Technological unemployment is (almost) here

[pawel7777]

I cant wait to go to a restaurant/fast food and order my automated meal. You are going to get a MUCH better burger from a robot, quicker, made to order and with ZERO chance of spit or snot, or shit being rubbed into it by some disgruntled teenager.

The robot will run 24/7.  It will not be late to work. It will not ask for a raise or an increase in Minimum Wage.  It will not join a union. It will not sport tattoos and a bad attitude.

There already are hamburger vending machines. And I'm not talking about the ones that microwave pre-made burger and dispense it, but about ones that would cut the veggies and cook the meat after you ordered, so you'd get pretty fresh one.

I've seen an article some time ago but cannot find the link.

[thejaytiesto]

Of course, it is often suggested that the creation of robots will create more high-tech jobs for skilled professionals. That is probably true in the shorter-term until inevitably robots begin to manufacture robots, then shit hits the fan at a whole new level.

[pawel7777]

Of course, it is often suggested that the creation of robots will create more high-tech jobs for skilled professionals. That is probably true in the shorter-term until inevitably robots begin to manufacture robots, then shit hits the fan at a whole new level.

Sure, the total number of high-tech skilled jobs could increase, but if 1 robot replaces 100 human workers, theres no way all of those 100 people will get jobs in robot development (even if they got required skills). If that was the case, the automation would be more expensive than human labour and would make no financial sense.

And you do have a point, even automation can be automated (!?).

It kind of reminds me all those 'experts' x years ago saying there will always be jobs for web designers and web-developers, because every business will need a website. All true, but they didn't anticipate that the process could be fully-automated, now we have shitload of online tools where you can create your own site from templates (on-line shops etc) without having any programming skills.

As a bonus, just found this article:

http://www.businessinsider.com/robots-that-are-stealing-our-jobs-2014-2?IR=T#

[TippingPoint]

Somewhat evocative of the invasion of the Sea Peoples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples during the Late Bronze Age collapse.  Possibly caused by "famine".

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

[manselr]

Somewhat evocative of the invasion of the Sea Peoples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples during the Late Bronze Age collapse.  Possibly caused by "famine".

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

Your nickname is on point for what we are dealing with. When the automation systems replace more jobs that can be created, that is the tippin point for shit hitting the fan.

[pawel7777]

For anyone interested in the subject, here's short (15 mins) video with good overview of impact of automation on human labour. It's from 2014 but don't think anyone posted this link before:

Humans Need Not Apply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

[manselr]

For anyone interested in the subject, here's short (15 mins) video with good overview of impact of automation on human labour. It's from 2014 but don't think anyone posted this link before:

Humans Need Not Apply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Yeah i've seen this before. It's funny when critics say "but we are not horses". Lol, they are missing the entire point, which is the trend is clear, and more jobs will be automated than new ones are created, which leads to perpetual unemployment stacking up.

[Gronthaing]

For anyone interested in the subject, here's short (15 mins) video with good overview of impact of automation on human labour. It's from 2014 but don't think anyone posted this link before:

Humans Need Not Apply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Yeah i've seen this before. It's funny when critics say "but we are not horses". Lol, they are missing the entire point, which is the trend is clear, and more jobs will be automated than new ones are created, which leads to perpetual unemployment stacking up.

Not just that. Constantly retraining everyone to perform increasingly more complicated jobs isn't going to work. Assuming different jobs will always show up. Which may not be the case. Another possibility is human labor ending up being cheaper than automation. Doubt living conditions will be great for anyone but the wealthiest then.

[Gyfts]

Saw this article recently:

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2015/05/13/surprising-jobs-that-robots-are-doing/

Was extremely interested by the multipurpose uses robots have come along to be doing. Soon they will be taking up job positions and saving companies money by doing jobs more efficiently than a human ever could.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Doubt living conditions will be great for anyone but the wealthiest then.

Why does anybody think a robot only work for the wealthy and not the poor ?

If you are saying "price", then you admit that it would be cheaper for a poor to be served by another poor than to buy a robot, and a new labor economy by poors for the poors would flourish.
If you are saying "robot will work for the poor" then what are you complaining about ?

I think this fallacy take root on the belief that a "poor" is essentially useless and can't benefit anyone, so other should take care of them rather than themselves.
A fallacy which also kill all sense of local community.

You can't be further from the truth, they are not useless, welfare state and minimum wages just prevent them to work for themselves.

You are only true that the poor will suffer automation if they are not permitted to employ each other. But this is not the fault of automation, but of legislations.

[Erdogan]

If you absolutely want to speculate what automation can do to society (assuming it is any good, which is not evident), look to what the industrial revolution did to Europe.

Before the industrial revolution, England could support 5 millon people, all starved, sick and know-nothings. With the agricultural technology, manpower was freed to work on the new spinning and weaving tech. After the revolution, England could support 50 million well fed, sound and conscious people.

You have to understand that a job is not a resource, but a drain of resources. The more that can be done without human brainpower (not even mules can have work for the energy these times), the better.

[aminorex]

One major difference from the Industrial Revolution in England is that England had large (often captive) external markets.  Unless the Pleiadeans want to buy your structured finance products and get manicures, in a flat global world, that just isn't true any more.  Robots immigrate freely.

The major reason to keep the masses liquid is to uphold demand.  But consumption levels today already press resource limits: Supporting consumption requires increasing resource efficiency; without a huge efficiency boost, the masses will  be liquidated. Thus technological unemployment is strictly required in order to avoid mass poverty.  How liquidity will flow to the unemployed remains to be seen.  Classic patterns are less and less applicable as services are saturated and automated. 

[Gronthaing]

Doubt living conditions will be great for anyone but the wealthiest then.

Why does anybody think a robot only work for the wealthy and not the poor ?

If you are saying "price", then you admit that it would be cheaper for a poor to be served by another poor than to buy a robot, and a new labor economy by poors for the poors would flourish.

Wouldn't that be a race to the bottom? There is only so much less they can get paid and have good living conditions.

I think this fallacy take root on the belief that a "poor" is essentially useless and can't benefit anyone, so other should take care of them rather than themselves.
A fallacy which also kill all sense of local community.

Don't think poor people are useless. But you can do less with less access to resources. And a local community can't usually produce everything everyone there needs to live well.

You can't be further from the truth, they are not useless, welfare state and minimum wages just prevent them to work for themselves.

You are only true that the poor will suffer automation if they are not permitted to employ each other. But this is not the fault of automation, but of legislations.

What is the point of forcing everyone to work? Especially if you can already automate it?

[Nicolas Dorier]

What is the point of forcing everyone to work? Especially if you can already automate it?

I'm not forcing anyone, people who preach against automation are.

You say : that the poor will starve because they have no job because nobody need them. (assuming no unconditional income)
I ask : Why does the poor doesn't own a robot which will work for him ?

If you say : Because he is poor and have no money for it.
I would ask : So why would'nt he work for himself or work for other poors who have no money for a robot ?

If employing another poor is cheaper than owning a robot, then it basically means that a poor is more effective than a robot, if not, why would the robot cost more ?

If you say : a robot cost less than hiring a poor,
I would ask : So why does the poor not buy a robot, since his wage is higher than a robot ?

It is unbelievable that so many people think that the middle/upper class must/should/are giving jobs to the poor.
No, the poors can provide services to each others as well and form their own economy. They are just prevented to do so when you have law like minimal wage, insurmontable bureaucraties bullshit to waste time on, or banks, legally mandatory for the business, refusing to even open a fucking bank account for them. (It happened to me as well, and I'm not poor)

If robot can grant you any desires, then yes, you don't need money at all, no need for any "unconditional income". You won't even need to socialize, since this need would also be taken care of robot.
If you need at least 2 thing that only other humans can give, then you start to enter into an exchange that will ultimately be done with money. Unconditional Income will be a tax on those who offer those services (by depreciating there stock of money) forcing them to work and give even more for the same thing.

[Erdogan]

Yep, involuntary joblessness is caused by work prohibition, and severely distorted labour markets. Not technology.

[pawel7777]

You say : that the poor will starve because they have no job because nobody need them. (assuming no unconditional income)
I ask : Why does the poor doesn't own a robot which will work for him ?

If you say : Because he is poor and have no money for it.
I would ask : So why would'nt he work for himself or work for other poors who have no money for a robot ?

If employing another poor is cheaper than owning a robot, then it basically means that a poor is more effective than a robot, if not, why would the robot cost more ?

If you say : a robot cost less than hiring a poor,
I would ask : So why does the poor not buy a robot, since his wage is higher than a robot ?

It is unbelievable that so many people think that the middle/upper class must/should/are giving jobs to the poor.
No, the poors can provide services to each others as well and form their own economy. They are just prevented to do so when you have law like minimal wage, insurmontable bureaucraties bullshit to waste time on, or banks, legally mandatory for the business, refusing to even open a fucking bank account for them. (It happened to me as well, and I'm not poor)

If robot can grant you any desires, then yes, you don't need money at all, no need for any "unconditional income". You won't even need to socialize, since this need would also be taken care of robot.
If you need at least 2 thing that only other humans can give, then you start to enter into an exchange that will ultimately be done with money. Unconditional Income will be a tax on those who offer those services, forcing them to work and give even more.

Sorry mate but you just sound like a middle-class teenager who pigeonholed himself as libertarian and refuse to acknowledge that your views simply may not work in reality.

Lets use a real example simulation, no theoretical bullshit. Imagine you're a customer service worker, with unemployed wife + kid + mortgage. You earn just enough to survive (pay the bills, get food, clothes, pay mortgage rate). One day you discover that you and your colleagues are replaced by piece of software.

What do you do? Go.

[mrhelpful]

Its a race to the bottom.

U.S is a huge issue due to lack of reinforcing higher form of education, if you see compared to other countries like korea, or japan, any other countries follow they create more higher demand fields.

If a machine cant do it, then theres hope for some involvement or more like management. If their business model is top knotch, regardless technology needs to be management more, its still not going to fulfill for everyone.

[Erdogan]

You say : that the poor will starve because they have no job because nobody need them. (assuming no unconditional income)
I ask : Why does the poor doesn't own a robot which will work for him ?

If you say : Because he is poor and have no money for it.
I would ask : So why would'nt he work for himself or work for other poors who have no money for a robot ?

If employing another poor is cheaper than owning a robot, then it basically means that a poor is more effective than a robot, if not, why would the robot cost more ?

If you say : a robot cost less than hiring a poor,
I would ask : So why does the poor not buy a robot, since his wage is higher than a robot ?

It is unbelievable that so many people think that the middle/upper class must/should/are giving jobs to the poor.
No, the poors can provide services to each others as well and form their own economy. They are just prevented to do so when you have law like minimal wage, insurmontable bureaucraties bullshit to waste time on, or banks, legally mandatory for the business, refusing to even open a fucking bank account for them. (It happened to me as well, and I'm not poor)

If robot can grant you any desires, then yes, you don't need money at all, no need for any "unconditional income". You won't even need to socialize, since this need would also be taken care of robot.
If you need at least 2 thing that only other humans can give, then you start to enter into an exchange that will ultimately be done with money. Unconditional Income will be a tax on those who offer those services, forcing them to work and give even more.

Sorry mate but you just sound like a middle-class teenager who pigeonholed himself as libertarian and refuse to acknowledge that your views simply may not work in reality.

Lets use a real example simulation, no theoretical bullshit. Imagine you're a customer service worker, with unemployed wife + kid + mortgage. You earn just enough to survive (pay the bills, get food, clothes, pay mortgage rate). One day you discover that you and your colleagues are replaced by piece of software.

What do you do? Go.

In the free market, you would get another job, right-size your spending and go on. The program you mentioned would be the source of work-saving, therefore productivity increase, therefore increased living standard for all.

In the not so free market, a union could force the company out of business, or violently reserve a premium to some workers, or you could conspire with the most popular mafia in your area to steal from others to give to you (all of the above reducing the living standard of the folks in the land), in exchange for support or maybe for supportive trolling in a popular bitcoin discussion medium.

You still have no reason or logic behind your non-argument, you just cry out the ludditism lie that has been refuted for hundreds of years. Basically, you have nothing.

[Nicolas Dorier]

I am libertarian, would be teenager, but sadly not anymore.

Lets use a real example simulation, no theoretical bullshit. Imagine you're a customer service worker, with unemployed wife + kid + mortgage. You earn just enough to survive (pay the bills, get food, clothes, pay mortgage rate). One day you discover that you and your colleagues are replaced by piece of software.

What do you do? Go

Find another job.
If you say, there is no job, then you should ask yourself why is this the case and study it.
What happened to the people who were copying book by hand before gutenberg ?

[Lauda]

Lets use a real example simulation, no theoretical bullshit. Imagine you're a customer service worker, with unemployed wife + kid + mortgage. You earn just enough to survive (pay the bills, get food, clothes, pay mortgage rate). One day you discover that you and your colleagues are replaced by piece of software.
What do you do? Go.

In the free market, you would get another job, right-size your spending and go on. The program you mentioned would be the source of work-saving, therefore productivity increase, therefore increased living standard for all.

In the not so free market, a union could force the company out of business, or violently reserve a premium to some workers, or you could conspire with the most popular mafia in your area to steal from others to give to you (all of the above reducing the living standard of the folks in the land), in exchange for support or maybe for supportive trolling in a popular bitcoin discussion medium.
You still have no reason or logic behind your non-argument, you just cry out the ludditism lie that has been refuted for hundreds of years. Basically, you have nothing.

Because getting another job is easy? In a situation where X positions were starting to get replaced by robots, only the best would be left working (if any at all).
Unless he had the predispositions to do something else (that isn't currently being replaced by robots), his family would fall apart quickly. Would it not? This is actually a great thread.
Does humanity need to evolve so that in order to survive one doesn't need to work?

For anyone interested in the subject, here's short (15 mins) video with good overview of impact of automation on human labour. It's from 2014 but don't think anyone posted this link before:
Humans Need Not Apply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

This is a great video, I've watched it long ago. This is something that I often send to people when they are choosing a major to study. Unfortunately many do not understand.