Technology displacing workers

[opebo]

Jobs are only created as and how the government dictates.

[opebo]

I don't think what is going on now is in any way unique.

Actually what's at least somewhat unique about the present isn't technology, which is overrated, but in fact the use of Chinese and various other more-subjugated-than-in-the-West work-forces for 'industrial' jobs. 

[opebo]

So far, what we see, in most developed countries, is shortage of low-skilled labor. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't invented robots that are both good at making beds, cutting grass, helping the elderly - and that are cheaper than human labor.

Shortage? I think you must be confused - the government policy ('the market') in developed countries has been to have a great dearth of low-skilled jobs - hence the very high unemployment rate among the less skilled citizens of those countries.  In addition wages for this class of worker have been set by the government ('the market') at a very low rate which presents some problems as well.

And, of course, it is not the robots, but the Chinese that have displaced low-skilled workers in manufacturing.

This is precisely what I said in the post just above yours.  The deleterious innovation is of course political, not technological.

Jobs are only created as and how the government dictates.

Unfortunately, there are many sh**tholes on earth, where that is, indeed, the case.

State policy sets all aspects of life the world over.  The existence of ostensibly 'private' fiefdoms as we see in the West doesn't alter this fact.

[opebo]

Assuming appropriate market mechanisms are allowed to work "properly," technology just changes the nature of jobs, and the relative pay scales between different kinds of jobs. So it is probably somewhat accurate to attribute some of the growing wealth inequality on technological innovation (heck back when most of the human species made about the same - just enough to keep barely alive and reproduce), but not the lack of jobs.

Regarding the part I've underlined - what do you think the vast majority of humanity, under capitalism's heel, makes now?  Nothing has changed, Torie. 

[opebo]

Everything has changed opebo, and much has changed in my own lifetime. Been to Mexico lately? It is nothing like it was when I was a kid. Heck, in my gardener's little town of maybe 10,000 when he was a kid, only one family had a car and money, and to get there, you needed to drive 3 hours on dirt roads. Now about a third of the population own cars, and the place is bustling. There is a substantial middle class. Tecate on the border is the same way. When I was a kid, Tijuana had no paved roads. Now it does of course, and also has a very substantial middle class, and most of the horrible hovels and tin shacks put up by squatters with no utilities are gone. They are all gone in Tecate, which used to have about 5 miles of them strung along the road to Ensenada. Granted, a few places are still not too far away from our species' beginning. But most places are these days are. The increasing wealth of the developing world, and the standard of living of the average Joe, is simply stunning to me - and gratifying. Most of it has happened my lifetime.

And then there is Thailand, which presumably you know about, with a rapidly increasing standard of living - very rapid. 

Facts just don't get in the way of your ideology do they?

An 'increasing standard of living' is completely irrelevant to my point, Torie.  It is precisely the 'kindly master' argument. 

And anyway I'm sure you realize that any transitory 'improvement' in these servile's lives in the 'developing world' is done entirely to eliminate the political power of workers in the US, Europe, and in a larger sense everywhere.  They are quite obviously the scabs in the strike-breaking strategy of the oppressors.

(and besides, lastly, I personally don't care much about increases in standard of living anyway - it is relative inequality of power that I care about).

[opebo]

Well at least opebo I have succeeded in weaning you are off the nothing much has changed when it comes to a bare subsistence existence for almost all since the Cro-Magnon man appeared kick, and got you back to mainstream Left thinking that allowing much inequality in outcomes to exist is intolerable. I consider that quite an accomplish, given your stubborn ways. In fact, I am going to give myself a pat on the back!

You're strawmanning, Torie.  Subsistence is in context - the context of a society.   Physically, yes, it means nutrition, shelter, and a few other things, depending on how long you want your functionaries to live.  These are gotten in different ways - in the old days they collected rats and berries, now they shop in 7-11.  Which is 'better'?  It is a matter of opinion and not very relevant as I said.