I recently recalled reading an article a few weeks ago about how our economy is improving while unemployment is not. Part of the blame was set upon the shoulders of advancing technology. I do not have a link to the article or any others at the moment, but simple observation seems to support the accusation.

For example, think about large grocery chains. Where we once had twenty to thirty lanes for checkout with perhaps a cashier and bagger for each we now have several U-SCAN lanes monitored by a single employee. The advent of personal computers, the internet and e-mail revolutionized telecommunications with fewer and fewer employees needed. And in almost any given job of physical labor there have been more new machines invented to reduce both the workload and the work force.

The implication seems to be that future advancements in technology will continue to reduce the workforce in both blue and white collar industries, more and more people will find themselves struggling to find employment regardless of qualifications or education.

Given this possibility I would like to debate the following:

• Do factors like technological advancement have the ability to change public perception and acceptance of societal models (such as from capitalism to socialism)?
• Assuming that improvements in technology do continue to contribute to unemployment rates in the United States, might we be more inclined to turn to socialistic models (such as welfare and universal health care) in the not-so-distant future?
• What is your current view of socialism and how might such a potential impact of improving technology change or strengthen your position?

I don't accept your premise.

For every low-end job replaced by technology, a high-end job is required to CREATE the technology, sell the technology, install the technology, support the technology and improve on it. If jobs were always net lost when new technologies are introduced, then why is the unemployment rate now better than 10 years ago?

The jobs that are being displaced tend to be low-end, dead-end jobs. So what's being lost is the jobs available to the untrained/uneducated class.

Do THOSE folks need the social welfare state to keep up? I don't think so; what they need are more training programs to move them higher on the employment food chain.

Many people desire the government to provide a common "base line" of social services that many people take for granted, like availability of health care, retirement benefits, education, income supplements for food, etc.

I don't see how that's related to technological advances, though.

I've read from numerous sources years ago, that capitalism would take a dynamic shift as technology freed up time of workers. Ideas that were floated around were for the most part, suggestions such as shortening the workweek to 30 or 35 hours, while having employees retain their pay and benefits. The "cost" to society in terms of less work hours for the same rate of pay was to be made up by the extra-amount of time that people would have who would then join volunteer organizations and become more civically involved. Other costs to society would decrease since parents would have more time with their children, etc. Technology was supposed to free us, to allow us to pursue our interests and to grow as individuals. It turns out that we are "freed" alright, free to go work for ten or five dollars less an hour than the old job and with less benefits. The "temp" craze is just absolutely disgusting. I know, I know, we are all supposed to take night classes and be desk-top publishers, but not everyone can devote the time or resources to do so.

I believe we need to reconsider some of our work attitudes and beliefs. The techno-socialists might have some ideas that would be worth trying. I doubt that will happen, more people will have to be plunged into the service sector before they start figuring out that they are getting shafted.

This is straight out of Marx, whether it's intentional or not.

Marx recognized the power of technology to put people out of work. He claimed that industry would invest more and more in technology and less and less in labor, and therefore the worker would eventually have to rebel to survive. Now, in the short term, his predictions didn't seem to come, but as time has progressed they're getting more and more likely.


Does technology create as well as destroy jobs? Yes. But it doesn't create the same number of jobs as it destroys. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth invention that technology. Look, the purpose of technology is to either elminate labor all together or to allow one person to do the job of many. If technology doesn't eliminate jobs, they it's not something a company's going to develop. The ultimate goal in Capitalism is to have as few people as possible creating as much of a product/service as possible. I mean, is that something you can really deny?

Eventually, we're going ot reach a point where there simply aren't even nearly enough jobs for everyone to do. Eventually we're going to get to a point where machines do all or most of our manual labor. There simply won't be enough jobs for the lower class at this point. At this point, we're either gonna have to let them die, give them jobs or subsidize their living. The way I see it, once we get to that point, we'll be able to produce products and get jobs done without a huge profit motive, and we'll be able to really begin a trasition into socialism, and, eventually, Communism.

I agree with amf. We are fulfilling some parts of the Socialist “dream”. The dirty jobs are being taken over by automation and technological advances are opening up new areas for the workers of the future – IF they can qualify. With out current mediocre education system this is doubtful. I read today that the latest assessment tests show urban school kids only 25-30% proficient in math and science. Thus millions a year are being cheated out of the ability to get a good job. It is a national disgrace.

The socialization of medicine and other basic services are only indirectly related in that the new positions being created are all subject to downward wage pressure. An example is that as we outsource more higher paying white collar jobs, ie US programmers making 60K outsourced to India programmers making 5K, than the variance between the two salaries will cause the lower salary to increase and the higher salary to decrease. As this occurs on a larger scale than the overall direction for wages will go down for one economy and go up for the other economy.

What this means is that there will need to be more social investment specifically in education, job training/re-training, placement, and relocation plus increases in medical allowances etc will also have to follow. With respect to the last if we look at low end service jobs such as Wal-Mart the median and starting pay are below what would be a living wage if one were to fully take care of their own health care, housing, food, etc so if these type of jobs increase than an increase in these type of social services will have to follow.

This is not purposeful socialization though but a reactive type dictated by the specifics of the economy. And stepping back it makes sense both from the social and economic perspective because if there is not a secondary input (government) when downward wage pressure occurs than both aggregate demand and the economy decline.

All in all, I do not see this as a problem unless we overreact--the natural tendency of both left and right...Well, maybe I do see a bit of a problem there....

Some really good posts on this topic, this is one of the better threads in my opinion. On this issue, I'm reminded a lot of the ancient Romans. With the rise of the latifundias and the displacement of roman workers by slaves, there became a great chasm between the haves and have nots who were forced to move into the cities. Likewise, we have many people with great jobs and benefits, reduced to the service sectory economy. While I don't believe the problem is of an epidemic state right now, we should be contemplating a third way solution to deal with this problem. Whether it's government sponsored retraining programs or pay for "personal work"(i.e.-reading to elementary kids, gardening public areas, public works projects, etc.) we need to think outside of the box and we must not let the present state of affairs continue. The reformers of the 1800s saved capitalism from it's own excesses, likewise, reformers will be needed to save it from itself again in this new era.