how much of the work force will automation eventually render permanently unemployed? i'm not a luddite - i think this is inevitable and there's no point resisting it. but some of the consequences might be worth thinking through.
http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/
Quote:
Where will advancing technology, job automation, outsourcing and globalization lead?
Is it possible that accelerating computer technology was a primary cause of the current global economic crisis—and that even more disruptive impacts lie ahead?
This groundbreaking book by a Silicon Valley computer engineer and entrepreneur explores these questions and shows how accelerating technology is likely to have a highly disruptive influence on our economy in the near future—and may well already be a significant factor in the current global crisis.
People losing their jobs because robots replace menial warehouse jobs is a good thing. They can move onto doing more worthwhile tasks.
[1] http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/11/art2full.pdf [2] http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/extension.html
The other argument is as follows: if there are enough of them and they get poor and desperate enough, they will burn down our houses, rape and murder our loved ones, and smash all of our things to bits. If things get bad enough, there will be a revolution and they will kill us all. That is not in our best interest.
The reason I'm replying, though, is that I wanted to opine that a Social Safety Net != Socialism.
Two of the largest vectors of wealth redistriubution in the last couple years are extended UIC and subsidized health/COBRA benefits. I think it's quite difficult to argue that we'd be better of having these 30MM unemployed people without ANY income or ANY health coverage.
If for no other reason than that's 30 MM fewer consumers.
Put another way, we should aim for a world in which nobody works, as the robots are doing all the work.
> This is why I find redistribution of wealth so ridiculous
I don't think HN is the place for socialist vs capitalist debates. The loaded language you are using, such as 'stealing', completely ignores a massively complex debate. The correct balance of 'stealing' vs 'starving in the street' has eluded the world's smartest people for decades; I wouldn't expect to solve it in this comment box.