It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rich Dad, Poor Kid, Broke Earth

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Ever since I watched the first half of this year's State of the Union Address, I've been thinking. Obama kept talking about the US economy and jobs, briefly addressing how technology is lowering the demand for people and raising unemployment levels. I don't have the exact quote, but he said how factories that used to require one hundred people now only need ten. He continued by saying we need to work harder through innovation to create jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs...he said that word a lot.

But here's my question- If we can get the same results with 90% less work, why do we need to work harder? Why do we need more jobs? If through technology we are able to yield the same production, what would happen if those one hundred employees all kept their jobs and were able to work 90% less hours?

I have to think that the answer is that people have always been inclined to innovate, create, and make better. Well, I suppose more jobs create more taxes, but without getting into politics, I want to look at humanity. With the Earth's natural resources being depleted through innovation, at what point will the enhancement to modern day living be declared destructive?

Today we have technology that couldn't be fathomed one hundred years ago, and Obama wasn't lying, this technology has greatly reduced the demand for physical labor. I also agree with him in that we need to focus more on renewable energy. That's the kind of innovation we need, but do we really need more jobs? Do we need to work harder, or could we work less by reducing our consumption, in turn, sanctifying the parts of the planet we haven't destroyed? Just a thought.

And these are my thoughts, that's all. I'm not saying I'm right and that others are wrong, but just imagine with me for one moment that Windows Seven is the last operating system and the iPhone 4 is the newest there ever will be. We stop building more houses and making more stuff. We have clean water and food, made easy to acquire through the technologies in place. We stop sitting in rush hour, because we don't need to work tens of miles away from our home. Through telecommuting and the internet, we eliminate the need. An average work week consists of twenty hours as opposed to forty plus, and there's no need for both parents to work. A place where money is no longer a commodity, but where time, relationships, family, passion, art, and love are what's viewed as successful and important.

Has there ever been a world like this? If so I have not seen it, though I do hope that at some point in my life I will. But I suppose we are the herd, and the century of the self is the time in which we live. I suppose clean food, clean air, clean water, and health are no longer all that we need.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveakaRNG
 

I remember in the 1970's when I was in grade school the line they fed us was "computers will result in more leisure time and a much shorter work week", they did just the opposite. When the current economic crisis started the line was "corporate america needs to change it's ways" and they did, they got lean, cut waste, and raked in record profits. The are sitting on the profits, reducing the work force and demanding more from employees, in return you get to keep your job, nothing more. American workers are stressed out, burned out and close to the breaking point, wages are not keeping pace with inflation and basic necessities are becoming luxuries.
The corporations with the full support of the government will continue to suck the life out of you until you die or until you wake up and start the revolution.
Have a nice day.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Because our economy is based on waste. Just imagine if people got their tv fixed instead of throwing it away and buying a new one, the dishwasher breaks, throw it away buy another, stove breaks throw it away buy a new one. I have never understood why it is always cheaper to buy something new than to have it fixed. I consider myself a pretty handy person, and I have probably fixed every large appliance in my house myself at least once and at half the fraction of what a new one would cost. I understand that some people are not mechanically inclined, but still. I do understand that for those that do take [insert broken item] to be fixed that the quote to have it fixed is indeed more than what a new one would cost, so sure, it would only make sense to buy a new one under those conditions, it does not have to be that way. The last time an appliance broke on me(clothes dryer), I decided to see how much it would cost me to have fixed. It was the heating element and the repair center wanted to charge 200 dollars to fix it. I said forget it, and went to the parts store and paid 35 dollars for the heating element. I know the repair person has to make money too, but something is seriously wrong and this is why our land fills are full. When will people learn to do more with less.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


You forgot to add that this technology was also supposed to make things much cheaper.



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join