http://www.technologyreview.com/view...mputerization/

Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to
Computerization

Oxford researchers say that 45 percent of Americas occupations will
be automated within the next 20 years.

Rapid advances in technology have long represented a serious potential
threat to many jobs ordinarily performed by people.

A recent report (which is not online, but summarized here) from the
Oxford Martin Schools Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology
attempts to quantify the extent of that threat. It concludes that 45
percent of American jobs are at high risk of being taken by computers
within the next two decades.

The authors believe this takeover will happen in two stages. First,
computers will start replacing people in especially vulnerable fields
like transportation/logistics, production labor, and administrative
support. Jobs in services, sales, and construction may also be lost in
this first stage. Then, the rate of replacement will slow down due to
bottlenecks in harder-to-automate fields such engineering. This
€œtechnological plateau€� will be followed by a second wave of
computerization, dependent upon the development of good artificial
intelligence. This could next put jobs in management, science and
engineering, and the arts at risk.

The authors note that the rate of computerization depends on several
other factors, including regulation of new technology and access to
cheap labor.

These results were calculated with a common statistical modeling
method. More than 700 jobs on O*Net, an online career network, were
considered, as well as the skills and education required for
each. These features were weighted according to how automatable they
were, and according to the engineering obstacles currently preventing
computerization.

€œOur findings thus imply that as technology races ahead, low-skill
workers will reallocate to tasks that are non-susceptible to
computerization€”i.e., tasks that required creative and social
intelligence,€� the authors write. €œFor workers to win the race,
however, they will have to acquire creative and social skills.€�

Ignoramus8750 wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view...mputerization/

Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to
Computerization

The thing that is missed in many of those articles is that many of the
automatable jobs cease to exist when the jobs are not available to human
workers who can then earn an income and be consumers for the products of
the jobs. It doesn't matter how many widgets your automated factory can
produce when there are no buyers for them.

On 2013-09-16, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus8750 wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view...mputerization/

Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to
Computerization

The thing that is missed in many of those articles is that many of the
automatable jobs cease to exist when the jobs are not available to human
workers who can then earn an income and be consumers for the products of
the jobs. It doesn't matter how many widgets your automated factory can
produce when there are no buyers for them.

This is exactly right. It is a new equilibrium. The old equilibrium
was, workers worked at factories to make goods that then are sold to
those same workers.

The new equilibrium is, workers are not needed to make goods, which
are no longer made to sell to workers, since the workers have no
money to buy goods.

Exact same thing applies to services.

This is all why I m very worried about the future.

i

"Ignoramus14718" wrote in
message ...

The new equilibrium is, workers are not needed to make goods, which
are no longer made to sell to workers, since the workers have no
money to buy goods.

Exact same thing applies to services.

This is all why I m very worried about the future.

i

The traditional solution to having too many idle people in a slow
economy has been to start a war.

On 9/16/2013 9:46 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ignoramus14718" wrote in
message ...

The new equilibrium is, workers are not needed to make goods, which
are no longer made to sell to workers, since the workers have no
money to buy goods.

Exact same thing applies to services.

This is all why I m very worried about the future.

i

The traditional solution to having too many idle people in a slow
economy has been to start a war.

No, the traditional solution is that new activity leads to new
employment opportunity.

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:46:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ignoramus14718" wrote in
message ...

The new equilibrium is, workers are not needed to make goods, which
are no longer made to sell to workers, since the workers have no
money to buy goods.

Exact same thing applies to services.

This is all why I m very worried about the future.

i

The traditional solution to having too many idle people in a slow
economy has been to start a war.


So if we kill off the Left, it will remove the deadwood and the root
and branch of the welfare tree, remove horrendous regulations from
****y busybodies to enforce, and put the country back on a newer
leaner and better footing.

Got rope?


"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:22:57 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:46:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ignoramus14718" wrote in
message ...

The new equilibrium is, workers are not needed to make goods, which
are no longer made to sell to workers, since the workers have no
money to buy goods.

Exact same thing applies to services.

This is all why I m very worried about the future.

i

The traditional solution to having too many idle people in a slow
economy has been to start a war.


So if we kill off the Left, it will remove the deadwood and the root
and branch of the welfare tree, remove horrendous regulations from
****y busybodies to enforce, and put the country back on a newer
leaner and better footing.

Got rope?


Thailand has had sufficient violent changes in government (18 coups
since the 1932 revolution) to give a reasonable insight into what
changes in the law and regulations occur after an up-rising and the
answer is non, or nearly non. With the exception of a very few laws
that the coup winners instigate to justify their overthrow of the
previous government nothing happens. All the niggling little rules and
regulations remain in force, the police and bureaucratic sections of
the government are still there and the same prissy busybodies that
were enforcing the regulations yesterday are still here today.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:22:57 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:46:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ignoramus14718" wrote in
message ...

The new equilibrium is, workers are not needed to make goods, which
are no longer made to sell to workers, since the workers have no
money to buy goods.

Exact same thing applies to services.

This is all why I m very worried about the future.

i

The traditional solution to having too many idle people in a slow
economy has been to start a war.


So if we kill off the Left, it will remove the deadwood and the root
and branch of the welfare tree, remove horrendous regulations from
****y busybodies to enforce, and put the country back on a newer
leaner and better footing.

Got rope?

Just stocked up (1k') on paracord last month.

Er, um, it's for bracelets. Yeah, that's the ticket.

--
Try not to become a man of success but
rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein

On 9/16/2013 12:22 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:46:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ignoramus14718" wrote in
message ...

The new equilibrium is, workers are not needed to make goods, which
are no longer made to sell to workers, since the workers have no
money to buy goods.

Exact same thing applies to services.

This is all why I m very worried about the future.

i

The traditional solution to having too many idle people in a slow
economy has been to start a war.


So if we kill off the Left,

You won't. You couldn't.

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:20:56 -0500, Ignoramus14718
wrote:

On 2013-09-16, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus8750 wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view...mputerization/

Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to
Computerization

The thing that is missed in many of those articles is that many of the
automatable jobs cease to exist when the jobs are not available to human
workers who can then earn an income and be consumers for the products of
the jobs. It doesn't matter how many widgets your automated factory can
produce when there are no buyers for them.

This is exactly right. It is a new equilibrium. The old equilibrium
was, workers worked at factories to make goods that then are sold to
those same workers.

The new equilibrium is, workers are not needed to make goods, which
are no longer made to sell to workers, since the workers have no
money to buy goods.

Exact same thing applies to services.

This is all why I m very worried about the future.

I'd start restocking that home shop of yours, Ig.
Damn the Wifey, Full Speed Ahead!

--
Try not to become a man of success but
rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein

On 2013-09-17, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:20:56 -0500, Ignoramus14718
wrote:

On 2013-09-16, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus8750 wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view...mputerization/

Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to
Computerization

The thing that is missed in many of those articles is that many of the
automatable jobs cease to exist when the jobs are not available to human
workers who can then earn an income and be consumers for the products of
the jobs. It doesn't matter how many widgets your automated factory can
produce when there are no buyers for them.

This is exactly right. It is a new equilibrium. The old equilibrium
was, workers worked at factories to make goods that then are sold to
those same workers.

The new equilibrium is, workers are not needed to make goods, which
are no longer made to sell to workers, since the workers have no
money to buy goods.

Exact same thing applies to services.

This is all why I m very worried about the future.

I'd start restocking that home shop of yours, Ig.
Damn the Wifey, Full Speed Ahead!


This will go on on the scale of decades, the food will go stale.

i

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 22:06:00 -0500, Ignoramus2837
wrote:

On 2013-09-17, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:20:56 -0500, Ignoramus14718
wrote:

On 2013-09-16, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus8750 wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view...mputerization/

Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to
Computerization

The thing that is missed in many of those articles is that many of the
automatable jobs cease to exist when the jobs are not available to human
workers who can then earn an income and be consumers for the products of
the jobs. It doesn't matter how many widgets your automated factory can
produce when there are no buyers for them.

This is exactly right. It is a new equilibrium. The old equilibrium
was, workers worked at factories to make goods that then are sold to
those same workers.

The new equilibrium is, workers are not needed to make goods, which
are no longer made to sell to workers, since the workers have no
money to buy goods.

Exact same thing applies to services.

This is all why I m very worried about the future.

I'd start restocking that home shop of yours, Ig.
Damn the Wifey, Full Speed Ahead!


This will go on on the scale of decades, the food will go stale.

Suit yourself, Mr. Ostrich.

--
Try not to become a man of success but
rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 22:06:00 -0500, Ignoramus2837
wrote:

On 2013-09-17, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:20:56 -0500, Ignoramus14718
wrote:

On 2013-09-16, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus8750 wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view...mputerization/

Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to
Computerization

The thing that is missed in many of those articles is that many of the
automatable jobs cease to exist when the jobs are not available to human
workers who can then earn an income and be consumers for the products of
the jobs. It doesn't matter how many widgets your automated factory can
produce when there are no buyers for them.

This is exactly right. It is a new equilibrium. The old equilibrium
was, workers worked at factories to make goods that then are sold to
those same workers.

The new equilibrium is, workers are not needed to make goods, which
are no longer made to sell to workers, since the workers have no
money to buy goods.

Exact same thing applies to services.

This is all why I m very worried about the future.

I'd start restocking that home shop of yours, Ig.
Damn the Wifey, Full Speed Ahead!


This will go on on the scale of decades, the food will go stale.

i
Actually..not if its the proper foods and its been packed properly.

I have #10 cans filled at a Mormon packaging place that were filled in
the late 1990s that we eat regularly. They were filled and then
packed with an inert gas before sealing.

I was given about 900 lbs of such food stuffs about a year ago by one
of my clients, a Mormon who owns a machine shop. I am feeding 9
people..and its come in very handy.

Gunner

"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state.
Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic
problem of Socialism, until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.
The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism."[Fascism] It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more
than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy,
and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. - Ludwig von Mises (1922)

On 9/16/2013 6:39 AM, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus8750 wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view...mputerization/

Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to
Computerization

The thing that is missed in many of those articles is that many of the
automatable jobs cease to exist when the jobs are not available to human
workers who can then earn an income and be consumers for the products of
the jobs. It doesn't matter how many widgets your automated factory can
produce when there are no buyers for them.

That's the Lump of Labor fallacy again. Labor displaced from one use,
due to automation, finds some other use. It might take some time, but
it happens.

The Lump of Labor fallacy is that there is only so much work or labor -
a defined "lump" of it - to be done, and that if labor is displaced from
one use, it finds no other use. That's false. That's why it's a fallacy.

Automation makes everything cheaper. It's why even very poor people
have automobiles and big-screen TVs. Don't give us that **** about "no
buyers" for the stuff. There will always be buyers.

Poor people in the US today live many *many* times better than did the
rich of a century ago. That's why all this bull**** about income
inequality goes nowhere. In absolute terms, people even in the bottom
10% are better off than the 1% were a century ago.

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:39:35 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ignoramus8750 wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view...mputerization/

Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to
Computerization

The thing that is missed in many of those articles is that many of the
automatable jobs cease to exist when the jobs are not available to human
workers who can then earn an income and be consumers for the products of
the jobs. It doesn't matter how many widgets your automated factory can
produce when there are no buyers for them.

You're thinking way too narrowmindedly, Pete. Y'see, it's like this:
The evil Reps automate all the factories, laying off the entire
country in the process. Then the evil Dems put everyone on welfare
and the masses then have the money to buy the items produced by the
automated factories, all because the evil Dems taxed the evil Rep
factories to death. Oops, wait, that might end it all, huh?

NOW who's gonna pay off CONgress?

--
Try not to become a man of success but
rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein