You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: If You Want Jobs, Take Away Their Shovels and Give Them Spoons
As a libertarian, I'm obviously familiar with the story.
And I want to say that you are correct. The things stated in this post are correct. I want people to read me say that.
Now, with that said.
It's still possible that an individual's life ends up being ruined by losing a job. It can't be helped, it's a part of life, and I don't think we should just end all progress because people depend on jobs.
But sometimes libertarians tend to downplay the fact that it can have disastrous ramifications for a person who misses his mortgage payments due to losing his employment.
I don't deny that it can be a difficult transition for particular individuals, and that point was addressed briefly at the end of my post. Also, for clarity, this wasn't written from a political point of view, but rather an economic viewpoint. If it came across as political, it was unintended.
I have thought about this often. I am building robotics to improve the efficiency of my garden. Which a higher production means increased jobs that can't be done by the bots! The bots are not taking our jobs, they are creating new ones and improving the quality of our lives. Unless of course you want to sit in front of the hottest peppers in the world for 24 hours per day saving seeds. Anyone interested?
It's awesome that you're building robots for that work. I'm following you now and looking forward to your posts!
Good post, still.
It's appreciated, thanks!
I agree with you as far as you go, but the effect can be even broader, especially in the medium term. Large scale automation and shipping jobs overseas have destroyed economies like those in pittsburgh and detriot.
Which is to say, sometimes automation isn't better for anyone really except the CEOs who pocket the increased profits, even looking at it from the widest possible angle and the longest term.
Realistically whats going to happen to these truck drivers as a demographic isnt that theyll get new, better jobs. Most of them will get new worse jobs as unskilled labor where theyll be making much less money. Because lets face it, if youre driving a truck for a living its not like you have a masters in computer science in your back pocket as a back up. Some of them will get no jobs at all. They'll be really poor, and eventually theyll die. There might be a few, especially younger people, for whom a burgeoning new industry represents an opportunity, but most of them it will be just poverty and death.
I mean the death was going to happen one way or the other... but for most of them their lives will be worse for having lost the jobs up until then.
I feel like your causation is backwards here. Farmers didn't lose their jobs because of the industrial revolution, they left their agricultural jobs for better jobs in industry created by the industrial revolution.
The farm owners had to automate (with tractors and such) i assume, to compensate for the increased cost of labor that came from competing industrial interests hiring the relatively unskilled workers that they used to be the only ones to hire.
In places where they could not do this (like the south) the industrial revolution never really happened.
The new industry created by the industrial revolution created new jobs... it had nothing to do with cheaper or more abundant food. In fact, food got more expensive during the industrial revolution, especially in england and western europe where it started. This was due partially to the labor shortage, and partially to war and increased foriegn demand.
Looking back over 60+ years of at times chaotic life, my observation would be that forced change is often quite beneficial. The trick is for the change-ee to respond with a constructive attitude. Perhaps that person will realize that being mortgaged was a bad idea to begin with. Perhaps they'll take action to implement a latent idea. Perhaps they'll find a much better "job."
The more positively we respond to "time and chance," the better off we are. ;)
I gotta say I agree with this. I was making six-figures in some important-sounding job in San Diego for a decade. One day I was laid off. Kinda out of the blue, there had been previous layoffs but I was always too critical over the years. I was tore up for a minute. Then I took a step back, thought about things. I spent a few months traveling then ended up moving to Sweden. I have a great job now, a kid, a new citizenship, my life ended up much happier and fuller. I don't make as much money as before but somehow I'm happier which is to me more valuable
"In some important-sounding job" haha
That's great that you found yourself a more fulfilling life.
Hi, @seanmeeh42, and thanks for "weighing in" on this interesting topic.
My cousin moved to Sweden when he was in his teens, married there and has lived there all his life... And yes, happiness in your life and work is far more valuable than lots of $$$! ;)
I believe it's possible to turn most "negative" events into something beneficial if you have the right attitude.
What do you think about a universal basic income? From my perspective, it is a very libertarian idea in that it creates an equal and more free market by actually representing the needs of consumer (general population). Not only that, you can get rid of government social programs (food stamps, unemployment, etc.) thereby putting the power back to the people on how our tax dollars are spent.
As long as it isn't tax funded
UBI will be another government-issued method of control of the population. Government has no money other than what it took from people and companies (well, this is not exactly true, there are government-owned companies, etc, but they don't earn enough). UBI is the wrong direction. Humanity should look into making basic services free and automated, so cost of living goes down instead of being given money to pay for services that government has no control over (hopefully). This is critically important difference and I wonder why people don't see it as it is.
What would be the means of exchange?
Prices will go down regardless as automation becomes more adopted. The question is who will own this automated economy. Whether basic services are free or have a cost, the general population will be dependent on it. By adopting UBI, you give the people an equal opportunity to participate in the free market, thereby having an economy more representative of the needs of the general populace.
You inspired me to finally write it down, thank you :)
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@macius/ubi-doobie-doo
Agree, that $125 billion bureaucratic waste from the pentagon could be a start.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.888de172993e