patrick.net

Wow. You've just distilled the very essence of the mechanized dystopia that I shudder to think might ever be realized. A sort of Koyanisquatsi meets Chris Langan meets The Terminator crossed with Blade Runner.

There's many compelling theses arguing against the age of automation, (especially Better Off by Eric Brende), as well as the beauty of toil and working with your hands (Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work), and they do a better job of it than myself, but suffice to say, what may seem like shitty menial grunt work to you is the type of work that a very broad demographic genuinely thrives at, and work that you and I directly benefit from. Work, in and of itself, is not a bad thing that needs to be automated out of existence. Toil alone has its benefits to the human spirit and is intrinsic to our very ecology. Many of life's themes we naturally discover in the setting of practical, hands-on work. On the other hand, if you have people doing work they hate, or for which they possess minimal or zero aptitude/faculty, then I guess the argument for a totally automated, sedentary society suddenly seems a no-brainer.

As for the death of industry in this country - this IS a bad thing. For one thing, we have little to no ace in the hole when our IOUs come due during a crisis like what we are presently experiencing. No real infrastructure to fall back on. As things presently stand, our GDP is based upon nonproductive consumables. Even if we can't build back from scratch what we once had, we could sure as hell do worse than embrace some of the sensibilities from our industrial hey day. Even some of the better tenets of Fordism look hugely attractive in light of today's industrial model, but especially in contrast to total automation. As for the One Chinese person doing what 10 Americans did 100 years ago - that's really not fair. Just for starters, you do not get the same end-product with the same level of quality control that you did when you had ten American's making it 100 years ago. This is, in fact, measurable, and not subjective. It's part of why it has become a boutique-ish privilege to enjoy anything made today to the same specs as what it was made to fifty or sixty years ago. Just look at the build quality on homes today. Look at your Ipod compared to an off-the-shelf stereo amplifier from forty years ago.

What I take away from your synopsis of things to come is bleakness, which is maybe why I'm a little bemused at your seeming enthusiasm for it. Not everyone is going to want to choose between being a Ph.D in a subject, or snaking out a septic tank. Not only does it seem to me that there will be a much diminished role for the human being - esp. the working and middle classes - but also a lackluster, soulless standard of living to look forward to, except for the filthy rich who can afford such elite, boutique thrills as manufactured goods.

It's not always going in reverse to take a few cues from history. I see our genesis as a society kind of like multiple takes in a movie where the last take wasn't always the best. I think we lost some really good material a few takes back in this country.

Well, this has been a very interesting read. This will be a bit lengthy, but... hey...

Born and raised here in BA over 40 years, parents immigrants from British Commonwealth countries who came here to succeed because my dad did not require a high school diploma to become moderately well off. He was of the school of "it matters how much of your income/assets you are able to keep net of tax", so we were not pampered by any means. That said, it was enough to elevate us kids into having more choices about life, and I ended up earning an MBA from a top 30 school, which has been good enough for me.

Fortunately. I had enough financial training to see what was going on in RE and my circumstances dictated that I stay out of the housing market run up, and when I finally was in a position here to buy, as I am now, I am happily choosing to rent. Unless the BA housing comes down to historical levels, IMO, no one should reward the RE stakeholders by buying. Why do agents get 6%? For putting up a sign and being there on the weekend? It's ridiculous.

From my point of view, many of the post 9/11 bubble in RE agents/mortgage brokers are really mainly converted pre 9/11 Internet bubble sales/service providers - they are the HS diploma/some college people who - yes they need jobs - but do not have skills other than sales to get them through life. Some could have reasons for not proceeding with more school that I will not judge, but the fact is that we now have this cohort who now believe that they need to find the next sales job bubble to ride... just who will accommodate?

So, if it's possible for them to jump on something new to ramp up, bubble and dump, wherever those types of jobs emerge is a sector that I will avoid - because it will be the next bubble.

Funny enough, I have the belief that I should not encourage these bubbles. I guess I could "make a killing" if I could figure out where they are going to be, perhaps green energy? But instead I find myself saddened that we have this sort of pattern emerging... they are almost like a group of bedouins, moving from saturated career area to saturated career area.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ an aside perhaps _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Why engineers may not be as competent as their pedigrees: this is one case study and anecdotal but the truth. I went to a small state college for a specialized kind of BA degree that was not particularly prestigious, but it was relevant to me. Had a roommate at one point who had moved from midwest to go to community college out here simply in order to transfer to UCB.

We also had a foreign-born roommate who thought that the UCB guy was brilliant (cough cough) because he'd got into UCB. UCB guy showed me the essay he'd written to get into UCB and it was like a 5th grader who did not know how to spell was trying to fool me into believing he was an adult... completely pathetic... I was so appalled I tried to say nothing as a response when he asked what I thought of it.

so, I take the GMAT to get into MBA school and get 93rd percentile which was good enough for Yale, etc. to try to recruit me. UCB guy, out of the blue, decides to take GMAT "just for fun" and he scores at the 35th percentile. Foreign roommate was shocked and he and I had a nice discussion about the fallacy of ranking UCB as the only place to get a degree. Foreign guy ended up happily going to another UC school because the pressure to "rank up" and go to UCB (as midwest guy was trying to get him to do) disappeared for him.

As for me: the fact that UCB even let in the midwest guy was ridiculous, so I am not surprised when I hear that only 1/20 are remotely qualified. But another thing that happened in this situation is that midwest guy somehow thought it would be fun or easy or rewarding on some level to turn the GMAT into an in-house competition with me - perhaps it's because I am first generation American, but I don't find this kind of competition amusing or necessary. Companies compete, athletes compete, and they should, but until Americans can figure out a way to be more cooperative with one another - and begin to understand that bringing competition into every situation is immature and gets us no where - we'll continue to have the kind of cut throat, outsourcing mentality.

Were my MBA cohorts competitive? Some, but I happily went to a school that encouraged cooperation and did not let in the many of the same kind of engineers that UCB appears to. I feel for managers who get these sorts of people as staffers as their egos get in the way of any real work happening.

and, after some years trying to convince myself that market forces should prevail, I am completely for a 30 hour work life balance lifestyle and I agree that we should have healthcare reform in a big way... even a public option... I have a portfolio and yes I like my dividends from HC companies, but it's time to give some of them up so that people are better cared for.

Austinhousingbubble says

There’s many compelling theses arguing against the age of automation, (especially Better Off by Eric Brende), as well as the beauty of toil and working with your hands (Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work), and they do a better job of it than myself, but suffice to say, what may seem like shitty menial grunt work to you is the type of work that a very broad demographic genuinely thrives at, and work that you and I directly benefit from. Work, in and of itself, is not a bad thing that needs to be automated out of existence. Toil alone has its benefits to the human spirit and is intrinsic to our very ecology. Many of life’s themes we naturally discover in the setting of practical, hands-on work. On the other hand, if you have people doing work they hate, or for which they possess minimal or zero aptitude/faculty, then I guess the argument for a totally automated, sedentary society suddenly seems a no-brainer.

The number of interesting positions that require manual labor is extremely small. This covers such professions as mechanics, wood workers, and other skilled crafts people -- none of which are capable of being automated anyway. The vast majority of positions that require significant manual labor are menial jobs that nobody would do if they had a better way to make money.

These positions did not exists before the industrial revolution, and they will be automated away as technology improves. Skilled professions that have existed for thousands of years will continue to be required, but there simply is not enough demand for those jobs to provide meaningful employment.

Austinhousingbubble says

As for the death of industry in this country - this IS a bad thing. For one thing, we have little to no ace in the hole when our IOUs come due during a crisis like what we are presently experiencing

No, it really isn't. Industrial society is a temporary blip in human history. It isn't just going away in the US -- it's going away everywhere. It was a necessary evil to get us over a hump where our needs grossly outweighed our technology, and we nearly ruined the planet to get through it.

Austinhousingbubble says

As things presently stand, our GDP is based upon nonproductive consumables.

No it isn't. It's about 70% "consumables" (that is, goods and services that have to be replaced periodically), which is significantly less than most other countries. The fact that we don't produce as many disposable trinkets domestically as we once did is meaningless. No wealthy country does. Your talk about "IOUs" is nonsense. The only potential issue that our lack of factories poses is that we would have a harder time mobilizing the country to a massive war effort if the need arose again, but that just isn't going to happen in a world of Nuclear weapons (not to mention the fact that we are the most natural resource-rich country on the planet, and most of the countries with industrial economies are resource poor and would be completely screwed if you cut off their supplies).

Austinhousingbubble says

This is, in fact, measurable, and not subjective. It’s part of why it has become a boutique-ish privilege to enjoy anything made today to the same specs as what it was made to fifty or sixty years ago. Just look at the build quality on homes today. Look at your Ipod compared to an off-the-shelf stereo amplifier from forty years ago.

Now you're just plain wrong. This is entirely subjective, and for the most part not even something you can compare. Houses in particular are an amusing claim. You think people go about bringing old homes "up to code" for the hell of it? Do you have any idea how quickly a fire will tear through a timber + plaster wall as compared to drywall?

We certainly do tend towards using less expensive MATERIALS today then we did in decades past, but that's got nothing to do with build quality and everything to do with cost. If you took the same techniques used in modern manufacturing and substituted higher quality materials, even the subjective arguments wouldn't hold up (compare a Lexus to a Toyota. Same building techniques, just substitute chrome and leather for plastic and fabric).

Austinhousingbubble says

What I take away from your synopsis of things to come is bleakness, which is maybe why I’m a little bemused at your seeming enthusiasm for it. Not everyone is going to want to choose between being a Ph.D in a subject, or snaking out a septic tank. Not only does it seem to me that there will be a much diminished role for the human being - esp. the working and middle classes - but also a lackluster, soulless standard of living to look forward to, except for the filthy rich who can afford such elite, boutique thrills as manufactured goods.

There will certainly be a diminished level of WORK required from human beings, but it's absurd to think of that as a "lackluster, soulless standard of living". Do you believe that the standard of living / quality of life was superior in the 1930s? The 1800s? The 1500s? Do you think the poor and middle classes were able to afford "elite, boutique thrills" back then? Do you think they can today? Ever priced custom furniture, custom homes, or even custom cabinets?

When we're all working 20 and 30 hours a week, we'll have plenty of time to spend wood working, fixing motorcycles, or whatever else it is that you like to do. Just because nobody is willing to pay you to make custom cabinets doesn't mean that you can't do it -- much in the same way that I enjoy cooking at home even though I know I could get better food at many restaurants, or that my wife enjoys sewing, knitting, and crochet even though it costs more for the materials that she uses then it would cost to buy the finished product at a store.

The number of interesting positions that require manual labor is extremely small.

Not to nitpick, but 'interesting positions' is subjective. I've known many farmers (come from farmers) and what they find most interest in is their work. Their implements to them are what a piano was to Duke Ellington. Perhaps the type of work you were originally referring to was subhuman manual labor, but even these jobs have a place & time as well - if only as a stopgap while someone is paying their way through school, so that they can have a shot at making a living in a field better suited them.

Industrial society is a temporary blip in human history. It isn’t just going away in the US — it’s going away everywhere. It was a necessary evil to get us over a hump where our needs grossly outweighed our technology, and we nearly ruined the planet to get through it.

Industrial society is morphing, but it will never really go away unless you take Moore's Law all the way to the point where micro and nanotechnologies become self-propagating/self-manufacturing/self-repairing.

No it isn’t. It’s about 70% “consumables” (that is, goods and services that have to be replaced periodically), which is significantly less than most other countries.

Right - two thirds of our GDP is consumer spending/consumer goods/service sector, rather than durable goods, which used to be our bread and butter, (along with farming.) That's my point.

The fact that we don’t produce as many disposable trinkets domestically as we once did is meaningless.

Again, I wasn't referring to cereal box treasure or playing cards, but to durable goods. Think anything from Snap-On tools to Levi's jeans to engine blocks to doorknobs. Not having an industrial sector is not meaningless! Maybe in two hundred years, when we're all wearing liquid clothing and listening to liquid music and we create our own hand tools at home with our 3D carbon printers...but you're jumping the gun!

No wealthy country does.

Really? Do I need to compile lists of durable good manufacturing and how it relates to exports/GDP from Germany, the UK, Denmark or Japan and compare them to our anemic output?

Your talk about “IOUs” is nonsense.

National Debt is nonsense in which context? We don't make anything, and I fail to see how this doesn't help exacerbate an already flagging economy, in part, by making our debt less attractive to other countries.

The only potential issue that our lack of factories poses is that we would have a harder time mobilizing the country to a massive war effort if the need arose again, but that just isn’t going to happen in a world of Nuclear weapons (not to mention the fact that we are the most natural resource-rich country on the planet, and most of the countries with industrial economies are resource poor and would be completely screwed if you cut off their supplies).

That plays into my point as well; America is in a unique position of natural resource wealth that not many other industrialized nations share. (Remember when Russia decided to try to grow cotton in it's deserts?) Given this, it seems a no-brainer that we should have more mills and plants here than we do. That we do not has less to do with the age of automation, and everything to do with our flawed Free Trade policies and how it concentrates profits at the top. Trickle down, indeed.

Now you’re just plain wrong. This is entirely subjective, and for the most part not even something you can compare.

On this point, I am intransigent. There is nothing subjective about measuring design/quality control standards, build specs, reliability/longevity and performance issues of a product. The major design principles behind the whizz-bang consumer products being offered today are convenience and built-in obsolescence. Fresh garbage. The example I gave with the Ipod vs the stereo amplifier from forty years ago is not even close to subjective unless you are deaf, but it's true of other durable goods, too, be it hand tools, cotton undershirts, shoelaces, leather belts, flatware, etc. The quality is not there, and it is measurable. Face it: you get less for your money...or rather, the option of more lessers for the same money.

Houses in particular are an amusing claim. You think people go about bringing old homes “up to code” for the hell of it? Do you have any idea how quickly a fire will tear through a timber + plaster wall as compared to drywall?

They bring them "up to code" to sell the bastards, as we all know American's are obsessed with newness.

I know a thing or two about old houses, as they're kind of a thing of mine. For starters, plaster is more fire-resistant than drywall: fact. It is also ten times more durable, acoustic and just plain ages/looks better. The timber and wood lath used in many old houses was generally comprised of native hardwoods, selected for their natural resistance to rot, termites and mold. If it does catch fire, there will probably be more of the place left to rebuild than with modern construction. What's more, plaster doesn't corrode all of the copper wire in your home and cause you chronic upper respiratory infections. Hardware was also superior, including sinks, tubs, fixtures and even many window designs - despite the popular notion otherwise. Don't take my word for it, do a little research. Today's homes are designed to be built more quickly and cheaply. It should be visibly evident even to the layman. It would cost you an arm and a leg and at least one vital organ to build a house to the same or similar specs today. In short, I'll take the bungalow built in the thirties, and you can have my share of the Garage Mahals.

There will certainly be a diminished level of WORK required from human beings, but it’s absurd to think of that as a “lackluster, soulless standard of living”.

But why is that so absurd? I'm not saying if all the jobs in chicken factories went away tomorrow, that civilization would suffer a loss, only that, in your given scenario, civilization will become even more dependent on machines, and thereby less communal, less experienced (READ handy) and more soft and sedentary. In the broader scope of your wisdom, we would become redundant, but perhaps for art. Too much of anything is too much, and leisure time is no exception. It all brings to mind visions of a great big Dubai, but with robots instead of chattel labor. Sounds awful.
D

o you think the poor and middle classes were able to afford “elite, boutique thrills” back then?

You're misconstruing my point with that, which was that off-the-shelf consumer or dry/durable goods were so often ten times better than what you can get today for the same price (adjusted). You have to go to upmarket grocers or boutique dealers to enjoy what was a mainstream concern seventy years ago.

Do you believe that the standard of living / quality of life was superior in the 1930s?

I'm too skeptical to believe in anything, but I do know that there were certain sensibilities (pride in craftsmanship, for one) that pervaded the mindset that were, in my opinion, wholly superior to the ideal of total automation. A world that embraces these sensibilities is a far superior world to me than the one you portend.

There were also certain dark spots absent on the mindset, like unbridled consumerism, obesity and disposable culture.

Apologies for the majorly off-topic subject!

What I don’t get is - nobody seems very interested in talking about the housing market anymore. There is a miscellaneous forum here that doesn’t get nearly as much traffic as the housing forum, yet as soon as a housing forum thread gets off track, you guys go nuts with the off-topic posts. Why does everyone hang out here if they want to talk about engineering or programming or whatever?

I guess because, like any subject, the subject of housing is finite.

Again, apologies to all for the long off-topic posts.

In short, I’ll take the bungalow built in the thirties, and you can have my share of the Garage Mahals.
I think we all can probably agree that Bubblenomics produced some homes of dubious quality (issues arising from quality of materials and 'underskilled' labor). FWIW, you're probably not going to live in a 30's bungalow without some significant upgrades. See Debunking the Myth of Old Homes and Good Bones for more details.

EBGuy says

In short, I’ll take the bungalow built in the thirties, and you can have my share of the Garage Mahals.
I think we all can probably agree that Bubblenomics produced some homes of dubious quality (issues arising from quality of materials and ‘underskilled’ labor). FWIW, you’re probably not going to live in a 30’s bungalow without some significant upgrades. See Debunking the Myth of Old Homes and Good Bones for more details.

Great little article. "So I suggest a new version of an old ditty: Good Bones, Good Heat, Good Pipes, That’s Sweet." I couldn't agree more. I had a late 1800's folk victorian / craftsman and the big work was plumbing and wiring. The foundation had been re-done in the 70's; all the houses in the n'hood had this done since they had been built with sandstone bricks that were literally turning to sand (this is back east).

I would add - the plumbing was EASY since the house was on a foundation and had ample crawl space (dirty, but ample). I had all new water service run in CPVC and it was something like $1500 for the whole house. The low pressure (sewer) was mostly fine - it was cast iron and will be there when humanoid cockroaches own the place. The sewer lateral was clay, however, and I learned about that the hard way ...

Wiring? Well, this place had a mix of added on wiring - some of the oldest copper was as thick as my little finger. I talked to a pretty knoweldgeable guy on the disastrous experiment with aluminum wiring in CA in the 50s or so. He said that has all either been replaced or the house is burned down. Seriously, it is replaced or burned down.

And I also agree with the author on this: the details and other 'craftsman' work on older houses is usually preferable - with notable exceptions of houses they might call 'custom' in more recent years - i.e. not cookie cutter aseembly-line jobs but houses built one by one individually. My parents had modest means and we lived in beautiful homes on MI built this way. I think the builder barely turned a profit, but it was a labor of love for him.