6 ms·
The notion of "creating job" is absurd.
Think about it, you are creating work that someone has to do so they can get paid. If that's the goal, why don't we jus
The notion of "creating job" is absurd.
Think about it, you are creating work that someone has to do so they can get paid. If that's the goal, why don't we just pay people without having to go through the hassle of creating job?
Heck, we have so much machinery and automation that feeding the population is no longer a problem, shelter might be slightly trickier, but in a simplistic view, if it takes 1% of the population to create the basic essentials(food,shelter) for everyone, why can't we just give those to citizens and let them do things they may actually enjoy?
You should get out of your nice comfortable middle/upper class house in a first world country and go see the world.
I down voted you by accident.
This is actually a paradigm I think we will be forced to explore in the coming decades. With increasing automation, it seems logical to conclude that the sum total of available commercially viable jobs will decrease with time. Not necessarily in a purely linear fashion, as new industries will emerge, but the overall trend may point downwards.
Ultimately, we may have to consider alternate ways of structuring a society. If this does come to pass, it will be a very uncomfortable transition.
I can imagine a lens where the Occupy protesters are a warning shot, specifically the "we are the 99%" mantra.
> it seems logical to conclude that the sum total of available commercially viable jobs will decrease with time.
It might seem logical, but it isn't true.
The Luddites were people who were frightened of the introduction of machinery, and used to go around attacking factories, thinking there would be no more jobs.
In reality, whenever automation provides benefits through lower prices, what this does is reduce the amount of hours labor a person needs to spend in order to fulfill that need. If you have a cow, it will take a person a couple of hours to obtain a gallon of milk, and then you have to house, feed and look after the cow. Instead, with automated and factory-produced milk, the average person spends a fraction of that time - maybe 10 minutes - to earn the money to purchase that milk at a convenient location.
And so it goes with everything - whenever a product is automated and the jobs (hours) required to produce that thing is reduced, then the cost of the product falls. The consumer then has a surplus of cash, which is really just a surplus of their time spent, to either keep for themselves, or spend on something else.
As human needs and wants are essentially unlimited (most of us want to go to the moon if it was possible) then, for each good that falls in price, demand will shift to other goods. As automation lowers the cost of each additional good, a person is able to consume more of that good or more additional goods.
Now, you might say that 'consumption' is bad - but consuming a good might also mean consuming a service, like a movie, a local band, or an art gallery, which is still consumption, but not in the 'using up resources' manner (although nearly every consumption save for walking to a tai-chi class on the local beach uses up some kind of resources)
This curve of increasing standard of living is intrinsically linked to increases in productivity, which roughly means the amount of goods + services produced for the given input of working hours.
Thus increasing amounts of automation will never, ever reduce the supply of jobs, because each automated thing that frees up human time for something else, in itself creates activity which generally means creating more jobs.
You don't get an iPhone 5 to buy unless farmers can milk a herd of 150 cows singlehandedly. And so we'll never have tourist trips to the moon unless there is increasing automation amongst industries that are currently labour-intensive. This has been going on for a millenia, and there is no tipping-point or transition point, as it is a very smooth curve. Yes, it can be disruptive for small pockets of workers who become no longer required - there are no more pools of typists - but at the macro level the transition is relatively smooth.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
It takes considerably more than 1% of the population to create the basic essentials. I think you dramatically underestimate the (non-automated) work required to make the food you eat. Farming, transportation, retail... automation hasn't reached as stage where we can just remove people from these equations.
I find it disturbing that a comment like this was actually made earnestly and not in sarcasm, and also that it has replies in the affirmative.
In short - in order to 'give' something to someone, someone else has to pay, whether in cash or in time. This is the mysterious free lunch that pops up from time to time.
If - clearly arguing by absurdity - there is so much machinery and automation that it takes 1% to feed, clothe and house the population - then one might ask - from where does the machinery and automation come from? It must be designed, created, maintained and operated. In order to be constructed, it has to be financed, the risk has to be taken, potential rewards have to be postponed.
For people to enjoy 'things that they enjoy' - it means that, instead of postponing consumption for production, it means eliminating production for people, and having their lives focussed on consumption. While, incredibly, nowadays most people can enjoy long breaks of consumption-only activity, if everyone decided to start consuming and stop producing, things would go backwards very quickly. It seems as though the 'good life' is miraculously easy - we take a day off, food is on the shelves, power is supplied to our hose, gas is available to be pumped. This gloss of good life covers up the furious production, risk and activity that goes on 24/7, globally, to make it happen.
The incredibly rich standard of living that most people reading this website enjoy is created through a system of voluntary exchange and specialization, whereby people create efficiencies by concentrating on a particular specialty, and exchanging the proceeds of that with the product of others. While there are a precious few people who have accumulated enough surplus through either hard work, theft or inheritance, this represents a tiny percentage.
The truth is - more people get to do thing they actually enjoy precisely because of the accumulated surplus of the increased productivity of people over time. But rather than rest on the laurels, most, if not all, people prefer to strive to improve their standard of living even more.
In short, what you're trying to describe is some type of utopia - a vision which has lead to the death and suffering of millions. It's dangerous thinking and I would urge you to become more educated in this area.
By promoting voluntary exchange, you're really talking about free markets and free enterprise -- but that isn't the only solution. Coercive exchange is a popular economic model that is rather prolific in the academic circles. Why should anyone believe in free markets over a command and control economy?
>> As human needs and wants are essentially unlimited (most of us want to go to the moon if it was possible) then, for each good that falls in price, demand will shift to other goods. As automation lowers the cost of each additional good, a person is able to consume more of that good or more additional goods.
I'm well aware of the Luddite Fallacy :)
While it is true that the economy has thus far been able to re-absorb a workforce displaced by automation, we should not take as a given this will be the case forever.
Certainly not based on the premise of "infinite human wants".
Frankly, I am not convinced our desires are in fact infinite. Our demands do adjust with opportunity, but only to a point. For instance, many people are satisfied after achieving a certain relative level of security and comfort.
However, more important than demand is how many workers are required to meet the supply. If innovations in automation continue at even a linear pace (and, frankly, we're probably talking quadratic), then we will eventually reach a point where staggeringly few actual workers are required for the production of a given good.
On a slightly less speculative note, a documented phenomenon of workplace automation in developed nations in recent years is the increase in income & labor polarization (or, inequality) [1]. Essentially, while total employment is somewhat maintained, skill (and, to a large extent) income become polarized at the ends.
From the MIT study [1] :
In net, employment changes in the U.S. during this
period were strongly U-shaped in skill level, with
relative employment declines in the middle of the
distribution and relative gains at the tails
...
Technological progress in our model takes the form of an
ongoing decline in the cost of computerizing routine
tasks, which can be performed both by computer capital
and low skill (‘non-college’) workers in the production
of goods. The adoption of computers substitutes for low
skill workers performing routine tasks–such as
bookkeeping, clerical work, and repetitive production
and monitoring activities–which are readily computerized
because they follow precise, well-defined procedures.
Importantly, occupations intensive in these tasks are
most commonplace in the middle of the occupational skill
and wage distribution
The same paper does mention that some low skilled workers are able to shift (and even see some relative wages rise) towards service economy jobs. However, that certainly doesn't change the macro picture.
Lastly, in the near-mid term the greatest challenge is most likely not the absolute out-and-out displacement of work, but rather that displacement vastly outpaces the ability of the economy to re-generate employment.
>> This has been going on for a millenia, and there is no tipping-point or transition point, as it is a very smooth curve.
A very smooth J-curve perhaps. Implying that historical trends over the past millenia are a guaranteed predictor of future events is a highly dubious claim. We are living in a relatively unprecedented age of advancement and growth by just about every possible measure, and it's hardly a given that what has held true in the past (e.g. "Luddite's fallacy") will always hold true.
[1] http://economics.mit.edu/files/1474 http://economics.mit.edu/files/1474
[2] http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/11/artificial-intelligence http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/11/artificial-in...
OK, that's one viewpoint on the world.
And, to be clear, one viewpoint I mostly agree with in terms of society right-now-this-instant.
I've normally dismissed the idea of post-scarcity economics as some unrealistic utopia. While there is an undeniable trend of a smaller and smaller percentage of the economy devoted to basic survival necessities, it was never clear to me that that number could get close to zero.
But when I step back and take a clear headed look at it, I think maybe it could.
We're not there now, and we won't be tomorrow, but we will be someday. I'm coming to believe in that conclusion.
We could get there in a decade or so if we pulled out all the stops and chased it at damn-the-torpedoes speed. We'll likely be pretty close in a few decades no matter what we choose (barring self-destructive paths, always possible of course).
So then, now that I'm coming to accept the outcome, I've started thinking about what will make it happen as quickly as possible. Why drag the transition out? It's going to be painful, but it's better to get the pain over with. The band-aid philosophy- rip it off all at once.
What are the obstacles to the transition? How can they be mitigated or avoided? What can we, as engineers and entrepreneurs, do to make it happen faster and smoother?
Even if you DON'T accept the inevitability of the post-scarcity economy, it's worth taking some time to pretend you do, imagine what that world is like, and how you would get there from here.
Certainly more value than in just insisting that the system we have will live forever. Even a casual reading of history makes it clear that absolutely will not happen.
A clear-headed look at the world would tell you that resources are very scarce. Just because we're very efficient at producing food compared to our ancestors doesn't mean things aren't scarce.
Well, I've spent a lot of time doing more than a casual reading of history, and I certainly don't subscribe to a 'post-scarcity' view of the world.
The human desire for a better life is insatiable. By a better life - this doesn't necessarily mean bigger houses or shinier gadgets - though that is a feature of the current generation, and just about every one before that. By a better life, I mean more health, better education, and a longer and happier life for ourselves and our offspring.
Even if, using the thought experiment, we can supply the basic needs of survival for the equivalent of the first ten minutes of our labour per day - most peeople are not going to choose to spend the rest of the day doing nothing.
Taking food - already in most developed places excess calories are a problem rather than insufficient calories. But even then, when faced with more choice, many people choose to select organic or specialty foods, which require more of their available funds. Choosing an all-organic diet might take up 2 hours of your working day to purchase, but that's a choice many will make.
Similarly, the ultimate human demand - a longer life with less health problems - will never decrease. So even if the provision of basic staples as a proportion of economic activity decreases, it will be offset by increases in unlimited demand for specialised healthcare. Specialised treatments are the ultimate consumable - like fine porcelain dinnerware, what was once available only to the wealth gradually becomes more affordable to more people.
My understanding and interpretation of all the recorded human history I have read is that the desires for a better will never be sated. Going to a world in which there is no scarcity means arbitarily drawing a line under 'what is necessary' - any rational observer would say that line has long since passed in many societies - but people don't want to stop at that line. The only way to make that happen is to coerce people to stop at a level of particular of consumption, and that is something I want no part of.
What you're really arguing there is that there will always be a level of scare resources.
Sure, ok, probably true. Maybe not under some distant futures, but for the foreseeable future.
But what I'm coming to accept is that a basic survival level of resources may not remain scarce much longer. That's going to have some fundamental impacts on society, and it's worth thinking through what they are.
Later iterations will raise the level of what's no longer scarce. First it's survival, then it's comfort, then it's what today is luxury.
Of course new levels of luxury will come along that will then be scarce and yet still in high demand. That's obvious.
But that isn't all that relevant to the fundamental changes at the bottom of the scale. And those changes are both worth pursuing and likely.
How can that be made to happen faster and easier?
What you fail to notice is a term called law of diminishing utility. Which philosophically means the perceived gains/value/utility from anything over time tend to appear less and less.
People get bored. There was thread a while back on Reddit, about discussing free ice creams and chocolates at Google. Thread bought out a very interesting aspect of human life, some people complained about quality of some chocolates in the fridge. So here you have a people who are getting free food, chocolates, ice creams, massage centers, toys and what not for free. And yet after some time they continue to have complains.
People will always have something to complain about. Besides look at the communist set ups. They aimed to provide what you say. Yet all of it went in the drain. When you award things uniformly for non uniform efforts. The concept and specialty of distinction goes away. People don't feel compelled to try a little extra or go the extra mile because there are no special rewards for that.
I acknowledged people will always want something more.
Although I would note Google still considers these perks worthwhile to free up folks to pursue useful work.
And I'm not talking about giving everyone the same thing.
I'm talking about basic survival needs being met at little to no cost and advancing from there. Nothing about uniform rewards, just a solid base from which to work.
>>What are the obstacles to the transition? How can they be mitigated or avoided? What can we, as engineers and entrepreneurs, do to make it happen faster and smoother?
Few things i can think of are:
1.Focus on solving the problem of basic living as cheaply as possible, to enable moving to different system a political and practical reality and create some sort of stability for a world in transition.
One idea: focus on solving problem for the poor and the third world. They are a good market for cheap products.
2.If we learn from the history of the of the industrial revolution, achieving a good change will be very politically dependent. We cannot assume blind "technological optimism". So one way is to think how do we create a political change.
One idea: focus on technologies that automate lawyers out of a job. The lawyers will create political pressure.
3.I think that many engineers/entrepreneurs lack exposure to problems and knowledge needed to create the transition, so instead they're thinking on facebook apps.
Ideas:Build a database of real problems and projects for engineers/entrepreneurs to work on,find some way to break big problems into small one, and share knowledge or built communities for this.
4.One big obstacle to the transition is existing power structures. Hacking regulatory barriers that prevent disruptive innovation seems a solution here.
The political obstacles are large, since both pro and con sides involve a lot of near-religious thought. The reactions are almost reflex. Finding someway to short-circuit that would be key.
1,2, and 4 all depend on politics. 3 is relatively straight forward, but risks getting co-opted by politics.
Tricky. Hmmm.
>>If - clearly arguing by absurdity - there is so much machinery and automation that it takes 1% to feed, clothe and house the population - then one might ask - from where does the machinery and automation come from? It must be designed, created, maintained and operated. In order to be constructed, it has to be financed, the risk has to be taken, potential rewards have to be postponed.
Your entire argument is underpinned by two basic assumptions :
1. Human labor will always be required to develop goods and maintain infrastructure
2. The number of individuals required to fulfill #1 equals or exceeds the global pool of working age individuals
Neither of the above are certainties.
>>In short, what you're trying to describe is some type of utopia - a vision which has lead to the death and suffering of millions. It's dangerous thinking and I would urge you to become more educated in this area.
Your line of reasoning is reactionary. While I too am quite the fan of free market capitalism, this doesn't mean it is the only possible sustainable system of human growth & cooperation. It's a current economic reality, not a religion.
The real underlying point here is that owners of machines and stocks of resources are under no obligation to provide a penny to others under any circumstances, and that thinking they are is tantamount to Stalinesque genocide.
However, taxes are legitimate and have been around forever. I imagine that you regard this status quo as slavery. Also, limited work-weeks have been around forever. I gather that you regard this as freeloading. And these things ultimately provide for public goods, without any Stalinesque genocides being perpetrated against 'job creators'. At the same time, taxes do not get collected without legally accountable economic activity.
Indeed, as productivity increases, we should see benefits such as people not being forced to immediately begin starving in the street because their job became economically unnecessary, and people not being forced to work 80-hour weeks to provide for the profit of somebody else. If overall productivity increases only come with less social security and more compulsory work for one class, that is because another class is applying coercion to steal labor, which is not morally any better than stealing capital.
This observation does not require one to be a Bolshevik, nor does it entail that any mass killings will occur. Nor does it involve revolution. The status quo of several decades in the western world is already something of a balance between workers and capitalists. Now you are peddling the idea that this arrangement has been unfair to the capitalists who have been tremendously enriched by it.
That isn't correct. It is in the interests of capitalists not to kill and overwork the people whose time is required to produce anything, and not to strangle the average consumers whose spending power drives the economy. The problem is that short-term thinking and ideologues such as yourself are working to convince capital holders otherwise, that they should cash out as quickly as possible without regard to the social impact of what they are doing.
That's dangerous thinking and I urge you to become more educated in this area.