The end of capitalism as we know it?

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the impact of automation and new technology on the job market and economy. The speaker, who helps automate factories, acknowledges that this process often eliminates jobs and raises concerns about the future, including a potential separation of classes and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. They also mention the need for a system to support those who are permanently out of work and question how the economy will sustain itself in a future with fewer jobs and consumers. Various solutions are proposed, including a welfare system and a socialistic ownership model, but both have potential flaws. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for careful consideration and planning to address the consequences of automation and technological advancement.
  • #36
No manipulation is required. I HAVE supplied the data. I can see you wish to ignore it and make ad hominem attacks again, but that's very clear to everyone.

Between 2000 and 2001, poverty rose to 11.7% of the population, or 32.9 million people, up from 11.3% and 31.6 million.

23.3 million people sought and received emergency hunger relief from our network of charities in 2001.

Soldiers executing POWs.

POWs held for years without charge.

Using 75% of the world's oil production.

Average unemployment rates in the past year have risen: in 2001, the rate was 4.8%, but jumped to 5.7% in 2002.

In the last decade, the average US household consumer debt (non-mortgage) has increased from approximately $8,500 to $14,500. (Federal Reserve Statistical Releases and U.S. Census Bureau)

According to the Federal Reserve, outstanding non-secured consumer debt rose from $355 billion in 1980 to $1.2 trillion in 1996 to $1.65 trillion in 2001 and is expected to exceed $2.2 trillion by 2004.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Quit whining and get a job.

Ivan Seeking,
So sorry! I should have said "quit whining and get another job". I also could have said "quit whining and get two jobs". This is America, so you can have as many jobs as you want. You are also allowed to make as much money as you want. Things have never been better; you can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a millionaire. So enjoy yourself, the only one stopping you, is you.
 
  • #38
Woohoo! Blind fanaticism!
 
  • #39
russ_watters said:
The link is in the post that followed

That link does not adjust for inflation.

------------------------------------------

Anyway, whether or not capitalism brings its own end, which I don't think it will, I think that we need a system to help displaced workers who lose their jobs as result of new technology or large layoffs, and I think that it would be great if in the future would could have a system in which most people do not need to work.
 
  • #40
Extra
Jobless claims lowest since 2000
advertisement


Decline surprises analysts and bodes well for April employment report due Friday. Wages also show an increase, adding to fears of inflation.

By MSN staff and news services

The number of Americans filing initial claims for jobless pay dropped last week to the lowest level since 2000, the government said on Thursday, bolstering expectations for a strong April employment report.

for the whole article
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P83006.asp

Since Bush is blamed for a poor economy then he should also be credited when the economy is good right?...Looks like he's doing a fine job to me.
 
  • #41
kawikdx225 said:
Extra
Jobless claims lowest since 2000
advertisement


Decline surprises analysts and bodes well for April employment report due Friday. Wages also show an increase, adding to fears of inflation.

By MSN staff and news services

The number of Americans filing initial claims for jobless pay dropped last week to the lowest level since 2000, the government said on Thursday, bolstering expectations for a strong April employment report.

for the whole article
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P83006.asp

Since Bush is blamed for a poor economy then he should also be credited when the economy is good right?...Looks like he's doing a fine job to me.

That is a sliver of data for a single month. New jobless claims are probably the single worst stat to push if you are a Bush supporter. They have been ghastly over the rest of his presidency. He is going to be the only president to preside over a net job loss since Herbert Hoover. If you put the argument in terms of unemployment instead of job losses (they are different), it is less clearly bad for Bush. The only way the economy looks good is in GNP trend. While it is arguable that growth cures all ills eventually, those without jobs don't care about eventualities.

Njorl
 
  • #42
Adam said:
Woohoo! Blind fanaticism!


Blind? No, sitting around on your *** and whining instead of going out and making a success out of yourself when there are plenty of jobs - that is blind.

fanaticism? No, making a living, being a success, and supporting one's family is not generally considered to be fanaticism, unless one is a bum.
 
  • #43
hughes johnson said:
Blind? No, sitting around on your *** and whining instead of going out and making a success out of yourself when there are plenty of jobs - that is blind.

The trouble is that society defines success in a particularly limited and myopic way. Anything outside that tiny frame is defined as failure, or laziness, or being a bum, or weird. Society also rewards achievements in a rather irrational and haphazard manner: some are richly rewarded, some are totally ignored, and some are even punished.

fanaticism? No, making a living, being a success, and supporting one's family is not generally considered to be fanaticism, unless one is a bum.

Calling someone a bum because s/he does not live up to society's narrow definition of success is fanaticism. Calling someone a bum because their favoured mode of creative expression is not conducive to profit is fanaticism.
 
  • #44
Hughes Johnson, you are remarkably good at entirely missing the point.

Watch closely:
1) Bill Gates has lots of money.
2) Bill Gates says "I have lot sof money, therefore nobody in the USA is poor or hungry.
3) Bill Gates is correct.

That is the argument you have been using. Does it make any sense whatsoever? No, it doesn't. Please try thinking, then come back.
 
  • #45
Adam said:
Hughes Johnson, you are remarkably good at entirely missing the point.

Watch closely:
1) Bill Gates has lots of money.
2) Bill Gates says "I have lot sof money, therefore nobody in the USA is poor or hungry.
3) Bill Gates is correct.

That is the argument you have been using. Does it make any sense whatsoever? No, it doesn't. Please try thinking, then come back.

1) There are lots of jobs and not many workers here. I could work 3 jobs if I wanted to. So could anyone else.

2) I agree with you; Bill Gates is right.

3) Australian firing squad:
READY!...
FIRE!...
AIM!
 
Last edited:
  • #46
cragwolf said:
Calling someone a bum because s/he does not live up to society's narrow definition of success is fanaticism. Calling someone a bum because their favoured mode of creative expression is not conducive to profit is fanaticism.

Sorry you're not doing well, perhaps you should find yourself a different favoured mode of creative expression.
 
  • #47
hughes johnson said:
There are lots of jobs and not many workers here. I could work 3 jobs if I wanted to.

Australian firing squad:
READY!...
FIRE!...
AIM!

That changes the 30 million people living in poverty... how, exactly?
 
  • #48
Adam said:
That changes the 30 million people living in poverty... how, exactly?

30 million? You're crackers.
 
  • #49
You mean the US government is crackers? That's where the figure comes from. Well, if you insist. :D
 
  • #50
Adam said:
You mean the US government is crackers? That's where the figure comes from. Well, if you insist. :D

All governments are crackers. Ours would probably even hire you. From what I can tell, you love to make up BS statistics. There is a GREAT demand for people like you in our government. Then you would no longer be part of the 174% of our population that is living in poverty, and people like me wouldn't think of you as a bum.
 
  • #51
And we are still left with these facts:

etween 2000 and 2001, poverty rose to 11.7% of the population, or 32.9 million people, up from 11.3% and 31.6 million.

23.3 million people sought and received emergency hunger relief from our network of charities in 2001.

Soldiers executing POWs.

POWs held for years without charge.

Using 75% of the world's oil production.

Average unemployment rates in the past year have risen: in 2001, the rate was 4.8%, but jumped to 5.7% in 2002.

In the last decade, the average US household consumer debt (non-mortgage) has increased from approximately $8,500 to $14,500. (Federal Reserve Statistical Releases and U.S. Census Bureau)

According to the Federal Reserve, outstanding non-secured consumer debt rose from $355 billion in 1980 to $1.2 trillion in 1996 to $1.65 trillion in 2001 and is expected to exceed $2.2 trillion by 2004.
Thus far, your ad hominems have changed nothing. Congratulations! :)
 
  • #52
Government statistics on poverty in the U.S. are absolutely meaningless. Our "underground economy" is HUGE. Many self-employed people in this country report only a very small portion of their actual income. The international underground drug trade is so large that at times it affects the fed's ability to regulate the economy! We have millionaires in this country who are listed as living in poverty. Money laundering in this country is big business. You don't live here so you don't know. The statistics are hogwash. I'm telling you that there is so much money flying around right now that making money in business is like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
  • #53
Ah, okay, I see how it works. Statistics which go against whatever you say at any given time are unreliable, regardless of the source. However, statistics which support whatever you say at any given time are reliable. Got it. Thanks for clearning that up.
 
  • #54
Adam said:
Ah, okay, I see how it works. Statistics which go against whatever you say at any given time are unreliable, regardless of the source. However, statistics which support whatever you say at any given time are reliable. Got it. Thanks for clearning that up.

No, this is how it works:
Don't believe what you see with you own eyes, believe what the government tells you. :rolleyes:
 
  • #55
Good grief. We need some sort of test for membership. Seriously.
 
  • #56
Did you see the new employment figures that were released today? Normally 6% unemployment is considered to be "full employment". We are now at 5.6%. That means we are 100.4% employed (you got to love the government's logic).

Adam said:
Good grief. We need some sort of test for membership. Seriously.
I heard that this is in the works. The rumors are that the test is going to be based on reading comprehension and statistics. We are all going to miss you.
Best of luck,
hughes
 
Last edited:
  • #57
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.
 
  • #58
selfAdjoint said:
As for 6% being full employment, that of course is what employers like to believe, but nobody else does.

No matter how good things get, some people will be in between jobs, some people enjoy being laid off in the winter to get some time in Florida, and some people are unemployable for various reasons. To say that nobody believes this is certainly incorrect.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Others are employed "under the table" and yet reporting unemployed for various reasons.
 
  • #60
Yep, there are all sorts of ways you can justify your denial.
 
  • #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:
  • #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
13
Views
2K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
2
Views
985
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
7
Views
898
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
604
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
16
Views
534
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top