The asshole @GOP "Job creators" bullshit.

[Minimalist]

Yeah, I'd love to believe that, but it'll take an actual study rather than a RawStory puff piece to convince me that it's true.

Don't expect to read anything about that in Breitbart, man.  They won't tolerate it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The fact is that technology is replacing workers faster than new jobs can be invented for idled workers. Location retail will always be around, but it will decline much farther first, and no politician of any party can change that.

[TaraJo]

Technology has always been changing the work force. Right now, technology is making labor more and more obsolete.

So, I had a job as a cashier last year. Today, when I go to that same store, I see fewer and fewer human cashiers and more and more self-check outs. Pretty much every store is moving in that direction.

As of now, I work in a call center. But, besides the fact that so many call center jobs are either part-time or being shipped to India, businesses are also getting automated systems that reduce the number of calls the call center has to take.

And, yeah, brick and mortar businesses are disappearing because of online shopping. About the only businesses that aren't going online are restaurants and grocery stores (and they probably would, if we didn't need food fresh). I used to love book stores and music stores, but those are almost gone. Those Friday nights where you go to Blockbuster, pick up a movie to watch? Gone. The video arcades that I spent countless hours in growing up? A thing of the past. The internet has found a way to replace all of them.

The theme remains the same: labor is becoming obsolete because of technological advances. But that creates a problem: what happens in another 20, 30 or 40 years? How many more jobs will be obsolete because of technology? And what do we do with all those people who lost their jobs, their careers, because of technological advances?

Sure, there are people who think we can resist this by working harder or cheaper, but let's be real here: it didn't matter how hard John Henry worked, he wasn't going to be able to out rivet the machine and even if he could, it costs a lot less to operate the machine than it does to keep him alive. As time passes, the machines will get better, faster and stronger while humans basically remain the same. A human at a cash register or driving a car will soon be as obsolete as a human operating elevators.

There's going to be some big changes over the next century and we need to be economically ready for those changes. We aren't. It's going to be a difficult transition.

[Brian37]

Technology has always been changing the work force.  Right now, technology is making labor more and more obsolete.  

So, I had a job as a cashier last year.  Today, when I go to that same store, I see fewer and fewer human cashiers and more and more self-check outs.  Pretty much every store is moving in that direction.

As of now, I work in a call center.  But, besides the fact that so many call center jobs are either part-time or being shipped to India, businesses are also getting automated systems that reduce the number of calls the call center has to take.  

And, yeah, brick and mortar businesses are disappearing because of online shopping.  About the only businesses that aren't going online are restaurants and grocery stores (and they probably would, if we didn't need food fresh).  I used to love book stores and music stores, but those are almost gone.  Those Friday nights where you go to Blockbuster, pick up a movie to watch?  Gone.  The video arcades that I spent countless hours in growing up?  A thing of the past.   The internet has found a way to replace all of them.

The theme remains the same: labor is becoming obsolete because of technological advances.  But that creates a problem: what happens in another 20, 30 or 40 years?  How many more jobs will be obsolete because of technology?  And what do we do with all those people who lost their jobs, their careers, because of technological advances?  

Sure, there are people who think we can resist this by working harder or cheaper, but let's be real here: it didn't matter how hard John Henry worked, he wasn't going to be able to out rivet the machine and even if he could, it costs a lot less to operate the machine than it does to keep him alive.  As time passes, the machines will get better, faster and stronger while humans basically remain the same.  A human at a cash register or driving a car will soon be as obsolete as a human operating elevators.

There's going to be some big changes over the next century and we need to be economically ready for those changes.  We aren't.  It's going to be a difficult transition.

"Brick and mortar" are getting smaller for big companies, but I don't see mom and pop shops doing the same at a wide scale. I think it will always be impossible to take human observation of technology out of it. And just on an interaction level, just because we can automate more and more, does not mean someone always will want to participate in that. Just like you can get a soda out of a soda machine, does not mean you always want to have an impersonal interaction. There will still be bars you want to have a bartender serving you, and sit down food joints you want human interaction with. 

As long as our species exist we will still need to a great degree personal interaction.  But regardless big or small business, like I have said prior, I have no problem with advancing technology, it certainly can make our lives easier, like texting instead of the pony express. But the more you take humans out of work you have to compensate that loss long term. As long as we are a social species, and we will always be a social species, something still has to fill in that gap to create a more stable society. It isn't enough to simply replace humans with technology. 

I don't see the economic conservative right caring about that shift or thinking in any pragmatic sense how to fill in the gap. The only mentality I see from them is "sucks to be you".

[Opoponax]

Wasn't technology supposed to provide us with a more leisurely life?

Wasn't it supposed to allow us to pursue more personal goals? Of course we'd still need to be productive, but working for as many hours as is humanly tolerable just to make ends meet was supposed to be a thing of the past.

Or am I thinking of Star Trek? I'm so confused.

[paulpablo]

Wasn't technology supposed to provide us with a more leisurely life?

Wasn't it supposed to allow us to pursue more personal goals? Of course we'd still need to be productive, but working for as many hours as is humanly tolerable just to make ends meet was supposed to be a thing of the past.

Or am I thinking of Star Trek? I'm so confused.

I think it might be the case , especially in developed countries, that people have higher standards of living now.
Making ends meet now involves paying for television, internet, computers, fashionable clothes, phone bills, microwaves.
Maybe you can detract television from that now the internet has taken over.
I don't know if I'm happier than my grandparents were but I'm definitely glad I can do things easier. Whether that's better in the long run might be debatable.