6 ms·

So? Ever since the industrial revolution new technology has obsoleted jobs. 98% of us used to be farmers. Excel put gazillions of book-keepers out of work. But

by retube 5y ago

So? Ever since the industrial revolution new technology has obsoleted jobs. 98% of us used to be farmers. Excel put gazillions of book-keepers out of work. But we're still at basically full employment: there's thousands of jobs now no one could have conceived of 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Self-driving cars (if indeed they actually materialise) will be hugely transformative for society, and create whole new businesses and industries, i.e. new jobs to replace the old. Progress fundamentally relies on this "creative destruction", without it we'd still be in caves scavenging for nuts and berries. Edit: it's kind of bonkers that pointing out the basic mechanics of technological progress is getting downvoted on a site like HN, where I imagine most of us are gainfully employed trying to do just this.

credittw2021 5y ago
Otoh the last few decades have led to automation replacing well paying jobs with mcJobs.
- retube 5y ago
  Maybe in some localised areas. Globally tho absolutely not; in recent years huge numbers of people have been pulled into the middle classes, probably a 1bn+ in India and China, and Africa is now the fastest growing economy, with the world bank expecting most countries to reach "middle income" status by 2025.
- JoachimS 5y ago
  And replacing entry level academic jobs with machines - adding a barrier of entry for freshly baked lawyers.
derekjdanserl 5y ago
>So? So much for humanity benefitting from technology. Instead of our workdays becoming fewer and shorter, a tiny number of people who don’t work at all will become richer while our lives become more alienated from our labor. This is the opposite of what we tell each other technology is supposed to accomplish. If it’s not a problem, why do we keep lying about?
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  You are describing some speculative future that doesn't really correlate with historical progress. Same could've been said about the industrial revolution, but somehow it did end up dramatically benefitting all of humanity.
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    Again, that is the story we well, but it’s a very reckless claim. Generations in early industrialization who still remembered life as a peasant almost universally preferred life as a peasant. Industrialization’s need for labor forced other peasants from their land to build competing modern nation states. Very few people asked for this and only a small wealthy few would tell you that dragging these people into brutal toiling factory labor improved everybody’s lives, but those are the people who funded the history books.
    - ilikerashers 5y ago
      The Industrial Revolution also played a heavy hand in WW1 and Industrial Warfare. I don't think anyone is saying progress is wrong. Unfettered capitalism which robs people of their rights and alienates people from society is disastrous. Putting an algorithm to treat people like machines is not innovation. Uber Eats is not our generations "spinning jenny". They should be forced to provide basic working benefits.
    - FDSGSG 5y ago
      I don't think anyone is arguing that the transitory periods aren't difficult, but the reality is that very few people would choose to trade their current existence for the life of a pre-industrialization peasant if they actually knew what that implied.
- retube 5y ago
  > Instead of our workdays becoming fewer and shorter, If that happened any increase in productivity would be offset by the reduced time worked, so no one would get richer (very simplistically). At the end of the day, humans are competitive, so of course hours worked will never really reduce, but it's that competition which drives innovation And we're all getting richer. Sure there's more billionaires then ever, but if we're all getting richer so what? (and yes we are getting richer: the economic progress in Asia and Africa over the last two decades has been incredible. And the west continues to develop also. The world is richer than it has ever been)
JoachimS 5y ago
The fallacy here is to assume that, because this is what have happened before, it will always happen in the future. Yes, farming got efficient with tractors, allowing farmers to move to the cities to fill jobs in factories that was starting up at the dawn of the mass production and industrial revolution. But that does not mean that all future resources (i.e. humans) being freed due to automation, tech development will have new jobs to move to. That there are jobs suitable for humans created. That humans are needed as part of production of goods, services, content etc. Also I would love to see a reference to why progress rely on creative destruction. Please provide pointers.
Epa095 5y ago
I am also mildly positive, but also quite worried, for the following reasons. 1: Its easy to make fun of the luddites which fought the mills and against progress, but for many of them it was a real fight for their life, and many got thrown out in deep poverty. Society as a whole progressed yes, but many got it significantly worse for the rest of their lives. Maybe their kids, or eventually their kids kids got a better life for it. We must not be so naive that we dont think the same will happen (/ is happening now). 2: Not everyone is cut out to be developers/nurses/teachers/whatever-the-future-job-is. Many are, but not all. How do we take care of these boys(and some girls) which before would go to sea, or work at a farm, or do whatever simple job they could get? Maybe in the end it will all "settle down" in a good way, but we live now, not then. 3: It affects the "power struggle" between labour and capital. Its easier to move machines than people. Robots dont strike. Yes, you need a few expensive engineers, but in a world where soon "everyone" has a MSc they are not *that* hard to replace if they get too demanding. 4: And related to the last, as a society we collectively produce a bunch of stuff, and we have decided that selling our labour is the way to distribute this wealth. Automation produces more stuff, but reduces the value of labour. Will we find a way to handle this?
- pc86 5y ago
  1. I struggle not to just respond "So?" to this one as well. Society progressing is the goal, isn't it? There will always be people in poverty. Poverty caused by AI isn't worse than poverty caused by industrial or agricultural automation, and it isn't worse than poverty caused by the fact you're born in a family of serfs instead of lords. 2. It will all settle down eventually, it always does. The poorest today have access to more food, education, and (usually) healthcare than even the rich just a few centuries ago. Being knocked to steerage of a quickly rising ship isn't a death sentence. 3 (and 4). Isn't this just more of the same compared to the industrial revolution? The cotton gin certainly shifted the power struggle more toward capital but I don't think anyone today would argue we should be processing all our textiles by hand.
- popcube 5y ago
  don't worry, government will wait people starve and dead...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
FredPret 5y ago
People are scared, which is understandable. These great technological leaps aren’t called revolutions for nothing
AussieWog93 5y ago
I don't disagree with you necessarily, but I think what's different this time is that the entire system is build from the ground up with the explicit intention of replacing workers with machines. There isn't even the pretense of dignity in employment.

by retube 5y ago

credittw2021 5y ago

Otoh the last few decades have led to automation replacing well paying jobs with mcJobs.

retube 5y ago
Maybe in some localised areas. Globally tho absolutely not; in recent years huge numbers of people have been pulled into the middle classes, probably a 1bn+ in India and China, and Africa is now the fastest growing economy, with the world bank expecting most countries to reach "middle income" status by 2025.
JoachimS 5y ago
And replacing entry level academic jobs with machines - adding a barrier of entry for freshly baked lawyers.

derekjdanserl 5y ago

>So? So much for humanity benefitting from technology. Instead of our workdays becoming fewer and shorter, a tiny number of people who don’t work at all will become richer while our lives become more alienated from our labor. This is the opposite of what we tell each other technology is supposed to accomplish. If it’s not a problem, why do we keep lying about?

FDSGSG 5y ago
You are describing some speculative future that doesn't really correlate with historical progress. Same could've been said about the industrial revolution, but somehow it did end up dramatically benefitting all of humanity.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  Again, that is the story we well, but it’s a very reckless claim. Generations in early industrialization who still remembered life as a peasant almost universally preferred life as a peasant. Industrialization’s need for labor forced other peasants from their land to build competing modern nation states. Very few people asked for this and only a small wealthy few would tell you that dragging these people into brutal toiling factory labor improved everybody’s lives, but those are the people who funded the history books.
  - ilikerashers 5y ago
    The Industrial Revolution also played a heavy hand in WW1 and Industrial Warfare. I don't think anyone is saying progress is wrong. Unfettered capitalism which robs people of their rights and alienates people from society is disastrous. Putting an algorithm to treat people like machines is not innovation. Uber Eats is not our generations "spinning jenny". They should be forced to provide basic working benefits.
  - FDSGSG 5y ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing that the transitory periods aren't difficult, but the reality is that very few people would choose to trade their current existence for the life of a pre-industrialization peasant if they actually knew what that implied.
retube 5y ago
> Instead of our workdays becoming fewer and shorter, If that happened any increase in productivity would be offset by the reduced time worked, so no one would get richer (very simplistically). At the end of the day, humans are competitive, so of course hours worked will never really reduce, but it's that competition which drives innovation And we're all getting richer. Sure there's more billionaires then ever, but if we're all getting richer so what? (and yes we are getting richer: the economic progress in Asia and Africa over the last two decades has been incredible. And the west continues to develop also. The world is richer than it has ever been)

JoachimS 5y ago

The fallacy here is to assume that, because this is what have happened before, it will always happen in the future. Yes, farming got efficient with tractors, allowing farmers to move to the cities to fill jobs in factories that was starting up at the dawn of the mass production and industrial revolution. But that does not mean that all future resources (i.e. humans) being freed due to automation, tech development will have new jobs to move to. That there are jobs suitable for humans created. That humans are needed as part of production of goods, services, content etc. Also I would love to see a reference to why progress rely on creative destruction. Please provide pointers.

Epa095 5y ago

I am also mildly positive, but also quite worried, for the following reasons. 1: Its easy to make fun of the luddites which fought the mills and against progress, but for many of them it was a real fight for their life, and many got thrown out in deep poverty. Society as a whole progressed yes, but many got it significantly worse for the rest of their lives. Maybe their kids, or eventually their kids kids got a better life for it. We must not be so naive that we dont think the same will happen (/ is happening now). 2: Not everyone is cut out to be developers/nurses/teachers/whatever-the-future-job-is. Many are, but not all. How do we take care of these boys(and some girls) which before would go to sea, or work at a farm, or do whatever simple job they could get? Maybe in the end it will all "settle down" in a good way, but we live now, not then. 3: It affects the "power struggle" between labour and capital. Its easier to move machines than people. Robots dont strike. Yes, you need a few expensive engineers, but in a world where soon "everyone" has a MSc they are not *that* hard to replace if they get too demanding. 4: And related to the last, as a society we collectively produce a bunch of stuff, and we have decided that selling our labour is the way to distribute this wealth. Automation produces more stuff, but reduces the value of labour. Will we find a way to handle this?

pc86 5y ago
1. I struggle not to just respond "So?" to this one as well. Society progressing is the goal, isn't it? There will always be people in poverty. Poverty caused by AI isn't worse than poverty caused by industrial or agricultural automation, and it isn't worse than poverty caused by the fact you're born in a family of serfs instead of lords. 2. It will all settle down eventually, it always does. The poorest today have access to more food, education, and (usually) healthcare than even the rich just a few centuries ago. Being knocked to steerage of a quickly rising ship isn't a death sentence. 3 (and 4). Isn't this just more of the same compared to the industrial revolution? The cotton gin certainly shifted the power struggle more toward capital but I don't think anyone today would argue we should be processing all our textiles by hand.
popcube 5y ago
don't worry, government will wait people starve and dead...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

FredPret 5y ago

People are scared, which is understandable. These great technological leaps aren’t called revolutions for nothing

AussieWog93 5y ago

I don't disagree with you necessarily, but I think what's different this time is that the entire system is build from the ground up with the explicit intention of replacing workers with machines. There isn't even the pretense of dignity in employment.