News The end of capitalism as we know it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of automation and technological advancements on the workforce, particularly in the context of capitalism. Participants highlight the emergence of "lights out plants," such as Orville Reddenbacher's in Colorado, where factories operate without human labor. The conversation emphasizes the potential for a widening wealth gap, with a small percentage of the population controlling the majority of wealth, and raises concerns about the future job market and the need for social safety nets to support displaced workers. The participants advocate for a rethinking of economic structures to ensure equitable distribution of wealth and job opportunities.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of automation technologies and their impact on labor markets
  • Familiarity with economic theories related to capitalism and socialism
  • Knowledge of the concept of "lights out plants" in manufacturing
  • Awareness of historical labor movements and their responses to technological change
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the effects of automation on job displacement and economic inequality
  • Explore the concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a potential solution for displaced workers
  • Investigate case studies of successful transitions to automated manufacturing
  • Examine the role of labor unions in advocating for workers' rights in an automated economy
USEFUL FOR

Economists, labor market analysts, policymakers, and anyone interested in the future of work and the socio-economic implications of automation.

  • #61
Adam said:
Yep, there are all sorts of ways you can justify your denial.

Yes. That's why this is called a "forum".
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
hughes johnson said:
Yes. That's why this is called a "forum".

Quite so. But the fact that different opinions can be posted does not mean that all of them are correct. And your views of unemployment are selective, and evidence of cognitive dissonance, if not denial.
 
  • #63
selfAdjoint said:
You do know that the definition of unemployment was changed a few years ago, to make the numbers less scary. The people who weren't actively looking for jobs, who had been counted as unemployed before, were now dropped. So to compare, I've seen 5.5% unemployment under the new system equated to 7% under the old one. As for 6% being full employment, that of course is what employers like to believe, but nobody else does.
I've never heard that before. Do you have a source?
Quite so. But the fact that different opinions can be posted does not mean that all of them are correct. And your views of unemployment are selective, and evidence of cognitive dissonance, if not denial.
Speaking of selective - Adam's one year data from three years ago is about the very definition of selctive. I don't think its denial though...
 
  • #64
Dissident Dan said:
That link does not adjust for inflation.
Scroll further: there are two charts, the first in "real" dollars, the second in inflation adjusted dollars.
 
  • #66
selfAdjoint said:
...your views of unemployment are selective, and evidence of cognitive dissonance, if not denial.
My views have no effect on the situation. I am unable to find help. There is a labor shortage. Is this somehow difficult for you to understand? What is it that you don't get? Are the numbers confusing to you? Do you know what a labor shortage is? Do you have some agenda that is clouding your perception of the facts? Do you know what supply and demand means? I can't imagine why you are having such difficulty with this. Is there something that I can do to help you understand better?
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Hah, you are unable to find help and I am unable to find a job! Maybe we should get together, except I wouldn't want to work for you and you wouldn't hire me on a bet.
 
  • #68
russ_watters said:
Scroll further: there are two charts, the first in "real" dollars, the second in inflation adjusted dollars.

Oops. Thanks for the correction. It shows a downturn from 2000-2001. Of course, I can't say what the causes are.

I hope this thread doesn't turn into a thread about the president's handling of the economy.

I'm very interested in the idea of getting automation to the point at which people have to very little work.
 
  • #69
Dissident Dan said:
Oops. Thanks for the correction. It shows a downturn from 2000-2001. Of course, I can't say what the causes are.
Yes, there was a recession at about that time, a corresponding rise in unemployment and therefore a corresponding drop in income levels. Generally, every recession has such a drop (or at least a leveling off).

The difference in the 2000-2001 recession was 9/11 hitting just as the recovery was starting . That ended up severely slowing the recovery and led to the "jobless recovery" we hear so much about. But that's over now: unemployment was 5.6% in April, the 8th straigh month it decreased.
 
  • #70
hughes johnson: You may have mentioned it earlier, and if I've missed it my apologies. But what kind of business are you in, I'm just curious?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
614
Replies
31
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K