The economy, technology and the future of work

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

<snip>

"15 minute cities" are becoming more widely used in town infrastructure plans. Suburbs where you can walk to the supermarket and get exercise, so you are not at risk of health problems.

Parks, micromobility (cycling paths, etc), liveable neighbourhoods are becoming seen as essential

<snip>

That means a shopping centre every 2 kilometres. This means that a person could walk to the shops in 15 minutes. These all should have a large supermarket and other shops. For the supermarket and other shops to be viable, you need a large population within 1 kilometre of the shopping centre. These people would not own a car. There would also need to be very good public transport.

If the supermarkets were small, then a larger supermarket would attract people from other neighbourhoods, thus growing and starving other supermarkets of trade until they close. Thus ends the liveable neighbourhoods.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by rjh01

That means a shopping centre every 2 kilometres. This means that a person could walk to the shops in 15 minutes. These all should have a large supermarket and other shops. For the supermarket and other shops to be viable, you need a large population within 1 kilometre of the shopping centre. These people would not own a car. There would also need to be very good public transport.

If the supermarkets were small, then a larger supermarket would attract people from other neighbourhoods, thus growing and starving other supermarkets of trade until they close. Thus ends the liveable neighbourhoods.

It depends what they all sell.

Shopping is a pastime for many these days, as is shopping around.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by rjh01

If the supermarkets were small, then a larger supermarket would attract people from other neighbourhoods, thus growing and starving other supermarkets of trade until they close. Thus ends the liveable neighbourhoods.

Not if it's done right.

Firstly, if cars are prohibited then people wouldn't come from other neighborhoods because it's too far to walk.

Secondly, how does the larger supermarket exist if it can't get planning permission?

In my neighborhood there are 3 supermarkets within 2 miles of my house. The closest one is the largest, but I shop at the furthest away one because they have better service and better products. They are also more expensive, but that is good because it discourages overeating.

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Health affects the national debt and the economy...

Our economies are currently running on the broken window fallacy. People need jobs to earn money to get what they need to live (food, housing etc.), but those jobs exist to produce products and services which are sold to consumers. People need to eat of course, but to earn enough money to pay the bills they have to eat more, and buy expensive cars and other 'labor saving' devices, so that their jobs will be secure. This makes them less healthy, which is 'good' for the economy because they have to earn even more to buy medical insurance and pay the doctor's bills. Thus the GDP goes up on goods and services that they wouldn't need if they were healthier!

The medical and insurance industries won't be happy if we change cities to make people healthier. But screw them, they are part of a system that breaks windows and then charges to fix them.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Not if it's done right.

Firstly, if cars are prohibited then people wouldn't come from other neighborhoods because it's too far to walk.

Secondly, how does the larger supermarket exist if it can't get planning permission?
<snip>

These are rather doubtful assumptions. It will be a long time before private cars are banned. You could easily travel much further by either public transport, scooter or bike.

It would not take much for a supermarket to get planning permission to expand. Even if it does not expand it could have more sales per unit area, so can offer cheaper prices. And if it is slightly bigger to start with then it can use that extra space as well.

[Pixel42]

I sometimes walk or cycle to the nearest supermarket to do a mid week top up shop but to transport my main weekly shop I need my car. And I'm a single person household.

If private cars are banned then most people will shop online and get their groceries delivered. Then it won't matter how big or close the nearest supermarket is.

[Orphia Nay]

I get a taxi when I do a big shop at the supermarket. That's about every week or two.

[Hlafordlaes]

I saw this on the Peterson Institute's site today in an article regarding how to reduce income inequality. I think the exorbitant share of wealth held by the top 10%, plus the lax rules on political spending in the US, explain much of US politics since the 1960s. Certainly the anti-tax, anti-regulation and anti-social spending mantras have their origin in this very imbalance, as does a stunning new appraisal of what a silver spoon is worth in 2020, OMG.

[No Other]

Excellent and thought provoking topic. I'm currently reading (and agreeing with) comments by others that historically are different than mine. Like Skeptic Ginger, Roger Ramjets, The Atheist and sometimes Orphia Nay... but not on this thread.

I have 2 suggestions for short "reads", that is if you have not read them already:

1. The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and Its Future

2. Amusing Ourselves To Death... by Neil Postman

Both speak to the impact of industrialization from different angles yet their conclusions are similar.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by No Other

Excellent and thought provoking topic. I'm currently reading (and agreeing with) comments by others that historically are different than mine. Like Skeptic Ginger, Roger Ramjets, The Atheist and sometimes Orphia Nay... but not on this thread.

I have 2 suggestions for short "reads", that is if you have not read them already:

1. The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and Its Future

Ah yes, that paragon of rationality and very stable genius, the Unabomber...

Quote:

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives... He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

Extreme libertarianism, or just plain insanity? It's hard to tell the difference.

But perhaps you were thinking of this?

Quote:

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy[/hilite] of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.

The Industrial Revolution certainly caused some problems which need to be addressed, but to say that it has 'destabilized society' and 'made life unfulfilling' is nonsense. I like my modern technology, and would very unhappy without it. I also like living in a society where people help each other rather than trying to be 'winners' at the expense of others. Does that make me a 'leftist'? Funny thing is I ran a business for 12 years while applying that principle, and it didn't make me feel at all like a 'loser'.

But hey, you have to admire Ted Kaczynski for practicing what he preached, and showing everyone just how wrong he was...

Quote:

In 1971, Kaczynski moved to a remote cabin without electricity or running water near Lincoln, Montana, where he lived as a recluse while learning survival skills in an attempt to become self-sufficient. He witnessed the destruction of the wilderness surrounding his cabin and concluded that living in nature was untenable;

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by No Other

Excellent and thought provoking topic. I'm currently reading (and agreeing with) comments by others that historically are different than mine. Like Skeptic Ginger, Roger Ramjets, The Atheist and sometimes Orphia Nay... but not on this thread.

Same thing I tell every quote miner: There is no debating those who cannot express and make their own points in their own words. You hint at having your own opinion, but it disappears in an ellipsis of snark.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Ah yes, that paragon of rationality and very stable genius, the Unabomber...
Extreme libertarianism, or just plain insanity? It's hard to tell the difference.

But perhaps you were thinking of this?



The Industrial Revolution certainly caused some problems which need to be addressed, but to say that it has 'destabilized society' and 'made life unfulfilling' is nonsense. I like my modern technology, and would very unhappy without it. I also like living in a society where people help each other rather than trying to be 'winners' at the expense of others. Does that make me a 'leftist'? Funny thing is I ran a business for 12 years while applying that principle, and it didn't make me feel at all like a 'loser'.

But hey, you have to admire Ted Kaczynski for practicing what he preached, and showing everyone just how wrong he was...

What I got out of his manifesto was for me to expand my thinking, not that I agree with him but I was curious that someone in the 20th Century was so dead-set against the technology of today. You are right when you mentioned that he lived what he preached and look what happened to him... disaster.

Neil Postman is a lot more even keeled than TK. Postman's book was written in the mid-80's yet there is relevance with today.

I agree, I like my technology but what gets me is when someone says... "my computer is down, I can't help you." or "boy, I got nailed by spell check I didn't mean to write that." Above everything else... it is the person behind the cash register that can't make change without the cash register providing the answer. I spent way too much time with a clerk 3 days ago pointing out to her that she gave me too much money in change... the worse part was the correct change WAS on the receipt only she confused the change to be provided with what she thought was the cash sale price.

Many people just let technology do their bidding. Looking at Facebook and Twitter, all they want you to do is stay on their website or their customer's website. The JREF site is not that much, if any, different than FB. JREF wants you to be entertained and wants you to entertain others. It is all about using technology to entertain people and with that comes a cost.

We are approaching a Huxley-like society instead of an Orwellian.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

Same thing I tell every quote miner: There is no debating those who cannot express and make their own points in their own words. You hint at having your own opinion, but it disappears in an ellipsis of snark.

You take my comments the way you wish. I have no problem reading quotes elicited to others, I will quote people but not as my conclusion.

You and RR have got me re-thinking into another direction regarding quotes as the quotes can be interpreted incorrectly and it is usually by the person who dishes it out.

[Fonebone]

Originally Posted by No Other

You take my comments the way you wish. I have no problem reading quotes elicited to others, I will quote people but not as my conclusion.

You and RR have got me re-thinking into another direction regarding quotes as the quotes can be interpreted incorrectly and it is usually by the person who dishes it out.

This link will connect to the manifesto in it's entirety
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~harry/ethics/Unabomber.pdf

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by No Other

Many people just let technology do their bidding. Looking at Facebook and Twitter, all they want you to do is stay on their website or their customer's website.

Yes, that's how a capitalist system works, you have to find some way to convince people to give you money, usually by providing goods or services that they want.

Quote:

The JREF site is not that much, if any, different than FB. JREF wants you to be entertained and wants you to entertain others. It is all about using technology to entertain people and with that comes a cost.

It may have started out that way, but now it's more us wanting to 'entertain' ourselves.

But why do I put 'entertainment' in scare quotes? Because to a large extent it is actually a survival strategy. Our brains crave the knowledge and skills that we need to survive, just like our stomachs crave food etc. This is why websites like Facebook are so popular - people share information and interact socially in ways that other media can't provide, and to a far greater extent than they would by conventional methods (meeting friends in local bars and clubs etc.).

The ISF is an excellent example of this. While we are all having fun being entertained by the discourse, we are learning about facts, events, ideas and ways of thinking that we otherwise would not have been exposed to - and we discuss them in greater depth with more introspection than we normally would. What you call mere 'entertainment' is actually very valuable - and well worth the cost.

Quote:

We are approaching a Huxley-like society instead of an Orwellian.

To be honest I haven't read Huxley, so I don't exactly know what you mean. However I do know that modern technology has great benefits, and has the potential (if used correctly) to reduce costs compared to other lower tech solutions. That there are costs is more due to the economic system we use to produce it rather than the technology itself.

Quote:

what gets me is when someone says... "my computer is down, I can't help you." or "boy, I got nailed by spell check I didn't mean to write that." Above everything else... it is the person behind the cash register that can't make change without the cash register providing the answer.

I have been involved in the personal computer market since they were first introduced in the late 1970's. Back then getting people to understand enough to be comfortable using them was often a struggle. Computers were not so user-friendly - ostensibly because the technology wasn't powerful enough, but more because the designers were too technically minded. They expected 'users' to read hundred page manuals full of commands with strange syntax, because they thought making it easier was a waste of resources. that changed in the 90's when computers became powerful enough to run intuitive graphical user interfaces that didn't need a thick manual to explain.

Some people who were brought up in a world before modern technology find it is too much for them, to their detriment. My 80 year old next-door neighbor doesn't have a computer or a cell phone, which makes things like paying bills difficult for her. She has a TV, but sometimes asks me to reset for her it after she pushed a wrong button. I bet she could add up sums in her head much better than me, but wouldn't be able to operate a modern electronic till.

Then again, neither of us have much clue on how to saddle a horse or make an arrowhead by chipping away at a piece of flint! Your person who "can't make change without the cash register providing the answer" doesn't need that skill anymore, just like I don't need to know how to tune an engine anymore (my car is electric, my lawnmower is electric, my model airplanes are all electric...).

In 1970, Alvin Toffler wrote a book called Future Shock, in which he warned that the pace of technological change was becoming too rapid for people to keep up with. Since then technology has advanced even more rapidly, yet we haven't experienced the 'shock' he predicted. Why? Because it has gone beyond technology into usability. Modern computers 'waste' most of their resources doing stuff so we don't have to do it ourselves - which is how it should be. Adding up a bill or checking spelling are things that computers can do with much greater speed and accuracy than we are capable of, and free us up for the more important and enjoyable stuff that they can't do, such as posting 'entertaining' messages in this forum. The pace of change may be rapid, but we can handle it because technology is becoming not just more powerful but also better, by which I mean easier for us to handle - and it's doing that because that's what we want from it.

Like I said before, I like my modern technology, and see no reason to give it up. And I say that as someone who has lived through a time when we didn't have it -a time when the 'simplest' things (for a modern computer) were hard work, and people spent most of their time doing boring monotonous stuff that wasted their abilities. I don't want to go back to that.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Originally Posted by No Other

Many people just let technology do their bidding. Looking at Facebook and Twitter, all they want you to do is stay on their website or their customer's website.

Yes, that's how a capitalist system works, you have to find some way to convince people to give you money, usually by providing goods or services that they want.

Quote:

The JREF site is not that much, if any, different than FB. JREF wants you to be entertained and wants you to entertain others. It is all about using technology to entertain people and with that comes a cost.

It may have started out that way, but now it's more us wanting to 'entertain' ourselves.

But why do I put 'entertainment' in scare quotes? Because to a large extent it is actually a survival strategy. Our brains crave the knowledge and skills that we need to survive, just like our stomachs crave food etc. This is why websites like Facebook are so popular - people share information and interact socially in ways that other media can't provide, and to a far greater extent than they would by conventional methods (meeting friends in local bars and clubs etc.).

The ISF is an excellent example of this. While we are all having fun being entertained by the discourse, we are learning about facts, events, ideas and ways of thinking that we otherwise would not have been exposed to - and we discuss them in greater depth with more introspection than we normally would. What you call mere 'entertainment' is actually very valuable - and well worth the cost.

Quote:

We are approaching a Huxley-like society instead of an Orwellian.

To be honest I haven't read Huxley, so I don't exactly know what you mean. However I do know that modern technology has great benefits, and has the potential (if used correctly) to reduce costs compared to other lower tech solutions. That there are costs is more due to the economic system we use to produce it rather than the technology itself.

Quote:

what gets me is when someone says... "my computer is down, I can't help you." or "boy, I got nailed by spell check I didn't mean to write that." Above everything else... it is the person behind the cash register that can't make change without the cash register providing the answer.

I have been involved in the personal computer market since they were first introduced in the late 1970's. Back then getting people to understand enough to be comfortable using them was often a struggle. Computers were not so user-friendly - ostensibly because the technology wasn't powerful enough, but more because the designers were too technically minded. They expected 'users' to read hundred page manuals full of commands with strange syntax, because they thought making it easier was a waste of resources. that changed in the 90's when computers became powerful enough to run intuitive graphical user interfaces that didn't need a thick manual to explain.

Some people who were brought up in a world before modern technology find it is too much for them, to their detriment. My 80 year old next-door neighbor doesn't have a computer or a cell phone, which makes things like paying bills difficult for her. She has a TV, but sometimes asks me to reset for her it after she pushed a wrong button. I bet she could add up sums in her head much better than me, but wouldn't be able to operate a modern electronic till.

Then again, neither of us have much clue on how to saddle a horse or make an arrowhead by chipping away at a piece of flint! Your person who "can't make change without the cash register providing the answer" doesn't need that skill anymore, just like I don't need to know how to tune an engine anymore (my car is electric, my lawnmower is electric, my model airplanes are all electric...).

In 1970, Alvin Toffler wrote a book called Future Shock, in which he warned that the pace of technological change was becoming too rapid for people to keep up with. Since then technology has advanced even more rapidly, yet we haven't experienced the 'shock' he predicted. Why? Because it has gone beyond technology into usability. Modern computers 'waste' most of their resources doing stuff so we don't have to do it ourselves - which is how it should be. Adding up a bill or checking spelling are things that computers can do with much greater speed and accuracy than we are capable of, and free us up for the more important and enjoyable stuff that they can't do, such as posting 'entertaining' messages in this forum. The pace of change may be rapid, but we can handle it because technology is becoming not just more powerful but also better, by which I mean easier for us to handle - and it's doing that because that's what we want from it.

Like I said before, I like my modern technology, and see no reason to give it up. And I say that as someone who has lived through a time when we didn't have it -a time when the 'simplest' things (for a modern computer) were hard work, and people spent most of their time doing boring monotonous stuff that wasted their abilities. I don't want to go back to that.

Good post.

I'm enjoying the back and forth of ideas from everyone.

I did want to give a nod to Hladfordlaes for posting about Circular Economy, one of my favourite topics. I did a course on that earlier this year.

Its concepts of equality, sustainability, and "designing out waste" are key to averting a climate disaster and mass inequality.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by No Other

... We are approaching a Huxley-like society instead of an Orwellian.

Indeed, in this I agree.

Quote:

"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which [leaders] control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” - A. Huxley

CGI, insights from cognitive psy and neurology, social media all help. The nightly news can be seen as part and parcel, really shaping what is focused on, and what is ignored. Along that vein, I've taken to watching Al Jazeera , which often resembles 1980s vintage CNN, with many reports on goings-on in small nations, not just Brussels, DC, and Beijing.

OTOH, Orwell's three large nation-states are a fairly good approximation of today's increasingly divided large trading regions; the capitals being, er, Brussels, DC, and Beijing.

I loved both these novels, reading them along with Hemingway's (and Orwell's) works referencing the Spanish Civil War back when I was 15. Excellent medicine against utopian temptation. Ayn Rand, however, though famous and loved, was a total hack and does not measure up at all. Yeah, "hands off my stash", how original.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

I saw this on the Peterson Institute's site today in an article regarding how to reduce income inequality. I think the exorbitant share of wealth held by the top 10%, plus the lax rules on political spending in the US, explain much of US politics since the 1960s. Certainly the anti-tax, anti-regulation and anti-social spending mantras have their origin in this very imbalance, as does a stunning new appraisal of what a silver spoon is worth in 2020, OMG.

Going back to this - thanks, it's a great article!

The Mores really do get More from having More.

While reading, I started to picture this:

The USA is like a pig feeding a litter. The "runts" get pushed aside by the big greedy piglets.

[Brainster]

This thread seems to be morphing from the future of work to utopian society in general, with little recognition that some of your goals are mutually exclusive. You can talk about getting paid not to work, or you can talk about reducing income and wealth inequality, but you can't seriously think that the wealthy and the productive (not necessarily the same) are going to replace you with a machine and give you a raise to boot? A solution along the lines of Huxley's Brave New World or Kornbluth's The Marching Morons seems more likely.

Your future cities sound nice, but less density is not going to work (even though it may be getting a boost from covid) for climate change. And you aren't going to get real supermarkets anywhere in a high-density area, let alone every kilometer or two, for the simple reason that the economics don't work. The supermarket business is too low-margin to afford the high rents in city centers. Raise the prices so they can afford the rents and everybody gets their groceries online from Amazon.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by Brainster

You can talk about getting paid not to work, or you can talk about reducing income and wealth inequality, but you can't seriously think that the wealthy and the productive (not necessarily the same) are going to replace you with a machine and give you a raise to boot?

Spoken like a true believer in property rights über alles. As that does not map to the ordering of the small, step-wise social innovations that first enabled civilization (circa 10,000 BCE, Fertile Crescent), including protected private property, which relies on several necessary conditions to pertain, it is doomed to serve as the perennial excuse to undermine or misshape them in partisan fashion.

I seem to recall that rationalization, and not rationality, characterizes non-deliberative human thought. Wonder why that came to mind. Thanks for parachuting in with the standard meme set, but no own homework. Wall Street's that way. Toodles!

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Your future cities sound nice, but less density is not going to work (even though it may be getting a boost from covid) for climate change. And you aren't going to get real supermarkets anywhere in a high-density area, let alone every kilometer or two, for the simple reason that the economics don't work. The supermarket business is too low-margin to afford the high rents in city centers. Raise the prices so they can afford the rents and everybody gets their groceries online from Amazon.

The idea is that there are more medium-density areas.

The areas would have a combination of supermarkets, small businesses, and markets.

Your idea of the future sounds bleak. The alternative to that does not necessarily mean utopian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Brainster

The supermarket business is too low-margin to afford the high rents in city centers. Raise the prices so they can afford the rents and everybody gets their groceries online from Amazon.

Except they won't, for several reasons:-

1. shipping costs, especially for fresh produce and frozens.

2. People like to see and touch what they are actually buying, not just look at a generic picture of the product on their computer screen.

3. Local supermarkets can also have online shopping for home delivery or after-hours pickup.

4. You can't just pop into Amazon to pick up a few things you forgot, or stop off there on your way home from work.

My local supermarket is a lot more than just a food warehouse. It has its own bakery and butchery, and stocks locally sourced fresh fruit and vegetables. Occasionally they have new product promotions with free samples to taste (even cooked on site!), and friendly helpful staff etc. This is all designed to make shopping a pleasurable experience so customers keep coming back.

Contrast that with Amazon - no social interaction, can't examine products before buying, only really suitable for long-life boxed or canned foods, shipping takes several days, and 90% of the stuff on their website seems to come direct from China - which doesn't instill a lot of confidence in its quality or safety.

[The Great Zaganza]

If the wealthiest can earn money without doing any work, why not the rest of society?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Except they won't, for several reasons:-

1. shipping costs, especially for fresh produce and frozens.

2. People like to see and touch what they are actually buying, not just look at a generic picture of the product on their computer screen.

Arguments that apply today; there's no reason why with technology you can't see the actual cut of beef you'll buy, or the particular bunch of bananas. And Amazon doesn't "ship" much in major cities; they have plenty of warehouses where the groceries can get loaded right onto the delivery van.

Quote:

3. Local supermarkets can also have online shopping for home delivery or after-hours pickup.

And all they'll be doing is competing with Amazon. Ask any retailer how they like that prospect.

Quote:

4. You can't just pop into Amazon to pick up a few things you forgot, or stop off there on your way home from work.

That's why convenience stores aren't going anywhere.

Quote:

My local supermarket is a lot more than just a food warehouse. It has its own bakery and butchery, and stocks locally sourced fresh fruit and vegetables. Occasionally they have new product promotions with free samples to taste (even cooked on site!), and friendly helpful staff etc. This is all designed to make shopping a pleasurable experience so customers keep coming back.

And Barnes & Noble was more than just a bookstore.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

The idea is that there are more medium-density areas.

The areas would have a combination of supermarkets, small businesses, and markets.

Again, I like the way it sounds, but the lower the density, the lower the utility and use of mass transit.

Quote:

Your idea of the future sounds bleak. The alternative to that does not necessarily mean utopian.

The simple fact is that climate change limits the choices we have. The future does not have to be bleak, but it will certainly require some sacrifices.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Again, I like the way it sounds, but the lower the density, the lower the utility and use of mass transit.

Not just mass transit, but personal vehicle use.

You may say we will need to make sacrifices. I say we will need to make changes.