|
It's an interesting idea because we're quickly reaching the endgame where technological advances and free markets are eliminating giant swaths of jobs without any real replacement. Idiots love to go 'hurr durr maybe we should outlaw cars to protect the horse industry' but there was always a new industry or opportunity opening up in front of the industry it was replacing. With the introduction of cars, you had factory workers and garages and gas stations and dealerships all over the nation. There's nothing after the trucking industry gets automated. Those 3.5 million jobs are gone for good. Maybe a small percentage of people can find some type of job related to transport in the aftermath but the majority of those people (and by extension everybody else) are going to be in serious trouble. Same with Amazon's new supermarket idea. It's only going to require a skeleton crew to operate compared to a current supermarket. That's the direction we're moving in. Massive downsizing or the outright elimination of a lot of jobs we take for granted. As fun as it is to go 'minimum income now', that's such a foreign concept, we'll never see it implemented in our lifetime. And you can bet when it is implemented, it's only a matter of time before the ruling class tip over the apple cart. (Unless minimum income comes in the form of some weird corporate-state serfdom) (And that's not even opening the can of worms about what's going to happen once tech companies get free reign of that global pool of displaced labor that have been fed the line of a STEM degree being the only safe bet. Look at the nursing or law industry if you want a glimpse into your future.) (Also it's really fun to read a bunch of leftists say that regulations don't work and the answer is more education as if everybody can just move upward into 'good jobs') Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Dec 7, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:With the introduction of cars, you had factory workers and garages and gas stations and dealerships all over the nation. There's nothing after the trucking industry gets automated. Was therapy enabled by technology somehow? Not really, people just have more money to spend on things beyond the necessities of life than they did before. So in a way it was enabled by automation, just not directly. The same thing could happen now. We also have way more teachers now than we used to. To a certain extent humanity has shown an ability to invent new needs and wants that require employed people to fulfill. At some point that may stop, but it's dumb to be super confident that self-driving trucks are definitely that time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
It also assumes that paid labor is the only form of production with value. Which is very untrue, there is a great deal of useful work that can be done that simply is not monetized. The archetypical example being houskeeping, that needs doing, it adds a large amount of value to a household, but unless you're rich enough to afford your own house staff it's something people do themselves or have to manage without, to their detriment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Cicero posted:You don't need a direct connection to jobs being automated out of existence to get new jobs appearing. Therapists are a good modern example: a somewhat common occupation/service today, didn't really exist a couple hundred years ago, at least nowhere close to the numbers we have now. You can argue that therapy was enabled by technology. People are working harder for less which helped ease the stigma of getting mental help as they buckle under the pressure. When you think about it, therapists are an extension of the role that family and religious leaders use to play. I'm not really sure what could rise up in the shadow of automation. Obviously that will require programmers and a limited number of on-site technicians but there's going to be less money circulating in the lower/middle income sections of society. Any money made from automation is going to be funneled upward to the owners. Cicero posted:We also have way more teachers now than we used to. To a certain extent humanity has shown an ability to invent new needs and wants that require employed people to fulfill. At some point that may stop, but it's dumb to be super confident that self-driving trucks are definitely that time. Self-driving trucks aren't the end all but there's a large portion of jobs under siege. If truckers are eliminated and taxi drivers/delivery people are mostly eliminated and retail is cut by 75% and the food service industry is cut by 75% and a large portion of our tech jobs are outsourced, what happens to all those displaced people? OwlFancier posted:It also assumes that paid labor is the only form of production with value. How do people make a living while doing useful work that isn't monetized? Or is certain portions of society going to de-evolve into self-sufficient communes when automation takes over? Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:How do people make a living while doing useful work that isn't monetized? Or is certain portions of society going to de-evolve into self-sufficient communes when automation takes over? Generally people doing non monetized labour decrease their or others' living costs by doing so. Cooking being cheaper than paying someone else to do it, DIY being cheaper than contractors, cleaning being cheaper than paying someone else to clean for you, looking after your own and your relatives kids being cheaper than professional childcare and tutoring. As is the case with state subsidized childcare (also known as grandparents on state pension/social security) it is proper that the state should pay people to perform this sort of activity by taxing the labour it facilitates. People can work because other people look after their house, children etc, so the product of that work should be taxed and paid to the people who facilitate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Soylent Yellow posted:Having an entire relatively well-paid section of your society switch from being nett contributors to dependants overnight is going to put rather a dent in that tax-base People retire all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Generally people doing non monetized labour decrease their or others' living costs by doing so. Cooking being cheaper than paying someone else to do it, DIY being cheaper than contractors, cleaning being cheaper than paying someone else to clean for you, looking after your own and your relatives kids being cheaper than professional childcare and tutoring. There's usually somebody in the family chain that still works enough to pay for housing/food/etc while others do non-monetized labor for the household. Social Security and Medicare are already a hard sell to the upper class. Now imagine that pitch but they own/control everything and there's no moral imperative (we have to protect our kids/elderly!) and they have to subsidize the living costs of a large portion of the population. Even if you convince them that it's a good thing to have a consumer class that can afford to use their robot fleet of cars or have trinkets delivered via drone, it's a system that's bound to fail. Eventually the descendants of the ruling class will decide that the system isn't beneficial to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:There's usually somebody in the family chain that still works enough to pay for housing/food/etc while others do non-monetized labor for the household. Everything, ultimately, is bound to fail. No principle or societal ideal remains unchanged for long. I don't consider that to be a compelling argument against attempting to improve things, however. If you need your ideas to be timeless to feel motivated to enact them then I have bad news. Automation simply is not sustainable under the current economic model, which relies on human participation in the production chain. When the production chain for vital goods ceases to need the input of the overwhelming majority of the human population, that point is, essentially, post scarcity, the issue then becomes distribution of that product which simply cannot rely on the current model of participation in the production chain in order to have access to said product. There simply will not be enough places for people to do that. One way or another, automation will lead to an increasingly useless section of society and the only two ways you can deal with that is either removing that section of society or removing the idea that direct participation in production is morally required to have access to product. So short of widespread human culling that idea is going to die at some point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:People retire all the time. Yes, but these vacated jobs are typically then taken up by younger people moving up the employment heirarchy, maintaining the tax contribution. In the case of truck automation, those jobs would simply disappear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:there's going to be less money circulating in the lower/middle income sections of society. Any money made from automation is going to be funneled upward to the owners. quote:what happens to all those displaced people?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Cicero posted:People keep saying this is automatically going to happen, and yet with the massive amount of automation that has already occurred, it hasn't happened yet. Oh sure, the 1% have captured most of the recent income gains, but the poor and middle class certainly have more money than they did a hundred years ago. lol that's just outright wrong. Productivity has increased staggering amounts in the last 40 years as has income inequality because of automation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
i mean maybe if you compare the american lower and middle classes of 1916 to 2016 there could be some upwards movement but there was definitely a big bump in the mid century that's been declining for various reasons
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What on earth is "crony socialism"? It's like crony capitalism, but with people instead of "people".
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
RBC posted:lol that's just outright wrong. Productivity has increased staggering amounts in the last 40 years as has income inequality because of automation. boner confessor posted:i mean maybe if you compare the american lower and middle classes of 1916 to 2016 there could be some upwards movement And households were undoubtedly larger in 1900 on average so the per-person delta is even bigger, probably 3x. quote:but there was definitely a big bump in the mid century that's been declining for various reasons
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Median household income over the entirety of the 20th century is a misleading statistic since you're capturing the rise of the dual income household, for what it's worth. It went from around 25% mid century to something like 60-65% today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Automation simply is not sustainable under the current economic model, which relies on human participation in the production chain. When the production chain for vital goods ceases to need the input of the overwhelming majority of the human population, that point is, essentially, post scarcity, the issue then becomes distribution of that product which simply cannot rely on the current model of participation in the production chain in order to have access to said product. There simply will not be enough places for people to do that. I honestly see widespread mass murder as more likely to happen over the idea that a small portion of the population will own/control everything yet subsidize everybody else to live their normal life unencumbered. What you're suggesting is outside of human nature and completely unprecedented. Cicero posted:People keep saying this is automatically going to happen, and yet with the massive amount of automation that has already occurred, it hasn't happened yet. Oh sure, the 1% have captured most of the recent income gains, but the poor and middle class certainly have more money than they did a hundred years ago. 1) Money's still being spread around. Even if they aren't paying a good wage, 7-Eleven has to employ local people for their stores. Now imagine that same store except there's no employees outside of a tiny skeleton crew that works part time to stock the shelves. That isn't some crazy sci-fi speculation. That's something Amazon is testing in Seattle and planning to roll out to 2000 locations nationwide https://www.wired.com/2016/12/amazon-go-grocery-store/ Now imagine that everywhere. Wal-Mart? Maybe they'll have a few employees to stock the shelves and a security guy at each store. Fast food? Fully automated. Franchise restaurants? Two guys putting together orders and a dishwasher in the back. Uber? A fleet of self-driving cars. It doesn't seem possible now but that's the way technology sneaks up on you. If you told 1996 Charlie (a kid that still regularly used cassettes) that 2016 Charlie would have a talking tube where I can just yell out the name of a song and it will instantly start playing, he never would've believed you. Even a simple MP3 player that could hold a thousand albums would've blown his mind. poo poo, 2007 Charlie was a member of Blockbuster Total Access (never heard of it? I don't blame you) and went 'yeah, i guess it's cool you can watch some movies on your computer (aka netflix instant) but how can that match being able to trade in your mailed dvd/games at the store?' Now there aren't even any Blockbuster stores. 2) I don't know about that. Everything feels much more unstable. My grandfather worked a union job, purchased a house where he could raise a family and was able to retire after 30 years. My father was able to work a union job, purchased a house where he could raise a family and was able to retire after 30 years. That path has been closed to me and there's no chance I'll be able to retire in 30 years. Most people are bouncing around jobs with no real plans for retirement. Cicero posted:What happened to the farmers that comprised most of society's workers? They got new jobs. You're ignoring people's ability to want and need. In the long run this principle may fail, but there's no compelling evidence that time is in the immediate future. Computers aren't that good...yet. They got jobs in the factories that displaced them. Which goes back to my original point. We're quickly approaching the point where there's no logical next step for the jobs we lose. These jobs aren't being replaced, they're being phased out. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Currently, driverless trucks are banned from the roads, and have been so since before trucks were invented. So there's your answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Ever look at the discussion around work and rest hours for truckers. Drivers work poo poo hours. Trucking has like a 200 to 300 percent turnover rate.
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Currently, driverless trucks are banned from the roads, and have been so since before trucks were invented. So there's your answer. I have a feeling that for most of human history driverless trucks have not been banned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Median household income over the entirety of the 20th century is a misleading statistic since you're capturing the rise of the dual income household, for what it's worth. It went from around 25% mid century to something like 60-65% today. also the fact that america was much more rural in 1916 and the cash economy still hadn't fully taken hold - people self-made or went without goods much more often for lack of cash to purchase store-bought Cicero posted:Nope, although things do look like they've stagnated from around 2000 or so: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2016/09/15/u-s-household-incomes-a-49-year-perspective why do you think that citing graphs which start in 1967 is a way to refute my argument that incomes were proportionally higher in 1950 boner confessor fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
I lost a friend to a drunk trucker, so let me be the first to say that this is not purely an economic issue and that there are a few other reasons trucks ought to be automated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Self-driving trucks aren't the end all but there's a large portion of jobs under siege. If truckers are eliminated and taxi drivers/delivery people are mostly eliminated and retail is cut by 75% and the food service industry is cut by 75% and a large portion of our tech jobs are outsourced, what happens to all those displaced people? Here's an idea: how about we take a look at what job fields are actually expected to grow the most over the next decade or so. Here are the top ten from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: 1. Personal care aids 2. Registered nurses 3. Home health aids 4. Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food 5. Retail salespersons 6. Nursing assistants 7. Customer service representative 8. Cooks, restaurant 9. General and operations managers 10. Construction laborers 4, 8, and 10 might end up being automated if we get some major advances in machine manual dexterity, but everything else looks pretty secure barring the Singularity, especially the nursing jobs. And that's just the jobs that are currently growing rapidly. If automation really did get going, we'd surely see a bunch of new categories popping up. Call Me Charlie posted:They got jobs in the factories that displaced them. Which goes back to my original point. We're quickly approaching the point where there's no logical next step for the jobs we lose. These jobs aren't being replaced, they're being phased out. Do you think people back then saw a "logical next step" to replace the countless lost farming jobs? Actually, we don't have to speculate, the example of the Luddites demonstrates that they didn't. But there were wrong. And that was far from the last time that that happened. Here is the introduction to a speech made by John F. Kennedy in 1960: JFK posted:Today we stand on the threshold of a new industrial revolution - the revolution of automation. This is a revolution bright with the hope of a new prosperity for labor and a new abundance for America - but it is also a revolution which carries the dark menace of industrial dislocaiton, increasing unemployment, and deepending poverty. Today, the US unemployment rate is 4.9%, compared to 5.5% in 1960. So they were wrong that time too. Why are you so confident that this time, the predictions are right when virtually identical predictions turned out to be wrong so many times before? INH5 fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
INH5 posted:Do you think people back then saw a "logical next step" to replace the countless lost farming jobs? yes, they are called "Factories" INH5 posted:Actually, we don't have to speculate, the example of the Luddites demonstrates that they didn't. But there were wrong. you can't just bring up luddites whenever you want to quelch debate about technological progress being an unabashed good. without googling it, who were the luddites and what did they stand for?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
INH5 posted:Do you think people back then saw a "logical next step" to replace the countless lost farming jobs? Actually, we don't have to speculate, the example of the Luddites demonstrates that they didn't. But there were wrong. Yes. Economists were writing about the movement of labor from primary to secondary to tertiary sectors as a result of automation for basically as long as three sector theory has existed. We always knew where the jobs were going, in part because the move towards a service economy really started very early in the 20th century. This is why I really don't like talking about automation as a bunch of discrete steps, but rather an ongoing process where we're closer to the end than we are to the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yes, they are called "Factories" People back thought that the factories would just make the problems worse. Since they could match the output of all of the cottage industries with a fraction of the labor, the vast majority of existing crafstmen and so on would end up starving while those lucky to have a job would continue to enjoy the same standard of living that they had before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
INH5 posted:People back thought that the factories would just make the problems worse. Since they could match the output of all of the cottage industries with a fraction of the labor, the vast majority of existing crafstmen and so on would end up starving while those lucky to have a job would continue to enjoy the same standard of living that they had before. lol no they didn't. tons of people were all about factories. early factories were just as if not more often hailed as examples of hard work and progress, places for people - especially young people, and young women - to gain self actualization by working for wages instead of rotting away on remote farms, before the externalities of air pollution and rapid urbanization started kicking in. like if you say everyone had a single perspective and this perspective disagrees with you then of course your argument is going to be skewed towards a cartoonishly simplistic extreme lmao as paradoxish noted economists were all about factories. so were the factory owners, the government, the middle class who were able to be petty investors in them, poor workers who were able to participate in the cash economy for the first time, etc. and this is getting beside the point - when agricultural job loss started happening, it was understood people could work in processing industries. deindustrialization was met with the rise of the service industry. once we start replacing humans who sell services to other humans it's not clear what will happen next to make sure that most people are able to get their hands on enough money to buy services with to keep the economy chugging along. once you start cutting enough people out of the economy via job loss and lack of welfare, bad things happen
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
If trucks go self driving then literally every single product you buy will get cheaper. Every last one. I know a lot of people are worried that corporations will just absorb the savings in shipping costs as profit, but there are companies like Amazon and Wal Mart that are as successful as they are because they use all the efficiencies they find to lower the price people pay for their products.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Where is the divide between good labor saving technologies that nonetheless create jobs (like trucking, apparently) and bad job killing automation? Why is it that banning self-driving trucks is a good idea, but banning trucks (to be replaced with a more labor-intensive form of transportation) or automated telephone exchanges isn't? I mean, why not make a law limiting trucks to one trailer so that it takes more trips, and thus more truck drivers, to move the same volume of goods?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Stealth Tiger posted:If trucks go self driving then literally every single product you buy will get cheaper. Every last one. I know a lot of people are worried that corporations will just absorb the savings in shipping costs as profit, but there are companies like Amazon and Wal Mart that are as successful as they are because they use all the efficiencies they find to lower the price people pay for their products. what a great case for eliminating the minimum wage, just imagine the paradise of savings we could be living in!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:
Do you think incomes went down in the immediate post-WW2 era, widely understood even on this very forum to be The Good Times in terms of income gains matching productivity gains? I mean if you're that ignorant yeah I guess I could find data showing income during that period going up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Here ya go, check out Figure 1: http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequalityquote:The broad facts of income inequality over the past six decades are easily summarized:
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Cicero posted:lol you don't seem to have read and understood my post. that's ok, keep googling things until you find an argument that fits
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Median household income over the entirety of the 20th century is a misleading statistic since you're capturing the rise of the dual income household, for what it's worth. It went from around 25% mid century to something like 60-65% today. Call Me Charlie posted:1) Money's still being spread around. Even if they aren't paying a good wage, 7-Eleven has to employ local people for their stores. Now imagine that same store except there's no employees outside of a tiny skeleton crew that works part time to stock the shelves. That isn't some crazy sci-fi speculation. That's something Amazon is testing in Seattle and planning to roll out to 2000 locations nationwide https://www.wired.com/2016/12/amazon-go-grocery-store/ Now imagine that everywhere. Wal-Mart? Maybe they'll have a few employees to stock the shelves and a security guy at each store. Fast food? Fully automated. Franchise restaurants? Two guys putting together orders and a dishwasher in the back. Uber? A fleet of self-driving cars. quote:2) I don't know about that. Everything feels much more unstable. My grandfather worked a union job, purchased a house where he could raise a family and was able to retire after 30 years. My father was able to work a union job, purchased a house where he could raise a family and was able to retire after 30 years. That path has been closed to me and there's no chance I'll be able to retire in 30 years. Most people are bouncing around jobs with no real plans for retirement. quote:They got jobs in the factories that displaced them. * although you could argue that this is due to average home size increasing greatly over the past several decades KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:I lost a friend to a drunk trucker, so let me be the first to say that this is not purely an economic issue and that there are a few other reasons trucks ought to be automated.  Trucks (along with cars obviously) cause tons of deaths, almost all of them due to human error. Wasn't there an SNL comedian that almost died recently because a sleepy trucker hit him? boner confessor posted:you don't seem to have read and understood my post. that's ok, keep googling things until you find an argument that fits
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:and this is getting beside the point - when agricultural job loss started happening, it was understood people could work in processing industries. deindustrialization was met with the rise of the service industry. once we start replacing humans who sell services to other humans it's not clear what will happen next to make sure that most people are able to get their hands on enough money to buy services with to keep the economy chugging along. once you start cutting enough people out of the economy via job loss and lack of welfare, bad things happen Yeah. I think something that a lot of people miss is that, in very broad terms, the economy still functionally does the exact same stuff that it did two hundred years ago. Automation has traditionally moved the workforce across sectors of the economy that always existed, but there's nowhere left to go once we start seriously automating service work. What happens instead is that the job market gets polarized between high paying, knowledge-based jobs that can't be automated (yet) and low end jobs that aren't worth automating as long as labor for them is cheap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:the economy still functionally does the exact same stuff that it did two hundred years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Does it? I mean we still make food and clothes and housing, but we also make a bunch of things that didn't exist then: for example, almost the entire entertainment/media industry didn't really exist 200 years ago, only exceptions would be what, plays, live music, newspapers? No TVs or movies or video games or radio. do goods produced really matter? i mean i could say we don't produce a lot of scythes, folding cameras, or flintlocks anymore. yes nintendos are fun but saying that luxuries you're accustomed to are better than luxuries people two hundred years ago never experienced then you can't really set up a valid historical comparison, you're basically admitting you think the future is great and getting better all the time. which is fine i guess but it's certainly biased. i mean it's silly to say the economy of the 80's is significantly different because of no cell phones
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:do goods produced really matter? i mean i could say we don't produce a lot of scythes, folding cameras, or flintlocks anymore. yes nintendos are fun but saying that luxuries you're accustomed to are better than luxuries people two hundred years ago never experienced then you can't really set up a valid historical comparison, you're basically admitting you think the future is great and getting better all the time. which is fine i guess but it's certainly biased. i mean it's silly to say the economy of the 80's is significantly different because of no cell phones
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Anyway I'm still waiting for an answer on the law banning automatic telephone exchanges, it wasn't sarcastic. Really really hope OP comes back soon because I can't wait either!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:29
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Cicero posted:I mean ostensibly the whole purpose of the economy is to produce goods and services for people, so I'm not sure how you can evaluate "the economy still functionally does the exact same stuff that it did two hundred years ago." without factoring in what goods and services it's producing. easy. is the economy still producing goods and services for people, as it was two centuries ago? if we make specific claims about the goods or services being produced, then we can say "the economy is better now that we make ataris" or "the economy is not so good since we stopped making ataris" or all kinds of chronologically biased value judgements about what goods are cool or not cool two centuries ago includes industrialization, the purchasing of goods with cash, wage labor jobs, and a lot of other stuff we recognize as being modern and which allows us to do useful comparisons across time, in a way we couldn't as compared to the middle ages which was dominated by forced labor and payment in kind, guilds and vassalage as an organizing force of labor etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
This reminds me of my friend once said we should limit computer innovation because they might become smarter than human beings and replace the scientists, lawyers, and engineering work. A little foolish I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 20:43
|
|