Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
Occupy Wall Street and the coming of the future age
I've largely kept silent about Occupy Wall Street, as I typically don't like to blend things as serious as politics with something that is mostly a leisure activity for me. I first want to to say that in general I support the need for a revolutionary change in our views of economics, the state, and the American Dream. I think the Occupiers have a legitimate claim that Wall Street has had a hand in the global economic disaster because of corruption and greed, but I think it's naive to say it's the only reason.

First of all let me state that I think capitalism is by and large a good concept and would never advocate a system that is wholly state owned. However on a large scale, especially a global one, a strict laissez-fair system would never work either. The inherent checks and balances championed by the ilk of Ayn Rand don't work when a producer can exploit labor and resources in one place for the purpose of selling to a market somewhere else in the world. You know, like Apple and Nike have done in Southeast Asia. I accept that a mixed-economy is necessary, so let's at least use it to better the lives of our citizens and not have a growing majority of them struggling just to survive. In the wake of the protests, there's been a growing movement of the "53%" who are proud that they work a 60-70 hour work week and are self-made, hard-working people. And I'm proud of them, too. I just happen to believe that it doesn't have to be that way. Nor should it.

The primary reason I support a revolution in this country is that I simply think that neoliberalism is not sustainable as we enter the future age. And don't kid yourself that we're not on the brink of it. The job market will continue to shrink simply because traditional working/middle class jobs will continue to disappear. We've been seeing the early rumblings of it for almost 20 years. In modern society, there is almost no sector untouched by computerization, automation, and a growing culture of consumer self-service. The economic downturn has begun to accelerate it with companies forced to become creative, streamline, and automate - replacing costly, inefficient and inaccurate humans with automated systems. In 2010, there was an 87% increase in automation across the board over 2009.

And this is a good thing. It's the future dreamed-of in the The Jetsons. It's the good bits of Logan's Run. It's a society where humans can have lives of relative leisure and luxury while most of the tasks and services of the world are performed for us by machines. You can play video games all day long, paint, travel, spend time with your kids, garden - and you'll have all the time in the world to do it. But an economic system predicated on labor as a means for survival requires a job market to sustain it and is counter-intuitive to that future. As I see it, the producer->worker->consumer relationship is facing eminent demise and we have a choice whether to accept that and figure out a system which not only accepts that inevitability, but actively promotes it.

Take my job for instance. There's no reason that long distance, over the road trucking driving could not be completely automated in under 5 years. The basic technologies already exist: a vast limited-access highway system, global positioning, automated transmissions, on-board satellite/wireless communications, computerized oversight of machinery/freight condition and distribution. All that's missing is infrastructure: freeway sensors for precision guidance, limited-access fueling points, limited-access "switch points" to repower semi-trailers for local access with human drivers or specially outfitted drone trucks, and increased highway shoulders supplemented with strategic parking lots to allow for pullovers when weather or mechanical failure warrants.

But then what do we do with 3-4 million out of work truckers? Think about your own job. Could it be automated? My guess is that unless you work in a professional industry where the collective thought and progress of mankind is at stake (law, medicine, research, education, applied sciences), relies principally on hands-on human creativity (artists/artisans, architects, landscaping, design, beauticians/barbers), high-end/luxury services (personal assistant, spa/massage, etc.) or management (someone will always have to manage systems, whether machines, humans or a mixed system) the chances are that it can be automated if the infrastructure were there to make it so.

I don't know what the answer is. I have thoughts of my own, but it's something that would have to ultimately be decided by the citizenry. Maybe we should move to a negative income tax system supplemented by a public health care system that guarantees a working class/middle class lifestyle for every citizen. It would certainly be one easy way to cut out a lot of social and state bureaucracy like the current welfare system, social security, minimum wage, labor unions, medicare/caid, disability, etc. and raise the standard of living for everyone. Similarly, we could do away with personal income taxes all together and only tax commercial enterprise, distribute a fair portion to the citizenry, and let business compete in the marketplace to gather it back from consumers. French and German democratic mixed-economies have proved resilient and utilize welfare systems which benefit and strengthen the middle class, rather than our system where it is primarily used as a safety net for the poor and elderly. It might be worth examining.

So there you have it. Poke holes in it. Play devil's advocate. My guess is that a work-around can be found to any perceived problem. One of the great attributes of American society is that we CAN solve a problem when we're not mired in rigid ideology and absolutism. As a life long believer in largely unrestricted capitalism, coming to these conclusions hasn't been easy for me. But as it's been said, the times they are a'changin'. We should be proactive about it and step into this future age by ushering in a new era of the American Dream, one where everyone is ENTITLED and it's no longer a dirty word, free to pursue their goals whatever they may be. It's either that, or slowly become a lumbering remnant of the 20th century bithcin' about the good ol' days.

  • 1
Honestly, I don't have a problem with people buying Nike or Apple products or endorsing them or whatever. To be fair, the American auto industry is doing the same thing in Mexico. They're corporations doing what they're supposed to do: make money. I have no problem with making money. If some people feel they have to take a personal stand with their own pocketbooks that's their business. I would argue that it's not really Nike's problem, but the societies of South East Asia to get their shit together. I think it's also the responsibility of our government, who represent us, to not establish largely de-regulated if not completely free trade agreements with nations who have blatant issues with corruption and labor abuses. Granting China permanent MFN status makes a mockery of our own values and way of life.

Engineering is probably covered by both "design" and "applied sciences" above... so yeah, no way that could be automated. And I think even with a system of entitlement there will always be people who are like my son, who saw bridges and buildings as a kid and wondered who dreamed them up and now he's starting his first year at UK in an engineering program, because that's his passion. There will always be people who want to teach, or be doctors and all those other things that can't be automated. At the lower end of the spectrum, there will always be people who might not what it takes to be a doctor, but wants to have a bit more than what they get from the state which is where the fork force for the more menial jobs that remain that can't be automated. And there will ALWAYS be someone to see a demand, have an idea, and want to make a buck off it: the entrepreneurs.

I agree partially with your statement about American work being shit, but part of that I think comes from the demand as well. No one expects to buy anything and have it be in their, and their family's, possession for generations any more. Fashion and style are too important and change too rapidly. Technology does that, too. Who cares if the mobile phone starts going on the blink in 15 months. There's gonna be something better that you have to have before that anyway. Wanna bet me that in 50 years, antique stores will pretty much look exactly the way they do now? There hasn't been anything made in almost 30 years that was meant to last. No one wants it to.

I have no thoughts on Herman Cain or any of the other Republican candidates at the moment. Kentucky conducts closed-primaries and I'm a registered Democrat so it's a moot point until the general election. I rarely follow Republican races since I can have no impact on it. When it comes time to make the big decision, by then I've only had to worry my head with two individuals and not a whole field of them. That said, I don't think either party really is that fundamentally different from the other except on polarizing issues steeped in ideology.

I don't know why Republicans think Democrats are any more "socialist" than they are at this point in our history. While I think the Teapartiers are misguided in thinking a laissez-faire system is even feasible in this day and age, I do think they have one thing right: we need to strip down this government and get it back to basics. It's entirely too bloated, inefficient, over-reaching, and intrusive - at home and abroad. The preamble of the Constitution is essentially a mission statement and we've gotten everything so convoluted we've lost the plot.

  • 1