Fond a video caliming technology causes unemployment.

Started by nilecroc, August 21, 2013, 09:18:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
August 21, 2013, 09:18:49 PM Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 09:33:17 PM by MrBogosity
[yt]oby0ZdDYwiI[/yt]

I found this video while watching Shane's video on Unemployment. I watched the first 30 seconds and stopped watching.

Want to create full employment in one easy step?  Ban all farming innovations.  That's all it would take.  Back to 90% of us being farmers.

What's that?  Don't wanna do that?   I didn't think so.
I recently heard that the word heretic is derived from the greek work heriticos which means "able to choose"
The more you know...

The video that deals with the issue at hand ends at 3:03.

That being said, the video in no way claims technology causes unemployment. It merely says that employment in a specific area of Chicago is the highest in the industrialized world. Firstly, I'd like to deal with some of the issues the video "did" bring up.

"No longer are the impoverished the cyclically unemployed, but families", we glibly say while pretending these can't possibly be the same people.

Teacher (that obviously can't play piano) giving piano lessons to make ends meet - That's the fault of budgeting in your district, nothing to do with technology. Or maybe the local school board decided you teach as well as you play piano?

Woman in the food bank who's "never been unemployed" - More than likely whatever it is you were doing isn't worth whatever the mandatory minimum pay is? I have ample experience with this one, technology has nothing to do with it. The only thing that has to do with it is, how much can your employer afford to pay for your services, while providing goods/services to the customers at a value the customers are willing to spend.

Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on August 21, 2013, 09:46:42 PM
Want to create full employment in one easy step?  Ban all farming innovations.  That's all it would take.  Back to 90% of us being farmers.

What's that?  Don't wanna do that?   I didn't think so.
I had an argument similar to this except it was about private property and it was with a venus project guy. He claimed that private property is theft because all property belongs to the earth, and claiming it is stealing from the Earth.

Quote from: nilecroc on August 21, 2013, 10:15:32 PM
I had an argument similar to this except it was about private property and it was with a venus project guy. He claimed that private property is theft because all property belongs to the earth, and claiming it is stealing from the Earth.

Did you ask him to give up his private property (ie, the computer he was using), and if so, how did he respond?
Failing to clean up my own mistakes since the early 80s.

Quote from: nilecroc on August 21, 2013, 10:15:32 PM
I had an argument similar to this except it was about private property and it was with a venus project guy. He claimed that private property is theft because all property belongs to the earth, and claiming it is stealing from the Earth.

In that case, it can file suit to recover said property.  Until then...

Quote from: Altimadark on August 22, 2013, 12:31:26 PM
Did you ask him to give up his private property (ie, the computer he was using), and if so, how did he respond?
I just ignored him after that, mostly due to the atrocious grammar in the comment. I figure arguing with someone like that is a waste of my time> If you're that stupid, I just won't bother.