Tomorrow all the unemployed?

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Ahmed » 28/06/18, 20:30

I notice that the journalist operates a confusion (quite common, moreover) between "productivity" and "profitability": the use of these robots triples productivity and this necessarily influences profitability, but not in the same proportion (without qu 'it is possible to determine it in view of this single parameter).
Classically, an innovation in productivity leads to a drop in the unit price, because it is necessary to sell in proportion to the additional investment and therefore to capture a significant share of the market, in order to obtain an increase in overall profit. The benefit remains high during the first phase (at least in the event of success!), But an adaptive phenomenon then takes place (as in the case of the introduction of a new species) and the process is generalized by eliminating companies. less productive and by creating new operators capable of meeting the new standard of "quantity of socially necessary work". This second competitive phase is characterized by a drop in profit and a correlative concentration of economic players.
This first step regarding pizza should be considered as a model that can be extended to other areas of catering or services and should not be underestimated.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Christophe » 02/11/18, 11:30

A study predicts that1 to 1,2 million jobs will disappear because of the robots in the next 10 years ...in Switzerland alone while being "productive" for the economy ...

So what will we do with "useless" humans for the economy? : Mrgreen:

https://www.rts.ch/play/tv/19h30/video/ ... id=9963579
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Christophe » 02/11/18, 11:41

The active Swiss population is about 5 million, so 1 million is 20% ... : Shock:

I let you calculate how many inactive robots will do in France and in the rest of the world ... : Shock:

The arguments "new jobs will be created" are completely bogus ... These new jobs (bulshit ??) will compensate, I think, at best 1/10 of the destruction.
0 x
Petrus
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 586
Registration: 15/09/05, 02:20
x 312

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Petrus » 02/11/18, 21:13

Since there is no sign of questioning the "work value" we will do as usual, some bullshit jobs and we encourage others to kill each other / commit suicide.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Christophe » 03/11/18, 03:09

Pfff yes but no I do not want to!
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by moinsdewatt » 03/11/18, 19:51

Not only in Switzerland:

In 2025, machines will perform more tasks than humans

AFP 17 / 09 / 2018

Robots will perform 52% of common professional tasks by 2025, according to a study by Forum world economic report published Monday, which however claims that "the robotics revolution will create 58 million net new jobs over the next five years."

"By 2025, more than half of all current tasks performed in the workplace will be performed by machines, compared to 29% today," say researchers from the Geneva-based foundation, known in particular for organizing each year on Forum from Davos.

Some sectors will be more affected than others by automation. The report predicts that, by 2022, 75 million jobs could disappear, particularly in accounting, the secretariat, assembly plants, customer management centers or postal services.

But researchers believe that 133 million jobs could be created in parallel, mainly in connection with the digital revolution: artificial intelligence, data processing (big data), computer software, marketing ... Developers and specialists in new technologies will be very requested.

"The aviation, travel and tourism industry" project "the highest reconversion needs over the period 2018-2022", according to the survey conducted among companies in 12 sectors of activity in 20 developed and emerging economies.

"Skills shortages are also of particular concern in the information and communications technology, financial services, and mining and metals sectors."

In the end, "if nearly 50% of companies anticipate a reduction in their full-time workforce by 2022 due to automation, nearly 40% on the contrary anticipate an overall increase in their workforce and more than a quarter expects automation to create new jobs, ”the report explains.

The concrete consequences for employees are difficult to predict, but researchers expect a "huge disruption (...) within the global workforce", with "significant changes in quality, location, format and permanence of functions ".


https://www.boursorama.com/actualite-ec ... 9774680aa5
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Ahmed » 04/11/18, 18:41

It seems that the study quoted above mix two rather different things: a prospective study of people-paid-for-that and thus presumed qualified and on the other hand a survey of companies ...
In any case, the estimate of job replacement at the level of the destructions linked to automation is not very credible. Of course, in the past, it was a phenomenon that was observed when a decline in a sector was associated with an increase in the upper sector: it is this qualitative shift that is described very well. Schumpeter. Today, job cuts in all categories are planned and new job creations will only be a small fraction of what will disappear.

This is disturbing in more than one way: in a labor-based society, the practical questioning of the latter should be accompanied by a corresponding change of model, which is obviously not the case; on the other hand, it also means an increase in the income disparity: the quantity of abstract value (which is the main criterion of the economy) will decrease * as a proportion of the living mass of expelled labor, but will be distributed among a smaller number people (those who will be responsible for these changes and who will thus be encouraged to continue them).

* The activity of the machines generates an abstract value only in proportion to the share of dead work that they contain (except at the beginning of an innovation which then gives rise to a temporary rent effect).
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Christophe » 12/11/18, 16:10

Even Claire Chazal * is not immune zamis! : Mrgreen:



* Oh thin they've already fired ... : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re:




by Exnihiloest » 16/11/18, 22:11

Ahmed wrote:... but if we do not take into account the underlying mechanisms of capitalism, we condemn ourselves to celebrate a theoretical potentiality that has real substance only in the propaganda of the system. It is true that this system has produced a quantity of goods as never before, but these goods have never been intended to directly satisfy the needs of men, only to create value.
...

Your reading of the world is decidedly made only on the grid of economic clichés of anti-capitalist movements. If you think that Mark Zuckerberg had the idea of ​​creating value when he started, you are fooling yourself. He met needs, his own and those of the students they knew. But meeting needs is creating value. Value is precisely made by the demand created by the need. If we avoid taking people for fools and ourselves for an extralucid out of the lot, then if people buy the product is that they find it useful, so that it meets a need, and that's what makes value. Nobody has to decide for them.

Some might tell me that this need was artificially created at home while they lived very well without it. What do they know? People have lived in villages for centuries, apparently they did not need newspapers, radio or TV. But when the time came and they discovered them, they equipped themselves. Did they have to ignore them in order to avoid answering those awful capitalists who would only want to create value by proposing products considered useful?

Everyone acts in their best interests, the capitalist as well as the non-capitalist, the one who sells products as well as the one who sells ideologies, the voluntary participant in an association as well as the one who is paid, and even the altruistic, satisfying his inner need to help. This personal interest is the corollary of motivation, it is what distinguishes us among others from plants, and when the interest of some coincides with the interest of others, which is manifested by the purchase by some of this that sell the others, or barter, or intellectual exchanges, one attends evolutions of the company by a ripple effect, including what one calls "progress".

It's always been that way. I see no relevance in the idea that the creation of value would not meet needs because it would be motivated by the sole intention to create it for profit. It is judging on the intentions, intentions which even elaborated for a profit, are not worse than others, like the intentions to "sell" the products of ideal of society, often with intoxicating and manipulations, process that it is difficult to distinguish from the advertising of the capitalist for his material products, and all for a product that is often much more risky, we have seen it with a lot of dictatorships sold initially as panacea for the good of the people .
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Ahmed » 18/11/18, 21:33

I believe that it would be sterile to debate these questions very early when the amalgamations you practice prohibit it. Thus, in your simplifying vision, you put on the one hand the interest for money (= power) and on the other hand motivation, in the general sense where "no one acts without a reason to act *" in the same box; "to discover" this last psychological spring is to state the obvious.
Your position as a champion of liberalism, techno-science and the world as it is, leads you to espouse its ideology, what you try to pass for realism or pragmatism (clichés of thatcherism). I recognize that you deploy, besides a remarkable zeal, a great logical rigor: a pity that the premises are false and that the justifying foundations that you find at the origin of humanity are only the anachronistic projection of the values ​​of the world. homo œconomicus of capitalism ...

The notion of "abstract value" obviously does not correspond to what you are talking about: if the economy manages to meet needs and strives to create a maximum **, it is only because it is difficult for it to successfully transmuting the commodity into an increased sum without a substantial or symbolic use value; as a result, it tends to reduce this use value to the minimum possible, or even to do without it as we currently see, by using regulatory bias forcing users to change cars under the pretext of "ecological" expiration or by financing from public funds an energy transition that is supposedly virtuous in climate terms, but at the same time continuing an orientation contrary to this objective.

* Leibnitz.
** The existence of advertising proves that "needs" are a social creation and do not in any way relate to an alleged human essence.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 125 guests