6 ms·

We’re heading into a jobless future, no matter what the government does

50 points by mikeleeorg 12y ago

paulhauggis 12y ago
Is this were we start talking about "basic income" again? Where the few that work are taxed almost all of their income to pay for the rest that isn't?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Where the few that work are taxed almost all of their income to pay for the rest that isn't? Basic income is more about charging rents on the commons, and in the "jobless future" those rents are mainly in the form of taxes on capital ownership than on "the few who work". (Pretty much reversing the present status quo, where taxes fall heavier on those who work than those who hold capital.)
- otoburb 12y ago
  The article's title is a bit misleading, since the author brings up (although then argues against) Kurzweil's idea that there may be jobs created that we don't yet know about to fill the void left by current jobs automated out of existence. Your point remains though -- basic income will raise its head more often whenever the specter of automation is invoked.
- johnward 12y ago
  What are the alternatives? I still believe at a point we won't need very much human labor. So what do we do with all of those people that don't/can't work? Others have mentioned that the economy will just create new, even more mindless, tasks for us to be paid for. I don't believe that because there is no incentive for companies to employ people for jobs machines can do cheaper.
  - wyager 12y ago
    We won't need human labor because labor will be abundant. Anyone can have access to production technology. You don't need to steal to make that happen.
    - gress 12y ago
      How can 'anyone have access to production technology' (which incidentally includes the education necessary to utilize it), if they have no income?
      - wyager 12y ago
        Some charitable rich guy will give away a cheap nano-factory, and then that guy uses the nano-factory to make more nano-factories, gives those away, etc. Education is basically already free, and free education is on the way to being as good as paid education. Information reproduction costs are near zero. You are stuck in the pre-free-labor mindset.
        gress 12y ago
        When does this magical tipping point arrive?
  - JD557 12y ago
    I believe that the new jobs that will appear will probably be related to what now one might see as a luxury service. For example, there might be an increase in housemaids. It's a fairly simple job, although some tasks might be too hard for a machine to do (eg. "Please feed the dog and make sure that it eats its pill"). Also, assuming that those with jobs would have a smaller work week, then there might be a rise in tourism and entertainment industries (people have got to do something in their free time). I'm not really sure what new jobs might appear in this area though. Of course, this is assuming that we don't end in a dystopian future with 80% of the population unemployed, homeless and begging on the streets. I'm expecting that suply and demand will force these new jobs to appear and everything will work out in the end.
- lukifer 12y ago
  A few counter-points to your framing: - As more work becomes automated, it is more likely the owners of productive capital who would bear the brunt of the tax burden, not the minority of full-time laborers. - Many valid forms of productive work do not necessarily pay a salary (raising children being the most obvious example, but also community service, open source projects, or rolling the dice on a startup). These still create value for society in ways that our current economy measures poorly. - In a basic income environment, there is no reason for a minimum wage to exist. This would open the doors to many jobs that would otherwise be cost-prohibitive, whether people do it for the extra income, or for the other intangibles of employment.
  - paulhauggis 12y ago
    Why would I want to work, if I am just paid to do nothing? Minimum wage exists now and is raised every couple of years. You don't think the same thing will happen with basic income? If it ever happens, I can see people eventually fighting for more, because it can't support a family of 4. On top of this, it just creates a culture of dependence, which politicians love..because why would you vote against your own free handouts?
    - cesarbs 12y ago
      > Why would I want to work, if I am just paid to do nothing? Try not working. Boredom is unbearable. Most people would do some kind of work even if they have enough money to spend the rest of their lives doing nothing.
      - will_work4tears 12y ago
        I think you underestimate the number of consumers and how little many people need mental stimulation. In today's world, it's easy to stay occupied with nothing more than the content on a typical cable subscription. I'm not one such person, even though I'm much more of a consumer than a producer (I read 4-5 books a month, watch probably 15-20 hours of TV a month and 2-3 movies a month), but I know people that watch 4-5 hours a night! It doesn't even have to be good content. Instead of going "I've seen this movie/show, or it's not very good," turning it off and doing something productive, they watch the lest boring thing on, even if it's a movie they've seen 3 times, and it's halfway over. It boggles my mind.
mtdewcmu 12y ago
This is a peculiar viewpoint. Kurzweil is a utopian. This accepts Kurzweil's premise that technology is accelerating, so it's not quite dystopian. Anti-utopian, maybe?
angelortega 12y ago
Meanwhile, in "first-world" places like Spain we're on the verge of starvation due to global unemployment and poverty.
- beachstartup 12y ago
  i think saying that spain is on the verge of starvation kind of does a disservice to people who actually are. there's no shortage of food in europe.
- Adirael 12y ago
  Saying Spain is on the verge of starvation is a bit over the top. It's true that we got a lot of families without income now, but that's not starvation.
jwatte 12y ago
More people not doing menial tasks means more people able to apply their brains. The society that can best capitalize on that resource will win.
m52go 12y ago
I think this notion of a jobless future is extreme. Hear me out. What we're witnessing is the dawning of a new era in which relying upon a job to earn a livelihood becomes extinct. That's very different. Instead of submitting to an employer to be productive members of society, we'll need to actually produce. We'll all need to be entrepreneurs: creative problem-solvers who go out and get our own. Not necessarily venture-backed billionaire-destined heroes, but tradesmen solving small to midsize problems in our communities. Remember human life before the 401(k)? Enterprising souls who earned livings without mega-corporations? All this technology we're developing now will be instrumental for that era. With Meteor, a tattoo-artist can (and has) create an enterprise-ready app. That's the epitome of productivity in a technology-driven society, and I think we'll see more of that as we move into this 'jobless' environment. AKA 'innovate or die'. Problems to solve aren't going anywhere (technology always causes people to think there's "nothing left to do." there always is). The need to earn our keep isn't either (we'll always need food, shelter, and love). This jobless future is exaggerated...but the effects aren't. We'll just need to be more enterprising and more creative in how we handle those effects.
- laxatives 12y ago
  >Remember human life before the 401(k)? I guess this is well before my time, but was the effect of having a 401k really that profound? Your post suggests 401k's was (or at least one of) the cause of large corporations.
  - m52go 12y ago
    I didn't mean to suggest the 401(k) causes large corporations to exist. It doesn't. It does, however, create a mentality of dependence on relying on companies for employment and livelihood. In this new environment, that's a toxic mentality to have...continued employment is not as good of a bet as it once was. But yeah, in general, I think having a 401(k) was a profound idea. At no other time in history could you rely on the markets to subsidize the latter third of your life. And at the rate markets are going now, I don't think we'll see that time again for a while (i.e., rapid booms + busts).
afterburner 12y ago
I don't disagree with the article, but I hope this isn't taken as an excuse to do nothing about current high unemployment due to low aggregate demand, which the government can certainly do something about.
RV86 12y ago
Keynes put forward a similar thesis decades ago and we were supposed to be there by now. Check this out: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/revisiting-keynes http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/revisiting-keynes Perhaps there is something more basic in our natural dispositions than either of these great economic thinkers is appreciating. We don't really want an excess of leisure to the extent that mass boredom results. I'm reminded of two quotes by Pascal: "The source of all man's unhappiness is his inability to sit alone in a room with his own thoughts." "If a soldier or labourer complains of the hardship of his lot, set him to do nothing."
ankitml 12y ago
Somehow he misses few crucial points : 1. Medicine is not getting better. We are losing the war with bacteria. Rate at which antibiotics are rendered useless because of resistance is greater than the rate at which they are being discovered. 2. Energy cost of Food production has been increasing since industrial times. (combine this with energy scarcity) 3. Energy cost of producing energy has been increasing. Once taken into account, all is not rosy in the future. We have lots of work to do to make future better.
pwnna 12y ago
> unlimited energy Doesn't that violate the laws of thermodynamics?
- gipp 12y ago
  It's clearly supposed to mean "more than we could conceivably need." It's not a scientific paper.
hugotox 12y ago
Yeah... right... show this to some people in Africa and come back and read it again...
larrys 12y ago
"robots will drive our cars, manufacture our goods, and do our chores." "Drones will take the jobs of postmen and delivery people." I can't take seriously an article that makes absolute statements like this. Not only are drones not able to operate during certain inclement weather (and in certain geographic environments) but you can't deliver a refrigerator (as only 1 example) with a drone. There was a time when people thought that everyone would be flying around in their own personal airplane so the devil is in the details of course being able to predict human behavior as well as technology is very important as well.
jinushaun 12y ago
Seeing all the debate whenever this topic comes up, it reminds me of the argument that Star Trek was actually a dystopia. Surprisingly, a jobless future with basic income really scares people.
- reflectiv 12y ago
  Some people just feel the need to be told what to do. They lack the desire or insight to choose their own path. Also, some people just simply don't understand how a 'jobless'/basic-income future would look...and what they don't understand scares them.

50 points by mikeleeorg 12y ago

Is this were we start talking about "basic income" again? Where the few that work are taxed almost all of their income to pay for the rest that isn't?

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Where the few that work are taxed almost all of their income to pay for the rest that isn't? Basic income is more about charging rents on the commons, and in the "jobless future" those rents are mainly in the form of taxes on capital ownership than on "the few who work". (Pretty much reversing the present status quo, where taxes fall heavier on those who work than those who hold capital.)
otoburb 12y ago
The article's title is a bit misleading, since the author brings up (although then argues against) Kurzweil's idea that there may be jobs created that we don't yet know about to fill the void left by current jobs automated out of existence. Your point remains though -- basic income will raise its head more often whenever the specter of automation is invoked.
johnward 12y ago
What are the alternatives? I still believe at a point we won't need very much human labor. So what do we do with all of those people that don't/can't work? Others have mentioned that the economy will just create new, even more mindless, tasks for us to be paid for. I don't believe that because there is no incentive for companies to employ people for jobs machines can do cheaper.
- wyager 12y ago
  We won't need human labor because labor will be abundant. Anyone can have access to production technology. You don't need to steal to make that happen.
  - gress 12y ago
    How can 'anyone have access to production technology' (which incidentally includes the education necessary to utilize it), if they have no income?
    - wyager 12y ago
      Some charitable rich guy will give away a cheap nano-factory, and then that guy uses the nano-factory to make more nano-factories, gives those away, etc. Education is basically already free, and free education is on the way to being as good as paid education. Information reproduction costs are near zero. You are stuck in the pre-free-labor mindset.
      - gress 12y ago
        When does this magical tipping point arrive?
- JD557 12y ago
  I believe that the new jobs that will appear will probably be related to what now one might see as a luxury service. For example, there might be an increase in housemaids. It's a fairly simple job, although some tasks might be too hard for a machine to do (eg. "Please feed the dog and make sure that it eats its pill"). Also, assuming that those with jobs would have a smaller work week, then there might be a rise in tourism and entertainment industries (people have got to do something in their free time). I'm not really sure what new jobs might appear in this area though. Of course, this is assuming that we don't end in a dystopian future with 80% of the population unemployed, homeless and begging on the streets. I'm expecting that suply and demand will force these new jobs to appear and everything will work out in the end.
lukifer 12y ago
A few counter-points to your framing: - As more work becomes automated, it is more likely the owners of productive capital who would bear the brunt of the tax burden, not the minority of full-time laborers. - Many valid forms of productive work do not necessarily pay a salary (raising children being the most obvious example, but also community service, open source projects, or rolling the dice on a startup). These still create value for society in ways that our current economy measures poorly. - In a basic income environment, there is no reason for a minimum wage to exist. This would open the doors to many jobs that would otherwise be cost-prohibitive, whether people do it for the extra income, or for the other intangibles of employment.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  Why would I want to work, if I am just paid to do nothing? Minimum wage exists now and is raised every couple of years. You don't think the same thing will happen with basic income? If it ever happens, I can see people eventually fighting for more, because it can't support a family of 4. On top of this, it just creates a culture of dependence, which politicians love..because why would you vote against your own free handouts?
  - cesarbs 12y ago
    > Why would I want to work, if I am just paid to do nothing? Try not working. Boredom is unbearable. Most people would do some kind of work even if they have enough money to spend the rest of their lives doing nothing.
    - will_work4tears 12y ago
      I think you underestimate the number of consumers and how little many people need mental stimulation. In today's world, it's easy to stay occupied with nothing more than the content on a typical cable subscription. I'm not one such person, even though I'm much more of a consumer than a producer (I read 4-5 books a month, watch probably 15-20 hours of TV a month and 2-3 movies a month), but I know people that watch 4-5 hours a night! It doesn't even have to be good content. Instead of going "I've seen this movie/show, or it's not very good," turning it off and doing something productive, they watch the lest boring thing on, even if it's a movie they've seen 3 times, and it's halfway over. It boggles my mind.

mtdewcmu 12y ago

This is a peculiar viewpoint. Kurzweil is a utopian. This accepts Kurzweil's premise that technology is accelerating, so it's not quite dystopian. Anti-utopian, maybe?

angelortega 12y ago

Meanwhile, in "first-world" places like Spain we're on the verge of starvation due to global unemployment and poverty.

beachstartup 12y ago
i think saying that spain is on the verge of starvation kind of does a disservice to people who actually are. there's no shortage of food in europe.
Adirael 12y ago
Saying Spain is on the verge of starvation is a bit over the top. It's true that we got a lot of families without income now, but that's not starvation.

jwatte 12y ago

More people not doing menial tasks means more people able to apply their brains. The society that can best capitalize on that resource will win.

m52go 12y ago

I think this notion of a jobless future is extreme. Hear me out. What we're witnessing is the dawning of a new era in which relying upon a job to earn a livelihood becomes extinct. That's very different. Instead of submitting to an employer to be productive members of society, we'll need to actually produce. We'll all need to be entrepreneurs: creative problem-solvers who go out and get our own. Not necessarily venture-backed billionaire-destined heroes, but tradesmen solving small to midsize problems in our communities. Remember human life before the 401(k)? Enterprising souls who earned livings without mega-corporations? All this technology we're developing now will be instrumental for that era. With Meteor, a tattoo-artist can (and has) create an enterprise-ready app. That's the epitome of productivity in a technology-driven society, and I think we'll see more of that as we move into this 'jobless' environment. AKA 'innovate or die'. Problems to solve aren't going anywhere (technology always causes people to think there's "nothing left to do." there always is). The need to earn our keep isn't either (we'll always need food, shelter, and love). This jobless future is exaggerated...but the effects aren't. We'll just need to be more enterprising and more creative in how we handle those effects.

laxatives 12y ago
>Remember human life before the 401(k)? I guess this is well before my time, but was the effect of having a 401k really that profound? Your post suggests 401k's was (or at least one of) the cause of large corporations.
- m52go 12y ago
  I didn't mean to suggest the 401(k) causes large corporations to exist. It doesn't. It does, however, create a mentality of dependence on relying on companies for employment and livelihood. In this new environment, that's a toxic mentality to have...continued employment is not as good of a bet as it once was. But yeah, in general, I think having a 401(k) was a profound idea. At no other time in history could you rely on the markets to subsidize the latter third of your life. And at the rate markets are going now, I don't think we'll see that time again for a while (i.e., rapid booms + busts).

afterburner 12y ago

I don't disagree with the article, but I hope this isn't taken as an excuse to do nothing about current high unemployment due to low aggregate demand, which the government can certainly do something about.

RV86 12y ago

Keynes put forward a similar thesis decades ago and we were supposed to be there by now. Check this out: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/revisiting-keynes http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/revisiting-keynes Perhaps there is something more basic in our natural dispositions than either of these great economic thinkers is appreciating. We don't really want an excess of leisure to the extent that mass boredom results. I'm reminded of two quotes by Pascal: "The source of all man's unhappiness is his inability to sit alone in a room with his own thoughts." "If a soldier or labourer complains of the hardship of his lot, set him to do nothing."

ankitml 12y ago

Somehow he misses few crucial points : 1. Medicine is not getting better. We are losing the war with bacteria. Rate at which antibiotics are rendered useless because of resistance is greater than the rate at which they are being discovered. 2. Energy cost of Food production has been increasing since industrial times. (combine this with energy scarcity) 3. Energy cost of producing energy has been increasing. Once taken into account, all is not rosy in the future. We have lots of work to do to make future better.

pwnna 12y ago

> unlimited energy Doesn't that violate the laws of thermodynamics?

gipp 12y ago
It's clearly supposed to mean "more than we could conceivably need." It's not a scientific paper.

hugotox 12y ago

Yeah... right... show this to some people in Africa and come back and read it again...

larrys 12y ago

"robots will drive our cars, manufacture our goods, and do our chores." "Drones will take the jobs of postmen and delivery people." I can't take seriously an article that makes absolute statements like this. Not only are drones not able to operate during certain inclement weather (and in certain geographic environments) but you can't deliver a refrigerator (as only 1 example) with a drone. There was a time when people thought that everyone would be flying around in their own personal airplane so the devil is in the details of course being able to predict human behavior as well as technology is very important as well.

jinushaun 12y ago

Seeing all the debate whenever this topic comes up, it reminds me of the argument that Star Trek was actually a dystopia. Surprisingly, a jobless future with basic income really scares people.

reflectiv 12y ago
Some people just feel the need to be told what to do. They lack the desire or insight to choose their own path. Also, some people just simply don't understand how a 'jobless'/basic-income future would look...and what they don't understand scares them.