8 ms·

Will there be jobs in 20 years for anyone with an IQ under 90? Are we going to end up with vast structural unemployment?

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
Isn't that the thesis of Jeremy Rifkin's book The End of Work?
- marshallp 17y ago
  The thesis is wrong, as certain types of work are automated, people will be forced into other kinds of work. My guess is that majority of people today will become online content producers (bloggers and youtubers) - if the price of everything drops significantly because of robots, you can probably live off of your meager adsense earnings. (Of course, at some point blogging and youtubing could be done by computers, but then you have AI and the singularity and nothing matters anymore).
  - marshallp 17y ago
    Can the downvoter please explain the downvote. If it's about people working as online content producers, well let me ask you - what is the most difficult task for computers to do - I would say natural language and human emotion production (which is essentially what blogging and acting are about). Hence, it's the last large occupation to be automated (there will other niches such as politicians,scientists,programmers but the majority of the population won't even try to become one of those).
  - nradov 17y ago
    The majority of people are incapable of producing anything that anyone would care about or watch. Adsense revenue is finite. No matter how much automation you add to the production of physical goods, natural resource constraints will prevent the price of essential goods from dropping significantly.
    - marshallp 17y ago
      demand media for example gets unsavvy people to produce economically useful content. if 99 percent of people are poor, the price of constrained things such as real estate,food,energy will still drop to floor as the rich 1 percent can't consume a significant enough chunk of it that's also a risen for the currnet economic crisis, people assumed that even though the median wage hasn't increased for 30 years, house prices should keep going up anyway,
csmeder 17y ago
This will create wealth. Wealth will mean that art, health and relaxation will be in high demand. 100 years ago over 90% of people were farmers. Now 2% of people work on farms, does that mean we have 88% unemployment? . No we don't. Instead we have Yoga instructors who charge $80 an hour for a private lesson. We have artists who charge $500 for a hand made bowl. . The more we have robots automate the more wealth we will have, the more wealth we have the the greater the number musicians, artists and yoga instructors we will have. . Creating wealth doesn't destroy jobs long term, "A rising tide raises all boats", however short term many people will be displaced and have no jobs during the transition. (Short term could be many years). . In the long run this is better. Do you think UPS sorting employees would rather be doing this http://www.core77.com/blog/technology/a_different_sort_of_assembly_line_inside_a_ups_shipping_facility_15929.asp http://www.core77.com/blog/technology/a_different_sort_of_as... or creating art work?
- berntb 17y ago
  I don't disagree with what you wrote, but... In industrialized countries a hundred years ago, 90% of the population were not farmers. You need to go back 50-100 years more for that. First link I found claims 30% of the population lived in farming communities in 1900: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_were_farmers_affected_by_industrialization_in_the_US http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_were_farmers_affected_by_indus... Edit: This seems to be quite official, claims 38% farmers in 1900, 69% 1840. http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm (Sorry for nitpicking facts irrelevant for your argument.)
- exit 17y ago
  But being a yoga instructor / bowl maker is just as (if not more) time consuming as being a farmer used to be. And those are insecure jobs which people have to struggle to make ends meet with.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    Historically, farmers went hungry when harvests were poor. How many yoga instructors, janitors, or receptionists starve in bad markets?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
abstractbill 17y ago
Are we going to end up with vast structural unemployment? I'm playing devil's advocate a little perhaps, but would it really be a terrible thing if that happened? In the 60s and 70s it was predicted that technology would increase leisure time. Perhaps that will happen after all, through higher rates of unemployment. Would it be so bad if robots and computers did most of the work required to keep people alive, and people only did work if they really wanted to?
- _delirium 17y ago
  That'd only really work if some of the results of the robot/computer work were distributed freely, wouldn't it? If robots are doing enough work to keep everyone alive, but those robots aren't government- or charity-run robots that distribute their products to everyone for free, then humans still have to work some sort of job to get the money needed to buy the stuff from the robots' owners. If you had high unemployment, and the robot greenhouses aren't giving away their vegetables for free, how are the unemployed people supposed to get the vegetables?

RyanMcGreal 17y ago

Isn't that the thesis of Jeremy Rifkin's book The End of Work?

marshallp 17y ago
The thesis is wrong, as certain types of work are automated, people will be forced into other kinds of work. My guess is that majority of people today will become online content producers (bloggers and youtubers) - if the price of everything drops significantly because of robots, you can probably live off of your meager adsense earnings. (Of course, at some point blogging and youtubing could be done by computers, but then you have AI and the singularity and nothing matters anymore).
- marshallp 17y ago
  Can the downvoter please explain the downvote. If it's about people working as online content producers, well let me ask you - what is the most difficult task for computers to do - I would say natural language and human emotion production (which is essentially what blogging and acting are about). Hence, it's the last large occupation to be automated (there will other niches such as politicians,scientists,programmers but the majority of the population won't even try to become one of those).
- nradov 17y ago
  The majority of people are incapable of producing anything that anyone would care about or watch. Adsense revenue is finite. No matter how much automation you add to the production of physical goods, natural resource constraints will prevent the price of essential goods from dropping significantly.
  - marshallp 17y ago
    demand media for example gets unsavvy people to produce economically useful content. if 99 percent of people are poor, the price of constrained things such as real estate,food,energy will still drop to floor as the rich 1 percent can't consume a significant enough chunk of it that's also a risen for the currnet economic crisis, people assumed that even though the median wage hasn't increased for 30 years, house prices should keep going up anyway,

csmeder 17y ago

This will create wealth. Wealth will mean that art, health and relaxation will be in high demand. 100 years ago over 90% of people were farmers. Now 2% of people work on farms, does that mean we have 88% unemployment? . No we don't. Instead we have Yoga instructors who charge $80 an hour for a private lesson. We have artists who charge $500 for a hand made bowl. . The more we have robots automate the more wealth we will have, the more wealth we have the the greater the number musicians, artists and yoga instructors we will have. . Creating wealth doesn't destroy jobs long term, "A rising tide raises all boats", however short term many people will be displaced and have no jobs during the transition. (Short term could be many years). . In the long run this is better. Do you think UPS sorting employees would rather be doing this http://www.core77.com/blog/technology/a_different_sort_of_assembly_line_inside_a_ups_shipping_facility_15929.asp http://www.core77.com/blog/technology/a_different_sort_of_as... or creating art work?

berntb 17y ago
I don't disagree with what you wrote, but... In industrialized countries a hundred years ago, 90% of the population were not farmers. You need to go back 50-100 years more for that. First link I found claims 30% of the population lived in farming communities in 1900: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_were_farmers_affected_by_industrialization_in_the_US http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_were_farmers_affected_by_indus... Edit: This seems to be quite official, claims 38% farmers in 1900, 69% 1840. http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm (Sorry for nitpicking facts irrelevant for your argument.)
exit 17y ago
But being a yoga instructor / bowl maker is just as (if not more) time consuming as being a farmer used to be. And those are insecure jobs which people have to struggle to make ends meet with.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Historically, farmers went hungry when harvests were poor. How many yoga instructors, janitors, or receptionists starve in bad markets?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

abstractbill 17y ago

Are we going to end up with vast structural unemployment? I'm playing devil's advocate a little perhaps, but would it really be a terrible thing if that happened? In the 60s and 70s it was predicted that technology would increase leisure time. Perhaps that will happen after all, through higher rates of unemployment. Would it be so bad if robots and computers did most of the work required to keep people alive, and people only did work if they really wanted to?

_delirium 17y ago
That'd only really work if some of the results of the robot/computer work were distributed freely, wouldn't it? If robots are doing enough work to keep everyone alive, but those robots aren't government- or charity-run robots that distribute their products to everyone for free, then humans still have to work some sort of job to get the money needed to buy the stuff from the robots' owners. If you had high unemployment, and the robot greenhouses aren't giving away their vegetables for free, how are the unemployed people supposed to get the vegetables?