06-03-2009, 10:25 PM
Malthus is smiling in his grave.
I agree, and I can happily tell you first hand that this is changing. Flexible hours and working from home are heavily used at many companies. However, as long as business involves people who have a limited timeframe each day to communicate there will be bottlenecks (as you described).
This paragraph makes a point in every direction. On one hand we have a economic system which is entirely dependent upon workers working and on the other workers have lost the power to cause change.:)
1) The view that technology is a net destroyer of jobs is incorrect. Certain part of the economy will suffer but others will thrive. In the long run, the net result will be more jobs.
2) Technology enables greater worker specialization. This enables people to focus doing what they want and earn a living doing it. (Think absolute vs relative advantage).
3) There are jobs where you can work a 30 hour work week and there are jobs where you canât because of competition.
Assuming that you have 100,000 workers who are all employed at the best possible location then I agree, either the # of workers must increase or technology must increase.
What is the limit to how efficient a system can get?
I would contend that this is based on human ingenuity. Look at the how the standard of living has dramatically increased over the last hundred years, Matlhus be damned. Where will the next innovation come from? Unfortunately seems like a black swan to me, but if you know clue me in and we'll make a lot of money :D
Cheers,
Naverone
Quote:And, it has. Automation and technology in business have skyrocketed the past 30 years, and yet we still expect a person to commute through rush hour to the job, arrive at 8am, take lunch from 12 to 12:30, and work until about 5:00pm, then commute home through rush hour again. It is customary, and unnecessary.
I agree, and I can happily tell you first hand that this is changing. Flexible hours and working from home are heavily used at many companies. However, as long as business involves people who have a limited timeframe each day to communicate there will be bottlenecks (as you described).
Quote:We also have a socio-economic system that only rewards the worker, so social stability rests upon achieving near 100% employment. But, with more and more technology, efficiency, and automation, the society needs fewer and fewer workers. Therefore, the excess workers in our society do meaningless "make work" jobs for meager wages. Technology has increased productivity which has allowed companies to shed jobs, and increase profits. But, through it all workers have lost the power to affect a social change. So perhaps we could rethink the nature of work to include something simple like, a four day, 30 hour work week, or additional vacation time per year.
This paragraph makes a point in every direction. On one hand we have a economic system which is entirely dependent upon workers working and on the other workers have lost the power to cause change.:)
1) The view that technology is a net destroyer of jobs is incorrect. Certain part of the economy will suffer but others will thrive. In the long run, the net result will be more jobs.
2) Technology enables greater worker specialization. This enables people to focus doing what they want and earn a living doing it. (Think absolute vs relative advantage).
3) There are jobs where you can work a 30 hour work week and there are jobs where you canât because of competition.
Quote:Consider an isolated town with not imports or exports. If you have a stable population of say 100,000 people in a town, then it makes sense that you can sell them at most a stable amount of widgets, or services. That same 100,000 people have a fairly stable income, so their same "disposable income" would also be the target of all goods and services offered in that town. The only way to increase the economy would be to grow the population, or grow the pool of "disposable income". Barring population growth, the only means to grow the pool of "disposable income" would be to reduce the costs of living, and the costs of doing business. In other words, increasing the efficiency of the entire socio-economic system. The savings would be diverted into peoples pockets. There is of course a limit to how efficient a system can get.
Assuming that you have 100,000 workers who are all employed at the best possible location then I agree, either the # of workers must increase or technology must increase.
What is the limit to how efficient a system can get?
I would contend that this is based on human ingenuity. Look at the how the standard of living has dramatically increased over the last hundred years, Matlhus be damned. Where will the next innovation come from? Unfortunately seems like a black swan to me, but if you know clue me in and we'll make a lot of money :D
Cheers,
Naverone