3 ms·

It seems that similar concerns have been voiced with every advance in technology that replaced works with machines. The argument generally assumes that the amou

It seems that similar concerns have been voiced with every advance in technology that replaced works with machines. The argument generally assumes that the amount of "work" needed will remain relatively the same. So, if society today requires 100 works to make one widget, and we can make the same widget with 1 worker and assorted machines, then 99 works will be left unemployed. In reality, what seems to happen is that because the products of that work become cheaper, society starts to consume a lot more. In the end, something like 80 works end up supervising the machines, while 9 works maintain them and the other work is designing the machines. I can't foresee what will happen if all basic service jobs are automated, but then again it will not happen overnight. The biggest question in my mind, is how well will the society repare the future generations with the skills they will need to remain relevant. Education is everything... and it will remain everything. (Not formal education mind you, but more so knowledge/training.)

rayiner 14y ago
The counterargument assumes that there aren't external limits on consumption.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  It also overlooks the generalization issue. Machines as a class have been becoming more and more general in their capabilities. Meaning that there are more and more things machines do better than humans. Humans can't keep racing ahead of that curve forever, at some point the machines catch up and can do anything humans can do. At that point, there is no next level for human work to move up the value chain. The value chain will be entirely subsumed by machines. That endpoint is some time off in the future, but that doesn't mean that the inflection point of the curve is. We might be a lot closer to the inflection point than we think. I don't think this is a bad thing, but it's something we're going to need to address as a society.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/ The fact that machines have been gaining a lot of capabilities doesn't mean they'll catch up to us, much less any time soon. While I hope for the "singularity" much more than I fear it, we might remain in an intermediate state for a long time.
  - mratzloff 14y ago
    I disagree that machines have become more general (at least as I am interpreting it). I would argue there are just a wider variety of specific tasks they have been programmed to do. "General" implies abstraction, and I suspect machines won't be capable of meaningful abstraction ("this situation is like that situation") without AI.
mjmahone17 14y ago
The thing is, we've only really been seeing this boom since the 18th century. And for most of the world, not really until the 20th century. The solution, as you said, for most of this period was to have people consume more products. But with the rise of electronics, that trend doesn't appear to be continuing. We already live in a world where not everyone needs to work: in fact, we specifically push people out of working once they reach retirement age. That was one of the points of Social Security and pensions: to stop older workers from preventing new workers from taking their place. Also note, our real unemployment isn't 7.9%. In fact, if we look at the number of non-farm jobs from the last census in 2010, we had 112 million jobs. If we assume about 3% of employment is farm jobs, then we have ~115 million total jobs. According to the census, there are 313 million people in the US, and 76.3% of them are adults. Therefore, we have 238 million adults, and only ~115 million jobs. This means our real unemployment rate is about 52% (given the roughness of my figures, I'd stick it at a range between 45 and 60 percent). Which means, not counting children, our country is already fully capable of supporting half the population not working. This wasn't the case in 19th century America (where yes, even women usually worked in some capacity), meaning we probably already are in a society where most people don't have to work, we just don't notice it because most of those who don't work are not labeled "unemployed." Edit: Basically, I'm questioning your premise that employment rates have, in fact, remained relatively constant throughout the last few centuries.
- sologoub 14y ago
  You are questioning whether the current Labor Force Participation rate and whether it has gone down over the years. The peak in recent history appears to have been around 2000 at 67.3%. Currently, it's at 63.6%. The furthest back I could find is 1948 for 58.6 at the start of that year. Last time we were in the 63% range was in 1980s. Guessing from 19th century, it has gone up. Source: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet The key here is to understand what influences this rate. Many factors go into what percentage of population chooses to seek employment. For example, if my wife and I are rich enough, when we have kids, we may want to have one or even both of us take a few years off to raise them. This is a profound luxury in the current US society. Some countries have extended maternity leave that lasts for 3 years and includes some form of pay or other welfare payment. Such structures would easily drive the participation rate down. Conversely, public daycares and other child-friendly services promote higher participation rates by freeing both adults to work. These examples are meant to show that the "machines are taking our jobs" discussion to be a gross oversimplification of a much more complex system. So far, history tells us that we will adapt. That still leaves a possibility of a black swan event... In either case, I have faith in humanity :-)
droidist2 14y ago
True. In addition to assuming the amount of work is constant, it assumes the amount each individual should work is constant. If their fears come true and we somehow do progress to the point where we have half the amount of work to be done, why have half the people unemployed while the other half do the share of two people? During the Industrial Revolution we transitioned to a 40 hour 5-day week as being the standard. Why couldn't we transition to something else in response to this or a future technological revolution, perhaps at first a 32 or 36 hour 4-day week? This would make a 3-day weekend possible and also save on gasoline.

rayiner 14y ago

The counterargument assumes that there aren't external limits on consumption.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
It also overlooks the generalization issue. Machines as a class have been becoming more and more general in their capabilities. Meaning that there are more and more things machines do better than humans. Humans can't keep racing ahead of that curve forever, at some point the machines catch up and can do anything humans can do. At that point, there is no next level for human work to move up the value chain. The value chain will be entirely subsumed by machines. That endpoint is some time off in the future, but that doesn't mean that the inflection point of the curve is. We might be a lot closer to the inflection point than we think. I don't think this is a bad thing, but it's something we're going to need to address as a society.
- icebraining 14y ago
  https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/ The fact that machines have been gaining a lot of capabilities doesn't mean they'll catch up to us, much less any time soon. While I hope for the "singularity" much more than I fear it, we might remain in an intermediate state for a long time.
- mratzloff 14y ago
  I disagree that machines have become more general (at least as I am interpreting it). I would argue there are just a wider variety of specific tasks they have been programmed to do. "General" implies abstraction, and I suspect machines won't be capable of meaningful abstraction ("this situation is like that situation") without AI.

mjmahone17 14y ago

The thing is, we've only really been seeing this boom since the 18th century. And for most of the world, not really until the 20th century. The solution, as you said, for most of this period was to have people consume more products. But with the rise of electronics, that trend doesn't appear to be continuing. We already live in a world where not everyone needs to work: in fact, we specifically push people out of working once they reach retirement age. That was one of the points of Social Security and pensions: to stop older workers from preventing new workers from taking their place. Also note, our real unemployment isn't 7.9%. In fact, if we look at the number of non-farm jobs from the last census in 2010, we had 112 million jobs. If we assume about 3% of employment is farm jobs, then we have ~115 million total jobs. According to the census, there are 313 million people in the US, and 76.3% of them are adults. Therefore, we have 238 million adults, and only ~115 million jobs. This means our real unemployment rate is about 52% (given the roughness of my figures, I'd stick it at a range between 45 and 60 percent). Which means, not counting children, our country is already fully capable of supporting half the population not working. This wasn't the case in 19th century America (where yes, even women usually worked in some capacity), meaning we probably already are in a society where most people don't have to work, we just don't notice it because most of those who don't work are not labeled "unemployed." Edit: Basically, I'm questioning your premise that employment rates have, in fact, remained relatively constant throughout the last few centuries.

sologoub 14y ago
You are questioning whether the current Labor Force Participation rate and whether it has gone down over the years. The peak in recent history appears to have been around 2000 at 67.3%. Currently, it's at 63.6%. The furthest back I could find is 1948 for 58.6 at the start of that year. Last time we were in the 63% range was in 1980s. Guessing from 19th century, it has gone up. Source: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet The key here is to understand what influences this rate. Many factors go into what percentage of population chooses to seek employment. For example, if my wife and I are rich enough, when we have kids, we may want to have one or even both of us take a few years off to raise them. This is a profound luxury in the current US society. Some countries have extended maternity leave that lasts for 3 years and includes some form of pay or other welfare payment. Such structures would easily drive the participation rate down. Conversely, public daycares and other child-friendly services promote higher participation rates by freeing both adults to work. These examples are meant to show that the "machines are taking our jobs" discussion to be a gross oversimplification of a much more complex system. So far, history tells us that we will adapt. That still leaves a possibility of a black swan event... In either case, I have faith in humanity :-)

droidist2 14y ago

True. In addition to assuming the amount of work is constant, it assumes the amount each individual should work is constant. If their fears come true and we somehow do progress to the point where we have half the amount of work to be done, why have half the people unemployed while the other half do the share of two people? During the Industrial Revolution we transitioned to a 40 hour 5-day week as being the standard. Why couldn't we transition to something else in response to this or a future technological revolution, perhaps at first a 32 or 36 hour 4-day week? This would make a 3-day weekend possible and also save on gasoline.