5 ms·

Technology makes a convenient scapegoat though.

mfoy_ 9y ago
Especially because technology drives automation, and automation pushes us ever closer to a very difficult question: What, exactly, will happen when all jobs which can be automated, are automated?
- kruhft 9y ago
  The automators are automated.
  - ph0rque 9y ago
    But who will automate the automator automators?
    - murph-almighty 9y ago
      Alan Moore scribbles furiously
- rexpop 9y ago
  For a fun, fairly thorough look at four possible answers to this question, check out this book on Goodreads: "Four Futures: Life After Capitalism" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22551901-four-futures https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22551901-four-futures
- daanlo 9y ago
  Everyone will work in new jobs that are not yet automated. It is the fundamental of capitalism that we will find new ways to earn money (because we have to). I have no data on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than 50% of the jobs that existed in 1960 are automated today. That doens't mean 50% of the workforce are unemployed today.
  - vkou 9y ago
    > It is the fundamental of capitalism that we will find new ways to earn money You're fundamentally misunderstanding capitalism. Jobs are a negative side effect of a business making money. If, as a business owner, I can make money without employing anyone, I will happily do so. The fact that you need a job to make a living has no bearing on whether or not my business will employ you. When the automobile was invented, horses didn't get new jobs. We butchered them into horse steaks and glue.
    - lr4444lr 9y ago
      The horses were capital, not labor. Yes, jobs are a negative side effect, but the profits shareholders make from the savings when their companies automate jobs are spent or reinvested into demand-generating areas.
      - vkou 9y ago
        > The horses were capital, not labor. The horses were labor, and were fired once their labour was automated. Capital doesn't require pay every day - people and horses do. > Yes, jobs are a negative side effect, but the profits shareholders make from the savings when their companies automate jobs are spent or reinvested into demand-generating areas. It really doesn't. Say you replace your employees with robots. Obviously, this generates demand, because someone needs to build and repair the robots. But you know what generates demand? Paying your non-automated workers. Replacing them with robots generates less demand then just paying paying your employees. If replacing them weren't a cost savings, you wouldn't have done it! Productivity gains do result in demand growth, if you pass your cost savings on to customers, but only to a limited extent. Consider this example: I own a car. If automobile manufacturing became 10x more efficient, and cars dropped in price by a factor of ten, I wouldn't buy 9 new cars. This would reduce the amount of money that goes towards salaries of auto workers, or salaries of auto suppliers (Or salaries of auto robot suppliers) - without generating any extra demand.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
specialist 9y ago
Exactly. Timber industry (successfully) blamed the spotted owl for laying off workers. Rather than automation, foreign competition, reduced demand, etc.
rdiddly 9y ago
Glad to see this proven out somewhat, since in the back of my mind I've been thinking it all along, every time someone claims automation is going to eliminate more jobs. That's not how it works. When cars are made more fuel-efficient it results in our collectively using more gas, because of more miles driven. (The phenomenon has a name that I'm forgetting.) Obviously there are myriad ways of obfuscating what's really happening, and blaming technology is one of them. EDIT: The Jevons Paradox, thank you belated memory cells.

Especially because technology drives automation, and automation pushes us ever closer to a very difficult question: What, exactly, will happen when all jobs which can be automated, are automated?

kruhft 9y ago
The automators are automated.
- ph0rque 9y ago
  But who will automate the automator automators?
  - murph-almighty 9y ago
    Alan Moore scribbles furiously
rexpop 9y ago
For a fun, fairly thorough look at four possible answers to this question, check out this book on Goodreads: "Four Futures: Life After Capitalism" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22551901-four-futures https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22551901-four-futures
daanlo 9y ago
Everyone will work in new jobs that are not yet automated. It is the fundamental of capitalism that we will find new ways to earn money (because we have to). I have no data on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than 50% of the jobs that existed in 1960 are automated today. That doens't mean 50% of the workforce are unemployed today.
- vkou 9y ago
  > It is the fundamental of capitalism that we will find new ways to earn money You're fundamentally misunderstanding capitalism. Jobs are a negative side effect of a business making money. If, as a business owner, I can make money without employing anyone, I will happily do so. The fact that you need a job to make a living has no bearing on whether or not my business will employ you. When the automobile was invented, horses didn't get new jobs. We butchered them into horse steaks and glue.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    The horses were capital, not labor. Yes, jobs are a negative side effect, but the profits shareholders make from the savings when their companies automate jobs are spent or reinvested into demand-generating areas.
    - vkou 9y ago
      > The horses were capital, not labor. The horses were labor, and were fired once their labour was automated. Capital doesn't require pay every day - people and horses do. > Yes, jobs are a negative side effect, but the profits shareholders make from the savings when their companies automate jobs are spent or reinvested into demand-generating areas. It really doesn't. Say you replace your employees with robots. Obviously, this generates demand, because someone needs to build and repair the robots. But you know what generates demand? Paying your non-automated workers. Replacing them with robots generates less demand then just paying paying your employees. If replacing them weren't a cost savings, you wouldn't have done it! Productivity gains do result in demand growth, if you pass your cost savings on to customers, but only to a limited extent. Consider this example: I own a car. If automobile manufacturing became 10x more efficient, and cars dropped in price by a factor of ten, I wouldn't buy 9 new cars. This would reduce the amount of money that goes towards salaries of auto workers, or salaries of auto suppliers (Or salaries of auto robot suppliers) - without generating any extra demand.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago

specialist 9y ago

Exactly. Timber industry (successfully) blamed the spotted owl for laying off workers. Rather than automation, foreign competition, reduced demand, etc.

rdiddly 9y ago

Glad to see this proven out somewhat, since in the back of my mind I've been thinking it all along, every time someone claims automation is going to eliminate more jobs. That's not how it works. When cars are made more fuel-efficient it results in our collectively using more gas, because of more miles driven. (The phenomenon has a name that I'm forgetting.) Obviously there are myriad ways of obfuscating what's really happening, and blaming technology is one of them. EDIT: The Jevons Paradox, thank you belated memory cells.