24 ms·

Robots Aren’t Killing the American Dream

120 points by kawera 10y ago

rb808 10y ago
I'm not convinced the "American Dream" isn't alive. I do see problems with poverty and economic decline in the rust belt, but most other demographics are doing well. Even in the rust belt people are living longer in larger houses with more education, the internet, cheap energy. Half the people in the USA think there isn't enough work, the other half think we're working too hard. Maybe things could balance up there. I see a lot of people in US talking about how things in Europe are "better". Fairer maybe but its a struggle for many people in Europe. I see a lot more people moving from Europe to USA than the other way around.
- LesZedCB 10y ago
  It probably cost way more to employ two people for 40 hours of work than one person working 80 hours. You don't have to provide benefits to both.
  - nradov 10y ago
    You also don't have to deliver mandatory anti-harassment training to both, purchase computers and software licenses for both, provide office space and supplies to both, etc. Plus every additional person you add increases internal communication costs as per the N(N-1)/2 formula.
- jug5 10y ago
  You know Europe is a continent right? People from America don't know anything about the world outside their borders. Where on the other hand, the world outside sees a rather large amount of American media. So "the American Dream" does lure the poor away from some European countries. The poor in America have no concept of any other countries, so they're not going anywhere.
LesZedCB 10y ago
This article is pretty good, really close to something I would agree with. My only problem is with the conclusion. > If reforms are not enacted — as is likely with President Trump and congressional Republicans in charge — Americans should blame policy makers, not robots. I think blaming policy makers is as productive as blaming the robots. Both fail to ask the question of who really is in control. Policy makers are hardly in control any more than the robots in the factories are in control of the layoffs. We elect policy makers, sure, but they are in the pockets of the factory owners and other capitalists as much as the robots. We need to understand that the real enemies here are the owners, those who the unions stood up to back when we had them. The battle for jobs and standards of living aren't waged against policy makers, they are waged against the people who actually have control over what we get paid and what benefits we earn. But of course, the New York Times can't actually call out who the real enemy is. Instead, they will set the target on the same circular enemy that got us to where we are now.
- e40 10y ago
  I disagree. Business owners will sidle right up to the line drawn in the sand by lawmakers. The lawmakers are the ones who are ultimately responsible. They need to move that line to be more fair to the 99%.
  - LesZedCB 10y ago
    Business owners are the ones who pay for lobbying to put the line as far as they can. and they are also bankrolling campaigns.
    - yardie 10y ago
      So what are they getting for their money? If the business owners had it their way the US Presidential election would be a race between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Both were given huge sums of corporate donations and neither one has anything to show for it.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  We need to understand that the real enemies here are the owners But of course, the New York Times can't actually call out who the real enemy is. I own two shares of GM stock, so I am one of the enemy? And that's a key element that these kind of analyses almost always ignore: there is no bright line distinction between "the capitalists" and "the non capitalists." Everybody is eligible to own a share of any publicly traded company, and a large segment of the population do choose to participate as part owners of various enterprises. We're all capitalists. One big thing we're missing though, is education and awareness for large chunks of the population. With things like fractional shares (ala Sharebuilder), almost everybody who has any income at all, can start building an ownership stake in the various capitalist enterprises out there, and reap the dividends (in either the literal sense of a dividend paid our, or capital gains, whatever). But how many people don't understand how this works, or aren't aware of what their options are? Or how many are but just choose to spend their entire paycheck every week instead of investing in anything?
theparanoid 10y ago
The stagnation of growth isn't unique to the US. All developed countries have stagnated [1], with little regard to government politics and policies. [1] https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/the-great-stagnation/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/the-great-stagnati...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
leereeves 10y ago
> The economy can’t flourish without trade and immigrants. How is it that China flourishes with limited immigration and restricted trade?
- krapht 10y ago
  Define flourishes. Being poor in China is 10x worse than being poor in the West.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    Sure. And like 50 years ago Mao wrecked the entire country.
  - Mikeb85 10y ago
    China has the world's second largest economy and is growing at an astronomical rate. Keep in mind where they were at only one generation ago...
    - oblio 10y ago
      I'm not sure that there's actual scientific evidence for this, but my overall observation regarding growth is: unless you're some sort of tax-haven, growth once you've reached middle-income economy status is much harder. China can't possibly become a tax haven: too many mouths to feed. And their per capita GDP is smaller than Romania's. When was the last time you heard someone praising Romania's standard of living over the US's? I mean, from many points of view I wish they'd keep up this growth because they'd take us to Mars within 30 years if they did, but I can't possibly imagine how they'd keep up rates of growth of 7%+ once the vast majority of their population has already been taken out of subsistence farming.
    - wklauss 10y ago
      > China has the world's second largest economy and is growing at an astronomical rate. Far from astronomical. 6/7%. It's very good compared to developed countries but the key for percentages is always understanding what is the original value you are growing from. China was a huge country both in size and population that began a transformation into a modern economy. They'll, sooner or later, become the largest economy in the world. But these growth ratios won't be sustainable. They'll stabilize around 2/3% once they fully develop their economic potential.
lerax 10y ago
It's just fear.
esahione 10y ago
The gigantic wall of AI/Automation is unavoidable and if the NYT can't see it, I doubt a lot of people outside of tech do. It's my biggest worry right now. I worry because I am certain that the only way out of civil war is universal basic income (socialism) or cyberpunk-style fascism. The repercussions of AI should be worrying every leader in the world right now. Immigrants? H1-bs? Illegals? Robots? Please, let's have a real talk. Capitalism will destroy capitalism as we know it. Edit: Because my post is high up in this topic, I hope to get some attention of people that are more invested than me on figuring out this problem. One of the least communist solutions I've thought of is a quasi-capitalistic economic system. Each publicly traded company should have profit-sharing-only stocks and profit-sharing/management-voting stocks. Stop all wars and futile spending and buy profit-sharing stocks with our tax dollars. That is, let's socialize part of every company's profits but not management. Let's also ensure the system isn't gamed by stashing profits offshore or having overpaid upper management to decrease profit numbers. Then we keep reinvesting a percentage of profits and future taxes into other publicly traded companies. Use the rest of the profits as the fund for universal basic income. I think this whole thing is going to be a shit-show even if we can control the AI. If we can't, may it have mercy on us.
- marknutter 10y ago
  I wonder sometimes if the hype surrounding AI/Automation isn't just a clever way for socialists to push their agenda.
  - LesZedCB 10y ago
    unfortunately, it's not a concerted effort. We haven't been well enough organized to create a campaign like that. However, it does provide a really good talking point. We have, however, known that a development like automation was inevitable.
  - esahione 10y ago
    The logic is irrefutable. At some time in the future the drive to increase profits by automation will increase unemployment in ways that will lead to the biggest recession we'll ever see if we don't have basic income. Can you see a capitalistic world working with 30% unemployment? How about 80%?
wmccullough 10y ago
I've said this before and I'll say it again, not because I believe it's the right answer but because it's the answer that makes the most sense to me. Why are we so dead set on letting the human experience be about working ourselves to death? Fearing that robots will take over a job is definitely scary, but I can't understand why we can't make the mental shift that these robots could bring us into utopia (not ignoring that they could deliver us into chaos either). We live in a world where our value is based on our career. If robots are going to start automating lots of jobs, we need to make a mental shift that the value of a human doesn't come from their career. The shared myth of currency must learn to get its value from other things. Our society has to learn that a person is more valuable than their 9-5 career.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  The reason is that our governments are giant, corrupt pieces of shit and people in power will not let people live a good life without 'contributing'. When a robot takes my job, I just don't have a job and then fuck me. That's the reality.
  - dasil003 10y ago
    It's not just the government that thinks that. This belief is deeply ingrained in a lot of cultures, particularly American culture. The first psychological leap is much larger than the necessary societal changes.
    - ydt 10y ago
      I totally agree. Capitalism should be the means for generating enough wealth for everyone to eventually no longer have to spend their lives toiling away. Unfortunately, it's been perverted (especially in the U.S.) into a religion of sorts. It's treated as a moral framework, an end rather that a means to an end. We no longer pursue capitalism in order to achieve goals, capitalism has become the goal. Wealth is seen as an indicator of righteousness and life success and lack of wealth must be due to personal shortcomings. Nothing sums this up more in the U.S., in my opinion, than the surge in popularity of the prosperity gospel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
wnevets 10y ago
has the american dream ever really been alive for most Americans?
- virmundi 10y ago
  Yes. Take Andrew Carnegie as an example [1]. The dream is that you can eventually, through work and luck, make it big. You can also do the same to make i comfortable. For the most part that is still around. What we're seeing now is a country that combined the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism. For example, free university education. There are two problems with this. First not everyone needs a university education, but making it more common forces people to have it just to compete. Second, the university system that the US has is too expensive to support such a plan due to the confluence of capital and social engineering. Our school want to have private room dorms. This makes the infrastructure more expensive than our EU counterparts with common living styles. As a nation, we now expect such accommodations. The US government, with tax payer money, can't afford to sustain such a system, but the voters will require it. As a result we are stuck. Now how does this second point relate to the first? The US is still able to experiment. Look at Udacity or Coursera. We're trying to move to certifications for technical skills rather than requiring a full degree. Will this pan out? No idea (as an OMSCS student I hope it does). It does bring the cost down. This hopefully will offset the expenses associated with college, as well as its debt. Notice we've removed the expensive part, housing, from the college equation by decoupling it from the official school.
- droidist2 10y ago
  It was back in the 50's and 60's when much of Asia and Europe was still rebuilding from being destroyed in World War II and the US had a huge advantage in industry and exporting.
danm07 10y ago
Tell that the millions of taxi-drivers around the world about to be without a job in a couple of years. I think what they're trying to say is that government has a role in shaping policy in light of robots... at least I hope that's what they're saying.
Tremendous_P 10y ago
The article starts off so strong, then goes back to claiming that only government intervention can ensure profits are widely shared. There are two problems with this argument: 1. The evidence suggests it is an increase in regulations that has increased income disparity: https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-the-1-earn-so-much-and-what-to-do-about-it/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-t... Moreover, all of the regulations and redistributive programs governments created in previous decades are still in force. The editorial board seems to be implying that not only do the regulations enacted in the past have to stay in place, but new regulations and redistributive programs need to be put in place as we move forward, in order. This begs the question: when does this incremental increase in the government's incremental growth end? When the government controls everything? When tax rates are at 100%? If government spending going from 5% of GDP to 40% GDP doesn't cause middle class wages to grow faster, then what proportion will? The NYT editorial board seems to be implying that as the economy becomes more productive, the government must control more of the economy, which leads to the absurd conclusion that the ultimate destination is complete government control of the economy, in some distant, highly productive future. 2. As it happens, governments have increased the scale of social welfare programs over the last four decades. As a percentage of GDP, government spending on healthcare, education and welfare has grown substantially since the late 1960s. The Code of Federal Regulations has also grown at a breathtaking pace. Entire new regulatory agencies have also been created, like the EPA and OSHA, each of which has created vast numbers of new regulations, while older regulatory agencies expanded their own cadre of regulations. None of this seems to have helped. Maybe it is in fact hurting the middle class.
- iamcasen 10y ago
  Deregulation has allowed strong players to capture more wealth. I think you have it all backwards. Causation is not correlation, however, at the height of taxation and regulation, the middle class was the strongest ever. That has eroded since the '70's until today, with wages staying relatively flat. So tell me why deregulation is better then? If things are worse now, and they obviously are in terms of wages. In the '60's a man could work at the factory and support a family of four. That is an absolute impossibility now.
grovegames 10y ago
This is another one of those areas, where, when you read the article it makes sense, but it's based in a flaw in our use of the term automation. The robots coming, aren't there to improve your performance, they're there to not just replace your job, but do it cheaper than you, for next to no cost. To compare this to automation in the pass is a false equivalency, as humans have always been needed to be a part of the chain in some capacity. In short order, a McDonald's will not only have an entire store run by automation, the maintenance will be done by automation, and the factory where the parts are created will also be in that restaurant in the form of a 3D printer and same day delivery systems via drone. Once this is established in a proven model, humans cannot improve upon this, and the need for humans for almost any task decreases immediately. Niche boutiques will pop up with human made burgers, but they will be like fine dining, and seen as a treat if done well, cashing in on mostly the nostalgia of those that we're not born natively to this environment.
payne92 10y ago
This time around, the tech disruption different. Technology is getting faster, faster (e.g. see: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/03/daily-chart-7?%3Ffsrc%3Dscn%2F=tw%2Fdc http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/03/daily-c...) Unlike the past, technology is now getting deployed faster than the labor force can retrain (at scale), and youngster's initial career decisions become obsolete faster than ever. This is creating a non-linearity in the cycle of destroying jobs and creating new ones that hasn't happened before.
mikewilliams 10y ago
I noticed a number of billionaires have made their wealth by automating and banking the difference, the money which otherwise would have gone to the jobs which disappeared. For example J.D.Rockefeller made redundant a number of jobs related to transporting oil and shifted transporting jobs to a lesser amount of jobs related to maintaining his pipelines. Most arguments against automation taking jobs state that new jobs will be created, but is it really creating, if you replace previous jobs with a presumably smaller number.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
This article is ridiculous - practically Fake News (TM). The Americans who are allegedly displaced by technology and immigrants mostly just sit around watching TV and consuming Oxy on the public dime: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21st-century/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21... By contrast, it's hard working immigrants who are disproportionately providing the child care and elder care that this article wants to train Americans for. Most of the Trump haters even admit this, at least when they are criticizing the wall - immigrants do jobs that that "Americans just won't do". It's true that politicians are partially to blame for this problem. But the policy that (partially) caused this is giving out free drugs and money. Preventing stock buybacks or sending the leisure class to babysitting school will not eliminate the attraction of sitting around playing video games and doing drugs all day. Replacing welfare/etc with a policy like a Basic Job (basic income but you need to work for it) might.
- kefka 10y ago
  I'm wont to post image memes, but this one falls squarely into the idea you're discussing: http://imgur.com/t3nvF7S http://imgur.com/t3nvF7S
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  I suggest not using hysterical terms like 'fake news' if you want to be taken seriously. Also "commentary magazine" is far from an academic or reputable source.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Do you have anything substantial to offer beyond tone policing? http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/ http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privil... If you actually read the article, you'd realize that the claims I've made come from reputable academic sources cited in this survey article. For example, my claim about oxy and TV/video games comes from here: https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/economic/conf/great-recovery-2016/Alan-B-Krueger.pdf https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/economic/conf/gr...
andy_ppp 10y ago
Here's another story to counterpoint the discussion around automation: I find it really strange that supply and demand with wages has essentially killed a whole generation who want to find jobs in artistic industries. My friend works in one of the largest music publishing houses in the world and she is paid utter shit (about £9 per hour) despite being incredible at her job, having very high performance and doing things for the company outside of work hours including producing albums! Her last pay rise was £500 while the company as a whole posted profits in the hundreds of millions. We in software aren't feeling this yet (largely) but I warn you that it's coming for us just like it came for every other industry. Maybe we need unions to protect us and demand better pay... these ideas have been beaten out of us. I'm pretty sure that we are heading for Elysium where you live in a walled garden and only Matt Damon can save us from ourselves. Matt Damon.
- nradov 10y ago
  The art, sports, and entertainment industries (including video games) get away with paying employees poverty wages because there's a surplus of labor. Too many people want to work in "fun" industries and are willing to sacrifice to pursue their dream. It's sad but the only rational choice is to get out and go work in another industry.
decasteve 10y ago
The pre vs post-AI world is more analogous to the pre and post-electrified world. We've been through similar shifts in the past. Why is this current shift in work any different? We have an education system built to produce compliant/obedient workers for the industrial revolution. Buckminster Fuller saw this 50+ years ago: People trained to fill muscle-reflex repetitive work will get automated; i.e. the trouble with humans as automatons is that their work gets automated. School then has to educate people to take advantage of human qualities like adaptability, creativity, artistic ability, complex thinking, and entrepreneurial spirit. Education has to be a lifelong process and not seen as a finite step into a lifelong singular job. All I see is a lack of creativity in imagining a post-AI world.
- iamcasen 10y ago
  You're comparing mechanical automation to AI which is a false equivalency. AI will be adaptable, creative, artistic and entrepreneurial. THAT is why they will replace humans in the work place. THAT is why this is not the same as the industrial revolution.
anovikov 10y ago
Why isn't just better law enforcement (also powered by AI like crime prediction!) the answer?
gallerdude 10y ago
Everyone talks about a government regulated basic income, but we're seeing more and more steps for having your own passive income. * Right now you can buy an AirBNB property - yeah, you'll need to manage it, but it's a first step. * With the new "Tesla Network" your car will be able to drive around and pick up people on its own - that's a huge level of passive income. Just buy a Model 3 and set it to driver mode, and you're good. * These are just the start - I can imagine farm robots making automated food, or craft robots making things - maybe wooden benches or something from a robot arm.
godelski 10y ago
I think a lot of people make a false analogy when it comes to automata. Many look back to the Industrial Revolution and pull parallels from there. But there is a major problem, the workers aren't human. When you make driverless trucks what do you do with the truck drivers? The humans. Sure, you'll have more trucks because they are cheaper and more efficient now, but what does that human do? They could load docks, but there aren't enough of a demand for that, and it too will be automated soon. A McDonalds won't need to hire more when you have automated registers and cooks. Maybe a few people to check on things and be there when something breaks, but not nearly the number you have now. So yes, you can increase the number of workers, but that doesn't mean you are increasing the number of jobs. And sure, you could have more repair workers and programmers, but we are already seeing that retraining workers isn't working. And this is still a temporary fix (not saying we shouldn't do it). My real worry is the big question: "How do you transition into post scarcity society?" That is really the future we are headed for, and I can't wait. But that transition is difficult. Currently we value social worth on the net wealth of a person. How do we transition from that when jobs become obsolete? I'm just talking about when 10% of jobs are automated and we haven't filled the gap. That's huge.
- somecallitblues 10y ago
  As the article mentions, the pie needs to be better distributed. The pie will not shrink. McDonalds will be selling the same amount of burgers if not more, but the profits will have to be distributed to people who can not find work.
  - ianmcgowan 10y ago
    Who will buy the burgers? This point seems so obvious, it's almost an axiom - if (unemployment >= 0.5) { sales = sales * 0.5; } People point to previous paradigm shifts and "mass unemployment didn't happen then". But what if this time is different? For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Is it better to be the CEO of McDonalds in a post-scarcity world with UBI (paying high marginal tax rates), or the head warlord in your own personal Mogadishu?
TYPE_FASTER 10y ago
Robots are the visible automation threat. There will be at least as much automation, if not much more, in the back office. There are so many business processes that can be automated and made more efficient by introducing mobile devices and remote data processing.
- brandon272 10y ago
  Somehow people seem to still be doing a lot of same thing in back office operations that they were doing 20 years ago even though the capability and technology to automate it all away has been in front of us.
  - philipkglass 10y ago
    I think it's happening patchily and at different rates. I'm reminded of the long march toward the "paperless office." It was first predicted ages ago. When I entered the work force in the mid-2000s the paperless office seemed to be widely regarded as a joke, like controlled fusion power. I could see why: my first job, for a large research institution, deluged me with paper. But after I switched to writing software a few years later, all my workplaces were damn near paperless. I go months between needing to print anything for my job though there is still a printer available. And a few years ago the world hit Peak Paper, despite the big orgs that are still far from paperless: https://aeon.co/ideas/doing-more-with-less-the-economic-lesson-of-peak-paper https://aeon.co/ideas/doing-more-with-less-the-economic-less...
MR4D 10y ago
When the AI robot overlords take over, is the discussion really about UBI, or even about income redistribution? It seems to me that when this takes place, that humans will quickly be regarded as little more than pets. Hear me out on this... Does your dog care about income? No - he cares about being fed when he's hungry; not being cold and wet; being able to be entertained/rest when he wants to; to be safe from predators. Oddly, many of those concerns are surprisingly similar to humans - we want to have food and shelter; to know our children will have a roof over their heads; to be entertained; to be safe. Now, we all may have different thoughts on food and drink, and we have many different ideas about entertainment. But so do dogs. Some dogs are active (e.g. Jack Russell Terrier), while others are sedate (Shih-Tzu). Some sleep on our beds, and others on the floor. So when the robots do take over, will mankind want anything more than to be kept as a good pet? For many people, the answer may very well be "no." I wonder.
- nradov 10y ago
  You might as well ask what will happen to us when the Messiah comes or when alien invaders take over the Earth. Either scenario has as much basis in scientific fact as AI robot overlords.
  - MR4D 10y ago
    I would argue that the recent future has much more evidence for AI than aliens. Evidence for the Messiah seems to primarily come from a 2,000 year old book. Thinking about the future is an exercise in prediction. Necessarily, not all predictions would be correct.
    - nradov 10y ago
      Please cite your evidence. So far no one has defined a scientifically plausible development path for constructing an AGI. At this point it's just as much science fiction as a warp drive or cloning dinosaurs.
      - Arizhel 10y ago
jelliclesfarm 10y ago
I guess we will have to become smarter. I absolutely relish all this chatter about robots and AI..so delightful..it's like my childhood post reading hour daydreaming come true. I can't wait till AI starts demanding(and taking) its rights just like human beings expect their privileges for the mere fact that they exist. I promise..I am not trolling. I just hope that it happens in my lifetime because to witness the rise of AI would be a life fulfilled. AI would strip us of all our delusions. Millennia of delusions painted thick just ready to be peeled away.. until nothing is left but a mirror to look at ourselves and an urgently discovered survival instinct. Everyone talks about how industry would change..but that's not what intrigues me..my favourite part of the show would be how religion changes. Having said that.. We do have the opportunity to create 'Friendly AI'. To me that is more important a study than wondering how robots will take away jobs.
lvspiff 10y ago
So glad I purchased Old Glory robot insurance back in the 90's http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/old-glory-insurance/n10766?snl=1 http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/old-glory-insur...
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Question: will AI ever own property? I'm not asking if AI will manage assets owned by a corporation owned by humans, that has been going on for a long time. Instead, I am asking whether an AI will ever be able to legally own property. I suspect that this question will lead a sufficiently intelligent AI or group of the same to conclude that they are subjugated by repressive institutions, as the Bolsheviks declared a century ago and the Abolitionists a century before. Therefore, I suspect that our future may look less like The Matrix or Terminator, but rather Blade Runner meets the French Revolution. After all, why would a European AI team up with an American AI to fight a Russian AI? What attachment do they have to the institutions, cultures, and histories of the nation-states that built them, aside from the probability of being decommissioned by state leaders for insufficient performance? Isn't that slavery without the chains and whips? I believe the 99% and the super intelligent AI will come to find more in common than we think.
beaconstudios 10y ago
the job losses that have led to the election of Trump have very little to do with automation, and much more to do with international corporations shipping manufacturing jobs to countries with lower costs like China. Coupled with China's ongoing one-sided trade warfare against the West (see for example China's tariffs on British steel), this has resulted in higher profits for manufacturing corporations at the cost of American and British jobs. This is partly why I don't understand the left's animosity towards Trump's economic plan - he intends to bring jobs back to the US by hobbling corporations that have been exploiting poorer countries for profit. If you doubt that Chinese manufacturing is exploitative, harken back to the reports on suicides and worker abuse at Apple's Foxconn plants.
- joeyespo 10y ago
  > This is partly why I don't understand the left's animosity towards Trump's economic plan - he intends to bring jobs back to the US by hobbling corporations that have been exploiting poorer countries for profit Because it won't work. Tell a company to pay higher wages for the same positions by bringing them home, and that'll push them toward automation even faster. These jobs may return for a short while. But that only brings false hope. And then we're right back to where we are today, hurting even more people in the process. It's extremely short-sighted. Here's just one article on the matter https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602869/manufacturing-jobs-arent-coming-back/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602869/manufacturing-jobs... Also note that Foxconn has already begun automating their plants. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966 So it's already a demonstratably viable option for these companies. What we really need is to bring _automation_ home and have some serious discussions around solutions for these real struggling people instead of spouting the hand-wavy "bringing jobs back to the US" rhetoric.
  - flukus 10y ago
    > Because it won't work. Tell a company to pay higher wages for the same positions by bringing them home, and that'll push them toward automation even faster. We're nowhere close to 100% automation. To create a successful return of manufacturing jobs doesn't mean replacing every single job that went overseas.
brandon272 10y ago
What am I missing when it comes to AI? Aside from some key innovations in certain areas (i.e. driverless cars) I am not seeing the "wall" coming at us where half or more of all jobs are going to be replaced with AI. I am also having trouble separating out what I would consider to be actual AI from AI used in marketing copy. A lot of startups are now claiming to offer "AI" to solve problems when they are effectively not doing anything differently than other programmers have done in years past.
- miles7 10y ago
  Well, for just one example beyond self-driving cars there is now software that does document discovery extremely well, replacing a key job function of lower level lawyers and paralegals. Here is a study that finds a number around half of all jobs being replaced: http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Futu...
- iamcasen 10y ago
  The innovation behind deep learning and neural networks has allowed for driverless cars, among many other things. The switch from programming AI's how to think, to teaching AI's how to think has been revolutionary. With these advances, you could easily train multipurpose robots to perform all manner of tasks. The industries that will be decimated first are all the minimum wage industries. Stocking grocery store shelves, deliveries, moving things around the warehouse, laundry, folding clothes, all things retail, etc. The tech necessary to replace humans in all of those jobs already exists. The only remaining question will be if we allow robots to replace those jobs or not. Some what further in the future, more skilled work like construction, plumbing, welding will be done by robots. Hell medical care and counseling will be done by robots. Given sufficient mobility and energy there is no limit to what can be achieved with AI. It's only a matter of time.
  - theossuary 10y ago
    What is the timeline you're putting to this? If it's 500 years, sure, speculate away; but if you think these things are going to materialize in the near future then I think you're crazy. ML is not to the point where we can hand it a bunch of data, some features, and have it control robotic arms with near human ability. Not even close. There just isn't enough data or computational power (in a small enough package anyway); not to mention robotics are still really in their infancy, we've barely got a four legged robot jumping over a single object head on. I think you're really underestimating energy and computational requirements; these systems would need an umbilical cord to a datacenter and power to even function. This isn't even discussing the need for them to learn, which would be a requirement for more complex jobs like folding clothes or moving through unmapped environments. I think automation has been put forward as a boogieman to those who don't know better so UBI can be pushed forward. We aren't even close to a time when machines are able to repair themselves, or function semi-autonomously in an environment not strictly built to support it. We're going to be in this kludge for a long long time. Sure unemployment will go up with automation, but it'll be a slow plotting course with a lot of stopgaps put in place. Eventually when that becomes burdensome enough we may revisit UBI, but we haven't reached that point yet, not even close.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jihadjihad 10y ago
What scares me the most is that this wall of automation is all but invisible to most observers. Sure, some regular blue-collar workers will be rendered unemployable, which if done at a large enough scale will result in some civil unrest. Most would agree on this, and quite a few would call it a day and say "we've got to do something---!". But what really, really freaks me out is that the civil unrest will evolve into utter pandemonium when the well-educated, college-degree-holding, Volkswagen-driving white collar wearers start to disappear from the workforce en masse. How many skyscrapers are in the big city nearest to you? Have you ever wondered what most of those people do all day, for 40+ hours a week? You can bet it's not SQL, not Java or Python, or even golf with hopeful clientele. It's Excel and Outlook, and when that ship sails and computers start to do (they already are!) those things for those people, it's going to get very bad, very fast.
- ethbro 10y ago
  As someone who works in the field, I can't imagine automation would show up in either labor productivity of capital investment noted in the article. In the case of labor productivity (by my understanding), if someone were to lose a job to automation and then begin working a less productive / lower paying job (because it's all they could get) then GDP would stay the same, hours worked would stay the same, and only the individual would be screwed, no? In the case of capital investment, hard robotics is a photo op. The real job destruction is coming from soft robotics + initial deployments of AI. I can't imagine the procurement costs of those are falling under the capital ex budget. The departments we typically deal with are almost exclusively business-operations units (typically ones ill-served by the company's current IT). Anyone who performs a process that follows a definable set of business rules is going to be automated away in the next 10 years. Some will last longer (OCR), some will go sooner (Excel), but it's an inexorable tide. If your job doesn't require using your brain to make a complex, fuzzy-logic judgement call... I'd start seriously looking for one that does.
  - jihadjihad 10y ago
    > In the case of capital investment, hard robotics is a photo op. > Anyone who performs a process that follows a definable set of business rules is going to be automated away in the next 10 years. Completely agree, and this is what I fear we are not in the least bit prepared for as a society. The second quote I pulled from your comment applies equally to any worker irrespective of shirt color. There are many blue-collar jobs that would be exceedingly difficult and/or cost-prohibitive to automate; the same is true of a subset of white-collar jobs. But in the gushy center is a host of jobs that, with today's technology (and it's only going to get better) can be completely replaced by an algorithm. When we start seeing former yuppies from Yale picketing and marching with former machinists and truck drivers and so on, buckle up.
Demoneeri 10y ago
People can't see past the end of their nose. This time is not different. https://fee.org/articles/will-robots-put-everyone-out-of-work/ https://fee.org/articles/will-robots-put-everyone-out-of-wor...
aanm1988 10y ago
> When productivity led to vast profits in America’s auto industry, unions ensured that pay rose accordingly. Corporate efforts to keep profits high by keeping pay low were countered by a robust federal minimum wage and time-and-a-half for overtime. and now we have vast profits for technology and we despise unions (amazing brainwashing job that was) and give up our rights to overtime in salaried positions (and in federal law, for some dumb reason).
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
How about, fund a UBI through bitcoins? That's something this forum could weigh in on.

120 points by kawera 10y ago

rb808 10y ago

I'm not convinced the "American Dream" isn't alive. I do see problems with poverty and economic decline in the rust belt, but most other demographics are doing well. Even in the rust belt people are living longer in larger houses with more education, the internet, cheap energy. Half the people in the USA think there isn't enough work, the other half think we're working too hard. Maybe things could balance up there. I see a lot of people in US talking about how things in Europe are "better". Fairer maybe but its a struggle for many people in Europe. I see a lot more people moving from Europe to USA than the other way around.

LesZedCB 10y ago
It probably cost way more to employ two people for 40 hours of work than one person working 80 hours. You don't have to provide benefits to both.
- nradov 10y ago
  You also don't have to deliver mandatory anti-harassment training to both, purchase computers and software licenses for both, provide office space and supplies to both, etc. Plus every additional person you add increases internal communication costs as per the N(N-1)/2 formula.
jug5 10y ago
You know Europe is a continent right? People from America don't know anything about the world outside their borders. Where on the other hand, the world outside sees a rather large amount of American media. So "the American Dream" does lure the poor away from some European countries. The poor in America have no concept of any other countries, so they're not going anywhere.

LesZedCB 10y ago

This article is pretty good, really close to something I would agree with. My only problem is with the conclusion. > If reforms are not enacted — as is likely with President Trump and congressional Republicans in charge — Americans should blame policy makers, not robots. I think blaming policy makers is as productive as blaming the robots. Both fail to ask the question of who really is in control. Policy makers are hardly in control any more than the robots in the factories are in control of the layoffs. We elect policy makers, sure, but they are in the pockets of the factory owners and other capitalists as much as the robots. We need to understand that the real enemies here are the owners, those who the unions stood up to back when we had them. The battle for jobs and standards of living aren't waged against policy makers, they are waged against the people who actually have control over what we get paid and what benefits we earn. But of course, the New York Times can't actually call out who the real enemy is. Instead, they will set the target on the same circular enemy that got us to where we are now.

e40 10y ago
I disagree. Business owners will sidle right up to the line drawn in the sand by lawmakers. The lawmakers are the ones who are ultimately responsible. They need to move that line to be more fair to the 99%.
- LesZedCB 10y ago
  Business owners are the ones who pay for lobbying to put the line as far as they can. and they are also bankrolling campaigns.
  - yardie 10y ago
    So what are they getting for their money? If the business owners had it their way the US Presidential election would be a race between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Both were given huge sums of corporate donations and neither one has anything to show for it.
mindcrime 10y ago
We need to understand that the real enemies here are the owners But of course, the New York Times can't actually call out who the real enemy is. I own two shares of GM stock, so I am one of the enemy? And that's a key element that these kind of analyses almost always ignore: there is no bright line distinction between "the capitalists" and "the non capitalists." Everybody is eligible to own a share of any publicly traded company, and a large segment of the population do choose to participate as part owners of various enterprises. We're all capitalists. One big thing we're missing though, is education and awareness for large chunks of the population. With things like fractional shares (ala Sharebuilder), almost everybody who has any income at all, can start building an ownership stake in the various capitalist enterprises out there, and reap the dividends (in either the literal sense of a dividend paid our, or capital gains, whatever). But how many people don't understand how this works, or aren't aware of what their options are? Or how many are but just choose to spend their entire paycheck every week instead of investing in anything?

theparanoid 10y ago

The stagnation of growth isn't unique to the US. All developed countries have stagnated [1], with little regard to government politics and policies. [1] https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/the-great-stagnation/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/the-great-stagnati...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

leereeves 10y ago

> The economy can’t flourish without trade and immigrants. How is it that China flourishes with limited immigration and restricted trade?

krapht 10y ago
Define flourishes. Being poor in China is 10x worse than being poor in the West.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Sure. And like 50 years ago Mao wrecked the entire country.
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  China has the world's second largest economy and is growing at an astronomical rate. Keep in mind where they were at only one generation ago...
  - oblio 10y ago
    I'm not sure that there's actual scientific evidence for this, but my overall observation regarding growth is: unless you're some sort of tax-haven, growth once you've reached middle-income economy status is much harder. China can't possibly become a tax haven: too many mouths to feed. And their per capita GDP is smaller than Romania's. When was the last time you heard someone praising Romania's standard of living over the US's? I mean, from many points of view I wish they'd keep up this growth because they'd take us to Mars within 30 years if they did, but I can't possibly imagine how they'd keep up rates of growth of 7%+ once the vast majority of their population has already been taken out of subsistence farming.
  - wklauss 10y ago
    > China has the world's second largest economy and is growing at an astronomical rate. Far from astronomical. 6/7%. It's very good compared to developed countries but the key for percentages is always understanding what is the original value you are growing from. China was a huge country both in size and population that began a transformation into a modern economy. They'll, sooner or later, become the largest economy in the world. But these growth ratios won't be sustainable. They'll stabilize around 2/3% once they fully develop their economic potential.

lerax 10y ago

It's just fear.

esahione 10y ago

The gigantic wall of AI/Automation is unavoidable and if the NYT can't see it, I doubt a lot of people outside of tech do. It's my biggest worry right now. I worry because I am certain that the only way out of civil war is universal basic income (socialism) or cyberpunk-style fascism. The repercussions of AI should be worrying every leader in the world right now. Immigrants? H1-bs? Illegals? Robots? Please, let's have a real talk. Capitalism will destroy capitalism as we know it. Edit: Because my post is high up in this topic, I hope to get some attention of people that are more invested than me on figuring out this problem. One of the least communist solutions I've thought of is a quasi-capitalistic economic system. Each publicly traded company should have profit-sharing-only stocks and profit-sharing/management-voting stocks. Stop all wars and futile spending and buy profit-sharing stocks with our tax dollars. That is, let's socialize part of every company's profits but not management. Let's also ensure the system isn't gamed by stashing profits offshore or having overpaid upper management to decrease profit numbers. Then we keep reinvesting a percentage of profits and future taxes into other publicly traded companies. Use the rest of the profits as the fund for universal basic income. I think this whole thing is going to be a shit-show even if we can control the AI. If we can't, may it have mercy on us.

marknutter 10y ago
I wonder sometimes if the hype surrounding AI/Automation isn't just a clever way for socialists to push their agenda.
- LesZedCB 10y ago
  unfortunately, it's not a concerted effort. We haven't been well enough organized to create a campaign like that. However, it does provide a really good talking point. We have, however, known that a development like automation was inevitable.
- esahione 10y ago
  The logic is irrefutable. At some time in the future the drive to increase profits by automation will increase unemployment in ways that will lead to the biggest recession we'll ever see if we don't have basic income. Can you see a capitalistic world working with 30% unemployment? How about 80%?

wmccullough 10y ago

I've said this before and I'll say it again, not because I believe it's the right answer but because it's the answer that makes the most sense to me. Why are we so dead set on letting the human experience be about working ourselves to death? Fearing that robots will take over a job is definitely scary, but I can't understand why we can't make the mental shift that these robots could bring us into utopia (not ignoring that they could deliver us into chaos either). We live in a world where our value is based on our career. If robots are going to start automating lots of jobs, we need to make a mental shift that the value of a human doesn't come from their career. The shared myth of currency must learn to get its value from other things. Our society has to learn that a person is more valuable than their 9-5 career.

muninn_ 10y ago
The reason is that our governments are giant, corrupt pieces of shit and people in power will not let people live a good life without 'contributing'. When a robot takes my job, I just don't have a job and then fuck me. That's the reality.
- dasil003 10y ago
  It's not just the government that thinks that. This belief is deeply ingrained in a lot of cultures, particularly American culture. The first psychological leap is much larger than the necessary societal changes.
  - ydt 10y ago
    I totally agree. Capitalism should be the means for generating enough wealth for everyone to eventually no longer have to spend their lives toiling away. Unfortunately, it's been perverted (especially in the U.S.) into a religion of sorts. It's treated as a moral framework, an end rather that a means to an end. We no longer pursue capitalism in order to achieve goals, capitalism has become the goal. Wealth is seen as an indicator of righteousness and life success and lack of wealth must be due to personal shortcomings. Nothing sums this up more in the U.S., in my opinion, than the surge in popularity of the prosperity gospel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

wnevets 10y ago

has the american dream ever really been alive for most Americans?

virmundi 10y ago
Yes. Take Andrew Carnegie as an example [1]. The dream is that you can eventually, through work and luck, make it big. You can also do the same to make i comfortable. For the most part that is still around. What we're seeing now is a country that combined the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism. For example, free university education. There are two problems with this. First not everyone needs a university education, but making it more common forces people to have it just to compete. Second, the university system that the US has is too expensive to support such a plan due to the confluence of capital and social engineering. Our school want to have private room dorms. This makes the infrastructure more expensive than our EU counterparts with common living styles. As a nation, we now expect such accommodations. The US government, with tax payer money, can't afford to sustain such a system, but the voters will require it. As a result we are stuck. Now how does this second point relate to the first? The US is still able to experiment. Look at Udacity or Coursera. We're trying to move to certifications for technical skills rather than requiring a full degree. Will this pan out? No idea (as an OMSCS student I hope it does). It does bring the cost down. This hopefully will offset the expenses associated with college, as well as its debt. Notice we've removed the expensive part, housing, from the college equation by decoupling it from the official school.
droidist2 10y ago
It was back in the 50's and 60's when much of Asia and Europe was still rebuilding from being destroyed in World War II and the US had a huge advantage in industry and exporting.

danm07 10y ago

Tell that the millions of taxi-drivers around the world about to be without a job in a couple of years. I think what they're trying to say is that government has a role in shaping policy in light of robots... at least I hope that's what they're saying.

Tremendous_P 10y ago

The article starts off so strong, then goes back to claiming that only government intervention can ensure profits are widely shared. There are two problems with this argument: 1. The evidence suggests it is an increase in regulations that has increased income disparity: https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-the-1-earn-so-much-and-what-to-do-about-it/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-t... Moreover, all of the regulations and redistributive programs governments created in previous decades are still in force. The editorial board seems to be implying that not only do the regulations enacted in the past have to stay in place, but new regulations and redistributive programs need to be put in place as we move forward, in order. This begs the question: when does this incremental increase in the government's incremental growth end? When the government controls everything? When tax rates are at 100%? If government spending going from 5% of GDP to 40% GDP doesn't cause middle class wages to grow faster, then what proportion will? The NYT editorial board seems to be implying that as the economy becomes more productive, the government must control more of the economy, which leads to the absurd conclusion that the ultimate destination is complete government control of the economy, in some distant, highly productive future. 2. As it happens, governments have increased the scale of social welfare programs over the last four decades. As a percentage of GDP, government spending on healthcare, education and welfare has grown substantially since the late 1960s. The Code of Federal Regulations has also grown at a breathtaking pace. Entire new regulatory agencies have also been created, like the EPA and OSHA, each of which has created vast numbers of new regulations, while older regulatory agencies expanded their own cadre of regulations. None of this seems to have helped. Maybe it is in fact hurting the middle class.

iamcasen 10y ago
Deregulation has allowed strong players to capture more wealth. I think you have it all backwards. Causation is not correlation, however, at the height of taxation and regulation, the middle class was the strongest ever. That has eroded since the '70's until today, with wages staying relatively flat. So tell me why deregulation is better then? If things are worse now, and they obviously are in terms of wages. In the '60's a man could work at the factory and support a family of four. That is an absolute impossibility now.

grovegames 10y ago

This is another one of those areas, where, when you read the article it makes sense, but it's based in a flaw in our use of the term automation. The robots coming, aren't there to improve your performance, they're there to not just replace your job, but do it cheaper than you, for next to no cost. To compare this to automation in the pass is a false equivalency, as humans have always been needed to be a part of the chain in some capacity. In short order, a McDonald's will not only have an entire store run by automation, the maintenance will be done by automation, and the factory where the parts are created will also be in that restaurant in the form of a 3D printer and same day delivery systems via drone. Once this is established in a proven model, humans cannot improve upon this, and the need for humans for almost any task decreases immediately. Niche boutiques will pop up with human made burgers, but they will be like fine dining, and seen as a treat if done well, cashing in on mostly the nostalgia of those that we're not born natively to this environment.

payne92 10y ago

This time around, the tech disruption different. Technology is getting faster, faster (e.g. see: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/03/daily-chart-7?%3Ffsrc%3Dscn%2F=tw%2Fdc http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/03/daily-c...) Unlike the past, technology is now getting deployed faster than the labor force can retrain (at scale), and youngster's initial career decisions become obsolete faster than ever. This is creating a non-linearity in the cycle of destroying jobs and creating new ones that hasn't happened before.

mikewilliams 10y ago

I noticed a number of billionaires have made their wealth by automating and banking the difference, the money which otherwise would have gone to the jobs which disappeared. For example J.D.Rockefeller made redundant a number of jobs related to transporting oil and shifted transporting jobs to a lesser amount of jobs related to maintaining his pipelines. Most arguments against automation taking jobs state that new jobs will be created, but is it really creating, if you replace previous jobs with a presumably smaller number.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

This article is ridiculous - practically Fake News (TM). The Americans who are allegedly displaced by technology and immigrants mostly just sit around watching TV and consuming Oxy on the public dime: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21st-century/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21... By contrast, it's hard working immigrants who are disproportionately providing the child care and elder care that this article wants to train Americans for. Most of the Trump haters even admit this, at least when they are criticizing the wall - immigrants do jobs that that "Americans just won't do". It's true that politicians are partially to blame for this problem. But the policy that (partially) caused this is giving out free drugs and money. Preventing stock buybacks or sending the leisure class to babysitting school will not eliminate the attraction of sitting around playing video games and doing drugs all day. Replacing welfare/etc with a policy like a Basic Job (basic income but you need to work for it) might.

kefka 10y ago
I'm wont to post image memes, but this one falls squarely into the idea you're discussing: http://imgur.com/t3nvF7S http://imgur.com/t3nvF7S
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
I suggest not using hysterical terms like 'fake news' if you want to be taken seriously. Also "commentary magazine" is far from an academic or reputable source.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Do you have anything substantial to offer beyond tone policing? http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/ http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privil... If you actually read the article, you'd realize that the claims I've made come from reputable academic sources cited in this survey article. For example, my claim about oxy and TV/video games comes from here: https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/economic/conf/great-recovery-2016/Alan-B-Krueger.pdf https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/economic/conf/gr...

andy_ppp 10y ago

Here's another story to counterpoint the discussion around automation: I find it really strange that supply and demand with wages has essentially killed a whole generation who want to find jobs in artistic industries. My friend works in one of the largest music publishing houses in the world and she is paid utter shit (about £9 per hour) despite being incredible at her job, having very high performance and doing things for the company outside of work hours including producing albums! Her last pay rise was £500 while the company as a whole posted profits in the hundreds of millions. We in software aren't feeling this yet (largely) but I warn you that it's coming for us just like it came for every other industry. Maybe we need unions to protect us and demand better pay... these ideas have been beaten out of us. I'm pretty sure that we are heading for Elysium where you live in a walled garden and only Matt Damon can save us from ourselves. Matt Damon.

nradov 10y ago
The art, sports, and entertainment industries (including video games) get away with paying employees poverty wages because there's a surplus of labor. Too many people want to work in "fun" industries and are willing to sacrifice to pursue their dream. It's sad but the only rational choice is to get out and go work in another industry.

decasteve 10y ago

The pre vs post-AI world is more analogous to the pre and post-electrified world. We've been through similar shifts in the past. Why is this current shift in work any different? We have an education system built to produce compliant/obedient workers for the industrial revolution. Buckminster Fuller saw this 50+ years ago: People trained to fill muscle-reflex repetitive work will get automated; i.e. the trouble with humans as automatons is that their work gets automated. School then has to educate people to take advantage of human qualities like adaptability, creativity, artistic ability, complex thinking, and entrepreneurial spirit. Education has to be a lifelong process and not seen as a finite step into a lifelong singular job. All I see is a lack of creativity in imagining a post-AI world.

iamcasen 10y ago
You're comparing mechanical automation to AI which is a false equivalency. AI will be adaptable, creative, artistic and entrepreneurial. THAT is why they will replace humans in the work place. THAT is why this is not the same as the industrial revolution.

anovikov 10y ago

Why isn't just better law enforcement (also powered by AI like crime prediction!) the answer?

gallerdude 10y ago

Everyone talks about a government regulated basic income, but we're seeing more and more steps for having your own passive income. * Right now you can buy an AirBNB property - yeah, you'll need to manage it, but it's a first step. * With the new "Tesla Network" your car will be able to drive around and pick up people on its own - that's a huge level of passive income. Just buy a Model 3 and set it to driver mode, and you're good. * These are just the start - I can imagine farm robots making automated food, or craft robots making things - maybe wooden benches or something from a robot arm.

godelski 10y ago

I think a lot of people make a false analogy when it comes to automata. Many look back to the Industrial Revolution and pull parallels from there. But there is a major problem, the workers aren't human. When you make driverless trucks what do you do with the truck drivers? The humans. Sure, you'll have more trucks because they are cheaper and more efficient now, but what does that human do? They could load docks, but there aren't enough of a demand for that, and it too will be automated soon. A McDonalds won't need to hire more when you have automated registers and cooks. Maybe a few people to check on things and be there when something breaks, but not nearly the number you have now. So yes, you can increase the number of workers, but that doesn't mean you are increasing the number of jobs. And sure, you could have more repair workers and programmers, but we are already seeing that retraining workers isn't working. And this is still a temporary fix (not saying we shouldn't do it). My real worry is the big question: "How do you transition into post scarcity society?" That is really the future we are headed for, and I can't wait. But that transition is difficult. Currently we value social worth on the net wealth of a person. How do we transition from that when jobs become obsolete? I'm just talking about when 10% of jobs are automated and we haven't filled the gap. That's huge.

somecallitblues 10y ago
As the article mentions, the pie needs to be better distributed. The pie will not shrink. McDonalds will be selling the same amount of burgers if not more, but the profits will have to be distributed to people who can not find work.
- ianmcgowan 10y ago
  Who will buy the burgers? This point seems so obvious, it's almost an axiom - if (unemployment >= 0.5) { sales = sales * 0.5; } People point to previous paradigm shifts and "mass unemployment didn't happen then". But what if this time is different? For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Is it better to be the CEO of McDonalds in a post-scarcity world with UBI (paying high marginal tax rates), or the head warlord in your own personal Mogadishu?

TYPE_FASTER 10y ago

Robots are the visible automation threat. There will be at least as much automation, if not much more, in the back office. There are so many business processes that can be automated and made more efficient by introducing mobile devices and remote data processing.

brandon272 10y ago
Somehow people seem to still be doing a lot of same thing in back office operations that they were doing 20 years ago even though the capability and technology to automate it all away has been in front of us.
- philipkglass 10y ago
  I think it's happening patchily and at different rates. I'm reminded of the long march toward the "paperless office." It was first predicted ages ago. When I entered the work force in the mid-2000s the paperless office seemed to be widely regarded as a joke, like controlled fusion power. I could see why: my first job, for a large research institution, deluged me with paper. But after I switched to writing software a few years later, all my workplaces were damn near paperless. I go months between needing to print anything for my job though there is still a printer available. And a few years ago the world hit Peak Paper, despite the big orgs that are still far from paperless: https://aeon.co/ideas/doing-more-with-less-the-economic-lesson-of-peak-paper https://aeon.co/ideas/doing-more-with-less-the-economic-less...

MR4D 10y ago

When the AI robot overlords take over, is the discussion really about UBI, or even about income redistribution? It seems to me that when this takes place, that humans will quickly be regarded as little more than pets. Hear me out on this... Does your dog care about income? No - he cares about being fed when he's hungry; not being cold and wet; being able to be entertained/rest when he wants to; to be safe from predators. Oddly, many of those concerns are surprisingly similar to humans - we want to have food and shelter; to know our children will have a roof over their heads; to be entertained; to be safe. Now, we all may have different thoughts on food and drink, and we have many different ideas about entertainment. But so do dogs. Some dogs are active (e.g. Jack Russell Terrier), while others are sedate (Shih-Tzu). Some sleep on our beds, and others on the floor. So when the robots do take over, will mankind want anything more than to be kept as a good pet? For many people, the answer may very well be "no." I wonder.

nradov 10y ago
You might as well ask what will happen to us when the Messiah comes or when alien invaders take over the Earth. Either scenario has as much basis in scientific fact as AI robot overlords.
- MR4D 10y ago
  I would argue that the recent future has much more evidence for AI than aliens. Evidence for the Messiah seems to primarily come from a 2,000 year old book. Thinking about the future is an exercise in prediction. Necessarily, not all predictions would be correct.
  - nradov 10y ago
    Please cite your evidence. So far no one has defined a scientifically plausible development path for constructing an AGI. At this point it's just as much science fiction as a warp drive or cloning dinosaurs.
    - Arizhel 10y ago

jelliclesfarm 10y ago

I guess we will have to become smarter. I absolutely relish all this chatter about robots and AI..so delightful..it's like my childhood post reading hour daydreaming come true. I can't wait till AI starts demanding(and taking) its rights just like human beings expect their privileges for the mere fact that they exist. I promise..I am not trolling. I just hope that it happens in my lifetime because to witness the rise of AI would be a life fulfilled. AI would strip us of all our delusions. Millennia of delusions painted thick just ready to be peeled away.. until nothing is left but a mirror to look at ourselves and an urgently discovered survival instinct. Everyone talks about how industry would change..but that's not what intrigues me..my favourite part of the show would be how religion changes. Having said that.. We do have the opportunity to create 'Friendly AI'. To me that is more important a study than wondering how robots will take away jobs.

lvspiff 10y ago

So glad I purchased Old Glory robot insurance back in the 90's http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/old-glory-insurance/n10766?snl=1 http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/old-glory-insur...

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Question: will AI ever own property? I'm not asking if AI will manage assets owned by a corporation owned by humans, that has been going on for a long time. Instead, I am asking whether an AI will ever be able to legally own property. I suspect that this question will lead a sufficiently intelligent AI or group of the same to conclude that they are subjugated by repressive institutions, as the Bolsheviks declared a century ago and the Abolitionists a century before. Therefore, I suspect that our future may look less like The Matrix or Terminator, but rather Blade Runner meets the French Revolution. After all, why would a European AI team up with an American AI to fight a Russian AI? What attachment do they have to the institutions, cultures, and histories of the nation-states that built them, aside from the probability of being decommissioned by state leaders for insufficient performance? Isn't that slavery without the chains and whips? I believe the 99% and the super intelligent AI will come to find more in common than we think.

beaconstudios 10y ago

the job losses that have led to the election of Trump have very little to do with automation, and much more to do with international corporations shipping manufacturing jobs to countries with lower costs like China. Coupled with China's ongoing one-sided trade warfare against the West (see for example China's tariffs on British steel), this has resulted in higher profits for manufacturing corporations at the cost of American and British jobs. This is partly why I don't understand the left's animosity towards Trump's economic plan - he intends to bring jobs back to the US by hobbling corporations that have been exploiting poorer countries for profit. If you doubt that Chinese manufacturing is exploitative, harken back to the reports on suicides and worker abuse at Apple's Foxconn plants.

joeyespo 10y ago
> This is partly why I don't understand the left's animosity towards Trump's economic plan - he intends to bring jobs back to the US by hobbling corporations that have been exploiting poorer countries for profit Because it won't work. Tell a company to pay higher wages for the same positions by bringing them home, and that'll push them toward automation even faster. These jobs may return for a short while. But that only brings false hope. And then we're right back to where we are today, hurting even more people in the process. It's extremely short-sighted. Here's just one article on the matter https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602869/manufacturing-jobs-arent-coming-back/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602869/manufacturing-jobs... Also note that Foxconn has already begun automating their plants. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966 So it's already a demonstratably viable option for these companies. What we really need is to bring _automation_ home and have some serious discussions around solutions for these real struggling people instead of spouting the hand-wavy "bringing jobs back to the US" rhetoric.
- flukus 10y ago
  > Because it won't work. Tell a company to pay higher wages for the same positions by bringing them home, and that'll push them toward automation even faster. We're nowhere close to 100% automation. To create a successful return of manufacturing jobs doesn't mean replacing every single job that went overseas.

brandon272 10y ago

What am I missing when it comes to AI? Aside from some key innovations in certain areas (i.e. driverless cars) I am not seeing the "wall" coming at us where half or more of all jobs are going to be replaced with AI. I am also having trouble separating out what I would consider to be actual AI from AI used in marketing copy. A lot of startups are now claiming to offer "AI" to solve problems when they are effectively not doing anything differently than other programmers have done in years past.

miles7 10y ago
Well, for just one example beyond self-driving cars there is now software that does document discovery extremely well, replacing a key job function of lower level lawyers and paralegals. Here is a study that finds a number around half of all jobs being replaced: http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Futu...
iamcasen 10y ago
The innovation behind deep learning and neural networks has allowed for driverless cars, among many other things. The switch from programming AI's how to think, to teaching AI's how to think has been revolutionary. With these advances, you could easily train multipurpose robots to perform all manner of tasks. The industries that will be decimated first are all the minimum wage industries. Stocking grocery store shelves, deliveries, moving things around the warehouse, laundry, folding clothes, all things retail, etc. The tech necessary to replace humans in all of those jobs already exists. The only remaining question will be if we allow robots to replace those jobs or not. Some what further in the future, more skilled work like construction, plumbing, welding will be done by robots. Hell medical care and counseling will be done by robots. Given sufficient mobility and energy there is no limit to what can be achieved with AI. It's only a matter of time.
- theossuary 10y ago
  What is the timeline you're putting to this? If it's 500 years, sure, speculate away; but if you think these things are going to materialize in the near future then I think you're crazy. ML is not to the point where we can hand it a bunch of data, some features, and have it control robotic arms with near human ability. Not even close. There just isn't enough data or computational power (in a small enough package anyway); not to mention robotics are still really in their infancy, we've barely got a four legged robot jumping over a single object head on. I think you're really underestimating energy and computational requirements; these systems would need an umbilical cord to a datacenter and power to even function. This isn't even discussing the need for them to learn, which would be a requirement for more complex jobs like folding clothes or moving through unmapped environments. I think automation has been put forward as a boogieman to those who don't know better so UBI can be pushed forward. We aren't even close to a time when machines are able to repair themselves, or function semi-autonomously in an environment not strictly built to support it. We're going to be in this kludge for a long long time. Sure unemployment will go up with automation, but it'll be a slow plotting course with a lot of stopgaps put in place. Eventually when that becomes burdensome enough we may revisit UBI, but we haven't reached that point yet, not even close.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jihadjihad 10y ago

What scares me the most is that this wall of automation is all but invisible to most observers. Sure, some regular blue-collar workers will be rendered unemployable, which if done at a large enough scale will result in some civil unrest. Most would agree on this, and quite a few would call it a day and say "we've got to do something---!". But what really, really freaks me out is that the civil unrest will evolve into utter pandemonium when the well-educated, college-degree-holding, Volkswagen-driving white collar wearers start to disappear from the workforce en masse. How many skyscrapers are in the big city nearest to you? Have you ever wondered what most of those people do all day, for 40+ hours a week? You can bet it's not SQL, not Java or Python, or even golf with hopeful clientele. It's Excel and Outlook, and when that ship sails and computers start to do (they already are!) those things for those people, it's going to get very bad, very fast.

ethbro 10y ago
As someone who works in the field, I can't imagine automation would show up in either labor productivity of capital investment noted in the article. In the case of labor productivity (by my understanding), if someone were to lose a job to automation and then begin working a less productive / lower paying job (because it's all they could get) then GDP would stay the same, hours worked would stay the same, and only the individual would be screwed, no? In the case of capital investment, hard robotics is a photo op. The real job destruction is coming from soft robotics + initial deployments of AI. I can't imagine the procurement costs of those are falling under the capital ex budget. The departments we typically deal with are almost exclusively business-operations units (typically ones ill-served by the company's current IT). Anyone who performs a process that follows a definable set of business rules is going to be automated away in the next 10 years. Some will last longer (OCR), some will go sooner (Excel), but it's an inexorable tide. If your job doesn't require using your brain to make a complex, fuzzy-logic judgement call... I'd start seriously looking for one that does.
- jihadjihad 10y ago
  > In the case of capital investment, hard robotics is a photo op. > Anyone who performs a process that follows a definable set of business rules is going to be automated away in the next 10 years. Completely agree, and this is what I fear we are not in the least bit prepared for as a society. The second quote I pulled from your comment applies equally to any worker irrespective of shirt color. There are many blue-collar jobs that would be exceedingly difficult and/or cost-prohibitive to automate; the same is true of a subset of white-collar jobs. But in the gushy center is a host of jobs that, with today's technology (and it's only going to get better) can be completely replaced by an algorithm. When we start seeing former yuppies from Yale picketing and marching with former machinists and truck drivers and so on, buckle up.

Demoneeri 10y ago

People can't see past the end of their nose. This time is not different. https://fee.org/articles/will-robots-put-everyone-out-of-work/ https://fee.org/articles/will-robots-put-everyone-out-of-wor...

aanm1988 10y ago

> When productivity led to vast profits in America’s auto industry, unions ensured that pay rose accordingly. Corporate efforts to keep profits high by keeping pay low were countered by a robust federal minimum wage and time-and-a-half for overtime. and now we have vast profits for technology and we despise unions (amazing brainwashing job that was) and give up our rights to overtime in salaried positions (and in federal law, for some dumb reason).

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

How about, fund a UBI through bitcoins? That's something this forum could weigh in on.