5 ms·

When I hear people talking about the mass unemployment, all I can do is yawn. Wind back the clock 100 years and replace "robot" with "tractor" or "factory mach

When I hear people talking about the mass unemployment, all I can do is yawn. Wind back the clock 100 years and replace "robot" with "tractor" or "factory machine" and people made the same claims. They didn't see the jobs that would replace the jobs eliminated by the tractor. Centuries ago most Americans worked (many involuntarily) in agriculture. Most of those jobs were eliminated and replaced with jobs that didn't exist years ago. Even years ago, people were leaving the farm while other jobs were being created...like telephone company lineman or operator. Certainly jobs will be eliminated by automation. That's easy to see. But new jobs are always being created. The problem is that we don't know which jobs will be created, while the jobs being destroyed are tangible and exist right now.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
You can already see it is different this time, if you are unskilled then the opportunities are very thin and have been for some time.
alexc05 10y ago
I mean yes, to some extent you are right. People are generally resilient and society as a whole will undoubtedly bounce back over the course of the billions of people on the planet. With that said, there's nothing to say that we can't help manage the transition for the massive numbers of people who ARE expected to be effected by this. Consider the cost of retraining. Who would support going back to school? As a society we have the ability and resources to ensure people who do have their livelihoods automated aren't rendered homeless by a sudden unexpected loss of income. We see the job losses on the horizon and we can plan ahead for it. We can yawn "because tractors" or we can start building out the social safety net now so we get out ahead of it. New jobs will undoubtedly arise to take the role of those jobs being automated now, but the change isn't necessarily immediate, 1:1, or optimally geo-located. We need schemes in place in order to support the transition period. Retraining, mobility, nutrition, shelter could all need stop-gaps to prevent catastrophe for some populations. Much of Monica's research is finding that women, minorities and populations which are currently "at-risk" already are expected to be disproportionately affected by the coming wave of automation. Lower education & working poor are going to get hit badly by this. Consider for example Detroit, Consider "coal country" - the it's not as easy to say "because tractors" to the real people who are suddenly out of work in a city or state where the entire economy just dried up. Maybe they were already living paycheck-to-paycheck, maybe their nest-egg investment in their house suddenly became worthless because nobody needs to move to town anymore. Maybe after 30 or 40 years at the plant they're close to retirement, but have deeply specialized in something where they can't generalize their existing skills. And so on. "because tractors" is very little comfort to them. "People" will be fine in general, "these people" quite specifically will be devastated. Maybe there's a role for legislation that requires companies reducing workforce to support those former employees for longer?
baursak 10y ago
> Certainly jobs will be eliminated by automation. That's easy to see. But new jobs are always being created. The problem is that we don't know which jobs will be created, while the jobs being destroyed are tangible and exist right now. How about more prison guard jobs? Incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1925, so that's a nice way to take care of unemployment twice -- for both inmates and their guards. Tractors still needed to be driven by humans. It's like the horse carriage example. Yes, horse carriages were replaced by cars, and human horse carriage drivers were replaced by human car drivers. But what the hell happened to all the horses? With AI, humans are the horses! If you don't think that effects of automation are felt yet, you should check out the last presidential election.
nodamage 10y ago
I think this is naive. All of your historical examples involve the replacement of unskilled labor with more unskilled labor. Now we're talking about automation removing unskilled labor entirely from the job pool. Sure, there will be jobs that remain, but those will require a high degree of education/training, and the question is what do we do with the people that don't have the skills to get any of those jobs? I think the perspective of "this time it's different" could very well be true when it comes to labor and automation.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago

You can already see it is different this time, if you are unskilled then the opportunities are very thin and have been for some time.

alexc05 10y ago

I mean yes, to some extent you are right. People are generally resilient and society as a whole will undoubtedly bounce back over the course of the billions of people on the planet. With that said, there's nothing to say that we can't help manage the transition for the massive numbers of people who ARE expected to be effected by this. Consider the cost of retraining. Who would support going back to school? As a society we have the ability and resources to ensure people who do have their livelihoods automated aren't rendered homeless by a sudden unexpected loss of income. We see the job losses on the horizon and we can plan ahead for it. We can yawn "because tractors" or we can start building out the social safety net now so we get out ahead of it. New jobs will undoubtedly arise to take the role of those jobs being automated now, but the change isn't necessarily immediate, 1:1, or optimally geo-located. We need schemes in place in order to support the transition period. Retraining, mobility, nutrition, shelter could all need stop-gaps to prevent catastrophe for some populations. Much of Monica's research is finding that women, minorities and populations which are currently "at-risk" already are expected to be disproportionately affected by the coming wave of automation. Lower education & working poor are going to get hit badly by this. Consider for example Detroit, Consider "coal country" - the it's not as easy to say "because tractors" to the real people who are suddenly out of work in a city or state where the entire economy just dried up. Maybe they were already living paycheck-to-paycheck, maybe their nest-egg investment in their house suddenly became worthless because nobody needs to move to town anymore. Maybe after 30 or 40 years at the plant they're close to retirement, but have deeply specialized in something where they can't generalize their existing skills. And so on. "because tractors" is very little comfort to them. "People" will be fine in general, "these people" quite specifically will be devastated. Maybe there's a role for legislation that requires companies reducing workforce to support those former employees for longer?

baursak 10y ago

> Certainly jobs will be eliminated by automation. That's easy to see. But new jobs are always being created. The problem is that we don't know which jobs will be created, while the jobs being destroyed are tangible and exist right now. How about more prison guard jobs? Incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1925, so that's a nice way to take care of unemployment twice -- for both inmates and their guards. Tractors still needed to be driven by humans. It's like the horse carriage example. Yes, horse carriages were replaced by cars, and human horse carriage drivers were replaced by human car drivers. But what the hell happened to all the horses? With AI, humans are the horses! If you don't think that effects of automation are felt yet, you should check out the last presidential election.

nodamage 10y ago

I think this is naive. All of your historical examples involve the replacement of unskilled labor with more unskilled labor. Now we're talking about automation removing unskilled labor entirely from the job pool. Sure, there will be jobs that remain, but those will require a high degree of education/training, and the question is what do we do with the people that don't have the skills to get any of those jobs? I think the perspective of "this time it's different" could very well be true when it comes to labor and automation.