4 ms·

We are building incredible new technologies at an astounding rate, resulting in less demand for work that can be automated. So people who do "automatable" work

We are building incredible new technologies at an astounding rate, resulting in less demand for work that can be automated. So people who do "automatable" work can't make much money anymore. Growth appears to be good, but all the profits are going to the owners and employees of these relatively small technology companies. This is also probably a major part of the reason why the wealth disparity is increasing.

lucb1e 12y ago
> people who do "automatable" work can't make much money anymore. I tend to think of it "don't have to do that work anymore". They can focus on other things, but basically the work is done for us. So the machines are creating wealth and in the end people will have to work less and less. I'm not sure this is the right example, but wasn't it revolutionary of the Ford motors factory to introduce 8-hour work days in the early 1900s? Didn't people work much longer before then, if I remember correctly? And isn't Sweden implementing a 6-hour work day right now? I think we are making great progress with taking work out of people's hands. The people who used to make cars, which is now largely automated, could do other things that are in greater demand, while on the whole humanity has to expend less work for the same wealth. This is just the way I look at things, but of course I may be too young and naive to really understand it.
- malyk 12y ago
  The machines are creating wealth for the owners of the machines which isn't being (re)distributed to the former workers at all. That's the crux of the problem. Maybe there will be another revolution in jobs that need to be done that these people will be able to take up, but until that time we are sentencing a huge number of people to live in poverty. We need to find a way to help those people until this new class of jobs people imagine will appear actually become reality.
  - lucb1e 12y ago
    > The machines are creating wealth for the owners of the machines which isn't being (re)distributed to the former workers at all. Isn't it? You're right in that I have yet to hear someone laying off staff and then paying them because machines do all the work, but on the whole I do think everyone profits. At least in the Netherlands you get money during the time that you are looking for employment. > we are sentencing a huge number of people to live in poverty Last I heard we are still free to start our own farms and live off of those, but it seems people rather like having things like cars, power, the Internet and other luxuries of the past few decades. And most people living in "poverty", as you say, have all of the above. Those won't be the best cars or the fastest connections to the Internet, but I never heard about a "huge" number of people being laid off and then having to go without all of that. You'd think they'd be in the streets rioting against the machines if it was that bad.
    - davidcbc 12y ago
      "Free" to start our own farms? Where are they getting the land? Where are they getting the crops and equipment needed? Where are they getting the general knowledge of how to even grow a farm that can sustain a family?
    - wutbrodo 12y ago
      > Last I heard we are still free to start our own farms and live off of those, but it seems people rather like having things like cars, power, the Internet and other luxuries of the past few decades. And most people living in "poverty", as you say, have all of the above. This is an enormously common fallacy. There are certain things that have their costs driven down very easily by technological innovation (consumer goods, electronics, transport, etc) and certain things that are very resistant, at least on short and medium time scales (healthcare, education, land for obvious reasons). Being increasingly able to afford things like Internet and cars may make it seem like someone CAN'T be "poor" because rich people 40 years ago didn't have it, but that's a lot less significant than their relative ability to access the (much more important) things in the second category. (Inasmuch as Maslow's pyramid is a good heuristic for priorities, you can think of these as things further down the pyramid). This phenomenon is clearly common-sense after a moment's thought, but I found an article that goes into this phenomenon in more detail: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expensive-to-be-poor/361533/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expe...
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "We need to find a way to help those people until this new class of jobs people imagine will appear actually become reality." Without overly discouraging them from looking for those new jobs, because that's an important part of how we create new classes of jobs. Personally, I think a low basic income is our best bet, but I'm eager to hear other suggestions.
    - malyk 12y ago
      I agree with the low(ish) basic income for a variety of reasons. But I think expecting the people who are automated out of jobs to go and create entirely new categories of job on there own is being extremely over optimistic. So, between the time that they are replaced and the time that new categories of jobs become available something /more/ than just a basic income is necessary. As more and more automate-able jobs become automated there will be less and less employment opportunities available for the displaced workers until these new categories of job become available.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        "But I think expecting the people who are automated out of jobs to go and create entirely new categories of job on there own is being extremely over optimistic." To be clear, I (most emphatically) do not mean "Ths ese people should just go create new jobs - lazy bums, jeeze!" People looking for ways to help others, in order to get ahead, is an important part of how we find new jobs - but until they're found most people will be failing and we don't want them suffering to be sure.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  What you're describing is what's behind (in part) the growth in the economy; but nothing you said has anything to do with what the parent comment was talking about, which is that people who are automated out of work generally aren't participants (and recipients) of that growth. This isn't a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. Almost every technological advance has had the same effect (pretty much by definition: if a tool is more effective at a job then less humans are necessary/cost-effective for the job). In modern history though, the (obvious) response has been to educate the population to leverage the skills that humans are still better at (c.f. the US gov't literacy drive and the post-WWII GI bill, both of which smoothed the path to an increasingly white-collar labor force). Sometimes this also includes providing a soft-landing (in the social welfare sense) for those who are old enough that it's unlikely they'll be able to easily switch out of their obsoleted industry, but this is less common.
  - lucb1e 12y ago
    > people who are automated out of work generally aren't participants (and recipients) of that growth. Not directly, no. But in the end it is better for humanity as a whole, plus you get money from the government if you are unemployed for a while and prove that you are trying to get employed.
    - wutbrodo 12y ago
      > Not directly, no. But in the end it is better for humanity as a whole I know, that's exactly what I'm saying. This discussion isn't as simple as "this is good and this is bad" in black-and-white terms. We're talking specifically about the fact that poverty rates and growth aren't tightly coupled, and I was explaining why. > plus you get money from the government if you are unemployed for a while and prove that you are trying to get employed. This is also what I said (the "soft landing"). Though UI (unemployment insurance) lasts a year or two, so you're sorely mistaken if you think that UI per se functions as a substitute for a social welfare system.
- akgerber 12y ago
  The eight-hour day didn't come from the generosity of the rich, but because workers fought like hell for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
  - lucb1e 12y ago
    Right now it's possible though. I'm not sure it was like that in the past. Maybe it was, I'm not saying it wasn't, but from what I heard people in general were a lot less wealthy in the past. The bottom 20% of society (in terms of income) still walks around in rich clothes compared to the top 20% a few hundred years ago while not working more hours.
    - akgerber 12y ago
      Walmart clothes (the clothes of today's poor) aren't particularly nice compared to hand-tailored suits (the clothes of the upper crust hundreds of years ago, and presently).
      - Turing_Machine 12y ago
        Today's poor almost all have numerous outfits (whether from Walmart or elsewhere). Poor people hundreds of years ago typically had one, count 'em, one garment. Maybe if they were slightly better off they'd have two (one for church and one for everyday wear, with the older one being rotated out for use as rags from time to time).

lucb1e 12y ago

> people who do "automatable" work can't make much money anymore. I tend to think of it "don't have to do that work anymore". They can focus on other things, but basically the work is done for us. So the machines are creating wealth and in the end people will have to work less and less. I'm not sure this is the right example, but wasn't it revolutionary of the Ford motors factory to introduce 8-hour work days in the early 1900s? Didn't people work much longer before then, if I remember correctly? And isn't Sweden implementing a 6-hour work day right now? I think we are making great progress with taking work out of people's hands. The people who used to make cars, which is now largely automated, could do other things that are in greater demand, while on the whole humanity has to expend less work for the same wealth. This is just the way I look at things, but of course I may be too young and naive to really understand it.

malyk 12y ago
The machines are creating wealth for the owners of the machines which isn't being (re)distributed to the former workers at all. That's the crux of the problem. Maybe there will be another revolution in jobs that need to be done that these people will be able to take up, but until that time we are sentencing a huge number of people to live in poverty. We need to find a way to help those people until this new class of jobs people imagine will appear actually become reality.
- lucb1e 12y ago
  > The machines are creating wealth for the owners of the machines which isn't being (re)distributed to the former workers at all. Isn't it? You're right in that I have yet to hear someone laying off staff and then paying them because machines do all the work, but on the whole I do think everyone profits. At least in the Netherlands you get money during the time that you are looking for employment. > we are sentencing a huge number of people to live in poverty Last I heard we are still free to start our own farms and live off of those, but it seems people rather like having things like cars, power, the Internet and other luxuries of the past few decades. And most people living in "poverty", as you say, have all of the above. Those won't be the best cars or the fastest connections to the Internet, but I never heard about a "huge" number of people being laid off and then having to go without all of that. You'd think they'd be in the streets rioting against the machines if it was that bad.
  - davidcbc 12y ago
    "Free" to start our own farms? Where are they getting the land? Where are they getting the crops and equipment needed? Where are they getting the general knowledge of how to even grow a farm that can sustain a family?
  - wutbrodo 12y ago
    > Last I heard we are still free to start our own farms and live off of those, but it seems people rather like having things like cars, power, the Internet and other luxuries of the past few decades. And most people living in "poverty", as you say, have all of the above. This is an enormously common fallacy. There are certain things that have their costs driven down very easily by technological innovation (consumer goods, electronics, transport, etc) and certain things that are very resistant, at least on short and medium time scales (healthcare, education, land for obvious reasons). Being increasingly able to afford things like Internet and cars may make it seem like someone CAN'T be "poor" because rich people 40 years ago didn't have it, but that's a lot less significant than their relative ability to access the (much more important) things in the second category. (Inasmuch as Maslow's pyramid is a good heuristic for priorities, you can think of these as things further down the pyramid). This phenomenon is clearly common-sense after a moment's thought, but I found an article that goes into this phenomenon in more detail: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expensive-to-be-poor/361533/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expe...
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "We need to find a way to help those people until this new class of jobs people imagine will appear actually become reality." Without overly discouraging them from looking for those new jobs, because that's an important part of how we create new classes of jobs. Personally, I think a low basic income is our best bet, but I'm eager to hear other suggestions.
  - malyk 12y ago
    I agree with the low(ish) basic income for a variety of reasons. But I think expecting the people who are automated out of jobs to go and create entirely new categories of job on there own is being extremely over optimistic. So, between the time that they are replaced and the time that new categories of jobs become available something /more/ than just a basic income is necessary. As more and more automate-able jobs become automated there will be less and less employment opportunities available for the displaced workers until these new categories of job become available.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "But I think expecting the people who are automated out of jobs to go and create entirely new categories of job on there own is being extremely over optimistic." To be clear, I (most emphatically) do not mean "Ths ese people should just go create new jobs - lazy bums, jeeze!" People looking for ways to help others, in order to get ahead, is an important part of how we find new jobs - but until they're found most people will be failing and we don't want them suffering to be sure.
wutbrodo 12y ago
What you're describing is what's behind (in part) the growth in the economy; but nothing you said has anything to do with what the parent comment was talking about, which is that people who are automated out of work generally aren't participants (and recipients) of that growth. This isn't a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. Almost every technological advance has had the same effect (pretty much by definition: if a tool is more effective at a job then less humans are necessary/cost-effective for the job). In modern history though, the (obvious) response has been to educate the population to leverage the skills that humans are still better at (c.f. the US gov't literacy drive and the post-WWII GI bill, both of which smoothed the path to an increasingly white-collar labor force). Sometimes this also includes providing a soft-landing (in the social welfare sense) for those who are old enough that it's unlikely they'll be able to easily switch out of their obsoleted industry, but this is less common.
- lucb1e 12y ago
  > people who are automated out of work generally aren't participants (and recipients) of that growth. Not directly, no. But in the end it is better for humanity as a whole, plus you get money from the government if you are unemployed for a while and prove that you are trying to get employed.
  - wutbrodo 12y ago
    > Not directly, no. But in the end it is better for humanity as a whole I know, that's exactly what I'm saying. This discussion isn't as simple as "this is good and this is bad" in black-and-white terms. We're talking specifically about the fact that poverty rates and growth aren't tightly coupled, and I was explaining why. > plus you get money from the government if you are unemployed for a while and prove that you are trying to get employed. This is also what I said (the "soft landing"). Though UI (unemployment insurance) lasts a year or two, so you're sorely mistaken if you think that UI per se functions as a substitute for a social welfare system.
akgerber 12y ago
The eight-hour day didn't come from the generosity of the rich, but because workers fought like hell for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
- lucb1e 12y ago
  Right now it's possible though. I'm not sure it was like that in the past. Maybe it was, I'm not saying it wasn't, but from what I heard people in general were a lot less wealthy in the past. The bottom 20% of society (in terms of income) still walks around in rich clothes compared to the top 20% a few hundred years ago while not working more hours.
  - akgerber 12y ago
    Walmart clothes (the clothes of today's poor) aren't particularly nice compared to hand-tailored suits (the clothes of the upper crust hundreds of years ago, and presently).
    - Turing_Machine 12y ago
      Today's poor almost all have numerous outfits (whether from Walmart or elsewhere). Poor people hundreds of years ago typically had one, count 'em, one garment. Maybe if they were slightly better off they'd have two (one for church and one for everyday wear, with the older one being rotated out for use as rags from time to time).