• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

What Happens to Society When Robots Replace Workers?

NobleSavage

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
3,079
Location
127.0.0.1
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
https://hbr.org/2014/12/what-happens-to-society-when-robots-replace-workers



To be sure, technological progress has always displaced workers. But it also has created new opportunities for human employment, at an even a faster rate. This time, things may be very different – especially as the Internet of Things takes the human factor out of so many transactions and decisions. The “Second Economy” (the term used by economist Brian Arthur to describe the portion of the economy where computers transact business only with other computers) is upon us. It is, quite simply, the virtual economy, and one of its main byproducts is the replacement of workers with intelligent machines powered by sophisticated code. This booming Second Economy is brimming with optimistic entrepreneurs, and already spawning a new generation of billionaires. In fact, the booming Second Economy will probably drive much of the economic growth in the coming decades.

And here is the even more sobering news: Arthur speculates that in a little more than ten years, 2025, this Second Economy may be as large as the original “first” economy was in 1995 – about $7.6 trillion. If the Second Economy does achieve that rate of growth, it will be replacing the work of approximately 100 million workers. To put that number in perspective, the current total employed civilian labor force today is 146 million. A sizeable fraction of those replaced jobs will be made up by new ones in the Second Economy. But not all of them. Left behind may be as many as 40 million citizens of no economic value in the U.S alone. The dislocations will be profound.

I think the time like in a little short, but the general idea is true.
 
The other flaw in the article IMO is the author assuming Moor's law is going to hold steady. I think it will crap out in 10 yrs.
 
The other flaw in the article IMO is the author assuming Moor's law is going to hold steady. I think it will crap out in 10 yrs.
Strictly speaking Moore's law has already crapped out, or at least slowed down. But the general principle of getting more out of technology doesn't depend solely on faster computers. It's also about how intelligently we can harness that computing power, and a million other enablers.
 
Better raise the minimum wage to help them out.

Goodness forbid we stop giving billions in handouts to already profitable corporations. I mean, how can we call ourselves "small government" types if we stop giving away billions in handouts to those who obviously don't need it?
 
UBI is in my view the only way to go.

That seems to be the consensus. Can we convince people to do it before we end up in a depression?

Switzerland is scheduled for a referendum on implementing UBI soonish.

For some reason I thought they'd already had a referendum and that it was rejected, but everything my google-fu has come up with is that the petition has been accepted and a referendum is still to be called; apparently it was a minimum wage referendum that got rejected.

I think they'll probably reject this particular referendum; it might be too high (it would give around 2800 dollars a month to everyone in the country, no strings attached); and there'll no doubt be a lot of fearmongering propaganda prior to the vote. But it'll hopefully set a positive tone for future debates here in Europe.
 
Ultimately, we need a new, individualized, cultural, approach to the meaning of work and the purpose of life. Otherwise, people will find a solution – human beings always do – but it may not be the one for which we began this technological revolution.

UBI is fine but what do all these idle hands do with their spare time? Generally speaking, which direction would culture move? Perhaps refining our education system so all people can discover their aptitude would go a long way but there will still be a segment who have nothing better to do than drink alcohol and make babies. Schools would have to move in this direction. Whether or not what you're good at can generate income would no longer be a factor.
I could see a hell of a lot of artists in our future. That's a lot of loft apartments.
 
UBI is fine but what do all these idle hands do with their spare time?

Whatever they want. That's part of the point.

there will still be a segment who have nothing better to do than drink alcohol and make babies.

First of all, this is really just a rightwing strawman along the same lines of arguing against welfare by pretending most people on it are lazy parasites. In reality that's almost a complete non-issue, just like it would be with a UBI. People who do nothing but drink alcohol and make babies don't exist for one; and people who do *almost* nothing but drink alcohol and make babies do so for reasons completely unrelated to whether or not they get a government paycheck every month. If anything, if everyone gets a generous enough amount of money from the government, these kinds of people might use that money to improve their conditions in life to the point where they discover that there's more to it than drinking and fucking after their 9-to-5 mindnumbing factory job.

Secondly; even if they still just drank and made babies; that wouldn't actually be a serious problem for the economy at large. After all, they'd be spending substantially more money on alcohol and food and what not; and even if they'd quit their job and live off just the UBI, well I certainly don't think you're inclined to believe these people hold highly productive jobs essential to the economy to begin with.
 
The other flaw in the article IMO is the author assuming Moor's law is going to hold steady. I think it will crap out in 10 yrs.
Strictly speaking Moore's law has already crapped out, or at least slowed down. But the general principle of getting more out of technology doesn't depend solely on faster computers. It's also about how intelligently we can harness that computing power, and a million other enablers.

Agreed. (You might find this interesting http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/the-status-of-moores-law-its-complicated).
 
I predict if we get UBI it will be the new "poverty".

Ooh, poverty in scare quotes. Let me guess: poverty doesn't actually exist and is a fabrication of some sinister liberal plot against the aristocracy?

You are reading too much into it as usual. Poverty does seem to be relative, which doesn't make it any better if you are in it. Poverty in the 19th century meant 14-18 hour shifts. I'd rather work at Walmart than Foxconn. If a poor person in the 3rd world got US citizenship and access to our safety net they would think they won the lottery.
 
Ooh, poverty in scare quotes. Let me guess: poverty doesn't actually exist and is a fabrication of some sinister liberal plot against the aristocracy?

You are reading too much into it as usual. Poverty does seem to be relative, which doesn't make it any better if you are in it. Poverty in the 19th century meant 14-18 hour shifts. I'd rather work at Walmart than Foxconn. If a poor person in the 3rd world got US citizenship and access to our safety net they would think they won the lottery.

Sure, there are some parts of the world where people are literally starving to death. That doesn't make having squalid living conditions and no job, hope or prospects in this this country, somehow something we shouldn't be concerned about.
 
Back
Top Bottom