Is the US really doomed based on current demographics?

submitted by SoylentCapitalist from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

If ALL manual labor is automated, what jobs do you think is left for them? And what is the value in paying 1000 human workers, when a single robot could do the same, but with far more productivity and lowered costs?

That's the point I'm getting at. And it's not just an isolated example. Horses may still exist, but everyone knows they're obsolete next to cars and tractors. Or how about when we use to hire people to change the oil in street lamps? Maybe 1 or 2 jobs like that still exist today, but 99% of them are useless.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If a robot can replace 1000 workers and the monthly cost of a robot is 1000 dollars, then the price of a human worker is 1 dollar a month. Economy is relative. It is not static, but dynamic. If you change one parameter, the others adjust accordingly.

The human population might decrease just like the population of horses did. This is very plausible.

New jobs will be created. Time is money - literally. "Unemployment" is a feature of the system, not a bug. You need unemployment for a functional economy to work.
Unemployment in macro economics can be compared to life savings in a private economy. If your finances are in trouble, you can use some of your savings. If there is a need somewhere in the macro economy, you can use the unemployment to fill this need.

Unemployment is not a bad thing

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But what jobs will exist in the future that will make employing any person worth the time and effort? Manual labor already represents the bottom of the talent pool, and if you take that away, the masses of people who hold no degrees are beyond screwed. This is without even mentioning that a $1 a month would immediately be spent on food/taxes/rent, so there's certainly no way to move away from this permanent poverty.

You're correct that it's highly likely we'll see a decrease in human population as a result of all this automation, but that's also proof that immigration will be driven down as well. The only people I actually see moving around, are millionaires, who plan on shuffling their wealth across different borders (well... assuming borders still exist in the future).

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You don't understand how economics work. 1 dollar a month is enough money to hire a full time worker doing whatever you want for an entire month.
In Denmark today you get like 6k dollars a month easily, so those 1 dollars a month is equivalent to 6k dollars in todays money. Relative to worker wages. Do you understand this? Your house will be worth 1 billion usd and your wage will be 1 dollar a month. You can still buy food, you can still buy netflix, etc. Your life will be vastly improved compared to today but your salary will only be 1 dollar. For this 1 dollar, you can buy every product that you want.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're losing me. If a $1 salary can buy everything, why are there still extremely poor people living in third world countries? Even a house being worth $1 billion in this scenario still contradicts this. You're not going to get a downpayment using only a dollar. The only real option for living is renting, but guess who controls that? And who would they prefer renting to if more money exists elsewhere?

You seem to ignore the hyper discrepancies between the rich class (i.e the people who own or manufacture robots in the future) and the absolute poverty class whose talents of manual labor comes with no value. There is no middle class to bridge this gap (where the $6,000 figure comes from. There are still people who make far less today doing jobs like sweeping floors or flipping burgers).

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If a $1 salary can buy everything, why are there still extremely poor people living in third world countries?

What the fucking what!? Seriously, wtf dude. Do you see robots everywhere!? 1 dollars cant buy shit today. You seriously have no concept of money or how an economy works. I suggest taking some 101 macro economy course, because this is simply astonishing. Read my comments until they make sense in your head or take a macro economics course. You clearly don't understand the most basic concepts.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The people who make $6,000 are the ones with valuable skills. They're not the ones going to make a $1 in the future which by all means, is completely worthless, when everyone else at the top makes a lot more.

Do you see robots everywhere!?

Not yet, but you don't need a robot to point out a wealth gap exists. And automation wiping out the bottom rung jobs of society wont actually make these people richer. Like I said, I expect those with degrees and wealthy connections to be able to move anywhere upwards in society. The ones who don't, you can look at the neighborhoods of Brazil as an example of where these people are headed.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/29/sao-paulo-injustice-tuca-vieira-inequality-photograph-paraisopolis

Remember, the initial discussion was about how immigration would decrease. A million people moving to another country when their labor is worth the exact same as where they originally came from, puts a nail in that coffin. Or you don't transfer one group of slum people to live in another slum.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If a $1 salary can buy everything, why are there still extremely poor people living in third world countries?

It's called purchasing power parity (PPP). $1 has different values in different places and at different times. You're assuming that $1 can only purchase what is worth $1 presently and that the cost of goods in this future hypothetical won't be fractions of a dollar. Like u/Dragonerne said, it's relative.