So what's the job solution to automation?

[ryan]

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?

 

[barbos]

First option is not that simple. With automation global trade which is largely based on labor costs will halt, most of the crap China ships around the world will be produced locally. So economic competition will become irrelevant. I have seen serious economists suggesting limiting efficiency of production so more people can be employed. I can certainly see that working in service sector.

Second option is not without problems. Most people are not wired for getting post secondary education, they simply can't learn much after age of 20 or less. So that part of a "solution" will most likely not work. So problem is dumb people with undeveloped prefrontal cortex.


I think in theory we are moving to communism/Star Trek utopia, I mean I don't see how capitalism and super-mega-rich can still be part of the picture, but dumb people is the problem.

 

[LordKiran]

First option is not that simple. With automation global trade which is largely based on labor costs will halt, most of the crap China ships around the world will be produced locally. So economic competition will become irrelevant. I have seen serious economists suggesting limiting efficiency of production so more people can be employed. I can certainly see that working in service sector.

Second option is not without problems. Most people are not wired for getting post secondary education, they simply can't learn much after age of 20 or less. So that part of a "solution" will most likely not work.

The herders didn't beat the agrarians

The country dwellers didn't beat the city dwellers

The Luddites didn't beat the robber barons

If you or that economist bothered to read up on history, you'd know that the Luddites always lose...ALWAYS.

 

[barbos]

If you or that economist bothered to read up on history, you'd know that the Luddites always lose...ALWAYS.

I am pretty sure that economist knew about Luddites.

 

[Opoponax]

Guaranteed wage?

I thought of the Star Trek thing too, but the notion that everyone will do something productive when they can do whatever they want seems contrary to human nature.

And what Barbos said is painfully true. Not everyone is geared to do things scientific. It's really hard and it does take a minimal level of intelligence. I don't know that I'd refer to all those people as dumb, but even people with an average IQ probably aren't up to the rigors of a scientific education.

The whole idea of automation (and robots) was that it would make our lives easier and allow us to pursue a more leisurely life that would allow us to engage in something truly satisfactory. Somewhere along the way that lost out to the greatest profit possible no matter what. That we would be allowed to work less because of mass automation isn't even in the conversation anymore.

So back to my first statement: guaranteed living wage. Cut back on hours, which would allow more people to work... fuck it. That'll never happen.

Skynet, take me away.

 

[Blahface]

I think a negative income tax would be a good way to provide for people's needs and incentive people to work if they can.

 

[bilby]

Guaranteed wage?

I thought of the Star Trek thing too, but the notion that everyone will do something productive when they can do whatever they want seems contrary to human nature.

Sure, but who cares? If 5% of the population want to do something productive, and they and their robots can support the remaining 95% in comfort, while staying even more well-off themselves, then why should that be a problem?

And what Barbos said is painfully true. Not everyone is geared to do things scientific. It's really hard and it does take a minimal level of intelligence. I don't know that I'd refer to all those people as dumb, but even people with an average IQ probably aren't up to the rigors of a scientific education.

The whole idea of automation (and robots) was that it would make our lives easier and allow us to pursue a more leisurely life that would allow us to engage in something truly satisfactory. Somewhere along the way that lost out to the greatest profit possible no matter what. That we would be allowed to work less because of mass automation isn't even in the conversation anymore.

So it's time to put it back in the conversation.

Stalinism and Maoism allowed McCarthyism to hijack the public consciousness, and has given us the Great American Meme that says nobody should be required to support anybody else. But while that was a good summary of how to optimize well-being in the pre-automation world, it fails in the post-automation economy.

So back to my first statement: guaranteed living wage. Cut back on hours, which would allow more people to work... fuck it. That'll never happen.

Skynet, take me away.

Shorter hours for higher wages is one approach that should work; or high taxes on industry and commerce, used to pay an income to those who cannot work, because no work is available. Whatever system(s) we end up with, you either have to have some means to redistribute at least some wealth from the owners of the machines that do the work, to the people who have no work because of the machines; Or you have to accept widespread poverty and destitution.

To me, that's not a difficult choice. Taking SOME of a persons wealth in taxes and giving it to someone who may be undeserving is bad - but it's not in the same order of magnitude of bad as watching someone starve because you don't want to deprive a wealthy person of some small fraction of his luxuries. To get to that level of bad, you need to take MOST of his wealth and redistribute it (see Stalinism and Maoism).

What the Cold War really did to hurt the world was to allow people (particularly in the USA) to declare 'Redistribution of wealth is bad', without nuance. As soon as you even mention it as a possibility, the Randians come out of the woodwork declaring that taxing a rich man by a single dollar is morally equivalent to armed robbery. What we really need is not so much a new economic idea - the Europeans and particularly the Scandinavians have been making these ideas work just fine for seventy years now - but rather for the neo-Macarthyists and Randian loons to grow up.

Free-loading is not always a bad thing. Let's stop reserving laziness for the rich, and let everyone have the option to be idle. The robots will do the work.

 

[barbos]

Problem with 95% not working is that good percentage of that percentage are kept in control by being employed, they will simply turn to shit if you leave them "unsupervised" so to speak.

 

[bilby]

Problem with 95% not working is that good percentage of that percentage are kept in control by being employed, they will simply turn to shit if you leave them "unsupervised" so to speak.

I find that hard to believe. Those who require a boss to 'keep them in control' are already unemployed, and likely unemployable - and if they are not, they are quite capable of fucking up during the 128 hours a week that they are not at work, even if they manage to keep it together for the 40 hours that the boss is babysitting them.

Given that we don't have full employment, there seems to me no reason to think that those currently in work would be harder to control if they became unemployed and (relatively) wealthy, than are those millions who are currently unemployed and poor.

 

[ryan]

First option is not that simple. With automation global trade which is largely based on labor costs will halt, most of the crap China ships around the world will be produced locally.

The first option wouldn't have local automation.

So economic competition will become irrelevant. I have seen serious economists suggesting limiting efficiency of production so more people can be employed. I can certainly see that working in service sector.

Limiting efficiency would seem to just leave an opportunity for companies that will try to be as efficient as possible. They will win in the end because their products will just be cheaper.

Second option is not without problems. Most people are not wired for getting post secondary education, they simply can't learn much after age of 20 or less. So that part of a "solution" will most likely not work. So problem is dumb people with undeveloped prefrontal cortex.

I know the second option is not perfect; that's why I see the dilemma. But I think with the right incentives and other government help, we could increase the number of skilled workers by a significant percent. There probably wouldn't that many more skilled workers required. Although they will probably steadily increase for the foreseeable future.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

One thing that's being tried is a basic income.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/wynne-announcement-hamilton-1.4082476

Regardless of what solution is going to be used to deal with the fact that an awful lot of low income jobs are being replaced by machines, that solution is going to leave out a lot of people. If you accept the premise that letting them starve to death is bad, getting them a basic level of resources is something which will need to be done one way or another. Rather than all the overhead of anti-poverty programs, just giving them cash may be the most cost effective way to go about it.

 

[barbos]

Problem with 95% not working is that good percentage of that percentage are kept in control by being employed, they will simply turn to shit if you leave them "unsupervised" so to speak.

I find that hard to believe. Those who require a boss to 'keep them in control' are already unemployed, and likely unemployable - and if they are not, they are quite capable of fucking up during the 128 hours a week that they are not at work, even if they manage to keep it together for the 40 hours that the boss is babysitting them.

I did not literally mean supervision. But a lot of lowish wage people take pride in their work and are not really capable to use their free time productively. Suddenly retired people often have that problem too.

 

[ryan]

Problem with 95% not working is that good percentage of that percentage are kept in control by being employed, they will simply turn to shit if you leave them "unsupervised" so to speak.

I find that hard to believe. Those who require a boss to 'keep them in control' are already unemployed, and likely unemployable - and if they are not, they are quite capable of fucking up during the 128 hours a week that they are not at work, even if they manage to keep it together for the 40 hours that the boss is babysitting them.

Given that we don't have full employment, there seems to me no reason to think that those currently in work would be harder to control if they became unemployed and (relatively) wealthy, than are those millions who are currently unemployed and poor.

Do people have the same annoying saying in Australia as they do here in Canada, which is "Just workin', you know, stay'in out a trouble" which is usually a response to "What are ya doin' now-a-days"?

I fear that there is a reason that is said, at least here in Canada.

 

[barbos]

The first option wouldn't have local automation.

Why do you think that? Western manufacturing companies are starting to move out of China, mainly because of automation. Adidas is one example, they have robots which make shoes now.

So economic competition will become irrelevant. I have seen serious economists suggesting limiting efficiency of production so more people can be employed. I can certainly see that working in service sector.

Limiting efficiency would seem to just leave an opportunity for companies that will try to be as efficient as possible. They will win in the end because their products will just be cheaper.

Having unemployed people could be more expensive as a whole than having less efficient system.

Second option is not without problems. Most people are not wired for getting post secondary education, they simply can't learn much after age of 20 or less. So that part of a "solution" will most likely not work. So problem is dumb people with undeveloped prefrontal cortex.

I know the second option is not perfect; that's why I see the dilemma. But I think with the right incentives and other government help, we could increase the number of skilled workers by a significant percent. There probably wouldn't that many more skilled workers required. Although they will probably steadily increase for the foreseeable future.

But that's a thing, skilled workers are not needed anymore. Problem is how to occupy all these unemployed people with something. You suggested continued education, but that will not work for most people who simply are not wired for that.

 

[ryan]

Why do you think that? Western manufacturing companies are starting to move out of China, mainly because of automation. Adidas is one example, they have robots which make shoes now.

Because that is the option. Option 1 is basically protectionism.

Having unemployed people could be more expensive as a whole than having less efficient system.

I agree. And taking that into account, the question is which is the worst of the 2 options and why.

But that's a thing, skilled workers are not needed anymore.

Skilled workers will be needed, at least that is what you would expect since the less skilled jobs are probably easier to automate.

Problem is how to occupy all these unemployed people with something. You suggested continued education, but that will not work for most people who simply are not wired for that.

Yeah, instead of giving them money, they might as well have them do something productive for the money. It could be anything, and hopefully the government can sell it to the people as something "important" that they will do. Or who knows, maybe they can find them work that is actually important.

 

[SimpleDon]

Bilby is correct, what we must do is to intentionally distribute money from the people who have it to the people who don't. It is that simple. What we are largely doing in the US is the opposite. We are intentionally distributing money from the people who have the least amount of money to the people who have the most.

I don't care what type of economics you chose to believe in, you have to face the fact that the main job of the economy, the reason that it exists, has to be to provide for all of society's members. Food, shelter, health care and an education are the minimum. That any economy that doesn't do this basic is heading for trouble in the form of social unrest. It has happened time and again.

Our modern, efficient, capitalistic economies produce well beyond the minimum needs to survive, it produces a tremendous surplus, and to continue to supply the already wealthy with ever increasing amounts of this surplus at the cost of everyone else will also create ever increasing amounts of social tension.

The question is how to do this distribution of the economic surplus more equally? We can use some of the same things that we used the last time that this happened, when we transitioned from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy, when the farms were mechanized. We shortened the work week and the hours in the workday. We invented retirement. It is all ready been invented so we can retire earlier. We can spend more time in school and college.

We need to pay workers more money and to have lower profits as a result. The amount of profits earned by corporations has doubled as a percentage of GDP in the last thirty five years while the income share of GDP has gone down by the same percentage that profits have increased. The wage income share is the reason that we have an economy. Profits are needed to provide the money for investment. but over the last thirty five years we have gone from profits being twice the amount of business development to over five times the amount.

A tremendous amount of money is being sucked out of the economy in the form of economic rent. Limiting this, interest payments, banking fees, whatever Wall Street has thought up today to get their hands on the excess financial capital floating around.

We could also start paying people to do what now they do voluntarily. Pay people to care for their children and their elderly parents.

 

[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.

 

[barbos]

Bilby is correct, what we must do is to intentionally distribute money from the people who have it to the people who don't. It is that simple. What we are largely doing in the US is the opposite. We are intentionally distributing money from the people who have the least amount of money to the people who have the most.

I don't care what type of economics you chose to believe in, you have to face the fact that the main job of the economy, the reason that it exists, has to be to provide for all of society's members. Food, shelter, health care and an education are the minimum. That any economy that doesn't do this basic is heading for trouble in the form of social unrest. It has happened time and again.

Our modern, efficient, capitalistic economies produce well beyond the minimum needs to survive, it produces a tremendous surplus, and to continue to supply the already wealthy with ever increasing amounts of this surplus at the cost of everyone else will also create ever increasing amounts of social tension.

The question is how to do this distribution of the economic surplus more equally? We can use some of the same things that we used the last time that this happened, when we transitioned from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy, when the farms were mechanized. We shortened the work week and the hours in the workday. We invented retirement. It is all ready been invented so we can retire earlier. We can spend more time in school and college.

We need to pay workers more money and to have lower profits as a result. The amount of profits earned by corporations has doubled as a percentage of GDP in the last thirty five years while the income share of GDP has gone down by the same percentage that profits have increased. The wage income share is the reason that we have an economy. Profits are needed to provide the money for investment. but over the last thirty five years we have gone from profits being twice the amount of business development to over five times the amount.

A tremendous amount of money is being sucked out of the economy in the form of economic rent. Limiting this, interest payments, banking fees, whatever Wall Street has thought up today to get their hands on the excess financial capital floating around.

We could also start paying people to do what now they do voluntarily. Pay people to care for their children and their elderly parents.

I don't disagree with a sentiment but I think you are wrong about mechanics. Filthy rich people who got rich fairly don't bother me. It's the ones which has done so through questionable practices is the problem. I think letting them scam the system and then redistribute their gains is not a good idea. I think they should not be getting rich in the first place.

 

[ryan]

Bilby is correct, what we must do is to intentionally distribute money from the people who have it to the people who don't. It is that simple. What we are largely doing in the US is the opposite. We are intentionally distributing money from the people who have the least amount of money to the people who have the most.

I don't care what type of economics you chose to believe in, you have to face the fact that the main job of the economy, the reason that it exists, has to be to provide for all of society's members. Food, shelter, health care and an education are the minimum. That any economy that doesn't do this basic is heading for trouble in the form of social unrest. It has happened time and again.

Yup, and voting in a socialistic government will be their voice.

The question is how to do this distribution of the economic surplus more equally? We can use some of the same things that we used the last time that this happened, when we transitioned from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy, when the farms were mechanized. We shortened the work week and the hours in the workday. We invented retirement. It is all ready been invented so we can retire earlier. We can spend more time in school and college.

Good, I agree.

We need to pay workers more money and to have lower profits as a result. The amount of profits earned by corporations has doubled as a percentage of GDP in the last thirty five years while the income share of GDP has gone down by the same percentage that profits have increased. The wage income share is the reason that we have an economy. Profits are needed to provide the money for investment. but over the last thirty five years we have gone from profits being twice the amount of business development to over five times the amount.

A tremendous amount of money is being sucked out of the economy in the form of economic rent. Limiting this, interest payments, banking fees, whatever Wall Street has thought up today to get their hands on the excess financial capital floating around.

We could also start paying people to do what now they do voluntarily. Pay people to care for their children and their elderly parents.

Yeah, all this just seems like a good problem. I am happy with all these responses, not a lot of doom and gloom.

 

[ryan]

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.