10 ms·

I find this ASTRONOMICALLY interesting! I wonder what will happen to us... In the past, JOBS were a way to redistribute money and keep the money cycle flowing.

I find this ASTRONOMICALLY interesting! I wonder what will happen to us... In the past, JOBS were a way to redistribute money and keep the money cycle flowing. The rich who owned companies are rich because the average consumer pays for their products and services. The rich then hire workers and pass money down to them, as well as spend money on other products made by other workers. But as unemployment reaches 20% then 30% then 40% over the next 50-100 years. We'll have to readjust the way we redistribute money in order to keep the money cycle going. Otherwise the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer, to a point, then the whole system will collapse because who will have the money to buy your products. If the middle and lower class don't have any money to spend on the products that the company using robots makes... Product creators will effective kill off their own wealth machine. Decades ago 80%+ of everything we bought was made in our own country, now that number has dwindled down to, 20% was it? It was some terrible small number. Outsourcing to China was good in the short term (cheaper more affordable products) and terribly destructive in the long term (disrupting the money cycle and destroying jobs). Now everyone in the US is pissed off about unemployment, we're passing all sorts of job bills and stimuliouses, while we're all ignoring the giant elephant in the room. We pissed our jobs away in the name of cheaper products (consumers are just as guilty as shareholders). Look at what outsourcing to China has done. Rich get richer, poor got poorer, then the economy tanked because consumers don't have money to spend on the products the rich make. Now imagine what automation is going to do... Driverless buses and subways (already in testing / already in use) that don't go on strike, robots that fix robots (almost there) and never ask for a raise. Robot pharmacists that don't make mistakes (already in testing). Robotic construction workers that don't join unions. The people who own these businesses that employ robots over humans will make tremendous profits and save lives and do a better, faster job too. But they will HAVE to redistribute their money using a new method. Socialism? Who knows. I'm not afraid of this future where robots take over. In fact I'm looking forward to it. I'm just afraid of our refusal to adjust to it.

eugenejen 15y ago
I think if labor is completely replaced by robots, then society has to choose socialization of all means of productions in order to maintain political stability.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
Look at what outsourcing to China has done. Rich get richer, poor got poorer, then the economy tanked because consumers don't have money to spend on the products the rich make. The poor in China have gotten considerably richer. India also. http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2010/wp92_2010.pdf http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2010/wp92_2010.pdf We've also gotten richer in the US, even while "the Chinese/Indians stole our jobs". The only reason we believe the US has stagnated is because immigration lowers our cross-sectional averages (but not our longitudinal averages). http://crazybear.posterous.com/did-immigrants-and-simpsons-paradox-cause-the http://crazybear.posterous.com/did-immigrants-and-simpsons-p...
- lawtguy 15y ago
  That study that CrazyBear linked to definitely shows that when you removed immigrants and retired people, income growth looks much better: median income grew by 29% instead of 9%. So the fact that we have more immigrants and and retirees live longer definitely has a negative impact on median income growth number without really impacting the average American. The bad news however is that most of the growth in family median income is not because wages are going up: it's because there are more two income families. I don't think it's bad that more women are working now and that they're making more money but I'm not sure it's really making us richer. What's missing from this study is any attempt to quantify the "free" labor that women were doing by being home for the kids and taking care of the house. If the extra money being brought in is simply going out to pay for childcare and a maid, we're really running in place, just faster.
- ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
  Hmmm, well said. Now that I take the time to think about it. I'm wondering what our environment, highways, air, and rivers would look like if all those factories came to the US...
  - intended 15y ago
    I've always thought of it as a global adjustment to the levels of poverty - maybe America is worse off, but humanity as a whole is better off.
randomdata 15y ago
Decades ago 80%+ of everything we bought was made in our own country, now that number has dwindled down to, 20% was it? In the consumer space, perhaps. The actual manufacturing done on US soil (I am assuming you are American), has continued to grow year after year. Much of that manufacturing has seen automation to the point that the labour force has declined, but that is not related to outsourcing to China. What technology has allowed is more and more of us to pursue new opportunities. If we were all still toiling in the field, we wouldn't be building hot internet startups. There simply wouldn't be the time. As robots drive labour costs to near zero, brand new opportunities will appear for people to make an income and perhaps even get rich themselves. There will always be short periods of hardship for some people, but in the grand scheme of things, finding an income should not be a problem. Finding a job you love, however, may become more and more difficult. Take agriculture as an example. I know countless people who would love to farm, but it simply is not an option for them. Thanks to technology, very few farmers are needed anymore. Likewise, I imagine there are also people who love working on the factory floor and building a business that employs robots doing who knows what is not at all appealing to them. The question is, should we prop up jobs that can easily be replaced by robots in order to allow people who love that job to continue to profit by doing it or should we force them into doing work that is not of interest? Programming, for example, is a job anyone could do, but very few, relatively speaking, have interest in actually doing it.
- ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
  "If we were all still toiling in the field, we wouldn't be building hot internet startups." - But not everyone can build internet startups, we can't all have startups. Money, also, is finite. The more someone else has, the less everyone else has. It's impossible for everyone to be rich. In order for someone to win, many have to loose. And making products to sell and creating jobs to make those products were a free market's way of passing the money down from those who have it, to those who don't. Now that those who have it, are starting to automate, more and more money stays in their hands and doesn't get passed down. "Programming, for example, is a job anyone could do" - I wouldn't say so. It takes a lot of skill to become a worthy programmer, which not everyone can do. If everyone knew just the basics, that wouldn't mean they could get jobs as programmers. Even if they did, their mediocre talent would mean that they too would eventually be replaced by robots and AI programmers.

eugenejen 15y ago

I think if labor is completely replaced by robots, then society has to choose socialization of all means of productions in order to maintain political stability.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

Look at what outsourcing to China has done. Rich get richer, poor got poorer, then the economy tanked because consumers don't have money to spend on the products the rich make. The poor in China have gotten considerably richer. India also. http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2010/wp92_2010.pdf http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2010/wp92_2010.pdf We've also gotten richer in the US, even while "the Chinese/Indians stole our jobs". The only reason we believe the US has stagnated is because immigration lowers our cross-sectional averages (but not our longitudinal averages). http://crazybear.posterous.com/did-immigrants-and-simpsons-paradox-cause-the http://crazybear.posterous.com/did-immigrants-and-simpsons-p...

lawtguy 15y ago
That study that CrazyBear linked to definitely shows that when you removed immigrants and retired people, income growth looks much better: median income grew by 29% instead of 9%. So the fact that we have more immigrants and and retirees live longer definitely has a negative impact on median income growth number without really impacting the average American. The bad news however is that most of the growth in family median income is not because wages are going up: it's because there are more two income families. I don't think it's bad that more women are working now and that they're making more money but I'm not sure it's really making us richer. What's missing from this study is any attempt to quantify the "free" labor that women were doing by being home for the kids and taking care of the house. If the extra money being brought in is simply going out to pay for childcare and a maid, we're really running in place, just faster.
ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
Hmmm, well said. Now that I take the time to think about it. I'm wondering what our environment, highways, air, and rivers would look like if all those factories came to the US...
- intended 15y ago
  I've always thought of it as a global adjustment to the levels of poverty - maybe America is worse off, but humanity as a whole is better off.

randomdata 15y ago

Decades ago 80%+ of everything we bought was made in our own country, now that number has dwindled down to, 20% was it? In the consumer space, perhaps. The actual manufacturing done on US soil (I am assuming you are American), has continued to grow year after year. Much of that manufacturing has seen automation to the point that the labour force has declined, but that is not related to outsourcing to China. What technology has allowed is more and more of us to pursue new opportunities. If we were all still toiling in the field, we wouldn't be building hot internet startups. There simply wouldn't be the time. As robots drive labour costs to near zero, brand new opportunities will appear for people to make an income and perhaps even get rich themselves. There will always be short periods of hardship for some people, but in the grand scheme of things, finding an income should not be a problem. Finding a job you love, however, may become more and more difficult. Take agriculture as an example. I know countless people who would love to farm, but it simply is not an option for them. Thanks to technology, very few farmers are needed anymore. Likewise, I imagine there are also people who love working on the factory floor and building a business that employs robots doing who knows what is not at all appealing to them. The question is, should we prop up jobs that can easily be replaced by robots in order to allow people who love that job to continue to profit by doing it or should we force them into doing work that is not of interest? Programming, for example, is a job anyone could do, but very few, relatively speaking, have interest in actually doing it.

ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
"If we were all still toiling in the field, we wouldn't be building hot internet startups." - But not everyone can build internet startups, we can't all have startups. Money, also, is finite. The more someone else has, the less everyone else has. It's impossible for everyone to be rich. In order for someone to win, many have to loose. And making products to sell and creating jobs to make those products were a free market's way of passing the money down from those who have it, to those who don't. Now that those who have it, are starting to automate, more and more money stays in their hands and doesn't get passed down. "Programming, for example, is a job anyone could do" - I wouldn't say so. It takes a lot of skill to become a worthy programmer, which not everyone can do. If everyone knew just the basics, that wouldn't mean they could get jobs as programmers. Even if they did, their mediocre talent would mean that they too would eventually be replaced by robots and AI programmers.