For a summary please see the last paragraph.

The following is a statement of some trends I have noticed, and some conclusions I have drawn from those trends. I will endeavour to be concise.

It seems to me that because of machines and computers there is a ongoing trend towards automation in work. Some obvious examples are in farming, industry, and of course IT where the whole idea is automation. The direct consequence of the automation trend is that for a given ammount of work less work needs to be done by human workers.

The world by and large exhibits capitalism. And capitalism exhibits a trend towards maximising economy by minimizing the ammount of human, wage earning workers required.

Let us now consider a test case, where we have X organizations performing all the work being done in terms of food supply, industry supply, and IT supply. Let us assume all these organizations have a high degree of automation and a high degree of economic efficiency. Given that we also have a high world population this leads to a high unemployment rate. Perhaps this is even a contributing factor in the high unemployment rates we see today in the world.

This is an unsustainable situation however and it will therefore be solved one way or another. Let us now look at hypothetical solutions and try to arrive at a conclusion.

Minimizing population is not a viable solution to this problem because work needed is proportional to population, which under maximised economy and automation implies that unemployment is also proportional to population. Also, it is difficult to reliably predict a reversal of the current long standing trend towards increasing population. Thus we discard this hypothetical solution.

Artificially evening out the distribution of work and wealth (EDIT: a la socialism?) may or may not be a viable solution but it is unexpected given the current strong trend towards the organic opposite. Thus we discard this hypothetical solution, however we note that ultimately evening out the distribution of work and wealth is the only solution but also note that it will have to occur organically.

Creation of work is a viable solution and fits current trends. When organizations are mega rich due to economy maximisation they expand thus creating work, work that doesn't really need to be done (because agriculture and industry is already covered) but that people want to pay for. But automation and maximisation of economy means they will have as small workforces as possible and so again we end up with high unemployment. The surplus of workers set up their own buisnesses thus creating work, again work that doesn't really need to be done (because agriculture and industry is already covered) but that people want to pay for. What we end up with is lots and lots of buisnesses, all of them with as small as possible workforces, all of them doing things people want to pay for. This solution is viable and fits the current trend, thus we adopt it as our solution to the problem.

Now we have established a realistic solution, lets bring in another factor that is a current consequence and trend of capitalism. That of increasing the importance of businesses and decreasing importance of governments.

We finally conclude taking that last point into account. Our solution arrives at large numbers of buisnesses, all of them with as small workforces as possible, EDIT: with enough buisnesses so that there is full employment, all of them doing things that people want to pay for (read cool or necessary stuff), coupled with a decrease in government power, and an increase in buisness power. EDIT: Ladies and gentlemen, have I just described a likely future, a quasi-anarchist capitalist utopia?

and so again we end up with [[high unemployment]]. The surplus of workers set up their own buisnesses thus creating work

Unemployed people don't have capital. To create businesses you need capital.

Unemployed people don't have capital. To create businesses you need capital.

Not all unemployed people lack capital. EDIT: And unemployed people can ask for investment from investors to help start their buisness.

Workers of the world unite! Rise up an throw off the yoke of oppressive capitalist pigs! That wealth belongs to you, the true sons and daughters of humankind!

But, really, study history. Learn how the pendulum just keeps swinging from one extreme to the other, when for a period the only solution is to have social control to clean up the mess caused by corrupt and criminal capitalists and the next period, the only solution is to have individual capitalists clean up the mess caused by corrupt and poisonous government. For the most part, the great unwashed mass of humanity consists of desperate people leading desperate lives.

So, yes, you are predicting one wave of the future. You are not forecasting the end of history.

Workers of the world unite! Rise up an throw off the yoke of oppressive capitalist pigs! That wealth belongs to you, the true sons and daughters of humankind!

Very confused by that as it seems completely random. Is it because I wrote "workers" and "capitalism" quite often in one of my paragraphs? :/

But, really, study history. Learn how the pendulum just keeps swinging from one extreme to the other, when for a period the only solution is to have social control to clean up the mess caused by corrupt and criminal capitalists and the next period, the only solution is to have individual capitalists clean up the mess caused by corrupt and poisonous government. For the most part, the great unwashed mass of humanity consists of desperate people leading desperate lives.

So, yes, you are predicting one wave of the future. You are not forecasting the end of history.
[/quote]

So you argue that states will instead eventually clamp down on increasingly powerful businesses? How will that solve the unemployment problem? And if its not going to, how do you counter my claim that massive unemployment in any system is unsustainable? If people don't have money buisness will die, and if they don't have food governments fall.

EDIT: Do you predict a socialist clamp down by governments, where a minimum of work, food and shelter is given to enough people so as to keep the masses from tearing said governments down? If so then you suggest this has happened many times in the past. I don't see this trend. Yes, countries tend to switch back and forth between Labour and Tory, or Republican and Democrat, etc, but that's hardly the same given they are all quite similar and quite centric.

EDIT: or do you think governments will force big buisness to cut their profits and employ enough people? I think this is more realistic than the above alternative though like I said in the OP its against current trends, and I haven't seen such a movement in the past, at least not in western countries.

EDIT: I was not forecasting an end of history. I forecast an outcome that I think might occur but I did not claim it would be eternally steady state.

EDIT: Ladies and gentlemen, have I just described a likely future, a quasi-anarchist capitalist utopia?

Just as likely as any other possibility. Human misery forms part of every kind of social arrangement they have come up with through history. So far, this seems impossible to eradicate regardless of the implemented system.

We like it or not, we are living in the most socially [font="arial, sans-serif"]egalitarian [/font]century in history of mankind, where the accumulated knowledge of the race is available to anyone (equally) for a couple of pennies or for free. Where the advancements of medicine are being considered a undeniable human right in most places, just as the right to have a decent education and access to food and this rights are considered to be irrevocable for all humans of any sex, race or religion.

I do not pretend to say that capitalism and democracy are the ultimate solution for the human race, but undeniably, they have played the most important role in changing the status quo set when we left the trees to make tools.

I could elaborate endless pages on this, but I just woke up and I gotta work. I might come back later to help blowing the flames

From 1945 to 1975, Australia maintained a policy of full employment, where unemployment numbers across the country were measured in mere thousands, instead of a significant percentage of millions. It was also the first country to introduce the worker's right to a 40-hour week, along with several other basic rights to maintain a decent standard of living, which were fully achieved during that time.

Such a system of capitalism without unemployment is entirely possible.

Unemployment exists not because we can't get rid of it, but because it's good for business.
When unemployment dropped to 0%, business owners didn't have nearly as much bargaining power over their work-forces. They weren't able to drive down wages, increase hours, squeeze out the last drop of productivity, etc...
Unions gained more and more power, and eventually, the government had to cave in to the demands of big businesses and first strip away the right to employment, and since then have been stripping away more and more worker's rights. This is Bregma's pendulum. Eventually the working class is stripped of one too many rights, and the pendulum will swing back again, as it's done many times.

The last swing from "conservative to liberal" here (or "liberal to labor" in our parlance) was indeed caused by the government stripping away people's right to collective bargaining, overtime pay, public holidays, etc... But yes, in most western countries at the moment, the "conservatives" and "liberals" are both extremely similar to each other, and hold no resemblance to their post-war counterparts.

Nice post Hodgman.

But yes, in most western countries at the moment, the "conservatives" and "liberals" are both extremely similar to each other, and hold no resemblance to their post-war counterparts.

Yup, this is EDIT: illustrative of my counter argument to "Bregma's pendulum". I can't see that changing, big buisness just seems too powerful, and in my experience most people are at least quite satisfied with capitalism, probably more so than they are with democracy? Hence the outcome outlined in the OP.

There is always work that needs to be done. The real problem is that people don't want to adapt to changing workforce needs. Machines should be doing our trivial tasks. There is no reason anybody should be pushing for them not to. Human labor should be dedicated to things that machines are considerably worse than humans at doing.

Automation only causes unemployment for people who have allowed themselves to become stagnant in their professional development.

I'm also not sure I would agree with your position that businesses are becoming any more powerful. It depends greatly by what metric you rank "power". Is it sway over people? Their ability to get what they want? Their ability to get other people to want what they want? Their ability to get what they want despite other people not wanting what they want? I wouldn't really say by any of those metrics that businesses today are any more powerful than they were 20-30 years ago. It could be argued that they are considerably less powerful than they have been in the past; there are far fewer monopolies, and almost no monopsonies anymore.

As far as business/organization vs individual power, I'd say voting and education reform will be more effective than any reform that deals with businesses or organizations directly.

Since I am sure it will get brought up at some point, unions are an organization that does not necessarily represent the needs/wants of the individual. Do not make the mistake of thinking that because they are the other side of the coin to businesses that they are fighting for an individual's power or benefit. In a competitive market, they can be just as harmful as any business to an individual's needs; the key being a competitive market.

The most important factor in your analysis (in my opinion, at least) is that automation will never be able to replace creative human work. Lots of unskilled and skilled labor can be automated, but something like research science and engineering much less so. So while a lot of jobs (particularly those that don't require extensive education) will disappear, that will only free up more money and human brainpower for the creative work. Education levels will have to rise to take advantage of this, but there's no reason that aggregate demand for labor needs to drop. There's no finite amount of work; there's always more to be done.

Plus, automation can reduce the cost of production to the point that products become essentially free. They probably won't, and business will charge money anyhow, but if the cost of producing food falls low enough that it can be easily covered for all people, then a significant driver of wages disappears because cost of living decreases. Again, it's not all that likely that this would be realized, and increased consumption/inflation is a much more likely result. But if the cost of living falls due to reduced cost of production, then the need for employment falls as well.

However, I don't think that government will ultimately succumb to corporate power. There are pendulum shifts, as noted above, but the overwhelming majority of a population has a huge stake in preserving government for core functions (things like creating and enforcing law, even in a Nozick-esque minimalist state where all they do is protect people from initiation of force and require the enforcement of contracts). You have a say in what your government does, but you do not have a say in what a business does. You do not want a totally opaque coporation to control your access to drinking water or all roads. However, as corporations concentrate wealth, they will wield more influence over the government itself.