Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
What would this welfare state be providing exactly? For people who can't get work unemployment benefit isn't going to cut it if you want people to have enjoyable lives.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I've Been Warning Y'all....Many Low Skill Jobs Will Soon Disappear
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Implosion imminent.
We already have a welfare state.
Benefits would have to expand to the point where non-workers would have an acceptable standard of living.
Not necessarily.
There will be upheaval, but the more time there is to adapt, the easier the transition.
Greatly increased productivity will enable it.
Robots and computers are going to replace more than low skilled jobs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is going to replace many skilled jobs, too. Even what we today consider highly-skilled jobs -- and sooner than most of us can imagine. Or at least, so a friend of mine who works at the university level in the forefront of the developing AI technology tells me.
He tells me the common thinking among his group of researchers/developers is that a conservative estimate would be 30% to 40% worldwide unemployment within two or three decades. Similar levels of unemployment were last seen in the US during the Great Depression.
Liberal estimates of unemployment run as high as 60%.
If such things actually come to pass, there will be tremendous, worldwide pressure to radically change societies. Conservative folks will be pleased to know that one direction societies could go is backwards to some kind of Feudalism, in which about 2% of the population owns almost all the wealth. The wealthy will be the new lords and ladies of the world. Some relatively lucky folks will be their retainers. But the "independent" middle class will be tiny, almost gone, when compared to today, and the impoverished underclass will be relatively huge, and mostly living in slums.
A society like that might make Dickens' London look like utopia. However, there are reasons to believe that is the most likely scenario, and it will surely be the way some -- perhaps many -- of today's societies develop in the future. The Third World already has societies that are in some significant ways much like it.
A second scenario is much less likely because it requires a radical rethinking of just about everything having to do with the social structure, in addition to people actually acting on that rethinking in order to restructure society economically, politically, and socially. I give it little chance of being successfully implemented in countries like America, Guatemala, China, Brazil, and Russia, but I think it might catch on in a few countries in Western and Northern Europe, such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway.
At the core of the second scenario is the idea of guaranteeing a basic, living income to every adult in the society. This idea is about to be scientifically tested in the Netherlands. The income would be distributed without strings -- people would not need to work for it. It would be sufficient to allow people to live above the poverty level, but not sufficient to allow them to live with many luxuries. Anyone who wanted to work, and who could land one of the world's few remaining jobs, would be able to work without losing their guaranteed income. If they were lucky enough to get a job, they could keep (minus taxes) what they earned.
The second scenario does not eliminate capitalism, but would require a radical redistribution of wealth that is most likely politically impossible to accomplish in most of the world's nations. Conservative folks can take cheer in the likelihood that it's probably not coming anytime soon to a country near them. Onward Feudalism!
He tells me the common thinking among his group of researchers/developers is that a conservative estimate would be 30% to 40% worldwide unemployment within two or three decades. Similar levels of unemployment were last seen in the US during the Great Depression.
Liberal estimates of unemployment run as high as 60%.
If such things actually come to pass, there will be tremendous, worldwide pressure to radically change societies. Conservative folks will be pleased to know that one direction societies could go is backwards to some kind of Feudalism, in which about 2% of the population owns almost all the wealth. The wealthy will be the new lords and ladies of the world. Some relatively lucky folks will be their retainers. But the "independent" middle class will be tiny, almost gone, when compared to today, and the impoverished underclass will be relatively huge, and mostly living in slums.
A society like that might make Dickens' London look like utopia. However, there are reasons to believe that is the most likely scenario, and it will surely be the way some -- perhaps many -- of today's societies develop in the future. The Third World already has societies that are in some significant ways much like it.
A second scenario is much less likely because it requires a radical rethinking of just about everything having to do with the social structure, in addition to people actually acting on that rethinking in order to restructure society economically, politically, and socially. I give it little chance of being successfully implemented in countries like America, Guatemala, China, Brazil, and Russia, but I think it might catch on in a few countries in Western and Northern Europe, such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway.
At the core of the second scenario is the idea of guaranteeing a basic, living income to every adult in the society. This idea is about to be scientifically tested in the Netherlands. The income would be distributed without strings -- people would not need to work for it. It would be sufficient to allow people to live above the poverty level, but not sufficient to allow them to live with many luxuries. Anyone who wanted to work, and who could land one of the world's few remaining jobs, would be able to work without losing their guaranteed income. If they were lucky enough to get a job, they could keep (minus taxes) what they earned.
The second scenario does not eliminate capitalism, but would require a radical redistribution of wealth that is most likely politically impossible to accomplish in most of the world's nations. Conservative folks can take cheer in the likelihood that it's probably not coming anytime soon to a country near them. Onward Feudalism!
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
Capitalism by its very nature is making money from money using only money is the loophole the big boys use ,unless ya got couple hundred mill in bank ,
I support innovation and rewards but that not capitalism
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
I always look at those abusing a system , investing in legitimate company but is capitalism brought us the credit default swap
And the alternatives (on the scale of a country) brought severe oppression without exception.
I'll stick with capitalism.
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
Reality is to big to fail , rigged markets , ww2 monetary easing policy .
Capitalism itself I guess to big to fail
Those things aren't inherent to capitalism.
I view them as corrupt.
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
Was a European politician discussing a standard living allowance for all , not sure on the economics but has been mentioned in Europe.
Even Libertarians here (Cato Institute) proposed such a thing decades ago..
...as a replacement for a plethora of dysfunctional social/economic safety nets.
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
Depends how you define opportunity within a capitalist system , is fair game imho even though morally wrong .
The very best capitalists are just to good at it , market only rigged if you have enough money to make it go your way , knowing no one can outbid helps but is not corrupt per se?is just taking the opportunity any good capitalist would grab
Not sure what you're getting at here, but....
I view using government to rig markets as corrupt.
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
Like sending the ppt to buy S&P at 4 pm each day from 570 s like I saw them doing during the economic crisis with taxpayer indemnified Chinese loans , yeah that type of thing.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
They can't consume like we do, but their creation still consumes and they have to consume something as an energy source.
