6 ms·

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I think he's right about many things there: manufacturing jobs are leaving and not coming back. Automation is becom

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I think he's right about many things there: manufacturing jobs are leaving and not coming back. Automation is becoming more and more advanced, particularly if you factor advances in robotics and ml since 2006 or so. Things move faster and average just doesn't seem to cut it when you can manufacture excellence. Hell, lawyers and doctors will be next, how about faux ai that can write simple web apps or come up with good designs? Give generative models a few more years to advance, we'll see how far fetched that is. Some people will get very rich from all that. But that wealth will go to those who control what amounts to the means of production and they'll be able to defend those means with patents. I guess workers could strike back in the day, good luck with that now, the little guy has even less negotiating power. All this to say, I think these trends and the shift they bring are going to be the most fundamental shift in economic organization since the industrial revolution. Not sure what the answer is, but I'm concerned that those in power dont even recognize the issues (they're not "nerds", as they say.) Time will tell, but I'm not all that optimistic about the average joes out there. PS I wish the answer was everyone will start their own business, but honestly I just don't think that will be practical.

zerostar07 15y ago
That would lead to even greater wealth inequality, one of the most destabilizing factors in a society.
hammerdr 15y ago
In the case of a "everything is automated, only a small portion of people are needed to produce essentials and even advance" society, would we just be better off with a system that relied on the altruism of the few to make the lives of everyone better and everyone else could just exist? That sort of society has a slew of issues that could be better explored in futurist science fiction (things such as psychologic issues for the non-producers, the sustainability of altruism, etc.). But it is a consideration that I have thought about. Capitalism isn't going to be subverted that quickly, though. The system will right itself and any revolution of that caliber will be long and hard fought. The world superpower will be a capitalist system in 2050 and probably 2100.
- mtts 15y ago
  I think you're already seeing societies like this in North Western Europe: large numbers of unproductive, uneducated and essentially useless people are kept fed, housed and clothed as that is the humane thing to do, but their lives are absolutely meaningless and empty (mostly - there are of course people who can make it work for themselves). Occasionally they revolt, like they did last summer in England, but even their revolts are absolutely meaningless and empty.
  - Jach 15y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if that's the direction humanity takes in the end (barring significant intelligence enhancements). The door is always open to work at bettering yourself and humanity, but if you don't want to right now that's fine too because the cost to keep you alive and happy will become so minuscule and because of the various moral arguments. I've been telling people "Even if the holodeck gets invented and its fantasy worlds are more psychologically pleasing than this one, I still want to get off this rock for real." I may be underestimating the powers of wireheading but if it's not forced on everyone I think a lot of people will keep it to a relative minimum like entertainment is already. My take on the modern job problem is that it's about reaching the point of super cheap happy-human care which might include a possible 90%+ unemployment rate, while avoiding or making as quick as possible the messy middle-area we've entered where unemployment is rising and there aren't enough people capable/willing to support the unproductive masses.
  - wladimir 15y ago
    but their lives are absolutely meaningless and empty There is nothing "the economy" can do to change that, though. Feeling meaningful and full is a state of mind. And that goes more in the realm of religion and spirituality (and psychology) than materialism. It cannot be changed by any government intervention. Some people have confused those things to the point of extremity. To take an extreme example on the other side, buddhist monks feel fine about themselves without being "productive" and hardly having any possessions. Also, "useless" is very cruel thing to say regarding people. Who decides who is "useful" and "useless"? Can't we just as well say "everyone is useful" to make people feel better?
simonh 15y ago
>how about faux ai that can write simple web apps or come up with good designs? A major class of workers that software has a tendency of replacing is programmers themselves. Bespoke solutions are replaced by what used to be called shrink-wrapped applications. In the web area, look at how services such as Squarespace replace bespoke sites by providing easy to use site design tools.
- average_joe 15y ago
  I am that guy, the average programmer. I used to wire up mobile apps to back end services. I have had no interest in my services for over a year. I think I have been replaced by iCloud, urban airship, parse, etc...
  - UK-Al05 15y ago
    Depends what you mean by average. If you've been programming in objective-c; that most likely means you understand memory management; small-talk style oo etc. Corporate Java programmers have forgot this stuff, yet they will always be in demand.
- joelrunyon 15y ago
  Isn't the solution here to get better skills and stay ahead of the "average" curve?
pshc 15y ago
Here's hoping the endgame of programmers putting themselves out of work is the nerd rapture (friendly A.I., post-scarcity, etc.). But from what I can tell in history, the future tends to turn out much weirder than the human imagination can conceive.
snowwrestler 15y ago
I thank many of the people in power do recognize the issues, which is why transforming education has become such a hot focus lately. Broad advances in education were essential in allowing the "average" person to find employment in an industrial society; the modern average person is far, far more educated than they were 500 years ago when most average people were illiterate and farmed for a living. We will need a new transformation in education to allow future average people to find good work within an information-based economy. This means, for example, that the average person might be able to program computers at an average level in the future.

zerostar07 15y ago

That would lead to even greater wealth inequality, one of the most destabilizing factors in a society.

hammerdr 15y ago

In the case of a "everything is automated, only a small portion of people are needed to produce essentials and even advance" society, would we just be better off with a system that relied on the altruism of the few to make the lives of everyone better and everyone else could just exist? That sort of society has a slew of issues that could be better explored in futurist science fiction (things such as psychologic issues for the non-producers, the sustainability of altruism, etc.). But it is a consideration that I have thought about. Capitalism isn't going to be subverted that quickly, though. The system will right itself and any revolution of that caliber will be long and hard fought. The world superpower will be a capitalist system in 2050 and probably 2100.

mtts 15y ago
I think you're already seeing societies like this in North Western Europe: large numbers of unproductive, uneducated and essentially useless people are kept fed, housed and clothed as that is the humane thing to do, but their lives are absolutely meaningless and empty (mostly - there are of course people who can make it work for themselves). Occasionally they revolt, like they did last summer in England, but even their revolts are absolutely meaningless and empty.
- Jach 15y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if that's the direction humanity takes in the end (barring significant intelligence enhancements). The door is always open to work at bettering yourself and humanity, but if you don't want to right now that's fine too because the cost to keep you alive and happy will become so minuscule and because of the various moral arguments. I've been telling people "Even if the holodeck gets invented and its fantasy worlds are more psychologically pleasing than this one, I still want to get off this rock for real." I may be underestimating the powers of wireheading but if it's not forced on everyone I think a lot of people will keep it to a relative minimum like entertainment is already. My take on the modern job problem is that it's about reaching the point of super cheap happy-human care which might include a possible 90%+ unemployment rate, while avoiding or making as quick as possible the messy middle-area we've entered where unemployment is rising and there aren't enough people capable/willing to support the unproductive masses.
- wladimir 15y ago
  but their lives are absolutely meaningless and empty There is nothing "the economy" can do to change that, though. Feeling meaningful and full is a state of mind. And that goes more in the realm of religion and spirituality (and psychology) than materialism. It cannot be changed by any government intervention. Some people have confused those things to the point of extremity. To take an extreme example on the other side, buddhist monks feel fine about themselves without being "productive" and hardly having any possessions. Also, "useless" is very cruel thing to say regarding people. Who decides who is "useful" and "useless"? Can't we just as well say "everyone is useful" to make people feel better?

simonh 15y ago

>how about faux ai that can write simple web apps or come up with good designs? A major class of workers that software has a tendency of replacing is programmers themselves. Bespoke solutions are replaced by what used to be called shrink-wrapped applications. In the web area, look at how services such as Squarespace replace bespoke sites by providing easy to use site design tools.

average_joe 15y ago
I am that guy, the average programmer. I used to wire up mobile apps to back end services. I have had no interest in my services for over a year. I think I have been replaced by iCloud, urban airship, parse, etc...
- UK-Al05 15y ago
  Depends what you mean by average. If you've been programming in objective-c; that most likely means you understand memory management; small-talk style oo etc. Corporate Java programmers have forgot this stuff, yet they will always be in demand.
joelrunyon 15y ago
Isn't the solution here to get better skills and stay ahead of the "average" curve?

pshc 15y ago

Here's hoping the endgame of programmers putting themselves out of work is the nerd rapture (friendly A.I., post-scarcity, etc.). But from what I can tell in history, the future tends to turn out much weirder than the human imagination can conceive.

snowwrestler 15y ago

I thank many of the people in power do recognize the issues, which is why transforming education has become such a hot focus lately. Broad advances in education were essential in allowing the "average" person to find employment in an industrial society; the modern average person is far, far more educated than they were 500 years ago when most average people were illiterate and farmed for a living. We will need a new transformation in education to allow future average people to find good work within an information-based economy. This means, for example, that the average person might be able to program computers at an average level in the future.