Technological unemployment is (almost) here

[pereira4]

While I am all about automation, I think autonomous cars are insane and I will never get in one as long as I live. My hearse can be self driving and I will not much care then, but otherwise forget it. The only way this will make things safer for people is if human driven cars are banned from public roads because these cars work well together, but do not mix with human driving.

[Sourgummies]

While I am all about automation, I think autonomous cars are insane and I will never get in one as long as I live. My hearse can be self driving and I will not much care then, but otherwise forget it. The only way this will make things safer for people is if human driven cars are banned from public roads because these cars work well together, but do not mix with human driving.

There really is no issue with that thinking,you die and the next generation sees it as norm. Pretty much how the world works,take flying in a plane for example.

[josephliton]

The faster the rate of the technological progress, the larger the portion of the labor force that is in this transitional state. Also, when technology eliminates a whole job category there is often a period of education for the jobs that remain.  What is lost in much of the contemporary discourse is this ephemeral nature of technological unemployment.  Keynes did not condemn 'technical efficiency' but rather posited that it could happen too quickly.

[mrhelpful]

You need to stop treating Milton Friedman as some sort of godsent know it all guy that defined the be all end all of economics. It's over. Repeat with me: It's over. Automation will reach a point of no return, where it will be simply unnecessary for the majority of people to work, because you'll have an higher quality of life accepting welfare/supply from the machines than trying to pick up a job, ANY job, even if it's unnecessary. No one will pay you to do an unnecessary job. Entrepreneurs are a minority. And the majority of workforce are simple tasks and those will be the first ones that disappear. There will be a time when we don't even need more machines, so "trying to compete with your own machines so to speak", will be just silly.

What we need to end this "the rich will own all the machines" bullshit is simply have decentralized, open source machines that supply people with what they need, and everyone is free to improve upon them. Automation and technology will make any monetary based system deprecated in the following 1000 years.

If we are still half retarded uneducated monkeys bashing each other in 1000 years, we'll be fucked.

You're definitely right and I agree. I do not understand how some of us see some weird magical world in 50 years. Anyone will rather spend a certain sum of money for a robot that is equal to a yearly payment of a worker. Probably event more, because after that point (you've reached ROI), you just pay for the electricity. At first there will be new jobs, indeed. There will be a larger demand for people putting those robots together, designing them and maintaining them, however only for a certain period of time.
Once we actually pass the Turing, there won't be a coming back. What happens when robots start maintaining and fixing other robots? What happens when robots start building robots?
The majority of jobs will be lost. I'm pretty sure that IT personnel, doctors and a few other titles will remain intact for a longer period of time.
However in the future, society needs to adapt. Working to survive will no longer be feasible.

Please don't go deeply into futuristic economies, that's rather for the speculation sub forum.

We all are deliusional at some levels, some maybe more drastic then others.

But, reaslitically 50 years? what about before we even get to 50 years lol. Theres so many events that can happen during the 50 years, and I can probably die from a car accident god forbid, but its realistic since most arent aware they can be gone before they can enjoy their bitcoin.

[mackbells]

It is indeed wrong to assume that the mere replacement of existing forms of human labor by machines will lead to technological unemployment, but if the technology driving that replacement is advancing at a rapid rate; if it is built on a technological infrastructure that allows for “winner takes all” markets; and if ultimately it could lead to the development of human-like androids, then there is indeed reason to think that technological unemployment could happen. Since this will lead to a significant restructuring of human society, we should think seriously about its implications.

[pereira4]

While I am all about automation, I think autonomous cars are insane and I will never get in one as long as I live. My hearse can be self driving and I will not much care then, but otherwise forget it. The only way this will make things safer for people is if human driven cars are banned from public roads because these cars work well together, but do not mix with human driving.

There really is no issue with that thinking,you die and the next generation sees it as norm. Pretty much how the world works,take flying in a plane for example.

Yeah no thanks, i'll let you do the testing. Meanwhile i'll go with logic: Automated cars + human driven cars don't mix up well. That's my theory and im sticking with it. As soon as automated cars are all over the place with mixed cars i'll stop using my car, sell it and use public transport.

[Amph]

It is indeed wrong to assume that the mere replacement of existing forms of human labor by machines will lead to technological unemployment, but if the technology driving that replacement is advancing at a rapid rate; if it is built on a technological infrastructure that allows for “winner takes all” markets; and if ultimately it could lead to the development of human-like androids, then there is indeed reason to think that technological unemployment could happen. Since this will lead to a significant restructuring of human society, we should think seriously about its implications.

what you're atalking about is something that it will not happen before a very distante future, there is no reason to talk about that, unless you have a way to stay alive until then without being too old also

but we are already leading there, automation is growing each decade at least and it will grow as a even faster rate in the future

i'm all for it if we can earn without doing nothing, and the machines will work for us, in the sense that you can buy a robot that work for you

but the reaility will be actually different, probably akin to I Robot(that movie was great btw)

[techgeek]

While I am all about automation, I think autonomous cars are insane and I will never get in one as long as I live. My hearse can be self driving and I will not much care then, but otherwise forget it. The only way this will make things safer for people is if human driven cars are banned from public roads because these cars work well together, but do not mix with human driving.

There really is no issue with that thinking,you die and the next generation sees it as norm. Pretty much how the world works,take flying in a plane for example.

Yeah no thanks, i'll let you do the testing. Meanwhile i'll go with logic: Automated cars + human driven cars don't mix up well. That's my theory and im sticking with it. As soon as automated cars are all over the place with mixed cars i'll stop using my car, sell it and use public transport.

Sounds pretty much a safe route as well.

Its better to still rely on someones common sense to drive then expect to avoid possible accidents based on a automation.

[pawel7777]

It is indeed wrong to assume that the mere replacement of existing forms of human labor by machines will lead to technological unemployment, but if the technology driving that replacement is advancing at a rapid rate; if it is built on a technological infrastructure that allows for “winner takes all” markets; and if ultimately it could lead to the development of human-like androids, then there is indeed reason to think that technological unemployment could happen. Since this will lead to a significant restructuring of human society, we should think seriously about its implications.

Human-like androids are just a fantasy, there's no economical reason to build such unless for pure amusement. i.e. you won't see an army of androids sitting at the desks staring at monitors and typing on keyboards, you'll rather see a piece of software that can do the same at close to zero operating cost.

But human-like robots are good for the sake of discussion. Ultimately, if it is possible to develop robots who outperform humans both on physical and intellectual level, then the need for human-labour will almost entirely disappear.

[neurotypical]

It is indeed wrong to assume that the mere replacement of existing forms of human labor by machines will lead to technological unemployment, but if the technology driving that replacement is advancing at a rapid rate; if it is built on a technological infrastructure that allows for “winner takes all” markets; and if ultimately it could lead to the development of human-like androids, then there is indeed reason to think that technological unemployment could happen. Since this will lead to a significant restructuring of human society, we should think seriously about its implications.

Human-like androids are just a fantasy, there's no economical reason to build such unless for pure amusement. i.e. you won't see an army of androids sitting at the desks staring at monitors and typing on keyboards, you'll rather see a piece of software that can do the same at close to zero operating cost.

But human-like robots are good for the sake of discussion. Ultimately, if it is possible to develop robots who outperform humans both on physical and intellectual level, then the need for human-labour will almost entirely disappear.

Any sort of IA or human like robots aren't needed to get rid of most jobs today. The human-like robots will come handy when they automate services like hotel receptionist. In Japan there is an hotel that works with human-like robots only, imagine how many potential jobs got lost there and imagine when it goes worldwide.

[BillyBobZorton]

The faster the rate of the technological progress, the larger the portion of the labor force that is in this transitional state. Also, when technology eliminates a whole job category there is often a period of education for the jobs that remain.  What is lost in much of the contemporary discourse is this ephemeral nature of technological unemployment.  Keynes did not condemn 'technical efficiency' but rather posited that it could happen too quickly.

The jobs that remain will be at high demand, and competition too high for everyone to fit in.
As technology advances, the requirements to do a job will be increasingly intellectually higher, and the bast majority aren't cut to deal with that, that's why we are headed towards a point of no return when it comes to permanent unemployment.

[edric]

Automation will just make things cheaper, so people will need less money and just need to work less.
If the automation doesn't make things cheaper then how will all these people without jobs be able to afford the products created by this automation? How will this automation survive economically?

These problems are always resolved automatically and naturally by market forces.

aside:
Unemployment is an artificially created situation used by governments to keep the employment market competitive and wages low.
It's easy to solve n% unemployment if you want to - just make everyone work n% less and thus create n% more work.

Do you really think that automated machines going to get cheaper? There is new technology coming out everyday. And every new technology starts from higher prices. Eventually there prices comes down, but only when there is a another new machine to replace it.

And unemployment is a problem, and a big one. What do you call jobless people as? Those people who are going for interviews everyday, clearing the interviews and still not getting selected as the positions are few. What do you call those people who are being replaced by machines and they have to sit at home jobless?

[pawel7777]

Automation will just make things cheaper, so people will need less money and just need to work less.
If the automation doesn't make things cheaper then how will all these people without jobs be able to afford the products created by this automation? How will this automation survive economically?

These problems are always resolved automatically and naturally by market forces.

aside:
Unemployment is an artificially created situation used by governments to keep the employment market competitive and wages low.
It's easy to solve n% unemployment if you want to - just make everyone work n% less and thus create n% more work.

Do you really think that automated machines going to get cheaper? There is new technology coming out everyday. And every new technology starts from higher prices. Eventually there prices comes down, but only when there is a another new machine to replace it.

And unemployment is a problem, and a big one. What do you call jobless people as? Those people who are going for interviews everyday, clearing the interviews and still not getting selected as the positions are few. What do you call those people who are being replaced by machines and they have to sit at home jobless?

You're quoting post from 2013, author of which has been inactive for over half year. Don't expect a reply.

He didn't say machines will be cheaper, but that machines will make things cheaper, which is correct.
He didn't say unemployment is not a problem, but he pointed at possible solutions. Not entirely bad one, but rather ineffective and temporary imo.

[Possum577]

Automation will just make things cheaper, so people will need less money and just need to work less.
If the automation doesn't make things cheaper then how will all these people without jobs be able to afford the products created by this automation? How will this automation survive economically?

These problems are always resolved automatically and naturally by market forces.

aside:
Unemployment is an artificially created situation used by governments to keep the employment market competitive and wages low.
It's easy to solve n% unemployment if you want to - just make everyone work n% less and thus create n% more work.

Making things cheaper doesn't mean they will be sold for cheaper. Usually the difference becomes greater profit for companies. And next year's profit always needs to be more than today's profit, otherwise manager's lose their jobs.

E.g., automation has been added to the manufacture of cars for decades, has the cost of cars gone down over decades? No, the cost has gone up...and up...and up.

By your equation to solve 7% of unemployment we just need to make everyone work 7% less and thus create 7% more work. That math doesn't actually add up, want to try again? Explain to us how solving unemployment is so simple.

[cellard]

Automation will just make things cheaper, so people will need less money and just need to work less.
If the automation doesn't make things cheaper then how will all these people without jobs be able to afford the products created by this automation? How will this automation survive economically?

These problems are always resolved automatically and naturally by market forces.

aside:
Unemployment is an artificially created situation used by governments to keep the employment market competitive and wages low.
It's easy to solve n% unemployment if you want to - just make everyone work n% less and thus create n% more work.

Making things cheaper doesn't mean they will be sold for cheaper. Usually the difference becomes greater profit for companies. And next year's profit always needs to be more than today's profit, otherwise manager's lose their jobs.

E.g., automation has been added to the manufacture of cars for decades, has the cost of cars gone down over decades? No, the cost has gone up...and up...and up.

By your equation to solve 7% of unemployment we just need to make everyone work 7% less and thus create 7% more work. That math doesn't actually add up, want to try again? Explain to us how solving unemployment is so simple.

Because they want maximum profit. They want to pay their workers next to peanuts while charging more. The next natural step is to kick the workers and put machines that will not complain about getting a low wage or get sick and need healthcare, and keep charging to the same guaranteeing only the wealthy can afford it. Capitalism as we know it will eat itself out until exhaustion.

[pawel7777]

Making things cheaper doesn't mean they will be sold for cheaper. Usually the difference becomes greater profit for companies. And next year's profit always needs to be more than today's profit, otherwise manager's lose their jobs.

Sure, at first when the company manages to reduce their costs (automation, outsourcing etc.) they would enjoy higher profit margin, but once their competitors do the same, they would all have to reduce prices.
How many people could afford first mobile phones/first PCs/laptops/microwaves etc, and how many can afford them now?

E.g., automation has been added to the manufacture of cars for decades, has the cost of cars gone down over decades? No, the cost has gone up...and up...and up.

You got any stats to support that? Quick google search proves you're wrong:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2408807/New-car-prices-risen-inflation-25-years.html

[cellard]

Here's how to solve the problem of potential backlash against robots:
Provide each worker displaced with a "golden parachute" that will provide for him for the rest of his life. That's what CEO's get when they become obsolete .

[giantdragon]

Here's how to solve the problem of potential backlash against robots:
Provide each worker displaced with a "golden parachute" that will provide for him for the rest of his life. That's what CEO's get when they become obsolete .

This won't solve the problem for young people who looking for a first job.

[Mehek]

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.

[BillyBones]

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.

First of all, I appreciate your post, you bring up the real truth regards to unemployment because of hitech technology growths. According to me one of the solution is that we must change our mind set and reinvent our lifestyle according to the current scenario, we pray and hope that our future generations will adopt innovative methods to win their life in this digital world.