Some very interesting posts. Brittlerock I found your post very well written and heart felt and my first response was to say, “Yes exactly right”, but upon contemplation, I keep coming back to the point about wages. Can it be arbitrary, that is to say, we simply pay more because it is good. We invest in companies in highly competitive world markets, if one of our companies just jumped up one day and said we are going to give all of our lower paid employees a 20 percent pay raise, and those employees account for 25 percent of our total cost therefore our cost are going up 5 percent, which will reduce our bottom line by 5 percent all else being equal. Would we continue to hold that stock or sell? It would be great if senior management would redirect their high pay to those workers, but would that ever happen? I don’t know. I am old enough to remember sitting and visiting with the Chairman of General Mills, this in a business seminar while I was in college in the 70’s. Some one asked his salary and if I recall correctly it was about 300K a year. There was a very simple bonus system and no stock options. Don’t need to go into what it might be today, but certainly in the millions. How did that come to be, could a regulation fix it? Would any of us want our wages, or investment income regulated?
Very complicated issues and I admire anyone willing to step out and express a well thought out and well written appeal to our better nature.
OT OT
interesting post brittlerock.
Why do we tolerate a minimum wage that does not support the needs of basic living without additional support from government programs which is then resented by a significant segment of the population?
Making the assumption that job X is worth $20/hour, does it really matter that much from an economic point of view whether the worker is paid $30/hr at work, or if he is paid $20/hr plus the equivalent of $10 of public assistance? He still has the money to spend. Either way he is partially freeloading on somebody.
Despite that, I am for higher minimum wages, within reason. It will for sure push automation even faster but it is probably worth having fewer jobs with higher pay.
If I was an employer I would pay more than minimum to help instill some pride and self worth in my employees .Because that would make them them happier,.Happy employees.,employees that feel appreciated by the company make better , more productive workers.
There is far more to success in life and in business than IQ.
IQ is not what makes somebody lazy and irresponsible. Years ago in the military I had an ambulance driver with an obviously low IQ, he would probably never be more than private. But he knew as long as he drove the ambulance safely and followed simple military protocol and showed up for work on time, he had a job. Ot the other side of the coin I know a couple of smart people who are downright lazy and improvident, I would never hire them.
I do think the rapid spread of automation, an age where machines become not only a tool but a worker is relevant to young investors. Many of whom may be among those who become unemployable over the next few decades. A higher than average IQ will not protect them. .Because it is hard to see how the general economy can prosper as fewer and fewer people have enough disposable income to fulfill their unending wants as opposed to their needs. Because it’s these “wants”., an iPhone or a new car,etc. that are the bulk of our economy.
At some point, probably not too far away , machines will help create a society rich enough to fulfill everybody’s basic needs. Which is why I am in favor of a guaranteed annual income for all. But only if it is done with no restrictions and is accompanied by a dismantling of our extensive expensive welfare programs. This won’t happen because all of the bureaucrats involved will oppose it. As will politicians dependent on handing out things like free cell phones to buy votes.
I think these kinds of posts are OK as long as they are generic with no political parties mentioned.
And if they are clearly labeled OT . This one is.
Which most are not. But should be.
Politics has ruined many MF threads.
Eventually posters who have something to say about companies and their stocks leave.
Because political or ideological based posts are not only mostly based on emotion but are not actionable.
If one can’t find a job to fit their own description, they have the freedom to plant a garden to feed their family and the livestock they raise for food. Any excess they happen to have can be traded with a neighbor for any excess that they might have that you need - money being the accepted medium of exchange if necessary. It’s the way is was done for centuries.
You might think that, but the Supreme Court said “no” in 1942.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Your job failed you.
That fact of the matter is that if the ruling class* (whatever that is) wants the plebs (whoever they are) to love their country, then that country must be loveable.
It’s a balancing act.
*Note to Saul - sorry if my language has degenerated too far into the political. I did argue for the long term balance, so perhaps it’s OK. Ultimately, I think that economics and politics are merely different lenses into the same human behaviour. Ymmv.
I’m sorry I ever started this thread! This board is about stocks and investing. There are other boards for this kind of discussion. LET’S STOP THIS THREAD! Now.
Thanks.
Saul
The question is whether this time really is different. Technology has been getting rid of jobs for ages as many others have pointed out above and technology has come along to create new jobs that could not have even imagined previously. Faith in history repeating itself is the driving force behind the hope that this time will not be different.
What IS definitely different this time is the pace of change. Our educational system has to train our children for jobs whose outlines are as yet unknown.
Repetitive task jobs that almost anyone could do are pretty much gone except in the service industry. But even in the service industry jobs are disappearing too. Computer assisted ordering at many restaurants is just beginning. Customers like it and they order more food when they don’t feel that someone is judging them. Planet Money Podcast (free on itunes) had a great segment on this.
Truck drivers will almost certainly be replaced by self driving vehicles within the decade, at least on the longest segement of their trips along open highways. Bus drivers and cabbies will be next.
Thousands of news articles you read today are being “written” by robots with artificial intelligence and they are getting better and better at it.
High paying jobs are being outsourced too. Radiologists have been reading films overseas for years. Legal services are being outsourced and computers can do research in a tiny fraction of the time a legal assistant can. AI is making these functions faster and better. It’s not all bad. Software to monitor patients in remote ICU’s allows patients to stay in hospitals closer to their homes and gives nurses there more jobs as patients stay in town. But overall technology is creeping into the highest echelons of work. Highly skilled woodworkers were replaced locally by cheap labor overseas. Those same workers are now being replaced by computer guided robots who will be replaced by machines that can “print” parts that look like wood. Good luck woodworkers,loggers and the people that hauled and sold the materials.
Soon, even the bartender will be replaced by a sympathetic humanoid to whom we can cry in our beer. They will be terrific listeners.
LET’S STOP THIS THREAD! Now.
So much for Voltaire.
Farewell.
Thank you Saul. I was going to leave Goofy’s comments go to avoid any more politics on this board,
I don’t know why you think this is “politics.” Here is the lead editorial in this week’s Bloomberg Businessweek, a publication rather focused on “investing.” (Why I can find it in the Middletown Press and not on Bloomberg’s site is another matter, but I am reading it on Page 14 of the dead-tree version of the current Businessweek:)
Robots vs. The Middle Class
What happens when the robots come for their jobs?
Don’t dismiss that possibility entirely. About half of U.S. jobs are at high risk of being automated, according to one recent study. And the middle class may be disproportionately squeezed. Many lower-income jobs, such as gardening or day care, don’t appeal to robots. But many once-secure middle-class occupations -- trucking, financial advice, optometry, software engineering -- have aroused their interest, or soon will. (The rich own the robots, so they’ll be fine.)
This isn’t to be alarmist. Optimists point out that such technological upheaval has benefited workers in the past. The Industrial Revolution didn’t go so well for the Luddites whose jobs were displaced by mechanized looms, **but it eventually raised living standards and created far more jobs than it destroyed.** Likewise, increased automation today should boost productivity, stimulate demand by driving down prices, and free many workers from drudgery to focus on more creative pursuits.
**But there’s no guarantee of a smooth transition.**
http://www.middletownpress.com/opinion/20150512/editorial-ro…
The bolding is mine; it’s a reiteration of what I have said in posts upthread. I’ll agree this is a topic better suited to the MacroEconomics board, but the thread so far has been respectful, thought provoking, and non-political, at least so far as I can tell.
OK - I was going to drop it as well because Saul requested us to, but right after that I read the following article in Huffington Post which is squarely on this topic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/the-robots-are-…
Many people are unaware that you can now buy robot insurance. It’s true.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81303587/
Jeb
You can see all my holdings here: http://my.fool.com/profile/TMFJebbo/info.aspx
Hi Goofy, I’ve asked you to close this discussion and take it to the macroeconomics board. You are right in that it hasn’t turned into overt name calling politics yet, but I’m afraid that it will inevitably get there, as people suggest solutions. I’ve seen too many boards ruined by that. Please let it drop. This board is for investing ideas. If you must respond to someone, please do it off board.
Thanks
Saul
If we can end on an old joke/witticism. Someone gave me a small plaque 25 years ago that read:
The Data Center (or factory, in older versions of this joke) of the future will be run by a man and a dog. The man’s job will be to feed the dog. The dog’s job will be to bite the man if he attempts to touch the computer (equipment). 
Since change is a messy process, I think one can go further and say the transition will almost surely be non smooth.
Adaption today could be faster because of improved communications , worker mobility, and availability of retraining. OTOH it could be slowed by government policies that make non work more attractive (at least for short periods or for the non ambitious)and hiring human workers more expensive. Whatever, because change is exponential it will come ever faster.
Another key point is that the agricultural and industrial revolutions didn’t take place in all parts of the economy at the same rate or the same time.
Displaced farmers could go to work in the mills. Displaced mill workers could migrate to the service economy .
I suspect that the robot - computer - automation post industrial revolution will hit almost all sectors near simultaneously. And if “eventually” it raises everybody’s standard of living, people have a limited lifetime, we live in the now.
A book I am reading says that the idea of “routine” jobs be extended to any job where somebody else could copy your actions after following you on you job over a period of time. Actually multiplied many times because “big data” is following not only you but everybody like you.
And the above is with task specific limited artificial intelligence. What happens if (when?) generalized artificial intelligence arrives?
Following Saul’s request I will stop posting on this thread. I do think it has something to do with investing but it isnn’t actionable.
I will echo another’s post that one should not confuse known political inclinations of posters with thoughts expressed on this board. Because this is a problem that should be beyond politics and is one that can not be answered by any ideology.