From: Dennis Fantoni (df@tdc-broadband.dk)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 10:42:32 MDT
My first thoughts was along the lines that once not so long ago, 80% of all
jobs were in agriculture. I must admint that i fail to see 80% unemployment
today, now machines have taken over allmost all agriculture work, and I also
must admit that those having the lowest paid jobs today get much more and
are much wealthier than those having the lowest paid jobs then.
So.. if robots come take 50 million of the most boring jobs, everyone should
get a big lift in wealth, like the lift we got when we stopped working in
the fields with no machines. I'm not sure why it is so, but it seems that
every time we invent a machine to do 100 men's jobs, everyone, including the
100 men are better off after a few years. The total productivity of every
person rises, and i think this in the end is what is the deciding factor
regarding how wealthy we are. The more wealthy we are as a group, the more
we are able to take on jobs that are fun, it seems.
Someone might take their time to research this point (that historically
automation has been leading to great wealth) (i'm sure it has been
researched) and use it as a positive counter-example of the doom and gloom
meme that the article supports.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alfio Puglisi" <puglisi@arcetri.astro.it>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: Robotic nation
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> >Alfio wrote:
> >> http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
> >>
> >>[...]
> >
> >### You might want to apply Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage, and
also
> >briefly think about the price of robots in relation to the average income
of
> >the unemployed. If you add these two simple considerations, you could
> >conclude that there is no need to "deal" with any situation here, and
> >especially not deal as in the New Deal, which resulted in losses to the
> >economy which continue to this day. The robotic future will be many times
> >better than you imagine, as long as you don't spoil it by "making jobs".
>
> Sorry if I haven't made it clear, but I think too that the author is
> totally wrong about the issue. Only in the last paragraph there is a
> different view than "we are all doomed". That's not enough :-)
>
> I posted the address since this is a front page story on Slashdot, and
> about 500,000 people will read it in the next day or two. His pessimistic
> views will probably gain some followers...
>
> Ciao,
> Alfio
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 10:50:58 MDT