Comment: Try reading a little more in-depth

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Sorry, false again (see in situ)

Try reading a little more in-depth

I fully acknowledged your big argument.

"Take any industry in isolation. Say, farming... what now takes 2 people used to take over a hundred. The difference lies in those external jobs you indirectly reference." (Emphasis added)

Then I said, "At some point, those jobs will be consolidated or automated out and the number will ultimately cut back."

I was trying to be brief and not spell out ever little step, but here goes. When those external jobs, say for farming it might be the tractor tire manufacturer, get automated and they get reduced, the total hundred jobs "WILL ULTIMATELY CUT BACK." What happens when you compare 1 million farms with 100 workers each (100,000,000 total - a century ago) to 100 thousand farms each with 2 employees and some external support groups that support all those farms by a total of 1,000,000 people (200,000 PLUS 1,000,000 = 1.2M today)? That's the reality of the externalties. That external million jobs support not just one former position on the original million farms. They support all the externalties on all the farms. On top of that, the supposed tractor tire guy now supports the heavy equipment industry with his tires too. There went your ratios.

Sorry, but I used to automate plants and factories. I can tell you without hesitation that automation increases jobs in the short term, but after not too long, those jobs are not longer needed. I know of one college steam plant that went from 38 operators (not counting admin, etc.) to 3 employees and after the equipment was designed and installed (my job), I had to move on to find other work. I've also written a single software program that consolidated a dozen bean-counters into one over-seer. Where's the externalties there if the computer used was already being accounted for by some other task?

This has been studied by many and without chasing down quotes, I can say that the average consensus is that today we need about 15% of the workforce (per capita) of 100 years ago. This is the result of automation, simplification and consolidation. The days of needing a 3 person travel agent for each town are long gone. Today, someone writes an app one time and 20% of the world uses it many times.

But I need to be clear here because this is the main point which you missed. I did not imply that this is all a bad thing. I was not leading you to the "starvation level in the woods" result. Quite the opposite.

I was trying to point out that it could go either way and we must ensure it benefits the people, not just the monopolists. My statement, "Just think if we were able to ensure the profits were fairly shared among the workers as with the owners of all the businesses. Just think if those workers also held some accountable voting control in their companies. If, by some miracle, we returned to those days, the average career length might migrate from 40 years down to 20. Instead, it has gone significantly north." was intentionally passive in not saying HOW to accomplish this because I was asking a targeted question.

However, by your last paragraph, I see that you won't consider it until you're convinced it isn't Marxist or collectivist. It's actually nothing more than a small group using free market principles to more of an extreme. It's completely open, voluntary and non-cohersive and only grows by its attraction to others seeking higher profit. Basically, if we do things right, even on a small scale, then we will prosper and that prosperity will propagate outward to others, causing it to grow.

The result is high enough wages that people voluntarily retire early enough to cause the needed workforce to drop to 15% (preliminary end goal) while the number of voluntary workers drops below that. This results in a worker's market, meaning they can set the terms of employment and they can take only jobs they want. The difference then would be covered by companies needing to automate further to get work done that no one wanted to do.

Oh, and next time you suggest that someone read Mises, you might want to check how long they've been a member here. (Got ya by 2 weeks! LOL) After reading Mises, et al, extensively for a long time, I wrote a book on how all this interacts in the real world. That endeavor (waiting to time the publishing with some other events) led me to a number of contacts that is actually putting this all into action. As you can see, it really is about 'the message', not 'the man'.

Contact me if you want more info on a specific piece of the big puzzle, but please at minimum, have an open mind. Not everything has to be a government, top-down fight.