[ThomPete]

Outsourcing really just is the last step before automation.

The major trend to look for is always cost of production where labour being the number one cost.

In order for products to keep getting cheaper the cost has to come down. This trend doesn't stop just because we outsource it to China or Brazil or India and so even they become too expensive.

Unless economist start factoring in technology as one of the key economic factors rather than treating it as they do now as an externality we will still fight about whether too much government or too little government is going to save us all. And the politicians wont do anything because they don't see it projected in the forecasts their advisors give them.

In the meantime robots are going to slowly but surely put most of us out of a job in almost all the industries we know of right now.

Or put another way – it's the technology stupid.

[astazangasta]

The problem as always is the basic premise of capitalism: who reaps the benefits of productivity gains. It doesn't matter a fig if we automate away all of the labor in the world if all (or nearly all) of the gains go to the people who "own" the machines. Since 1970 this has been almost entirely the case - none of the productivity gains made by American workers have gone to the working class, they have gone to the rich,and mostly to the ultrarich. Why, then, should we cheer for any productivity gains?

This problem is purely political, not at all technological, and we can only solve it by clawing power away from capitalists. So, sure, robot sewing machines. But let's make sure we all get to eat the benefits.

[ThomPete]

Capitalism will always be in play even if robots take most normal jobs. As long as there are humans with needs and humans who can provide for that need.

So yes it is technology that is creating this winner takes all principle and it would be in a socialist society too. It's apolitical if you'd like.

[kbenson]

The question is whether that's a bad thing. Sure, in the short term, it causes disruptions and job loss, but if we can steer ourselves towards a better future through it's use, then it may be a net win, if not for the current populace, than for its descendants.

The question is, can we steer ourselves, will we blindly stumble into this better tomorrow, or are we heading for a crash? The past gives clues based on prior outcomes, but only a fool would blindly expect models to scale indefinitely in the real world.

[ThomPete]

Agree, but the problem is that even short term is at least a decade and probably a major crisis before we will find a new solution to how to deal with that. And so a lot of people are going to find themselves without jobs without anyway to get a new one, my parents for instance and most probably myself at one point too.