Millions of jobs to dissapear as robotics advance

Ah but we still dig ditches by hand and all the technology did was drive down the cost of labor for the ditch digger. The same is true in other professions when technology enters the picture. Jobs still remain (for a while) but the compensation plummets. Productivity goes up and compensation goes down.

A serious problem is that technology is becoming less expensive and the replacement of labor is based upon a cost/benefit analysis. As the cost of technology goes down more and more jobs disappear. I've already seen an ad for an automated "burger-flipper" so where are the burger flippers going to find a lower paying job?

Roughly half of Americans can't live in the compensation they receive today and under-compensation is the leading cause of poverty in America. What are we going to do when that number reaches 60%, 70% or eventually 90% or more for all Americans?

 

Just referring to the group you mentioned. Why did you dodge the question? Denial?

 

At that point if it happens that 90% of all people cannot be employed and most jobs are automated then we may start looking at other options then capitalism. Since the system is all about the means of production and the means of consumption it might be an opening for concepts similar to communism just with a more democratic bent. As less people have been required for the maintenance of society more of them have turned to pursuits not needed for survival. We should see more artists, scientist, and philosophers unfortunately you will also see more moochers and lay abouts.
If the time comes where automation replaced human effort for all forms of production there will be no need for money. But some how we do need to control the consumption of resources. That will be the new systems priority. Resource management so that the machines do not sweep through the world like locusts and that people dont consume everything. Also a cottage industry of "man made" products will spring up and most likely through a barter system. I suppose the only correct way of providing luxuries would be through what benefits do your endeavor provide society. The scientist would be providing society something beneficial so that person should receive a reward verses the guy that sits at home playing video games.

Of course how that would be put into place peacefully is a big question. When you tell all the rich people that money now means nothing they will most likely be less then pleased. Also would the world stagnate or would people step up since any man can achieve whatever he is able to accomplish without financial restraints?

(PS I am not advocating communism as the world has seen it. I just dont have a better name for it. perhaps some of our more knowledgeable poster know a related theory that the above applies to)

 

I disagree with this a bit. First of all ditches aren't dug by hand. The low paid ditch digger was replaced by a machine that does the labour. The production of the machine involves a whole host of folks who design, build and sell the machine at a much higher wage.

 

Tax be fair. There are lazy people who do not want to work. Yes. I am also saying not everyone who is unemployed drools or is a write off. I am saying they are human beings who want to work and will if they can find a way to cope with change.

No I do not write people off. I have been unemployed. Hated it. You want me to judge people no way. I can't. I can judge myself. I get Doug Cyr's point that with technology comes new jobs and new ways of doing things and that's not necessarily bad..but with change comes the need to adjust to that change and let me say this-you better not hope you lose your job and people write you off as a drooler. Come on. You won't get an argument from me about deliberately lazy people. That's not who I am talking about. I am talking about people who get caught in the change and do not have transferable skills. Doesn't make them good for nothings.

 

A lot of generalizations but valid points and I agree with the point that technological and other changes bring benefits for sure. We can't stop progress and change. All I am arguing is there are very real displacements of labour force personnel who do not make the transition and then I defer to Shiva's comments.

I think we have to face the challenge of finding new ways to train and place workers caught in the changes. Do I think education is a panacea as one thread provider suggested? For some yes, for others no. There will always be a certain percentage of people who do not want to work or are what you call droolers. For sure but there are others who want to work and with proper training they can reinvent themselves and I say why not try help them rather than write them off?

So many people now are hitting the baby boomer bubble and in their late 40's, 50's, 60's want to work but no one will hire them and they will need to reinvent themselves to keep working and such people do not want to be unemployed-it sucks out their pride, and reason to exist. Don't think people want this feeling of being useless. The lazy bumbs no probably don't care but for many of us, we have been fired, let go, dismissed, didn't know and still worry where the next pay cheque comes from-doesn't make us bumbs.

 

*shrug* If they're good for something, great. Let them do that something.

But people need to give up on the idea of someone else finding a way to make them useful. Bio-fabrication, automation, crowd sourcing, expert systems, customer participation, self assembly... there are so many ways to produce work without hiring 'workers.' Workers are too expensive, too much hassle, and they produce too little... they're a last resort.

The time when people had the luxury of just showing up and saying 'tell me what to do, I want to work' and getting a job... those days are past. People needing labor have better options than human labor. So if you want to work, you need to manage yourself. The rest of us are busy.





​

 

No, I did not dodge the question, I simply thought it too elementary and obvious to answer. You see I know what will happen to the unneeded masses. They will become fodder in the great war which is now being set up. You see we have nearly 3 billion more people on this planet that we will need by 2035, the powers that be will not let them become a parasite on the system nor start a revolution on their own.

 

Google is already doing this.
40% of the employees are robot.

 

Large scale ditch digging is unquestionably done by machine because it's more economical for the contractor to do that but not small scale jobs such as running water lines for landscaping by small companies. Once again this is based upon a cost/benefit analysis where many small projects don't warrant bringing in a machine that might have to be rented and requires an operator that knows how to use it. Yes, the company that manufactures the trenching or digging equipment does employ people but it's a small number of higher paid workers producing equipment that displaces thousands of jobs. Once agian we simply need to understand the cost/benefit analyisis.

Even in addressing the design the number of highly paid mechanical engineers required has been reduced by about 80% because of advanced computer aided design software which has actually turned into computer created design in recent years. Most of the work previously done by mechanical engineers is now performed by computer such as finite element analysis, tolerance build-up analysis, and GD&T for tooling and manufacturing.

Many of the jobs required to build the trenching and digging equipment has also been replaced by technology. Instead of highly qualified and highly paid machinists to machine the parts this is all done by CNC machining equipment and a lower paid "operator" has replaced the highly qualified "machinist" that used to produce the parts. This lowering of the costs of producing the "machine" is part of the reason the technology is becoming less expensive.

The jobs still remain but the human labor has to be less expensive than the cost of manufacturing, purchasing/renting, and operating the machine which is why the wages plummet when techology is introduced. As noted the technology is becoming less and less expensive daily and that's driving down the cost of the labor to do the same job.

 

Put more simply the machines make the job "so" easy that the quality of the worker loses importance. If they don't like the pay they can leave.

Perception of value is a big part of wages too. Since WW2 women have been gradually introduced into the labor force, and every job they filled experienced a reduction in wages. Much of this is outright sexism, but the other half is abundance of labor and general perception of the value of those jobs. Robots and advanced computer programs devalue the skills of the workers who used to do those jobs, much like women workers devalued the skills of men who used to exclusively hold certain job positions. This is the systemic reason for wage inequity as men higher and higher up on the income scale resist the concept that women are just as valuable as themselves. Those men still feel intrinsically superior to women and consider men working in fields where women excel to be especially inferior because of that.

At least robots will never complain about being treated equally. The funny thing will be seeing how humans positioned at the top will keep inventing ways to feel superior to them.

 

Capitalism, socialism, and communism all have as their foundation human labor. As techology replaces human labor they all fail. I happen to believe that capitalism is the best economic system and look for ways that capitalism can change to accomodate the obsolescence of human labor over time that is being replaced by artificial intelligence and technology.

Science and the scientist is the foundation of techology but even they become less needed with the advancements of artificial intelligence. A computer today can do what a scientist needed years to accomplish and the computer can do it in mirco-seconds.

Yes, there will always be jobs that focus on the humanities such as art and philosophy but the problem is that very few are qualified to be an artist or philosopher. Of the millions of oil painters only the rare person ever produces a work of art. Many can produce a nice painting but few are worth anything and even the rare masterpiece is reproduced for the masses because only one person can own the original. In the end there's simply not enough demand nor are there enough qualified artists or philosophers in society to absorb the vast number of unemployed that result from artificial intelligence and technology.

"Money" is technically human labor stored in a commodity and I don't know that the necessity for it will ever disappear. A person is actually limited to how much they can consume and that's even true today. Even the super-wealthy is limited by how much food they can eat in a day, how many cars they can drive at one time, and how many houses they can live in at one time. Yes, they can own far more than they need but that's merely a waste of resources because the resources are not actually being used.

I do see possible changes where a person can only own what they use which is what John Locke addressed when he made his arguments for the "natural right of property". We might also see Locke's arguments used to limit consumption that relied on the "surplus from nature" (always ensuring "as much, and as good" as for all others) as opposed to consuming all of nature leaving not enough for everyone else. It will be a hell of a transition in any case.

The "natural right of property" would prevent consumption of everything possible. Of course our economy is not currently based upon the "natural right of property" so that's problematic. Our current economy is based upon "title" either written or implied that was established under the ideology of the Divine Right of Kings.

Yes, there will always be "hand-made" items but realize that they're more costly than the same item produced by machine and few people will actually purchase them or have the ability to trade for them.

Technology can actually eliminate poverty because it can produce all that we need. The problem is an economy based upon human labor when the technology replaces the human labor. There will obviously have to be a transition to a different form of economy. One of my great fears is that we will not peacefully transition to a new economic model and instead we'll will wait until it's too late and a violent revolution driven by mass poverty will be the result.

 

when there are not enough jobs, socialism will take over....

 

Horsecrap... There have been no problems solved. There have only been people who have figured out ways to screw their fellow man and to bribe and take over government to protect their interests. Having a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s offshoring jobs, blowing asset bubbles, and destroying the manufacturing base of the country is not problem solving, and neither is the public bailouts of criminal financial enterprise.

 

*shrug* Dunno... cell phones and the personal computer have solved a few of my problems.



​

 

$20 per hour? That is not that much. there are new college grads making more than that.

 

Ideally when robots include advanced Artificial Intelligence, most of the basic products for sustaining humans will become so cheap that we can just give it away, including the poor.

 

Yea, and pink unicorns will fly out of people's butts.

 

You're on to something. We have no problem taxing the income of a human doing the job, so put an income value on the robot and tax it like a human, socisl security, income etc,

Humans will find a creative and worthy use of the time that robotics has freed for them as we have at each iteration of productivity change.

Cheers
Labour

 

I heard about this thing called the automated loom that is going to displace lots of weavers.

 

Hopefully this means the end of the $15/hour demands of fast food workers.

 

Well,that was seriously depressing.

 

Why? You're afraid the richest might have to share a little of the wealth?

 

Hmm, so what happens when A.I. advances, and problem solving becomes automated? BTW, that has already begun.

 

You're talking about self assembling software? *shrug* My guess is we'll find still other problems. The one thing the human race excels at is finding problems.




​