Is industrial capitalism done for in the United States?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Technology isn't going to suddenly create the necessary jobs to replace all of those jobs that have been either offshored, or entirely eliminated due to automation. The pattern of the past is not happening now, there's no great new field that will suddenly have rapid job growth.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Technology isn't going to suddenly create the necessary jobs to replace all of those jobs that have been either offshored, or entirely eliminated due to automation. The pattern of the past is not happening now, there's no great new field that will suddenly have rapid job growth.

Of course not. That's why you create your own jobs, which is entirely in keeping with the character of Western-style freedom: you find a niche and exploit it, using the tools provided to you to the best of your abilities.

Why the far-right and the far-left have to unite on one issue - on the axis of neo-Ludditism - infuriates and depresses me. In a sane world, the Right would see technological progression as the welcomed and encouraged outcome of the free market, and the Left would understand it to be the means to achieve a more stable and fair society. Yet both branches now seem content to retreat into a frenzied, apocalyptic nihilism.

Man up, you blubbering pussies, and work together on this.

Starting your own business is a lot of work and has a very high risk factor. Since you wouldn't be too big to fail, no bailouts for you. The government doesn't do much to help small businesses. When Republicans talk about pro-business, they mean those large corporations that they have connections to, not some guy working 90 hours a week for peanuts. I'm not saying that it's impossible to start your own business and have it be moderately successful, but I'm saying that the odds are really against it. And this leaves tens of millions of people unemployed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see how much longer that pattern holds. The large multinationals are a very recent innovation; I see no reason to believe that they will survive this crisis - which I believe will be as fundamentally altering to our present economic system as was the Depression before it. And this is where the 'left' element of my left-libertarian fusionism enters the picture: I am more than willing to support anti-monopoly action against Wal-Mart (monopolization perverts the free-market by causing innovating competition to cease), provided that you can support the establishment of a localized, decentralized capitalist society.

Who is too big to fail, the small business or the large corporation? The problem is that you can't even begin to compete with Walmart. After NAFTA passed, a lot of the manufacturing jobs in this country went to Mexico, where they paid their workers $1 a day. I'm talking about Mexico in the past sense, because they couldn't compete with the Indian companies on wages, so Mexico lost their manufacturing jobs too.


What you are suggesting is some major changes in how we regulate "free trade" and monopolies, and I don't think that's going to come from Obama. Large corporations are heavily favored over small businesses.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's see how much longer that pattern holds. The large multinationals are a very recent innovation; I see no reason to believe that they will survive this crisis - which I believe will be as fundamentally altering to our present economic system as was the Depression before it. And this is where the 'left' element of my left-libertarian fusionism enters the picture: I am more than willing to support anti-monopoly action against Wal-Mart (monopolization perverts the free-market by causing innovating competition to cease), provided that you can support the establishment of a localized, decentralized capitalist society.

Who is too big to fail, the small business or the large corporation? The problem is that you can't even begin to compete with Walmart. After NAFTA passed, a lot of the manufacturing jobs in this country went to Mexico, where they paid their workers $1 a day. I'm talking about Mexico in the past sense, because they couldn't compete with the Indian companies on wages, so Mexico lost their manufacturing jobs too.


What you are suggesting is some major changes in how we regulate "free trade" and monopolies, and I don't think that's going to come from Obama. Large corporations are heavily favored over small businesses.

Which is why Obama isn't going to be the one that pulls us out of this crisis. He's actually the most likable liberal I've ever seen at work on a national stage, but his politics are mired far too deeply in the old New Deal/Great Society/Reaganomics/Third Way cycle, that emphasized reinforcing the mass industrial society at the expense of the local culture. He'll try his damnedest, but it's not going to work.

But then again, neither will another Reagan-clone. We need fresh leadership, one that will challenge both the supply-side orthodoxy and the pro-corporate liberalism that has held power in this country since the end of the First World War. We need a genuine revolution of values, and neither major Party is offering one - but they might, if there's a big enough call for it.

Correction above, $1 an hour. Way cheaper than anyone can live on in this country, and yet too expensive to compete with India.

Anyways, I wouldn't expect too much from the deadwood politicians in office.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As has been the trend for decades, manufacturing will require more skilled jobs (some of the more delicate stuff may still be by hand, but there will be more engineers and fewer poor immigrants on assembly lines). While unskilled labor has been dead for a while, manufacturing may actually increase as a sector.

Actually, the advent of 3D printing may actually increase the proportion of unskilled labor in manufacturing, by allowing anyone or even little children to manufacture things at the click of a button.

Technology certainly isn't increasing the number of jobs in the US. More profits does not equal more jobs. Verizon is sitting on $10 billion, and they laid off 40,000  people in the last few years.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Beet, since you seem to know something about it, could you explain 3D Printing in a way that isn't just "miracle device out of Star Trek that can fabricate objects out of sawdust?"

There are numerous different advanced manufacturing techniques all being grouped under the category "3D Printing", the common element being that they are all what is now called "additive manufacturing techniques." Traditionally manufacturing is subtractive, meaning that parts are created the way a sculpture is, by taking a chunk of the base material and then cutting away parts of it in a process known as machining. Additive manufacturing techniques use only the amount of base material that will actually be in the final product, building it up piece by piece. The advantage of additive manufacturing is that it is much quicker to change the design, which is why it has been used for decades for rapid prototyping. The disadvantage now and ever is that it's not efficient for producing large quantities (>a few thousand).

What's happening now is that the quality of rapid prototyping is improving and the cost is coming down to where it's starting to approach the consumer level (but not yet). I would say consumer 3D Printing is where the PC industry was in the mid-1970s. The cost-benefit is low enough for enthusiasts and hobbyists to adopt, but not worthwhile (yet) for the general public.

The main limitation of the current consumer models, IMO, is the limited material they can use (only plastic). Essentially it's a chemistry limitation. Current consumer models all use a variant of fused deposition modelling, which is where the raw material (filament) is fed into a nozzle by a motor. The nozzle is heated to melt the filament as a very thin layer of it (usually between .01 and .1 mm) extrudes out from the nozzle, and settles onto the surface of the base. At the same time stepper motors are used to move the nozzle around rapidly, creating a "layer" of object. Then, the base is lowered by .01 to .1 mm and the process is repeated again, creating the next layer. The material is typically a plastic and comes out as the same plastic that are used in Lego sets. But since only plastic can be used (due to it's melting point properties, can't be too high) you can't use these devices to print circuit boards, glass, rubber, wood, etc. So obviously their utility is very limited. Further, they're usually monochromatic or bichromatic. The current models run at about $1300-$1700. Until some of these big limitations are overcome and the cost comes down under $500, you won't see this become a household item. But given the progress that has been made in the past several years, I wouldn't be surprised if these problems were indeed overcome. Other types of 3D Printing, such as laser sintering, can definitely print metals.   

As has been the trend for decades, manufacturing will require more skilled jobs (some of the more delicate stuff may still be by hand, but there will be more engineers and fewer poor immigrants on assembly lines). While unskilled labor has been dead for a while, manufacturing may actually increase as a sector.

Actually, the advent of 3D printing may actually increase the proportion of unskilled labor in manufacturing, by allowing anyone or even little children to manufacture things at the click of a button.

Technology certainly isn't increasing the number of jobs in the US. More profits does not equal more jobs. Verizon is sitting on $10 billion, and they laid off 40,000  people in the last few years.

Indeed, technology advances usually mean more efficiency and fewer jobs.  Still better than the alternative.

That really isn't true; I mean, are there more jobs now, or were there in 1800?

In theory, technology is supposed to lower costs, which increases demand. As demand increases, then jobs are created to fill that demand.

What's happening now is a bit more complex. It's a part of the overall increased stratification of the world between haves and have-nots. Only in this case the "haves" are the select few with the engineering, computer, energy and medical skills that are in demand, while the "have nots" are everyone else.

Lots of engineering jobs have been lost in recent years. Those people aren't exactly haves any more.