A world without farmers

August 12, 2008
Add Comment

Over time developing and growing countries generally shift their skill set in an evolutionary manner. As I discussed in Outsourcing and the Economy, the cheaper cost of labor overseas generally creates a void in domestic markets where those workers must either learn a new skill or remain unemployed. People will usually opt to self-sustain and will learn a new skill to maintain a level of productiveness within society.

As more and more jobs move to foreign markets people will inevitably learn higher level skills as a result, thus progressing the entire economy. Assembly line workers in the states may learn to do data entry when their factory work is farmed out to China. The same employees may then learn software engineering when the data entry jobs are farmed out to India.

Alan Greenspan talks extensively about this concept in his book The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, calling the process “creative destruction”. He supports the eventual fall of blue and white collar work in developed nations saying, “Job security, historically a problem mainly of blue-collar workers, became an issue starting in the 1990s for more highly educated, alluent people.” He later explains the process more succinctly saying, “Production shifts, such as the transfer of some U.S. textiles and apparel manufacturing abroad, have freed resources to engage in the output of products and services world consumers value more highly. The net result has been increased real incomes”, alluding to the tight coupling between increased living standards and performing more valuable job functions as a nation.

If nations are constantly progressing it is feasible to imagine a world where there are no more farmers. This doesn’t necessarily negate having agricultural products, but just the fact that the labor portion of farming, factory work, and other things will have become largely obsolete. How would this world work with no farmers to reap and sow? Enter technology.

In our current society we are already making advances that will allow us to create more virulent fruits and vegetables and are even starting to discover how to grow meat in a lab. These innovations are just the tip of the iceburg and are a sneak preview of the things to come. Farms may be replaced by vertical silos with robotic “farmers” that reap and sow each harvest. We already have the technology to be able to provide artificial sunlight and hydration. This is just one scenario but the possibilities are truly endless.

Can the world eventually progress to a point where there are no farmers? Yes, but I don’t think it will happen, at least not on a global scale. Such a world would require that all the countries that are either unindustrialized or developing reach a point where they no longer provide a source for cheap labor. The basic concept behind this is that building the technology to replace the workers must be cheaper than the actual workers themselves. Until the world reaches a point where the available human labor is more scarce than technology, and thus more expensive, we will not see such a shift.


Wax and Wane

August 11, 2008
Add Comment

Government spending and/or increased taxes are not bad in and of themselves. What matters in every situation where a politician proposes these things is not only what the change will do to the individual and the company but what it will do for the economy as a whole and whether expanding or contracting these things is the right move given the current state of the nation.

In general, you can have some situations where taxes are needed to fuel government spending and some where they are not. In times of deficit there are not enough funds to cover spending, so you have two options. You can either raise taxes or you can cut spending. Cutting spending is the obvious first choice but will only work to an extent before you start losing control of the basics that our government provides, such as police forces, legislative branches, etc. The only option that remains when cutting spending is not viable is to raise taxes. Conversely, if the nation is in a surplus then raising taxes and reducing government spending don’t really make a lot of sense.

Likewise, government spending can be both a blessing and a burden. In times of economic stagnation government spending, when applied judiciously, can help to stimulate growth within the economy. However, overspending by the government can have the counteractive effect of helping to ramp up inflation, which then has a trickle down effect on unemployment and the general welfare of the economy.

The point I am driving at here is simple: government spending and taxes are only bad in the situation that they are used inappropriately. If you hear that a given senator, mayor, or city official wants to raise taxes, don’t immediately shut them out. Listen to why they want to raise them then judge whether their reasoning is flawed or not. Many times this exercise will reveal that the individual isn’t making the choice that is in the best interest of the people. However, many other times this will prove to be the right choice. Some praise Reagan for operating the country very well in a deficit while others praise Clinton for doing the same with a surplus. The ultimate goal is a zero state where spending exactly equals taxes, however in the inevitable absence of this near mythical zero state, increases and decreases in both government spending and taxes will be warranted in certain situations.


The Art of Verbocity

August 8, 2008
Add Comment

Saying just the right amount is an art. It is hard to say just enough to convey your point while not getting overly verbose.

Take for example a simple directive: “Go”. While this directive lets us know what to do it lacks information. Where should I go? Why should I go? Does this mean me physically or something I am supposed to do?

Update the example to this: “Go down the street, take a right, go 3.4 mils, turn left, watch for traffic, cross the street. go into Sav-A-Lot Grocery, grab some cookies, and come back”. This is very exact but may be overly verbose. If I already know were the Sav-A-Lot is then this information is arbitrary and doesn’t really add much to the overall context. This example does, however, give more information as to the purpose of the directive is.

Perhaps a median ground is best: “Go get some cookies”. The directive is meaningful, succinct, and has enough information to keep the person targeted by the statement from being overly curious.

The same thing applies to code comments. You should write enough so that the situation is clearly explained without going into too much detail. If you find yourself not writing comments or writing one or two words, this is the equivalent of “Go”. If you find yourself describing what the code itself does, this is the equivalent of the overly verbose version of “Go…”. Since the code itself offers direction, the purpose of the comments should be to simply tell what the overall purpose of the code is and why it is doing the things it does. This is the equivalent of the “Go get some cookies” directive. It is enough information to provide some help but not too little or too much.