Technological unemployment is (almost) here

[DeathAndTaxes]

And don't forget poetry. Machines can't do that.

The umbrella
You want an umbrella and all you have is
a flannel handkerchief and a sponge

http://peerpress.de/discoursecpp.pdf

[1715316112]

1715316112

[1715316112]

1715316112

[1715316112]

1715316112

[Shallow]

Skynet is coming

[2dogs]

capital owners and lucky "tech elite" (programmers, scientists, 3D-model designers etc whose jobs cannot be automated)

Okay, I just want to know how to get on that ride.

[Shawshank]

And don't forget poetry. Machines can't do that.

The umbrella
You want an umbrella and all you have is
a flannel handkerchief and a sponge

http://peerpress.de/discoursecpp.pdf

 

OK, then. How about a romantic candlelight dinner talking about poetry. Machines can't do that.

[johnyj]

Do you mean the government can enact the law limiting working day to 2-4 hours? In free market economy capital owners will simply move away production/services to the country without such legislation.

Governments ALREADY do limit the workweek.  The "40 hour" workweek was established in 1937.  Since then the productivity of the average worker has increased by a couple magnitudes.   We still cling to 40 hour workweek like it is some fundamental law of physics.   No reason a government (or many governments) couldn't reduce it to 35 or 32.

If we are 10% below peak labor then reducing workweek 10% would compensate. 

I always think reducing working hour is the best solution, since it also increase the free time that people can use to spend their money

But there is a difficulty with this approach: It need majority of people willingly reduce their income by 10% (otherwise the company will face a loss), and due to the fact that most of them are in debt, they can't do it. Debt based consumption made it impossible to move towards this direction

Actually the unemployment is the same as reducing working hours if you look from a man-hour point of view

[giantdragon]

Unless there is major unrest, it seems we are surely moving towards a more knowledge-oriented economy. The problem exists because those who are not capable to adapt are being left out. It has been happening for ages, though. In the Roman Empire, for example, those without good sight or physically weak may had trouble to survive. How to tackle these issues is definitely a challenge.  

And there no doubt WILL be great civil war, or do you really think people will keep silence and starve when are aware that permanent technological unemployment start appearing!? We don't see unrest now because people still believe "Luddite fallacy" is a true fallacy and will last forever, but it it won't.

There will always be a need for human labor because human needs are insatiable. Once all needs seem to be fulfilled, new needs will arise: immortality, eternal happiness, travelling to the space, travelling to the future

These projects cannot be fulfilled in capitalist economy because don't guarantee success (ROI) within reasonable timespan. Capital owners don't even invest into nuclear fusion which is soon-achievable, so why should they invest into immortality or relativistic speed travel which may be possible only after 1000 years!?

[Shawshank]

There will always be a need for human labor because human needs are insatiable. Once all needs seem to be fulfilled, new needs will arise: immortality, eternal happiness, travelling to the space, travelling to the future

These projects cannot be fulfilled in capitalist economy because don't guarantee success (ROI) within reasonable timespan. Capital owners don't even invest into nuclear fusion which is soon-achievable, so why should they invest into immortality or relativistic speed travel which may be possible only after 1000 years!?

The process towards near-immortality requires little steps that can be accomplished in a capitalist (free) society. In fact, life expectancy has been increasing thanks to research and the promise of ROI on development of medical technology.

There are also private companies with the intention of exploring Mars, and lots of people willing to go there and be pioneers in a new land. Travelling out of the Solar System is again a step by step process, which may work in a free society. Why can't you go to Jupiter or Saturn after Mars has been colonized?

Some may find relief, some even happiness, in the latest anxiolytics and lab drugs. However, a less technical way of life: yoga, reading, theater, sports, helping others... may be valid answers towards happiness for many people. 

[giantdragon]

There are also private companies with the intention of exploring Mars, and lots of people willing to go there and be pioneers in a new land. Travelling out of the Solar System is again a step by step process, which may work in a free society. Why can't you go to Jupiter or Saturn after Mars has been colonized?

And do you really believe these private corporations will employ billions of "useless" people, reduce working day to 1 hour without wage cut just to preserve stability in the society?  

[2dogs]

.gov already manipulates the labor force with the minimum wage, unemployment/disability bennies, and other subsidies/handouts.

EDIT:  Tax it if you want to stifle the change, subsidize if you want to encourage it. 
          The essence of social manipulation by our elected officials.

[giantdragon]

.gov already manipulates the labor force with the minimum wage, unemployment/disability bennies, and other subsidies/handouts.

These manipulations are biased in favor of the big corporations - real wage falling since 70's and labor participation rate also decreasing continuously since early 2000s (which can indicate that "peak jobs" already passed). Governments that have been in power within last decades worsened the problem, not tried to solve as they must.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Unemployment is a massive misallocation of resource and its a symptom, not a problem.

The basic argument seems to boil down to "the machines took all the jobs, we don't need workers anymore".

This is a fallacy, it is like arguing that the guy who invented spades took away jobs from the peons scratching the dirt with their bare hands.

The problem is not lack of jobs but lack of vision, imagination, social organisation and liberty to take on projects of scale that can truly enhance the existence of all of humanity.

Your average Westerner lives in a comparatively royal existence when compared with a citizen of Roman times. Imagine if everyone could live like today's royalty? What resources would it require? How much labour would be needed to achieve this, include for the leverage that advanced technology allows? Could we set up colonies on the Moon, on the ocean floor, orbiting Nirvanas? Could we provide cheap plentiful energy, nutrition, mobility to every person on the planet?

If technology is providing us with an excess of leverage then we need to find bigger rocks that need moving.

Socialism is a mechanism to shackle minds ... but it doesn't give everyone an excuse to sit on their asses whining about the machines stealing their jobs, that's just another symptom of the disease.

[giantdragon]

Unemployment is a massive misallocation of resource and its a symptom, not a problem.

The basic argument seems to boil down to "the machines took all the jobs, we don't need workers anymore".

This is a fallacy, it is like arguing that the guy who invented spades took away jobs from the peons scratching the dirt with their bare hands.

The problem is not lack of jobs but lack of vision, imagination, social organisation and liberty to take on projects of scale that can truly enhance the existence of all of humanity.

Your average Westerner lives in a comparatively royal existence when compared with a citizen of Roman times. Imagine if everyone could live like today's royalty? What resources would it require? How much labour would be needed to achieve this, include for the leverage that advanced technology allows? Could we set up colonies on the Moon, on the ocean floor, orbiting Nirvanas? Could we provide cheap plentiful energy, nutrition, mobility to every person on the planet?

I agree with you that humans' demands growth will always create some jobs, but unfortunately free market capitalism is unable to solve technological unemployment problem without government intervention - too big wealth concentration on capital and not labor will simply destroy the economy. You should look at "net jobs" effect from automation (jobs created in new areas MINUS jobs lost), after some point it will no matter be negative, even if our society are full of creative people (of course if no regulatory measurements taken, e.g. working day reduced). You can still hope that problem will be solved itself, but this is really hard to believe now!

[marcus_of_augustus]

Unemployment is a massive misallocation of resource and its a symptom, not a problem.

The basic argument seems to boil down to "the machines took all the jobs, we don't need workers anymore".

This is a fallacy, it is like arguing that the guy who invented spades took away jobs from the peons scratching the dirt with their bare hands.

The problem is not lack of jobs but lack of vision, imagination, social organisation and liberty to take on projects of scale that can truly enhance the existence of all of humanity.

Your average Westerner lives in a comparatively royal existence when compared with a citizen of Roman times. Imagine if everyone could live like today's royalty? What resources would it require? How much labour would be needed to achieve this, include for the leverage that advanced technology allows? Could we set up colonies on the Moon, on the ocean floor, orbiting Nirvanas? Could we provide cheap plentiful energy, nutrition, mobility to every person on the planet?

I agree with you that humans' demands growth will always create some jobs, but unfortunately free market capitalism is unable to solve technological unemployment problem without government intervention - too big wealth concentration on capital and not labor will simply destroy the economy. You should look at "net jobs" effect from automation (jobs created in new areas MINUS jobs lost), after some point it will no matter be negative, even if our society are full of creative people (of course if no regulatory measurements taken, e.g. working day reduced). You can still hope that problem will be solved itself, but this is really hard to believe now!

You are already lost because your mental framework is through the broken "only govt. can solve the big problems" prism.

We do not have free market capitalism, big failures get bailed out. The wealth concentration problem is mostly due to misallocation of resources in weak, useless, 'bad' hands caused by the monopoly currency issuance, (financial cartel). We need more Elon Musks, not Jamie Dimons and Bernankes is the basic problem ... Elon Musks create jobs, Jamie Dimons and Bernankes destroy them. It really is as simple as that ... lack of vision, imagination, social organisation and liberty

[Shawshank]

There are also private companies with the intention of exploring Mars, and lots of people willing to go there and be pioneers in a new land. Travelling out of the Solar System is again a step by step process, which may work in a free society. Why can't you go to Jupiter or Saturn after Mars has been colonized?

And do you really believe these private corporations will employ billions of "useless" people, reduce working day to 1 hour without wage cut just to preserve stability in the society?  

Technology will not bring down the number of available jobs, though. No need to cut working hours. Jobs will be more technically oriented because that is what customers are demanding. That's all.

I agree with you that a stable peaceful society is a really complicated endeavor. It has always been. Many risks are currently lurking: H1N1, political conflicts and war, energy crisis, droughts, social exclusion, huge debt everywhere...

[giantdragon]

You are already lost because your mental framework is through the broken "only govt. can solve the big problems" prism.

We do not have free market capitalism, big failures get bailed out. The wealth concentration problem is mostly due to misallocation of resources in weak, useless, 'bad' hands caused by the monopoly currency issuance, (financial cartel). We need more Elon Musks, not Jamie Dimons and Bernankes is the basic problem ... Elon Musks create jobs, Jamie Dimons and Bernankes destroy them. It really is as simple as that ... lack of vision, imagination, social organisation and liberty

I don't insist that my opinion is 100% true, may be you are right, but the scenario I have described in original post considered most probably. Even mainstream economists start accepting existence of the problem, please read Gartner report.

BTW, I never told that any current government could solve the problem, mentality shift is need. Coming Swiss referendum could be good start for it.

[notme]

There will always be a need for human labor because human needs are insatiable. Once all needs seem to be fulfilled, new needs will arise: immortality, eternal happiness, travelling to the space, travelling to the future

These projects cannot be fulfilled in capitalist economy because don't guarantee success (ROI) within reasonable timespan. Capital owners don't even invest into nuclear fusion which is soon-achievable, so why should they invest into immortality or relativistic speed travel which may be possible only after 1000 years!?

The process towards near-immortality requires little steps that can be accomplished in a capitalist (free) society. In fact, life expectancy has been increasing thanks to research and the promise of ROI on development of medical technology.

There are also private companies with the intention of exploring Mars, and lots of people willing to go there and be pioneers in a new land. Travelling out of the Solar System is again a step by step process, which may work in a free society. Why can't you go to Jupiter or Saturn after Mars has been colonized?

Mainly because they are gas giants, with thousands of atmospheres of pressure above any hypothetical surface.

Some may find relief, some even happiness, in the latest anxiolytics and lab drugs. However, a less technical way of life: yoga, reading, theater, sports, helping others... may be valid answers towards happiness for many people. 

[Rassah]

Still "Ludite falacy." The author starts to fail right at this sentence

Some of those industries  are  relatively  labor  intensive

His idea seems to be that as long as we have more labor intensive jobs available, we will continue to have employment, but as labor intensive jobs get replaced by automation, unemployment will decrease. What he is missing is that we will have new types of jobs, ones that may not even be labor intensive, and that automating labor just frees up people to do something more productive.

Yes, if we resort to central planning, or remove work inventive by giving unconditional income, and through those method effectively freeze our economic and technological progress where it is now, then old jobs will get replaced by automation, and new jobs will not be allowed to be created, so we will end up with an unemployment problem. But if we allow creative types to come up with whatever new inventions, businesses, or automation they want, and allow workers to work for any amount of money and any amount of time, then the people at the top will always come up with new ideas to explore and implement, and laborers who get replaced by automation will always get freed up to help explore the new ideas.
At the very least, we will always need people to help maintain those robots. At most, we will always need people to be creative and visionary, and to pick directions and steer ideas and businesses forward. Down the middle, we will always at least need people to put together the new methods of innovation. Those robots, factories, and businesses aren't going to build themselves.

[giantdragon]

Still "Lucite falacy." The author starts to fail right at this sentence
Some of those industries  are  relatively labor intensive
What he is missing is that we will have new types of jobs, ones that may not even be labor intensive, and that automating labor just frees up people to do something more productive.

The problem is not new jobs won't be created at all, it is that technological progress started to accelerate too fast now to create new jobs in larger quantities than traditional being destroyed by productivity growth (automation). Author of this book mentioned about this trend:

We can expect that technological advance will give rise to entirely new industries in the future. However, the reality is that few if any of these are likely to be labor intensive. By their very nature, these new industries will tend to rely on information technology and will offer relatively few opportunities for average workers. There is also a risk that these new industries may directly compete with and ultimately destroy existing, more labor intensive industries.

[Rassah]

Still "Lucite falacy." The author starts to fail right at this sentence
Some of those industries  are  relatively labor intensive
What he is missing is that we will have new types of jobs, ones that may not even be labor intensive, and that automating labor just frees up people to do something more productive.

The problem is not new jobs won't be created at all, it is that technological progress started to accelerate too fast now to create new jobs in larger quantities than traditional being destroyed by productivity growth (automation). Author of this book mentioned about this trend:

We can expect that technological advance will give rise to entirely new industries in the future. However, the reality is that few if any of these are likely to be labor intensive. By their very nature, these new industries will tend to rely on information technology and will offer relatively few opportunities for average workers. There is also a risk that these new industries may directly compete with and ultimately destroy existing, more labor intensive industries.

Old people have been complaining about "things moving too fast" probably since the beginning of civilization. Yes, there will be fewer labor intensive jobs, just as there have been fewer and fewer labor intensive jobs throughout the progress of 1900's, but that just freed up people to do other much more productive jobs. And yes, employment terms will be shorter and shorter. Used to be you would find a life-long job, then a 25 year career, now people switch jobs every 5 years. When Bitcoin takes over and converts us to a deflationary economy, people will have to renegotiate work contracts probably every year. Eventually you would be able to pop onto an online job board, and do something for someone for a couple of hours from home. Average woorker used to till the soil, then pound on things in factories, then serve fries and clean hotels, and soon may be sitting at home, tagging photos with keywords or something. Although change is scary and uncomfortable, I don't think this will necessarily be a bad thing.

Also, even if it is a scary future we are moving towards, there's really nothing that anyone can do to stop it. The days of wealth control through issuing government money, and "equalizing" things through confiscation-and-redistribution are coming to an end.

[Peter Lambert]

We live happily ever after just like wall-e.

Yes.

There are many ways this could work out, and the poll gives a very limited number of choices.

Imagine instead people own shares of productive companies and live off the dividends payed out by their investments. There will also be people who work doing art or entertainment, look at how much we already pay professional athletes and pop stars! Getting there will be tricky since currently there are haves and have-nots, but when saving and investment become culturally ubiquitous and instilled in children at a young age, combined with effective charity helping people get themselves out of poverty, we will eventually have a world where people work doing what they like and the machines do the other stuff.