Technological unemployment is (almost) here

[giantdragon]

Just read in the news that Google have joined into job-killing race!

At least for now, Google’s robotics effort is not something aimed at consumers. Instead, the company’s expected targets are in manufacturing — like electronics assembly, which is now largely manual — and competing with companies like Amazon in retailing, according to several people with specific knowledge of the project.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/technology/google-puts-money-on-robots-using-the-man-behind-android.html?_r=1&

[Rassah]

Just read in the news that Google have joined into job-killing race!

At least for now, Google’s robotics effort is not something aimed at consumers. Instead, the company’s expected targets are in manufacturing — like electronics assembly, which is now largely manual — and competing with companies like Amazon in retailing, according to several people with specific knowledge of the project.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/technology/google-puts-money-on-robots-using-the-man-behind-android.html?_r=1&

Awesome. Maybe people will finally stop complaining about people in China working in sweatshops.

[Murwa]

47% of US jobs under threat from computerization according to Oxford study
http://www.gizmag.com/half-of-us-jobs-computerized/29142/

Of course in libertarian paradise new jobs will come out of woodwork to save the day.

[Rassah]

47% of US jobs under threat from computerization according to Oxford study
http://www.gizmag.com/half-of-us-jobs-computerized/29142/

Of course in libertarian paradise new jobs will come out of woodwork to save the day.

Are you a blacksmith, a barber, a merchant, or a farmer? No? Then which woodwork your new job came out of?

[zimmah]

I don't mind robots doing our jobs, in fact, it's great. but the sad thing is that the technological improvements are mainly for personal gain and not for the benefit of mankind.

If they would use the decreased prices of labor and increased production rate to supply the whole world with the goods they need, instead of decreasing prices and increasing production to enrich a few individuals, the world would already look so much better.

Ever since the industrial revolution, planned obsolescence has become more and more common.

[toddfletcher]

If they would use the decreased prices of labor and increased production rate to supply the whole world with the goods they need, instead of decreasing prices and increasing production to enrich a few individuals, the world would already look so much better.

How do you get rich decreasing prices, except if that then expands your market so you can sell more, hence closing in on the goal of supplying "the whole world with the goods they need"?

[Murwa]

How do you get rich decreasing prices, except if that then expands your market so you can sell more, hence closing in on the goal of supplying "the whole world with the goods they need"?

It is amazing how such an obvious things can be missed.

1. Price decreases due to lower cost of labor. It doesn't mean automatically you sell more.
2. You can sell more but to the same population that can actually afford. It is done through planned and perceived obsolescence.

[Murwa]

Are you a blacksmith, a barber, a merchant, or a farmer? No? Then which woodwork your new job came out of?

1. Just because something was happening since now it doest automatically mean it will continue forever.
2. Automation is done through computers , which is relatively new mainstream invention, you can't compare algorithms with tractor that was used to mechanize agriculture .....

The new jobs will not magically come out via almighty market hands. It is really pathetic and faith based to think that.

[giantdragon]

Very strange that Google started pushing job-eliminating technologies so aggressively. Even if the profit is only one motivation for Google shareholders, they must think about consequences on the society and probability for their capitals to be expropriated/destroyed during revolution!

[kjj]

You better learn what deflation really is.

Jabs aside, your post starts off with this:

The basic point is that capital sitting in a hole FOREVER is theft from production and new knowledge creation. Savings and delayed gratification are important, but they are not so important that capital should grow in value FOREVER for doing nothing but sit in a hole.

There is a very subtle but extremely important question here that you may be missing, which I think deserves it's own post, and that is:
Does capital chase production and new knowledge creation? Or does production and new knowledge chase capital? Depending on how that question is answered may make the rest of your post completely irrelevant.

You missed the big one.  And it actually explains a lot about AnnoyMint's delusions.

Capital does not grow while sitting in a hole.  It rots, it rusts, it fades away.

Now money, on the other hand...  Money is an abstraction, a placeholder.  Without money, we barter, my goods or services for yours.  With money, we still barter, but we do it in half transactions.  I give you my goods or services, but I don't want what you have to sell, so you give me an IOU, money.  Later, I complete that trade by redeeming my IOU for something that I do want.  Because money is an abstraction, in the aggregate, holding money is akin to having provided goods or services, to the world.  The money that you hold represents capital that the world owes you, but can use until you call for it.

We naturally expect that the world will put our capital to good use, and earn steady returns with it.  If we didn't feel this way, we would call that capital in and put it to use ourselves.

Failure to understand this basic principle poisons the mind.  It is impossible to understand economics while you think that to save is to deprive the world of capital.  It is, however, perfectly possible to write a whole bunch of incoherent gibberish while holding that belief, as AnnoyMint is all too willing to demonstrate.

[marcus_of_augustus]

47% of US jobs under threat from computerization according to Oxford study
http://www.gizmag.com/half-of-us-jobs-computerized/29142/

Of course in libertarian paradise new jobs will come out of woodwork to save the day.

I've seen an endless series of weeds on farms if you would like to start pulling .... ?

[zimmah]

If they would use the decreased prices of labor and increased production rate to supply the whole world with the goods they need, instead of decreasing prices and increasing production to enrich a few individuals, the world would already look so much better.

How do you get rich decreasing prices, except if that then expands your market so you can sell more, hence closing in on the goal of supplying "the whole world with the goods they need"?

Decrease production price, not necessarily retail price.

But even if they did decrease retail price, they would often only do it to drive competition out of the market, the competition too will be forced to either stop their business or fire most of their employees.

A lot of people become unemployed and poor, so there is less money in the hands of the common people, because there are less jobs.

But ironically there are more goods.

Less money, more goods, so even though the economy would imply (goods wise) that everyone can have a good live (there's more than enough goods to share with the whole world), the world at large is still poor, because most people can not afford those products because robots stole their jobs.

The mayor industries prefer to throw away 90% of their production to keep the price of the other 10% high! than to give away their goods.

This is the problem.

Also it's completely insane that some companies like shell ask high prices for oil, while oil does not belong to them, they actually bribed politicians in Africa and hired armies to drive farmers of their land forcefully to get the oil, and than sell that oil to you. Same goes for metals and diamonds.

World leaders are elected to SERVE the country yet they act like they are elected to GET SERVED by the country. The whole idea of countries needing protection in the form of armies against other countries is ridiculous. The fact that we have to buy land from someone is ridiculous, who decided that that land belongs to that person in the first place?

Why should we pay for bottles of water that are extracted from large spas that naturally occur?

Seriously, the economy and social politic structure of the world is very messed up and has been for hundreds if not thousand of years.

[Rassah]

Are you a blacksmith, a barber, a merchant, or a farmer? No? Then which woodwork your new job came out of?

Automation is done through computers , which is relatively new mainstream invention, you can't compare algorithms with tractor that was used to mechanize agriculture .....

Tractors replaced a group of farmers with one tractor driver. Computers will replace a group of tractor drivers with one computer operator. It's not THAT different. Really, the biggest difference is that we can now have "tractors" that have way more dexterity and skill to be able to perform more complex tasks, and we call them "robots." This new mainstream thing has been happening for decades now.

The new jobs will not magically come out via almighty market hands. It is really pathetic and faith based to think that.

This is your claim. I don't have to have faith in, or believe, in anything, since it's on you to prove that new jobs will not come out, despite them doing so for centuries to date.

[Rassah]

Now money, on the other hand...  Money is an abstraction, a placeholder.  Without money, we barter, my goods or services for yours.  With money, we still barter, but we do it in half transactions.  I give you my goods or services, but I don't want what you have to sell, so you give me an IOU, money.  Later, I complete that trade by redeeming my IOU for something that I do want.  Because money is an abstraction, in the aggregate, holding money is akin to having provided goods or services, to the world.  The money that you hold represents capital that the world owes you, but can use until you call for it.

Thank you for that. I never thought of it that way, but it makes perfect sense, and fits nicely with the point that wealthy people, who aren't thieves, are only wealthy because they gave something that the people of the world wanted or needed.

[Rassah]

Decrease production price, not necessarily retail price.

Just FYI, the Standard financial.economic terms for the first one is "cost" (as in cost of production). So cost is what the company spends to make something, and price is what it sells it for.

[jdbtracker]

I'm still looking forward to the fully automated factories that only accept as income what they need to operate productively for the betterment of mankind. Just spread the shares to the people who invest well, the best investors in what Humanity needs will be rewarded by increased production, higher prices and lower costs, investment would be the only way for the autonomous corporation to grow.

or maybe even a one off production economy based on resources... resource based economy. You need shoes? Have a design you want? go order it to be manufactured custom for you, the cost? A portion of the total recyclable, renewable resources within the community... if you got 10 shoes, and everyone else has 5, you have to return some of the resources you took to be able to make those new shoes.

[giantdragon]

Just spread the shares to the people who invest well, the best investors in what Humanity needs will be rewarded by increased production, higher prices and lower costs, investment would be the only way for the autonomous corporation to grow.

To spread the shares between people, the government must to confiscate means of production from the current owners. Its obvious that >80% of ordinary people will just sell/gamble/lose these shares within 5..10..20 years and the rich who owned capitals before nationalization will own them again and poor-today will be poor again!

In case of nationalization, the only one viable model which will work is a form of socialism with planned economy. Otherwise nationalization will have even worse effect than doing nothing - poor will be poor again AND nobody will invest in this country fearing confiscation!

[zimmah]

I'm still looking forward to the fully automated factories that only accept as income what they need to operate productively for the betterment of mankind. Just spread the shares to the people who invest well, the best investors in what Humanity needs will be rewarded by increased production, higher prices and lower costs, investment would be the only way for the autonomous corporation to grow.

or maybe even a one off production economy based on resources... resource based economy. You need shoes? Have a design you want? go order it to be manufactured custom for you, the cost? A portion of the total recyclable, renewable resources within the community... if you got 10 shoes, and everyone else has 5, you have to return some of the resources you took to be able to make those new shoes.

something like ubuntu?

[Misesian]

Wow where have I heard this one before? Nobody knows what's going to happen in the future, 100 years ago probably nobody could predict the industries that have arisen today just like we can't predict what's going to happen in the future, when you say machines are going to take over the jobs, yes maybe the ones today but that's because we're becoming more productive and as humans advance new industries start to form. Those who anticipate where the new demand will be are the ones who start it off, the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world, extraordinary humans unlike you and I, so just because you can't think of where the jobs are gonna come from in the future doesn't mean there aren't gonna be any because if you did know where the jobs were gonna come from you'd probably become very rich.

A lot of people here need to read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Now money, on the other hand...  Money is an abstraction, a placeholder.  Without money, we barter, my goods or services for yours.  With money, we still barter, but we do it in half transactions.  I give you my goods or services, but I don't want what you have to sell, so you give me an IOU, money.  Later, I complete that trade by redeeming my IOU for something that I do want.  Because money is an abstraction, in the aggregate, holding money is akin to having provided goods or services, to the world.  The money that you hold represents capital that the world owes you, but can use until you call for it.

Thank you for that. I never thought of it that way, but it makes perfect sense, and fits nicely with the point that wealthy people, who aren't thieves, are only wealthy because they gave something that the people of the world wanted or needed.

This is essentially why free markets are the best, because greedy people have to find a way to help people to make money

[giantdragon]

when you say machines are going to take over the jobs, yes maybe the ones today but that's because we're becoming more productive and as humans advance new industries start to form. Those who anticipate where the new demand will be are the ones who start it off, the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world, extraordinary humans unlike you and I, so just because you can't think of where the jobs are gonna come from in the future doesn't mean there aren't gonna be any because if you did know where the jobs were gonna come from you'd probably become very rich.

There are no doubts new industries will appear and new jobs created, but the problem is the number of jobs created is less than destroyed. This trend become very clear now!