5 ms·

Peoples' wants and desires are infinite. As long as there are things to desire, there will be jobs to do.

by hvs 12y ago

atemerev 12y ago
True!
clusterfoo 12y ago
So long as machines are not far more effective at building (and possibly some day even engineering) those things we desire...
- seanflyon 12y ago
  If machines can make everything we want for so cheap that we can't possibly compete that mean that everything we want is incredibly cheap.
  - jjoonathan 12y ago
    Nope. "Incredibly cheap" is not a relevant metric. The relevant quantity is price/income. If income drops by 50% and price drops by 10%, the good has still effectively become almost twice as expensive.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      But if price only drops by 10% why would income drop by 50%?
  - clusterfoo 12y ago
    But under our current economic system, what you can afford is tied to the value of the goods/services you produce. If we find ourselves in a future where 90% of the population produces nothing, then 90% of the population can afford nothing, no matter how cheap. Obviously there is a utopian solution, where most goods and services are so cheap to produce, that most people have essentially free access to them. What is worrying is the dystopian alternative (and probably inevitable adjustment period), where only a tiny fraction of the population is "valuable", and therefore has access to all the benefits of cheap automation, while the other 90% have no value (economically speaking). We also tend to forget that we live in a sort of intellectual bubble. Just by being able to hold a highly technical job, you are probably already in the upper 90% percent of the intelligence spectrum. 80% of the world's population has an IQ of under 115; and half the world's population is under 100 and can barely grasp any form of abstract logical thinking. If the vast majority of jobs in the future require high technical or intellectual aptitude, then the vast majority of the earth's population will be left with nothing to do.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      I was pointing out what I think is often ignored in these conversations: that robots taking all the jobs means we have reached post scarcity. Between that potential future and where we are now there could be some serious problems as you suggest. I agree that the economy is shifting away from low skilled jobs towards high skill jobs and that does seem like a big problem for low skill people. I am slightly more optimistic than you because I think that the primary difference between low skilled people and high skilled people is not innate intelligence, but education and training.
jjoonathan 12y ago
That's hardly a point of comfort if the new jobs all tend to be subject to the laws of "extremistan" (which seems to be the case for most artistic/creative/high-level ventures): http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/21/welcome-to-extremistan/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/21/welcome-to-extremistan/ If today you replaced half of the blue-collar jobs in our economy with jobs that had a 10% chance of paying 100x as much but a 90% chance of paying effectively nothing (10x the average productivity, woohoo) you would still have widespread starvation, revolution, and violence tomorrow.
Dewie 12y ago
Is there any convincing data on this point? I know that it was an economist that uttered this theory, so I'll assume good faith when it comes to research effort or at least diligent argumentation on the behalf of this statement. But without anything to back it up, it just comes off as something it's proponents take for granted as a truism. "Consumerism" (which goes beyond "stuff" and materialism, at least here) has been criticized by many in the western world. Even just leaving aside the argument that involves a finite planet sustaining ever-more needs and desires, I'm not convinced that the average human's needs and desires are infinite in any practical sense. It might be that "more is more", but I also suspect a sharp decline due to diminishing returns as one gets ever more needs fulfilled. How much better does spending 1,000 million on yourself feel than spending 100 million on yourself? Significantly better? I guess we could theoretically get to the point where everyone takes what is in today's currency billion-dollars worth of vacations by going on trips 'round the Solar System. But at some point, maybe before we're at the point of the Solar System joyrides, it just might not seem so exciting any more (travelling to the red wasteland of Mars might not be so exotic and exciting as it is today when a lot of people can and have already done it).
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  I for one want to live forever, be smarter, expand my senses… Infinite or no, my desires certainly aren't bounded.
3pt14159 12y ago
This isn't true. If you could buy a robot that could do everything you could do for a $1 per day then there would be no more human jobs.
- anko 12y ago
  There would still be human jobs. It's just most people couldn't afford the robots.
  - 3pt14159 12y ago
    Why not? If the robot can make a robot why should people not be able to afford the robots?
    - anko 12y ago
      Because if they don't have jobs, because the robots took them all, they can't afford anything.
lilsunnybee 12y ago
Workers capacity to fill those desires for people with capital is limited though. At what point does the majority of un-capitaled humanity become irrelevant?

Peoples' wants and desires are infinite. As long as there are things to desire, there will be jobs to do.

by hvs 12y ago

Peoples' wants and desires are infinite. As long as there are things to desire, there will be jobs to do.

atemerev 12y ago

True!

clusterfoo 12y ago

So long as machines are not far more effective at building (and possibly some day even engineering) those things we desire...

seanflyon 12y ago
If machines can make everything we want for so cheap that we can't possibly compete that mean that everything we want is incredibly cheap.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  Nope. "Incredibly cheap" is not a relevant metric. The relevant quantity is price/income. If income drops by 50% and price drops by 10%, the good has still effectively become almost twice as expensive.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    But if price only drops by 10% why would income drop by 50%?
- clusterfoo 12y ago
  But under our current economic system, what you can afford is tied to the value of the goods/services you produce. If we find ourselves in a future where 90% of the population produces nothing, then 90% of the population can afford nothing, no matter how cheap. Obviously there is a utopian solution, where most goods and services are so cheap to produce, that most people have essentially free access to them. What is worrying is the dystopian alternative (and probably inevitable adjustment period), where only a tiny fraction of the population is "valuable", and therefore has access to all the benefits of cheap automation, while the other 90% have no value (economically speaking). We also tend to forget that we live in a sort of intellectual bubble. Just by being able to hold a highly technical job, you are probably already in the upper 90% percent of the intelligence spectrum. 80% of the world's population has an IQ of under 115; and half the world's population is under 100 and can barely grasp any form of abstract logical thinking. If the vast majority of jobs in the future require high technical or intellectual aptitude, then the vast majority of the earth's population will be left with nothing to do.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    I was pointing out what I think is often ignored in these conversations: that robots taking all the jobs means we have reached post scarcity. Between that potential future and where we are now there could be some serious problems as you suggest. I agree that the economy is shifting away from low skilled jobs towards high skill jobs and that does seem like a big problem for low skill people. I am slightly more optimistic than you because I think that the primary difference between low skilled people and high skilled people is not innate intelligence, but education and training.

jjoonathan 12y ago

That's hardly a point of comfort if the new jobs all tend to be subject to the laws of "extremistan" (which seems to be the case for most artistic/creative/high-level ventures): http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/21/welcome-to-extremistan/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/21/welcome-to-extremistan/ If today you replaced half of the blue-collar jobs in our economy with jobs that had a 10% chance of paying 100x as much but a 90% chance of paying effectively nothing (10x the average productivity, woohoo) you would still have widespread starvation, revolution, and violence tomorrow.

Dewie 12y ago

Is there any convincing data on this point? I know that it was an economist that uttered this theory, so I'll assume good faith when it comes to research effort or at least diligent argumentation on the behalf of this statement. But without anything to back it up, it just comes off as something it's proponents take for granted as a truism. "Consumerism" (which goes beyond "stuff" and materialism, at least here) has been criticized by many in the western world. Even just leaving aside the argument that involves a finite planet sustaining ever-more needs and desires, I'm not convinced that the average human's needs and desires are infinite in any practical sense. It might be that "more is more", but I also suspect a sharp decline due to diminishing returns as one gets ever more needs fulfilled. How much better does spending 1,000 million on yourself feel than spending 100 million on yourself? Significantly better? I guess we could theoretically get to the point where everyone takes what is in today's currency billion-dollars worth of vacations by going on trips 'round the Solar System. But at some point, maybe before we're at the point of the Solar System joyrides, it just might not seem so exciting any more (travelling to the red wasteland of Mars might not be so exotic and exciting as it is today when a lot of people can and have already done it).

loup-vaillant 12y ago
I for one want to live forever, be smarter, expand my senses… Infinite or no, my desires certainly aren't bounded.

3pt14159 12y ago

This isn't true. If you could buy a robot that could do everything you could do for a $1 per day then there would be no more human jobs.

anko 12y ago
There would still be human jobs. It's just most people couldn't afford the robots.
- 3pt14159 12y ago
  Why not? If the robot can make a robot why should people not be able to afford the robots?
  - anko 12y ago
    Because if they don't have jobs, because the robots took them all, they can't afford anything.

lilsunnybee 12y ago

Workers capacity to fill those desires for people with capital is limited though. At what point does the majority of un-capitaled humanity become irrelevant?