So what's the job solution to automation?

[DBT]

We are going to have to shift to a whole new economic system. The end of economic growth was recognized by many of the Classical economists, Keynes, etc, peak population, mechanization eventually bringing about a state of economic equilibrium, consequently forcing a need to fundamentally change the way we do business. Not only business, but the very way we interact with each other in terms of demand and supply of goods and services.

I am shocked by your extreme expectations. I don't know that we will need a whole new economic system. It would be nice if we can change it for the better somehow, but it just doesn't seem likely in my opinion.

It doesn't seem likely to me, considering the nature of human nature. However, I think that circumstances will force the issue. What form the inevitable change will take, I can't guess. Perhaps a form of social capitalism, or something else altogether...who knows.

 

[LordKiran]

I am shocked by your extreme expectations. I don't know that we will need a whole new economic system. It would be nice if we can change it for the better somehow, but it just doesn't seem likely in my opinion.

It doesn't seem likely to me, considering the nature of human nature. However, I think that circumstances will force the issue. What form the inevitable change will take, I can't guess. Perhaps a form of social capitalism, or something else altogether...who knows.

Corporate Feudalism?

 

[DBT]

It doesn't seem likely to me, considering the nature of human nature. However, I think that circumstances will force the issue. What form the inevitable change will take, I can't guess. Perhaps a form of social capitalism, or something else altogether...who knows.

Corporate Feudalism?

Possibly. We practically have that now.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Everyone probably read about how 40% of jobs that exist today will be gone in the early 2020's. We all know it's coming especially for driving jobs.

There seems to be a dilemma.

Option 1: If we force the jobs to stay, companies with humans will not be able to compete in the world market with automated companies that would presumably have the advantage of cheaper "labor". This would probably mean a comparatively worse national economy compared to nations that choose to embrace automation. But at least many people will keep working in the countries that keep jobs.

Option 2: If we go with automation and 40% of the jobs are gone, it would seem that there would be greater economic inequality as companies that survive will consolidate larger parts of the service and production industries using less people.

So we either lose positioning in global economic rank, or we keep our economic ranks and leave out a large percentage of the workforce.

Personally, I say we go with the latter. But we keep as many people working as possible by really pushing hard for post secondary education to increase engineers, computer programmers, basic researchers, etc, or whoever else will be needed for automation. Then at least some new jobs are created. Some kind of guaranteed income should be implemented for people left out, and the nation can stay globally competitive.

What do we do?

The productivity of Robots could generate enough income to pay the social security of the humans who are unemployed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Everyone probably read about how 40% of jobs that exist today will be gone in the early 2020's. We all know it's coming especially for driving jobs.

There seems to be a dilemma.

Option 1: If we force the jobs to stay, companies with humans will not be able to compete in the world market with automated companies that would presumably have the advantage of cheaper "labor". This would probably mean a comparatively worse national economy compared to nations that choose to embrace automation. But at least many people will keep working in the countries that keep jobs.

Option 2: If we go with automation and 40% of the jobs are gone, it would seem that there would be greater economic inequality as companies that survive will consolidate larger parts of the service and production industries using less people.

So we either lose positioning in global economic rank, or we keep our economic ranks and leave out a large percentage of the workforce.

Personally, I say we go with the latter. But we keep as many people working as possible by really pushing hard for post secondary education to increase engineers, computer programmers, basic researchers, etc, or whoever else will be needed for automation. Then at least some new jobs are created. Some kind of guaranteed income should be implemented for people left out, and the nation can stay globally competitive.

What do we do?

Option 1: dead in the water. This is what the concerted effort of all record companies tried doing to Napster, a little shit upstart company run from a teenagers mom's house. Napster won. The fact that you think this is at all an option worries me. Good luck with battling your windmills.

Option 2: Ehe... no. This isn't the only second option. It's also a highly unlikely option. This is a false dichotomy. There's loads of more options.

How about:

Option 3: Communism. Yup, I'm serious. When enough people can't find an income they will adapt their political views. But not USSR style communism. More 1970'ies style democratic Swedish communism.

Options 4: Fascism/theocracy. This often happens in times of economic instability. This happened in Iran. USA voted for Trump. I think this is more than likely. I think we have to fight really really hard to prevent this. And to be honest, I think we've lost already. The only thing that can protect us from this is it's leaders committing political suicide. But Trump did that and still won the election. The good news is that this time around the autocrat overlords will sit on enough money to pay us off and keep us fat, lazy and distracted.

Option 5: Oligarchy. The rich and powerful find ways to manipulate the public discourse and create a sham democracy, with no real power. This, BTW, hasn't already happened and people who claim it are idiots. But enough people think we're already here that resistance to their take-over may go unnoticed/cynically accepted by the public.

Option 6: AI take-over. We realize that the world is best run by AI. So we create robots to run the world for us, and humans get to play and have fun. I think this is extremely unlikely. But it is a possible scenario.

Option 7: Technology will develop in a way that nobody could foresee and everything gets really weird.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Everyone probably read about how 40% of jobs that exist today will be gone in the early 2020's. We all know it's coming especially for driving jobs.

There seems to be a dilemma.

Option 1: If we force the jobs to stay, companies with humans will not be able to compete in the world market with automated companies that would presumably have the advantage of cheaper "labor". This would probably mean a comparatively worse national economy compared to nations that choose to embrace automation. But at least many people will keep working in the countries that keep jobs.

Option 2: If we go with automation and 40% of the jobs are gone, it would seem that there would be greater economic inequality as companies that survive will consolidate larger parts of the service and production industries using less people.

So we either lose positioning in global economic rank, or we keep our economic ranks and leave out a large percentage of the workforce.

Personally, I say we go with the latter. But we keep as many people working as possible by really pushing hard for post secondary education to increase engineers, computer programmers, basic researchers, etc, or whoever else will be needed for automation. Then at least some new jobs are created. Some kind of guaranteed income should be implemented for people left out, and the nation can stay globally competitive.

What do we do?

Option 1: dead in the water. This is what the concerted effort of all record companies tried doing to Napster, a little shit upstart company run from a teenagers mom's house. Napster won. The fact that you think this is at all an option worries me. Good luck with battling your windmills.

Option 2: Ehe... no. This isn't the only second option. It's also a highly unlikely option. This is a false dichotomy. There's loads of more options.

How about:

Option 3: Communism. Yup, I'm serious. When enough people can't find an income they will adapt their political views. But not USSR style communism. More 1970'ies style democratic Swedish communism.

Options 4: Fascism/theocracy. This often happens in times of economic instability. This happened in Iran. USA voted for Trump. I think this is more than likely. I think we have to fight really really hard to prevent this. And to be honest, I think we've lost already. The only thing that can protect us from this is it's leaders committing political suicide. But Trump did that and still won the election. The good news is that this time around the autocrat overlords will sit on enough money to pay us off and keep us fat, lazy and distracted.

Option 5: Oligarchy. The rich and powerful find ways to manipulate the public discourse and create a sham democracy, with no real power. This, BTW, hasn't already happened and people who claim it are idiots. But enough people think we're already here that resistance to their take-over may go unnoticed/cynically accepted by the public.

Option 6: AI take-over. We realize that the world is best run by AI. So we create robots to run the world for us, and humans get to play and have fun. I think this is extremely unlikely. But it is a possible scenario.

Option 7: Technology will develop in a way that nobody could foresee and everything gets really weird.

My point is earlier also that if production is taken over by Robots, Humans will be on social security benefits. The governments will have to ensure this happens.

 

[dismal]

What do we do?

Smash the looms!

Just like always.

 

[Malintent]

I don't understand job preservation in the face of technological advances.

People that don't evolve their skillsets to remain current do not deserve high paying jobs.. hand them a broom and remind them it will always sweep in the same direction. But if you buy a vacuum cleaner, then I guess fire them.

What should all the coal miners do when the demand for coal is all but eliminated? legislate a requirement to produce coal-burning cars? deny global warming and accuse windmills of killing the bats?
No. Tell the coalminers that their jobs are gone, never coming back, and to get themselves a new trade. The days of being born into a career that is just handed to you is over. Wal-Mart is hiring in the next town over that didn't;t put all their eggs in an extinct basket.

Should we prohibit the development of medications designed to cure disease and extend life with quality? After all, grave diggers and morticians need to be guaranteed that their jobs remain as lucrative and in demand as they were in the 1800's.

 

[couch_sloth]

I don't understand job preservation in the face of technological advances.

People that don't evolve their skillsets to remain current do not deserve high paying jobs.. hand them a broom and remind them it will always sweep in the same direction. But if you buy a vacuum cleaner, then I guess fire them.

What should all the coal miners do when the demand for coal is all but eliminated? legislate a requirement to produce coal-burning cars? deny global warming and accuse windmills of killing the bats?
No. Tell the coalminers that their jobs are gone, never coming back, and to get themselves a new trade. The days of being born into a career that is just handed to you is over. Wal-Mart is hiring in the next town over that didn't;t put all their eggs in an extinct basket.

Should we prohibit the development of medications designed to cure disease and extend life with quality? After all, grave diggers and morticians need to be guaranteed that their jobs remain as lucrative and in demand as they were in the 1800's.

What some experts are saying is that: with advancements in robotics and AI there will be fewer and fewer jobs in the next 100 years. That is to say, things aren't going to happen like they have in the past, when technology eliminated some jobs. e.g. New jobs/new careers are not going to be created, at least not at the rate to replace most of the jobs lost.

 

[ryan]

I don't understand job preservation in the face of technological advances.

People that don't evolve their skillsets to remain current do not deserve high paying jobs.. hand them a broom and remind them it will always sweep in the same direction. But if you buy a vacuum cleaner, then I guess fire them.

What should all the coal miners do when the demand for coal is all but eliminated? legislate a requirement to produce coal-burning cars? deny global warming and accuse windmills of killing the bats?
No. Tell the coalminers that their jobs are gone, never coming back, and to get themselves a new trade. The days of being born into a career that is just handed to you is over. Wal-Mart is hiring in the next town over that didn't;t put all their eggs in an extinct basket.

Should we prohibit the development of medications designed to cure disease and extend life with quality? After all, grave diggers and morticians need to be guaranteed that their jobs remain as lucrative and in demand as they were in the 1800's.

Malintent, you are right, but there is a consequence of telling 50% of the population to take a pay cut and go work at Walmart. People get angry and will vote for a Trump to get their coal jobs back.

People are competitive, habitual, emotional, materialistic, etc. rational thinking will take time to prevail.

 

[LordKiran]

I don't understand job preservation in the face of technological advances.

People that don't evolve their skillsets to remain current do not deserve high paying jobs.. hand them a broom and remind them it will always sweep in the same direction. But if you buy a vacuum cleaner, then I guess fire them.

What should all the coal miners do when the demand for coal is all but eliminated? legislate a requirement to produce coal-burning cars? deny global warming and accuse windmills of killing the bats?
No. Tell the coalminers that their jobs are gone, never coming back, and to get themselves a new trade. The days of being born into a career that is just handed to you is over. Wal-Mart is hiring in the next town over that didn't;t put all their eggs in an extinct basket.

Should we prohibit the development of medications designed to cure disease and extend life with quality? After all, grave diggers and morticians need to be guaranteed that their jobs remain as lucrative and in demand as they were in the 1800's.

Malintent, you are right, but there is a consequence of telling 50% of the population to take a pay cut and go work at Walmart. People get angry and will vote for a Trump to get their coal jobs back.

People are competitive, habitual, emotional, etc. rational thinking will take time to prevail.

So what happens when they don't get their job back?

 

[ryan]

Malintent, you are right, but there is a consequence of telling 50% of the population to take a pay cut and go work at Walmart. People get angry and will vote for a Trump to get their coal jobs back.

People are competitive, habitual, emotional, etc. rational thinking will take time to prevail.

So what happens when they don't get their job back?

I kind of said it. Some political opportunist like Trump will see a large pissed off population, and the campaign/platform will be to decrease automation and increase jobs, and he/she will get voted in.

At least that's my guess.

 

[dismal]

I don't understand job preservation in the face of technological advances.

People that don't evolve their skillsets to remain current do not deserve high paying jobs.. hand them a broom and remind them it will always sweep in the same direction. But if you buy a vacuum cleaner, then I guess fire them.

What should all the coal miners do when the demand for coal is all but eliminated? legislate a requirement to produce coal-burning cars? deny global warming and accuse windmills of killing the bats?
No. Tell the coalminers that their jobs are gone, never coming back, and to get themselves a new trade. The days of being born into a career that is just handed to you is over. Wal-Mart is hiring in the next town over that didn't;t put all their eggs in an extinct basket.

Should we prohibit the development of medications designed to cure disease and extend life with quality? After all, grave diggers and morticians need to be guaranteed that their jobs remain as lucrative and in demand as they were in the 1800's.

Malintent, you are right, but there is a consequence of telling 50% of the population to take a pay cut and go work at Walmart. People get angry and will vote for a Trump to get their coal jobs back.

People are competitive, habitual, emotional, materialistic, etc. rational thinking will take time to prevail.

That's why the neo-luddites need a catchy motto.

Something like "Sure, if you'd listened to us at any time in the past 250 years it would have caused massive suffering and deprivation...but this time we're right."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the long run the answer is almost certainly a negative income tax aka basic income system. The question becomes when do we start doing such a system.

40% of jobs being gone by the 2020s isn't reason to implement it--that has to be decided by what new jobs show up. As old jobs get destroyed new jobs show up. So long as enough new jobs show up things are fine. When not enough new jobs show up then we should be providing a basic income.

I also suspect that it should be phased in for the older workers that displaced--if you're an older worker in a skilled profession that gets chomped on you have basically no hope of ever regaining anything like your former standard of living. (This is what's behind all the "degreed" people that have been displaced--there were a lot of people that had degree-level skills and then went into management. The information revolution made the management tree much more slender--the best improved their lot, most of the rest were cast aside. They can't get a job in the area of their degree because they're too out of date, they can't get a job doing what they did because the demand isn't there anymore.)

 

[DBT]

The problem with a social wage, as necessary as it is going to be, is how it's supposed to be paid for. Even now with a relatively high cost of doing business, taxation, etc (a business complaint),and governments that appear to have a hard time balancing their budgets, plus businesses tend to automate for the very purpose of cutting wage expenditure in order to increase profits, how are they to respond when not only do they not save money by automating, but are expected to support a sizable proportion of the nations population, not to work for the business, but to play golf, drink beer and have sex....where does the money come from? The printing press? The Cloud?

 

[LordKiran]

The problem with a social wage, as necessary as it is going to be, is how it's supposed to be paid for. Even now with a relatively high cost of doing business, taxation, etc (a business complaint),and governments that appear to have a hard time balancing their budgets, plus businesses tend to automate for the very purpose of cutting wage expenditure in order to increase profits, how are they to respond when not only do they not save money by automating, but are expected to support a sizable proportion of the nations population, not to work for the business, but to play golf, drink beer and have sex....where does the money come from? The printing press? The Cloud?

Well it'd help if the government usurped control of the currency back.

 

[barbos]

The problem with a social wage, as necessary as it is going to be, is how it's supposed to be paid for. Even now with a relatively high cost of doing business, taxation, etc (a business complaint),and governments that appear to have a hard time balancing their budgets, plus businesses tend to automate for the very purpose of cutting wage expenditure in order to increase profits, how are they to respond when not only do they not save money by automating, but are expected to support a sizable proportion of the nations population, not to work for the business, but to play golf, drink beer and have sex....where does the money come from? The printing press? The Cloud?

Clearly humans are dead weight on robot society/economy and should be eliminated.

 

[DBT]

The problem with a social wage, as necessary as it is going to be, is how it's supposed to be paid for. Even now with a relatively high cost of doing business, taxation, etc (a business complaint),and governments that appear to have a hard time balancing their budgets, plus businesses tend to automate for the very purpose of cutting wage expenditure in order to increase profits, how are they to respond when not only do they not save money by automating, but are expected to support a sizable proportion of the nations population, not to work for the business, but to play golf, drink beer and have sex....where does the money come from? The printing press? The Cloud?

Clearly humans are dead weight on robot society/economy and should be eliminated.

Business doesn't primarily care about people. It does care about salaries and bonuses for the CEO's, upper management and shareholder returns: profit. The rest of it being related to the principles of business practice, customer satisfaction/happy consumer/addictive products/generate more business.

Corporations would not be happy to be paying consumers a social wage which amounts to more than the value of their products ( housing, food, transport, etc) in order to ''sell'' their products to the very people they are supporting financially, consumers happily eating, sleeping, rooting, breeding, while everything is provided for free.

 

[Canard DuJour]

It doesn't seem likely to me, considering the nature of human nature. However, I think that circumstances will force the issue. What form the inevitable change will take, I can't guess. Perhaps a form of social capitalism, or something else altogether...who knows.

Corporate Feudalism?

Thing is, the corporations will be in trouble too. They mostly mass produce for mass consumption. The increasing oversupply of labour will drive wages down and down, while price floors will lead to more automation. Who's going to buy their stuff? A few CEOs couldn't possibly consume enough.

My guess : some kind of crisis (or accelerating series of crises) in the next 50 to 100 years. As an emergency measure, states will start producing stuff for use (rather than for sale), and the emergency measures will become routine. Piecemeal communism. Capitalism might survive alongside, but probably not as the dominant mode of production.

Pretty much what Marx foresaw, only with a fudge rather than a revolution.

 

[bilby]

Redistribution of wealth from the top down has a number of possible mechanisms.

One way or another, it's inevitable.

I see no reason to expect that the USA would change from its current mechanism - the military.

Poor kids get paid by the taxpayers to do meaningless tasks, and senators campaign to have them concentrated in their home states, because they know that this redistribution is essential to their economies.

Maybe once the machines are doing all the productive work, the humans will all have to join the army so they can eat.