Is all this economic strife a product of the end on an era?

[Buddyblazon]

I read an opinion piece from Mike Littwin the other day where he mentioned the idea that we're at the end of the Industrial Age.

And it got me to thinking. What if we are, as Mr. Littwin says, at the end of the Industrial Age? What does that spell for us? Does that mean that we're all going to prepare for different type of work for income? Has anybody in the government brought this up? With the advances in technology, are manufacturing jobs requiring less techs that can do more with the assistance of advanced machinery? Does that mean manufacturing will never be the same? And again, if it's true, what the hell are the masses suppose to do for income if the foundation of our economies is going to require less and less actual people?

I've been kind of stressed out about it since I read that line. I mean, if it's true, are we in for decades of economy inequality until some sort of "new employment" is figured out to replace those diminished manufacturing jobs? I would think if it were accurate, re-education for new emerging industries would need to be acknowledged sooner than later. People can't continue to hope for their manufacturing jobs back if those jobs are never coming back.

Just a thought from my brain.

On edit: thought I was posting in GD. If a Mod could move this it would be great. TYIA.

[Duer 157099]

1. We need to come to terms with the concept of people not having to work 40 hrs per week

There simply won't be as much "work" available, what with all the productivity gains we've made with automation etc.

We need to be able to make a living on something like 20 hours/week, or less. And spend more time actually living.

Our society is so screwed up where everyone lives to work, not the other way around.

[dkf]

2. Can we produce enough of value to live on 20 hours of labor?

Wouldn't that necessitate high prices?

[BR_Parkway]

3. Maybe the question should be asked is why these things have been given

so much value that we give up so many hours of our life for them

[dkf]

4. How else do you get things of value if you don't produce anything of value?

Frankly those who do produce what we eat, wear, etc. probably work harder than we do. We think it's fair for those in other countries to work endless hours, so that we here can work 20 hours a week and have nice cushy lives. It's kind of sick.

[Yavin4]

9. That's Kind of the Point

Automation and technology is nearing the point where machines produce more value than humans. There will be less jobs for people in developing countries and less hours for them to work once there are machines that can make clothes, computers, etc.

[quaker bill]

7. It the value created was more equally shared

it likely would not require higher prices. One does not need to go to levelling to get there. If executive pay was brought back into range where it generally resided in the 1950s (say 20X to 50X the pay of front line staff as opposed to the current 500X+) and the proceeds were used to better compensate staff, labor costs would not have to change even a penny.

In fact if you somehow limited executive pay to a multiple of the lowest paid staff member, the first thing you would see is the lowest paid staff members getting some very large raises. :)

[Ilsa]

5. Yet most people I know that are salaried work 48-55 hours a week. nt

[LetTimmySmoke]

6. I've been thinking about that too.

We can probably find a way provide food and renewable energy to 9 billion people. But the problem is - can we produce the kind of demand needed to employ ourselves? My feeling is the answer to that question is no. Not if only 2-3% of the workforce does agriculture and likewise for manufacturing. And that's not taking into account service sector jobs becoming automated too.

They're having this problem too in the de-industrializing Chinese coastal cities. There, the government gives the excess population un-needed service jobs. Here, we simply pay them to stay home and not be able to find a job.

We're going to have real trouble occupying our population in the next century.

[Yavin4]

8. If humanity progresses in a sane fashion, this is could be our future

http://equalmoney.org/

An economic system where life itself has value, not money, not things. We will be given all that we need to survive for life at birth.

If we don't progress, then humanity will perish, as the "have nots" go to war with the "have everything".