A few posts ago, I spoke about the apparent evils of outsourcing. The sort of outsourcing discussed was moving jobs to another geographic location in order to save money on labor. That’s not the only kind of outsourcing though.
It is possible to outsource a job to technology. Computers become a more important part of our lives each day and most people use some sort of computer as a major part of their job. Technology has made each of us so much more efficient. But every time we see an increase in the amount of technology we use, it’s met with the inevitable “If we keep replacing jobs with computers, we’re not going to have any jobs left!”
I recently found an article on the blog called The Voluntaryist Reader discussing just this. For this edition of Required Reading, please read “But Wouldn’t Robots Take Over?”
It’s short and straight to the point. It debunks the myth that by increasing our reliance on technology, we’ll eventually innovate ourselves into economic ruin. See if you can apply this to other types of outsourcing as well.
Hey, writer of the article here. Thanks so much for the link! We’re a new blog and trying to grow, so this is very much appreciated!
Luck in your endeavors!
No problem! I’m well aware of your blog and really love what you guys are doing over there. Keep up the good work.
Thanks! You keep up your end of the fight 🙂
We’ve probably all studied enough calculus to suggest that life is more like min – max than linear progression. And while its unlikely that all jobs become automated (highest paid job in a lumber mill is the one who determines grade) it is very likely that jobs requiring the least skill will be the ones automated first. So, if robots continue to progress, likely, the unskilled labour will be the most affected with diminishing returns over time. (fork lift drivers followed by saw sharpeners).
As the mill is able to employ less and less people each year while maintaining through put, next to go are the residential painters (lessening market) and the grocery clerks. As the town population continues to drop (there are no homeless people in northern towns) the homeless populations of the larger southern cities will necessarily climb. In the southern towns, available workers for the grocery jobs increases thus forcing down the price for labour and also putting pressure on the dole. If LA now has about 50% of the people on food stamps, I can only assume that number would climb even higher.
As that point, the lumber mill owners will see a sliding dollar value (no effect to them), the government gets deeper in debt, and since the debt is owed to the mill owner, the owner of the mill can then seize more control of the government.
Invariably the owners concentrate wealth further, they own more land, and if a percent of the population starves, they are better off still as the government’s liabilities are mitigated directly. Finally, if a few own all the land, all the gold, and all the resources, they really have no need for anyone to buy anything.
Within 20 years of the landing of Cortez, the indigenous Mexicans experienced about a 90% reduction in population. Much to foreign disease, the rest to war, and yet somehow the Spanish were fine.
While its fine to suggest that complete mechanization could yield bounty for all, its also possible to suggest that the elite will not need me for anything.
I read a comment online the other day that perfectly sums up my feelings in response to you:
“If advanced technology hurts workers, then perhaps instead of using trucks to move goods between cities, we should hire people to carry the loads on their backs. This would employ far more workers than the current shipping industry. Hell, we could end unemployment tomorrow!”
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/14m9ro/kruman_says_robots_and_robber_barons_are_the/c7ehoqx
But to deal with your point regarding the business taking control of government, isn’t that indicative of a systematic problem of government? It’s not the fault of markets.
As for Cortez, I feel that is a red herring…it doesn’t have much to do with the topic at hand.
If the elite don’t need anything from anyone else, wouldn’t the non-elites need something from everyone else?
Who financed Cortez?
The point about Cortez was more about the reduction in population allowing the elite to continue. They still found enough memes to manually carry the gold from Mexico City to the port of Verecruz despite the population reduction. And it was totally on their backs.
The Mexicans didn’t need the Spanish, and I don’t need the Koch brothers. However, Dick Cheney has a bit more ability to affect my wellness than I do his. As for me, without the elite, I bet I would be just fine because secretly, I don’t really give a rip about them any more than they care about me. Could you live without Reebok?
What is really curious about Spanish colonialism is that King Ferdinand, before financing any ships, made one wish well known: that the indigenous people not be harmed in any way.
Later he sent emissaries to hear the concerns of the locals. They could accuse their new leaders of whatever they felt was immoral, illegal, or unethical, and, as you can guess, emissaries were bribed, conquistadors untouched, and Ferdinand received glowing reports all around.
Imagine what those poor bastards would have done for youtube and a camera pen. But that is only true because Ferdinand seems to have been somewhat of a benevolent dictator. As for the Dutch East Indies, well, they wouldn’t have really needed the pen.