9 ms·

at some point, we will need to acknowledge that there is simply not enough work to keep everybody gainfully employed 40+ hours a week. Seems unlikely. We've b

by pg 15y ago

at some point, we will need to acknowledge that there is simply not enough work to keep everybody gainfully employed 40+ hours a week. Seems unlikely. We've been eliminating jobs with labor-saving devices for centuries. In the past they've always created as many jobs as they destroyed. What are the odds that this moment is the point when that finally stops happening?

Alex3917 15y ago
"What are the odds that this moment is the point when that finally stops happening?" The problem is that the amount of value that could hypothetically be created isn't the limiting factor. Rather, there are at least a dozen different structural forces that are all aligning to prevent people who want to work from connecting with companies that want to create jobs. And while these problems could theoretically be removed with the stroke of a pen, they probably won't be for another few decades, at least in the U.S.
- danking00 15y ago
  Could you elaborate on these dozen or more structural forces?
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    I'm working on writing this up in a blog post, but it'll take a while. I'm trying to take a data-driven look at the major structural problems with America, but there are just way too many of them. But specifically for jobs there are a lot of limiting factors that stem from the ways we currently approach education, parenting, infrastructure, healthcare, mental health, the criminal justice system, immigration, poverty, the environment, the military, etc. E.g. if you look at the literacy levels in America, it should be pretty obvious why this is an issue: http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.PDF http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.PDF
paulcedars 15y ago
Yes, but these new jobs are often a long-term thing, and the economy must undergo enormous structural changes for them to form. The US underwent enormous economic and societal changes in its move from an agriculture-based economy to a manufacturing-based one.
neutronicus 15y ago
Seems unlikely. We've been eliminating jobs with labor-saving devices for centuries. In the past they've always created as many jobs as they destroyed. What are the odds that this moment is the point when that finally stops happening? Perhaps we're butting up against limits on the amount of energy per unit time available to the economy in a way that we haven't in the past couple centuries?
cameldrv 15y ago
The problem now is this: If you are a low skilled worker at this point in the U.S., you're likely to be either not conscientious, or dumb. For very low skilled jobs, automation can do the job better than a poor quality worker, because it is predictable and consistent. For jobs that still can't be automated, many of them can be done remotely, and are now done in lower labor cost countries by ambitious, conscientious workers. Jobs that can't be done remotely are being filled by illegal immigrants who are also ambitious, conscientious workers. If you are at the bottom of the American labor heap, you have never faced competition from machines, globalization, and immigration like you have now. The problem is not just that the alternatives to low-end domestic labor are cheaper, but that they are higher quality, and therefore push the price of low quality domestic labor to near zero. In the long-term, as machines become able to do more jobs better than humans, people will simply not be willing to pay any price for an error-prone human to do a worse job than a cheap machine. Then, low skilled humans will only be employed in jobs that can only be performed by humans, such as prostitution.
- paulcedars 15y ago
  What happens when machines and outsourcing eliminate the need for most American doctors, lawyers, drivers, teachers, and other skilled professions. We can't have a prostitution-based economy.
  - iaskwhy 15y ago
    It might take a long time to reach that possibility since public facing automations usually require a human near the robot for the comfort of the other humans using the service. Think: pilots on airplanes (mostly not necessary), trains drivers (not necessary at all), human ticket dispensers (not necessary at all). Just thinking out loud.
  - nasmorn 15y ago
    I think a well done cyborg prostitute could make prostitution more mass market. No way to make it illegal, guilt free and 100% sanitizeable. And lets be honest, a for pay 15min intercourse just doesn't benefit that much from the human touch. Plus you can make em look like manga characters or whatever. Big opportunity ahead.
bbq 15y ago
Perhaps we're moving too fast now.
quandrum 15y ago
>We've been eliminating jobs with labor-saving devices for centuries. In the past they've always created as many jobs as they destroyed This seems dubious. The avg. work week has been decreasing for a long time. It was only a century ago that significant amounts of <10 year olds were working, and the average work week was twice as long. Now it's slipping towards 30 hours a week. This seems to just to continue that trend. It's becoming less likely that <20 year olds will have ever held a job. I can't see it getting any better as boomers get older and refuse to give up their jobs.
rjprins 15y ago
It is save to say that in no point in time have so many people worked so little while being so rich. That contradicts that automation creates as many jobs as it destroys. We are not talking about a 'point' where the 40 hour week stops. It is a gradual decline in the amount of human labor, which has been going on for centuries. Automation means just that. Thinking that work can forever shift towards other areas is stated on the assumptions that: 1. Not everything can be automated. 2. Human need will always grow to accommodate supply. Now more than ever, you should question nr. 1. And in the areas that prove difficult to automate (e.g. education, law, healthcare, design..) there really is only so much work. (Except for law, maybe.) Regarding the second assumption, when I look at highly educated people (which in my eyes, represent what in the future modal educated people will be like), they recognize desire as something that should be limited. They know that more money does not make you happier. Some even find a lot of joy in living simple and frugal.
- neutronicus 15y ago
  2. Human need will always grow to accommodate supply. It's been doing a good job so far. If there's enough of something, we tend to multiply until there isn't. You also seem to take it as given that "supply" is constrained by available human labor (and the efficiency of its application) and not by the power output of the Planet Earth. (You may, of course, be correct. I have absolutely no idea how one would even go about refining such an assertion enough to test it).
- pg 15y ago
  1 and 2 are true now and it seems they'll remain true for the foreseeable future. There may be bottomless demand in healthcare alone.
  - groby_b 15y ago
    The cynic in me supplies that with "if there's bottomless money for health care, which there isn't".
groby_b 15y ago
This argument, IMHO, does not hold water. If it's happening at all, it's bound to happen at some point. We're just the people who live at that point in time. So what you're asking is, "what are the odds we're living now". Since we're (presumably ;) alive, they're 100%.

by pg 15y ago

Alex3917 15y ago

"What are the odds that this moment is the point when that finally stops happening?" The problem is that the amount of value that could hypothetically be created isn't the limiting factor. Rather, there are at least a dozen different structural forces that are all aligning to prevent people who want to work from connecting with companies that want to create jobs. And while these problems could theoretically be removed with the stroke of a pen, they probably won't be for another few decades, at least in the U.S.

danking00 15y ago
Could you elaborate on these dozen or more structural forces?
- Alex3917 15y ago
  I'm working on writing this up in a blog post, but it'll take a while. I'm trying to take a data-driven look at the major structural problems with America, but there are just way too many of them. But specifically for jobs there are a lot of limiting factors that stem from the ways we currently approach education, parenting, infrastructure, healthcare, mental health, the criminal justice system, immigration, poverty, the environment, the military, etc. E.g. if you look at the literacy levels in America, it should be pretty obvious why this is an issue: http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.PDF http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.PDF

paulcedars 15y ago

Yes, but these new jobs are often a long-term thing, and the economy must undergo enormous structural changes for them to form. The US underwent enormous economic and societal changes in its move from an agriculture-based economy to a manufacturing-based one.

neutronicus 15y ago

Seems unlikely. We've been eliminating jobs with labor-saving devices for centuries. In the past they've always created as many jobs as they destroyed. What are the odds that this moment is the point when that finally stops happening? Perhaps we're butting up against limits on the amount of energy per unit time available to the economy in a way that we haven't in the past couple centuries?

cameldrv 15y ago

The problem now is this: If you are a low skilled worker at this point in the U.S., you're likely to be either not conscientious, or dumb. For very low skilled jobs, automation can do the job better than a poor quality worker, because it is predictable and consistent. For jobs that still can't be automated, many of them can be done remotely, and are now done in lower labor cost countries by ambitious, conscientious workers. Jobs that can't be done remotely are being filled by illegal immigrants who are also ambitious, conscientious workers. If you are at the bottom of the American labor heap, you have never faced competition from machines, globalization, and immigration like you have now. The problem is not just that the alternatives to low-end domestic labor are cheaper, but that they are higher quality, and therefore push the price of low quality domestic labor to near zero. In the long-term, as machines become able to do more jobs better than humans, people will simply not be willing to pay any price for an error-prone human to do a worse job than a cheap machine. Then, low skilled humans will only be employed in jobs that can only be performed by humans, such as prostitution.

paulcedars 15y ago
What happens when machines and outsourcing eliminate the need for most American doctors, lawyers, drivers, teachers, and other skilled professions. We can't have a prostitution-based economy.
- iaskwhy 15y ago
  It might take a long time to reach that possibility since public facing automations usually require a human near the robot for the comfort of the other humans using the service. Think: pilots on airplanes (mostly not necessary), trains drivers (not necessary at all), human ticket dispensers (not necessary at all). Just thinking out loud.
- nasmorn 15y ago
  I think a well done cyborg prostitute could make prostitution more mass market. No way to make it illegal, guilt free and 100% sanitizeable. And lets be honest, a for pay 15min intercourse just doesn't benefit that much from the human touch. Plus you can make em look like manga characters or whatever. Big opportunity ahead.

bbq 15y ago

Perhaps we're moving too fast now.

quandrum 15y ago

>We've been eliminating jobs with labor-saving devices for centuries. In the past they've always created as many jobs as they destroyed This seems dubious. The avg. work week has been decreasing for a long time. It was only a century ago that significant amounts of <10 year olds were working, and the average work week was twice as long. Now it's slipping towards 30 hours a week. This seems to just to continue that trend. It's becoming less likely that <20 year olds will have ever held a job. I can't see it getting any better as boomers get older and refuse to give up their jobs.

rjprins 15y ago

It is save to say that in no point in time have so many people worked so little while being so rich. That contradicts that automation creates as many jobs as it destroys. We are not talking about a 'point' where the 40 hour week stops. It is a gradual decline in the amount of human labor, which has been going on for centuries. Automation means just that. Thinking that work can forever shift towards other areas is stated on the assumptions that: 1. Not everything can be automated. 2. Human need will always grow to accommodate supply. Now more than ever, you should question nr. 1. And in the areas that prove difficult to automate (e.g. education, law, healthcare, design..) there really is only so much work. (Except for law, maybe.) Regarding the second assumption, when I look at highly educated people (which in my eyes, represent what in the future modal educated people will be like), they recognize desire as something that should be limited. They know that more money does not make you happier. Some even find a lot of joy in living simple and frugal.

neutronicus 15y ago
2. Human need will always grow to accommodate supply. It's been doing a good job so far. If there's enough of something, we tend to multiply until there isn't. You also seem to take it as given that "supply" is constrained by available human labor (and the efficiency of its application) and not by the power output of the Planet Earth. (You may, of course, be correct. I have absolutely no idea how one would even go about refining such an assertion enough to test it).
pg 15y ago
1 and 2 are true now and it seems they'll remain true for the foreseeable future. There may be bottomless demand in healthcare alone.
- groby_b 15y ago
  The cynic in me supplies that with "if there's bottomless money for health care, which there isn't".

groby_b 15y ago

This argument, IMHO, does not hold water. If it's happening at all, it's bound to happen at some point. We're just the people who live at that point in time. So what you're asking is, "what are the odds we're living now". Since we're (presumably ;) alive, they're 100%.