4 ms·

I'm with you on that concern, but on the other hand, it wouldn't be the first time society has seen a rapid mechanisation of significant parts of the economy (e

I'm with you on that concern, but on the other hand, it wouldn't be the first time society has seen a rapid mechanisation of significant parts of the economy (e.g., agrarian workers, textiles workers). Yet every time it happens, there's a reorganisation, and eventually the people (or the kinds of people) who did those jobs are employed doing new things. Is there some reason why everything is suddenly different this time? Here's a couple of ways that spring to my mind, for how society could absorb the labor that would be freed up if driver automation happened: - As increasing numbers of professional people around the world are becoming cash rich but time-poor, there is, and should continue to be, a growing demand for people to provide domestic services like cleaning, home maintenance, personal administration tasks, child-care, etc. - As the number of machines continue to grow, there will be growing demand for people to work on the machines. Whether it's designing, programming, manufacturing, testing, transporting, fitting, servicing, cleaning, replacing, or disposing of the machines, there will be plenty of work for people of all kinds of aptitude.

kasey_junk 9y ago
No and thats precisely what is worrying. Those massive switches in the past have come with all manner of social unrest, revolutions, war and changes to the basic fabric of daily life. We are just now seeing the impact of the introduction of computers into the workforce and that is causing all manner of issues, but the response to that so far is the best case scenario when compared to say the industrial revolutions 300 years of massive change.
- drzaiusapelord 9y ago
  >come with all manner of social unrest, revolutions, war and changes to the basic fabric of daily life. No need to be a Pollyanna. Unemployment rallies didn't lead to war, they were just unpleasant. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/081024-great-depression-photogallery-photogallery.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/081024-great-depressi... Economies are constantly changing and retraining and job migration are our norm, not our exception. Regardless of the current political climate, the reality is that you're not entitled to keep a job in some dying industry. Change has always been here, as much as we try to deny it. Hence the admission that we can't keep this train running and things like UBI are becoming politically feasible.
  - kasey_junk 9y ago
    The thing people are worried about is not a particular industry dying or a market change like the Great Depression (though there are people that argue that the Great Depression, especially in a global context, was a major contributor to WWII) that corrects back into a similar economy. They are worried about a systematic removal of jobs at a massive rate, across the spectrum. So for instance, if you look at agriculture workers in the US it took from 1910 to ~ 2000 to get from 30% of the economy employed in farm work to ~2% (which is likely the minimum). Along the way you saw the massive labor unrest, cities had to be completely re-engineered, civil rights and family restructuring, 2 World Wars, etc. It is a reasonable fear that something like driver-less cars, which could impact a similar number of employees, could have just as big an impact, in a shorter time frame and that might not be all for the good. Its also possible that it was other factors that led to all that turmoil, or that we are better at societal change now, or that there is some new technology around the bend that gets unleashed due to this that prevents similar problems this time around. All of those are reasonable reasons to be optimistic (Pollyanna-ish if you will), but they don't cancel out the reasonable reasons to be pessimistic.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    The Great Depression also played a part in the rise of nazism and fascism, and the abject terror of communism on the part of the rest of the world. And the rise of socialism in many of them. And the Great Depression wasn't an industrialization-related economic shift; it was more of a hiccup following the tectonic shifts in the nineteenth century part of the industrial revolution.
    - drzaiusapelord 9y ago
      >And the Great Depression wasn't an industrialization-related economic shift; Again, that's not my point. It was large amounts of unemployment up to 50% in urban areas. If the GP is correct it should have led to a civil war, but it didn't.
      - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Numberwang 9y ago
Good ideas. My worry this time is that low level jobs are disappearing and they are not coming back. This differs from before as there has always been other low level jobs to switch to. When all the truckers lose their jobs they will not all suddenly be able to be project managers or accountants.
maxerickson 9y ago
Agricultural mechanization was driven by a lack of labor. People moved to cities seeking better jobs in industry, not because there were no jobs on the farm.
- mcguire 9y ago
  There is a cycle. They reason they needed better jobs was the falling prices of agricultural products due to mechanization.

kasey_junk 9y ago

No and thats precisely what is worrying. Those massive switches in the past have come with all manner of social unrest, revolutions, war and changes to the basic fabric of daily life. We are just now seeing the impact of the introduction of computers into the workforce and that is causing all manner of issues, but the response to that so far is the best case scenario when compared to say the industrial revolutions 300 years of massive change.

drzaiusapelord 9y ago
>come with all manner of social unrest, revolutions, war and changes to the basic fabric of daily life. No need to be a Pollyanna. Unemployment rallies didn't lead to war, they were just unpleasant. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/081024-great-depression-photogallery-photogallery.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/081024-great-depressi... Economies are constantly changing and retraining and job migration are our norm, not our exception. Regardless of the current political climate, the reality is that you're not entitled to keep a job in some dying industry. Change has always been here, as much as we try to deny it. Hence the admission that we can't keep this train running and things like UBI are becoming politically feasible.
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  The thing people are worried about is not a particular industry dying or a market change like the Great Depression (though there are people that argue that the Great Depression, especially in a global context, was a major contributor to WWII) that corrects back into a similar economy. They are worried about a systematic removal of jobs at a massive rate, across the spectrum. So for instance, if you look at agriculture workers in the US it took from 1910 to ~ 2000 to get from 30% of the economy employed in farm work to ~2% (which is likely the minimum). Along the way you saw the massive labor unrest, cities had to be completely re-engineered, civil rights and family restructuring, 2 World Wars, etc. It is a reasonable fear that something like driver-less cars, which could impact a similar number of employees, could have just as big an impact, in a shorter time frame and that might not be all for the good. Its also possible that it was other factors that led to all that turmoil, or that we are better at societal change now, or that there is some new technology around the bend that gets unleashed due to this that prevents similar problems this time around. All of those are reasonable reasons to be optimistic (Pollyanna-ish if you will), but they don't cancel out the reasonable reasons to be pessimistic.
- mcguire 9y ago
  The Great Depression also played a part in the rise of nazism and fascism, and the abject terror of communism on the part of the rest of the world. And the rise of socialism in many of them. And the Great Depression wasn't an industrialization-related economic shift; it was more of a hiccup following the tectonic shifts in the nineteenth century part of the industrial revolution.
  - drzaiusapelord 9y ago
    >And the Great Depression wasn't an industrialization-related economic shift; Again, that's not my point. It was large amounts of unemployment up to 50% in urban areas. If the GP is correct it should have led to a civil war, but it didn't.
    - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Numberwang 9y ago

Good ideas. My worry this time is that low level jobs are disappearing and they are not coming back. This differs from before as there has always been other low level jobs to switch to. When all the truckers lose their jobs they will not all suddenly be able to be project managers or accountants.

maxerickson 9y ago

Agricultural mechanization was driven by a lack of labor. People moved to cities seeking better jobs in industry, not because there were no jobs on the farm.

mcguire 9y ago
There is a cycle. They reason they needed better jobs was the falling prices of agricultural products due to mechanization.