From: vagans@eanna.net   
      
   On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, ghost wrote:   
      
   > In article ,   
   >  Sourcerer  wrote:   
   >   
   > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, ghost wrote:   
   > >   
   > > >   
   > > > In article ,   
   > > >  Sourcerer  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > > A bit more than 10 years ago there was a thread here (it was one of the   
   > > > > first I posted to) about technology and jobs. The subject was what to   
   do   
   > > > > about all the people who can only do 'low level' jobs, since technology   
   > > > > was and would continue to relentlessly eliminate them. The subject was,   
   > > > > could you educate and train such 'low level' workers to do 'high level'   
   > > > > work, who are likely to be uneducatable and untrainable. What to do   
   > > > > about the coming masses of the unemployed?   
   > >   
   > > They were naive, and very condescending to "low level" workers and   
   > > unions. But it was understandable why they were the way they were -- and   
   > > they were right in the short term. But by 1997 the change winds were   
   > > blowing thru 'hi tech' and the internet.   
      
      
      
   > And I don't think it's understandable why they were that way, I think it   
   > was a case of not knowing what went before them. Major technilogical   
   > change accompanies a loss of workers needed to get the job done.   
      
   They had watched as what went before was tossed out by the corps. During   
   the 80s there were waves of purges as workers and then layers of   
   managers were sacked, corporations were merged or arbitraged out of   
   existence. Family farms and small town industry were bought up   
   (hostilely or not) and sold off. When Clinton was elected, he brought   
   together the hi tech corporations in a series of public meetings. The   
   key ingredient of the economic plan was to privatize the internet and   
   create a hi tech boom. We were going to Japanize in a big way (Japan was   
   the economic model back then, cf Neuromancer).   
      
   Corporate and economic paradigms were trashed. It was a new world and   
   those with 'hi tech' savvy were to lead it. And thus it was. If you   
   could code, if you could admin a network, invent a web business, the   
   future looked sweet.   
      
   That's why I say their attitude was understandable. It was the   
   charismatic phase of "hi tech", and they were true believers. Nothing in   
   their experience, their short lives, informed them of anything else.   
      
   The stock market mania, the dot.com and telecom bubbles reflect that.   
   The future was nothing but bright, full of stock options; big   
   entrepreneur capital got flung around and stuck to a lot of geeky nerds.   
      
   Today, if they're lucky, they're real estate agents. If they're really   
   lucky, they sold their stock the instant it was vested and live in   
   Byzantine luxury.   
      
      
      
   > > Technology will develop in unimaginable ways and some of technologies we   
   > > read about in cp sf are not impossible and are in stages of   
   > > developement. The problem is that robots don't buy things, people do.   
   > > For that, people need money. For that, people need jobs. At least in a   
   > > market economy. Jobs may "go to" India or China from the west and that   
   > > pressures the west to find ways to get money to their people. But it's   
   > > not such a great deal for Indians or Chinese. Once you apply technology   
   > > to peasant economies, the peasants get unemployed and move to the cities   
   > > (or the dumps around them) where jobs are scarce relative to their   
   > > hundreds of millions. The net result of technology is to eliminate jobs,   
   > > not create them. The few new jobs created by new technologies will not   
   > > satisfy the demand for jobs.   
   >   
   > I've often wondered when the companies will move factories back to the   
   > US in order to actually put money into the market they draw from so   
   > relentlessly. Eventually someone will have to realize they can't support   
   > an economy with everything outsourced and the only potential buyers or   
   > Retail Workers with minimum wage jobs who live four to a one bedroom   
   > apartment because they can't afford rent on their own. It's a scray   
   > prospect to think about. No industry have unlimited growth.   
      
   I watched Alan Greenspan's q&a with congress a few months ago. These   
   issues were raised by some congressmen. Mr. Greenspan was condescending,   
   the congressmen were pissed. and we are in deep shit.   
      
   Welcome to The Future 8-)   
      
      
      
   --   
     (__)    Sourcerer   
    /(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O When you're looking for something that doesn't exist,   
     \../  |OO|||O|||O|O it makes you crazier the closer you get to it.   
      ||   OO|||OO||O||O                                   -- R. Ebert   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)