Technological unemployment is (almost) here

[manselr]

No matter what people say, humans will always have a higher hand in the race than computers. They might be error free, smart and efficient but there is something in humans which machines fail to develop. Wisdom and emotions. And that is enough to inflict massive change.

I agree. They might program manners and ethics, but can they teach a robot to develop feelings? Even if they achieve that, what will they call it? Artificial emotions? EXACTLY. We humans crave affection and touch of each other, and no robot, regardless of how humane it might seem would be no replacement to a beating heart of your mother making you food with a smile on her face with her real affections.

But we are talking about unemployment here. We don't need to achieve actual artificial intelligence to make at least 50% of existing jobs deprecated by automated machines, so basically this is a huge problem and im yet to see a real way to solve this that isn't some sort of basic income for the tons of unemployed people that will be stuck on that situation. Sure it sucks, but what are you proposing?

[1714838135]

1714838135

[1714838135]

1714838135

[1714838135]

1714838135

[1714838135]

1714838135

[1714838135]

1714838135

[1714838135]

1714838135

[marcus_of_augustus]

No matter what people say, humans will always have a higher hand in the race than computers. They might be error free, smart and efficient but there is something in humans which machines fail to develop. Wisdom and emotions. And that is enough to inflict massive change.

I agree. They might program manners and ethics, but can they teach a robot to develop feelings? Even if they achieve that, what will they call it? Artificial emotions? EXACTLY. We humans crave affection and touch of each other, and no robot, regardless of how humane it might seem would be no replacement to a beating heart of your mother making you food with a smile on her face with her real affections.

... just be happy you had a mother like that.

[Amph]

No matter what people say, humans will always have a higher hand in the race than computers. They might be error free, smart and efficient but there is something in humans which machines fail to develop. Wisdom and emotions. And that is enough to inflict massive change.

I agree. They might program manners and ethics, but can they teach a robot to develop feelings? Even if they achieve that, what will they call it? Artificial emotions? EXACTLY. We humans crave affection and touch of each other, and no robot, regardless of how humane it might seem would be no replacement to a beating heart of your mother making you food with a smile on her face with her real affections.

they don't need to teach robot about feelin g and emotion, they might just implement it in a logic way, even if emotion are a bit illogical some times

for example "if someone destroy your phone you get angry at him", this coded in his istruction cpu that control it and so on, they need to add all those base stuff until he can sustain emotions like a normal human, or at least get close to it

[Zorrocoin]

For the last 200 years increase in the labor productivity have leaded to higher standards of living and creating jobs in new areas. Arguments that robots can leave people out of work have been called "Luddite fallacy" and dismissed by most economist and politicians.

But look what happens now. Highly paid blue-collar jobs have been already replaced with robots or outsourced to China. Service sector is most difficult to automate, so most jobs (>80%) are concentrated here today. Professions which in the past being considered as temporarily for students and school dropouts (fastfood cooks and waiters, bartenders, janitors, taxi/truck drivers, cashiers etc) now become acceptable even for adult people with college degree, however they also start showing signs of the automation and no doubt these jobs will gone after 5..10..20 years. Skilled white-collar jobs aren't safe places anymore - software reduce demand for accountants and tax consultants, cloud computing hits IT-workers, emerging AI systems like IBM Watson will definitely shrink number of doctors/lawyers/journalists and other data-processing jobs. Personal 3D printers could break away whole supply chains (manufacturing -> shipping -> warehouses -> retail sale) leaving millions of "useless intermediaries" out of work.

Problem of the technological unemployment is well described in the book "Lights in the tunnel". Personally I don't agree with the solution offered there, however author provides strong proof about problem's seriousness.

This is the idea behind the "Luddite fallacy". At  present, I  suspect  that  most  economists  would probably be likely to agree with this statement and, therefore,  disagree  with  what  I  have  suggested  in this book. Here, in a nutshell, is my argument for why I think we will end up with a serious unemployment problem: As technology advances and industries automate, this improves the efficiency of production and tends to make the  products  and  services  produced  by  those  industries more  affordable.  That  leaves more  purchasing  power  in the pockets of consumers. Those consumers then go out and spend that extra money on all kinds of products and services produced by a variety of industries. Some of those industries  are  relatively  labor  intensive,  so  they  have  to hire more workers  to meet  this demand—and  so overall employment remains stable or increases. This is the reason that,  historically,  technology  has  not  led  to  sustained, widespread unemployment. My argument is that accelerating automation technology will ultimately invade many of the industries that have traditionally been labor intensive. Additionally, the process of  creative  destruction  will  destroy  old  industries  and create new ones, and very few of these new industries are likely to be labor intensive. As a result, the overall economy will become less labor intensive and ultimately reach a  "tipping point". Beyond  this point,  the  economy will no longer be able to absorb the workers who lose jobs due to automation: businesses  will  instead  invest  primarily  in more machines. I have also argued that this process will be relentless, and if it is not addressed by some type of government policy, we may ultimately see a precipitous drop in consumer spending as a substantial fraction of the population loses  confidence  in  its  future  income  continuity.  That, of course, would result in even more unemployment and a downward spiral would ensue.

Point (4) on this chart means "peak jobs" - after it number of the working positions taken by automation will start outperforming number of jobs appeared in new areas. Many evidence shows that this point was already passed in 2000s, but unemployment growth have been artificially inhibited by credit bubble. As you know it busted in 2007 starting current recession from which the economy still not recovered - some people even noticed that job growth during recovering was too weak and unemployment levels created "new normal".

If it is true and "Luddite fallacy" is no more a fallacy, sooner or later people start to understand what is happening. Governments probably cannot do anything because they don't have enough funds even now, not mentioning extra load on the welfare system from increased number unemployed and falling consumer expenditures. Desperate jobless will have no other choice than to raise civil unrest and demand solutions from the govt, most likely there will be revolutions, even civil wars - capital owners and lucky "tech elite" (programmers, scientists, 3D-model designers etc whose jobs cannot be automated) probably won't peacefully accept high taxes and/or property expropriation. To prevent this scenario governments must start thinking right now and very fast - by my expectations existence of technological unemployment will be clear for the majority of people in developed counties after less than 5 years.

Most publications about tech unemployment issue promote an idea of the unconditional income to be paid to each citizen regardless does he or she is working or not. Switzerland even decided to perform a referendum about this measure soon. Personally, I think it is not a good solution - vast majority of "useless" people will spend entire lives on watching TV, games, alcohol, drugs etc. Assumption that these people could start innovative business is false in general, may be only few percents will do so, other will just degrade to the level of monkeys. Think about "bread and circuses" in the Ancient Rome and what was the result.
Also "Useless" people will be angry living on this tiny unconditional income and seeing how do tech elite (people with jobs) lives, so there no matter will be social tension. Providing unconditional income may be impossible at all - it requires extremely high taxation which probably will result in capital flight and fast economy collapse, so it must be implemented it all countries of the world simultaneously to be successful (e.g. by United Nations resolution mandatory for all members).

Alternative solution is to reject free market capitalism entirely and switch to the planned economy. The state will own all production means and hire workers, so full employment can be achieved - by reducing working day for just 1-2 hours, developing large scientific projects like nuclear fusion and far-space exploration etc. Don't blame planned economy for the disadvantages that USSR had, by using state-wide ERP-like software systems (aka modern version of the Chilean project "Cybersyn") they can be gradually reduced.

If you have another ideas, propose them in the thread. But please don't tell me 1000th time that I have the "Luddite fallacy" - even respectful analysts like Gartner acknowledge the problem.

I agree , it is true that technology is taking over and we are losing occupations because of the high tech devices and robots designed to make life easier. but in one way or another it is helping us. Plus, there are like infinite job opportunities and occupations out there for the youth to pursue. Maybe it is not that bad.

[jenifer0012]

Totally agreed. First if all human wants can never be fulfilled and there always be need of human labour no matter in what century we are or how advanced we have become there are still many many things which machines can't do and humans can!

[neurotypical]

Totally agreed. First if all human wants can never be fulfilled and there always be need of human labour no matter in what century we are or how advanced we have become there are still many many things which machines can't do and humans can!

True, but the whole point is the gap is getting closer and closer and it doesn't seem like it's going to stop anytime soon. Most of the repetitive and heavy tasks that take most of the low qualification jobs out there will be replaced, then mid and high jobs will continue.

[rayhan]

Unemployment has been one of the biggest loopholes in the economical society of the world. Unemployment remains , if there is a 100% literacy rate . Thats because the demand is less than the supply. Technological unemployment is gradually increasing. It is almost here. Peeping at us ,waiting to get resolved.

[Zorrocoin]

Unemployment has been one of the biggest loopholes in the economical society of the world. Unemployment remains , if there is a 100% literacy rate . Thats because the demand is less than the supply. Technological unemployment is gradually increasing. It is almost here. Peeping at us ,waiting to get resolved.

It is not as big of an issue actually, of course it will always remain but , there are thousands of more job opportunities opening up for the people to occupy. The more technology is taking over,  the more easier life is becoming. But there is a limit where only humans can occupy the jobs and are viable for it.  As long as human beings live, we will never run out of occupations since human wants are unlimited.

[giantdragon]

Barclays set to cut 30,000 jobs as it looks to increase automation and reduce costs

[tyz]

Same to Qualcomm, Microsoft, Siemens, and many more.

Just make a short Google search, to see all the press releases about job cuts of these companies published over the last weeks.

Barclays set to cut 30,000 jobs as it looks to increase automation and reduce costs

[n2004al]

As you told the technological unemployment has a long story. It is true? I think no. It is everything point of view but mine tell me that if this is true the world now must be in total chaos and without work. Because the technology is developed in a extraordinary way with giant steps not from ancient times but even from the last century. But here we are. There are unemployment but never is mentioned that comes from the technology. And this for one simple reason. The new technology create the same workplaces, but new workplaces. You must learn how to fulfill those. So the final problem is not the technology but the people. If someone want to work he/she must learn to work at the new job. Otherwise ..... the technology is "the problem".

[SerenaL]

I would prefer a planned economy since it at least sounds more sustainable than everybody being on the dole. I would try to leave the country if possible because such a government would eventually become tyrannical and collapse.

[pawel7777]

I would prefer a planned economy since it at least sounds more sustainable than everybody being on the dole. I would try to leave the country if possible because such a government would eventually become tyrannical and collapse.

Planned economy failed badly in the past. You can argue that you can pull it off with more advanced technology (improved information flow, logistics more control etc) but guaranteed, centrally assigned employment without freedom to change it or create your own business is probably way more demotivating and mentally damaging than unconditional income.

Personally I'd be in favour of conditional income. Payable to e ery adult but only if you complete basic education, you get it reduced or suspended if you commit a crime or act antisocially, plus maybe some sort of free community work from time to time just to force people to be at least bit socially active.

[aminorex]

Planned economy failed badly in the past. You can argue that you can pull it off with more advanced technology (improved information flow, logistics more control etc) but guaranteed, centrally assigned employment without freedom to change it or create your own business is probably way more demotivating and mentally damaging than unconditional income.

Agreed...but! Dictat-constrained employment is not a necessary consequence of planned economy.  For that matter neither is centralization: Planning can be done by a fully distributed algorithm, which allows for errors in its descriptive (not prescriptive) behavioural model.  Whether that is desirable is another question (largely moot).

Such a system would effect its plans by incentivizing cooperation.  For example, by offering fungible credits to qualified available actors, for a range of their most useful and highest value occupations.  In that scenario you can consider it a benevolent A.I. capitalist. 

[deisik]

Planned economy failed badly in the past. You can argue that you can pull it off with more advanced technology (improved information flow, logistics more control etc) but guaranteed, centrally assigned employment without freedom to change it or create your own business is probably way more demotivating and mentally damaging than unconditional income.

Agreed...but! Dictat-constrained employment is not a necessary consequence of planned economy.  For that matter neither is centralization: Planning can be done by a fully distributed algorithm, which allows for errors in its descriptive (not prescriptive) behavioural model

Planning as such assumes that things work out the way you foresee them, i.e. you change the initial conditions and arrange your actions so that to achieve a specific goal, thereby, in essence, shaping the future (therefore it cannot be descriptive by definition)...

But what are your ends, exactly?