Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's only relevant whenever those people actually have an alternate employment method.

Not that I oppose 3d printing, I'm just saying, it's not as rosy as they would like to make it out to be.

 Aerethan wrote:
a few million people with work history having to find new jobs?
or
the 1 billion people living in slums with no income or work opportunity at all?

That is an incredibly stupid, broken, and illogical argument.

This technology will not give billions of people income or work opportunities. Therefor, it is not a choice between the two things that you present, no matter how much you want to lie and claim that it is.

As I said (not that you paid any attention), I have no problem with this technology. I mostly have a problem with the false assertions that you are making. This WILL have a negative impact on employment if widely adopted. That is a thing which is true. In many ways it's well worth it. In other ways, it is not.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
What new social class?

Those who own the machines.

Not really a new class though. THey're just one that is getting more and more power.

Sure, if one actually has money to spare for investment.

They already are. Their solution? Cut more jobs and increase productivity.

Much like communism, capitalism doesn't work by itself. It never has. It never will.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
What new social class?

Those who own the machines.

Not really a new class though. THey're just one that is getting more and more power.

Still waiting for Shuma's answer, because I think it's more amongst the line of the technocratic class.
After all, like you say, there's little difference betwen the class that owns the machines and that which 'owns' the workers. Beside issues like unions and such.

Well, those who own the means of production own the means of production, no matter what those means are.

Also you have to ensure that they cannot reprogram themselves or that an outside force cannot do so.

It annoys me how every twit and their mother puts Jonathan Coulton to World of Borecraft videos.

Coulton deserves better.

 sebster wrote:
I've never understood this argument that we should keep doing things inefficiently so that someone has a job. Replacing old practices with more efficient ones is how we improve living standards.

Moving labour that used to be tied up in building houses, and into, say, building house making robots and other kinds of 3D printing would expand living standards immensely.

It would mean transition costs, but you deal with those. You reskill labour. You don't just refuse progress. That's just bizarre, quite frankly.

I don't disagree with the first part of this post . I just disagree that the latter part is ever going to happen until sanity comes back to the Republican party.