Comment: "It's the technological unemployment, stupid"

(See in situ)

"It's the technological unemployment, stupid"

I can't believe that with all the great minds here and all the economics threads contemplating the underlying problems and suggesting solutions, no one has addressed the unemployment due to tech advancement yet. I even posted on this but got no bites.

A commenter below posited that a row boat would work better, the more people that are rowing. While this may be true in isolation, what happens when sails are invented? At that point, all that's needed are enough employees to maneuver the sails? What should happen to the rest of the passengers? If the ratio dropped from 100:10, then why can't 90% of the people just go along for the ride? On that same line, why can't each group of 10 people work for 1/10th of the trip and then retire? Is this free market?

Should someone on the boat (this is an isolated thought exercize, right?) invent and build cold fusion powered propellers, then shouldn't everyone get to ride for no work?

Ah, but what about the owner of the ship? Should he get to profit more because his passengers now have no work to do? Sure but that leads to his ability (and propensity) to gouge passengers. What if, however, all the collective passengers of possible future trips built their own ship(s) with the free energy? Could they split the total capital cost across all the passenger-miles the ship was expected to travel in its lifetime and cut out the owner?

Bit of a stretch for an analogy but IMHO, we suffered from tech unemployment with the advent of the industrial revolution. Since we didn't recognize it, the double and triple fruits of our now greater labor were soaked up by the Federal Reserve system. Then they got greedy and bought the media and corporations (via the stock market scam) and everything else they could get hold of so they could falsely manipulate the market. Now we're in a system where we have nothing left to steal and their betting games are coming due so they're trying to get us to promise our future earnings to them too.

Instead of fixing this basic problem correctly, we've allowed a whole series of fluff jobs to be created. We have middle men and in places, 6 levels of middle men. We have people that earn a living doing things we could have done for ourselves the whole time... but with today's technology, we can even do better online ourselves for free. Yet we pay others. Case in point, travel agents and tax preparers, cashiers, entire advertising and realtor industries and so many more. Of the studies I've seen, the average result has been said that we now only need 5% to 15% of the workforce that we currently have. Why can't we eliminate those jobs ourselves and let everyone take a 90% break (or 80% as the numbers work out to) for the rest of the trip?

I say we don't have to do things the same old way. We can build our own ships (companies) that don't rely on their ownership (incorporation, loans, stocks) and split the costs among ourselves. To illustrate this better, the average retail price of a product in the US now consists of around 6% labor and 11% materials. That means prices could drop by 83% on average if the other expenses were eliminated somehow.

My take would be to expand on Ford's actions of increasing wages by increasing that 6% to around 30% (big whoo-hoo!) and let the in-house employees deal with those 'external' tasks that are weighing companies down. If done in a few industries at a time, taking the average salary up so high would only raise prices a little. More than likely, it would replace cheap quantity with quality decisions and that would filter higher wages across other industries again. When this extra wealth filters into the population, it can be tapped for no-interest debt to start the next company and so on. I could continue for days, but I'll seek comment on this much first.