It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 06:07 PM link edit quote reply I am attending CSUF obtaining my BA in economics and I have been saying this for years now.
I think I may have a solution though
Politicians will need to ( I know scary reliance there) pass a society integration bill. This bill will tax companies according to the level of automation within the business!!!! think about it!
If a company is fully automated then a 100% tax on the company would be given this would help the government pay for food stamps and welfare in general.
And if the company had 0 automation then it wouldnt get taxed AT ALL allowing the company to pay for the workers and stay competitive.
THERE YOU GO EARTH I JUST FIXED YOUR AUTOMATION PROBLEM
A one dimensional tax system based on automation just wouldn't work, period.
Think of all the potential scenarios.
I mean, you're now incentivizing people to start up small companies that aren't automated. Sounds great!
Except, you may get too many of them.
On the other end, you have large corporations that are disincentivized from increasing productivity because of having more taxes, so must have more human beings.
The former promotes crappy companies to sprout up, the latter promotes inefficiency of resource allocation relative to the current state of tech.
That means changing the social contract, and cultural mores related to it. Instead of looking down on people who aren't needed within the workforce, allow them to be and pursue their own interests and passions.
There are over 200 million people who aren't currently employed (and many more who aren't even registered in the workforce), yet the world is keeping on due to technological progression.
Why work, to keep buying things we don't need, to keep exploiting the land, to keep feeding false theories related to the "economy", that doesn't match up with reality?
Why not chill out, enjoy what's around, and allow our greatest minds to continue on, and the robits to manage the remedial tasks?
OK who will be able to buy anything if you are one of the 47% that are replaced;
It seems as if you are saying people will go crazy with out their jobs as a sense of identity. I am saying that on a fundamental level (and with some justification) they fear for their very lives. Those with authority and power will have no reason to encourage a society that values life if there are too many people to support that are not contributing to that society in a way that is meaningful for the elite.
Frankly, I don't think this factory/workforce automation is going to be the death knell of humanity just yet. What I think is going to happen is this: Farmers. Artisans.
Honestly, I think the future jobs markets are going to be dominated by renewed agricultural interest, and a stronger dedication to science all around (medicine, astronomy, physics, biology, you name it) W
reply to post by Nyiah
I see many, many signs that those in power are learning, teaching and encouraging misanthropy and a general contempt for the human race. I think that this is a reactionary response to that sense that we are hitting a tipping point in the capacity of the human race to support itself with the resources available. A bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point. It is easier to kill off others than to find a thoughtful, dynamic solution that will sustain everyone. We have the capacity for the latter and a tendency for the first. I fear the path of least resistance may win out here.
reply to post by beezzer
I was told when recently in college to make sure that I select a job that a computer cannot do. My 11 year old was told just this year, after the teacher asked them all what they wanted to be when they grew up, that none of those jobs would exist by the time they reached the age to work them because of automation. We're going to be confronting a serious job black hole as automation becomes more and more prevalent and cheaper than its human counterparts. As an accountant, I'd say the blame rests resoundingly on how we do cost accounting where accountants essentially have to estimate the maximum level of efficiency in productivity and monetarily associate those costs with a specific product. We mere humans tend to fail those numbers because we can't maintain it but those robots sure can. My capstone paper was actually on this very subject and I got an A+ for being brutally freaking honest. Go figure.
reply to post by 727Sky
I guess the job to have is someone who fixes the robots!