4 ms·

We have a while longer until we don't have to work anymore, if that will even happen. What happens in an economy where jobs are automated, is that even more opp

We have a while longer until we don't have to work anymore, if that will even happen. What happens in an economy where jobs are automated, is that even more opportunities are being created for other types of jobs. Just because farming will be replaced with robots, doesn't mean those people will sit home doing nothing. They will get other jobs instead, and pay taxes from there. If the farmers themselves are buying the robots, then their companies will pay the taxes, since they'll have a business then.

hackinthebochs 15y ago
I don't get why people seem to have confidence that we'll find new ways to employ everyone when automation takes over. The whole point of automation is that it takes an order of magnitude less human labor to produce the same output. That's a lot of people to work at a McDonalds. The end game is that there will be jobs for no one. A humanoid robot can do any manual labor job potentially hundreds of times more efficiently than a human. Most white collar jobs could probably be replaced by a sufficiently advanced AI. We need to start at least thinking about the type of society that will be needed when significant human labor is no longer required. Just brushing it off by saying "they'll get other jobs" is burying your head in the sand.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I remember a story from a book (could've been Innovator's Dilemma, I don't remember), where he said that around 1900's I believe, they needed 200 humans to do a job, like carrying a big lumber from a cargo ship. Then cranes came about, and they could do the same job with just a handful of people, because most of the physical work was replaced by a crane. Fast forward to today, and we have to have done alright by replacing those jobs. As long as robots are not smarter than us and can't think for themselves, I believe there will still be plenty more jobs in the future to go around. There could literally be invented hundreds or thousands of jobs by the end of this century. Robots making iPhones is not some kind of huge milestone that could put humanity on the verge of collapse. Automation already exists for making cars for example. The net result of that was positive. This is just another transition.
  - hackinthebochs 15y ago
    I don't mean to come off as argumentative, and I certainly hope you're right. I just can't imagine the types of jobs people would pay for that could employ most of humanity in the age of robots. The way I see it, the economy is set up to provide us with necessities (food, water, shelter), entertainment (physical devices, creative output), and to connect businesses to each other, to more efficiently provide for previous mentioned things. Food, water, shelter, and physical devices the robots have a lock on. And most B2B industries will become obsolete because everything is dirt cheap to make anyways. You'll still need people to design devices and people for the creative output. The problem here is that creative output scales massively. It's a stretch to imagine an economy based solely on creative output. And you're still left with the problem of distributing the necessities. Only a handful of corporations will be responsible for producing the necessities. No one will have any "money" to buy them.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    I don't know if it's true that we've done alright. Realistically speaking, if you were employing 200 people to do something, and you can replace that job with ten people with ten cranes, you should be able to keep on paying 190 people — less the cost of the cranes — to stay at home and not work. Instead the difference goes into the pocket of the employer, and 190 people need to find new jobs or starve to death. This is the pattern we need to break. The problem is that the only economically feasible system in the long run is some kind of welfare state — at some point food will become so cheap that we have to give people free food — but it's absolutely politically infeasible to even talk about the ways that might be good.
    - nextparadigms 15y ago
      But if that ends up happening anyway (people finding other jobs), then what is wrong with it? Should we stop progress because we want everyone to keep their current jobs for life? The only "problem" that is see with this is when these shifts are on a massive scale and happen in a very short term. Because it has the potential to leave a lot of people unemployed before there is an alternative for them. So Governments might be able to help there with free training programs for jobs that are in demand and on a growth trend. If I look at the trends in the past, to me it seems automation has always led to more jobs. In the industrial revolution, 25 million jobs were lost, but 44 million were created. So you should always look at it from that point of view. The industrial revolution led to the progress of mankind, and it did kill a lot of jobs back then, but it also ended up creating a lot of new ones, too.

hackinthebochs 15y ago

I don't get why people seem to have confidence that we'll find new ways to employ everyone when automation takes over. The whole point of automation is that it takes an order of magnitude less human labor to produce the same output. That's a lot of people to work at a McDonalds. The end game is that there will be jobs for no one. A humanoid robot can do any manual labor job potentially hundreds of times more efficiently than a human. Most white collar jobs could probably be replaced by a sufficiently advanced AI. We need to start at least thinking about the type of society that will be needed when significant human labor is no longer required. Just brushing it off by saying "they'll get other jobs" is burying your head in the sand.

nextparadigms 15y ago
I remember a story from a book (could've been Innovator's Dilemma, I don't remember), where he said that around 1900's I believe, they needed 200 humans to do a job, like carrying a big lumber from a cargo ship. Then cranes came about, and they could do the same job with just a handful of people, because most of the physical work was replaced by a crane. Fast forward to today, and we have to have done alright by replacing those jobs. As long as robots are not smarter than us and can't think for themselves, I believe there will still be plenty more jobs in the future to go around. There could literally be invented hundreds or thousands of jobs by the end of this century. Robots making iPhones is not some kind of huge milestone that could put humanity on the verge of collapse. Automation already exists for making cars for example. The net result of that was positive. This is just another transition.
- hackinthebochs 15y ago
  I don't mean to come off as argumentative, and I certainly hope you're right. I just can't imagine the types of jobs people would pay for that could employ most of humanity in the age of robots. The way I see it, the economy is set up to provide us with necessities (food, water, shelter), entertainment (physical devices, creative output), and to connect businesses to each other, to more efficiently provide for previous mentioned things. Food, water, shelter, and physical devices the robots have a lock on. And most B2B industries will become obsolete because everything is dirt cheap to make anyways. You'll still need people to design devices and people for the creative output. The problem here is that creative output scales massively. It's a stretch to imagine an economy based solely on creative output. And you're still left with the problem of distributing the necessities. Only a handful of corporations will be responsible for producing the necessities. No one will have any "money" to buy them.
- Cushman 15y ago
  I don't know if it's true that we've done alright. Realistically speaking, if you were employing 200 people to do something, and you can replace that job with ten people with ten cranes, you should be able to keep on paying 190 people — less the cost of the cranes — to stay at home and not work. Instead the difference goes into the pocket of the employer, and 190 people need to find new jobs or starve to death. This is the pattern we need to break. The problem is that the only economically feasible system in the long run is some kind of welfare state — at some point food will become so cheap that we have to give people free food — but it's absolutely politically infeasible to even talk about the ways that might be good.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    But if that ends up happening anyway (people finding other jobs), then what is wrong with it? Should we stop progress because we want everyone to keep their current jobs for life? The only "problem" that is see with this is when these shifts are on a massive scale and happen in a very short term. Because it has the potential to leave a lot of people unemployed before there is an alternative for them. So Governments might be able to help there with free training programs for jobs that are in demand and on a growth trend. If I look at the trends in the past, to me it seems automation has always led to more jobs. In the industrial revolution, 25 million jobs were lost, but 44 million were created. So you should always look at it from that point of view. The industrial revolution led to the progress of mankind, and it did kill a lot of jobs back then, but it also ended up creating a lot of new ones, too.