« Catholic school survives by going SWPL | Main | Apple has biggest market cap ever »

August 20, 2012

Comments

Nothing new here. This theory of unemployment increasing because of automation and robots has already been explored by --- among others --- Karl Marx, Henry Ford, Fritz Lang and the late Mitchell Heisman.

It has not been refuted yet, either academically or scientifically (libertards usually come up with the excuse "the market will just take care of it §§§").

If automation gains are taxed and spread to society while everyone lives in leisure, and there's a diverse society, it becomes impossible to bid one's way out of NAM influenced lives. That's why Europe is happy with mandated shorter weeks and month long vacations, while the US continues to compete as hard as ever.

This post conflates two different things. How bad it is to be poor because of rising crime and violence vs. the importance of status and relative standing. If it's the former, then changes in enforcement, regulation, and social norms that lower crime rates and bad behavior for the lower classes will make life much more bearable for the poor even with low status. If the relative status issue is the problem then even if crime were to plummet to levels lower than the 1930s, the poor (especially males) would become unmotivated due to the difficulty of doing well enough to "matter" in the race for women and social status.

Both are plausible but I think the former is the bigger issue today. If we imagined worse inequality but much lower total crime and violence it wouldn't be so bad to be lower middle class and unambitious.

Rent is the biggest if not close to my biggest monthly expense. Food might be close, but only because I never cook.

Add in all of the expenses pretty much related to my going to work. Commuting. Parking. Since the only "good" places to live are really expensive urban neighboorhoods or suburbs (increased commuting costs) there is no way around it.

Avoiding proles is definately the #1 expense for most people. This is true even when they aren't outright criminals. The way they dress. The way they act. The way they yell at eachother in the street. The way the throw garbage everywhere. Often their smell. Proles are bad to be around even when they nominally obey the law.

It also effects what businesses are nearby. If you want to eat at healthy restaurants you can't be around proles. Want to have a nice park, can't because proles will fuck it up. All nice public goods are ruined by proles.

Also, I think you need to understand that "status" is really about sex. People want status to get sex (or committment for women). Since the supply of sex can never be changed by increasing factory productivity.

[HS: In a future post, I will explain how higher productivity actually lowers the amount of sex available to beta males (which are by definition the majority of males).]

I think that this bears repeating my comment from your earlier post

"Another interesting thing about the future which is going to change the world, just heard a report on the BBC last night that scientists have created a neural implant that allows you to control a robotic prosthetic with your mind. Not using physical movements but with electrical signals coming from your brain!!! They also have the capability to send signals back to the brain allowing you to receive input from your prosthetic. The only limiting factor is that the implant is surgically implanted and primitive. These developments combined with the discovery of brain plasticity opens the door to virtual reality, robotic and computational enhancements to your brain.

Honestly very soon we may see the problems of HBD and low IQ disappearing in the medium future due to computational enhancements and genetic engineering. It would be interesting if you did a post on this."

Yes, robotics will reduce up to 60 % of any world population to permanent unemployment, state dependency and crime. Today it´s probably near 20 % in the USA, if you compute only half of the NAM population.

I only care about my status somewhat. What's more important to me is to be able to live comfortably in a place that's quiet and not full of people who create nuisance. I live in an urban area with a high concentration proles surrounding me. Alarm clocks go off for hours sometimes. Loud modified mopeds, cars and tucks zoom by. It seems proles aren't too bothered by all sorts of noises.

Proles also are more likely to smoke. I live between chain smokers in a supposedly non-smoking building. This is a glaring example of how proles' behavior have an adverse affect on my well-being. Their careless behavior affects me even if I mind my own business. They tend to be self-centered pricks who act like entitled children.

Proles leave piles of trash on the sidewalk, which attract all sorts of vermin and looks exceedingly unsightly. They seem not have very little regard for cleanliness and keeping things looking decent. I used to hate cul de sac communities with strict HOAs, but I would love to live in such a community now.

I definitely agree that technology does not create more leisure time. I've often noticed that as we become more wired, life becomes more and more stressful and demanding, and that's because technology is not an advantage when we must compete with coworkers who have access to the same technology. All technology has done is increase expectations for everyone since we can now work anywhere there's an Internet connection.

But I disagree about money being mainly about status. Money is about being able to have whatever you want whenever you want it, and one of the things shallow people want is status or sex, but intelligent people have more creative and important things to do with their money.

And I personally enjoy being around mildly prolish people; they're friendlier

You are misattributing why women were able to participate in the workforce. They were able to enter the workforce, as they gained the reproductive right and personal control through birth control that enabled them to postpone childbearing.

Robots can easily replace manual labor and manufacturing jobs, they won't however replace the humanoid future elite which will possess both emotional IQ and ability to regenerate.

As immersive VR becomes capable, I think a future Faustian bargain will be struck with many proles. They will get to be immersed at all times in world of their crafting (appeal to god complex) and physially be in coma state (like matrix). If they contract a disease, they die. No medical attention. Accidental deaths (maybe 20% of prole deaths) would disppear, but we'd slowly lose them to disease. Potential life shortening due to lack of treatment for disease, but the trade off is paradise for a lifespan of shorter duration due to lack of medical treatment. I can see proles signing up for this with some persuasion, and I can easily see marketing firms persuading them.

"Robots can easily replace manual labor and manufacturing jobs, they won't however replace the humanoid future elite which will possess both emotional IQ and ability to regenerate."

The evil robot in Terminator II could regenerate after taking a shotgun directly to the face. I'd like to see a humanoid survive that.

But why is HS so convinced that being poor in 2012 is worse than being poor in 1930? Do you really think that a Hooverville or the teeming ghetto tenements of your grandparents or the little log cabin of my great-grandparents' in 'Possum Holler', WV were superior to a Section 8 apartment with indoor plumbing, heating, central air, Internet, tv?

"Robots that cost $250,000 each today might only cost $100,000 in ten years, and they will be more capable"

Ok, but whats the total cost of ownership for the 1/4 million dollar robot? Now you need 3 shifts of robot techs, you have to keep spare parts, keep buying fluids and pay for electricity. And the thing will only last 12 years and probably be badly outmoded at the end of that.

So the robot does the work of 20 men. The Chinese labor model would say that a burdened worker would only cost $10 a day so its still cheaper to throw a ton of people at the project than put in capital intensive robots.

People are using the term "prole" in a more narrow sense than it should be. Skilled craftsmen (electricians, plumbers, locksmiths, welders, etc), advanced machinists, contractors, crane operators, etc., are still proles, although they'd be considered "high proles" or "smart proles". Although SWPLs don't identify culturally with the high proles, they don't mind interacting with them for the purpose of doing business. They aren't unpleasant to live next to either. I think people here are specifically referring to the working poor and the lumpenproletariat (underclass), two categories that bleed into each other. They tend to impose negative externalities upon everything within a ten block radius.

As an aside, I find the shameless vulgarity of many proles to be rather amusing, and a breath of fresh air when contrasted with SWPL pretentiousness. A have an acquaintance from a martial arts class who is a semi-truck driver by profession, and most of his Facebook status updates pertain to genitalia, sex, farts, or pooping. While I have hidden the news feeds of a number of my SWPL friends due to their self-righteous politically themed updates, I keep his posts unhidden because they always make me laugh. I sometimes have the urge to posts updates along similar lines, but I have a reputation to maintain. My trucker friend, on the other hand, just doesn't care, and his attitude is rather refreshing.

"By the way, a good future career for people not smart to become doctors would be law enforcement. I don’t see police officers being replaced by robots anytime soon [despite the example of the movie Robocop], and for reasons to be explained later, I predict that crime will increase in the future."


The trend is already here. Jobs in law enforcement are highly competitive nowadays. They might draw proles but the ambitious sort that recognize being a cop offers more pay and prestige than a labor job. However I'd say the security services industry as a whole will rise and not law enforcement. In Latin America private security forces are more reliable than the police. Even where I live the cops are almost useless. We have armed security that patrols in teams and not senior citizens sentries. As "diversity" increases and prole whites continue to descend into underclass behavioral norms security is a good bet.

Part of the assumption of technology solving everything is that the capital owners will always invest in new machines.

What has never been mentioned in all of this is that a decent return must be earned on the expensive new technology.

Hybrid cars are a massive technological advance that should replace some expensive petroleum workers and others in the energy economy.

But after a decade, there has been limited penetration of hybrids. Similar story for NatGas cars and all-electrics.

Why? The returns are just not much. The cost of the technology exceeds the return for most people.

I suspect that in many cases, technologies are already available but are not widely used because they are too costly.

Spot-on Half Sigma! Going into the debt bubble it was my sincere hope that we'd get a societal re-org as was seen resulting from the Great Depression.

As the Great Recession is not yet over, the die is not yet cast, but early indications are not promising. Three fundamental changes required for any reset are all negative:

1) illegal NAMs are not being deported, in fact most recently they are being encouraged by executive order

2) healthcare industry was not remade, thus requiring the productive & fecund middle class to suffer corporate employment for healthcare access, instead of being able to set out on their own in self-employed micro-businesses (single SWPL's don't care about healthcare access and so are able to live off their Etsy fancies)

3) banking class has been bailed out at vast expense to tax-payers, also thereby propping up real estate prices far beyond their traditional 3x median income

We had the chance for a massive financial reset. Freeing Americans from the two things that keep them most chained to the status quo: fear of health uninsurance and the costs of housing, would have allowed them to have more leisure, and spend more time on careers and endeavors they are truly interested in. Thus far, that opportunity is being squandered and the dystopian future is becoming more and more likely.

"one of the things shallow people want is status or sex, but intelligent people have more creative and important things to do with their money."

Absolute lol.

robots are fundamentally the same thing as any tool. human effort will simply produce greater output from the same quantity of input. just as happened with the adze, and hoe, and printing press, etc.

The rise of machines should theoretically be self-limiting at a pace that society can keep up with.

Theoretically, too-fast technological advance, which alternatively looks like too much investment (up to 1930, and again up to 2000) should produce a situation of overproduction and underemployment.

What should happen if you let things run their course in the case of too much capital?

Prices should collapse. Companies should be allowed to go bust and capital that sits idle should be dismantled, because its worth more as scrap and the owners are in bankruptcy.

Eventually, with less capital and lower productivity, prices go back up and profitability returns. At lower productivity levels firms can have more profitability (because there isn't a glut of their product) and more ability to hire.

There is no reason to say a healthiest economy is the one with the most capital, or the one that is able to produce the most. A healthy economy is balanced and stable.

If people are too poor to obtain production of an economy without transfer payments, the economy is very sick. It has too much capital.

That is where we are now. The economy is very sick as corporations book revenue partly from people living on transfer payments. The transfer payments come from government borrowing. Thus present corporate profitability is fictitious. If the government was forced to suddenly run a balanced budget (e.g. a bond crisis, see for instance most of Europe) revenue to corporations would fall and profits may go to zero or turn negative.

But isn't law enforcement sort of a blue collar (prole) job filled by 100-IQ White proles and lesser affirmative action hires?

Most people like to work. Even most proles like to work. three big reasons why: people like structure to their day, people like being part of a social network, and people like feeling that they accomplished something during the day which was valuable enough to be paid for.

That's why we still have the 40 hour week. The alternative to working is not-working, and most people have no idea what to do with unstructured time. Plus the family tensions can grow extreme if you're not working. I have heard many people, from all walks of life, say it is a relief to get to work on Monday morning.

Maybe, somewhere, there are people who like to write poetry or go to the gym or play video games for hours on end, but most people can't take non-working past a certain point.between.

Robotic factories will create new job opportunities for hardware & software engineers, robot repairmen, and other technicians and designers. It's creative destruction. Of course, low-IQ NAMs and others will be even more unemployable than they are now.

I see many posters here using the term "prole" where I'd be inclined to use the term "NAM." I think of proles as low-income Whites, sometimes referred to as "White Trash." Proles are not as violent, shiftless, and unemployed as NAMs. NAMs harbor much racial hatred toward Whites. Proles may dislike NAMs but are not specifically out looking for NAMs to rob, maim, & kill, as NAMs do Whites.

Is there a difference between proles and NAMs.

Fantastic post HS. Humans are status conscious and form social hierarchies. They will still have to jockey for position.

And increased crime does seem likely unless gene therapies arise to address certain MAO-A variants.

"Robotic factories will create new job opportunities for hardware & software engineers, robot repairmen, and other technicians and designers. It's creative destruction. Of course, low-IQ NAMs and others will be even more unemployable than they are now".

Using robotic machinery to create artificial self sustaining islands will solve much of our social problems.

How much of the apparent change in crime rates is the result of (1) better record-keeping; and (2) police departments paying more attention to black-on-black crime?

I would guess it's quite a bit.

"Also, I think you need to understand that "status" is really about sex. People want status to get sex (or committment for women)."

Sexbots solve this problem! Why would betas struggle for the dubious privilege of sex with fat, aggressive, and shrill American women - and risk getting divorce-raped - if they could get sex from a "supermodel" sexbot that was obedient to their every command?

Posted by: E. Rekshun | August 20, 2012 at 06:44 PM

And I have never seen attractive NAM females...

Right again HS, but this is discussed by the (actually very sane) Ted K in his "Industrial Society and Its Future".

Technical Innovation means 1) that technical experts must give up on being well rounded human beings and 2) the "jobs" left over are in poorly paid make-work or in exploitation of technical experts or the service "workers".

18th and 19th century economics and the bourgeois ideology is abstract, has no place for, and cannot deal with the very concrete reality of the advance of technology.

Coercive family planning is the only solution.

Robots doing construction work is a long way off.

What robots can't do well is not the same as what people with low IQs can't do well.

The work of MDs is much more easily automated with the exception of surgery.

If the house isn't made in a factory you would need truly artificial people (androids) to do the work.

Construction companies are generally too small and build too few houses to afford something like a robot plasterer.

"Sexbots solve this problem!"

Why don't prostitutes currently have the same effect on socio-sexual relations you think sexbots will?

"And increased crime does seem likely unless gene therapies arise to address certain MAO-A variants."

There are probably many more genes involved in personality and criminal disposition. Targeting MAO-A alone probably wouldn't solve the problem.

Cracker: And I have never seen attractive NAM females...

===

Cracker is being disengenuous. There are plenty of attractive NAM women.

"Why don't prostitutes currently have the same effect on socio-sexual relations you think sexbots will?"

You can't own a prostitute or program her for obedience. There is the risk of disease or that they will rob or scam you. You incur legal obligations if you let a prostitute live in your house or if you get her pregnant.

None of the above is true for sexbots.

If an increase in robotics pushes more & more people out of work, then local, state, and federal agencies will probably raise taxes and hire more unnecessary paper pushers and create more make work. Does anyone think that the trillions of dollars spent on a large military and NASA is largely unnecessary make work? I've wondered what unemployment would be like if the US military and NASA drastically reduced head count.

another reason people like to work? A reason to get out of the house if you have small kids. Don't underestimate this.

ever spent a few solid days in a house with a 2-yr old? You start doubting your sanity after a while. I love my kid, but man, I nearly wept with joy some mornings when I got into my car to drive to work in absolute blissful silence.

@ E. Rekshun
"I see many posters here using the term "prole" where I'd be inclined to use the term "NAM." I think of proles as low-income Whites, sometimes referred to as "White Trash." Proles are not as violent, shiftless, and unemployed as NAMs. NAMs harbor much racial hatred toward Whites. Proles may dislike NAMs but are not specifically out looking for NAMs to rob, maim, & kill, as NAMs do Whites."

-

A lot of NAMs aren't poor, violent or difficult to live around. Proletariat means lowest social class, which better captures the daily behavior (crassness, littering, noisiness, selfishness) people here dislike.

"Cracker is being disengenuous. There are plenty of attractive NAM women"

Your got me, your comment had so many examples, I lost count... And just for kicks, check out the black on white rape vs. the white on black rape.

****Most people like to work...

That's why we still have the 40 hour week.****

Interesting explanation, impressive for its simplicity, and in fact I have heard people say on occasion (unfathomably to me) that they "like" going to work, although I can never quite understand whether they really mean what it sounds like they are saying.

I do think you've greatly overestimated the extent to which people really "like" working, and I disagree with painting the man who would rather stay home writing poetry and exercising as some sort of mythical creature. Really - there are people who *wouldn't* want that lifestyle? Isn't this how wealthy landed aristocrats used to live?

In any case, the biggest flaw in the argument that I can see is that people without structured, traditional paid work are free to invent their own, more rewarding and fulfilling work. Thus, for example, if I were free of the shackles of paid work I would love to spend my days doing nothing but landscaping, gardening, woodworking, tending my farm animals, etc. Certainly I would prefer to work much, much less than 40 hours a week - maybe 10 or 15 at most.

Was Edmund Kemper, son of an electrician, poor? One way or the other, his IQ is 136, so yeah.

The comments to this entry are closed.