[C8]

Automation rapidly growing in all areas of business. Computers, robots, and manufacturing equipment do the work millions of people once did. And the list of jobs endangered by newer technologies just keeps growing: drones to deliver pizzas, AI to design new software, entire garment factories with only a handful of people, etc.

On the other side, the population just keeps booming worldwide. We have more illiterate, poorly educated people than ever before (many migrating to wealthy nations that already have unemployment problems).

Historically this has meant trouble. Empires for many years realized that a large, and idle, population of males does not lead to good things. Roman roads and the Great Wall of China were built, partly, because leaders realized men have to be kept busy or things quickly get out of hand.

I am actually more concerned about this collision more than global warming or Peak Oil. Large amounts of idle people lead to a rise in crime, gang wars, public disruptions, increased taxes from law enforcement, imprisonment, welfare, accidents, etc.

So what is the solution? How do we deal with the growing number of idle people, many of whom will cause trouble? Can a nation really peacefully exist with only 1/3rd of the people working? Do we make "busy work" (like they do in Japan) or do we just drug them out (Europe)?

How do we deal with "Peak Idleness"?

[dolanbaker]

Short answer, work a three day week and two people become employed instead of one(job share). For this to work without impoverishing those who do the short hours, they would need to be paid the same amount as full time staff.
Doing something like this would also cut the social security payments as there will be far fewer unemployed.

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', 'S')hort answer, work a three day week and two people become employed instead of one(job share). For this to work without impoverishing those who do the short hours, they would need to be paid the same amount as full time staff.
Doing something like this would also cut the social security payments as there will be far fewer unemployed.

[Newfie]

C8, you have a good reason to worry.

This isn't the first time we've been here. The first time was mechanizing and fertilizing the farms. That left the majority of the population with nothing to do. For a while industrialization ate up that workforce, but even then jobs were hard to come by and wages low. The capitalist culture eventually gave way to the consumptive culture which feeds on the "service sector" AKA "welfare with dignity."

But that has not been without troubles, so we find the need to lock up many otherwise productive men, thereby creating jobs for guards, cleaners, constructors, lawyers, judges, therapist, etc.

I don't know where this will lead, but nowhere good.

[Shaved Monkey]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', '
')Doing something like this would also cut the social security payments as there will be far fewer unemployed.

[dolanbaker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shaved Monkey', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', '
')Doing something like this would also cut the social security payments as there will be far fewer unemployed.

[radon1]

Before the industrial age, all the people on the planet were outside the scope of the industrial economy, as this economy did not exist. Once this economy emerged, more and more people were incorporated in it, with some of them later becoming "unemployed", or "idle", i.e. staying logistically within the scope of the industrial economy but not doing anything either inside or outside the scope of the industrial economy (nobody stopped them from leaving for the wilderness, but they normally didn't, surprise-surprise).

Historically, however, and even now, vast numbers of people has remained outside the scope of the industrial economy, living mostly in agrarian or wild areas of "developing" countries (well over half of the global population actually). Automation has been leading to incorporation of groups of these people into the industrial economy in a piecemeal manner. It could also lead to rise in unemployment among those already within the industrial economy, but the total number of people operating within the scope of industrial economy always necessarily grew as a result.

Therefore, the entire OP's argument setting up automation against overpopulation is totally flawed.

[Newfie]

Radon, I don't get your argument what so ever.

If you are expanding the discussion to the third would economies, maybe.

But I think C8's discussion was more about the mature, first world economies.

His general idea, that there are more workers than needed, and that we don't have a good way to deal with it has been long recognized. Here is an article by Bertrand Russel from 1932 on the topic.

http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

[radon1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '
')
But I think C8's discussion was more about the mature, first world economies.

[Pops]

Dolan is right I think. The benefits of inovation (called "productivity" by capitalists who think it is their fault) need to be spread around.
Either that or bad things will likely happen.

Add in the fact mature economies are ... maturing.
Populations are aging and flatlining in many old economies and hopefully that spreads.

Used to be that new, cheap, young workers were required to do the unskilled and semi-skilled work. Now, we make our own appointments and our phones answer themselves and we have big machines do the labor for us... kids are a liability for the first time since agriculture.

Not a bad thing really.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', '
')So what is the solution? How do we deal with the growing number of idle people, many of whom will cause trouble? Can a nation really peacefully exist with only 1/3rd of the people working? Do we make "busy work" (like they do in Japan) or do we just drug them out (Europe)?

How do we deal with "Peak Idleness"?

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')And automation has run its course, contrary to promise by Elon Tusk and Steve Jobs. The word processor and Excel spreadsheet long ago 'automated' office work just as the 6-axis industrial robot made short work of factory laborers. The only really revolutionary change has been automated chip/board fabrication which increased the availability of the first two automations.

[dolanbaker]

The main point I think is that automation has reached (or is close to) the limits of financial viability, by that I mean there are a lot of low paid jobs that can only be automated with high cost and highly complex robots. These jobs can be automated, but never will, as it will always be cheaper to employ human automatons instead of robots.

[Pops]

Not just low skill, computers have replaced legal researchers—lawyers— in retrieving relevant material and are 95% accurate... They have replaced writers in churning out lots of boilerplate news stories that contain say, stock prices.

Intelligent systems can hold more accessible knowledge than a human and play what if millions of times faster (think playing chess only with medical symptoms), I always use my own graphic design where computation power decimated the ranks of skilled workers in the printing trades, the same in all "creative" fields.

It is a thing. We go pooh pooh and turn around and wonder why the working population ratio is falling or the disability ranks are rising or unattached workers and part timers and contract workers are increasing.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', 'T')he main point I think is that automation has reached (or is close to) the limits of financial viability, by that I mean there are a lot of low paid jobs that can only be automated with high cost and highly complex robots. These jobs can be automated, but never will, as it will always be cheaper to employ human automatons instead of robots.

[dolanbaker]

The other point about overdoing automation is the fact that ultimately salaried staff spend more than unemployed people.

[Newfie]

Yes Dolan and Pops, you guys get it, and C8 as well.

I don't think the other guys understand the topic. I've tried asking about this before here and elsewhere and it just goes nowhere. It seems to be a very difficult topic for most to wrap their heads around.