Technology will make more and more jobs obsolete.

[dkf]

Earlier today there were headlines that Blockbuster Video was planning to declare bankruptcy. They cant compete with the no storefront few employee model of redbox or netflix. I was just watching a Chase ad where you can take a pic of a check to do your deposits.. With debit cards and taking out cash at the Grocery store and direct deposit we won't need so many tellers. As the old folks die and the young and tech savvy take over we may find we don't need many Private sector employees in the future.

How are we supposed to reach anything near full employment in a world that needs less workers to do the work?

[Taverner]

1. Yes, that is quite literally the 'rage against the machine'

But the hope is that we can shrink the population, and enjoy what we've got

[obxhead]

11. For that to happen we need all religions to change their thinking on

birth control at the very least.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Agriculture still relies heavily on human work, so does construction.

Perhaps it is time to put more emphasis on slowing and reversing population growth, or perhaps whole new forms of social organization will be developed around a laborless human population served by technodrones.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Depends on what branch of agriculture

things like berries are labor intensive... corn and wheat, not so much.

But we need to reverse population trends for other reasons anyway.

[ngant17]

12. landscaping work

has yet to replace me with a robot. Lawnmowers still need an operator. All aspects of landscaping/gardening require human labor.

[Jamastiene]

29. Yup.

I've been looking for a remote controlled lawn mower and weed eater for years now. I'm surprised no one has invented them yet. I am really truly surprised about that.

[JoeyT]

58. They've had them for years.

They're called http://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Robotics-RL850-RoboMower-Automatic/dp/B0001ZI54M">RoboMows You have to surround every object in your yard that you don't want run over with wire and fence in the yard with the same special wire, it costs almost two thousand bucks, and they screw up constantly.

It's pretty much something for gadget freaks to own and never use. It's way less work (and cheaper) to just buy and use a regular lawn mower.

[Ozymanithrax]

40. If they can make a little box that wonders around and vacuums the carpet...

they can make a lawn mower that does the same thing.

Manufacturing will continue to be automated, because the it is cheaper to pay for he life cycle of a machine than a human. We are not even indispensable for war anymore. If everything is made for us by machines, and our food is harvested by robots, maybe the entire human race can become artists.

[ngant17]

87. irrigation maintenance and repairs

are also labor-intensive, and require some experience to work successfully. I don't know how a robot or a computer can quickly diagnose the difference between a gate valve that is not in operation, or a bad solenoid or bad valve diaphragm. Or a cut wire from irrigation controller to valve solenoid. To find the problem, you need to be out in the field with a shovel, a VOM or electrical tester, and assorted tools of the trade.

On a commercial scale, I work with one main (server) PC computer that runs +60 stand-alone controllers, but you still have to go out and track the problems down after something is flagged by the master computer.

[SoCalDem]

3. "Progress" always plants the seeds of its own demise

Remember when we were all told how computers would enable us to work at home & have more free time?

The part they did not tell us was that it would be work at home doing our laundry & cleaning & that the free was freedom from having us as paid employees:(

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

4. But why haven't the Self-checkout's taken over yet?

I've used them with no problem (Use to be a checker) but I haven't seen many of them around. In the Super Mallwart in the next town has a couple but not the one close to us...

funny thing is, they have twenty registers and sometimes five with cashiers with long lines and all the others sit idle. It's not like they don't have room.

[SoCalNative]

14. They have these

in almost every supermarket where I live, a well as in the Home Depot and Lowes stores.

Haven't seen them at Target yet but then I no longer shop at Target so they may be there now.

[dkf]

15. I'm always afraid of being accused of stealing if I didn't do an item properly

If they had chips in every item to do an auto tally as I walked out i would use that.

[mwooldri]

27. They are working on that as we speak.

RFID. Wal-Mart are doing it now at the store shipment level. A little while longer and RFID will be in each product we purchase. It is when the RFID devices get cost effective enough - that's when they will have the ability to take over.

Yes this means, you go into a store, you load up your cart, you go through something that I guess looks like a metal detector/scanner that you see at airports, it directs you to an automated register where you can review and pay for your purchases and then you're out the door (you bagged your groceries etc as you went through the store, bringing your own bags with you of course). A lot of the UK self-checkouts right now are basically no more than bar-code scanners with the stores' right to audit your scanning at any time, so it's almost there. For some reason, US storeowners aren't as trusting of their customers as the Brits are, so the self checkout puts you in the place of the clerk, with an actual clerk over your shoulder for the process.

But the time you can go into a store, pack your groceries as you go and get charged exactly as you leave is nearly here.

[dkf]

33. Then they will only need stock boys.

Seriously a whole lot of jobs are on the verge of being obsolete. Tellers, cashiers, all the people handling the transactions...

[Jamastiene]

30. Depending on which self checkout you get,

you may end up with the one that malfunctions at the drop of a hat. That is more annoying than just standing in line and waiting.

[ProudDad]

38. They had them for a while here in the local grocery

but folks were so inept at using them...

They put in a set of 15 items or less kiosks instead...

Good for workers!

[NeedleCast]

75. All Major Grocery Store Chains in the D.C. Area are Thick With Them

I would guess that a minimum of 50% of the people at the store use them to check out now. I usually shop for only one or two days at a time, so I use them in liu of standing behind people with full carts of groceries checking out with the human checkers. My local grocery store just re-modeled and they have 12 human-checker lanes. At the Max, I've seen 4 of them in use at any given time. There are six self-check stands and they are in constant use.

[Regret My New Name]

5. You humans will still need to design, build and service us machines that replace you.

Might not be a 1:1, but it's not like you humans will become obsolete anytime soon.


101010100101010100101010101 <-- for my fellow bots

[PassingFair]

6. To the looms!

[Confusious]

17. throw your sabot in them! ~

[dkf]

18. Crush my own iPhone?

I think not

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Down with progress.

Smash all mechanical looms.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. Hence the necessity of huge unemployment benefits programs.

Otherwise, when only 347 people are needed to produce all the goods, what to do?

[Johonny]

10. I'm not sure

often new technology drives older jobs out of service (like typewriter repairman) but produce new jobs to replace them (printer repairman). Companies like netflix need postmen to deliver them etc, redboxes need people to fill them and repair them.

Sometimes adding machines to replace humans only appear cheaper and less labor intensive. For example around LA the rage has been to replace your parking attendant with parking machines. Since these machines break often and are often overly complicated to use, many places had to rehire their work force to stand by and take payments the old fashion way. All the time the company has to also pay for expensive repairs to maintain the expensive automatic parking system. For many cities no net gain in cash flow occurred going to the new automatic teller (at least in mine I know they lost on the deal).

Another example. Many companies in the 80s and 90s pour resources into computers. Computers replaced a whole group of people. Watch the show Madmen to see how many typists and such were needed prior to computers. Computers seemed like a huge savings. Of course no modern people has this view. Companies replace one type of work force with an army of computer tech support, network support, cyber security etc

Basically since WWII America was pretty steadily able to produce new jobs even with increased automation and technology. Only when we began the practice of cannibal capitalism, free trade and outsourcing did this stop being true. Which makes you think it's those practices that hurt American workers not technology and automation so much.

[TheWraith]

13. By expecting less work out of people, that's how.

The 40 hour work week was modeled on a heavily industrial, building and extracting based economic worldview, one which was inherently dependent on human action every step of the way. We need to accept that it's no longer valid. If there's only, say, 120 work-hours a week in a given situation, instead of hiring three "full time" people, you get six people and pay them better than we would think of a "part time" job as paying.

The US GDP is $14.6 trillion dollars, or about $47,000 per every person in the US, including children, the elderly, the unemployed, and non-workers. If you limit the amount of money drained off by the parasites in terms of executives, Wall Street, waste, etcetera, then you wouldn't have as much problem giving people better wages for less work.

[dkf]

19. What if a person doesn't generate enough income?

Can you pay a person $47,000 if their labor produces $20,000 of goods?

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. If it requires a person to produce it, it'll be worth more.

mechanization/automation is why productivity increases. The problem is that the fruits of that increased productivity don't reach the working class.

[ProudDad]

46. "income" for whom?

You need to study alternatives to the end-stage capitalist system we're watching disintegrate...

http://steadystate.org/

[Greyhound]

67. See reply #66.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9183603&mesg_id=9187706
:hi:

[RKP5637]

16. For starters, there are just too many people in the world. People really need

to think more about how many offspring they are bringing into the world and the future of their offspring. Earth is finite as are resources... only so much human life can be sustained. And, as you say, jobs will be more and more scarce unless the model of what a job is changes. Our current economic model can not flourish in the future. Solving economic problems by constant growth is a fools' errand.

[SoCalDem]

52. who gets to choose the ones we will weed out?

:(

[PVnRT]

61. You deny overpopulation is a problem, then?

[SoCalDem]

71. nope.. it is a problem

and has been for a very long time.. Problems abound...solutions are the issue.

how do we care for the ones who are already here, and provide a sustainable environment for the ones to come..

That is what we have to figure out.. we cannot just wave a magic wand and pretend that the "extras" ..the unproductive people will just vanish.

There has to be a way to equalize the assets & resources so that over-classes do not brutalize their "lessers".

[RKP5637]

85. I think what we will see is a gradual extinction of humans simply because the

support systems of earth will not be able to handle the population. There will need to be a limit on how many offspring... it could be a gradual attrition... but I seriously doubt the masses would be able to handle it... and the political/religious overtones would be horrendous. Maybe people will be more mature when the time approaches.

[eridani]

20. Lavorare meno! Lavorare tutti!

Mandatory overtime for anything more than 32 hours a week,for starters, with the law tweaked to minimize total compensation losses.

[TBF]

21. That is the challenge of the coming years -

I guess the conventional argument is that we will need a certain amount of folks to design and maintain the technology.

But I would argue further that we need to re-frame our thinking, and decide whether capitalism works for most of us. There is still plenty of wealth/resources out there but they are controlled by a very small number of people. That is the problem we need to focus on.

[RKP5637]

31. Capitalism will eventually be obsolete. n/t

[ProudDad]

48. It already is (n/t)

[RKP5637]

50. Yeah, when you get right down to it, it is! I thought it was fine when very well regulated

and the country was smaller, but now it's just become a ripoff machine for many. As one of my friends said years ago when deregulation and credit cards came about... it will be the ruination of the American economy... and here we are...

[TBF]

62. I agree with you - I'm ready for the transition to

a more equal society.

[ProudDad]

80. Kool!

Check these out:

www.transitionus.org
http://steadystate.org/

For a starter...

[RKP5637]

86. Thanks for these links! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. That's the whole point of increasing productivity

As chainsaws took over the woods, more lumber could be created for less money (and fewer loggers). Cheaper lumber, more houses. More houses, more carpenters. More carpenters, more demand for TV's.... lather, rinse, repeat.

Automation/mechanization/increased productivity isn't all bad.

[ProudDad]

79. Until there's no more lumber...

and the habitat for a huge section of the food chain is gone...

Remember the food chain?

We can't remove ourselves from it any more than we can destroy the food chain and live...

And the "lungs of the Earth" are converted into houses and packaging for toxic "food" on the shelves in the corporate supermarkets...

------------------------------

Capitalism is the mechanism the dominator class is using to turn our natural support system into short-term profit.

You cannot support infinite growth on a finite Earth...

And we passed sustainable population when we passed 2 billion humans...we're WAY into overshoot now!

[jdp349]

24. there is an important underlying question

does private ownership of capital as an economic model make sense in an automated economy?

[billlll]

26. utopia- machines work, people play

We're getting there.

[dkf]

35. How did these utopias supposedly work?

[wuushew]

44. I like the Star Trek model

shared commons, open source software and no material scarcity.

[dkf]

34. Very very true. Everyone might need a claim on ownership as that may be the only source of income.

Maybe working to earn a living will become a thing of the past as we don't need that much labor.

[w4rma]

25. Perhaps we need to cut our working hours, and raise everyone's pay to get to full employment? (nt)

[Jamastiene]

28. Where have I read something like that before?

I've read something similar to that before. I just can't remember where.

[RKP5637]

32. I read it years ago in economics class. Right now, I just can't recall the study

and who said it... but the notion was that endless job creation will cease at some point in the future... that the model will become obsolete...

[ProudDad]

36. Peak Oil, Catastropic Global Climate Destabalization and

the Death Throes of End-Stage Cannibalism (uh, capitalism) as they fight over the privilege of burning the last of the fossil fuels...

Will render the Earth incapable of sustaining large air-breathing mammals...

Let alone good jobs... :shrug:

[ProudDad]

37. But...to answer your semi-rhetorical question more directly

How about less stuff, higher quality of life and WORK FEWER HOURS!!!!

There's nothing wrong with everyone who cares to work only 15 hours a week to fulfill actual, basic human needs, living in concert and harmony with nature and having more leisure time instead of making more leisure wear.

This industrial growth nightmare that most folks seem to think is the only way to live is bullshit...

[dkf]

41. 15 hours a week doesn't pay for a roof over your head.

If everyone had a residence with no payments then maybe

[Odin2005]

43. It is if you are paid equivalent to a 40hr week today.

[ProudDad]

45. Your brain is still stuck in the old paradigm...

The problem is NOT about "money"...

The problem is SEVERE population overshoot, the INCREDIBLY unequal distribution of resources, and artificially bloated material expectations...

But if you're still constrained in your thinking by the old (dying) economy, you're right. But it's because your Korporate Kapitalist masters are skimming 90% of your "added value" into their yawning maws...It's not how many hours at the slave master's "job" it takes to satisfy the capitalist machine (before you get any for yourself)...

On Edit:

"Perpetual economic growth is neither possible nor desirable. Growth, especially in wealthy nations, is already causing more problems than it solves.

"Recession isn't sustainable or healthy either. The positive, sustainable alternative is a steady state economy."

http://steadystate.org/discover/

[uncommon]

70. You miss the point. Income stays the same. The same amount of work gets done, it just gets done

much more efficiently. It produces the same end result as far as product goes.

[Juche]

39. Ideally standards of living would go up at the same time, negating it

Ideally one adult working 1800 hours a year can support themselves, their spouse and 2-3 kids. It isn't really like that anymore, but you couldn't do that 100 years ago.

But all the benefits of higher productivity goes to the top 1%. So it could just lead to mroe toys for those with jobs but fewer jobs in general.

[Odin2005]

42. That is a flaw in Capitalism, not a flaw in technological advancement.

In a just society improved productivity would allow people tom work less for the same pay.

[eppur_se_muova]

47. Spot on. nt

[immoderate]

49. We should be down to a twenty hour week.

--imm

[dkf]

51. That is only if the value of the product stays the same.

If productivity goes up but the good gets sold for a cheaper price then it doesn't work. You can't argue that we don't have cheap goods. Maybe that is the real problem...

[Duer 157099]

53. As someone upthread said, more art

Let more humans focus on producing art and music. Afterall, when the remains of a culture are being evaluated, it's not on how many consumer goods it produced, it is about the art (and literature and music) that was produced.

That's what is remembered of a civilization.

So, when technology is so abundant, why not focus more on letting people be creative instead of slowly dying in a cubicle?

[dkf]

55. Technology is the means by which we will get our art and music.

Then it will be all about resolution and lossy formats.

[tammywammy]

54. Though technology makes some jobs obsolete, it creates jobs as well

Those machines need to be built, serviced, etc. The ATM didn't get rid of tellers as people feared. The invention of mass production cars may have meant the buggy whip makers lost jobs, but the build up of car manufacturers made new jobs.

[dkf]

56. One ATM replaced how many workers over how many years?

One tech services how many different ATMs?

[snooper2]

65. And how many companies build the circuit boards

build the chassis..

companies who provide the telephony to the machine..

wrote the software..

Upgrade the software..

Enhance features..

And on and on and on...

[Chan790]

76. It takes 4 of us to to keep 3 ATMs up and running daily...

as part of our daily work. That doesn't include the service tech calls when the damned thing breaks because we're not allowed to open it except the slots to put more money in and take the deposits out or change the receipt roll. They break every day.

The answer to your larger question is that it doesn't cause less bank jobs, merely different bank jobs. Where before you might have had 5 tellers, 1 teller coordinator, 1 business banker, 1 financial services representative and 1 loan officer (one of the last three is also the branch manager) in a branch now instead we have 2 tellers, 1 teller coordinator, 1 dedicated branch manager, 1 business-FSR and 4 client-FSRs. You do need less tellers but the offset is that more things that were done peripherally by tellers (such as account opening or assisting a client with basic loan application questions (What goes on line-D?) now have to be displaced elsewhere in the branch and thus requires the hiring of more higher-skilled employees and fewer lower-skilled ones. At the same time, now needing more FSRs other jobs were displaced and split between the FSRs...we no longer employ loan officers because everybody in my branch except the tellers can process loans. I can assist public-clients even though I'm a business FSR, I know how. Likewise, I can handle merchant services questions at the branch and no longer need to refer them to a regional merchant services coordinator. The simple answer is that banking is too complex for most clients to not interact with a person on all but the simplest transactions, thus the ATM is no threat to my job. It just makes it harder for a post-HS aged kid to get their foot in the door. Where there used to be 5 positions in my branch that didn't require a degree, there is now 1.

[JoeyT]

57. We're probably going to end up having to create something like the "dole" in England.

Especially once the numbers start closing in on 25-30%.
That's a hundred million people. 40 times the number of military active and reserve. There would be no controlling a riot like that.

Hell, we're at 10% unemployment now. Imagine what 30 million people rioting would look like. And that's why we don't have to worry about them continuing unemployment benefits. To quote Ted Rall it's being used as "Revolution-B-Gone".

[NNN0LHI]

59. A national 32 hour workweek would mean we would immediately need 20% more workers

That would do it.

Don

[PVnRT]

60. ...and will create more jobs to build and service said technology

Or maybe we should just halt all technological progress and go back to using typewriters.

[madokie]

63. For starters quite sending work to other countries

while we work on the problem. imo

[wuushew]

64. kick

:kick:

[Greyhound]

66. How? Socialism, that's how.

The fact is that technology has and is fulfilling one of it's primary functions, to reduce the amount of labor required to produce the goods needed to meet basic human needs. To free people to pursue higher interests. The problem is the parasitic model that dictates we devote a majority of our waking hours to toiling for the benefit of those that toil not.

We live in a world of abundance, there is more than enough for everybody, it is only the remnant of a mindset developed in a world of scarcity that is used by the parasites to force most of us to work for their benefit.

In a community based model with today's technology everybody can have their basic needs met with very few hours of labor, the rest of the individual's time can be spent doing whatever it is they wish. This in turn leads to invention and innovation which further reduces the time needed to provide the basics and opens up new areas of art, science, etc.

[The2ndWheel]

77. What is freedom?

"The fact is that technology has and is fulfilling one of it's primary functions, to reduce the amount of labor required to produce the goods needed to meet basic human needs. To free people to pursue higher interests."

Are they free to pursue no interest? A lower interest? Or do they still need to devote their waking hours to some other, be it an idea, or the system as a whole?

"We live in a world of abundance, there is more than enough for everybody, it is only the remnant of a mindset developed in a world of scarcity that is used by the parasites to force most of us to work for their benefit."

We've always lived in that world of abundance. Technology hasn't made it that way. The real remnant of a mindset is the organized mass society(thanks to technology). That's what locked up the abundance. Is technology going to free us of that? Seeing as how it sounds like we only have one model to work with, a parasitic model, or a community based model, it seems doubtful.

"In a community based model with today's technology everybody can have their basic needs met with very few hours of labor,"

Well, not everybody. Anything that isn't human, or in some way valuable to the human machine, is going to get the very short end of that stick. Even what is valuable to us, has no reason for being for its own sake.

"the rest of the individual's time can be spent doing whatever it is they wish."

Again, I don't think the individual can spend their time doing whatever it is they wish. Other than a higher interest. Is that interest defined, or is it up to the individual? Would anyone actually need anyone else in this community based model? Or would everyone be a king?

"This in turn leads to invention and innovation which further reduces the time needed to provide the basics and opens up new areas of art, science, etc."

What if their individual pursuits didn't lead to invention and innovation? What if they did? What if they got to a point where they didn't need the community anymore? Are they free to leave? Where would they go? What if they want to toil, if only for themselves? Would that option still exist? Or would there be no place for that? Would that place be legislated, regulated, and owned by something if it did exist?

[Greyhound]

78. Answers

Are they free to pursue no interest? A lower interest? Or do they still need to devote their waking hours to some other, be it an idea, or the system as a whole?

Silly but whatever... yes dear, people are free to use their leisure time as they see fit.

We've always lived in that world of abundance. Technology hasn't made it that way. The real remnant of a mindset is the organized mass society(thanks to technology). That's what locked up the abundance. Is technology going to free us of that? Seeing as how it sounds like we only have one model to work with, a parasitic model, or a community based model, it seems doubtful.

Technology certainly has created the abundance, the technology of simple grafting goes beyond history, yields are improved, resistance to disease and changing weather and soil conditions, etc. Likewise the technology of harnessing first animal and later mechanical power to reduce labor and increase production. The world hasn't changed much but our ability to utilize it has advanced light-years.

The locking up of that abundance is exactly the point and it stems from a belief based on a scarcity that has not existed for a century.

Well, not everybody. Anything that isn't human, or in some way valuable to the human machine, is going to get the very short end of that stick. Even what is valuable to us, has no reason for being for its own sake.

By definition 'everybody' refers to humans. We have exceeded the optimal number of humans on the planet, I don't think that can be debated, but by the same token it is only humans that have the capacity to effect/manipulate their environment sufficiently to repair and improve on it. We are the only animal that has a concept of the future beyond immediate needs (though not many of us exercise it) and so we are the only animal that can decide its own and other's destinies.

It is a matter of will, we can decide to preserve the natural and are more likely to do so if released from the coercion of the current hierarchy.

Again, I don't think the individual can spend their time doing whatever it is they wish. Other than a higher interest. Is that interest defined, or is it up to the individual? Would anyone actually need anyone else in this community based model? Or would everyone be a king?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Why don't you think the individual can spend their time as they wish? Communities are and will remain necessary until everybody can know, and have the capability, to do everything. Cardiac surgery requires somebody other than the patient to do it.

What if their individual pursuits didn't lead to invention and innovation? What if they did? What if they got to a point where they didn't need the community anymore? Are they free to leave? Where would they go? What if they want to toil, if only for themselves? Would that option still exist? Or would there be no place for that? Would that place be legislated, regulated, and owned by something if it did exist?

Then it would be the first time in human history that it didn't, so unless you're saying that we've literally devolved over the last few hundred years, your 'what if' is moot. If we really did get to the point where a community is unnecessary we would deal with that then, but asking the question "Are they free to leave?" indicates you're not getting it. Coercion is not necessary, period.

It is somewhat perplexing how so many that, I assume, loved RFK's ideals also can't seem to understand the meaning Some people see things as they are and say why…I dream things that never were and say why not? (paraphrase of GBS)

[Greyhound]

89. You're welcome.

:eyes:

[proteus_lives]

90. Question.

What about necessity being the mother of all invention?

If everyone's needs are met, where's the impulse to improve things?

[uncommon]

68. Our concept of work needs to change - this is the problem with conservatism - it can't keep up with

true changes in the way civilization functions.

A technology based society is very different from an industrial based society. Right now we are in limbo between the two.

[uncommon]

69. dupe delete

[ItNerd4life]

72. WOW! The backwards thinking on this thread is mind blowing.

Nobody was complaining about technology when the internet was booming. With the comments on this thread we would still be driving horse and buggies, yet somehow for decades the unemployment rate was less than 6%.
Progress drives new products creating new jobs in new areas. Ever heard of computer people! ITNERD's who are the butt of jokes?

The problem with unemployment is NOT new technology. It's the government policies that encourage companies to seek manufacturing and push work off shores to other countries.

[ProudDad]

81. What you mistake for "progress"

was actually the 100 year heroin fix of cheap fossil fuels...that fueled the population overshoot and degradation of the Earth as a hospitable environment...

We're at the end of that dope run...

The problem with "unemployment" is structural and integral to the dominator model and its handmaidens: artificial scarcity created by locking up the commons ("private property" gone wild) and the predatory capitalist model.

Steady state, relocalized economies and a rational, humane process of population decrease (education, free birth control of ALL kinds ON DEMAND, etc.) will be the only way we can make it through this "Long Emergency"...if we make it.

Right now, the prognosis is terrible...

[Posteritatis]

73. Clearly the solution is to stop thinking, lest we build or discover new things. (nt)

[ProudDad]

82. Fail! (n/t)

[Posteritatis]

83. ... is best defined as "someone whining about technology being evil on the Internet." (nt)

[Buns_of_Fire]

74. K&R. Just 'cause it's a fascinating discussion. nt

[treestar]

84. But the technology itself creates jobs

Don't know why that is so hard to see. It's right out there. Anyone who works with computers had a job that did not exist before computers.

Look at all the new medical jobs there are - mammogram takers and ultrasound technicians. None of that existed around 1920. More jobs are created by the technology.

[DailyGrind51]

88. Damn technology, as if the Asians weren't enough competition!