9 ms·

Of course, there will be less and less "jobs" in the future. But that's OK. The population growth is already stopping. Productivity will rise to the new heights

Of course, there will be less and less "jobs" in the future. But that's OK. The population growth is already stopping. Productivity will rise to the new heights. Society will adapt — first, by introducing, say, 4-hour work days, then by totally eliminating the concept of a "job" — everyone will be either a temp staffer, or a business founder (or an artisan — arts and crafts will be more valuable than ever). We are moving to post-scarcity, and the future is bright. No more office jobs, though.

randallsquared 12y ago
Ah, 1950's future.
clarebear 12y ago
I'd like to believe this, but I don't see the corresponding changes in societal structure. If we really are post-scarcity, it would be nice if some sort of average person could have a family if they choose, or at least have access to health care, housing and things to make a reasonable life. Truly part time work with a decent wage almost does not exist in most fields. The people I know trying to make a living doing artisan things would certainly not agree that arts and crafts are more (monetarily) valuable than ever.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
robertfw 12y ago
Rising productivity has just put more money in precious few pockets. While I truly believe that this vision of the future is technically possible, I have little faith that it will be the future we end up with.
- protonfish 12y ago
  When has technology ever resulted in the improvement of wages and working hours of the average person? The only things that have ever had a clear, direct affect in quality of life of the masses (both positive and negative) are political.
  - atemerev 12y ago
    > When has technology ever resulted in the improvement of wages and working hours of the average person? Like, every time? Compare the average worker of today with average worker of 100 years ago.
    - Ygg2 12y ago
      > Like, every time? A chicken sees man coming to feed it, so it jumps out in front of him awaiting food. Then one day, man comes with an axe, and chicken still jumps in front of him expecting food. The end. I.e. Correlation doesn't imply causation etc. Imagine having at your disposal perfectly amoral and lethal robotics force. One that only exists to protect you and exterminate any threat to you. What stops the future rich man from treating a fellow man like a dog? Right now, the police might rebel against you if you go too far. I'd be interested to look at average worker today and future where inequality is super rampant. In that society, I think a worker from 100 years ago would compare similarly to a worker from 100 years in such future.
    - sharemywin 12y ago
      world wide or just US. since alot of the work from 100 years ago got outsourced with the polution to parts of the world that don't regulated it as much.
    - Chinjut 12y ago
      Alright, I'd like to. Do you know where I can find statistics on wages and working hours over history (in particular, I'm curious not just about 100 years ago, but also 200, 300, and 400 years ago, to get a fuller sense of the impact of the Industrial Revolution).
    - phaemon 12y ago
      Ok: The average worker today has a 5 day working week rather than a 6 day working week: a change that was brought about by political means (unions) rather than technological means. The average worker today has an 8 hour working day rather than a 12 hour working day: a change that was brought about by political means (unions) rather than technological means. The average worker today has a minimum wage and minimum safe working conditions: a change that was brought about by political means (unions) rather than technological means. Technology has certainly improved our lives, but you're not making the best case for it.
- atemerev 12y ago
  > Rising productivity has just put more money in precious few pockets. In all pockets. Again, compare a poor person of today with a poor person of 100 years ago.
  - robertfw 12y ago
    This is absolutely true. But when money buys power, relative wealth becomes the important measure.
Joeri 12y ago
I doubt we're going post-scarcity any time soon though. We don't have any of the technologies that form the foundation of a post-scarcity society: abundant renewable energy, fully automated just-in-time production of nearly all goods and materials, extremely low cost delivery of goods to the home and/or business, and the intelligent software that ties it all together. Some of those things are close, others, not so much. Aside from a "magic" solution, like the singularity, I do not expect in my life-time to see a post-scarcity society arise. I do agree that the automation of jobs is not a serious cause of concern, though obviously for those whose jobs are displaced it will be. People can't stand to sit around and do nothing for any great stretch of time (although everyone claims otherwise). They will find ways to be busy, and if you automate away one part of activity, other forms will take up its place. Someone will figure out how to monetize it and presto, a new job category. Selling software was once a crazy idea. Selling virtual characters was crazy just a few years ago, and is becoming normal. We will gradually become ever more refined in the sort of virtual goods and services we create through human labor that can be sold online.
- atemerev 12y ago
  > abundant renewable energy We have enough uranium and thorium for millions of years with breeder cycle. Even if not renewable, who cares? And it's quite ecological, compared to burning oil products. The rest is quite close.
  - afterburner 12y ago
    Renewables are basically already viable, despite what its opponents have been trying to say. It's already more competitive than natural gas in some places, and the next 5 years will be crossing many other such thresholds.
    - jbattle 12y ago
      Is that true even if you normalize subsidies between the different forms of production/transportation/use?
    - 12y ago
kornork 12y ago
I've thought in the past that our pursuits might be more oriented towards art, but watching the video above reminded me that machines are getting more and more capable of creating art. Maybe it will depend on whether we're using art to drive an economy, in which case creative robots will win, or we're using art to create meaning in our lives. In the second case, we'll still have to compete with entertainment (created by AIs) fully capable of filling our waking hours.
ddeklotz 12y ago
Robert Owen thought the same thing at the beginning of the industrial revolution some 200 years ago. Skyrocketing productivity was supposed to lead to a new age where a society could produce all it needed with little effort, and much time would be left over for leisure and pursuit of the arts. Instead, there were mass populations of over-urbanized, overworked, impoverished people. Turns out that when the means of production are owned by the few elite, innovations in productivity are more likely to marginalize the rest.
Homunculiheaded 12y ago
"post-scarcity" is an illusion presented to people living at the very top of the economic pyramid. I'm sure most HNers are in the top 90th percentile of US household income on their own, living in a world mostly surrounded by other affluent individuals working in a similar field, all in jobs with increasingly flexible work hours, better benefits and nearly unlimited job prospects. The world only looks like it's moving towards post-scarcity because the resources consumed and waste produced have been nearly completely outsourced away, and the pangs of the labor issues created by automation are happening somewhere else. Post-scarcity is not an issue of 'productivity' but of resource use. As Jevons paradox [0] points out the more efficiently we use resources the more of them we tend to use. Looking merely at productivity and efficiency without looking at resource use and waste production gives a wildly incomplete picture of "post-scarcity". What I see is that the world is increasingly separating into a small sub-population that is presented the illusion of post-scarcity and a another, growing, subset that is feeling the effects of scarcity required to maintain that illusion. When I see data to support the argument that resource use and waste production are plummeting, then I'll believe in narratives about post-scarcity. 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  There's a lot of delusion about the developing energy picture. The arithmetic shows we will not be running millions of robot slaves and self driving electric cars on solar and wind power. We will be walking places and drying clothing on clothes lines. We are running out of fossil fuel energy and still no viable replacements have been identified.
  - phaemon 12y ago
    I like how you identify "walking places and drying clothing on clothes lines" as signs of the collapse of civilisation. To most people, those are normal things.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  If labor is effectively free (because robots don't get paid) then I don't think that the products of that labor would be particularly scarce. Even material costs are primarily the labor cost to extract or recycle a material.
twobits 12y ago
"We are moving to post-scarcity, and the future is bright." If you are the king, why do you need to keep those billions of loud, dirty, polluting, dangerous, depleting the natural resources, and now UNNEEDED serfs around? When you could gain by exploiting them, great. Someone had to do the hard work. But now / soon, they have nothing to offer, besides problems. Problems, are to be ..exterminated. Imo, the (near) future, is either paradise, or total hell. Nothing in between. And history isn't offering reasons to be optimistic. (PS: Yes, I totally understand that the above stands on the pov that there are some "kings", and we are the "serfs". It's a pov that's easy to dismiss. Personally, I don't.)
- Ygg2 12y ago
  > Problems, are to be ..exterminated. > Imo, the (near) future, is either paradise, or total hell. Nothing in between. And history isn't offering reasons to be optimistic. I doubt it is either of those. People can't go against billions, not without significant casualties, and not any time soon. I fear what the solution might be... If you are rich you might be more interested in culling number of those unneeded serfs by simply neutering them and providing them enough distractions unhealthy food and poor medicine that they just slowly keel over. Otoh, intelligence isn't hereditary, so killing off those 'serfs' might also reduce the numbers of intelligent people.
  - Chronic29 12y ago
    Why not? The Chinese government exterminates Muslims in China (the problem) and do a fantastic job not telling the world about it.
  - loup-vaillant 12y ago
    > Otoh, intelligence isn't hereditary How do you know that?

randallsquared 12y ago

Ah, 1950's future.

clarebear 12y ago

I'd like to believe this, but I don't see the corresponding changes in societal structure. If we really are post-scarcity, it would be nice if some sort of average person could have a family if they choose, or at least have access to health care, housing and things to make a reasonable life. Truly part time work with a decent wage almost does not exist in most fields. The people I know trying to make a living doing artisan things would certainly not agree that arts and crafts are more (monetarily) valuable than ever.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

robertfw 12y ago

Rising productivity has just put more money in precious few pockets. While I truly believe that this vision of the future is technically possible, I have little faith that it will be the future we end up with.

protonfish 12y ago
When has technology ever resulted in the improvement of wages and working hours of the average person? The only things that have ever had a clear, direct affect in quality of life of the masses (both positive and negative) are political.
- atemerev 12y ago
  > When has technology ever resulted in the improvement of wages and working hours of the average person? Like, every time? Compare the average worker of today with average worker of 100 years ago.
  - Ygg2 12y ago
    > Like, every time? A chicken sees man coming to feed it, so it jumps out in front of him awaiting food. Then one day, man comes with an axe, and chicken still jumps in front of him expecting food. The end. I.e. Correlation doesn't imply causation etc. Imagine having at your disposal perfectly amoral and lethal robotics force. One that only exists to protect you and exterminate any threat to you. What stops the future rich man from treating a fellow man like a dog? Right now, the police might rebel against you if you go too far. I'd be interested to look at average worker today and future where inequality is super rampant. In that society, I think a worker from 100 years ago would compare similarly to a worker from 100 years in such future.
  - sharemywin 12y ago
    world wide or just US. since alot of the work from 100 years ago got outsourced with the polution to parts of the world that don't regulated it as much.
  - Chinjut 12y ago
    Alright, I'd like to. Do you know where I can find statistics on wages and working hours over history (in particular, I'm curious not just about 100 years ago, but also 200, 300, and 400 years ago, to get a fuller sense of the impact of the Industrial Revolution).
  - phaemon 12y ago
    Ok: The average worker today has a 5 day working week rather than a 6 day working week: a change that was brought about by political means (unions) rather than technological means. The average worker today has an 8 hour working day rather than a 12 hour working day: a change that was brought about by political means (unions) rather than technological means. The average worker today has a minimum wage and minimum safe working conditions: a change that was brought about by political means (unions) rather than technological means. Technology has certainly improved our lives, but you're not making the best case for it.
atemerev 12y ago
> Rising productivity has just put more money in precious few pockets. In all pockets. Again, compare a poor person of today with a poor person of 100 years ago.
- robertfw 12y ago
  This is absolutely true. But when money buys power, relative wealth becomes the important measure.

Joeri 12y ago

I doubt we're going post-scarcity any time soon though. We don't have any of the technologies that form the foundation of a post-scarcity society: abundant renewable energy, fully automated just-in-time production of nearly all goods and materials, extremely low cost delivery of goods to the home and/or business, and the intelligent software that ties it all together. Some of those things are close, others, not so much. Aside from a "magic" solution, like the singularity, I do not expect in my life-time to see a post-scarcity society arise. I do agree that the automation of jobs is not a serious cause of concern, though obviously for those whose jobs are displaced it will be. People can't stand to sit around and do nothing for any great stretch of time (although everyone claims otherwise). They will find ways to be busy, and if you automate away one part of activity, other forms will take up its place. Someone will figure out how to monetize it and presto, a new job category. Selling software was once a crazy idea. Selling virtual characters was crazy just a few years ago, and is becoming normal. We will gradually become ever more refined in the sort of virtual goods and services we create through human labor that can be sold online.

atemerev 12y ago
> abundant renewable energy We have enough uranium and thorium for millions of years with breeder cycle. Even if not renewable, who cares? And it's quite ecological, compared to burning oil products. The rest is quite close.
- afterburner 12y ago
  Renewables are basically already viable, despite what its opponents have been trying to say. It's already more competitive than natural gas in some places, and the next 5 years will be crossing many other such thresholds.
  - jbattle 12y ago
    Is that true even if you normalize subsidies between the different forms of production/transportation/use?
  - 12y ago

kornork 12y ago

I've thought in the past that our pursuits might be more oriented towards art, but watching the video above reminded me that machines are getting more and more capable of creating art. Maybe it will depend on whether we're using art to drive an economy, in which case creative robots will win, or we're using art to create meaning in our lives. In the second case, we'll still have to compete with entertainment (created by AIs) fully capable of filling our waking hours.

ddeklotz 12y ago

Robert Owen thought the same thing at the beginning of the industrial revolution some 200 years ago. Skyrocketing productivity was supposed to lead to a new age where a society could produce all it needed with little effort, and much time would be left over for leisure and pursuit of the arts. Instead, there were mass populations of over-urbanized, overworked, impoverished people. Turns out that when the means of production are owned by the few elite, innovations in productivity are more likely to marginalize the rest.

Homunculiheaded 12y ago

"post-scarcity" is an illusion presented to people living at the very top of the economic pyramid. I'm sure most HNers are in the top 90th percentile of US household income on their own, living in a world mostly surrounded by other affluent individuals working in a similar field, all in jobs with increasingly flexible work hours, better benefits and nearly unlimited job prospects. The world only looks like it's moving towards post-scarcity because the resources consumed and waste produced have been nearly completely outsourced away, and the pangs of the labor issues created by automation are happening somewhere else. Post-scarcity is not an issue of 'productivity' but of resource use. As Jevons paradox [0] points out the more efficiently we use resources the more of them we tend to use. Looking merely at productivity and efficiency without looking at resource use and waste production gives a wildly incomplete picture of "post-scarcity". What I see is that the world is increasingly separating into a small sub-population that is presented the illusion of post-scarcity and a another, growing, subset that is feeling the effects of scarcity required to maintain that illusion. When I see data to support the argument that resource use and waste production are plummeting, then I'll believe in narratives about post-scarcity. 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
There's a lot of delusion about the developing energy picture. The arithmetic shows we will not be running millions of robot slaves and self driving electric cars on solar and wind power. We will be walking places and drying clothing on clothes lines. We are running out of fossil fuel energy and still no viable replacements have been identified.
- phaemon 12y ago
  I like how you identify "walking places and drying clothing on clothes lines" as signs of the collapse of civilisation. To most people, those are normal things.
seanflyon 12y ago
If labor is effectively free (because robots don't get paid) then I don't think that the products of that labor would be particularly scarce. Even material costs are primarily the labor cost to extract or recycle a material.

twobits 12y ago

"We are moving to post-scarcity, and the future is bright." If you are the king, why do you need to keep those billions of loud, dirty, polluting, dangerous, depleting the natural resources, and now UNNEEDED serfs around? When you could gain by exploiting them, great. Someone had to do the hard work. But now / soon, they have nothing to offer, besides problems. Problems, are to be ..exterminated. Imo, the (near) future, is either paradise, or total hell. Nothing in between. And history isn't offering reasons to be optimistic. (PS: Yes, I totally understand that the above stands on the pov that there are some "kings", and we are the "serfs". It's a pov that's easy to dismiss. Personally, I don't.)

Ygg2 12y ago
> Problems, are to be ..exterminated. > Imo, the (near) future, is either paradise, or total hell. Nothing in between. And history isn't offering reasons to be optimistic. I doubt it is either of those. People can't go against billions, not without significant casualties, and not any time soon. I fear what the solution might be... If you are rich you might be more interested in culling number of those unneeded serfs by simply neutering them and providing them enough distractions unhealthy food and poor medicine that they just slowly keel over. Otoh, intelligence isn't hereditary, so killing off those 'serfs' might also reduce the numbers of intelligent people.
- Chronic29 12y ago
  Why not? The Chinese government exterminates Muslims in China (the problem) and do a fantastic job not telling the world about it.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  > Otoh, intelligence isn't hereditary How do you know that?