http://www.theatlantic.com/...transform-america/7919/1/

This article is really long, but really good; I seriously would recommend it to anybody; it has some thought provoking stuff in it for sure.

Excellent article -- thanks for posting.

sounds interesting
will read it later

This was really interesting

"argue that dynamism in the U.S. has actually been in decline for a decade; with the housing bubble fueling easy (but unsustainable) growth for much of that time, we just didn’t notice. Phelps and Tilman finger several culprits: a patent system that’s become stifling; an increasingly myopic focus among public companies on quarterly results, rather than long-term value creation; and, not least, a financial industry that for a generation has focused its talent and resources not on funding business innovation, but on proprietary trading, regulatory arbitrage, and arcane financial engineering. "

I particularly liked this portion. Phelps and Tilman correctly peg the problem as stimulated economic growth versus sustainable growth, although the author of the article doesn't quite tie those points together.

Originally I hopped folks pegged on the quarterly profit model and those investment funds that advocate so hard for it would fall to the wayside during the so-called 'great recession'. Sadly, it seems to have the opposite affect. People are pouring money into financials propped up by a good quarter or two or into new variations of derivatives (didn't we learn our lesson with housing derivatives) instead of into solid institutions investing with a long-term tilt.

But who is to blame? Many of us have 401ks or otherwise are invested in funds that seem to preach this methodology simply because we want to retire with a significant sum of accumulated wealth. And convincing enough folks to suddenly change over doesn't seem too feasible. Plus, the way our regulatory system is structured it makes more sense as an investment firm to pay lobbyists to fight for a small regulatory change than it does to invest in most startups because of a simple cost-benefit analysis. On this secondary point, that's why I was fine with a tax and regulatory overhaul.

I'm not optimistic for any major change. With that said, the rest of the world buys into the current model too so maybe it's end up being a no harm, no foul. And as for the unemployment section, the quickest cure to that is a world war...not that I'm advocating for one.

That was a long but worthwhile read.

Yea; I agree trumper; though I have to say, if you want to retire off some money, you should probably think extremely low-risk long-term gain, rather than these short term quarterly growth things that have the potential to implode... If people could refocus their retirement to companies with a focus on long-term stability, and emphasize that, then perhaps companies would start reflecting it as well

Interesting indeed. So many things I disagree with but a few I do agree with. Qz....I am sure you wanted some debate. So I will start it off. Not sure if I will be actively debating these points after I post it, but anyways.

"Examining national longitudinal data, Mossakowski has found that people who were unemployed for long periods in their teens or early 20s are far more likely to develop a habit of heavy drinking (five or more drinks in one sitting) by the time they approach middle age. They are also more likely to develop depressive symptoms. Prior drinking behavior and psychological history do not explain these problems—they result from unemployment itself. And the problems are not limited to those who never find steady work; they show up quite strongly as well in people who are later working regularly."

- Maybe it's because I am a pro-alcoholic. But I disagree with this Polish bastard. Maybe he is in a different generation trying to figure out OUR generation, but I would think that you would find most unemployed people playing video games or online dating rather than drinking. Especially as drinking costs money. Heck, I have worked from job to job just to fund my drinking for the past 14 years. So no sir. The last thing I would do if unemployed was to spend whatever money I received on booze. Ok maybe I would, but that is a different problem all together.

"Many of today’s young adults seem temperamentally unprepared for the circumstances in which they now find themselves. Jean Twenge, an associate professor of psychology at San Diego State University, has carefully compared the attitudes of today’s young adults to those of previous generations when they were the same age. Using national survey data, she’s found that to an unprecedented degree, people who graduated from high school in the 2000s dislike the idea of work for work’s sake, and expect jobs and career to be tailored to their interests and lifestyle. Yet they also have much higher material expectations than previous generations, and believe financial success is extremely important. “There’s this idea that, ‘Yeah, I don’t want to work, but I’m still going to get all the stuff I want,’” Twenge told me. “It’s a generation in which every kid has been told, ‘You can be anything you want. You’re special.’”"

- Unfortunately I agree with this. Especially when it comes to certain "blue-collar" industries. It is almost impossible to find people between 20-30 that have the drive to work. Or as I like to call it. Earn their place on the job train. I can't blame it entirely on drive though. Corporate America is more of a "who you know" vs. "what you know" and it's getting worse. But not taking a job because you want to hold out for something better? If I had to go door to door picking up people's dog fluff in order to pay my bills, then you would see me with trash bags and shovels. This same argument doesn't work for women who turn to prostitution or stripping. You don't do that because you have bills, you do that because you are whores or have a drug problem.

"In her 2006 book, Generation Me, Twenge notes that self-esteem in children began rising sharply around 1980, and hasn’t stopped since. By 1999, according to one survey, 91 percent of teens described themselves as responsible, 74 percent as physically attractive, and 79 percent as very intelligent. (More than 40 percent of teens also expected that they would be earning $75,000 a year or more by age 30; the median salary made by a 30-year-old was $27,000 that year.) Twenge attributes the shift to broad changes in parenting styles and teaching methods, in response to the growing belief that children should always feel good about themselves, no matter what. As the years have passed, efforts to boost self-esteem—and to decouple it from performance—have become widespread."

- Disagree with Twenge here. I like to associate self esteem with the music industry (it makes sense). 80's music to 90's grunge music to 2000's fluffty emo music. There hasn't been happy music since the 60's. Just because the hippy parents told their kids they could be anything, doesn't mean that after age 10 they realized that life was there to crush their little dreams. If they still don't get it, then good. Just makes more room for the rest of us to succeed.

"In limited respects, perhaps the recession will leave society better off. At the very least, it’s awoken us from our national fever dream of easy riches and bigger houses, and put a necessary end to an era of reckless personal spending. Perhaps it will leave us humbler, and gentler toward one another, too—at least in the long run. A recent paper by the economists Paola Giuliano and Antonio Spilimbergo shows that generations that endured a recession in early adulthood became more concerned about inequality and more cognizant of the role luck plays in life. And in his book, Children of the Great Depression, Glen Elder wrote that adolescents who experienced hardship in the 1930s became especially adaptable, family-oriented adults; perhaps, as a result of this recession, today’s adolescents will be pampered less and counted on for more, and will grow into adults who feel less entitled than recent generations."

- Good god I hope so. I miss the good ol American mantra, to quote Mr. Cash, "For the gravel in your gut and spit in your eye". But in conclusion, I think that our generation will prove to be unique and we won't be steam rolled by any pre-determined set of rules. If the rest of the population wants to keep up, they are going to have to change with us. Maybe we are just later to bloom than previous generations.

Anyways....just some off thoughts. Got in to work way too early today. Have a long day ahead of me. Needed some inspiration to appreciate what I have.

80s music was pretty happy:P
as was the mass of techno music in the early 90s.

-> wrt alcoholism; this guy does sound like a bit of a puritan, but regardless, alcoholism is a problem, and it tends to stay in the lower classes; i have a few drinks here and there, and have had a fair bit in the past - but social drinking and alcoholism are different stories; and while you say you'd not want to spend X money, and I agree, some people descend into that regardless

-> Being choosy with jobs: i agree with this; i'm somewhat guilty myself of it in a sense; I remained unemployed for almost 2 months after finishing my MSc, and didn't really apply for anything, because I had a feeling (and was hoping) that this contract I'm doing currently would be approved (and it was, obviously); I'd probably sit for a few months unemployed looking for a "real" job rather than get a service industry job that i could pick up in a day, if it came to that; mind you, I also have a reasonable understanding of the job market in my field i think (materials engineering) and know that there is yet demand; i've managed to put myself in the group of "post-college" people the author is referring to throughout...

-> self esteem & Music; i disagree with you there, i think that popular music *REFLECTS* generational self-esteem (rather than causes it); popular culture does have an effect for sure, but it generally *follows* these feelings rather than driving them i suspect


heh wooo i just clicked back and came forward again and it hadn't lost this so i'm happy at that and will post it now hehe

The Cure, Depeche Mode, Sex Pistols, Dead Kennedy's, The Cars, Ramones, The Smiths, Duran Duran......

And I don't consider techno music.

"-> self esteem & Music; i disagree with you there, i think that popular music *REFLECTS* generational self-esteem (rather than causes it); popular culture does have an effect for sure, but it generally *follows* these feelings rather than driving them i suspect"

I think that is exactly what I was driving at. So I agree to what you are saying as you just said it better than I could :)

"Typically, one salutary side effect of recessions is that they eventually spur booms in innovation".
Yes, but not always "innovation" in the way one imagines.
The French revolution was one such example as is Fascism in the 1930s..

Regarding income, there is a very startling statistic:
goto http://xkcd.com/980/huge/ and to the box depicting "thousands". Look at the chart that says: "typical household net worth by age" and compare...
The lower age groups are predictive of where the higher age groups are going to be in 10-15 years (relatively).

I agree and that's sort of what I was trying to build toward. The problem is that unless you have cash to move around, most companies do some variation of matching a retirement fund and few, if any, funds follow this model. So folks find themselves stuck in the same predicament. Quite frankly, I think the best retirement plan is a mixed bag of investments in the market, property investments, and even a small business franchise if you get to a point where you can afford it. Each one buoyings the other in down days and if they all go to crap then you were toasted anyway.

Zen is blaming the music industry because he must have been that one child who didn't get a gold star on his work! =p. In seriousness, that's what I think the problem is. What's weird is that I notice it most for those born '86 and on (this may be more because my own friends/aka close to me in age are gainfully employed so i'm interpreting that wrong). But in essence it's this 'I don't care if I don't have a job, I know I'm smart/talented/attractive/[insert adjective they would find important]' that seems to permeate the youth society.

Just the other I had a conversation with my middle school-aged cousin who was boasting about getting an A on a test, but he disclosed that almost everyone got an A. I asked him what's the value of a high mark if it's indistinguishable from the other marks? At least he's thinking now. I do worry though that there is unrealistic expectation that they will simply get gold stars, nice jobs, or whatnot for life.

"Just the other I had a conversation with my middle school-aged cousin who was boasting about getting an A on a test, but he disclosed that almost everyone got an A. I asked him what's the value of a high mark if it's indistinguishable from the other marks? At least he's thinking now. I do worry though that there is unrealistic expectation that they will simply get gold stars, nice jobs, or whatnot for life. "

My parents, who were public school teachers (now retired), complained constantly about those changed forced on them by the education system.

I notice a difference in attitude between those born slightly before me (1975 ish) vs those born 3-4 years after me (early 80s) and the difference is large. I remember reading some study that showed that the economic conditions on the year of your birth influences your cohort tremendously in terms of behavior and attitude towards life (parents also noticed it in terms of classes).

The people I know that were looking for work between 1990-1993 were also very negatively influenced in their outlook. (Managers who started work during that time period tend to be less kind and expect more).

Blaming the younger generation is nothing new. Read articles from the 1930s and you see the same thing. Read articles from the 1960s and it's even worse. It's *always* about the "lazy no good kids".
I have no objection to working hard. The circumstances and opportunities you have are based largely on luck of the draw in terms of when/where you are born - that's life. I strongly dislike people of an older generation blaming my generation's work-ethic on our woes though when the truth is that the opportunities overall are simply not as good as they were for my parents. My answer is: remember who is going to be paying taxes to support your sorry ass when you retire :)

if they can afford to drink without a job, how you going to motivate them to find work?

social drinking is a myth. you don't feel good because you're socializing, you feel good because you're getting drunk.

yes but there is some sort of separation of self restraint; if you've trained yourself to only drink while socializing, then you're less likely to become an alcoholic sitting there drinking alone, because you've trained yourself not to do that part =/

just means they'll socialize more often. doesn't improve their self-restraint in the least.

I read this a year ago. I skimmed it last night and reread the last 2 pages more thoroughly.

I'm not even sure what to comment or how to approach the subject

One of the biggest influences on me, personally, was the sense that guidance from well meaning people led me straight into a figurative den of snakes where my ignorance and naivety were preyed on and where my reaction was to form very defensive and unhelpful tendencies in regards to money.

Ultimately you start to wake up, start to figure out how things are working, the path you've been placed on, where you are moving/pushed towards and the driving powers that are propelling you. I think many people do not arrive at this point where they get to question what their efforts are supporting or producing because they are so totally involved in the ride that they can keep focused on money, for whatever reasons they have.

But once your sense of reflection is instigated and you are given the chance to slow down and wonder why you've been running so hard through the institutions of life to chase money then it can start to alter what you do. And that may not be good for the system that chases the GDP figure. It may not be helpful to people who are embedded in current power structures and highly invested in maintaining a status quo. It results in people feeling alienated because their voices are not heard, unwilling to 'play' because they feel no changes beneficial to their lives are being allowed and a general disaffection from the 'game'.

I certainly don't think that reaction is universal or a necessary product of joblessness. But it's one reaction. How will people deal with it?

This article was published almost a year before the OWS protests started so you can probably correlate the message of the protests to this article.

The article's first line is mendacious. Why should we sit back and "accept" high joblessness? Aside from the fact that the only way the economic elite will continue to re-establish the feudal age is the passive acceptance of that state amongst the masses, there's zero "reasons" why that naturally should be the case. In point of objective fact, there's NO reason why we should continue to have high joblessness.

This article is from the same playbook as every single one of David Brooks' laughable wastes of space in the NYT: Invent a bizarre moral justification for a ridiculously negative societal situation that does have a benefit for the upper economic class. This dude isn't a social scientist, he's a paid troll.

And quite frankly, you are stupider for having read it.

Rule 1: The Atlantic employs Megan McArdle.
Rule 2: When in doubt about the relevance of The Atlantic, see Rule 1.

I disagree with you Unsympathetic. The article explains why people are apathetic to try and get a job but it does not outright state that they are the cause of high unemployment. That is how you interpreted the article.

Many news sources are corrupt. Look at NPR in the United States. Many people turn to National Public Radio because it is funded by the general public and think that it is not bias. But any news source can be easily manipulated. Even assuming that NPR is not running the agenda of some influential group, we need not look further than the declassified Iran-Contra documents to know that fake stories and prop guest speakers will be forced on the NPR platform by influential groups trying to change public opinion and understanding.

Although Atlantic employs Megan McArdle (not familiar), that does not mean that every journalist working for them is writing from a script. That very well may be the case but it is not a rule. Also, I think it is time that you post something from a source that you do find credible so we can all read something new :)

Unsymp: Well I'd say the fact that it has some good numbers and isn't too wishy-washy and hand-wavey is a good thing

most arguments - like yours - from the right wing side basically go like they're putting their fingers in their ears and then repeating a mantra:

socialism is evil!
you're hurting job creators!
trickle-down!
government is bad!


... without any evidence to support any of these, and without countering more specific points or *numbers* (ie facts)

I don't see how the article is justifying high joblessness or presenting a fallacy. It is exploring the potential impacts and affects on society and individuals of a state of persisting and chronic unemployment.

You can't simply swipe away large scale statistics like high unemployment across a large economy with reason. Time is a huge factor. The ongoing financial manipulation, corporate influence and reckless governance that has been manifesting itself the past 10 years took 20+ years to incubate silently, covertly and secretly in backrooms across the nation and the world. It can't be rooted out easily unless you start to break rules and subvert the democratic process and human rights - precisely what people are realizing the corporate influence in politics has done. It will take time, or a miracle that eliminates the gullible old people vote, to fix.

As for being jobless or unemployed, I doubt many people truly are doing nothing economically productive. Maybe they are not getting paid like a traditional job. Around my small city I am seeing a subculture of productive, creative people who are ever more detached from the institutionalized economy. I don't think they fall into a desperate category that maybe people did in the great depression when food may have been scarce. They don't have to worry too much about necessities, even if they have a child or two, and they are freed up to produce useful things - often digitally - that 'employed' workers often don't possess the skills, perspective, or freedom to accomplish.

The article might serve as some sort of pity party for people to justify their current economic state. I think it more likely that individuals who have the capacity to read something of that length might just become more aware of the future's potential. You often avoid pitfalls because you see them coming. You might be marginalized in your workplace because you were unlucky at the start of your career? Be aware, carry yourself appropriate, preempt it from happening and call it out when you see it. Your earnings could be lower than your peers? Call it out and stand up for yourself, don't let people step on you.

When people try to understand what is affecting their lives it does not mean they are trying to become apologists.

Interesting article, thanks for the post.

While my eyes hurt too much to read most of the above comments, this one stuck out at me. Dear Zen: I politely disagree.




Im sure there is a proper term for this, but i refer to it as a "Triple S" aka - Sesame Street Syndrome.

Im 28, i come from a blue collar family. 3 kids, the bills were paid, but i was not wearing brand name jeans. Anyone born 81-85 might remember supertraxx shoes? There were no Nike shoes in my house.

My father worked 5am-3pm, came home, made supper, drank a few beers, watched the hockey game and went to bed. We did not get in his way. Not for fear of abuse, but because the man deserved to do his thing.

Growing up, my parents always told me I need to earn trust. I need to earn respect. I need to earn my future. I was special to them, but I would have to prove to the outside world what they know to be true. We had sesame street, but we had real parents.

(The following is a broad generalization. Just because you are different or you know someone different does not make you special either)

The kids today, they grow up on all this "I'm special because Big Bird said so" bullcrap. Since the parents don't parent like they used to, they don't instil the need to earn self-worth. Kids demand everything and are willing work for or prove nothing. While there are exceptions, the average child today is spoiled. The spoiled child of 2012 will be the lazy teenager of 2020. And as they say, fat parents have fat children.

The above is not a "blame the younger generation" statement. I may or may not have been an exception. There are many people older then me (and i see plenty at my job) who have the same issues.

This has been a a downhill trend since the 40s (the biker gangs / james dean era) which lead to the hippies which lead to the rest.

Or maybe its just my opinion ;-)

Char - First off, it's great to see you around. Second, I agree with you totaly. I have 2 brothers. We have all worked Blue Collar jobs most, if not all, of our lives. Up until I went professional nerd. It was pushed upon us to EARN what was given. However, one of my brothers still lives at home, has no job, and no desire to do anything. He is, though, 7 years younger than I. From the friends he was around he developed him into someone who acts much like what is described above.

Thanks Ice! Good to see you too!

And yeah...unfortunately there are exceptions.

Two comments:

First, I think that we have a growing fear that intelligence and hard work will not be enough for us to be successful in the future. We would all like to live in a world where even the dim-witted are cared for, but are faced with an increasing concern that being clever, educated, experienced and industrious may not be enough. This puts our own asses on the line -- it's a problem.

Second, everything that ZEN said about strippers and whores is absolutely true.

What isn't sustainable is the rate of technological growth we have been experiencing the last 150 years. So much of it has actually depended very very heavily on unskilled labor and jobs requiring little skill in anything(See China today). All these new products that supposedly make our lives better and lazier are fueled by the unintelligent masses buying something made by an engineer. In order to buy something you need money. In order to get money you need a job, no matter how fluffty it may be. Unfortunately, the intelligent engineers of this world actually reduce the need for unskilled, fluffty jobs(See industrialized farming).

In regards to this: You are absolutely right. It's actually unfortunate most people don't listen to The Beatles as much anymore.

Also, as a teen, I knew I wasn't responsible(and I didn't understand why other kids thought they were) and I knew I wasn't physically attractive. But I did know I was smarter than everyone else around me(at the time, this is probably just book smarts). But, that's probably because I am on the Asperger's spectrum. However, I will be making more than $75k/year by age 30. Hell, my fiance is starting at $86k/year and she is 26.

Mr. C. I think we are grasping at the same thing here. I was associating self esteem with the music industry (or as Qz put it) popular music reflects generational self esteem. This has nothing to do with work ethics or drive. In fact I pretty much said the same thing in one of my other comments about the rampant self entitlement in 20-30 year olds.

I was disagreeing with her point about children having more self esteem due to the fact that parents told them they could be anything they wanted.

Which in your case (and in my up bringing) was not true. My self esteem was developed on my own, my parents told me I was special (of course) but they also told me I had to earn everything I wanted in life.

So really....we agree.

Wharfed - Although I almost completely agree. I don't think that it really reduces the need for "unskilled" jobs. In fact I think it increases the need for them. I see it all the time, as I work every day with engineers. The more dependent people become on the latest "iMake Your Life Easy" the more they forgo basic social or common sense skills. In the industry I work in, you have no idea how often I have been called for this exact scenario (see below).

"The whole system crashed. Nothing works. This is the worst thing that could have happened at the worst time"

- Sir. Can you describe the problem?

"Yes. Nothing works"

- Okay we will get someone out there to check it out.

"Thank you!"

- Sir. I just received word back from my onsite technician. He said that someone turned the power off that was feeding the system.

"Oh. I didn't think of that"

I am not complaining nor am I saying that the industry I work in is "unskilled". But 85% of the service work performed is user error and 95% of the people who request the service have PHD's (I do a lot of work for Communication companies). Perhaps that is just one example, but here is another. Depending on where you live, how many people do you see that mow their own lawn? This might be skewed for me because I live in Southern California, but it makes me sick. Landscaping is a HUGE industry and it's because people are too busy/lazy/awkward to start a lawn mower or rake their leaves. In fact, I consider it an insult if someone comes to my door and asks if I need my lawn mowed.

Anyways. I kind of went out on a tangent there.

I've always assumed all unskilled work would eventually be replaced by robots; you can even see that at the Taco Time here; they have order stations, touch screens where you place your order; at lunch they have 3 staff, one of whom is 14; in the evening there's just one guy (the same guy every time, either a manager or simply the owner -- also i'm working in a small town at the moment heh)



I've often wondered what people will do when/if service industry jobs (like fast food &etc) get eliminated -- and basically i think people just need to get either more or re-educated heh

I agree with the idea that america will have to transition to having vocational training earlier in the education process, like germany -- as education i think is key, though current educations in the US don't necessarily prepare people for actual work....


The other thing is... if productivity is being concentrated in the hands of fewer, then you necessarily have to take in as much or MORE tax revenue to support the population, and it *must* be from those who have it, ie the fewer, more productive.

And for people who would say that would cause them to be less productive, would that not actually perhaps be not such a bad end result, to spread the work around somewhat?

I'm going to have fun in the beginning here by responding to this point with a David Brooks quote, who unsymp does not seem to care for yet whose argument benefits his point/this retort:

"According to a report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, over the past 30 years, inequality in Sweden, Germany, Israel, Finland and New Zealand has grown as fast or faster than inequality in the United States, even though these countries have very different welfare systems. "
http://www.nytimes.com/...risis-economics.html?_r=1

So, yes, socialism is evil, or at least eviler =p.

I could go on about the other points, but I don't think folks would want it. I'm far from saying the system is setup correctly, but government intervention and control generally pours more gasoline onto fires rather than helping to put them out.

@qz - here's a good one about productivity concentration.

http://www.economist.com/...011/12/economic-geography


Productivity is one thing I've wondered about as there have been huge improvements as the world becomes digital. A couple people at a startup in Silicon Valley can literally produce a product that can eliminate the work of hundreds of thousands of clerical type jobs. That's like 1000x more economic productivity once the tech/program becomes fully integrated into business.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/PRS85006092
Since 1983 US the US Bureau of Labour shows that the output per worker per hour (non farm, business) has risen by 85% and manufacturing hourly output per worker has risen by 105% since 87. Meanwhile in that same time period the participation in the paid labour force by women has risen from 50% to 60%. That's including women outside the working demographic, who are older than 20, so it's more like 70-75% of women who can work.

Basically it's like the average worker produces 2x as much, and the percentage of population working has increased by 10%.

But manufacturing, a big part of the value added production (ie tradable goods - see the economist link) has shrunken and the output relies more on software and intellectual property (and a ton on made up financial industry 'output'). In Canada we've got natural resources to buoy us up so it's different.

In anycase, we've had such tunnel vision and have directed so much effort and innuendo to educate and train people into the high earning (but low tradeable, tangible goods output) that there is a shortage of people who have a sense and knowledge of skilled labour and physical work, which is where the ever rising need is. We've really been coasting off the physical work of previous years and allowed our collective capacity for such things to diminish. But as pressure mounts we're slowly waking up to the physical realities that are required to meet our physical needs. A degree, the computer, fake money, paper money and the internet can't provide all of that. Mexicans can to an extent, I guess (probably why they were included in NAFTA?).

Anyways, somewhere along the way there has to be a collective awareness, desire and capacity created for skilled, physical labour because collective we've undervalued it and become blinded to our necessities. We're also losing hard earned industrial manufacturing skills, or our ability to capacitated ourselves with industrial production. A generation gap where built up experience and wisdom are not passed down means the learning process becomes longer.

Rant aside, we need to take away the stigma from physical work by exposing young people to it. I was only exposed to it when I started forestry work during the Summer as a university student. I got a taste for it, and it's lovely. I won't do it all day everyday all year, but my body and mind have a need for it that I now have to feed which means I have to avoid specialist work so I can keep a foot in the office world and in the more real world. I bet the same unexplored need lies dormant in millions of youth.

If the corporate financial influences hadn't managed to hijack the currency and government, money was somewhat more equitably distributed, and low level work/labour was not so undervalued to create literal slaves that have to work 50-60 hours a week for subsistence level lives then we would be able to spread the labour around, with everyone earning a living by doing a paying job that doesn't occupy all their lives and energy.

But our economic models/structures are not (allowed to be) flexible enough to accommodate that so we've got what we've got.

I don't understand the point, are you trying to use this to justify increasing inequality in the US? Sweden's still the most equal country in the world as measured by the Gini coefficient and all of the countries listed are more equal than the US. There's "room" to expand inequality there without jeopardizing the minimum quality of life that people in Sweden believe everyone should be entitled to (and Americans don't).

I disagree oats, i think the only reason we haven't replaced all physical labour with robotics and automation yet is because robots haven't quite gotten there; but every year there's another few steps; i think most physical labour will go more like contruction -- all big construction projects are machine-oriented now, there's hardly any actual manual labour; you never see somebody digging a hole on a roadbed, they have a freaking backhoe or a bulldozer for that...

Excellent points.

qzjul: I see people digging holes all the time in the US northeast corridor. The time lag of having the monetary funds to purchase and operate such machinery is definitely a major factor impeding the automation revolution you reference. Another is fuel costs.

I'm not sure about what you are disagreeing with. Of course mechanization and robotics replace a great deal of hourly labour output. That's why our productivity has increased so much (though the vast majority of people are seeing an ever diminishing return for the increases).

But the current state of mechanization of physical tasks outside of very sheltered and unnatural environments require robotics far beyond what we have. You'll see white collared jobs be replaced with automation long before you will see most remaining labourers replaced, if people want a good ROI. It's easier to write code to streamline the monkey work of lawyers and huge departments of government paper pushers than it will be to create robots that can do the millions of small tasks that low skilled labourers do. It'll take a NASA budget to replace a 10$/hr worker versus a few programmers, electronic engineers, network specialists and a small manufacturing facility to replace govt workers with machines that are like ATMs to banks.

There will always be a requirement for low level semi-skilled labour as long as we maintain our current infrastructure. Maintenance requires even more low-high skill labour and judgment than most construction from scratch.

But a lot of this depends on our mentality towards conservation and consumption. Automated processes (as we know them) require some sort of system, with solid boundaries and few variables, in order to work. When we're willing to put in the extra resources to create those systems it's good. But you really need an abundance mentality for that to function because it leaves so many 'crumbs' and leftovers in its wake. Those either go to waste or are left untouched for later. Hasty construction is awesome and economically efficient but the efficiency comes at a later cost, less friendly to automation, that must be made up by smaller scale gap fillers. If we think we have unlimited resources we do what is most economically advantageous (usually what's fastest and requires the least input) at the moment. But when we start to realize that there are only finite resources to exploit then we slow down a bit, make more forward thinking decisions, and avoid situations that will leave behind tons of 'crumbs'.

The low hanging fruit in terms of spatial expansion and mineral mining has mostly been picked. I'm trying to keep this concise but I have a feeling when I reread it might be completely disjointed and lacking...

automation never works as smoothly as planned. Theoretically technology should have reduced the demand for people in my profession (computers = more productivity hence less need for people). However quite the opposite has happened, the demand for actuaries has increased significantly over the past 10 years or so. It has changed the nature of the job rather than replace people. Potentially it can allow for more job outsourcing too though.

There are probably analogous things in the construction industry as well. I'm not sure, but I suspect that the number people needed to put up a 30 story tower is the same or close to the same as it was 30 years ago, only the level of safety and time requirements are different. (someone in the industry can either confirm or correct me on this).

@oats: people (in North America) didn't really face starvation during the depression either. There were support systems there (eventually). I've spent many hours listening to my grandfathers' accounts (both the one out on the prairies and the one in Montreal) of what that time was like. The difference is that people are more isolated from each other and hence can't organize as easily as they could back then. Suburbs, television, automobiles have all served to do this. Also people, in general, are "more comfortable" now because free entertainment is more readily available at all times. If you have something to occupy your mind you are less likely to rebel.

Regarding your "corporate influence" statement: we've been on a constant war footing since WW2 (the war, the communists, terrorists, drugs, whatever) and really this is something that has been building since then. But I think it has more to do with human nature and the rise and fall of societies. The best parallel I can think of is the rise and fall of the roman empire. What made them succeed initially and what happened after.
Read up on the Mayans for another example.
Pretty much human civilization goes through the following cycle:

1) find something new (new settlement, rebuild an old one, the new world for example)

2) everyone works together and cooperates to build things up either because of a common goal or a common enemy

3) if 2 is accomplished, achieve dominance because of the advantages and success you gained in 2. Enter into a "golden age"

4) riches/success/lack of outside pressure creates apathy. Ability to deal with outside threats (environmental or whatever) diminishes. things start to decline

5) some final trigger event causes things to fall apart for good. This can be a single event (like the destruction of Rome) or can be a drawn out process (like the abandonment of Mayan cities due to loss of food supply)

6) have some kind of stagnation or at worse a dark age until you can get back to step 1 again.


Humanity seems completely unable to break this cycle.

the above steps can take different amounts of time and very.
The following fit into this very well (off the top of my head):
Mayans, Rome, Venice, Russia, China (multiple times), British.

qz, I want to point out just how relevant what I just posted is to the topic of the thread.

There are a ton of gaps (the crumbs) that have come from large scale automation. Jobless people who are learning to live less wasteful lives due to resource scarcity are starting to notice and pickup all the good 'crumbs' that have fallen and been left on the ground during the rapid expansions of the past decades.

Youtube videos and rapid communication make it possible for people to share tips for exploiting society's excesses and over capacity. It's much easier to cut/circumvent large overhead/startup costs for conventionally high input businesses when you can collaborate and share experience. The funny thing is how many of these opportunities are not taken advantage of because they exist in industries that are mostly suited to hands on and physical labour. They also require judgment, skill and the ability to adapt outside society's conventional comfort zones. They are productive sustainable enterprises.

(some) Jobless people are finding these and shattering our cult like devotion to the 'free' market, money and an interpretation of progress as more=better.

Oh I agree that automation has "crumbs"; and I agree that more people will have to do maintenance -- in my mind that may be the majority of what is done by people if automation becomes increasingly cheap; and making a robot to maintain robots is tricky and difficult

It's possible i interpreted what you meant slightly incorrectly; I assumed you meant people should gear up for working in construction or picking strawberries, or being janitors; those are the sorts of things i assume will eventually become automated; fixing the machines, maintaining infrastructure, however, will likely remain manual for quite some time -- that said, I wonder if it will be enough to take up the slack of jobs eliminated. Possibly, especially if we really increase the amount of automation significantly; it could be that a plant with 300 workers making X devices every day becomes a plant with 300 workers making 10X devices every day, and everybody just services the robots....

So qz you're saying, essentially, we will become enslaved by machines? Granted it's much less spectacular than always normally imagined, but nonetheless, we'd still be stuck servicing them to ensure that our lifestyles are maintained.

ps: I SMELL A fluffTY MOVIE.

holy text wall batman. maybe i should take the time to read this fluff

They drifted a bit on the psycho-babble and the Gen-Y stuff was pure conjecture, but the rest (especially 2 years down the road) is spot on. I rarely read these WALLOFTEXT links, but this was a nice lunch break read.

slaves to da machines? as long as they ask nicely, i suppose. if they start getting bossy, i might have to bust them up.

So it will level off you're saying? Post taxes/transfers, the Gini coefficient has grown 30% in Sweden in last 30 years. In the US it's grown 12% in last 30 years. I believe the point of the author was that socialism didn't cure the ills of rising inequality. If you stop and think about it, considering all the heated rhetoric about robber barrons of the 21st century, you would expect the increase in inequality rate of the US to surpass that of Sweden, yet it's actually about 15% less (6% growth over last decade in Sweden vs 5% in the US). We'll see what happens in the future I suppose.

Forgot to add: it's Maxes and Kex doing them in =).

Basically what I'm saying is that your comparison is like saying "China has grown 8 times as much as the US in the past 30 years on a relative basis, therefore Chinese are richer than Americans"

It's a cop out to say that we should ignore a problem because it's growing faster in other countries, when in fact in the other countries it's still far from being a problem (because of the vast difference in starting points). "Socialism didn't cure the ills of rising inequality" is mischaracterizing the problem because the ills of rising inequality are far less visible in Sweden because of the lower levels of inequality. (and yes, it's possible that Sweden veered too far to the side of equality in the past and this is a natural correction)

I haven't heard this heated rhetoric about robber barons of the 21st century. I've only heard of explosion of inequality since the Reagan era. Which was also when the Nordic economies liberalized a great deal.

Here's a related thing from slashdot:

http://yro.slashdot.org/...s-to-americas-tech-future

None of this is exactly surprising, the US has been gearing down it's R&D for decades...