>technology improves >prices go down >wages go down

File: oK8qdVJRUqICLfHxIVoewWlnEujqZY_VoWsA-_NXq6w.jpg (70KB, 548x768px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 548x768px

>>1438532
Yes, capitalism isn't going to last forever and isn't exactly a long term sustainable system.

>>1438532
Post-scarcity is the destination. The delivery system is the question.

I expect it is not unlikely that certain industries will be re-nationalised/re-whatever the authority is - on the final approach.

>>1438532
Those who own and run the utility services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world’s richest man.

>>1438532
what is inflation

>>1438532
>wages go down
No.

>>1438574
>implying inflation will increase if demand for goods and services decreases

Go read a book on basic Economics, /pol/ asshat

>>1438564
This may be true - but homogeneous commodities are one thing and finished products and services to which I think Op refers are another.

For instance - a DVD player is 'strictly better' than a VHS player - yet it is cheaper to make and buy. Genuine progress on the path to running out of work.

>>1438586
>You mom?

Robots M8.

Robots.

And my mum.

>>1438577
>>1438577
What do you mean by "no"?

Who is going to replace all that cheap manufacturing labour done by third world countries once they become developed or decide to become more protectionist?

Who is going to pay workers high wages in developed countries once their industries automate most of the workload with AI and robots?

Your mom?

>>1438591
See this >>1438595

Maintenance and servicing of robots does not require thousands of employees. At most you'll probably get a few dozen doing 99% of the critical work.

>>1438563
A post scarcity economy can only work if the population actually has an incentive to keep consuming on low wages and/or on government NEETbux if there are no jobs done by humans anymore

>>1438578
Not that guy, still theres the chance of cost push, especially in scarce resources. Though i don't think this will happen due to tech advancement.

>>1438597
>post scarcity economy

Oxymoron.

Look up the definition of 'economy'.

>>1438532

None of the things you just listed are in any way causally related.

Read some economics textbooks you dunce.

>>1438623
Are wages in most industries decreasing due to automation / too much competition or not?

>>1438532
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivatives_market

Before that happens, the derivative bubble will explode.

>>1438649
>implying governments won't just bail the banks out again

>>1438649
Only rich fucks engage in those markets so nobody cares.

>>1438649
>derivative bubble will explode

derivatives are nothing more than trading the value of a thing without trading the thing itself - I see no reason why paper and physical will not keep pace with each other.

>>1438578
>/pol/ asshat
kek, what about his post implies he is from /pol/?

outing yourself as a tankie from /leftypol/ isn't a good idea from the get-go OP

>>1438660
t. 2007 securities regulator

>>1438532
if both prices and wages go down it doesn't matter, they can still buy the same amount of stuff

>>1438679
To be fair, concerns about increasing automation aren't solely the domain of /leftypol/.

>>1438532

>wages go down

How? Wages go down if demand drops, not technology getting better. This scenario makes no sense.

>>1438532
>prices go down
>lower prices means more money
>more money means higher wages
>OP is a retarded commie

>>1438977
Yeah, OP did a little mistake there. Should've typed that technology getting better creates unemployment, and then demand going down due to increased unemployment.

>>1438532
You mean as technology increases, jobs become increasingly automated raising unemployment, and demand lowers as unemployment decreases.

As a stemlords, my labor will be on high demand in the age of automation.

What about humanity fags? What will they do when Starbucks starts to employ robots?

>>1439110
This is why so many so called "intellectuals" go to the left. When you realize you are basically useless for society you either reorient your life choices or you plot to take revenge on said society by means of radical ideologies that only bring about destruction. "If I don't win, nobody wins! And these proletarians/immigrants/negroes/jihadi stooges will do the dirtty work for me!" Or so he thinks. But "intellectuals" are always the first to burn in the fire of the revolution.

File: serveimage.jpg (121KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 600x600px

>>1439110
>>1439129
B-but humanities is AS IMPORTANT AS any stem field. I'll show it to you who is unimportant, when I'm supreme secretary/party intellectual in the new socialist society that is to come... Y-you will see who's unimportant... And all the girls too, who rejected me... Y'all will know who I really am!

>>1438532
There is no working for free, if you arent getting paid you wont be going to work now are you. Also, there are currently 5 communist countries and they all developing countries. China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. Countries in which a series of good decisions by their government can lead them into industrialization and join the western world in terms of life expectancy, education, healthcare, freedom etc.

>>1439129
>>1439195
Baiting with this on /his/, that's really low of you. Don't you have a "" "300k a year""" job to do?

>>1438564
>India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales.
Literally one guy did it, and got BTFO extremely badly when he got into high tech industries.

>>1438660
>1000 trillions in derivatives

Technologically induced unemployment is a meme.

Everyone who will lose their current job because of robots will find something else to do, just like the Luddites in the 18th century did, after a bout of whining and rioting.

>>1438532
>technology improves
>shitty people become obsolete

where's the problem?

>>1438977
Cheaper technology enables competitors.

>This scenario makes no sense.

Have you ever heard of "Uber for X"?

Masses of useful idiots are good for three things: farming, building, and killing eachother. The first two will be required in a hypothetical interplanetary expansion(robots need to be built, spare humans are already in supply), the third for when those planets want independence.

>>1439110
Will robots manage legal cases as well? Would we trust robots to be our lawyers, lawmakers, and judges?

>>1439552
not him but I would 100% trust robots over law "people"

>>1439312
The problem is those shitty people are still alive and taking up resources you retard

>>1439561
Then they better be some damn well-programmed robots. I don't wanna lose my case just because some idiot failed to properly program the nuances of equity (the legal doctrine) into BEEP BOOP Esq.

>technology improves

Automation gets better. It's not just a simple increase in the tools people use, but the development of completely new autonomous facilities.


>prices go down
Yes

>wages go down
Wages down go down, employment goes down. What jobs remain will probably be high skill and well compensated

>demand goes down due to low wages
due to low employment and thus income

>profit margins thin out
Possibly, but not if the processes of innovation continue apace. If all that matters are an elite of 5-1% of the population who own capital and drive the mega-corps, they can easily re-cast their investments if the old paradigm stops serving their interests. Remember, a large chunk of the world's wealth is sitting in banks

>literal race to the bottom

Maybe. All we need is some kind of universal basic income, basic Keynesian stuff that drove tons of economic progress in the 20th century.

Prices only go down because the cost of production falls to the cost of the components of production, the ingredients used to make the thing. Added to that cost is the labor cost, the profit and revenue coverages, and so on.

If production costs are effectively null, and the pace of innovation continues, the technological advancement of the society could negate loss of jobs and create a transfinite amount of wealth. So much wealth that it's a non-zero sum issue for billionaires to let some of the value be redistributed and invested by the state.

>>1439590
*wages don't

>>1438587
>a DVD player is 'strictly better' than a VHS player
How do you figure? They both have their pros and cons. The shelf-life of a DVD is extremely short compared to a VHS tape and it's even easier to accidentally make it unplayable. The only real bonus of DVDs over VHS is they take up less space and are capable of higher video quality, but the same could be said of film reels. It isn't "strictly better" at all.

>>1438563
>>1439590

The universal basic income / automated industry idea really doesn't work when all the population growth is coming from shit world nations

Even in developed nations, the populations would need to be kept in check to have a good balance where basic income actually works...

Also doesn't really seem that great for normies, sure, NEETs would love a basic income because their hobbies require like no expenditure beyond a 10x10 room, computer, and internet connection; Normies like to buy stuff, and have jobs.

Even if tech/industry is largely automated, the service industry will remain as one of the largest employment sectors. The biggest change will be the creation of a technocratic class of workers/politicians, and a bunch of blue collar skill work disappearing. Still, gonna need grease monkeys to do maintenance on machines and facilities because stemfags are not typically actually capable of laboring for 8+ hours a day.

>>1439110

>Yo dude, I'mma be an enginigger earning 500K/year

>>1439110
As a ML stem overlord imma automate you out brah

No take backs no force fields as long as we're making believ

>>1438595
You need specialised labour to operate those machines, thus higher wages, but fewer unskilled people working in industry overall. However, technological impacts have (yet) to start mechanising the service sector of the economy, where most are employed mainly for this reason.

However, AI working in hospitals, restaurants and such could have some unprecedented consequences.

>>1439552
There's already a robot for managing legal battles regarding parking tickets, it won't be long before more sophisticated ones come around. The fine, convoluted and extremely unreadable print of laws ended up making automating law easier.

>>1438532
Retard detected
>technology improves
>prices go down
>wages for low-skilled workers decrease because they can be replaced by robots who don't bitch and whine all day, don't spit in your food, don't show up to work late, don't skip work, don't get into fights with customers, don't show up to work drunk, don't show up to work high, etc.
>Wages for middle and upper class may or may not go up, however their purchasing power increases exponentially

File: image.png (187KB, 833x1252px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 833x1252px

OP is a faggot

>>1441630
But marxism doesn't in word say that you get shit for free, that is like the American made up version of communism.

File: image.jpg (59KB, 600x421px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 600x421px

>>1441648
>NOT REAL SOCIALISM!!!!!

>>1439110
someone's gotta pay taxes to fund neetbux once companies start to favor robots over actual people. i might end up in a tent city but i'll have the company of others, and i'd rather live in the poverty of god than be a slave to man's machines.

Do 4 people own all the land in the province of Africa yet?

>>1441657
good memes anon
where can I get memes as good as yours???

>>1441657
>looks up definition of socialism
>workers own means of production
>looks up definition of communism
>such a surplus of stuff that its a post scarcity economy where everything is free
Well, going by the definitions, I would say it isn't real socialism or real communism.

File: 1417046621488.jpg (31KB, 338x310px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 338x310px

>>1442170
Not any anon from before, but the general eyerolling from anyone who has to hear
>socialism wus never tried!!11
comes from the fact that these people usually still insist on going the same road that will eventually (theoretically at least, kek) lead to "real" socialism. That is, generally speaking, not something to strive for.

>>1443128
Nobody in this reply chain said that except for the person obviously shitposting. (>>1441657). >>1442170 This guy was saying that there is more intellectual nuance to communism than "dude lmao everything is free senpai."

>>1439657
>Also doesn't really seem that great for normies, sure, NEETs would love a basic income because their hobbies require like no expenditure beyond a 10x10 room, computer, and internet connection; Normies like to buy stuff, and have jobs.

I don't see the problem. As you mentioned later, the service economy would expand, and anybody discontent with just the UBI would be able to partake in it and make more money, no?

File: image.jpg (128KB, 940x645px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 940x645px

>>1438532
What you're describing is corporatism, not capitalism. Collectivism is the problem, until the statist fascist authoritarians are removed from power and we have a society made up of rational individuals making decisions in their own self-interest, nothing will improve.

>>1444037
It wasn't real capitalism

>>1444051
The difference of the "no true socialism/communism" argument vs the "no true capitalism/free market" argument is that ironically the closer to socialism a country gets the more leftist and worse it becomes until leftists start claiming that it "isn't real socialism" (Venezuela, USSR, North Korea).
Generally the more free a market a country has the better off it has gotten (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea). So when a capitalist claims that Argentina is worse than Chile because it is "less capitalist" they have more credibility than a leftist today claiming North Korea and Venezuela aren't actually socialist

>>1444143
Those 3 places aren't that good though at all. Good in stats but that's it really.

Peolle here are really ignorant of Economics...

Technology increases don't lead to lower wages.
Demand (in the sense you are thinking) doesn't affect profit margins or economic growth.

I would suggest you guys to read some Economics Textbook. There you will understand a little better about what affects wages, growth and so on.

>>1438532
>Wages go down with technological advancement! Soon everyone will work for free!
>Mechanisation destroys jobs! Soon there will be no more work!
This thread is populated by imbeciles.

>>1444143
>Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea
Singapore and Korea were dictatorships that didn't always apply "muh free market" policies though

>>1444632
>Economics textbooks
Which usually consider no technological advances in their models, fuck off.

>>1444687
What? Which textbook have you read?

>>1444721
Which ones have you read? In the short term, most models consider technology as a constant, and barely can add innovations to long term ones.

>>1444613
>Hong Kong
Still better off than mainland China both socially and economically. If you want to make a case for their "high cost of living" that's fine but just remember they are all crammed on a tiny island with no natural resources and rely in foreign investment and imports for almost everything.
>Singapore
Much better off than Indonesia

>South Korea
It's poor have it better off than most government officials in the North

If you want to compare it to Europe which has been first world for multiple generations now that's entirely different but comparing these countries to nearby countries that are more socialist/leftist/statist we can see the results have been favorable

>>1444687
Topkek. Only in Marxism does technology not improve

>>1444734
Mankiw

>>1444787
Haven't read that thoroughly ,but I sincerely don't remember a single neoclassical economic model that said technology is a given constant in short term, or that it's a given constant that grows at a fixed rate in the long term for God knows what reason(Solow's).

Wages are the way we give the masses their fair share of the products of humanity. If wages are insufficient to give the masses their fair share then those who control wages must be forced to increase wages. If that is insufficient then another way of distributing resources among humanity must be implemented.

It's super simple.

money goes like this
real stuff, rare jewles, common metals, fucking paper, plastic, soon it will just be electrons floating next to your name in the bank record

money is slowly eradicating itself, paradise is inevitable

i cant wait until capitalistfags realize their whole world is based on greed and fucking people over

i cant wait until they realize you cannot attach an artificial value on everything, i mean they even make us pay for WATER jesus frank christ, and ELECTRICITY??? its fuckin sparks man, they slap a dollar sign on everything.

unless theyre counting every individual atom, i refuse to believe the numbers I see are anything more than pigshit pulled right out of their ass

i cant WAIT until their whole fucking economy collapses and bankers and lawyers and fast food and suit-wearing jackasses have no purpose or applicable skill in this world anymore.

i cant wait for humanity to help itself

>>1439110

>As a stemlords, my labor will be on high demand in the age of automation.

STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

All of these can be made obsolete via computers. If we progress as we are progressing now (technologically) only a certain group of engineers and programmers will be needed.

>>1447037
oh

>t. a degree in comp sci and economics

>>1441630
>occupy wall street
This dates that image more than the use of Cereal Guy.

>>1438532
You missed one key step, which was the 20th century discovery.

Once prices go down, the potential customer base rises, increasing demand, therefore increasing the value of labor, thus raising wages.

Develop the assembly line so you can build a cheaper car, and more people will be able to afford cars.

Pay your workers too little, and they - and the rest of a labor population whose wages are depressed - won't be able to buy your product. So it is in fact in the capitalist's interest to pay workers well.

>>1439579
>not knowing attractive people get lighter sentences
>"Justice"