Technological unemployment is (almost) here

[giantdragon]

The urge to fight will be an issue for the foreseeable future but tech will make squish humans obsolete there too, drones are already in there and if tanks aren't already there then they're only a small step away. Imho we will soon need an open source robot army to defend ourselves. No need for any inconvenience, just go off to the middle of the sahara and kick the shit out of each other, the counterstrike heads of today will be the great generals of tomorrow

This robowar won't happen - people who can develop robots will be quickly headhunted by Google and work in the office with free food and meditation rooms, while the other part of population will fight with Molotov bombs, AK-47 and RPGs on city streets!

[Carlton Banks]

Reading through this thread, one thing that is completely missing is the notion of human technological evolution. Everyone keeps mentioning AI as some separate thing that will take over, when a much more likely scenario will be that humans will augment themselves with AI, in the same way that we have been augmenting our math skills with calculators, and our general knowledge wth google. Who knows, maybe later on in the future we will be able to augment ourselves with technology that lets us generate portable electricity, and augment our bodies with technology that lets us generate portable protein and vitamins (some custom created bacteria that replicates wildly under sunlight for example). At that point, your need for food will be mostly taken care of, and your need to be knowledgeable, skilled, and creative will be taken care of as well. Even now, software developers don't need to rely on knowing everything there is to know about programming syntax, or cary huge books with programming references. They just need to understand the concepts of computer logic, and everything else regarding the actual specifics of programing are just a google search away.

Well, I was going to hit the trans-humanism angle in my posts, but decided to just go with a broader overview. The point at which transhumanism mods become "must-have" will coincide with who-knows-which development in electronics substrates and computing architecture, it becomes highly speculative IMO. That's when we'll be truly at the edge of the event horizon of the technological singularity, and maybe we'll then be capable of comprehending that there are several singularities, each requiring further discoveries and development in order to progress to the next. We cannot, by definition, know about the specifics of what's beyond the confines of the next paradigm in knowledge, so accurately predicting that there will be no limits once we get there isn't possible. After all, there are common arguments these days that there were at least 3 renaissance periods in recent history, the Florentine one being only the 2nd most recent. They were arguably singularities without quite the same depth of scope; no-one knew what consequences could have emerged from the proper study of anatomy, much of it was done out of a curiosity that was in the spirit of renaissance culture. That satisfies the definition of a technological singularity IMO, even if the repercussions were "shalllow" by the standards of what we expect from the Kurzweilian stuff, I expect a peek into our modern age would have the head of an original renaissance-man spinning. Re: renaissance comparisons, maybe the cultural changes that accompany these changes haven't yet been considered too closely either, I've not kept up with the latest singularity based writings recently.

[Rassah]

the counterstrike heads of today will be the great generals of tomorrow

I have a feeling the counterstrike heads of today don't have the muscle to pick up an AK-47, let alone run around with it.

[Anon136]

the counterstrike heads of today will be the great generals of tomorrow

I have a feeling the counterstrike heads of today don't have the muscle to pick up an AK-47, let alone run around with it.

lol generals dont pick up ak 47s and run with them

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

It is absolutely a fallacy, correctly called the "Luddite fallacy," and it isn't so much an economic fallacy as a logical one. The underlying mistake is to view jobs as an end in themselves. A job is a task that people want done so much that they are willing to pay for it. A society with no jobs is - by definition - a society where NOTHING NEEDS DOING because that society is so incredibly efficient that EVERY NEED ANYONE HAS IS ALREADY SATISFIED. Needless to say, such a society would be paradise.

Even just getting close to that situation looks like this: your life is already pretty great, you can get your basic needs and a whole lot more met by working only a few hours a week, even at very low wages since everything is incredibly cheap thanks to the efficiency of automation. If you can't work at all, everyone else is so rich and stuff is so cheap that their proverbial coins in your tin are already enough to live better than the average American does today.

Need I carry on? In a free market where working is not prohibited in any way, a lack of jobs is a lack of unfulfilled needs, which is a utopia. The absolute opposite of people being "left in the dust." They're instead left wanting for nothing. Of course in the real world there are always more "last 1%" services people want provided. If my life is already near perfect, I'd pay people a nice wage just to identify tiny itches on my body and scratch them so I don't have to take my hands away from the keyboard while writing posts. We'll realistically never run out of things to employ people for, and if we did that means we are in heaven.

No solution is needed to this "problem," and the poll is a false dichotomy. The solution is to let it happen, kick back, and enjoy sipping margaritas on the beach while robots do (almost) all the work for you.

Just imagine on a island with only 2 people A and B. If A have super high efficiency and can produce anything they need, then it seems that the other one B don't need to work at all

But who receive the ownership of those products usually can decide how to use it. So if A is making all the production, he has the right to keep everything, thus B will starve. B's survival purely depends on A and A might keep B living but give him only enough to keep his life

Someone will argue that B can make his own living by work by himself, but after A became very rich, he already bought all the land on the island thus B have to pay A rent. B's miserable production have to be given to A to pay his rent, but since A already have everything, he accept B's product just as a symbolic payment (He don't need B's product anyway), just to keep B alive.

This video was made for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0gGyeA-8C4

[DoomDumas]

Cant vote, both choice are'nt good from my POV !

I vote for a "Ressources Based Economy" ..  See : http://futurewewant.org/portfolio/resource-based-economy/

I myself would like to support resource based economy, but it requires extreme case - full automation to be sustainable (which may not happen within our lifetime, as well as Moore's law could stop at any time). In this topic I try to discuss implications of the existing or current-in-development automation deploying which will have effect now or after 5-10-20 years.

In a RBE, not only automation makes drastic change, but also the fact that the removal of money come with the removal of a lot of job that only exist because of money.  Before, the majority of jobs were related to farming / food production, then the automation / fuel came, and the majority of jobs migrate to the service sector.  Now, as the production and service are being automated, and making money from money is the most profitable sector, we can see a new type of job, the money related jobs.. those jobs have nothing to do with production or service, but only making money out of money.  This sector is growing really fast in term of number of jobs.. removing money will remove the need for all those jobs.

I bet that the prodution and service sector now account for less than half the jobs in existence.. the trend is clear.

Also, by removing money, you make much more place / incentive for more automation.. As of today, automation has to get a fast ROI to be implemented.. without the need of ROI (money less economy) we would see a lot of incredible technologies that actually exist, but are'nt implemented because money !

just my 2 satoshi

[giantdragon]

we can see a new type of job, the money related jobs.. those jobs have nothing to do with production or service, but only making money out of money.  This sector is growing really fast in term of number of jobs.. removing money will remove the need for all those jobs.

Do you mean financial sector (stocks, bonds, derivatives trading)? It really ballooned too much now, but automation also taking place here (trading robots, data mining / analysis software, online trading etc).
UPD. Just read a fresh article that Barclays bank fires employees, replacing them with automation: http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/city-news/branch-closure-fears-barclays-plans-2657917

[theecoinomist]

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. 

lots of scandinavian countries with 37, and 30 hour work weeks are becoming increasingly normal.

[wunkbone]

Free salary free, I would love for the robots to work for me...

[giantdragon]

lots of scandinavian countries with 37, and 30 hour work weeks are becoming increasingly normal.

I think it is a trustworthy explanation why Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) have better employment situation comparing to the rest of Europe.

[Rassah]

In a RBE, not only automation makes drastic change, but also the fact that the removal of money come with the removal of a lot of job that only exist because of money.  Before, the majority of jobs were related to farming / food production, then the automation / fuel came, and the majority of jobs migrate to the service sector.  Now, as the production and service are being automated, and making money from money is the most profitable sector, we can see a new type of job, the money related jobs.. those jobs have nothing to do with production or service, but only making money out of money.  This sector is growing really fast in term of number of jobs.. removing money will remove the need for all those jobs.

You can't remove money, since you can't remove people's natural want to trade things (to remove money, you would need to remove the concept of "I owe you one" or the feeling of gratitute and generocity, from the human psyche). Money just makes expressing those feelings easier. What you CAN do is remove the need for banks to secure money and make it accessible (yay bitcoin), remove the need for investment banks to create and manage IPOs (yay OpenTransactions and colored coins), and remove the need for fund managers and stock traders (yay trading bots, though economists, business researchers, and general reporting about new technologies and businesses will have to continue). In short, you can't remove money any more than you can remove trade, but you can automate and obsolete much of the things that are related to it..

[Mike Christ]

You can't remove money, since you can't remove people's natural want to trade things (to remove money, you would need to remove the concept of "I owe you one" or the feeling of gratitute and generocity, from the human psyche). Money just makes expressing those feelings easier. What you CAN do is remove the need for banks to secure money and make it accessible (yay bitcoin), remove the need for investment banks to create and manage IPOs (yay OpenTransactions and colored coins), and remove the need for fund managers and stock traders (yay trading bots, though economists, business researchers, and general reporting about new technologies and businesses will have to continue). In short, you can't remove money any more than you can remove trade, but you can automate and obsolete much of the things that are related to it..

You also can't remove the work people do that machines can't, or won't be able to for a very very long time; for example, if writer Joe needs artist Jill to draw his new comic book, writer Joe will need money to give to Jill for her efforts.  What people seem to mistake in an RBE is that this kind of work people will want to do for free, but it's not so; no commercial artist will want to work with all the authors that come to her with ideas for comic books (and aren't they plentiful?)  So, in order for Joe the writer to get his ideas to come to life, he has to compensate the artist in some way who otherwise wouldn't want to perform without self interest; I believe we are all driven by self-interest, and the prospect of the artist improving by working for the writer is as good as the artist improving by working for himself; certainly, if the writer had such great work that the artist would be dying to be the one, it's a great pairing, but this assumes all writers are masters at the art and this is simply not true, nor would it be in line to say the writer would be perfectly willing to work for any person with a story to tell just because the writer enjoys his own work; the writer wants to be compensated for the work he's doing for others.

Likewise, no chef, no matter how much he loves cooking, is going to want to bake for twelve hours a day just because he likes cooking so much; certainly, he'll enjoy cooking for himself, but not necessarily for everyone else nor would he be expected to reliably.  So this creates a disparity between people who really want this chef's food and people who don't care, because those who really want it would pay for it, and there's always going to be people who enjoy the finer points of life and a human hand to compensate where a robotic hand may not perform so well.

Furthering this point, there is the services industry (which I believe these last two careers fall into), jobs which machines perform poorly.  If people want help from other human beings, they should be expected to pay the individual for their time or expect to spend the thousands of hours it takes to become good at the thing they want done.  This includes doctors; in the example of those who want free health care, they should expect to be able to give free health care, and the vast majority cannot.  This can be trumped with the idea that machines can do all the work a doctor can, even surgery, but for the purview of our own lives, trained medical professional aren't going away for they are necessary.  It would be unfair to expect a man to slave day in and our for free just because he can perform a job few others can perform; though it would be great if he did so voluntarily, if he decided he no longer wanted to do favors, we'd be up shit creek.

With the idea of education professionals, we can potentially replace these people with technology such as the Internet, but there are plenty of people who would like to be taught by humans and plenty of humans who would love to teach.  At first glance this seems like a great match; simply get the knowledge-seekers with the knowledge-givers and no trade needs to occur.  This is assuming all teachers and learners are alike; as many of us can attest to, teachers come in many different methodologies and varying qualities.  The teachers which are the absolute best at the work they do should be expected to be with the most wanting of their services, and the easiest way to gauge this is by how much the individual is willing to part with their cash to study beneath the wings of these people.  Lower-quality or beginning teachers, on the other hand, would be naturally paired with people who don't want to pay as much or cannot pay as much; either that or they cease to exist when those people could get a better education by themselves.  One might argue that the best teachers should be paired with the highest-graded students, but I don't pair the best chefs with the best tasters so I don't see why I should here; besides that, the interaction could then be involuntary.

We might argue that we could simply trade our services for theirs but then we might as well just trade with money, since that was the entire purpose of money to begin with.  An RBE moves aside the need to work for a living, but it doesn't remove man's desire to work nor will it eliminate the divide between the men who are good at their work and the men who are great.  I will always see a use for money, I just see it being used for different reasons than it is now.

[Behemot]

Oh come on even here? OMFG. There is so bloody many things I don't have and want. Somebody needs to make them, what a sruprise. And oh, a small fact. There is like 4 bilion ppl who do not have even as little as I have so I won't worry with these fantasmagoric predictions.

[giantdragon]

There is so bloody many things I don't have and want. Somebody needs to make them, what a sruprise. And oh, a small fact. There is like 4 bilion ppl who do not have even as little as I have so I won't worry with these fantasmagoric predictions.

These 4 billion people in the third-world countries don't have enough money to buy expensive stuff produced in the EU/USA, so why do you think they will boost our economy? Capital owners suddenly will decide make them a gift?

[Biomech]

There is so bloody many things I don't have and want. Somebody needs to make them, what a sruprise. And oh, a small fact. There is like 4 bilion ppl who do not have even as little as I have so I won't worry with these fantasmagoric predictions.

These 4 billion people in the third-world countries don't have enough money to buy expensive stuff produced in the EU/USA, so why do you think they will boost our economy? Capital owners suddenly will decide make them a gift?

Well...

As a rather dedicated capitalist who isn't out to screw anyone, I'd have to say no. Not a gift. But a discount?

Why not? If I could produce a widget that 1/2 of those 4 billions wanted, and sell it for one satoshi over cost, and at that rate 1/2 of those 2 billions could buy it, that would be a profit of 1 billion satoshis. Other markets would bear a greater price, due to more affluence and a desire for things like better packaging, support, etcetera. As a marketer, I'd be a fool NOT to do this.

Right now, it's done to a small degree but tariffs and import duties and general statist horseshit interferes and adds to that price to the point where they CAN'T afford it. In all of these sessions lambasting capitalism, I almost NEVER see those doing the bashing pointing out the immense harm of regulation and other statist bullshit.

When it comes to marketing, I have no prejudices save one: Can you pay? That's it. I also would like to do good by those less fortunate should I become more fortunate, so, yes, I would give some stuff away at or below cost if I had the excess. A principled capitalist realizes very quickly that every person who's life he improves is a potential customer. Charities operated by corporations and rich individuals are highly effective when they DON'T follow the socialist model. A useful charity gives a hand UP, not a hand OUT.

A person operating a private charity measures their success by the number of people who STOP using their services. A "publicly funded" charity gets it's funding based solely on the number of people it "serves", thus has a perverse incentive to encourage recidivism and dependence, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL INTENT of those who started it.

While there are some concepts embodied in socialism that I approve of, the vast majority of those "solutions" are better served by free markets and competition. Real competition, not regulated competition.

As for the original topic, I doubt very much that we will reach a point where no one has to work to support themselves, but I can see a point where automation takes up so much of the brute labor that we as a species have much more free time and are able to trade upon our desired employment/ hobbies for our luxuries and contribute very little to the brute labor. Probably maintenance of the machines for most, and a great deal of creativity. The industrial revolution proved that greater productivity led to greater employment of those willing to learn and adapt, and utter disaster for those with a luddite or Malthusian mindset. Adapt or perish.

Further, we have a technological base that is capable of reaching the stars, now. It's not been implemented, but the hurdles are matters of will and employment, not new breakthroughs. New frontiers present new challenges and new opportunities. Given our unrestricted breeding cycle, population pressure WILL drive expansion in the not too distant future, once again obviating the problem proposed in the first post.

Giant Dragon, don't take this as an attack, as I think your posts are well presented and posit questions that need to be answered. You are treading ground that I have been researching for more than two decades, however, so I have a lot to say. But right now I have to go to work

[giantdragon]

As for the original topic, I doubt very much that we will reach a point where no one has to work to support themselves

In some of the previous comments I have argued why your assumption is wrong:

People must earn above some minimum to be able to live and work (food, shelter, transportation, education, healthcare etc) while automation requires only one-time big investment and much smaller costs on electricity and maintenance. Robotic systems become more cheap each day and after some point will fall below minimum wage for the human workers (e.g. this already happened for ATMs and self-service checkout lanes in supermarkets).

[Rassah]

Then people who refuse to improve and expand their skills will die off. End of story.

[giantdragon]

Then people who refuse to improve and expand their skills will die off. End of story.

The problem is not absence of the skills of the people who being replaced by automation (as it was during Industrial Revolution while "Luddite fallacy" was true fallacy and workers could find new employment after extra education), it is 100% capital-vs-labor redistribution issue. When the doctors who have spent 10-15 years on education/training expected to be replaced by Watson and even programmers (!) could be affected by advanced IDEs and frameworks, you still will insist that extra training is a key to solve tech unemployment?!

[Rassah]

Then people who refuse to improve and expand their skills will die off. End of story.

The problem is not absence of the skills of the people who being replaced by automation (as it was during Industrial Revolution while "Luddite fallacy" was true fallacy and workers could find new employment after extra education), it is 100% capital-vs-labor redistribution issue. When the doctors who have spent 10-15 years on education/training expected to be replaced by Watson and even programmers (!) could be affected by advanced IDEs and frameworks, you still will insist that extra training is a key to solve tech unemployment?!

Are those Watson's that replace doctors just going to pop into existence? Will their medical knowledge be divinely inspired out of nothing?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

As for the original topic, I doubt very much that we will reach a point where no one has to work to support themselves

In some of the previous comments I have argued why your assumption is wrong:

People must earn above some minimum to be able to live and work (food, shelter, transportation, education, healthcare etc) while automation requires only one-time big investment and much smaller costs on electricity and maintenance. Robotic systems become more cheap each day and after some point will fall below minimum wage for the human workers (e.g. this already happened for ATMs and self-service checkout lanes in supermarkets).

Yes, and automation causes that minimum to fall much faster. Eventually automation will make it so that working 1 hour a week at a really easy job will be enough to live well. And this is supposed to be a bad thing?