5 ms·
how much of the work force will automation eventually render permanently unemployed? i'm not a luddite - i think this is inevitable and there's no point resisti
by exit 16y ago
how much of the work force will automation eventually render permanently unemployed? i'm not a luddite - i think this is inevitable and there's no point resisting it. but some of the consequences might be worth thinking through.
- TY 16y agoYou might want to check out this book, available as free PDF download: http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ Quote: Where will advancing technology, job automation, outsourcing and globalization lead? Is it possible that accelerating computer technology was a primary cause of the current global economic crisis—and that even more disruptive impacts lie ahead? This groundbreaking book by a Silicon Valley computer engineer and entrepreneur explores these questions and shows how accelerating technology is likely to have a highly disruptive influence on our economy in the near future—and may well already be a significant factor in the current global crisis.
- Raphael 16y agoRedistribute some wealth from those profiting from automation to the unemployed.
- cmelbye 16y agoWhy?
- philwelch 16y agoThere are lots of arguments for wealth redistribution, but they boil down to two. One of them is that socialism is just. I find that absurd--socialism is unjust. The other argument is as follows: if there are enough of them and they get poor and desperate enough, they will burn down our houses, rape and murder our loved ones, and smash all of our things to bits. If things get bad enough, there will be a revolution and they will kill us all. That is not in our best interest.
- encoderer 16y agoExactly right. The reason I'm replying, though, is that I wanted to opine that a Social Safety Net != Socialism. Two of the largest vectors of wealth redistriubution in the last couple years are extended UIC and subsidized health/COBRA benefits. I think it's quite difficult to argue that we'd be better of having these 30MM unemployed people without ANY income or ANY health coverage. If for no other reason than that's 30 MM fewer consumers.
- pbiggar 16y agoAssume that the logical conclusion of robots doing people's job is that nobody will have a job. Since that means that nobody will eat (or buy the things that the robots are making), we will need to at some point separate the acts of earning money from doing work. Put another way, we should aim for a world in which nobody works, as the robots are doing all the work.
- cmelbye 16y agoThat's not what this is, though. This is just factory workers that put a box on a cart for 70 hours a week losing their jobs because a robot can do it more efficiently. We're far off from robots creating robots that do things like that, so there are always going to be other jobs until then. They can find other jobs that are actually productive and worthwhile. This is why I find redistribution of wealth so ridiculous; there has to be someone working to generate wealth for himself, so why can't others just work like he is so they can generate their own wealth rather than stealing his?
- pbiggar 16y agoThis is the start of people being moved out of jobs to be replaced by robots. Think 50 years into the future. > This is why I find redistribution of wealth so ridiculous I don't think HN is the place for socialist vs capitalist debates. The loaded language you are using, such as 'stealing', completely ignores a massively complex debate. The correct balance of 'stealing' vs 'starving in the street' has eluded the world's smartest people for decades; I wouldn't expect to solve it in this comment box.
- avar 16y agoIt's only because of our crazy and short-term way of looking at things that this is even considered a problem. People losing their jobs because robots replace menial warehouse jobs is a good thing. They can move onto doing more worthwhile tasks.
- natrius 16y agoWhat happens when robots can do more worthwhile tasks than a wide swath of humanity? This point doesn't seem very far away. There are tons of jobs that don't require creativity, and those don't seem long for this world.
- Dove 16y agoThe jobs available in the post-robotic-revolution world and the necessary skills haven't yet been thought of. Once upon a time, most people were illiterate.
- natrius 16y agoMost people were illiterate in the past because they didn't go to school. I don't think it makes sense to assume that some magical force will make people useful for non-automatable tasks in the future. Unless we achieve major breakthroughs in education, a large portion of society will be less capable than cheaper robots, and will therefore be unemployable.
- jonhohle 16y agoIts interesting to think that the Robot/Human wars could be purely political (low-income workers and unions fighting for jobs against automation).
- modeless 16y agoMost people didn't go to school because they worked in agricultural jobs that didn't require education. In 1870 half the country worked on farms [1]; today it's <2% [2]. From that statistic alone you can see that half the country has been educated for new jobs over the past 140 years. Market forces aren't "magical"; they're real and they work. I don't think it makes sense to assume market forces will magically stop working in the future. [1] http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/11/art2full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/11/art2full.pdf [2] http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/extension.html http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/extension.html
- rwhitman 16y agoI heard a figure somewhere that something like 1/4 of all jobs shed during the recession will never be replaced due to automation...