What Happens to Society When Robots Replace Workers?

[Jayjay]

That does not seem to make any sense at all. How would you share work among people who are not qualified to do it in the first place?

By training as many as possible to do it and mandating high enough per/hr wages that the marginal utility of additional work hours is outweighed by the cost in leisure and family time. Automation makes it possible, but the labour market prevents it without intervention.

So, you would train people to do jobs, that could be done by far less people for cheaper? How does that make sense? lAlso I don't get your point aout having higher per hour wages being outweighted by cost of leisure and family time. If I was paid more per hour, that makes working hours relatively more valuable than leisure.

If I understand you correctly, you'd also mandate a cap on working hours, but that means a guy who can see how much money he can make in 10 hours a week, and who has plenty of leisure time, would inevitably start to think, why can't he make twice as much by working 20 hours? The end result is, that if you are dangling this additional money in front of a person and saying he can't have it, he'll be discontent with whatever he's getting.

Also, what about the people who are really enthusiastic about certain jobs, versus people who are doing them just because they are trained to do? To maximize people's happiness, to me it seems that it would be better to let the folks who want to be robot programmers or whatever to focus on that, rather than share the work with hundred other people who are doing it just because they were forced to by way of some mandatory training program.

The whole plan sounds bizarre and incredibly wasteful, but I suppose in a post-scarcity world it would just be bizarre.

And why would you want to, if robots can do the same task more efficiently anyway.

Because (a) too many people will be entitled to nothing but basics and (b) that will restrict the kind of production that is feasible, assuming for-profit production.

When basic needs are met, it means that people don't have to take uncomfortable jobs to survive. This would naturally bump the entry salaries of unpleasant-but-necessary jobs, for people who want the money, and for those who don't could make a more modest living doing things they like.

And as someone already said, the basic goods would be darn cheap if automated, and keep getting cheaper.

You could think of UBI as everyne owning an equal share of society, and the society paying dividends.

Unfortunately, without other interventions, I think it'll be an equal share of basics and not much else. UBI certainly wouldn't hurt and we should do it anyway.

Maybe it's the consumerist mindset that needs to change first. If you are secure in having basic income, that frees you from stressing about day-to-day survival and instead allows you to do what you want, or what you are good at.

Whatever the mass of consumers can't consume will not be mass-produced and many of the good things can only be mass-produced. AA hit the nail on the head : There has to be a shift in thinking about private wealth vs. commonwealth.

That is a mental leap I have yet to make unfortunately.

 

[DBT]

It's a difficult problem. Frankly, given human nature and self interest, the need to earn a living versus corporate profits, I can't see a practical solution that would be amenable to all parties.

 

[Canard DuJour]

By training as many as possible to do it and mandating high enough per/hr wages that the marginal utility of additional work hours is outweighed by the cost in leisure and family time. Automation makes it possible, but the labour market prevents it without intervention.

And why would you want to, if robots can do the same task more efficiently anyway.

Because (a) too many people will be entitled to nothing but basics and (b) that will restrict the kind of production that is feasible, assuming for-profit production.

You could think of UBI as everyne owning an equal share of society, and the society paying dividends.

Unfortunately, without other interventions, I think it'll be an equal share of basics and not much else. UBI certainly wouldn't hurt and we should do it anyway.

Maybe it's the consumerist mindset that needs to change first. If you are secure in having basic income, that frees you from stressing about day-to-day survival and instead allows you to do what you want, or what you are good at.

Whatever the mass of consumers can't consume will not be mass-produced and many of the good things can only be mass-produced. AA hit the nail on the head : There has to be a shift in thinking about private wealth vs. commonwealth.

You aren't making any sense. If most production is automated, then the selling price of the goods will be very low. You yourself said that incomes will be limited, further decreasing the prices charged for items. The very low prices will still be profitable because production costs will be so low. Therefore, you'll have a wealthy segment of society that owns the robots that can live in penthouses, own private jets, get personal chefs, large homes, etc. while the rest of us will be living on the UBI that can afford a few vacations a year, access to the latest technology, cheap entertainment from virtual reality and the like, a home to live in, good education, good healthcare, and a variety of delicious food, and can earn some side money for personal services that require human interaction or that are more preferable to be done by a human than a robot or computer. The rest of society can also use some of their UBI to purchase shares in the companies if they want a piece of the action, since the UBI will be a bit more than enough to cover the bare necessities for survival.

First - that's not UBI, it's Universal Middle Class Income. "a few vacations a year, the latest technology, virtual reality entertainment ..." and then enough disposable income to "purchase shares in the companies if they want a piece of the action" ?? Even if it were possible, it wouldn't be fair that a few work to provide everyone else with that.

Second - it isn't possible in a for-profit system. The example I gave assumed nil production cost. The problem is that revenue must come from UBI and UBI must come from revenue. Any profit would be the economic equivalent of free energy. Any production cost would turn it negative. The "segment of society that owns the robots" won't "live in penthouses, own private jets" etc unless they already owned them before they made their consumers redundant.

Whether it's possible to physically produce so much with so little human labour is a different question. I'd say yes, we're just getting there now. Capitalism has made it possible but prevents us from realising it. That's the bind we're in.

 

[Canard DuJour]

By training as many as possible to do it and mandating high enough per/hr wages that the marginal utility of additional work hours is outweighed by the cost in leisure and family time. Automation makes it possible, but the labour market prevents it without intervention.

So, you would train people to do jobs, that could be done by far less people for cheaper? How does that make sense?

By being the alternative to a few working long hours to support everyone else in basic conditions.

Also I don't get your point aout having higher per hour wages being outweighted by cost of leisure and family time. If I was paid more per hour, that makes working hours relatively more valuable than leisure.

Only for basics. For most folks, the marginal utility of each additional luxury is diminishing. If I own enough golf clubs, I might not say no to another one, but I wouldn't work late for one. A few people, however, are compulsively acquisitive.

If I understand you correctly, you'd also mandate a cap on working hours, but that means a guy who can see how much money he can make in 10 hours a week, and who has plenty of leisure time, would inevitably start to think, why can't he make twice as much by working 20 hours? The end result is, that if you are dangling this additional money in front of a person and saying he can't have it, he'll be discontent with whatever he's getting.

Yes, that'd be a problem. Perhaps insoluble

Also, what about the people who are really enthusiastic about certain jobs, versus people who are doing them just because they are trained to do? To maximize people's happiness, to me it seems that it would be better to let the folks who want to be robot programmers or whatever to focus on that, rather than share the work with hundred other people who are doing it just because they were forced to by way of some mandatory training program.

They'd be free to do whatever they're so enthusiatic about all they want.

The whole plan sounds bizarre and incredibly wasteful, but I suppose in a post-scarcity world it would just be bizarre.

And why would you want to, if robots can do the same task more efficiently anyway.

Because (a) too many people will be entitled to nothing but basics and (b) that will restrict the kind of production that is feasible, assuming for-profit production.

When basic needs are met, it means that people don't have to take uncomfortable jobs to survive. This would naturally bump the entry salaries of unpleasant-but-necessary jobs, for people who want the money, and for those who don't could make a more modest living doing things they like.

Yes and that's one of several reasons we should implement it. That doesn't make it feasible for-profit.

I'm not arguing against automation either. On the contrary, I'm saying automation isn't really the problem.

That is a mental leap I have yet to make unfortunately.

 

[ksen]

You aren't making any sense. If most production is automated, then the selling price of the goods will be very low.

You mean like how we're flooded with cheap Nike's produced for pennies a day by third world children?

 

[NobleSavage]

You aren't making any sense. If most production is automated, then the selling price of the goods will be very low.

You mean like how we're flooded with cheap Nike's produced for pennies a day by third world children?

With Nike you are paying for the Swoosh you could probably get the equivalent at Walmart for $10.

 

[NobleSavage]

First - that's not UBI, it's Universal Middle Class Income. "a few vacations a year, the latest technology, virtual reality entertainment ..." and then enough disposable income to "purchase shares in the companies if they want a piece of the action" ?? Even if it were possible, it wouldn't be fair that a few work to provide everyone else with that.

UBI can be whatever society agrees on. It could be enough for rice, water, and a place to sleep. Or it could be a lot more. It would be fair to the few workers if 1) they got more than UBI 2) They agreed to work 3) They might enjoy working.

Second - it isn't possible in a for-profit system. The example I gave assumed nil production cost. The problem is that revenue must come from UBI and UBI must come from revenue. Any profit would be the economic equivalent of free energy. Any production cost would turn it negative. The "segment of society that owns the robots" won't "live in penthouses, own private jets" etc unless they already owned them before they made their consumers redundant.

If we take your formula and apply it now then revenue must come from workers wages and any wages must come from revenue. Hey we got free energy now! I'm thinking you are leaving something out. Ownership could be distributed via stock options to those receiving UBI.

Whether it's possible to physically produce so much with so little human labour is a different question. I'd say yes, we're just getting there now. Capitalism has made it possible but prevents us from realising it. That's the bind we're in.

You really need to quit thinking in black and white terms. There are so many elements of socialism mixed with our capitalism that it's a stupid argument.


The best way to figure this out is to let people experiment with different models and see what works. Then the economists can argue about it. The wrong way is to put a bunch of smart people in a room and use the force of government to make it so.

 

[ksen]

Even if it were possible, it wouldn't be fair that a few work to provide everyone else with that.

What are you talking about? Who are these "few" that would be working to provide everyone else with stuff in an economy where most jobs are made redundant through automation?

 

[SimpleDon]

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?

Count me out of the consensus. I don't think that automation requires us to more government spending to transfer money from workers to people who can't work.

Work is valuable to both the worker and to society as a whole. Besides, if you are going to have some people supported by the government they are always going to be characterized as moochers and deadbeats, like they are now. Someone is going to take advantage of the situation to improve their own life. Like Mitt Romney and his not for the masses comment about the 47% that don't pay any taxes, and therefore depend on the other 53%.

We will have a much happier society and a much better economy if people have to work to get what they need and beyond that, what they want. And there is no reason that we can't provide work for everyone, even if automation eliminates jobs, which it will of course, there is no denying that.

But that has always been the case.

There is no reason to believe that automation will eliminate as many jobs as quickly as happened in the mechanization revolution that we have already lived through and that we survived, the mechanization of agriculture. In a couple of decades short of a century we went from 90% of the workers in the country in farming to only 2%. We can get through automation, where the numbers are much less serious. And we can do it the same way, reducing the workweek, increasing vacations and holidays, reducing the work force participation; retiring earlier, letting a parent stay home to raise young children. We can spend more time developing our most important resource, our human potential, the quality of our education and of our training.

Instead of punting and developing large government programs that make not working a life long vocation, let's turn the economy loose to do what it does the best, allocating resources. We should raise wages and lower profits, make working worth doing and make owners to have to innovate to make profits, don't give them the easy profits of constantly lowering wages and government programs that effectively subsidize low wages by providing part of a worker's substance.

Start treating unemployment as the economy's problem to be solved, not low profits. Treat profits as what they are, necessary for the mechanism of capitalism to work to provide what we really need, the wages required to distribute the bounty of the economy and the efforts that go into it to everyone in the society, not just the already wealthy, like now.

I am always amazed that the strongest defenders of capitalism, conservatives, libertarians, the rich, view the capitalism that they defend so strongly as being a finely tuned clockwork mechanism that we can't dare tinker with least we destroy it. In truth, capitalism, at least in the developed world is a stout, robust system that can be manipulated to provide almost any outcome that we desire. You only have to look at the many different forms of capitalism in the world today.

The average German works about 20% fewer hours in a year than the average American or Japanese. Yet they have a strong economy with a huge trade surplus. In fact, it is safe to say that Germany is the source of the European Union's problems now. The Germans are in effect transferring their deflation to the rest of Europe. The euro isn't deflating, becoming more valuable like the dM would be doing. The Germans are collecting all of them. Leaving fewer for other countries.

In the US the same thing is happening, the rich are getting richer and we are sending 800 billion dollars a year to other countries, money that we can only replace by either the government to go even further into debt or for the private sector debt to increase. Saving, except by the ever richer corporations, is out of the question.

If Europe is going to share a currency and an economy they are going to have to share the rewards and the pain of the cycles of the economy too. The Germans are going to have share the Spanish pain too. Something that can't happen without political integration.

Remember, fifty percent of today's jobs didn't exist fifty years ago. This accelerating, fifty percent of the jobs that will exist in twenty five years don't exist today.

 

[Canard DuJour]

UBI can be whatever society agrees on. It could be enough for rice, water, and a place to sleep. Or it could be a lot more. It would be fair to the few workers if 1) they got more than UBI 2) They agreed to work 3) They might enjoy working.

Yeah, (1) they'd be paid more from revenue which comes from UBI, which comes from tax on the more they'd be paid. No problem. (2) and (3) are just saying they'd think it was fair if they thought it was fair. People who resent paying towards poor people who work will be just delighted to fund the middle class lifestyles of people who don't.

Second - it isn't possible in a for-profit system. The example I gave assumed nil production cost. The problem is that revenue must come from UBI and UBI must come from revenue. Any profit would be the economic equivalent of free energy. Any production cost would turn it negative. The "segment of society that owns the robots" won't "live in penthouses, own private jets" etc unless they already owned them before they made their consumers redundant.

If we take your formula and apply it now then revenue must come from workers wages and any wages must come from revenue. Hey we got free energy now!

No, we got wage labourers paid on average less than the exchange value of what they produce now, otherwise there'd be no profit. Nothing like that is possible here.

I'm thinking you are leaving something out. Ownership could be distributed via stock options to those receiving UBI.

If they can be tempted away from their yachts for long enough.

Whether it's possible to physically produce so much with so little human labour is a different question. I'd say yes, we're just getting there now. Capitalism has made it possible but prevents us from realising it. That's the bind we're in.

You really need to quit thinking in black and white terms. There are so many elements of socialism mixed with our capitalism that it's a stupid argument.

You're right. I should say a mixture of capitalism and socialism has made post-scarcity possible, but the capitalist bit prevents us realising it.

The best way to figure this out is to let people experiment with different models and see what works. Then the economists can argue about it. The wrong way is to put a bunch of smart people in a room and use the force of government to make it so.

Government forcing it is the only way it could ever come about. Get real.

 

[lpetrich]

In some earlier threads, Humans Need Not Apply and Fast food protests: March in downtown Los Angeles, cities nationwide, I've mentioned some work on which jobs are likely to be vulnerable to automation as artificial intelligence advances. The authors subjectively scored several jobs on vulnerability, then compared their scoring to what skills the jobs require. They found that jobs requiring perception and manipulation are relatively vulnerable, but that jobs requiring creative and/or social intelligence are the relatively invulnerable.

• Less vulnerable: Management, Business, and Financial; Computer, Engineering, and Science; Education, Legal, Community Service, Arts, and Media; Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
• More vulnerable: Service; Sales and Related; Office and Administrative Support; Farming, Fishing, and Forestry; Construction and Extraction; Installation, Maintenance, and Repair; Production; Transportation and Material Moving

NEWS RELEASE: Oxford Martin School study shows nearly half of US jobs could be at risk of computerisation | Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology > future_of_employment_18.dvi - The_Future_of_Employment_OMS_Working_Paper_1.pdf > Figure III

 

[Canard DuJour]

Even if it were possible, it wouldn't be fair that a few work to provide everyone else with that.

What are you talking about? Who are these "few" that would be working to provide everyone else with stuff in an economy where most jobs are made redundant through automation?

Those Jayjay says should do the remaining work full time and pay taxes to fund everyone elses' Universal Middle Class Income.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is an intrinsic and humanistic value to work that the commodification of work denies. Work is not just another type of energy used in manufacturing but a human expression of creativity, solidarity, and inclusion. It adds to our worth to ourselves and others. Take it away, and you take away part of a person's humanity.

 

[PyramidHead]

There is an intrinsic and humanistic value to work that the commodification of work denies. Work is not just another type of energy used in manufacturing but a human expression of creativity, solidarity, and inclusion. It adds to our worth to ourselves and others. Take it away, and you take away part of a person's humanity.

I'm not sure I agree. For some, your statement may be true. If work is that valuable to them, nobody could "take it away" by commodifying it; they could still do volunteer work. Not every part of human nature is worth keeping around, so I don't feel like losing that part of my humanity would be a disadvantage to me, all other things being equal.

 

[arkirk]

There is an intrinsic and humanistic value to work that the commodification of work denies. Work is not just another type of energy used in manufacturing but a human expression of creativity, solidarity, and inclusion. It adds to our worth to ourselves and others. Take it away, and you take away part of a person's humanity.

I'm not sure I agree. For some, your statement may be true. If work is that valuable to them, nobody could "take it away" by commodifying it; they could still do volunteer work. Not every part of human nature is worth keeping around, so I don't feel like losing that part of my humanity would be a disadvantage to me, all other things being equal.

I recommend you reconsider what you are saying. The only legitimate business of a human being is living as healthy a life as possible and contributing to society at the same time. If you are forced to work too many hours at too motion limiting and intellect limiting activity, you lose your health and your brain gets a limited input. If you extend your thinking to the extreme (as humans are wont to do), you end up with robots producing needed materials for other robots and a lot of unoccupied people standing around with nothing to do and nothing to think about...maybe just living breathing soylent green.

What Athena is talking about is reducing humans to the same status as robots. That removes all impetus of volition and autonomy. This is really at the crux of employer-employee relations. When a person becomes an employee in a large capitalist enterprise, he sacrifices for a time the autonomy he needs to keep his brain and body healthy. If he is worked too constantly and too strictly, he loses his mental flexibility, his learning capacity, and his creativity. FoxxCon in China is an example of human labor reduced to a commodity. They erected body catching nets around the perimiter of the building to catch the suicide attempters. So this idea of comodifying labor is actually not real and not healthy for human beings.

When a corporation replaces humans with robots, it misinterprets what work should be. I am not against robots. I am against robots replacing humans. For instance, robots make the very best photovotalic cells. People who made them by hand, if that was all they were educated to do get replaced. The use of robots has to be extended to the workers, not just factory owners if we are to be a civilized society.

 

[lpetrich]

 Easterlin paradox: Richard Easterlin had concluded that "... high incomes do correlate with happiness, but long term, increased income doesn't correlate with increased happiness".

However, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers have proposed that it does continue to increase, but logarithmically. Thus, increasing from $10,000/yr to $20,000/yr produces the same happiness increase as increasing from $20,000/yr to $40,000/yr or from $40,000/yr to $80,000/yr or from $80,000/yr to $160,000/yr.

So with enough resources available, I think that most people would become satiated.

I'm not sure that I like the idea of a Universal Basic Income. It seems too easy to interpret as supporting parasitism. I'd prefer redistributing work. If less work is necessary to support an economy, then everybody then does less work. An alternative is the Solaria solution from Isaac Asimov's novel The Naked Sun. In it, the inhabitants of planet Solaria own estates tended by robots. A virtual version would be widespread stock ownership, with everybody living off of stock dividends.

I think that one may get a clue from aristocrats over the centuries. They have usually not needed to work for their living, instead living off of the labors of their underlings. Some of them have worked in various careers, while others have prided themselves on being gentlemen and ladies of leisure.

 

[arkirk]

 Easterlin paradox: Richard Easterlin had concluded that "... high incomes do correlate with happiness, but long term, increased income doesn't correlate with increased happiness".

However, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers have proposed that it does continue to increase, but logarithmically. Thus, increasing from $10,000/yr to $20,000/yr produces the same happiness increase as increasing from $20,000/yr to $40,000/yr or from $40,000/yr to $80,000/yr or from $80,000/yr to $160,000/yr.

So with enough resources available, I think that most people would become satiated.

I'm not sure that I like the idea of a Universal Basic Income. It seems too easy to interpret as supporting parasitism. I'd prefer redistributing work. If less work is necessary to support an economy, then everybody then does less work. An alternative is the Solaria solution from Isaac Asimov's novel The Naked Sun. In it, the inhabitants of planet Solaria own estates tended by robots. A virtual version would be widespread stock ownership, with everybody living off of stock dividends.

I think that one may get a clue from aristocrats over the centuries. They have usually not needed to work for their living, instead living off of the labors of their underlings. Some of them have worked in various careers, while others have prided themselves on being gentlemen and ladies of leisure.

What is the unit of "happiness" you are referring to. How do you measure happiness? It is the lack of any tangible method of measuring happiness that makes the survey referred to in the first part of your post meaningless.

NOBODY I KNOW WANTS TO BE A PARASITE. The only parasites who actually enjoy their parasitism are billionaires. A universal basic income would not produce a nation of parasites.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm not sure I agree. For some, your statement may be true. If work is that valuable to them, nobody could "take it away" by commodifying it; they could still do volunteer work. Not every part of human nature is worth keeping around, so I don't feel like losing that part of my humanity would be a disadvantage to me, all other things being equal.

I recommend you reconsider what you are saying. The only legitimate business of a human being is living as healthy a life as possible and contributing to society at the same time. If you are forced to work too many hours at too motion limiting and intellect limiting activity, you lose your health and your brain gets a limited input. If you extend your thinking to the extreme (as humans are wont to do), you end up with robots producing needed materials for other robots and a lot of unoccupied people standing around with nothing to do and nothing to think about...maybe just living breathing soylent green.

What Athena is talking about is reducing humans to the same status as robots. That removes all impetus of volition and autonomy. This is really at the crux of employer-employee relations. When a person becomes an employee in a large capitalist enterprise, he sacrifices for a time the autonomy he needs to keep his brain and body healthy. If he is worked too constantly and too strictly, he loses his mental flexibility, his learning capacity, and his creativity. FoxxCon in China is an example of human labor reduced to a commodity. They erected body catching nets around the perimiter of the building to catch the suicide attempters. So this idea of comodifying labor is actually not real and not healthy for human beings.

When a corporation replaces humans with robots, it misinterprets what work should be. I am not against robots. I am against robots replacing humans. For instance, robots make the very best photovotalic cells. People who made them by hand, if that was all they were educated to do get replaced. The use of robots has to be extended to the workers, not just factory owners if we are to be a civilized society.

This s true. there is a difference between that which is work and that which a job. A job can be accomplished by robots on an assembly line, repetitive action done over and over again without thought, like the doo-hicky at the pickle plant that screws on the jar lids. However, the cooks in the test lab are engaged in work as they not only cut up cucumbers but devise new recipes for pickles and improve the taste of old ones.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The UBI has much merit provided it is instituted as part of a bigger plan to encourage and allow people to pursue their passions, to do volunteer work, to engage in craft and art, to awaken in so many the spark to DO not just watch.