Then people who refuse to improve and expand their skills will die off. End of story.
The problem is not absence of the skills of the people who being replaced by automation (as it was during Industrial Revolution while "Luddite fallacy" was true fallacy and workers could find new employment after extra education), it is 100% capital-vs-labor redistribution issue. When the doctors who have spent 10-15 years on education/training expected to be replaced by Watson and even programmers (!) could be affected by advanced IDEs and frameworks, you still will insist that extra training is a key to solve tech unemployment?! |
|
|
|
As for the original topic, I doubt very much that we will reach a point where no one has to work to support themselves
In some of the previous comments I have argued why your assumption is wrong: People must earn above some minimum to be able to live and work (food, shelter, transportation, education, healthcare etc) while automation requires only one-time big investment and much smaller costs on electricity and maintenance. Robotic systems become more cheap each day and after some point will fall below minimum wage for the human workers (e.g. this already happened for ATMs and self-service checkout lanes in supermarkets). |
|
|
|
There is so bloody many things I don't have and want. Somebody needs to make them, what a sruprise. And oh, a small fact. There is like 4 bilion ppl who do not have even as little as I have so I won't worry with these fantasmagoric predictions.
These 4 billion people in the third-world countries don't have enough money to buy expensive stuff produced in the EU/USA, so why do you think they will boost our economy? Capital owners suddenly will decide make them a gift?   |
|
|
|
Now you can transfer pending and delayed prizes you have won directly on the advertiser's account using Payments page. |
|
|
|
lots of scandinavian countries with 37, and 30 hour work weeks are becoming increasingly normal.
I think it is a trustworthy explanation why Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) have better employment situation comparing to the rest of Europe. |
|
|
|
we can see a new type of job, the money related jobs.. those jobs have nothing to do with production or service, but only making money out of money. This sector is growing really fast in term of number of jobs.. removing money will remove the need for all those jobs.
Do you mean financial sector (stocks, bonds, derivatives trading)? It really ballooned too much now, but automation also taking place here (trading robots, data mining / analysis software, online trading etc). UPD. Just read a fresh article that Barclays bank fires employees, replacing them with automation: http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/city-news/branch-closure-fears-barclays-plans-2657917 |
|
|
|
The urge to fight will be an issue for the foreseeable future but tech will make squish humans obsolete there too, drones are already in there and if tanks aren't already there then they're only a small step away. Imho we will soon need an open source robot army to defend ourselves. No need for any inconvenience, just go off to the middle of the sahara and kick the shit out of each other, the counterstrike heads of today will be the great generals of tomorrow  This robowar won't happen - people who can develop robots will be quickly headhunted by Google and work in the office with free food and meditation rooms, while the other part of population will fight with Molotov bombs, AK-47 and RPGs on city streets! |
|
|
|
not in the world where capital owners will take all profit from automation, reducing labor cost so low that "useless people" won't have enough funds to fulfill basic needs and have no other choice than riots and violence.
But that's only one possible scenario to choose from though. You are right, I am just trying to discuss more peaceful ways to solve the problem or at least increase awareness. I don't think these communities will be able to sustain for any considerable time - army and police will also understand what is happening and probably support 90% of "useless" population, not the working elite (because they also could be replaced with the drones).
The useless population won't be able to pay for army or police. Army and police work for a paycheck, too. Mercenaries with pure monetary interest always exist, but I don't think they will play major role in the EU and other civilized countries (about U.S. I am not sure). |
|
|
|
|
@Carlton Banks, I am not a Luddite myself and strongly encourage technological progress, but you need to look realistically what will happen in currently-dominant economic system (market capitalism) if technology will start removing old jobs a bit faster than creating new ones (again, I am not telling about extreme case of full automation). "Critical thinking, philosophising about the next brave new world and such like" is good, but not in the world where capital owners will take all profit from automation, reducing labor cost so low that "useless people" won't have enough funds to fulfill basic needs and have no other choice than riots and violence.
|
|
|
|
|
$1000 will be after next reward for block halving IMHO.
|
|
|
|
I myself would like to support resource based economy, but it requires extreme case - full automation to be sustainable (which may not happen within our lifetime, as well as Moore's law could stop at any time). In this topic I try to discuss implications of the existing or current-in-development automation deploying which will have effect now or after 5-10-20 years. |
|
|
|
The problem is not enough jobs for everyone though, at least in the cities. For most people its almost impossible to get a full time contract in Paris, partly because of the labour laws but mainly because its a buyers market.
I have read the France have one of the highest level of labor productivity (=automation/mechanization) in EU, so may be tech unemployment already start taking place here?! |
|
|
|
The only thing that seems wonky is the peerbet payout option. In the past it has worked, but due to something bit777 did it does not show up in your transaction history on peerbet.
In fact funds to Peerbet being credited, they just don't displayed in the transaction history. I think you should ask Bit777 to restore these stats. |
|
|
|
As for the issue of not being payed enough to survive, that will be entirely offset by the fact that the same productivity that has displaced them has also made the products that they consume proportionately cheaper, after all that was the reason why the entrepreneur chose to displace them to begin with.
I have already argued that this assumption is a fallacy, please see my previous post: People must earn above some minimum to be able to live and work (food, shelter, transportation, education, healthcare etc) while automation requires only one-time big investment and much smaller costs on electricity and maintenance. Robotic systems become more cheap each day and after some point will fall below minimum wage for the human workers (e.g. this already happened for ATMs and self-service checkout lanes in supermarkets).
We did it in France. We work 35 hours a week for a full-time job, earning 1 430.22 € minimum wage (before taxes).
We still have 10.9% of unemployment.
May be France have accepted too much immigrants who don't even want to work, preferring to live on welfare?! |
|
|
|
Moore's law deals with transistor density not performance directly (although performance has closely followed transistor density).
But the idea and effects are the same. Don't forget that architecture improvements can add extra double-ups in performance even without increasing number of transistors in the chip. |
|
|
|
Moore's law is probably the worst argument you can use to support your claim. It has been going on strong for almost 50 years now so if Moore's law was going to cause this technological unemployment shouldn't we have seen it already.
It is like any other exponential process - in the beginning changes have little impact on the system, but after some threshold they have dramatic effect. Nuclear fission is good analogy. Ironically going forward we probably will hit the limit within the next 10 to 20 years and fall below the transistor density required to maintain Moore's law. That isn't to say we won't find novel ways to get more performance but the days of "die shrink and double performance" are coming to a close.
Die shrink is not only way to increase performance. If you look in the past (before 1958 when the first IC was invented) you can notice that Moore's law existed since mechanical computation machines and probably will continue even after die shrinking become not achievable.  |
|
|
|
Nice idea - but we're not going to be at technological unemployment for a long time yet - unfortunately.
It's the economic policies of governments that having created feelings of 'peak employment'.
You are thinking linearly while technology advances by exponential curve (BTW, the same fallacy caused many Bitcoin miners to buy ASICs not counting exponential rise of the difficulty which resulted in negative ROI for them). If Moore's law will not suddenly stop, massive technological unemployment will hit developed countries just after 10-20 years (or even earlier if consumer spending will be low) IMHO. |
|
|
|
You have to remember that sporting events employ not just the athletes but also all the refs and coaches and commentators and analysts and the journalists who write the recaps.
Internet already dramatically reduce demand for journalism because many amateur reporters write for free. May be you have heard how fast newspaper circulations falling now, the same do advertising rates. These 2 options are most probable variants [citation needed] and are well-described. Of course you can suggest own options.
I mentioned "Lights in the tunnel" book which have read. Author describes unconditional income as preferable option (and describes its implementation ways in many chapters of the book). He also reasonably points that without consumer demand market economy cannot sustain, but planned can: However, if something other than consumer demand drives production, then we no longer have a market economy; we will then have a planned economy. The Soviet Union, of course, didn’t have intelligent machines - but they did have lots of very intelligent mathematicians staffing an agency called Gosplan, which attempted to figure things out. |
|
|
|
Running low on foof is a pretty good "kick in the ass"
If you mean "food", it will more likely force them to riot and destroy "lucky working elite" property rather than be creative. Recent attacks on Google shuttle buses is good example what will happen. More likely, people will separate themselves into communities, with those who want to work living in secured areas, with security keeping out those who don't want to work, feel it's unfair that they don't have other's money, and do nothing but sit around or riot. Which is fine, as long as the choice to start contributing in some way is always open, which it should be.
I don't think these communities will be able to sustain for any considerable time - army and police will also understand what is happening and probably support 90% of "useless" population, not the working elite (because they also could be replaced with the drones). > Imagine instead people own shares of productive companies and live off the dividends payed out by their investments.
>> People will just sell these shares to buy useless stuff or entertainment. Privatization after USSR collapse is good example how it will be.
Not if they need things like food, safety and security, or long-term retirement plans.
In 90's Russia people needed the same, but nevertheless sold free privatization shares (vouchers) to the oligarchs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
