology and factories will always be geared toward homogeneous mass productions, where the machineries and the cost of equipments can be paid for through economic of scale. what does this mean? this means there will always be products of smaller scales and industries that are 'in between the cracks'. this is generally the case for things that vary from individual to individual and need to be customized. one great example is music equipment, speakers, and headphones. ever wonder why there is not a singular huge music gearbox company producing all the speakers?

why isn't there an apple or microsoft that monopolizes headphone production? the reason is because speaker and headphones each are designed to appeal to different spectrum of listeners. some people prefer bass, some people prefer the mid range vocals. some are good for classical music, others are good for hipop. so what does this mean? this means as technology improves, the manufacturing of necessities will gradually be taken over by uniform assembly lines, and the resources and manpower that get saved by this increasingly efficient process will move into industries of 'customization'. this usually refers to movie, music, art, entertainment, things that appeal to individuals differently. individuals' purchasing power increases in this environment--a symptom/proof of increased productivity, the benefit of technology and assembly lines. ever wonder why when the economy is good, the movie industry, various entertainment, art, music etc grow as well? it's not an accident. this is beside the point, but i believe the next field of 'customization' is bio-engineering, gene modification, organ replacement, etc. can't get more 'individualistic' than that.

i guess technology haters would rather we get back to all weaving our own clothes. oh no, but keep the guns. improve their lethality, in fact. how else you gonna suppress innovation?

[Jandrsn21]

Laws of thermodynamics- Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

This is how I understand it in a free market with a gold standard. If an industry finds a technology to replace half it's workers and stays just as productive. The company saves money and the consumer saves money. That money doesn't just disappear and go poof into an economic abyss. It remains in the economy and is used by business and people to purchase things they normally wouldn't be able to afford. The workers replaced by the technology would find another position working for a number or companies trying to profit from the freed up cash.

I have actually read economists say that if this process would have been allowed to play itself out, without the cronyism and unproductive prohibitive stances by the federal government, our society would be a FAR different place right now. In all actuality we are living in a mini dark ages right now!