If we were able to achieve as much automation in every area of human endeavor as we have gained in agriculture, then 2% of the population involved in any sector of the economy would be able to provide all the goods and services that the other 98% needed.
Last month, we considered that one person today could make as many Adirondack chairs in 8 hours as 320 woodworkers could make in 8 hours a half century ago. Similarly, we see many plants that run “lights out” because there’s no one in them who needs to see, only robots cranking out products all day long.
In nearby Pittsburgh, the huge Heinz buildings don’t have as many people preparing food that they once did. Today, the company makes more catsup and other products, but with more automated machines and many fewer people. On another side of that City, the huge National Biscuit Company building is now used for other purposes. The crackers and cookies that used to be made there are now produced far away, by ever-fewer people.
The benchmark is clear from the success in agricultural automation: 2% of the number of laborers who used to be necessary are now needed to produce goods and services in any definable area.
Some think this is a desirable goal. Others aren’t so sure. If we were monks or nuns who wanted to spend more time praying than working, being able to spend more time praying would be a blessing.
The people who think of ways to cut cost and labor are bitterly opposed by those who make more money if there are more workers. Union bosses can’t very well get robots to pay dues. So, they want to make sure that as many people as possible are involved in as many activities as possible.
Education has long resisted automation. Now, however, for-profit universities are providing college degrees at much lower prices. One person reported that “I was able to get a four-year degree for the price of one semester’s tuition at a nearby university.” This, of course, reduces the horrifying levels of educational debt that drain most graduates for a large part of their lives. Now, it seems clear that only the dumbest students are willing to waste time going to universities with ridiculous requirements that they spend tuition money on too many politically correct subjects that have absolutely no sane purpose in helping those who take them learn any worthwhile skill.
Suddenly, the “old school” schools are becoming not merely passe, but actually detrimental to the economic and educational well-being of those who attend them.
Already, legislators are being urged to pass laws against for-profit schools. The people doing the fighting are mostly union representatives and lobbyists, worried that a decline in conventional college attendance will reduce their own incomes.
The Solution is in Understanding Money:
Money is not, and should not be a static, unchanging thing. Money is only and always a reflection of value added. It should not matter if two farmers add as much food as 98 farmers used to contribute to our food supply. We cannot, however had one farmer getting paid as much as 98 farm families used to get paid. There would be no surer recipe for revolution!
Political leaders with the power to tax and redistribute have taken upon themselves the duty to transfer money saved by saving labor among various interest groups. The remaining farmer or two, whose capital requirements are great, has to have more than one farmer used to get, but others need to have that value added distributed to them.
This is done in two ways. First, and most desirable, are the pretend jobs in various “departments” where much is said and little done. Everyone with political connections wants themselves and their family members to have jobs in the various “departments”. They are in positions to get those jobs.
The second means of distributing the fruits of automation is provided by various systems of welfare and dole arrangements. Those who are too smart, too dumb, or too politically incorrect are increasingly locked into the less remunerative systems involving food stamps, heating credits, and medical assistance.
