Unemployment & the Future

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi folks,

This is a little late, but I came across this article recently & found it to be an interesting read:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/when-robots-take-jobs-remember-luddites-180961423/

It begins with:

"Is a robot coming for your job? The odds are high, according to recent economic analyses. Indeed, fully 47 percent of all U.S. jobs will be automated “in a decade or two,” as the tech-employment scholars Carl Frey and Michael Osborne have predicted. That’s because artificial intelligence and robotics are becoming so good that nearly any routine task could soon be automated. Robots and AI are already whisking products around Amazon’s huge shipping centers, diagnosing lung cancer more accurately than humans and writing sports stories for newspapers."

Jerry Baumchen

[normiss 622]

Hey Jerry,

NPR had an interesting Robot story regarding human wages recently.

At the phone company I work for, like many others, we are currently automating every function we can and it's eliminating jobs. Where people answered phones, took orders, configured network elements, is all scripted now. Some of this automation effort could be impacted with H1-B Visa changes coming though.
16 of us engineers are behind the scenes high level support for a national network now. I really dislike being on call these days.


\result:Thank you steady customer./end_result

Have fun!

Mark

[yoink 321]

JerryBaumchen

Hi folks,

This is a little late, but I came across this article recently & found it to be an interesting read:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/when-robots-take-jobs-remember-luddites-180961423/

It begins with:

"Is a robot coming for your job? The odds are high, according to recent economic analyses. Indeed, fully 47 percent of all U.S. jobs will be automated “in a decade or two,” as the tech-employment scholars Carl Frey and Michael Osborne have predicted. That’s because artificial intelligence and robotics are becoming so good that nearly any routine task could soon be automated. Robots and AI are already whisking products around Amazon’s huge shipping centers, diagnosing lung cancer more accurately than humans and writing sports stories for newspapers."

Jerry Baumchen

you'll like this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

[ryoder 1,387]

yoink

you'll like this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

All of CGP Grey's videos are excellent!
I watched all of them, and was especially fascinated but the "Rules for Rulers" videos. I did a lot of searching to figure out where the theory had originated. When I was looking at a book listing on Amazon, and found a glowing review by "CGP Grey", I knew I had found it.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[airdvr 197]

Interesting. A real eye-opener to be sure. I think the balancing force is still capitalism. If all of us are replaced by bots where will we displaced people get the money to buy what the bots are producing?

Henry Ford made his mark by making sure his products could be purchased by the people who worked for him. There is a delicate balance to be sure.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,400]

>Is a robot coming for your job? The odds are high, according to recent economic analyses.

It's a big problem and there are no good answers to it.

Some not so good answers:

30, and then 20 hour work weeks. This more evenly divides the remaining jobs. It historically has problems.

Alternatively, require long vacations, longer medical/maternity/paternity leaves and early retirement.

False consumerism. By overconsuming (i.e. just taking finished goods and throwing them away) additional labor is required for a short time.

A move away from a labor-based economy. This provides basic welfare for everyone, with employment providing perks (better housing, cars etc)

Outlawing automation and requiring human labor for certain functions (like assembly, machining, tech support or call centers.)

Ending minimum wage. This keeps human labor competitive for longer.

[skinnay 0]

Robots are not "stealing" any jobs. This is simply the realization that we've failed to invest in education and provide people with the means to contribute and compete in a meaningful way.

Most working class jobs exist purely because of trivial inefficiencies in their sector. It's a shame that people feel they deserve these jobs and the rest of society should slow down to keep their salary coming.

Just like all these unemployed coal miners should.. People need to grow the fuck up, quit bitching, and learn a skill that's valuable to the rest of society. Otherwise they are going to have a bad time

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi folks,

Another article on this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/innovation/robots-take-our-jobs-they-need-get-grip-n741336

From the article: "That's because the most mundane things humans can do with their hands — whether it's writing something down, grabbing an egg out of its carton, or picking an awkwardly stacked book off the shelf — are still big challenges for robots built by engineers like Choset."

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

This is simply the realization that we've failed to invest in education and provide people with the means to contribute and compete in a meaningful way.

Education will delay, not solve, this problem. The problem is that there are not enough jobs - not that we lack people to fill those jobs.

Quote

Most working class jobs exist purely because of trivial inefficiencies in their sector.

Well, if you define the work a machinist does as a "trivial inefficiency" I guess that might be true.

[tkhayes 126]

eventually we will indeed become a welfare state where people are simply being taken care of as citizens for the simple fact that they exist.

Not necessarily a bad thing, simply a statement of reality. Most laborious jobs done by machinery and cheap labor in other countries. When that labor becomes replaced as well, then they will have the same issues as we do.

We already know the coal jobs are not coming back, and neither are toaster manufacturers or TV repairmen. Mankind has worked hard to eliminate the inefficiencies and deficiencies of mankind since the dawn of mankind. Eventually we will have to decide whether we are just going to take care of our people or let them starve.

Guess which one civilized countries will choose? Lucky to know that I won the geographic and racial lottery when i was born

[wmw999 2,123]

One quarter of people are of noticeably below average intelligence (fortunately there are many types of intelligence). One quarter of people are of below-average physical dexterity or robustness. One quarter of people have noticeably below average interpersonal skills. There is undoubtedly overlap among those.

That doesn't mean that everyone in any (or even all) of them are limited to what you consider working class jobs that exist because of trivial inefficiencies. But it's likely that the effort for some of them to get to the blue collar jobs is far greater than for someone who has more.

The industrialized world is more and more coming to consider employees and customers are two separate classes; employees are resources, to be maximized. Customers are targets to be hit up as often as possible. That they are humans with internal needs is incidental, and to be ignored as much as possible.

Henry Ford made sure that his cars were affordable. Current practice is to have as many contract employees as possible, because then the company has fewer responsibilities to them, while maximizing their responsibility to the company.

The growth in the luxury market seems to follow this; go where the money is, and advertise it, so that even people who normally wouldn't be in the market for a $5000 bicycle (or whatever) feel that it's the only option.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Royreader8812 0]

The replacement jobs don't even exist yet.

The problem with societies around the world these days, is the false assumption that growth is needed for progress.

In our world, an equilibrium in the economy is the line between recession and depression.

There is more than enough resources for everyone, we just need to stop being wankers about it.

It simply means our current societies will have to change somehow or another. More likely than not, unfortunately, it probably means violence and death on a large scale.

The 1% that have 90% of the world's resources in their hands, will not be willing to give up the gravy train for the benefit of all. And for a peaceful resolution this is what needs to happen.

[Phil1111 911]

wmw999

One quarter of people are of noticeably below average intelligence (fortunately there are many types of intelligence). One quarter of people are of below-average physical dexterity or robustness. One quarter of people have noticeably below average interpersonal skills. There is undoubtedly overlap among those.

That doesn't mean that everyone in any (or even all) of them are limited to what you consider working class jobs that exist because of trivial inefficiencies. But it's likely that the effort for some of them to get to the blue collar jobs is far greater than for someone who has more.

The industrialized world is more and more coming to consider employees and customers are two separate classes; employees are resources, to be maximized. Customers are targets to be hit up as often as possible. That they are humans with internal needs is incidental, and to be ignored as much as possible.

Henry Ford made sure that his cars were affordable. Current practice is to have as many contract employees as possible, because then the company has fewer responsibilities to them, while maximizing their responsibility to the company.

The growth in the luxury market seems to follow this; go where the money is, and advertise it, so that even people who normally wouldn't be in the market for a $5000 bicycle (or whatever) feel that it's the only option.

Wendy P.

Concerns of automation and job displacement have gone on since the the Luddite movement. The big advantage that humans have is that even people with mental and physical disabilities can find jobs. Some not very smart people and some with limiting physical disabilities can even make fortunes.

Job displacement through automation and technology is constant. As is the migration of workers due to competition local, national and international.

Government is the key in keeping economies, job sectors and employment needs in balance. IMO Germany's job apprenticeship training program is what the world needs to model. It balances trained skilled workers with high quality, export driven products.

A tax structure that recognizes the source of production, research and management profits. Then taxes those profits fairly and in balance with international competitors. Keeping corporations from hiding profits offshore when they are earned in the host jurisdiction.

A blend of education, infrastructure, job mobility, trading regulations, and intelligent focus. That directs national advantages into areas of business and production. That can lead to competitive advantages internationally. Is what is required by the government.

Beyond that the government has an obligation to look after the disabled and elderly that can't find productive work. Including those that need temporary reeducation, relocation, or rehabilitation.

[wmw999 2,123]

I think that the current capitalist economic model is so tied to constant growth that it'll be pried from its (the model's) cold dead fingers. I.e. I pretty much agree with you. I don't think it will take revolution, any more than the end of the gilded age did (outside Russia), but it did take the Great Depression and WW2, and a lot of "government overreach."

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sonnyblu 0]

airdvr

If all of us are replaced by bots where will displaced people get the money to buy what the bots are producing?

With all the money they're saving, they could afford to pay us to buy their products. It's a win-win!

Btw, I still think Indians and Chinamen, err children, are easier to exploit - oh, and cheaper too!

[sonnyblu 0]

tkhayes

eventually we will indeed become a welfare state where people are simply being taken care of as citizens for the simple fact that they exist.

Not necessarily a bad thing, simply a statement of reality.

Heil Capitalism!

[SkyDekker 1,123]

airdvr

Interesting. A real eye-opener to be sure. I think the balancing force is still capitalism. If all of us are replaced by bots where will we displaced people get the money to buy what the bots are producing?

Henry Ford made his mark by making sure his products could be purchased by the people who worked for him. There is a delicate balance to be sure.

Capitalism would not be a balancing force for this at all. Capitalism has no avenue to look at society as a whole, it determines the market would do this.

However, it doesn't foresee Human Capital being taken out of the market. Other then how it deal with anything being taken out of the market, it simple seizes to exist in a capitalist structure.

[billvon 2,400]

SkyDekker

Capitalism would not be a balancing force for this at all. Capitalism has no avenue to look at society as a whole, it determines the market would do this.

Very true. Capitalism has one goal - maximize return. If the market can do that by enslaving people, it will do so (and it did.) It required government rules (and a war) to ensure that that particular abuse of capitalism ended. Monopolies are quite effective in a purely capitalist market - and again, government rules were required to limit the damage they can do to the marked and at a larger level society.

Same will be true going forward. As long as you make it financially advantageous to achieve a given outcome (more efficient cars, more employment, saving for retirement, supporting charity) via regulatory action, then capitalism can be a tool used to achieve that outcome.

[airdvr 197]

SkyDekker

***Interesting. A real eye-opener to be sure. I think the balancing force is still capitalism. If all of us are replaced by bots where will we displaced people get the money to buy what the bots are producing?

Henry Ford made his mark by making sure his products could be purchased by the people who worked for him. There is a delicate balance to be sure.

Capitalism would not be a balancing force for this at all. Capitalism has no avenue to look at society as a whole, it determines the market would do this.

However, it doesn't foresee Human Capital being taken out of the market. Other then how it deal with anything being taken out of the market, it simple seizes to exist in a capitalist structure.

I disagree. Capitalism is littered with junk companies that tried to produce products the mainstream couldn't afford. We're just ahead of the curve. Eventually we'll all be reduced to third world economies.

I say we find Miles Dyson and terminate him before it's too late.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DQsG3TKQ0I

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

I disagree. Capitalism is littered with junk companies that tried to produce products the mainstream couldn't afford.

Affordability isn't the issue really. The problem won't be companies not being able to exist. The problem is that you will have a very large part of your society without any purpose or function.

What happens when people have limited income and no purpose......

[airdvr 197]

SkyDekker

Quote

I disagree. Capitalism is littered with junk companies that tried to produce products the mainstream couldn't afford.

Affordability isn't the issue really. The problem won't be companies not being able to exist. The problem is that you will have a very large part of your society without any purpose or function.

What happens when people have limited income and no purpose......

Exactly. And with their limited income what are they able to purchase? There will come a time when the bot employed companies lose their market.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,400]

>There will come a time when the bot employed companies lose their market.

Not if average wealth keeps increasing (which so far it is.)

[wmw999 2,123]

Depends, too, on how that average is spread out. If it's too polarized on top, there'll be an increasingly profitable and innovative luxury market, and a lower end market with no thought, and the competition is for who HAS to serve it, not who gets to.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,123]

airdvr

***

Quote

I disagree. Capitalism is littered with junk companies that tried to produce products the mainstream couldn't afford.

Affordability isn't the issue really. The problem won't be companies not being able to exist. The problem is that you will have a very large part of your society without any purpose or function.

What happens when people have limited income and no purpose......

Exactly. And with their limited income what are they able to purchase? There will come a time when the bot employed companies lose their market.

And do what? Hire people?

You are focussing on the wrong group, which is the problem with capitalism in the end.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

wmw999

Depends, too, on how that average is spread out. If it's too polarized on top, there'll be an increasingly profitable and innovative luxury market, and a lower end market with no thought, and the competition is for who HAS to serve it, not who gets to.

Wendy P.

That trend has been evident for some time now. The two retail sectors performing well are:

1. Luxury, expensive.
2. Cheap.

Everything in the middle is getting absolutely decimated.