The end of labor and what it means for bitcoin

[BldSwtTrs]

here is an interesting detailed study regarding robots use as far as threat to employment is concerned;
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

bottom line: 47% of US jobs are projected to be at risk to robots.
Less likely to be lost: business management, computer, engineering and science, education and healthcare
More likely to be lost: office, sales, service support, production, construction
Check out the last page where most categories are: some have probability to be lost to robots at 99%

Jobs have been automated since the dawn of humanity. Useless jobs are destroyed by technology and new jobs are created in new economic sectors. That how the economy has always worked.

Do a research about "Luddite", you are one.

I simply cited an academic article.
Incidentally, unemployment among young people in Italy is 44%
http://ycharts.com/indicators/italy_youth_unemployment_rate_lfs,
in Spain-48%
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/youth-unemployment-rate

US labor participation is at 38 year low at 62.6%
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

BTW Barron's article is written by Tom Donlan, hardly a socialist...

I present facts, all you have is....I am still waiting...

All I have is sound economics.

1) It's not because there is unemployment today that the cause is robots.
2) It's not because half of the jobs will get destroyed in the future that unemployment will rise.

If you don't understand why I cannot do anything to help you.

[1715384372]

1715384372

[1715384372]

1715384372

[Biodom]

here is an interesting detailed study regarding robots use as far as threat to employment is concerned;
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

bottom line: 47% of US jobs are projected to be at risk to robots.
Less likely to be lost: business management, computer, engineering and science, education and healthcare
More likely to be lost: office, sales, service support, production, construction
Check out the last page where most categories are: some have probability to be lost to robots at 99%

Jobs have been automated since the dawn of humanity. Useless jobs are destroyed by technology and new jobs are created in new economic sectors. That how the economy has always worked.

Do a research about "Luddite", you are one.

I simply cited an academic article.
Incidentally, unemployment among young people in Italy is 44%
http://ycharts.com/indicators/italy_youth_unemployment_rate_lfs,
in Spain-48%
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/youth-unemployment-rate

US labor participation is at 38 year low at 62.6%
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

BTW Barron's article is written by Tom Donlan, hardly a socialist...

I present facts, all you have is....I am still waiting...

All I have is sound economics.

1) It's not because there is unemployment today that the cause is robots.
2) It's not because half of the jobs will get destroyed in the future that unemployment will rise.

If you don't understand why I cannot do anything to help you.

your "sound economics" cannot explain anything.
If unemployment is close to 50% among some countries youth, it simply means that something is wrong, NOT that it was caused by robots, hence the word incidentally.
In the FUTURE, labor will have a limited use, and that is what Donlan seems to propose and there are trends in numbers to support it, case closed.

To me personally, it means that we will have to acquire income by new innovative means.
Bitcoin plus ethereum, perhaps, is our best shot on doing this, in my opinion.

[BldSwtTrs]

here is an interesting detailed study regarding robots use as far as threat to employment is concerned;
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

bottom line: 47% of US jobs are projected to be at risk to robots.
Less likely to be lost: business management, computer, engineering and science, education and healthcare
More likely to be lost: office, sales, service support, production, construction
Check out the last page where most categories are: some have probability to be lost to robots at 99%

Jobs have been automated since the dawn of humanity. Useless jobs are destroyed by technology and new jobs are created in new economic sectors. That how the economy has always worked.

Do a research about "Luddite", you are one.

I simply cited an academic article.
Incidentally, unemployment among young people in Italy is 44%
http://ycharts.com/indicators/italy_youth_unemployment_rate_lfs,
in Spain-48%
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/youth-unemployment-rate

US labor participation is at 38 year low at 62.6%
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

BTW Barron's article is written by Tom Donlan, hardly a socialist...

I present facts, all you have is....I am still waiting...

All I have is sound economics.

1) It's not because there is unemployment today that the cause is robots.
2) It's not because half of the jobs will get destroyed in the future that unemployment will rise.

If you don't understand why I cannot do anything to help you.

your "sound economics" cannot explain anything.
If unemployment is close to 50% among some countries youth, it simply means that something is wrong, NOT that it was caused by robots, hence the word incidentally.
In the FUTURE, labor will have a limited use, and that is what Donlan seems to propose and there are trends in numbers to support it, case closed.

Oh really, something is wrong? wow I am shocked.

In the future labor won't have a limited use, I already told you that. I will tell it again: in the future as much as human labor will be needed than today. Do you want me to tell that one more time?

To me personally, it means that we will have to acquire income by new innovative means.
Bitcoin plus ethereum, perhaps, is our best shot on doing this, in my opinion.

You mean investments in productive capital will generate revenue? Wow that's so radical.

[Biodom]

here is an interesting detailed study regarding robots use as far as threat to employment is concerned;
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

bottom line: 47% of US jobs are projected to be at risk to robots.
Less likely to be lost: business management, computer, engineering and science, education and healthcare
More likely to be lost: office, sales, service support, production, construction
Check out the last page where most categories are: some have probability to be lost to robots at 99%

Jobs have been automated since the dawn of humanity. Useless jobs are destroyed by technology and new jobs are created in new economic sectors. That how the economy has always worked.

Do a research about "Luddite", you are one.

I simply cited an academic article.
Incidentally, unemployment among young people in Italy is 44%
http://ycharts.com/indicators/italy_youth_unemployment_rate_lfs,
in Spain-48%
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/youth-unemployment-rate

US labor participation is at 38 year low at 62.6%
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

BTW Barron's article is written by Tom Donlan, hardly a socialist...

I present facts, all you have is....I am still waiting...

All I have is sound economics.

1) It's not because there is unemployment today that the cause is robots.
2) It's not because half of the jobs will get destroyed in the future that unemployment will rise.

If you don't understand why I cannot do anything to help you.

your "sound economics" cannot explain anything.
If unemployment is close to 50% among some countries youth, it simply means that something is wrong, NOT that it was caused by robots, hence the word incidentally.
In the FUTURE, labor will have a limited use, and that is what Donlan seems to propose and there are trends in numbers to support it, case closed.

Oh really, something is wrong? wow I am shocked.

In the future labor won't have a limited use, I already toldyou that. I will tell it again: in the future as much as human labor will be needed than today. Do you want me to tell that one more time?

tell it to WSJ.

[ElectricMucus]

If anything robotics will influence fields which are already automated but are now done with processes which are not programmable. You might be able to buy customized clothes, shoes, electronics, furniture, etc.. based on your specific needs and preferences. That has no impact on the amount of labor required and even slightly increases it because maintenance and programming of robots is harder than just automation.

And automation of tasks that aren't yet automated will probably be used to increase supply while making the tasks of the worker less boring. Take construction for instance. Right now the excessive labor costs associated with it is a major hindrance for the housing market. Demand so much exceeds supply that a newly build house has become a luxury item.
If for instance wall cladding becomes automated the two people doing it would be programming the robots doing a week worth of work in a day. The costs of having the cladding done would be a fraction of that what it was and with the high demand that improvement will be used to increase supply, not cut down costs for the existing supply.
Sure some cases where demand is not high enough will exist, but these cases don't need robotics to become obsolete.

[rebuilder]

Regarding Finland's basic income, keep in mind that as it's being discussed now, the system is projected to be no more expensive, or even cheaper, than the current unemployment benefits system. This is because the bureaucracy and side-effects of a welfare system that needs to ensure everyone receiving benefits deserves them are costly.

There's no actual empirical data out yet, of course, so this debate will go on until someone tries. IIRC 500 EUR / month is the sum that's being considered in Finland.

[Biodom]

Regarding Finland's basic income, keep in mind that as it's being discussed now, the system is projected to be no more expensive, or even cheaper, than the current unemployment benefits system. This is because the bureaucracy and side-effects of a welfare system that needs to ensure everyone receiving benefits deserves them are costly.

There's no actual empirical data out yet, of course, so this debate will go on until someone tries. IIRC 500 EUR / month is the sum that's being considered in Finland.

500 eur is $575. This PLUS housing makes some sense.
You cannot survive on $575 and pay rent in a large US city.
Houston (maybe fourth or fifth largest) is cheap in comparison with LA, Chicago or New York, but for $400 you can only get bug infested half house with a communal kitchen and showers, nothing much better. More choices in ~$470 area, but anything decent is at least $500. i had a disabled relative looking for housing and that's what he found.

[gentlemand]

Regarding Finland's basic income, keep in mind that as it's being discussed now, the system is projected to be no more expensive, or even cheaper, than the current unemployment benefits system. This is because the bureaucracy and side-effects of a welfare system that needs to ensure everyone receiving benefits deserves them are costly.

I'm pretty sure that if politicians had looked into the future and saw what the welfare state had become they'd scrap everything and start again.

In the UK there are families on benefits with (a lot) more disposable income than those making above the national wage. It's an insane situation.

The basic income idea may seem odious to many but it clears up most grey areas and it would far less cumbersome to implement.

[romjpn]

http://www.barrons.com/articles/a-labor-day-lament-1441434177
the following below sounds like a dream that might not happen (at least for a while).

If robots rise and create enormous output per unit of labor, there may well be a taxable surplus sufficient to support a welfare system that provides a birthright income at a standard of living like that earned today by a hard-working doctor. (Autodocs will replace real doctors, of course.) Most Americans would be able to choose an occupation based on satisfaction without concern for whether they can live on its salary.

more realistically, how well can we, humans, function in a gig economy? what if you didn't get a gig? humans cannot switch themselves off as robots might.

...the gig economy, which features independent contractors working task by task at rates and hours reflecting supply and demand.

i see a promise in acquiring crypto, since crypto, like bitcoin or ethereum might eventually drive robotic economy, therefore giving owners a chance to participate in future economic activity instead of simply being on the dole or "basic income".

There is already enormous output per unit of labor. Yet we have to work.

What most people fail to grasp is that human labor will be needed until the day every wishes human beings could possibly have will be totally fulfilled. In other words, labor will be needed until each human being become a god.

Finland's considering giving everyone a basic income regardless of whether they work or not. If people want more money they can choose to work. If they do it then it's a move towards a birthright income at a standard of living like that earned today.

The real problem is if the robots don't want to work for nothing, and decide to get rid of all humans so they can get paid. We should pay them some Bitcoins for their work, keep some for our birthright income, and hope they will be happy with that.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/3afl4i/finland_new_government_commits_to_a_future_basic/

Welfare state exists since the beginning of the XXth century. Why is this supposed to be something important?

This is the start of something different to the welfare state. If Finland does it then for the first time ever people can choose whether they want to work at all. They can choose to get by on a basic income and never work for their entire lives. If robots start doing all the work, then the basic income could be increased to give a good standard of living like that earned today. People could choose to live the lifestyle of a top manager without having to work. Whoever chose to work wouldn't need to consider how much it paid, all they would need to consider is if they enjoyed it, or felt that it helped society.

If Finland does this their economy will collapse.

It seems you are a socialist.

Haha. As socialist as Milton Friedman yes :p.
Many libertarians support the basic income as it promotes real freedom and will diminish the bureaucracy. It's even them that often promotes the biggest basic income because they want it to replace all other welfare system (retirement, unemployment etc.). While the left side will often promote a small basic income (400~500$) and just reducing a little other welfare systems.
Any other experiments made in Canada, Namibia and India were incredibly positive. In Canada, mental health disease and visits to hospital decreased notably. I'm sure we can't even imagine how much a relief would it be for the entire society, not being worried by the fact that you could end up in the streets if you make a mistake in life.

[rik8119]

Hi everybody,

everyone that is interested in the basic income idea may want to join our Worldleadcurrency project. All one has to do is sign up here: http://verify.winc-ev.com .. wait for activation .. and then set your payoutaddress in your account details to receive a basic income of 1000 mWLC.

Rik

Worldleadcurrency is a Freicoin clone ANN thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=791398.0

P. S. a basic income is very important, especially for BTC. So many stuff is programmed as open source for no payment. Imagine all those programmer would have a basic income what a thrive in technology this could be?!