Should new technology compensate job losses?

[joea]

So in a few words:
What, in theory, could we do to enable current/very closely upcoming technologies to enable us to work less?

Just listen and implement what Swan and Gillard say. (short enough)

joea

 

[Glen48]

The man who fix's the tractor has to open a workshop and comply with council. OHAS etc rules which employs many more who are leeches on the owner.

OZ could build their own tractors but have to comply once again with rules taxes etc so it is cheaper to import form a country that does not have all these hindereds.
Here in the Philippines you can put lawn mower engine on a pram and drive it no rego, want to open a shop you find a place chop down some bamboo and throw over a tarp.
Sure if might be cheap and easy but some one in the lucky country is competing with them and trying to comply with above.
In western countries you needs some thing you want to impress your friends with you get it on b/card here if you don't have the money you don't buy, meaning western place are spending more than they earn and now paying dearly.

You want to build a road you find 100 men at $5 a day not put out quotes and then have some free loader peruse them and then get in million $ machines to do the work.
I left school most girl's got a job with the PMG pulling plugs on the switch board what do they do now.

A science expert who knows how to stack carbon atoms on top of each other is not going to help the man on the street the device will be made over seas and the OZ buyer will get one on HP.


A lot ahead of us all to work out and each decade makes it harder to keep creating jobs

 

[skc]

Actually this is the point i was trying to get at.

Yes technology creates job, and yes thats a good thing. But imo, somewhere along the way, due to our contast growth model, we seem to have forgot (or not being able to convert) the fact that technology is supposed to make our lives easier and enable us to work less.

So in a few words:
What, in theory, could we do to enable current/very closely upcoming technologies to enable us to work less?

You are confusing technological advances (what you calling growth) with the capitalism debt-mandated growth.

Advances in technology / science / nature / medicine etc are part of human nature. It is the result of us having inqusitive minds and the brains to pursue them. If human are content with the current state, we would all be happy with the earth being flat, the wheel being square and our meat being raw (without the discovery of fire or WeberQ). There were advances in science long before there was a monetary system, let alone capitalism.

Technological growth allows us to do existing jobs better / in less time. It is up to us to decide what to do with the time that's freed up.

 

[prawn_86]

Technological growth allows us to do existing jobs better / in less time. It is up to us to decide what to do with the time that's freed up.

It's not really up to us though is it. It's up to the company that implements that technology. I'm not aware of any companies that have implemented something and then said "oh hey, this saves everyone a day a week, so you all only need to work 4 days a week now"

The 'average' workers job has changed undoubtedly due to technology, yet they are still working as many hours as 50 years ago.

 

[Calliope]

It would also encourage the coal miners, to think of ideas/inventions that will reduce their workload.

You mean like this?

Or this?

 

[Robbo]

Your equating working less with working less hours, and missing the massive improvements in both physical and mental expenditure in work along with the huge improvements in safety and life expectancy.

How much leisure time in retirement has been gained by the improvement in life expectancy due to the improvement in working conditions? How much more leisure time has been gained because work is no longer as physically backbreaking as in the past and don't come back home exhausted and tired and unable to enjoy leisure time both during their working lives and in retirement? How many people are alive because they are using modern technology rather than dangerous and antiquated methods of work?

 

[waimate01]

What, in theory, could we do to enable current/very closely upcoming technologies to enable us to work less?

Two ways to readily achieve this within the current framework:

1) put yourself in a socioeconomic niche where employment is unlikely and have people more productive than yourself pay for your welfare

2) work hard, spend with restraint, invest wisely, holiday well, retire early

Free choice.

 

[IFocus]

What, in theory, could we do to enable current/very closely upcoming technologies to enable us to work less?

Reality is that less people do more volume across a larger number of functions and gain higher stress levels = future, thats the out come of technology deployed by businesses to cut margins.

 

[skyQuake]

Definitely food for thought in this thread.

What if say, teleportation technology is invented?

Do we need to compensate Quantas union workers? Exxon Mobil CEO?

Also something similar that I came across recently:
Innovate Without Mercy

 

[Smurf1976]

In the 1980's it was all about the "paperless office" that computers were going to create. That was going to put the loggers and paper mill workers out of work for sure.

In the 1990's it was all about laser versus inkjet printers.

In the 2000's I've heard an awful lot about the building of a proposed new pulp mill here in Tasmania, an idea that comes about due to the booming world demand for paper.

Whatever happened to that paperless office?

The same principle applies elsewhere. Eg more efficient lighting pushed electricity demand up, not down, as people started to illuminate things never before illuminated. TV's are another one - just look at how many LCD or plasma displays are now used in situations where a written sign would once have been used.

New technologies create a lot of demand for established products as well.

 

[sptrawler]

Reality is that less people do more volume across a larger number of functions and gain higher stress levels = future, thats the out come of technology deployed by businesses to cut margins.

Less people do more volume across a larger number of functions=less jobs, but put up retirement age so they have to take unemployment payments costs is less than pension.

Gain higher stress levels = more disability so therefore make disability inaccesible, so they have to take unemployment, payment is less than disability payment.

That's the outcome of labor, put everyone on partial unemployment benefits cuts government costs. LOL.

Thanks for the $900 and the pink batts, I think not.LOL,LOL

 

[waimate01]

The same principle applies elsewhere. Eg more efficient lighting pushed electricity demand up, not down, as people started to illuminate things never before illuminated.

Indeed. I saw some figure somewhere that people with well insulated houses spend *more* on heating and cooling than those with uninsulated houses. The uninsulated people just put on a jumper, while the insulated people swan around from room to room in the middle of winter wearing shorts and a tropical shirt. Yet the answer isn't to ban insulation. Tricky attitudinal stuff.