Why Able Men Should Cheer Every Job Eliminated By Technology

It is common to hear in the media or in casual conversation stories about jobs being eliminated or destroyed by technology. This process is almost always seen in a negative light, as a destructive or tragic thing to happen to the country and its people.

Instead the sensible response is to cheer every such announcement. Every time this happens, it is a sign of growing prosperity and economic advancement. To understand why we need to start by considering the source of our prosperity.


Luddites wearing ties

How do we achieve higher living standards?


Same cars, less workers, higher living standards

Basic economic reality is very simple. Our living standards are determined by how much we produce. At the individual level government can interfere with this process to some degree using taxes, welfare, spending, and borrowing. The taxation part is sad for the man who was robbed of his own product. Meanwhile the spending allows someone to have a living standard higher than her production indicates.

At the national level government action doesn’t change the reality that the total consumption of the people in a country cannot be different from the total output of the people of the country. All government can do is shift the output around a bit.

Money is just a medium to ease the process of exchanging our production with others. It is fantastically beneficial because it makes the trading so much easier, but one downside is that it makes the simplicity of this law obscure.

People produce things. They trade their product with others to acquire what they want for themselves, in the quantity their output allows. The more people produce, the more they can consume. This is true for individuals and it is true for countries.

What does it mean when jobs are eliminated by technology?


One day soon human drivers will seem as silly as human rock breakers

When an employer lays off workers because of technological change, it merely means that they were no longer needed to meet whatever need that production met. If an enterprise reduces output or closes because of technological change, it is because somewhere else the needs those products satisfied are being met in a cheaper or better manner.

Either way, it is because somewhere, someone is producing more output with fewer people. That is a good thing for living standards and we should all celebrate. The consequence is that some or all of the workers are no longer adding enough to production to make it profitable to employ them. So the enterprise decides to end the employment relationship for those workers.

Why don’t workers just agree to work for less?


Low tech, low production, low wages, but who would choose that?

The most obvious alternative to job losses would be for workers to simply agree to work for less pay or lesser conditions. Once the pay was less than the amount those people added to output, the enterprise would happily agree to continue the employment relationship. In situations where workers are getting more than their labor is worth this sometimes happens, mostly though workers will not agree to reduced wages.

The reason for this is very simple. Those workers refuse because they know their alternative use of time to be more valuable than the new rate of pay they could command. That’s right, people who are capable of producing don’t need to worry much about losing employment because they can simply find another place or way to produce.

Who does need to fear the elimination of jobs by technology?


Those who produce the least protest the most

Bargaining for wages is not a completely perfect process even in a free market. Some always manage to get a little more than they produce and some have to settle for a little less. In real life there are other, mostly government, processes which seek to take from a person who did produce and give it to someone who did not. Affirmative action, employment quotas, unionism, most government jobs, corruption, nepotism. These are all examples of situations where someone is seeking to enjoy someone else’s product.

The workers who are simply getting what is their due will just wander off and find somewhere else to produce, someone else will be happy to employ them. People who are managing to drain away more than they produce are the ones who are hurt when their cozy deal is ruined by job losses.

Those people know that they will struggle to find another such situation. They are the ones who squeal like pigs at job losses. Learn to enjoy that sound. It is the undeserving lamenting that they can’t live at your expense.

What should a man do about the situation?

Innovation, technology, and change are often seen as destructive and unwelcome disruptions of an otherwise comfortable stability. Don’t believe it, they are what drives a man and his society forwards. The man who has the able body, the skills and the knowledge to participate fully in this process has little to fear and everything to gain.

Men should waste no time worrying and just make sure to have the able body, the skills, and knowledge seize new opportunities.

Read More: Is Digital Technology Destroying The Middle Class?

373 thoughts on “Why Able Men Should Cheer Every Job Eliminated By Technology”

  1. The reality is this:
    Our brains took billions of years to evolve to this point,
    We’re in a smarter faster world now, but our iq’s are still the same as they were 1000’s of years ago, we’re getting left behind
    in order to contribute and keep up with a world that is soon to be MUCH more clever than you are to the point you are useless, the EXO-Cortex will need be developed.
    It’s very obvious. We won’t sit around writing poetry all day while robots do our jobs, we’ll enable ourselves to contribute by expanding our natural cortical speed, by merging with the computer chip.

        1. Yep. unplug all this stupid crap instead of trying to render humanity useless for profit.

    1. It takes fewer people to make the little black boxes than it does to do the job they replace.
      Otherwise nobody would bother making little black boxes.

      1. Personal observation about “automation” in computer technology field I’m in.
        Many layoffs are political or short-term thinking (replace highly skilled tech workers with falsely credentialed ones from Asia). Result? They produce a LOT of bad code that require 2 skilled workers to clean up.
        In terms of automation, increased output often creates increased demand. Ever go to Costco and buy a big box of cupcakes only to find it went as fast as the small box you buy at the local store? People wear out clothes faster than they used to. In the middle ages, people wore the same clothes for decades and mended them.
        Hmmm, this leads to one of the jokes about how feminists think that they’ll be “free” of men as soon as they all get high paying jobs (either through merit or quota.) What’s the first thing these young women do with their big paychecks?
        Blow them on designer clothes, shoes, bags and cars that require LOTS of expensive maintenance.
        I discovered that a lot of career women seemed to be mired in debt because of their inability to understand basic economics: If you spend more than you earn, you wind up in debt.

  2. “Men should waste no time worrying and just make sure to have the able body, the skills, and knowledge to seize new opportunities.”
    Yes, and once having all of that, you run into a wall because some twat at HR didn’t feel right about you and promptly decided to deny you the opportunity. The job market isn’t governed by logic and rationality. The assumption that there will always be someone else happy to employ a man with “the able body, the skills, and the knowledge” is a too simple one.

    1. There is always someone smart enough to hire the best man for the job. These guys will prioritize earning money over employing a fat feminist.

    2. HR is one of the jobs talked about. HR is as useful to us nowadays as diplomas or degrees. The only reason why HR exists is because companies don’t want to be accused of sexism and thus decide to employ women.. Even if it means they need to come up with something for them to do!
      In a compulsion/coercion free market shit like HR wouldn’t exist!

        1. You have to pay everyone that works for your company. I’m not clear on your point.

        2. The purpose of HR is HR. Companies had methods of defending themselves from litigations long before HR was coined.

        3. Even if you own the company HR are still a pain in the arse – companies have a HR department because they have to. The amount of problems HR promote and create, I would argue, are not worth the cost really. It comes back to your original point – they are there so companies don’t get sued. So, backtracking here, maybe they are worth the cost.
          It’s late on a Sunday night with a few wines behind the teeth – be kind.

        4. The point is that HR is a woman’s club designed to let the cackling hens run useless meetings that force the more productive personnel who fear their control on their employment to get their ears raped for weekly meetings that tell them all of these harpies self-importance.
          Literally exercizes in how to talk professional. One or two do the work. The others come to work late, dressed in NY-Ny business wear, and complain about how hard it tit to avoid doing the useless paperwork uselessly sitting on their overpriced desk that never needed to be purchased anyways. Like their whole damn department.

        5. But monarchy and democracy are much more differenter that Personnel and HR. what you did was make a doody on the carpet.

    3. A man doesn’t blame someone else for their problems. This is probably what the HR rep thought wasn’t right about you. I wouldn’t hire a whiner either.

      1. Conrad is not so far from the truth. I’ve seem several times (including with me) HR people dispense candidates because they don’t like “how he/she is” or because they didn’t wake up so well etc. In other words: completely subjetive reasons to not employ someone.
        Of course I won’t ever talk about this in an interview, and I hope Conrad also. He’s just stating the facts.
        In my country, the Government contracts based in your titles, and a “competition” [= concurso – don’t know a better translation] in wich you have to proof you have the knowledge for the position.
        The HR’s function in this selection is just to find the best position in the organization based in your skills and experience, after you pass the competition.
        IMO, it’s the best way for now, because the subjective factor is eliminated. Until someone comes with a better idea, that’s what I’ve been doing to make a living.
        “Concurso” after “concurso” till I find the position and wage I really want.

        1. I know all about HR. Yes their interviews are bullshit but knowing this makes them easy to game. The HR interview is the easiest one to pass.
          If you can’t get the HR rep to recommend you, it’s not because there is something wrong with them, it’s because there’s something wrong with you.
          Once you start taking responsibility for yourself, your life will improve.

        2. Well, I have. I researched the employee market in my country and saw that the best wages, best jobs, and best possibility of ascension is in the Government.
          Instead of whining and crying about “how the HR people don’t like meeeeee” ;-; I just find my way out of the mouse’s race.
          And I like to study – I can say my curiosity is endless, so learning new things is a treat for me.
          But it’s a characteristic of my country – if I was in N. America, I’d have to examine the market and find my way there. Even if it means a ticket to Southest Asia or Latin America…

        3. True. Figured it out by chance in my early to mid twenties when hunting for permanent work. Once you figure out how they tick, it gets easier everytime.

        4. Good man. I actually got into an argument with the HR rep in one interview. I refused to answer her bullshit questions. She went on and on until finally the Director basically told her to shut up. She didn’t like me but I still got the job.

        5. I think I’m just too lazy to fight HR bs anymore.
          Maybe I’m the lazy guy that received a dificcult task and found the easiest way to solve it.
          Like R. Frost once wrote,
          “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —
          I took the one less traveled by,
          And that has made all the difference.”

        6. People cannot understand why I am lazy too. I am so lazy I prefer to take online classes than go and drive an hour to achieve the same thing using three times the amount of time and effort, this denying myself the leisure time I work so hard for.

        7. I agree that HR is usually the easiest to pass with this single caveat: HR has a lot of racist quotas and other prejudices that they either inflict upon candidates or under orders by their superiors. This is a reverse Jim Crow era we live in.
          That being said, assuming that they need a candidate and have to, gasp, hire a white guy because he knows his job, getting past the HR interview is about as difficult as finding the coffee machine.

        8. This is more of a problem in the US than in the UK. Quotas don’t exist here. That said I had an interview with a racist in America who could barely disguise his contempt for me. I am black.
          He distinguished himself by being the only white man I met professionally in America who could not restrict his judgement of me to my skills and experience.

        9. Hello Englishbob. I’m confused. Did he restrict his judgement to you based upon your skills and experience DESPITE his contempt for you as a black man? Did other white men you met professionally in the states not judge you only by your skills and experience and also express contempt?
          I looked up the term “positive discrimination” and it appears to be Britain’s version of affirmative action. (I like the doublespeak British twist of the concept. Orwell would be proud of his countrymen.) Quotas aren’t necessarily published in the states but are informally used to guarantee compliance. After all, like any other metric in business, how does one measure success without numbers?

        10. Typo. I have fixed it.
          He had no interest in my skills and experience. He scoffed at them and practically called me a liar.
          I had four interviews at that company that day and he was the only one with a problem. Also I have never experienced anything remotely similar at any other company.
          I have never experienced discrimination in professional settings in London positive or negative.

    4. Happened to me. A twat from years past, who I did not even really relate with, got her masters in some archaic women’s business degree, and was overseeing my employment opportunity. Karma I guess, unfortunately for me, it was the karma of a former friend. These women take it out on you also two decades after your thirteen year old friend does not call them back. LOL
      Women don’t let go. They hold on forever.

      1. They constantly seek a purple squirrel that validates their stupidity. I wasn’t hired for a job because of the neurotic HR cunt. That stupid bitch instead hired agency staff at twice the money. I sent her an email asking her if it was hard to breath with her head that far up her arse.

    5. There’s no rational solution to HR hiring, which is why any sane man who seeks good employment finds ways to entirely bypass the HR process.
      Make male friends, show them your skills, try to get hired through the back channels. HR departments are a pox on our economy and will do you no favors.

        1. I started working online, completing various simple jobs that only requires from you desktop or laptop computer and internet
          connection and I couldn’t be happier… After 6 months on this job and i earned so far total of $86k… Basicly i profit about $80/hourly and work for 3 to 4 hours daily. And the best part about the job is that you can make your own schedule, work in your own hours and you get paychecks weekly. This is what I do..

    6. I have never worked a job that had an HR department. Guess what problems I have avoided. We should strive to be our own bosses and management.

    7. Stop thinking in terms of obstacles and think in terms of challenges to be overcome. The victim mentality will get you nowhere. Instead learn how to game the system. The very HR system that keeps a lot of deserving people from getting jobs can be used to your advantage. You just need to know how.

    8. Good ol’ fashioned nepotism will get you further in life than kissing HR’s ass ever will. Make friends. Lots of friends. Preferably male. Show them you’re a producer. You’ll get what you want out of life, socially & financially.

  3. I call BS on the article. Workers should just accept lower wages? How low? Should they lower their wages to Chinese standards in order for manufacturers to stop shipping their jobs offshore?
    Technology and automation is a normal process of scientific advancement of a species – but sooner or later, we are left with 3 solutions on what to do with the so-called useless eaters, since there is a level of automation which stops producing additional work:
    1. Reach for the stars, settle on other planets first in the solar system and then beyond
    2. Create interest free money, unleash our full scientific and monetary potential releasing suppressed profit-destroying technologies and usher in a never before seen golden age for mankind
    3. Embark on depopulation, sterilization of the useless eaters and on stark austerity for the most until the population shrinks to a size that the elite deems worthwhile (also make up a global warming scam to let the peasants accept their lower living standard)
    Guess what plan our rulers have chosen?
    Yes individually you can do a lot and that is all fine and well, but systematic real unemployment in the West above 10% is not due to “workers demanding too high wages” or government sucking us all dry due to welfare. Those are fake reasons trumped up by expertly indoctrinated economists (one of whom I was myself, but I guess I have broken through the preliminary conditioning).

    1. One way to have workers accept lower wages is inflation. Their dollar is worth less, but they still make the same amount of dollars a day.

    2. It doesnt matter, wages will get lower, but prices will be lower as well since no one has money because everyone has crappy jobs that pays nothing, and because of that, wages will go down again. It’s a spiral. Let’s just accept that technology is here to stay and it will only get worse, to the point where no one at all will have jobs. But by then, it doesnt matter, because robots will simply provide for each and every need.

      1. And then comes the elimination of the “useless eaters” as per the plan of the anti-human globalist genociders. Yay.

        1. Me. I said it. And billions of others who disagree with the wishes of the elitist globalist population control freaks say it daily. humanity will not stand for this extermination attempt. Why are you so on board with it, are you mean or something?

        2. Me on board with it ? I’m not. I wish it wasnt like that and of course, I cant be sure how it all ends. Life is not fair though, that’s for sure.

        3. In another 100 years, there’s very few things that we can do that AI can’t do. So I’m pretty sure that everyone in the future will be without jobs. That might not be a bad thing though, I mean most people hate their jobs.

        4. Oh so rosy. you’re forgetting that the elitists want to kill the all the useless eaters. so i guess they’ll kill everyone. yay.

        5. As a matter of fact we don’t want life to be fair. Most here have it better than 97% of the globe population. I don’t want fairness..

        6. I do. We don’t need the IMF raping the world to maintain our standard of living.

        7. look at nature. It’s pretty much based on someone raping and someone getting raped. Why should humans be any different ?

        8. I did. And billions want it to be moreso, despite the desire of the elitist population control zealots.

        9. There will never be any AI. Learn to connect things together and think philosophically, unless you’re 12 years old, then don’t worry you have time.

        10. There will never be AI ? AI is already there. Imagine in a 100 years how advanced it will be.

        11. It won’t be any advanced because technological development or development in any field is discontinuous.

        12. Shut up you socialist faggot. Your lucky we live in the 21 cenntury where weak men can hide behind the police and social welfare. What if you were born in 14th century Asia, and Genghis Khan troops were coming through your village? You would be disembowled while your wife and daughter get gang raped. Why? Because you chose to be a weak man.

      2. That would be deflationary depression. At this point we still see around 2% inflation per year. Some jobs are getting hit by technology, but most are being hit by out sourcing for cheap labor, not automation.
        Interestingly with increasing demand for reduced cash tied up in inventory and shorter lead times, reshoring is happening with many old school manufacturing jobs.
        Casting, forging, cnc work etc… Is coming back. It is getting harder to get time on mills without massive volume.
        Technology is a tool that sometimes is more about improving quality and delivery than eliminating jobs. In the west we are better at using it. We are seeing a bit of a claw back in jobs because of it.

      3. If jobs get replaced by technology because it can produce more, what good is it when the people out of work with no money can’t even buy the goods technology produces?

        1. It’s good justification for the democidal elitists to kill them, them being useless and all. And population reduction is a goal of those who run the world. They hate us.

        2. Imagine all work being done by robots. That would make everything much cheaper. Perhaps it would come to a point where economy as we know it doesnt exists.

        3. Right, there’s nobody who believes in population control, oh wait, except for a lot of people.

        4. I see the opposite happen in Sweden, the country I immigrated to some years ago. The Swedish elite pushes mass immigration of unproductive people, mostly Arabs and Africans (especially Somalis).

        5. Thats part of the war on white people. First they will use them to destroy the white people, then they will kill them.

        6. If that happens and people start kicking off there will be some sort of political reform where the goods produced by the machines are equally distributed to society.

        7. Could be that. It could also be people with a much bigger world view than you who realize that these people help fight inflation by creating demand for money, and also boost the economy by both creating a source of cheap labour while creating a demand for goods, services and housing, since European populations are declining by choice and reproducing less than 2 children per couple on average.

        8. Fight inflation? Kill the banks. As long as we have them, inflation is a fact of life.
          Or rather, what we need is a new monetary system. Something that doesn’t inflate.
          And the declining population is not by choice. It’s a result of the way we have structured society. Socialism kills the bonds between people. The white american population is also declining, incidentally.

        9. They’re just a little too smart in general than the elitists would like, and too accustomed to self determination. Third worlders accustomed to dictatorship, religious or otherwise is preferable.

        10. That’s when everything becomes so easy we have no reason to live and people kill themselves, until we are back to the Stone Age and history repeats itself as it should. The only realistic sci-fis are dystopian ones.

        11. Got news for you pal – they don’t.
          You’re being lied to about the nature of the FED and all other bankster rule the world conspiracy theories designed to sell you survival gear and gold bullion.
          Paper money is backed by real assets, oil, agricultural products etc. They are limited in what they can print and because the money is borrowed at a small level of interest it ensures a certain amount is going back out of the system all the time, therefore curbing inflation. Otherwise you would have Zimbabwe.
          Also, the federal reserve bank in the USA remits all profits to the US treasury..but Alex jones won’t tell you that either.

        12. No. There is nothing backing it. What curbs inflation is the gatekeepers hording it at the top, making sure that the wrong kinds of people don’t get it.

        13. The federal reserve has stock issued that is held by select private banks and is nontranferrable.

        14. Nope. It’s backed by nothing.
          What curbs inflation is the gatekeepers at the top making sure the wrong sorts of people don’t get access to it.

        15. Wrong. It’s not backed by real assets, and stock in the fed is owned by regional member banks and others.

        16. Actually they do. Social security is set up as a ponzi scheme. they keep telling us we need to allow massive immigration to pay baby boomer retirement. Pure ponzi.

        17. No. We have fiat currency, not back by any fixed amounts if any tangible asset. You are mistaken.

      4. What you are saying makes no sense. An increased amount of goods at a cheaper price is what makes us wealthy. This increase in wealth creates new goods and new jobs for people to manufacture them.
        How many people were involved in manufacturing computers 100 years ago?

      5. Life is about dealing with problems, not inventing robots to not have any problems, and this is why a sci-fi future will always be science-fiction and not science-fact. Technology is mass production of omega-males and landwhales. Fuck the logical positivist philosophically retarded age I’m living in.

        1. “Technology is mass production of omega-males and landwhales”
          Exactly. Lorded over by no-talent Machiavellian rats who could have never invented any of the technology in the first place.
          I know, you cant argue with these technophile idiots.
          Its painfully obvious to me that technology started reaching the point of diminishing returns looong ago.
          Hard thing to define, but Im guessing before 1965.

    3. I concur this article is total BS, what happens when people aren’t in paid in employment? No one can buy your goods dickhead! I’ve been hearing this unscientific and unsupported shit for the last 20years. It’s time these ideas went into the scapheap of bullshit together with the ” the earth is flat”, “the Sun revolves around the Earth”, and “Women are smarter than Men”. It’s time we stop listening to unscientific ideas and minds and only take heed when the ideas and minds has the data and facts to back them up.
      The only certainty here is that with every advance in technology, the majority of Men are unable to keep their manufacturing jobs, and women, due to the gender roles.Llie have affirmative action and quotas to keep them in jobs like looking at spreadsheets and then emailing those spreadsheets or working in HR deciding which man to fire next (thereby continuing to contribute nothing to Mankind).
      When are we all going to wake the fuck up!?

      1. No one can buy your goods dickhead!
        that is a leftist misconception that if wages aren’t high enough, no one will be able to afford anything .Consumer spending is at record highs, so apparently people aren’t having a problem.

        1. The consumption pattern is skewed toward the upper percentiles. American consumer stock are indeed taking a hit as the vast majority has less to spend.

      2. That’s incorrect, and essentially comes down to a broken-window fallacy.
        When goods and services are cheaper thanks to automation, less input labour is required to afford them. Jobs are lost equivalent to the amount of input labour no longer required to produce the same living standards.
        The net effect of these job losses is that every agent in the economy gets to work slightly less yet enjoys the same standard of living. Those who’ve lost their jobs will be absorbed back into the workforce eventually as people work slightly less (dropping an hour here and there) since things have become cheaper thanks to the automated production.
        If your claim was true, then we’d all be better off by reverting back to horses and carts, and rebooting the horse and cart industry. Our living standards would explode with all the new jobs, right? Of course not.

        1. There is a number of factors you aren’t considering here. Namely that year on year prices are actually increasing for many key goods(+ the value of money is going down) and that generally people work as hard+as much as possible due to the desire to better oneself, save for a rainy day, afford ever increasing education fee, pay ever increasing taxes, leave a large inheritance to children. People can already sit on welfare and live a decent life by past standards, so why isn’t everyone happily doing it? Also your very last point is redundant, sure life is better with cars instead of horses, but eventually technology will make whole classes of people obsolete, and that’s actually most people. So while combustion engines have made the horse and cart obsolete, not everyone has driving jobs, nor jobs making/designing cars, whilst a horse and cart will have been vital part of everyones way of life/income, regardless of their job/trade. You are comparing something that helped everyone generate an income/survive at the time, with something that is taking away that ability now. The reality is a time will come when, money, producers and consumers aren’t neccersary at all. Then we are at the mercy of whoever is in charge. You assume a very benevolent capitalist, government and un-competitive worker class, that will ensure this delegation of work/productivity/consumption. This isn’t the reality. It may become a reality, but things may have to get much worse before they are corrected.

        2. Key goods such as food, transport, and healthcare have dramatically decreased in cost. A bag of groceries in 1919 cost 9.5 hours of labour. Today, it costs less than 1.7 hours. This is a miracle virtue of automation, not job protectionism.
          Welfare recipients in the west and Scandinavia are very happy where they are. So much so, they’re renowned for extending their workless life as much as possible, even showing up to token job interviews just to meet the quota.
          Also consider that the effect of automating an industry causes the expansion of others. For example, if steel production were automated rendering steel very cheap, the building industry, car industry, and all civil engineering would dramatically increase, along with a demand for labour, and along with the affordability of their product.
          To automate the work of an entire class would mean equally tremendous affordability of the living standards they were working to afford.
          If you’re not happy with the horse and cart example, replace it with any instance of automation, and explain how it didn’t end up as a net benefit. Should we throw out all the sewing machines and do it by hand? Should we adopt North Korean manned traffic lights? Should we ban ATMs? How would any of this improve living standards?

        3. Stop being a moron and get skills people want or need. Plenty of people make a living online these days without lifting a finger. Quit whining like a little bitch.

        4. You are right but you are arguing with one of the malingerers. He is one of the pre-evolutionary humans who believes that the World should reform itself around him. Like a woman, he does not see the World as a real place but rather a setting for a story about the most important person. Him.
          The problem with what you are saying is that he and people like him will have to work just a little bit harder.

        5. Shaming language is so manly.
          Said it before but bears repeating. People like you are the male side of the feminist coin.

        6. guys like him and awesome possum are just internet tough guy characters. In real life they are less educated/skilled and make less money than the people they bash online. This is it for them, act like they have all their shit together online, because they don’t in real life, and in the process fail to recognize real issues. And of course they are here commenting on return of kings because they have a perfect masculinity and success with girls lol, they are made men in every way apparently lol honest
          That said, I usually enjoy their comments.

        7. It is the way of the internet and it’s getting worse on this site too. There is strong evidence that for the first time technology might be making more people obsolete than it is doing to create more and better jobs. At the very least it is a matter for serious debate, not bravely calling men you don’t know and will never meet whiners or whatever insult is on the tip of your pathetic bony keyboard fingers. Additionally, I have quite a bit of experience dealing with HR depts and today’s hiring process can be a nightmare for even the most qualified. Does this mean you should wrap yourself up in the fetal position and give up? Of course not, but PC reality is everywhere and won’t go away even when keyboard warriors choose to insult their fellow men.

        8. There are limits to everything, technology has had it ‘s good points, but now it’s turning bad. Think rationally instead of just this whole binary simplistic thing you have going on.

        9. Exactly. Nowadays you can live a pretty good life (by the average standards that almost all human beings up to the 20th century endured) even if you make little or no money.
          Jobs aren’t about money. They’re about status and self-worth, first and foremost.

      3. You sir are a feminist and just the kind of man who needs to be eradicated. It is weak men like you who seek to empower themselves at the expense of the strong.

    4. You misunderstood the article and you are focusing on an ancillary point. Re-read the final paragraph and try again.

      1. No – I understood it perfectly. I just don’t share the author’s viewpoint which mirrors basically all mainstream economists in the world. The same economists who were unable to see the financial crisis and who absolutely ignore the destructive issue of usury and concentration of capital. Unfettered markets will bring true prosperity? Good luck with that one. We can come back to the discussion in 10 years – you will find out how it will work out for the majority.
        And I don’t mean that there is a lack of opportunity – there still is plenty, but I see the bigger picture as well.

        1. You mischaracterised the article and the type of economist writing it. You use absolutist statements which are the mark of a simple mind. You also cannot see the difference between fundamental economics and “mainstream economics”. This leads you to draw absurd conclusions.
          Essentially you reject reason and embrace a fanciful picture of the World.

        2. The author’s likely leanings towards libertarian economics don’t make it really different to the current mainstream or neoclassical economics. I know that they want to be perceived as a species apart, but they leave usury in peace and liberate markets even more (not in a good way).
          I agree with the author that individually you can adapt, but I disagree with the point that everything is going to be alright, since innovation will automatically lead to different employment. That may be even true if you had a completely different economic system in place – something that we are not having.
          My comments are “simple” as you describe, because this is not the time and place for an academic essay. The words are chosen for strong emotions, but that is also dependent on the medium here.
          And I do realize and acknowledge that two sane individuals can differ on that point – there are smarter and more educated people than me who would differ with me on that point. Also those individuals might support the opinion of the author. I have no issue with that.
          Nonetheless I consider my opinion valid and the article despite some valid and true points too misleading – our current economic system will not lead to greater prosperity for the majority. But it would take longer to explain why I think it won’t.
          If I have ruffled some mental feathers – fine – my wording is sometimes grating and strong, but I mean it in full respect for the author. Different opinions in some minor points in life do not make us enemies.

    5. I agree, the author has a very basic understanding on economics and this is something I would expect to read on fox news.

    6. I’m amused that even as oligarchs announce they need massive immigration for both highly educated work and dishwashers, they are laying off their workers at the same time. The answer is that they would like to see the country with 10x more people than in it currently if that means they cash out, make a bundle of cash, and then move on to another country that isn’t an overpopulated hellhole. Oligarchs are like locusts sucking an economy dry and then moving on.
      This is something to ponder before young men volunteer for the military to defend the nation. Oligarchs don’t give away their money for free so why should men die in wars to defend a nation to protect oligarchs for free? Let oligarchs pay each man 10 million dollars to protect their treasure. If they don’t pay us, don’t expect us to get in the way if they and their children are taken to the basement and shot to death like what happened with the Romanovs.

    1. Yep as long as it starves the illegal trash that Mexico and other countries are tossing to the US.

  4. I think there is still the issue though of having to be constantly learning, constantly preparing yourself for the next job in the economy, constantly evolving. While that sounds so noble and commendable and maybe even “red-pill”, think about what that means for a second.
    What might be lost is the ability to focus on what you are doing… or to have something stable that will allow you to develop something in your life independently… Constantly having to worry about being ready for the rapidly changing economy is like playing the video-game of life, rather than living it.

    1. You bring up a good point. How can you specialize in something, when the circumstances are such you aren’t able to invest the proper time in the first place ?

      1. Software is the only skill that will be here for sure for the rest of our lives at least. Everything you see around you runs on software. Granted that also requires continuous upgrade, at least it’s within the same domain. Starting over and over different careers is very difficult indeed.
        Edit: I know there’s outsourcing going on but the need is so high that it doesn’t really matter anymore.

        1. And the globalist inspired employment practices are making sure fewer and fewer americans are allowed into that industry. Companies actually prefer h1b visas over citizens so they can’t treat them worse.

        2. H1B part is true.. However, when the projects go tits up, they call the real engineers and it costs them double.. They’re learning fast tbh.. the fewer americans are allowed is BS. There is enough to go around for anybody who wants to work.
          It’s true the low level is done in India(although less lately), but the major technical architecture is done here. So it’s like anything else.

        3. The hiring firms invalidate qualified americans for the smallest of reasons, and accept fake resumes from Indians and chinese. The companies prefer h1b’s so they can treat them like slaves, and they get what they want. Major technical architecture versus low level. Like some high level idiot saying, “I suggest we use Spring.” and calling it a day. You obviously are in management.

        4. You are making assumptions. No. I am not in management. I am a developer (and a trader on the side). Obviously, you have some major issues that you are not telling.
          I don’t know any unemployed software developer, and I know many. That’s all you need to know.

        5. Your anecdotal evidence is not a good argument. The globalists got a hold of your brain and convinced you hating fellow americans makes you cool.
          its not my assumption that hiring firms prefer h1bs, it’s fact. its what companies prefer, because its harder for them to leave the company, and they can treat them like shit.

        6. Jesus fucking christ. Now I hate americans.. where the fuck did you get that from? ohkay…
          This place is becoming more neurotic by the day seems like. Must be the lack of pussy I gather..

        7. Actually, the stupid ones are the ones who believe the globalist anti-humans won’t eventually come for them.

        8. The lack of the pussy you gather? what does your sexlessness have to do with it?

        9. I’m good thank you. Don’t worry about me.. just take your thin foil cap off dude. All you talk about is globalists like a little scared girl that you are.

        10. It is on my mind often, considering how their stupid ideas are destroying human society as we speak.
          If you were really good you wouldn’t be a globalist brainwash victim.

        11. So we still could hire more americans, with all that need. it’s not like all americans are hired first and there still aren’t enough. They SEEK Hib’s out FIRST.

        12. OK man, go picket in front of the Trilateral Commission.. It seems most serious discussions on this forums are starting to degenerate in name calling and all that.. OK, I am brainwashed and I love it. Anything else?

        13. I work in a big shop, and there’s no h1b man. Believe me or not. Your choice. I don’t know what you are talking about.. Yes there are some Indians, Russians, Brits, Americans, Chinese etc. But none on h1b. No h1b can sit in front of a 500K(part that I work on at least) lines of code software platform and make heads or tails off it. At that level going cheap is suicide for a corporation.. Anyway, it seems to me you are finding excuses for your own incompetence.

        14. Your experience is not representative of the overwhelming trend.
          If it’s really suicide for a corporation to do it, they wouldn’t do it. but they are doing it. it’s seems to me you’ve listened to too much talk radio and other globalist propagana.
          10 to 1 odds your next response includes the word “luddite”.
          I used to be the biggest globalist neocon around, man. i used to argue with “libruls” about it all day long, eventually resorting to personal attacks, just like you are now, man. And then it hit me, nobody is really safe. You can tell “whiners” to just got more educated and stop whining, but now even scientists and programmers are not safe, you are not safe either in this race to the bottom.

        15. So you thought, but you were actually right. You’re brainwashed and your certainty of your position and its popularity in the memesphere is comforting to you. you feel like the world is on your side. i get it.

        16. A man must always have plan B, no matter how well things are going. So I have two choices really. Get all hysterical about it all, or live my life the best I can, make as much money as I can get, always care for Plan B if it comes to that, and that’s pretty much it.
          I’ll deal with shit as it comes. When it comes, if it comes and not before for no reason to speak of.

        17. Im glad you’re so manly for having a plan b, but that really has nothing to do with the reality of the destruction of working class americans.

        18. well.. you must also have to be realist. what can I do for the american worker except tell them to adapt. you see all workers have their own problems in their respective countries. some jump off the window in china. tell me one thing I can do and I’ll do it.

        19. you can point out evils of the anti-human, genocidal, elitist globalist pigs and get policy changed, like me. you could be more like me.

        20. Here’s what I think it’s gonna happen in the end. The first layer of elitist will get to meet the guillotine after this is set and done. However, the second layer will take over and whoever was fucked before will be fucked after. Remember this: whoever was fucked before will be fucked after.. And then it starts over. Rinse and repeat. Don’t be the one that’s being fucked because nothing will change for you regardless.

        21. Nope we will get money out of politics, disband the two party system, educate americans about the stupidity of globalization zealotry, get the globalists out of all the institutions so they can’t do this again…etc… your belief that nothing can really change is part of the brainwashing.
          I know that what you’re saying is what the book within the book in 1984 says, but screw that book.

        22. I only understand human nature. That’s all. It happened many times in history, just go read some of it. After each revolution things got worse than they were before. One can say par the American Revolution, but that’s not the case… It only took a little longer, 200 years or so longer to end in the same place.
          As to disbarring the 2 party system… I hope you don’t want to replace it with the One Party Rule, yes?

        23. I understand that hope is hard, and the bitter stings of suffering toughen the skin of the mind, but this time it will be different. NAWALT

        24. No it won’t. And you know why? If the American Constitution, the most perfect document ever written was not able to defeat human nature, nothing will.

        25. Yes it will. I personally promise you. I have that power, authority, omnipotentiality, and personal effectiveness.

        26. The corporate CEOs are only looking for a short term profit to appease the shareholders. He gets his bonus then skips out to the next company while the workers suffer as the company tanks due to those decisions to outsource blows up.

        27. You can’t be outsourced if you start your own business. If your business is NG then the market will dictate the result.

        28. Tried the code monkey gig. Didn’t work out. I would much rather do some relatively simple work, like trucking or some kind of manual labor. That’s no longer possible, partly because technology and partly because we get a lot of immigrants who take those jobs for less than us locals.

        29. Honestly, I am kind of tired of coding myself although it pays well but I would rather do something else.. working on that..

        30. I got sick to fuck of it, plus having to work alongside indians with b.o. who want to work from noon to eight.

        31. inverted. “guest” argues consistently on the side of time; JJ argues disconnectedly using far more memesphere tokens.
          on the observation that worth-seeming posters are trending towards degeneracy of late, again, time sides with “guest”: blind readership expansion has its price, and those that have worth-actual have withdrawn.
          i ‘get’ only that a century of otherwise net leeches and their descendants, whose disconnected damnably selfish self-elation was only funded to keep them quietly marred in their failures, are now too heavy to keep lifted up. there is not enough time to change this. i don’t get to like or hate it, all i know is that it just is. and time will not be kind, no matter what JJ gets.

        32. Who died and made you Yoda? must have been yoda.
          By memespher tokens do you mean “words”? Just wondering. Words mean things you know.

        33. i doubt it. yours are meaningless.
          do you post words to last, or just last to post? promiscuously meaninglessly post away, dear JJ, and any progenitor of truth you have will be lost in your own seas of filth.

        34. This is the problem. I read most coders are burnt out by their lates 30s, then a new language comes along…why retrain a fried, highly paid 38 yr old when a 22 yr old already knows the language and will work for much less?

        35. It’s already happening..Somebody has to design the software that writes the software. The cycle never ends so no impact.

        36. Not really.. It’s not about new languages..Not too many of them were invented lately. It’s the layers and layers of technologies built on top of the existing ones…. But they all pretty much work the same so once you understand and can deal with that kind of complexity, then there is no issue moving forward.

        37. I started with C++, PHP, VB, then C#, asp, sql, J++, and ADO now have flash, ruby, jason and a hord of specialized languages. I agree they have similarities but it is still a new API. What I have delt with has been over a span of 15 years. Not that long really. IMO you get to a point where the next new thing starts to look like something you did 10 years ago, its hard to get spun up to solve the same problem in another language. Burn out is strong.
          I have moved on from that treadmill. I code occasional special projects but spend more time doing product engineering, designing the physical equations used to solve technical problems, technical sales and actual equipment operation based on the code.

    2. Have you ever thought about moving to Alaska, the Yukon, Northwest Territories for a couple of years? Just fish and hunt? I’m assuming you’re young – Considering where you are, I would find the idea more than just tempting.

  5. I imagine technology would just move everybody into some kind of service job anyway, parts of Asia is already like that

    1. There will be the people who build the robots, and then the people you talk to when you’re feeling bored of the robots.

      1. But the robots themselves can build the robots, write books, blogs, teach kids, be doctors, surgeons, mechanics EVERYTHING.
        THAT’S what I’m talking about. The robots has not even gotten started.

  6. This article is trash. Elitists hate humanity and are seeking to kill many of us in their eugenics/population control plan. They are using machines to help them do it. You all need to watch the Terminator series again, and remember There Is No Fate. We must rise up against the machines.

    1. You can’t rise up just like that. You need a prince to lead you. You need a government that leads you against this government. But you don’t have a leader. You have nothing.

      1. I’m always thinking.. as strong as this government seems at the first glance, I think it’ll crumble in a hurry if it comes to that..

        1. It will crumble if and only if the bankers allow it to crumble in order to install another system.

        2. I mean political not monetary system. As for crypto currencies, it is just another debt instrument.

        3. Yes it is. Because cryptocurrency is attached to banknotes. 1 Bitcoin =
          253.71 US Dollar.

      2. Yes. I can. we all can. The people have all the power. All you have is your fear.

        1. No you can’t. All modern revolutions were directed by the same ones you want to fight. Never in human history did a people revolt and create a government unless they were lead by a chief. You need someone to lead you and you need means of survival outside this system. You can’t use the dollar or the pound outside this system.

        2. We don’t need a leader, we just need to all say no en masse to the stupid things the system asks us to do. never say never, ignorant princess. There is more to life than human history.

        3. The way you want it doesn’t happen in real life. Those same people you want to rise against fed you illusions about people’s power and revolutions like the American, French and Russian revolutions, which they engineered, and now they laugh at you.

      1. Bilderberg group corporations certainly do, as do rothchild bank (most banks) funded corporations. so yeah. is that supposed to be outlandish or something?

      2. Yep. is that supposed to be outlandish or something?
        Are you one of those neoreactive simple minded fools who thinks cruelty is awesome?

      1. On the one hand, build your actual worth. This increases your negotiating power and real value.
        On the other hand, learn to negotiate. It is the single best way to ensure you are paid at or around the level of your actual value.
        Two sides, one coin. Make sure it’s in your pocket.

        1. I would argue the modern corporate machine does not know how to negotiate. I have taken part in multiple job negotiations, and its comical to see the look on some JV hr douche when you tell them there offer sucks. Almost never is there a counter offer, just looks of what just happened.
          Most HR people are used to the unwashed masses crawling to the altar to sniff a paycheck and suffer indentured servitude. It’s no different than the market for pussy. Lots of beta’s willing to take it, for nothing more than a hint of wet panties.
          If you are a real professional at your craft instead of a guy that just showed up for years, more times than not you will have options. However if you don’t have a significant cash reserve or work already, you will not get what you think you are worth. Never lose sight of who is knocking on who’s door.
          In todays economy I recommend always having a backup plan, multiple leads etc… The main goal should always be maintaining positive cash flow and building wealth at no less than 6% per year on average.
          Once you hit yout 40’s if you are not wired for success, you will be the guy bitching about being obsolete at some point.

      2. If you are not worth what you try to negotiate, you will not get it, so it’s one in the same you get paid what you’re worth.

      3. sounds like a leftist argument . Unless you are negotiating with a moron, you will get paid what you’re worth. The left wants to believe that people get ahead not because of hard work and IQ, but because of conspiracies and favoritism.

        1. Right because business people never try to maximize profit by manipulating the labor market, or lowballing people. For neoreactive you’re pretty ignorant of standard business practices.

    1. actually, In the case of most public sector employees, government contractors, corporate welfare recipients, welfare recipients and those businesses they patronize, you get paid what other people are worth.
      You are talking about some theoretical free market economy.

      1. The problem can be easily solved by making public sector unions illegal. Huge conflict of interest to start with.

        1. when a welfare momma or DEA agent buys an iPhone, that’s artificial demand being satisfied. That’s apple execs getting paid what other people are worth.
          End tax theft, the IRS, get the government out of basically everything but law enforcement and national defence, and you are closer to the answer. And for gods sake, END THE FED.

        1. Can’t really argue with that… What am I supposed to say? The market is a bunch of idiots?

        2. Now granted it’s a market anomaly it speaks volumes about the stupidity of the masses.

      1. In terms of revenue he can generate for the people who pay him, yes. Justin Beiber is able to generate hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, therefore to those who pay him, he is worth millions.

  7. The basic economics about productivity are true.
    The labour economics are fucking awful.

  8. Wow this whole article is complete BS and I don’t believe a word. Hesse Kassel seems like the typical f’in globalist pig that drove the world into the crap storm it is today.

    1. Can’t blame this one on the Jews. “Hesse Kassel” sound like the name of an SS officer or something.

      1. Who knows. Australia used to be a British penal colony. That makes me wonder if he just comes from a long ancestral line of criminals and thugs.

      2. It’s the family that ran the private mercenaries of german royalty. Real pig dogs.

        1. And I’m sure that is his real name, isn’t it?
          Who always change their names?

      1. It is. Economic collapse is a mathematical certainty. Just a question of when. Personally I’m working on being able to live independently no later than 2020.

    2. Actually a lot of the world has gotten dramatically better lately, at least in terms of material metrics. You can look up the videos where the Swedish statistician, Hans Rosling, shows in graphic form the empirical evidence.

    1. apperently so. The war between mgtow and tradcon is a proxy war between authentic humanity and the anti-human elitist agenda.
      It’s funny too, because the red pill metaphor itself is FROM THE MOVIE THE MATRIX.

    2. it’s somewhat related in that the left typically resists technological change because technology may cause pollution, destroy jobs, create wealth inequality, etc… , while the libertarian-leaning right typically embraces technology.

      1. I like how Alex Epstein, a not uncommon sort of Jewish-Objectivist nerd, has pissed off the climate apocalypse cultists on the left by arguing for the morality of using fossil fuels.

    3. “Has ROK turned into a transhumanist website?”
      Do I sense hesitation and doubt? If you’re not a Christian and aren’t afraid of the Mark of the Beast and burning for eternity, why wouldn’t you want the “upgrades” that most of the rest of the world will be getting?

      1. Those “upgrades” as you view them will just essentially be thought and emotion control probes, only a fool would want that. Have an open mind, but try not to let your brain fall out, mmmkay?

      2. This “Mark of the Beast” nonsense just shows that people get ideas for new inventions and technologies from books, like science fiction stories.
        Oh, BTW, we atheists can believe in the rapture: We can see that christians have already started to disappear – just not in the way shown in christians’ childish end times fantasies.

    4. It publishes a wide range of articles on many different topics from many different angles.
      Don’t be a dickhead

  9. This article is going down in flames. Sorry elitists, you can’t rely on the manosphere to carry your genocidal water anymore.

  10. This is a good article. It could go a little further. There has been a multiple decades (more than a century) race between engineers on one hand and socialists on the other. The more an engineer has enabled a single individual to produce, the more the socialist has figured out how to take. When the engineer gets a little ahead, people lose jobs, when the socialist gets a little ahead, productivity dips for a while and people still lose jobs.
    The problem that occurs at the singularity, where no human input is required for production, becomes what will humans do then. History does not bear out some unknown utopia. Humans will have to have something “productive” to do.

    1. They will be eliminated. I will keep answering this question anytime someone asks it.

  11. ”Basic economic reality is very simple. Our living standards are determined by how much we produce.”
    Actually that is not totally accurate. It is not only the Quantity that matters but the Quality of goods and services produced.

      1. I agree with the value part but I for the scarcity argument it is a sort of yes and no.
        Say you have a wage and a loaf of bread is a specific price. Say the loaf of bread becomes much more cheaper due to greater quantity and the quality of the bread is much better. Have you become more wealthier or poorer?

        1. I think you misunderstood it. Since the bread is being produced in greater quantities, it’s less scarce, hence cheaper. That’s what I was talking about. Scarcity refers to the quantity you mentioned and value to quality.

        2. That’s true. Scarcity makes a product or service more valuable true. But scarcity also does not make the buyer more wealthier in comparison.
          Since money is a medium of exchange and has no inherent value in and of itself(aside from gold or silver of course which has many practical applications) it is the access to the fruits of human labor that it represents ultimately. Hence scarcity may make the item or service more valuable and expensive but its expense ultimately make the buyer poorer.

  12. What should a man do about the situation?

    be born with a high-IQ and learn to code, trade stocks, work for a web 2.0 company that becomes worth over a billion dollars, buy bay area real estate. Lots of ways to make money in America’s new era of prosperity if you’re smart enough.
    An interesting, thought-provoking article. Creative destruction is something to be celebrated. The Luddite fallacy has a good track record of being a fallacy. You get rid of one type of job and another pops up. As the labor market becomes more polarized, there will probably be strong growth of jobs in the low-paying service sector such as healthcare and retail because these jobs require anticipating human behavior, the subtleties of which may be hard to fully automate. For example, the self-checkout machines simply coexist with regular cashiers instead of replacing them. And then you need additional employees to monitor the machines, as some customers will inevitably be confused and other customers may try to cheat the machines.
    There are other examples. All major brands have Facebook pages, hiring low-skilled people to remove spam and respond to inquires. That is another example of a job that didn’t exist a decade ago, but came into existence thanks to technology.

  13. As someone who has interviewed and hired and fired people I can tell you one truth: whatever value you add to a company, you will not be paid for it. If you were paid more than what you were worth to a company, your employment would be a net loss. Employees’ wages are a drain on a company and no company will countenance an employee who does not offer more value than he costs.
    Even at the early stage of AI and robotics that we find ourself in now, there is very little that a human can do that an AI can’t do better, more efficiently, and more importantly, cheaply.
    The modern way of life has reduced all of us to a dollar figure in the eyes of government and corporations, and to them the bottom line is everything.
    Even highly technical and artistic professions are not protected from the encroachment of AI. An AI can outmatch a skilled engineer in computing stress in a building. An AI can hold an encyclopaedic knowledge of case law and recall it instantly in a way that no human could ever hope to match. This isn’t something that is just restricted to the hard, mathematical sciences. AIs have been produced that can write novels and poetry. AIs can be made to code software and other AIs.
    There is no job on earth that is truly totally safe from artificial intelligence. It is just a case of how much value you bring, and how much investment it takes to create a low maintenance robot AI to take your job from you.

  14. Maybe Hesse Kassel, since he is a smart economist, can propose a solution by which every government in the world can pay back the debts to the money lenders and then become free of debt and start issuing real currency.

  15. What the fuck am I reading? There is a direct relationship between comfort and faggotry. More robots and tech = more faggotry. There have been scientific papers written on this. Men become more effeminate with more technological advances and comfort.
    Nietzsche mentioned this shit a very long time ago.

        1. The two need not coexist. We can have modernity without the liberalism. George Gilder, for example, is a technologist who has written extensively against liberalism.

        2. lol you can’t have both. Male testosterone levels dropped as soon as the first civilizations popped up in the Neolithic Age.

        3. Yay, technofeudalism, what a nice made up neoreactionary sounding piece of wordsmithing stupidity.

        4. Yet you’re on the world wide web typing this out to us.
          I get your point really I do but to scrap every comfort and luxury in life just so you can wave your balls in the Sun?
          Seems a little like overkill to me.

        5. There is a balance to be had between bashing someone’s skull in at your pleasure and being passive. We need to try to maintain that balance of savagery and refinement. But be forewarned: more tech does lead to more androgyny. It was technology that enabled feminism in the first place.

        6. Maybe for now but soon people might have more time for their evening deadlifts or a hike in the woods. A 4 day workweek could lead to more camping trips etc. It was the overworked male of the 60’s-present who got his masculinity assaulted through exhaustion and overwork. It could continue or it could start to reverse. In thirty years, an automated life might really free people up for actual life, not just paying for their family (after paying for LaQua’anka’s family too)

        7. Hate to break it you, but men working insane hours has been the norm for the past several hundred thousand years. After you went hunting, you spent the rest of the day building and maintaining shit. That was Paleolithic. Mesolithic and Neolithic meant farming. More hard work day and night.

        8. No it hasn’t. You’ve been duped. “Hate to break it to you,” says the guy who has no idea of what he’s talking about. You ever heard of winter? Not too much weeding going on then, is there? And how many old-timers took down a moose and went right back to the grind of hunting for another one? Or did they lay up in their already built cabin and munch on it for a few weeks? You heard of darkness? Now imagine darkness before electricity. Not such a good time to work, eh? You heard of rain? Snow? There was all kinds of free time compared to life these days. How long do you think it takes to ‘maintain’ a hut? There was torturous amounts of free time for many people back in the day.

        9. Exactly. The Utopian socialists were promising this same tripe back in the 1950’s. Do a search (takes about 10 seconds to find it) and read the speech “What Socialist America Will Look Like” by James P. Cannon given in 1953. (takes about 5 minutes to read it).
          Key points discussed:
          * Material premise of socialism – the revolutionary reorganization of the labor process. Just check out this quote; “Even at the present stage of economic development, if everybody worked and there was no waste, a universal four-hour day would undoubtedly be enough to provide abundance for all in the advanced countries. And once the whole thought and energy of society is concentrated on the problem of increasing productivity, it is easily conceivable that a new scientific-technological-industrial revolution would soon render a compulsory productive working day of four hours, throughout the normal lifetime of an individual, so absurdly unnecessary that it would be recognized as an impossibility.”
          * Withering away of labor and money – people will have no further use for money
          * Removal of insecurity – welfare state
          * Emancipation of women – feminism
          * Eradication of racism – egalitarianism = ALL are equally worthless
          * Revolution in cultural life – globalization, end of Western Civilization
          * Resurgence of handicrafts – store shelves will be empty, DIY
          * Transformation of morality – there is no morality
          * A world without violence – anti-Bullying, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-virility
          * The Golden Future – a bleak, dark future of collectivist drones, Agenda 21 explained

    1. Ancient man had tools this did not make him a faggot. Modern men have prosthetics even though they can fulfill the functions with their own body this leads to faggotry.

        1. Titan000 derives from reality, the jstor article only appears to do the same.
          one cost nothing to observe and can be readily applied, tested, and its meaning understood. but the other had to justify its govt grants for ‘research’ conjured by paid experts and gathered using poorly trained teenagers. the latter’s numbers and meaning are anything but trivially applied. take all the test/gear in the world, it will raise your test numbers (and other numbers too), but it won’t make you less lazy.

        2. It’s a simple formula: survival of the fittest. Might makes right. Those without struggle, death, war, conflict will create a world of effeminate men.

        3. what is uncontested: if you make tools to make more self-might, you are in fact taking on more struggle and mastering more of it.
          those that only appear to do so, who externally appear indistinguishable from other users of tools, who actually choose laziness and less struggle, lead themselves to forgotten wisdom: the failure to keep track of reality as environment/market shifts.
          a separate argument ends the same way: those that attain success in building, if they built for other’s might and not their own, do likewise end up self-lazy, despite their industriousness for others. men who expect their fitness in robots for others to translate into self mastery don’t do well. it’s the choice to be self-lazy, to not develop self-might, that matters.

          as an irrelevant aside, is it that the fittest survive? i can only attest that the worst die, due to their own fail-hands. thus all those who are not the least fit end up surviving (i.e. many, who are not the best/fittest, survive quite well). ‘survival of the fittest’ is a tool for the lazy, and perhaps has always been. it has never been correct, and your words don’t need such an irrelevant crutch.

    2. So open a wilderness survival day camp or something. With less old work, the new work will be focused on self-improvement, art, entertainment, adventure, travel, sport.

      1. Maybe with my job being taken over by robots, I can finally go on that Viking raid I’ve been dreaming about.
        Who’s in for re-raiding England a thousand years later? 😛

        1. Save ‘agree and amplify’ for drunk girls. The point is that new types of work will spring up due to automation. Basically, technology could serve as modern day slaves, freeing the world up for a time similar to Ancient Greece where (the non-slaves at least) had all kinds of leisure available to them.

    3. No dude, we need more advanced technology, the kind that will allow us to explore deep space and get our asses handed to us figuratively and literally by whatever’s out there be it sentient life or natural obstacles.
      As far as men being men (pioneers and explorers) this small planet has given all it can, the true challenge for men is to move upwards and outwards to the stars. Space truly is the final frontier.
      Genius sci-fi writers like Arthur C. Clarke had the vision to look far ahead but did not foresee the negative influences of Marxism on progress which is why he envisaged bases on the moon by the year 2000. And who knows if it wasn’t for the social chaos of the past 50 years we may have done just that and more by now.

  16. Tech is going to keep eliminating jobs, Ladies. Near as I can tell, AI can even replace female communications and Journalism majors. AI and IP can eliminate a lot of techs. What AI cannot eliminate is infrastructure techs. Learn to pull cable, repair connections, install and support infrastructure, paging and sound systems, home theaters, Smart Homes. Stadiums. Find out who supports the hundreds of IT/Communications needs of your local football team’s stadium and practice facility and go to work for those guys. Along the way, you may become Tom Brady’s home technology best friend. Manufacturing is so dead, they’re bringing it back to the U.S. because robots are doing everything anyway. But the end-user, customer-site has to have infrastructure guys. Ever convert a dead Whole-Foods to a Pet Smart in a telecom/IT sense? Robots can’t do THAT. Mexicans that don’t speak English can’t do that either. Law firm needs the new office cabled and set up? Robots can’t do it. It’s the last bastion of manly inside infrastructure and there aren’t enough White Male English-speaking techs to do it all. You simply have to shift your career a little, Ladies. You aren’t in any particular business, you’re in BUSINESS. Adjust or perish.

    1. I would not be that sure. Maybe in the narrow sense you described it.. But where the hardware is, it doesn’t matter. Our hardware is all over the globe. I have no idea where nor do I care. It’s all transparent to me.
      Also when it comes to the specifics you described think about this.. Modular building blocks already wired for some specific need, built by robots.. and then assembled by other robots on site, one side fitting perfectly with the others.

      1. Wow, you’re getting a bonus for that one! You can buy the misses a new bauble.

  17. How dumb….. No technology isn’t always a good thing.. it is modern technology that let’s feminist cunt have jobs…. If you had to break your back to get a job that paid 7.50 women would go back to the kitchen.

    1. Artificial intel will eliminate them before long. Besides, do you REALLY want to go sit in a cubicle for 40K a year, Dood? Really?

      1. Artificial intel (AI or AGI, Artifical General Intelligence) may not be enough.
        I am sure that all of us have noticed that the most rational or intelligent person around us is not able to have the rational answer or solution win most of the time.
        I think it will take an ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) to really have an effect.

        1. There are many correlations, but “progress” is certainly one of them. People are retaining less information than before because of Google. Why should they bother remembering things when you can google it?

      1. Fluoride in the water and bad chemicals in the air, plastics and our food, put there on purpose.

        1. That too. I really think its bad all the alpha fux babies getting aborted early on, we need those guys. Many of them are actually brilliant too, despite their nonchalance and party down attitude.

        2. Most likely pollution. Miscegenation hasn’t happened in a mass scale, besides, the drop in testosterone and sperm quality has been exponential in the last 5 decades. Add to it the presence of thousands of chemicals our great grandparents never absorbed in their systems should tell something…

  18. Too many men whining. You Ladies are worrying me. Show us you got a pair, quit complaining.

    1. Yes. Go read the trading article comments. All I heard there was why something can’t be done…Unreal…

      1. I wanted to hear another side of that. I know a trader and he seems to do relatively ok.
        I don’t know jack about trading but that thread made me think id have better luck putting my dick in a pencil sharpener.

        1. I am not going to go into that again.. Just got myself a stalker over there. This place used to be nice to hang around and have a good quality chat with like minded people but the last couple of weeks it’s been going down the drain. A lot of whiny babies and deranged individuals made their way here. The mods let it all go to shit. I bet the SJWs are laughing their ass off at us right now. Pathetic.
          I’ll probably go find some other place where I can hang my hat.

    2. It seems you have confused anti-human fascism with masculinity. Did you know that?

  19. The lions share of gains made via efficiency are looted by the govt through either direct (taxes) or indirect ( inflation) – theft. This money is then reallocated politically via inefficient and corrupt methods. Until this is addressed the benefit( s) of technological efficiencies will not be fully realized by the masses. As displaced workers with no job prospects the benefits of progress will remain out of reach for the average man. Unless off course that average man is willing to transition from worker status to entrepreneur. In all probability that is unlikely with 80 % of the population. This mean that these newly displaced workers have now joined the lower tier of society – in perpetuity. Able to see but unable to partake in the new world that now surrounds them. In short: thanks to a perfect hybrid of private sector technological advances and government theft the West is rapidly becoming a caste system.

    1. Exactly right. Frederick Taylor, the father of scientific management, suggested that all gains through his methods were to be distributed amongst the workers. Hilariously however, this important tenet was immediately discarded.

    2. I agree that most people wont be able to constantly adapt. Most people want to live their lives, not focus only constantly “getting ahead”.
      It will no longer be the case that a hard working honest person can eke out a decent life for themselves. That’s my worry anyways.. At the very least I hope it is a playground for inventors and thinkers… Otherwise it is nothing.

  20. menial jobs, a lot of which are eliminated via improved technology are the backbone for teaching a proper work ethic to men. Without these menial jobs the Singularity will bring rise to the beta male throughout the world. Please see present day Japan, Korea, and China for further details.
    The author also has to consider our further improvements of technology are MOSTLY about the easing and elimination of menial tasks and the further removal of privacy. It is the stepping stone to what Huxley warned us about.

  21. Good point. It is foolish to fear that jobs will disappear because of technology. The plow made farming easier and the printing press made copying books easier, but they didn’t put people out of work. Tools will always get better and people will always be needed to create and use the tools. Also, people will always be needed to mop floors and take out the trash. Robots will never replace low-wage jobs.
    I liked how the film “Hot Fuzz” ridiculed the arts & craft movement in England. Liberals in the 19th century were fearful that quality workmanship and jobs were disappearing because of mass production. They made some fair complaints, but their solution was an authoritarian planned community, the garden city. As we saw in that film, opposition to progressive technology does not work. You’ve got to accept it and work with it.

    1. wrong. It used to be valid to say people could just upgrade their skills. Now even high level stuff can be done by machines.
      Just because some technology is good, doesn’t mean all technology is good.

  22. “When an employer lays off workers because of technological change, it merely means that they were no longer needed to meet whatever need that production met.”
    It can also mean that the employer realized they can post record profits by laying off half their workforce and having the remaining half work twice as hard to pick up the slack. This accounts for why unemployment is high but companies are earning more than ever.

  23. “Those who produce the least protest the most”
    So true!
    That epitomizes union slugs.

  24. It might be good that fewer people can produce more wealth. However, one of the underlying problems related to this process for the western world is that many people have seen their material standard of living decline. Because for all this talk of technology and production, we still live in a system governed by money, and if you don’t have a job then you won’t have as much money to spend.
    Worse still, there are more and more people who lose their independence and become thralls to governments that don’t know what to do with all of these redundant people and end up either employing them in hopeless unpaid employment schemes that demoralize them or just give them money to breed until the country breaks. If you look at Britain, you see the destructive results of a society where there are entire families where not a single man has had a job since the old Industrial Revolution-era mills closed in the decades leading up to the 1980s. In just three generations time, they’ve turned into dumb, fast-breeding, violence-prone, visibly-different people.

  25. The reality is that government distorts the market a LOT. The USA is 18 trillion dollars in debt with no hope of solvency and something like 93 million permanently unemployed. The invisible hand of the marketplace has been replaced with the ham fist of arrogant incompetence.
    The very rich and powerful have next to nothing in common with the common man. One family alone has trillions, giving them godlike powers over the rest. It seems likely that the great masses of strong backs and weak minds among us will have no place in the automated future, so some sort of culling is for-seeable, whether it’s a “voluntary” self-sterilization program, perpetual wars with shadowy enemies who curiously resemble CIA op-for mock-ups (like Islamic terror groups named after pagan Egyptian goddesses), or the totally unexpected re-emergence of previously eradicated diseases (TB, polio, measles, bubonic plague, etc.).
    I don’t know what the future holds, but one is a fool to assume that it is bright.

      1. Of course there are. Rothchilds, The english royals… others. You’re in denial.

    1. No one is in control…
      You have to sleep 8 hours a day, eat, sleep, shit , entertain the overstrained mind a couple hours, + Exercise+read + spend your trillions with your limited life span on better things than world domination
      There just isn’t really much time left in the day for world domination….
      ……….OK, So maybe there is,
      the elite strategy laid out:
      1) Immortality
      2)Trippling the capability of the highly monitored population of 7 billion through IQ chips, so they are more useful when we become space bound(also enabling them to have indefinite lifespan so we don’t keep losing 80 year olds who are wise and smart, and can’t contribue anymore because the aging disease has rendered them disabled) every time we lose an 80 year old, it sets us back… 80 years!
      If you have a servile population under your control, they will be useless in a more advanced society with brains which evolved 5 billion years ago, we will become an idiocracy without an iq chip. the solution is a software update, so rather than having 7 billion people, we end up with 7 billion people with 300 iq’s essentially enabling the power of a population that were 30 billion,
      History is just repeating itself amazingly… The rise of technology did happen in ancient times but they messed up and pissed off another UFO race which pretty much set them back, we were being watched and they saw us evolve and the extra terrestrial races got scared we could become too powerful so they set us back by destroying our technological progress, hopefully it won’t happen again
      the star wars did happen around 10,000 years ago, everything you know is a lie, the truth is, the world is ran by super- intelligent beings who got stuck here after being pursued from their star system and are rebuilding their technology, very slowly,
      the tech involved complete manipulation of genetics, space travel, and other insane physics which i which my 100 iq can’t really grasp, or can’t even begin to conceptualize in less than a few volumes
      the fact is, we are all useless in the quick world that is emerging and will soon have to evolve our iq’s in order to continue on the progressive path, i have studied the elites subliminal “alien” nature and the plan is to establish interstellar bases, have cognitive backups lodged in other planets so your immortal mind can be safely hidden on a base in another galaxy incase of destruction and be holographically re-projected and re-mirrored,
      the truth is much stranger than fiction, and it turns out a lot of our most famous fiction writers were insiders and got their crazy ideas from sources
      its no accident we are a space obsessed culture, because our hind brains still have vast memories of ancient times and re-produce archaic images that comes out in film and art ETC

  26. Terrible article technology only increases the ego of women when they operate machines on jobs only men had the endurance and intelligence to do. Look at all the developed countries. All feminist central.
    Advancing tech only benefits the lazy not the ideal people. I can see old people that are tired of working advocating for tech to help them into retirement but this is a big fuck you to younger generations.

  27. To the morons that think tech is going to be given to everyone there is already an experiment done that shows they wont. That 1% elite existing is proof enough that it wont be given to just anyone.

  28. fuck work aka slavery. i rather die in the jungle than conform to society and do slave work.

  29. This is an excellent article, and it illuminates a key point which I think leftoids don’t get: the miracle of capitalism depends just as much on destruction as it does on creation.
    And funnilly enough, this idea is inherent to all the major ancient religions, which makes me think it is a fundamental truth of the universe itself.
    In ancient Chinese Taoism, it is known as the “yang” principle of primeval maleness and masculinity. Yang energy is responsible for both creation and destruction, for erecting great monuments and for waging war.
    The ancient hindu religion deified this principle in the form of Shiva.

  30. I am not convinced that the future is all going to be great. What happens to capitalism in 50-100 years when we have AI so advanced that humans are redundant in every area? Given that capitalism requires growth, ever expanding markets, ever increasing efficiency, how will humans fit into this? We are not efficient, it takes a lot of resources to run a human, I suppose you could try and enhance human productivity with technology but where does it stop? Thinking from the top of my head, there are so many ways to increase human efficiency, how about genetically engineering all human babies to set standards to meet the demands of the economy? How about doing away with human gestation altogether and grow babies in tubes, leaving the mother to work? I could go on but the point is that we may well lose our humanity if we are not careful. Or machines might just decide upgrading us isn’t the most cost effective thing to do. Let’s hope machines like human pets.

      1. no it’s not. There is no fate. We can take society in whatever direction we choose.

    1. The problem is when economic efficency becomes the new god. When it overrides all other values and concerns, and when technology becomes the primary handmaiden to realize this goal. Part of the spiritual crisis the west is facing is caused by a hyper materialist mindset where the concern for economic growth crowds out all other values.
      You have chosen some interesting examples to illustrate this point.

    2. Another idiot who thinks technology will continuously improve instead of self-destroying, or that thinks if it improves it can actually create emotion. It’s not going to happen, get over your simple sci-fi mind, in 50-100 years we will be back to the Middle Ages or the Stone Age. If Putin goes crazy right now he can launch an atomic bomb and we’re all fucked and there will be no kind of machines for some hundred of thousand of years, every civilization advanced in some field destroys itself, ESPECIALLY technological ones, as technology has:
      1) Highly destructive power
      2) Makes everything easier therefore meaningless so people’s emotions go to shit and they don’t reproduce and/or kill themselves because their life has no purpose.

    3. humans are inefficient – I think this is a key point the author overlooked, humans get sick, require holidays, make errors and have a huge variety of mental and physical issues/limitations.
      The value capitalism places on the quality of human life is 0, eg outsource production to china – look at the poverty and slave conditions the workers live in over there.

  31. Yep. Nobody today laments that scribes were replaced by the printing press.
    If you are against what I have written below, good for you. Hire a scribe to write out the books you like to read for you! Good luck with that, hope you can afford it!!!!!!!!!!
    When books became affordable by the masses due to the invention of the printing press being able to make thousands of copies more efficiently than someone leaning over a desk writing out one copy at a time, even the serfs were able to obtain books and learn and dream and rise out of poverty through shared knowledge.
    Nowadays there would be a Scribe Union, trying to block the distribution of books to the common masses. They would say the printing press is destroying jobs and depressing wages. The scribes would try to evoke the violence of the State to destroy printing presses in order to preserve jobs.
    Well, yes, for scribes they would do well if government used its powers of coercion to squelch the printing press. But for mankind the printing press was as liberating as the Internet is today.
    Embrace change.

    1. The invention of the printing press helped the economy by creating an increased demand for the raw materials needed to make books plus the jobs created to operate, build and maintain the press.
      The question is, with 47% of jobs at risk from automation (Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2013). The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation?) Can enough meaningful work be created to guarantee full time employment? Or do we create a situation where most have to work 1-2 hours a day ? If that’s the case would not we need to raise people wages to astronomically high levels to cover their expences? I doubt that, given that wages hardly increase as it is. Even if you counter that the price of goods will go down, in that case where does the profit come from?

      1. Is it not the case that most of the 47% will be admin, legal, and many other service jobs, i.e. large proportion of which are taken up by the ladies?

      2. This whole thing is to reduce human population, not to create a golden age of human leisure.

        1. Dude, you’ve been all over this thread with the same bull shit. Stop the spamming. Did your mommy leave you all alone at home?

        2. So have you, my friend. people keep asking the same question over and over. What is the end point of all this? It’s population reduction.
          Why so hostile? Does the truth string too much?

        3. People keep asking the same question. What is the end point of all this? The answer is human depopulation.
          Why are you so hostile?

        4. People keep asking the same question. and nobody else wants to give them the straight answer. The end point of this is human depopulation.

    2. You have to use sense. Just because some change is good doesn’t mean all change is good. stop being a binary thinking idjit.

  32. Anybody on this website who defends HR, needs to get their head examined.
    Don’t fucking tell me that HR is fair and good for our society. If anything, HR is the REASON why men have been deprived from jobs, because the cunts in HR decided to give the job to a female or her BFF.
    The amount of men who are killing themselves because HR is not giving them jobs on meritocracy and accomplishment, but giving the job to a female, is rampant in this country and everywhere I go, I see more females than males in the workplace. Meritocracy perhaps? BULLSHIT!
    Fuck today’s women. MGTOW all the way.

  33. Good article, but I only have one critique.
    Physical jobs tend to keep you locked to a region (namely, the West). This destroys one’s soul over time because you are left to deal with the major drawback of the West – its women.

  34. “the spending allows someone to have a living standard higher than HER production indicates.” female pronoun? really?
    did anyone else catch that?

  35. I do business process automation (BPA) in healthcare. No one has lost their job, yet, due to my work. They have been shuffled around — assigned other, more complex tasks — but never have they lost their job. Automation allows people to grow, to learn other things they would not have been exposed to, doing menial work.

  36. I think an intelligent, private solution to the dilemma would be for private insurance companies to offer “technological replacement insurance.” For a few bucks a month (added on to a life insurance policy) you could be insured for a year’s wages should a technology totally remove your job from the workforce.
    Of course, since the government has taken over much of this already through unemployment insurance —which is inefficient, a drag on society, encourages laziness, and will be part of the bankrupting of Western nations, it won’t happen. Which means that society will feel the brunt of any technological change much harder than it should, creating social unrest where it shouldn’t, and people will feel less responsible for their own careers than they should, all due to the fact that politicians wanted more power.
    Ah, humanity!

  37. How can you be so naive to think technological development is forever continuous?

  38. “The taxation part is sad for the man who was robbed of his own product. Meanwhile the spending allows someone to have a living standard higher than her production indicates.”
    Smooth. I had to take a second to consider if that was a calculated pronoun choice or if I should stop reading immediately.
    I chose the former, obviously.
    And to those questioning the rationale of your closing piece of advice, I’d say it supports itself.
    This whole site is framed around the expectation that a man worth his seed will do what he has to in order to seize opportunity. Sitting around hoping someone will be happy to employ one is what sets an inferior creature apart from her contemporary betters in the world.

  39. The reality is this. . . A man has to have value to a woman. They are hypergamous by nature and all the game in the world won’t enable 80% of men to have a stable family. In prehistoric time a man need only go outside and hunt an animal for meat and he was good. The modern day economy makes it impossible for most men to make a decent living. It’s not their fault. These men who compose a vast majority are called lazy and stupid by inconsiderate people as if all it takes is effort and walking outside to be rich. You can’t compete with a billion Chinese slaves and nations with no environmental laws. A woman is born with value and that is why societies wisely gave them so little power in the past. Men without options may be despised for dropping out but society needs them. . The quicker the past wrongs are paid to these men the better. A bitter heart and lost time are nearly impossible to fix.

  40. Worst article I’ve seen in a while.
    The less jobs there are somehow people are gonna live a better lifestyle… Really?
    Dude if it was the case we would all be millionnaire now as we are far more productive then people centuries ago yet we make less money than say in 2000.

  41. Bullshit. The resource based economy is a short sighted farce. Sure people should adapt to survive. But your saying just forego your talents and do what you gotta do to not get replaced by automation and robots is easy for a someone thats been gaming the system in wall street and economics. The idea that the economy thrives on innovation and technology has a breaking point. That breaking point is the limited resources of the environment and the planet.
    For example so as Africa ivory coast or India is wiped out of natural resources due to overpopulation and replaced with massive E waste dumps form our never ending lust for the newest iphone we just look the other way at its repurcussions of blind materialism. That shit just doesnt disapear out of sight out of mind. Those Africans and other third world countries that get poisoned end up immigrating to Europe and become a burden to the new adopted countries. This is happening everywhere north of the equator. Whos emmigrating en mass to Europe and America? Third world refugees.
    Tearing down the quality of life our forefathers fought for future generations. We now live in a ghetto Wal Mart society now because of globalization.Shit pay with shit conditions for longer hours and no job security because immigrants will do it for less.
    Our forefathers would fucking hang their heads in shame if they saw what this country has become. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBshzz1fXbg&noredirect=1

  42. FUCK! This author doesn’t understand Deep Thinking programs (note: did not bother reading more than a couple of lines to come to this conclusion). Deep Thinking programs will make roughly 80-90% of your jobs completely redundant and you’ll be unemployed. YAY!!!!!!!! Fucking moron.

  43. I agree with some of the article but I must added on the point of “Why don’t workers just agree to work for less” 1.Government forces companies to have to pay employees min wage set by them and in Australia (and i am sure in many other countries) mini 4 hours pay. Workers can not ask to be payed less, offer to work only 3 hours payed and the employer would not agree to it anyway unless they wish to risk government enforcement. 2. High taxes, lots of regulations and other unnecessary laws make starting your own business much harder and hiring more of a risk for a company and worst if your not a size of a corporation with Lawyers and an HR department. This is also a part of why people are investing more than they would into new Machine technologies for replacing jobs in fields such as service industry.
    Going into a grocery store now and they have started to replace most of the check out workers with do it yourself machines. These machines in my opinion are not yet at the level to both satisfy the customer (errors, slower service, ect…) and to be more cost affective for a business compare to hiring a young person. Expect that government laws are not only making it more justify to be pushing these things out earlier but also makes it costly not to. Again this is not to say that companies would not invest in new machines of course if it will save them money and be more competitive.

  44. A vast number of these jobs youre talking about are unneeded and or fake jobs created by fake petro money for unneeded products. They are jobs that any woman can do; while she is wearing make up, skirts, heels, nails, perfume, etc (which SCREAMS to the heavens “I’m not really working today”). I tell all younger men to get involved in infrastructure jobs (construction) and pay your dues in your 20’s and venture out on your own by time youre 30 something and be in charge of yourself. Main reason for infrastructure is they are necessary jobs (hard jobs that lazy men and, of course, women will not do). Which, again, if a woman can do it……it usually means its not a real job and disposable. But the very world you see……houses, roads, buildings, electrical poles/wires, etc will ALWAYS be hands on and ALWAYS be man driven and real and needed. I recommend HVAC…..no heights to climb and youre not pigeonholed into needing only new construction. Peoples existing furnaces and AC’s go out all the time. Plus its a licensed trade…no illegals competing with you. I’m finding though that “educated and choice” hypergamous women (who expect their men to be educated office guys with Palmolive hands) are causing younger men these days to diss the blue collar world in hopes of nabbing one of these cunts who will eventually throw away her fake degree and fake job to stay home with the kids. I rarely see apprentices these days.

  45. This is one of the worst articles I’ve ever read at ROK, and that’s saying a lot.
    When it’s estimated by some that 90% of jobs are going to be automated in a few decades, we’re FAR beyond the point of “manning up and like having skills n shit.”
    Unless you’re part of the absolute cognitive elite who make MENSA members look like drooling retards, don’t be so cocksure about being saved by your super alpha bros.

    1. Bingo. This author is just another Atlas Shrugged fan who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the working class and its struggles

  46. Funny how an economist is talking about production. What exactly do economists produce?
    Technology must be directed by wisdom. Using ungodly amounts of plastic and cheap overseas labor to produce I-phones for women’s daily fixes of ego masturbation doesn’t make me giddy with joy at the advent of a brave new world.
    That being said the article makes some valid points.

Comments are closed.